CAR_Public/040706.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 6, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 132

                          Headlines

ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: NY Court Refuses Dismissal of Stock Suit
ARIZONA: Activist Lodges Civil Suit To Limit Campaign Donors
AT&T CORPORATION: 50T NC Consumers To Receive $500T in Refunds
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement for LA Consumer Lawsuit
COX COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Investor Suit

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Ask NY Court To Dismiss Claim in Stock Suit
FLORIDA: Pinellas County Court Grants Certification to Bias Suit
INDIA: UB, McDowell & Co. To End Lawsuit Against Restructuring
INDIANA STATE: Warns Consumers Of Salmonella Contaminated Cheese
INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Opposes Appeal of TX Stock Suit Dismissal

LANCER CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in TX
MARK NICHOLS: SEC Bars Representative Due To Unauthorized Trades
NY STATE: Issues Warning Over Mayonnaise Due To Undeclared Eggs
TOWRY LAW: Investors Urged To Join Worldwide Stock Fraud Lawsuit
YUKOS OIL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Shareholder Lawsuit in S.D. NY

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

99 CENTS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in C.D. CA
ALLIANCE GAMING: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NV Court
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CO
ASCONI CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
BEA SYSTEMS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA

BEA SYSTEMS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
CARDINAL HEALTH: Scott + Scott To Lodge Securities Lawsuit in OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA

HIBERNIA FOODS: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
KEY ENERGY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX
KEY ENERGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX
KRISPY KREME: Chimicles & Tikellis Files Securities Suit in NC
LANCER CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. TX

LEHMAN ABS: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
MERIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in OR
SHAW GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. LA
SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
SYNOVIS LIFE: Brodsky & Smith Commences Securities Lawsuit in MN

                          *********


ACCLAIM ENTERTAINMENT: NY Court Refuses Dismissal of Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against Acclaim Entertainment, Inc. and certain of its
officers and/or directors, styled "In re Acclaim Entertainment,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No.2, 03-CV-1270
(E.D.N.Y.) (JS) (ETB).

Class members Penn Capital Management, Robert L. Mannard and
Steve Russo were appointed as lead plaintiffs, and their
selection of counsel was approved.  The consolidated suit
specifically names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Gregory Fischbach,

     (2) Edmond Sanctis,

     (3) James Scoroposki and

     (4) Gerard F. Agoglia

The Consolidated Complaint alleges a class period from October
14, 1999 through January 13, 2003. The Consolidated Complaint
alleges that the Company engaged in a variety of wrongful
practices which rendered statements made by the Company and its
financial statements to be false and misleading.  Among other
purported wrongful practices, the Consolidated Complaint alleges
that Acclaim engaged in "channel stuffing," a practice by which
Acclaim allegedly:

     (i) delivered excess inventory to its distributors to meet
         or exceed analysts' earnings expectations and inflate
         its sales results;

    (ii) entered into "conditional sales agreements" whereby
         Acclaim's customers allegedly were induced to accept
         delivery of Acclaim products prior to a quarter-end
         reporting period on the condition that Acclaim would
         accept the return of any unsold product after the
         quarter-end, and

   (iii) falsified sales reports and manipulated the timing and
         recognition of price concessions and discounts granted
         to its retail customers.

The Consolidated Complaint further alleges that the Company
engaged in improper accounting practices, including the improper
recognition of sales revenue; manipulation of reserves
associated with concessions, chargebacks and/or sales discounts
granted to customers; and the improper reporting of software
development costs.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges that as a
result of these practices defendants violated Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, and that
the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the 1934
Act.  The Consolidated Complaint seeks compensatory damages in
an unspecified amount.

On December 3, 2003 the Company moved to dismiss the
Consolidated Complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion to
dismiss on January 20, 2004, and the Company submitted its reply
papers on February 20, 2004.  The court denied the motion.  A
scheduling conference has been scheduled for August 9, 2004.


ARIZONA: Activist Lodges Civil Suit To Limit Campaign Donors
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Chester Soling, 73, a Tucson, Arizona-based
political activist filed a civil class action in the United
States District Court in Arizona in a bid to restrict political
candidates from taking contributions anywhere other than in the
areas they hope to represent, the Tucson Citizen reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of all Arizonans, names as defendants
Arizona Republicans: U.S. Sen. John McCain a champion of
campaign finance reform and U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe as well as all
candidates running against the two in the upcoming election.
That includes such personalities as Phoenix public relations
executive Stuart Starky and Libertarian Ernest Hancock, who are
running against McCain. Also included are Kolbe challengers:
computer consultant Jeffrey Chimene, Tim Sultan, former Tucson
Unified School District board member Eva Bacal and state Rep.
Randy Graf, R-Green Valley.

Mr. Soling, a longtime political activist who moved to Tucson in
2002, said the current system of campaign finance violates the
sworn duty of elected officials to represent only those who are
eligible to elect them.

"Candidates should restrict themselves to their own district,
Right now, our representatives don't talk for us. They're not
speaking for the average person who they represent," Mr. Soling
told the Tucson Citizen.

The civil suit says federal elected officials "owe a legal duty
to their constituents to not be beholden to anyone other than
their constituents." It seeks a court order to prohibit
candidates from accepting contributions from donors who do not
live in the districts where they are running.

Mr. Soling also told the Tucson Citizen that; "McCain already
has more campaign money than he could possibly need. He has no
serious challengers and also has more than enough personal
wealth. Why is he still taking money from out of state? And what
do those donors expect in return?"

Marshall Wittmann, McCain's communications director, dismisses
the suit as frivolous. Kolbe's campaign manager, state Sen. Toni
Hellon told the Tucson Citizen in a phone interview that; "It's
a nuisance lawsuit, and people have the right to support anyone
they want to, We're here with supporters who used to be
constituents and still want to help him. Why shouldn't they be
able to still support him?"

Phoenix attorney Leon Silver, who represents Soling, doesn't
expect the court to dismiss the suit out of hand.

A similar suit succeeded in Alaska several years ago and has
been upheld on appeal, he said. Another Alaska suit and one in
California were not successful, he said.

Mr. Soling hopes others who want change in the campaign finance
process will support the case, which he expects to go all the
way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He also hopes that taking on a
lawmaker with McCain's national stature will bring attention to
his cause. "If I win, it will apply only to Arizona, but with
his high profile, I'm hoping national groups such as Common
Cause will fly this up the flagpole." He also wanted to see the
political process embrace the constitutional right to petition
elected officials for change and quipped that "Instead of buying
your candidate, you're supposed to petition him."

Soling's Web site, www.congressabuse.com , provides more
information about the suit and how to support his effort.


AT&T CORPORATION: 50T NC Consumers To Receive $500T in Refunds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly 50,000 North Carolina consumers who were overcharged by
AT&T will share in more than $500,000 in refunds and credits,
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced in a
statement.

An extra monthly charge of $3.95 first appeared on some
consumers' bills for AT&T long distance service in January 2004.
Several consumers who did not subscribe to AT&T for long
distance were also billed for the fee.

AG Cooper's office first found out about the billing problems
when consumers began calling to complain.  Approximately 80
consumers have filed complaints about the extra charges with the
Attorney General's Consumer Protection Division.  After meeting
with attorneys from AG Cooper's office, AT&T agreed to provide
refunds and credits to all North Carolina consumers who were
billed in error, the Attorney General said in his announcement.

According to an affidavit filed this week by AT&T, the company
overcharged 11,202 AT&T customers and 36,883 non-customers in
North Carolina.  These consumers will get a total of more than
$500,000 back.  Current AT&T customers who paid the extra fee
should look for credits on their phone bill.  Non-AT&T customers
should receive their refund by mail.

" People shouldn't have to pay for a charge they didn't agree
to," said AG Cooper.  "Consumers let us know about these extra
charges, and we were able to help get their money back."

Consumers who were billed in error by AT&T do not need to file a
complaint with AG Cooper's office in order to receive their
refund or credit.  The company also says that it has taken steps
to ensure that consumers are not overcharged again.  "To make
sure you don't get stuck with charges you don't owe, study your
monthly phone bill just as carefully as you would your bank and
credit card statements," AG Cooper advised consumers.  "If you
think you've been overcharged, call your phone company and also
let my office know about it."

Consumers who believe that they have been billed incorrectly by
a telephone company can contact the Attorney General's Consumer
Protection Division at (877)-5-NO-SCAM to file a complaint.

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


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement for LA Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cox Communications Louisiana LLC reached a settlement for the
putative subscriber class action filed against it in Louisiana
state court, challenging the propriety of late fees it charged
in the greater New Orleans area to customers who fail to pay for
services in a timely manner.

The suit seeks injunctive relief and damages under certain
claimed state law causes of action. The settlement has been
submitted to the court for final approval.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Investor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California's ruling upholding the dismissal
of the class action filed against Cox Communications, Inc. and
David Woodrow, its former Executive Vice President for Business
Development.

Jerrold Schaffer and Kevin J. Yourman, on May 26, 2000 and May
30, 2000, respectively, filed class action lawsuits in the
Superior Court of California, San Mateo County, on behalf of
themselves and all other stockholders of Excite@Home as of March
28, 2000, seeking to enjoin consummation of a March 28, 2000
letter agreement among Excite@Home's principal investors,
including Cox, and unspecified compensatory damages.

Mr. Woodrow formerly served on the Excite@Home board of
directors.  The plaintiffs assert that the defendants breached
purported fiduciary duties of care, candor and loyalty to the
plaintiffs by entering into the letter agreement and/or taking
certain actions to facilitate the consummation of the
transactions contemplated by the letter agreement.  On February
26, 2001, the Court stayed both actions, which had been
previously consolidated, on grounds of forum non-conveniens.

A related suit styled Linda Ward, et al. v. At Home Corporation
(No. 418233) was filed on September 6, 2001, in the same court.
On February 7, 2002, the Court consolidated the Ward action with
the Schaffer/Yourman action, thereby also staying the Ward
action.  On June 18, 2002, the court granted plaintiffs' motion
to lift the stay and authorized discovery to proceed regarding
Cox's pending motion to dismiss for lack of personal
jurisdiction.

On September 10, 2002, the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Northern District of California in the Excite@Home
bankruptcy proceeding held that the claims in the suits were
derivative and, thus, constituted the exclusive property of the
Excite@Home bankruptcy estate.  The Bankruptcy Court thereafter
ordered the plaintiffs to dismiss the suits.

Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the Bankruptcy Court's decision
to the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  On September 29, 2003, the District Court affirmed
the order of the Bankruptcy Court.  Plaintiffs promptly appealed
the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Ask NY Court To Dismiss Claim in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cox Communications, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to dismiss a remaining
claim in the class action filed against it, AT&T Corporation,
and certain former officers and directors of Excite@Home.

On April 26, 2002, Frieda and Michael Eksler filed an amended
complaint.  This case has been consolidated with a related case
captioned Semen Leykin v. AT&T Corp., et al., and another
related case, and an amended complaint in the consolidated case,
naming Cox as a defendant, was filed and served on November 7,
2002.

The putative class includes persons who purchased and held
shares of Excite@Home common stock between the time period March
28, 2000 and September 28, 2001.  The sole count against Cox
asserts a claim against Cox as an alleged "controlling person"
of Excite@Home under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act for violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The suit seeks from Cox unspecified monetary damages, statutory
compensation and other relief.  In addition, a claim against
Cox's former Executive Vice President, David Woodrow, who
formerly served on Excite@Home's board of directors, is asserted
for breach of purported fiduciary duties.  The suit seeks from
Mr. Woodrow unspecified monetary and punitive damages.

On February 11, 2003, Cox and Mr. Woodrow filed a dispositive
motion to dismiss on various grounds, including failure to state
a claim.  On September 17, 2003, the District Court granted
the motion in part and denied it in part.  Specifically, the
Court dismissed several purported statements by Excite@Home as
bases for potential liability because they were merely
generalized expressions of confidence and optimism constituting
"puffery," dismissed the fiduciary duty claim against Mr.
Woodrow as pre-empted by the federal securities laws, and denied
the motions as to the
remaining allegations of the complaint.

On October 7, 2003, Cox and Mr. Woodrow sought reconsideration
of a portion of the Court's order.  On December 24, 2003, the
plaintiffs moved to certify a class of persons who purchased
Excite@Home stock between March 28, 2000 and September 28, 2001,
or held such stock as of April 28, 2000.  This motion is
pending.

On February 17, 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs leave to file
a motion to amend the complaint to add an additional claim for
relief against all defendants under Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act in connection with an allegedly false or
misleading proxy statement issued by Excite@Home.  On February
24, 2004, the Court granted Cox's and Mr. Woodrow's motion for
reconsideration and dismissed plaintiffs' allegations that Cox
and Mr. Woodrow were "control persons" with respect to primary
violations of Rule 10b-5 alleged to have occurred after August
28, 2000.  On April 5, 2004, Cox and certain other defendants
jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Section 14(a) cause of
action that was added in plaintiffs' amended complaint, and
briefing of that motion is ongoing.


FLORIDA: Pinellas County Court Grants Certification to Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinellas-Pasco Circuit Judge James Case granted class-action
status to a 2000 lawsuit charging Pinellas County schools in
Florida with failing to adequately educate black students, The
Ledger Online reports.

The judge's decision virtually expands the complaint to 21,000
current students and all black children who will attend the
county's public schools in the future.

The suit was filed in October 2000 -- a week after a federal
judge approved a settlement between the district and the NAACP
Legal Defense Fund, declaring the schools discrimination-free --
on behalf of William Crowley and his son Akwete Osoka, who was
then a second-grader at Sawgrass Lake Elementary School. It
claims the district failed to narrow the achievement gap between
black and white students in violation of the state
Constitution's equal protection clause, and asks the district to
craft a solution.

School district lawyers argued against class-action status,
saying each child's performance may be based on individual
circumstances.

Judge Case did not agree and ruled that the suit challenged the
system's overall ability to provide a "high quality" education
to black students, "not how that system has dealt with a
particular student on an individual basis," The Ledger Online
reports.


INDIA: UB, McDowell & Co. To End Lawsuit Against Restructuring
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the wake of talks between Mr. Vijay Mallya, UB group chairman
and Jumbo Group Chairperson, Ms. Vidya Manohar Chhabria, who
controls Shaw Wallace & Co. (SWC), the UB Chairman and McDowell
& Co. Ltd. decided to end a class action lawsuit filed in 2002
against the corporate restructuring undertaken by archrival SWC
and the sale of shares by the latter to SABMiller, the Asia
Intelligence Wire reports.

The decision not to pursue the case virtually buries disputes
between the India's two largest liquor businesses.

Mr. Mallya through his group spirits company filed a class
action suit in the Mumbai High Court opposing SWC restructuring
and its move to divest shares citing shareholder interest and
also in view of his pending suit in a Hong Kong court claiming
control over the latter.

McDowell & Co. owned about 10,000 shares in SWC giving it the
locus standi to move the court against restructuring and sale of
shares. SABMiller acquired 50% stake and management control in
SWC's restructured beer arm - Shaw Wallace Breweries - for
$132.8 million.

The industry sources told Asia Intelligence Wire that the move
to bury the hatchet in the Mumbai High Court was part of a
larger settlement between Mr. Mallya and the Jumbo Group, which
acquired SWC from RG Shaw and Sime Darby in 1985 for $28
million.

Mr. Mallya through two investment firms, of which he has
beneficial interest, has been waging a legal battle to establish
that he had partnered the late Manu Chhabria, the founder
Chairman of the Dubai-based Jumbo Group, in acquiring SWC.

Both UB and Jumbo indicated that talks to resolve the dispute
was progressing but remained wary of divulging more details
suggesting the fragile nature of peace given the acrimonious
past and the burden of distrust between the two camps.


INDIANA STATE: Warns Consumers Of Salmonella Contaminated Cheese
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sharp cheddar cheese, sold under the Meadow Valley Farm brand,
may have been purchased since May 1, 2004 at farmers' markets,
specialty food stores or directly from a Parke County, IN farm.
Investigators with the Indiana State Board of Animal Health's
Dairy Division (BOAH) are working to determine exactly how much
and where the cheese was sold. Initial information indicates
that product from a contaminated batch was distributed in and
around Rockville, IN; Middlebury, IN and at least site in
Wisconsin.

Consumers should not eat this product, but promptly dispose of
it or return it to the place of purchase. No illnesses have been
linked to this cheese.

The cheese can be identified by the round product label, which
prominently states "Natural Raw Milk Cheese". Also printed on
the label are "Meadow Valley Farm" and "Made in Parke County"
below a red barn. A small label on the back of the package notes
a hand-printed lot number of "139". The cheese was sold in
blocks of approximately two-thirds of a pound to one-pound.

Routine product sampling by BOAH revealed the presence of the
bacterium that can cause illness ranging from mild to severe.
For most people, salmonella causes diarrhea, stomach cramps, and
fever. Blood or mucous may appear in the stool. The diarrhea and
other symptoms usually begin 18-36 hours after exposure and may
last 48 to 72 hours, but the person may carry salmonella in his
body for weeks or months and be able to infect others.

Rarely, salmonella can get into the blood and infect organs such
as the heart, lungs, and bones. Death from salmonella is rare.
Children under five, the elderly, and people with compromised
immune systems, such as those with AIDS, are at the greatest
risk for severe complications.

For more details, contact Denise Derrer by Phone: 317-227-0308


INTERVOICE-BRITE INC.: Opposes Appeal of TX Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs responded to Intervoice-Brite, Inc.'s opposition to
their appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed against
the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, styled "David Barrie, et
al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated
v. InterVoice-Brite, Inc., et al., No. 3-01CV1071-D."

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of the Company during the period from October 12,
1999 through June 6, 2000.  Plaintiffs have filed claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities Exchange Act Rule 10b-5 against the Company as
well as certain named current and former officers and directors
of the Company on behalf of the alleged class members.

In the complaint, Plaintiffs claim that the Company and the
named current and former officers and directors issued false and
misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
financial condition of the Company, the results of the Company's
merger with Brite Voice Systems, Inc. and the alleged future
business projections of the Company.  Plaintiffs have asserted
that these alleged statements resulted in artificially inflated
stock prices.

The Company responded to this complaint by filing a motion to
dismiss the complaint in the consolidated proceeding.  The
Company asserted that the complaint lacked the degree of
specificity and factual support to meet the pleading standards
applicable to federal securities litigation.  On this basis, the
Company requested that the court dismiss the complaint in its
entirety.

On August 8, 2002, the Court entered an order granting the
Company's motion to dismiss the class action lawsuit.  In the
order dismissing the lawsuit, the Court granted plaintiffs an
opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by filing an amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 23, 2002.  On
September 15, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the amended class action complaint.  Unlike the Court's
prior order dismissing the original class action complaint, the
order dismissing the amended complaint did not grant Plaintiffs
an opportunity to reinstate the lawsuit by filing a new amended
complaint.  On October 9, 2003, the Plaintiffs filed a notice of
appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals from the trial
court's order of dismissal entered on September 15, 2003.  The
Plaintiffs filed their appellant brief on February 20, 2004, and
the Company filed its brief in opposition to the Plaintiff's
appeal on May 10, 2004.


LANCER CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lancer Corporation faces a purported securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas by TDH Partners.  The suit, cause number 04-
CV-427, also names as defendants George F. Schroeder, David F.
Green and The Coca-Cola Company.

The action alleges that the 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 during the period October 26, 2000 to February 4, 2004, the
defendants engaged in a pattern of fraudulent conduct involving
the issuance of a series of false and misleading statements
because they materially described inaccurately the nature of the
Company's revenue, with a goal of manipulating the sales of
fountain products.

The action also alleges that the Company's public statements
failed to fully reveal that it had major manufacturing problems,
which resulted in a high defect rate in its products and that
Lancer engaged in a fraudulent scheme with its largest customer,
to artificially create demand for a new line of soda machine
dispensers that Lancer was manufacturing for the customer to
sell to its commercial customers.  No specific amount of damages
has been claimed.


MARK NICHOLS: SEC Bars Representative Due To Unauthorized Trades
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order directing
that Mark Jackson Nichols cease and desist from committing or
causing any violations and any future violations of Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and
barring him from association with any broker, dealer or
investment adviser pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Exchange
Act and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The order finds that Nichols, while employed as a registered
representative in the Knoxville, Tennessee branch of a
securities firm registered with the Commission as a broker-
dealer and as an investment adviser, made a series of
unauthorized trades in early 2000 in the accounts of several of
his customers, causing substantial losses. The order further
finds that, in violation of the rules of the New York Stock
Exchange, the National Association of Securities Dealers and his
employer, Nichols reimbursed one of his customers for losses the
customers suffered as a result of Nichols's unauthorized
trading. Nichols resigned from the broker-dealer in May 2000.

The Commission did not impose a civil penalty on Nichols based
on representations made in his Statement of Financial Condition
and other documents. Nichols consented to the entry of the order
and the relief imposed without admitting or denying the
findings.


NY STATE: Issues Warning Over Mayonnaise Due To Undeclared Eggs
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Agriculture Commissioner Nathan L. Rudgers issued an alert
to consumers who are sensitive to eggs not to consume "Uniservis
Majonez Luksusowy" (Mayonnaise) sold by Royal Seafood
International, Inc., d/b/a Net Cost Market, 2257 E. 16 th
Street, Brooklyn, New York 11229 due to the presence of
undeclared eggs. People who have allergies to eggs run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they
consume these products.

"Uniservis Majonez Luksusowy" is packaged in a 600-gram, glass
jar with metal lid. The container code is 12 09 2004 PAR A. The
product was sold in the Brooklyn, New York area.

Routine sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets food inspectors revealed the product contained
undeclared eggs.

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

Consumers who are allergic to eggs and have purchased "Uniservis
Majonez Luksusowy" are urged to return them to the place of
purchase.

For more details, contact Jessica Chittenden by Phone: 518-457-
3136


TOWRY LAW: Investors Urged To Join Worldwide Stock Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A retired finance executive is gathering disgruntled investors
worldwide and urging them to take action against Towry Law
International (TLI), the financial advice firm that they say
wrongly sold them high-risk investment funds, The Asia
Intelligence Wire reports.

Losses are alleged to have run to several hundred million US
dollars. TLI stands accused of selling several funds as "low-
risk."

David O'Hare, who lost savings when two of the geared-with-
profits funds crashed, is visiting Hong Kong and will urge
investors in the former British colony to join other groups
around the world in launching a class-action lawsuit against
TLI's then parent companies, HHG and AMP.

Investors were hit by the A$80 million (HK$430.46 million)
collapse of two Cayman Islands-registered funds, Global
Diversified Trading and Global Opportunities. United Kingdom-
based TLI is accused of selling the two hedge funds to investors
in Hong Kong and the Middle East. Some investors are allegedly
suffering severe difficulties following their losses.

O'Hare, who now lives in Cyprus, told the Asia Intelligence Wire
that: "I want to get things moving in Hong Kong because that's
where the biggest investor base is."

Howard Epstein, a lawyer at Class Law, a London law firm that
specializes in actions of this kind, will also be with Mr.
O'Hare.


YUKOS OIL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Shareholder Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins (LCSR), acting on
behalf of Yukos' foreign minority shareholders, initiated a
class action suit in New York's Southern district court, the
Vedomosti business daily reports.

The defendants in this suit are Yukos Oil Company, Group Menatep
and its co-owners Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and
Vasily Shakhnovsky, as well a Yukos' CFO Bruce Misamore, the
auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers and the little-known firm Curtis
& Co, which is registered in Great Britain. All of the
defendants are charged with creating a fraud scheme, which
created a situation in which the majority of Yukos' foreign
investors bought the company's shares at an inflated price.

Attorney Sergei Sokolov, a partner at the Marks & Sokolov law
firm, which provided consulting services to LCSR explained to
Vedomosti that the suit may be joined by all of Yukos'
shareholders who bought the oil company's securities in the
period between February 13, 2003 and October 25, 2003. All of
these people incurred serious losses after Mikhail
Khodorkovsky's arrest, which happened on October 25. "The
plaintiffs' representatives believe that all this time the
management and co-owners of Yukos, as well as the company's
auditor concealed the true state of affairs from the investors,"
Mr. Sokolov told the Vedomosti, adding that the sum of the claim
will be determined later, and the leading plaintiff will be
chosen in three months.

Representatives of PricewaterhouseCoopers and Khodorkovsky's
lawyer Anton Drel declined to comment on the situation.

Vedomosti also reported that last Wednesday, June 30, that 12
investment funds which altogether manage more than $3 trillion
and own approximately five percent of Yukos' shares sent a
letter to President Vladimir Putin. The letter's authors told
Putin that they were conscientious buyers of Yukos' shares and
don't want to become the victims of a court battle between the
state and the company's main shareholders. If the minority
shareholders lose their investments as a result of the Yukos
affair, says the letter, the protection of private property
rights and of investors' rights in Russia will be placed in
doubt.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


99 CENTS: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP announces that a class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of 99 Cents Only
Stores ("99 Cents") (NYSE:NDN) common stock during the period
between March 11, 2004 and June 10, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges 99 Cents and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. 99 Cents is a deep-discount retailer of primarily name
brand and consumable general merchandise in the United States.
As of March 12, 2004, the Company operated 194 retail stores
with 150 in California, 19 in Texas, 15 in Arizona and 10 in
Nevada.The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and prospects. As a result of
the defendants' false statements, 99 Cents stock traded at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, trading in
the mid to high $20 range. According to the complaint,
defendants concealed from the investing public that:

     (1) in order to inflate the Company's margins, especially
         to show success in the Company's newer markets, i.e.,
         Texas, defendants created the appearance of
         profitability and success by, among other things, not
         accruing for proper expenses (the roll-out of the
         Company's advertising implementation and distribution
         costs);

     (2) the Company's margins were being eroded by a mix-shift
         tied to lower margin grocery items, freight costs,
         higher dairy costs, and a higher mark-down and shrink
         provision (up to $10 million);

     (3) the defendants had knowingly tolerated very weak
         internal controls;

     (4) the Company's inventory was artificially inflated and
         in fact, the Company had carried $10 million worth of
         deli products on its books as an asset when they were
         inedible due to expiration and other objective factors;

     (5) the Company's Southern California distribution center
         was in shambles;

     (6) the Company's workers' compensation problems were far
         from over and, in fact, contrary to declining,
         defendants had forecast these expenses as increasing;
         and

     (7) as a result of the above, the Company was not on track
         to achieve EPS for Q2 04 of $0.19-$0.20.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/cases.htm


ALLIANCE GAMING: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NV Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Alliance Gaming Corporation (NYSE: AGI) from January 15, 2004
through June 7, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Alliance, Robert L. Miodunski, Robert
L. Saxton, Steven Des Champs, and Mark Lerner violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between January 15, 2004 and
June 7, 2004, about the Company's financial condition thereby
artificially inflating the price of Alliance's shares.

More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc 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


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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel 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


ASCONI CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United Stated District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Asconi Corp. (AMEX: ACD) in the
period from May 15, 2003 to March 23, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning
the company's business performance during the relevant time.
According to the complaint, throughout the relevant time period,
defendants misrepresented the financial condition of the Asconi
and failed to disclose certain related party transactions,
thereby overstating the financial condition of Asconi. The
company has delayed the filing of its annual Report on Form 10-K
with the SEC, its stock price has collapsed and the stock has
ceased trading.

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: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of BEA Systems, Inc.
(Nasdaq: BEAS) ("BEA") between November 13, 2003 and May 13,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that BEA, a provider of application
infrastructure software, and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false statements concerning BEA's
business condition. Specifically, defendants failed to disclose
that:

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

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

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

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

     (5) BEA was experiencing weakness, not strength, in its
         telecom vertical business.

On May 13, 2004, BEA announced disappointing first quarter
results, citing the difficult sales environment and sales
execution issues. On this news, shares of BEA plummeted 30% to
$8.00 per share.

For more details, contact Nancy A. Kulesa of Schatz & Nobel by
Phone: (800) 797-5499 or by e-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit
their Web site: www.snlaw.net


BEA SYSTEMS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. has commenced a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
BEA Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:BEAS) between November 13, 2003 and
May 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


CANADIAN SUPERIOR: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities 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 the securities
of Canadian Superior Energy Inc. (Amex: SNG) between November
17, 2003 and March 11, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Canadian Superior, Greg Noval, and Michael
Coolen 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
defendants issued a number of materially false and misleading
statements about its El Paso Mariner I-85 well offshore
operations in Nova Scotia, Canada.

These positive statements failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that defendants knew or were reckless in not knowing
         that the "Mariner \ I-85 well" was virtually "dry";

     (2) that the actual costs of testing and drilling at the
         well were significantly exceeding the budgeted costs;

     (3) that a significant gas reservoir to support a
         commercial project did not exist;

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         positive announcements concerning the "Mariner I-85
         well" were lacking in a reasonable basis when made, and

     (5) that the defendants' positive statements only served to
         artificially inflate the value of its stock.

The Company shocked the market with its March 11, 2004
announcement that it had halted operations at the El Paso
Mariner I-85 well in the Atlantic Ocean off Nova Scotia,
following 3-1/2 months of drilling. On this news, shares of
Canadian Superior skidded 44.44%, or $1.44 per share, to close
at $1.80 per share on March 11, 2004 on unusual high 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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Scott + Scott To Lodge Securities Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC will initiate a class action
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of the purchasers of Cardinal Health, Inc.
("Cardinal") (NYSE: CAH) securities between the period of
October 24, 2000 and June 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Plaintiffs will allege that during this period, that
Cardinal and certain of its officers and directors were in
violation of the United States Federal securities laws
(Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

The complaint to be filed alleges that during the Class Period,
Cardinal Health failed to record, on a timely basis, litigation
claims it owed, causing its earnings and assets to be
artificially inflated. The Company also misclassified non-
operating revenues as operating, giving a misleading picture of
the Company to investors. It is also alleged that Cardinal
improperly accounted for the $22 million recovered from vitamin
makers accused of overcharging Cardinal by booking such
recoveries as revenue when the antitrust cases had not been
resolved. Further, it is alleged that defendants made
misleading, materially incomplete statements to investors about
its transition to a fee-for-service model of drug distribution.
Cardinal has announced that on June 21, it received a subpoena
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the SEC's formal investigation announced on May 14.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC
by Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone:
1/800-404-7770 (EDT) or 1/800-332-2259 (PDT) or 1/619-233-4565
(California) or 860/537-3818 by Fax: 860/537-4432 or by E-mail:
CardinalHealthSecuritiesLitigation@scott-scott.com or
nrothstein@scott-scott.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock
of Cardinal Health, Inc. (NYSE: CAH) from October 24, 2000
through June 30, 2004 inclusive.

The complaint charges that Cardinal, Robert D. Walter, and
Richard J. Miller violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
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 manipulated various aspects of its
         accounting practices to continuously portray
         profitability to market;

     (2) that the Company held inventory for an average of two
         months, and reaped exorbitant profits from price
         inflation;

     (3) that the Company improperly accounted for the $22
         million recovered from Vitamin makers accused of
         overcharging Cardinal by booking such recoveries as
         revenue when the antitrust cases had not been resolved;

     (4) that the Company's pharmaceutical distribution business
         improperly classified revenues by reporting the
         revenues as either operating revenue or revenues form
         bulk deliveries to consumer warehouses when revenues
         were not derived from such;

     (5) that as a consequence of the aforementioned practices,
         the Company's financial results were in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and
         the Company's own accounting interpretations on revenue
         recognition;

     (6) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (7) that the Company's earnings per share were materially
         inflated; and

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

On June 30, 2004, Cardinal announced earnings per share for its
fiscal year 2004 are expected to increase approximately 11
percent, which is below prior guidance of mid-teens or better
growth. Separately, the company announced that on June 21, as
part of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) formal
investigation disclosed by the company on May 14, it received an
SEC subpoena.

In addition, Cardinal Health has learned that the U.S.
Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has
commenced an inquiry that the company understands relates to
this same subject. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Cardinal fell $17.19 per share or 24.54 percent on July 1, 2004
to close at $52.86 per share. More than 35.5 million Cardinal
shares were traded, more than 15 times the three-month daily
average.

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


HANGER ORTHOPEDIC: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia on behalf of purchasers of Hanger
Orthopedic Group, Inc. (NYSE: HGR) common stock during the
period between February 26, 2003 and June 14, 2004.

The complaint charges Hanger Orthopedic and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Hanger Orthopedic owns and operates
orthotic and prosthetic patient-care centers in the United
States.  The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants caused Hanger Orthopedic's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and
misleading financial statements.  As a result of this inflation,
defendants were able to sell 167,270 Hanger Orthopedic shares,
reaping insider trading proceeds of $2.4 million.

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

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

For more details, contact 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


HIBERNIA FOODS: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman has initiated a class action
lawsuit against Hibernia Foods PLC ("Hibernia" or the "Company")
(OTC:HIBNY.PK) and its officers in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of
Hibernia securities.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants issued
false and misleading statements during the Class Period.

This action seeks to recover damages on behalf of defrauded
investors who purchased Hibernia securities.

For more details, David C. Katz, James E. Tullman, or Mark D.
Smilow by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue, Suite
1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone: 001-212-682-3025 by E-
mail: info@wynyc.com


KEY ENERGY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Key Energy
Services, Inc. ("Key Energy") (NYSE:KEG) publicly traded
securities during the period between April 29, 2003 and June 4,
2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Key Energy and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Key Energy is the world's largest rig-based, onshore well
service company. The Company provides diversified energy
operations, including well servicing, contract drilling,
pressure pumping, fishing and rental tool services and other
oilfield services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
misrepresented the strength of Key Energy's financial results.
Throughout the Class Period, defendants repeatedly stated that
Key Energy's financials were strong and improving and that it
had strengthened its competitive position to benefit once market
conditions improved. In fact, the Company's financial statements
were materially misstated and not nearly as favorable as
reported. As a result of defendants' misstatements, Key Energy's
securities traded at artificially inflated levels. Defendants
were thus able to complete a $150 million note offering in May
2003 and to exchange 542,477 shares of Key Energy stock in the
acquisition of Lea Fishing Tools, Inc. in September 2003.

On March 15, 2004, Key Energy announced it would delay filing
its 2003 Form 10-K so that it could review the classification of
fixed assets during 2003. Later, on March 29, 2004, Key Energy
announced it would be taking write-downs of $83 million to
reflect good will impairment and would restate its prior year's
financial statements.Then on June 7, 2004, before the market
opened, Key Energy announced it was withdrawing earnings
guidance for 2004. The Company also disclosed that if it failed
to obtain a waiver for its default on its senior notes, it would
be in default. On this news, the Company's stock collapsed to as
low as $7.00 per share before closing at $8.67 on volume of 13.9
million shares. This was a 37% drop from the Class Period high
of $13.96.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com/cases.htm


KEY ENERGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Key Energy Services, Inc. (NYSE: KEG) between April 29, 2003 and
June 4, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action,
is pending against defendants Key and Key directors and/or
officers Richard J. Alario, James J. Byerlotzer, Francis D. John
and Royce Mitchell.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants'
publicly disseminated results of Key's operations and financial
condition contained artificially inflated revenues, assets and
income. Such results were not prepared or reported in accordance
with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and deceived
investors as to the Company's true performance, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Key securities during the
Class Period.

The truth began to emerge on March 15, 2004. On that date, the
Company announced that that it would not meet the Securities and
Exchange Commission deadline for filing its annual report
because it had yet to complete its review of "certain idle
equipment" with a book value of $55 million, and that the review
might result in "a revision to the 2003 earnings." The Company
maintained, however, that, "the underlying fundamentals of the
Company are strong and the outlook remains positive." The next
two months were punctuated by a series of additional
disclosures, each of which further depressed Key's stock price.
The Class period ends June 4, 2004.

The morning of the next trading day, June 7, 2004, before the
market opened, defendants announced that they were "withdrawing
all previous earnings forecasts of operating results for 2004,"
that they were doing so "in light of current uncertainties
affecting the Company," and that they had received notice from
the indenture trustee of its 6.375% and 8.375% senior Notes that
the Company was in default and had 90 days to cure the default.
On this news, the price of Key shares plummeted on extremely
high trading volume of 13,963,900 shares. Key shares had closed
at $9.62 on June 4, 2004. On June 7, 2004 they reached an intra-
day low of $7.00, down 27%, before rebounding to close the day
at $8.67.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



LANCER CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in W.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action lawsuit was filed in the United Stated District Court for
the Western District of Texas, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Lancer Corporation (AMEX: LAN) between October 26, 2000 and
February 4, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit
was filed against Lancer and George F. Schroeder, David F. Green
and the Coca-Cola Company (NYSE: KO).

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
during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in a pattern of
fraudulent conduct involving the issuance of a series of false
and misleading statements.

The complaint additionally alleges that these statements were
materially false and misleading because they materially
described inaccurately the nature of Lancer's revenue by saying
it was derived from legitimate business transactions, when in
reality, substantial revenues were derived as a result of a
scheme to artificially set the sales prices of Lancer's products
to its customers. The goal of the scheme, the complaint further
asserts, was to manipulate the sales of fountain products. In
addition, the complaint alleges that Lancer's public statements
failed to fully reveal that it had major manufacturing problems,
which resulted in a high defect rate in its products.

Lastly, the complaint alleges that Lancer engaged in a
fraudulent scheme with its largest customer, Coca-Cola Co. to
artificially create demand for a new line of soda machine
dispensers that Lancer was manufacturing for Coca-Cola to sell
to its commercial customers.

On January 14, 2004, Lancer announced that the Securities &
Exchange Commission had launched a formal investigation into
Lancer's reporting of its financial statements, revenue and cost
recognition, and internal financial and accounting controls. On
February 2, 2004, Lancer announced that the Company's
longstanding auditor KPMG LLP ("KPMG"), had resigned. Lancer
also disclosed that KPMG indicated that the reason for its
resignation was that Lancer had not taken timely and appropriate
remedial actions with respect to "likely illegal acts." KPMG's
comments were in stark contrast to Lancer's statements on
January 30, 2004, that its audit committee did not find
sufficient evidence of "intentional misconduct" or "accounting
irregularities." Trading of Lancer shares has been halted since
February 2, 2004. When and if trading resumes, it is virtually
certain that Lancer common stock will trade far below the $7.50
trading price at which it was halted.

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

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

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

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


MERIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Oregon on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of Merix
Corporation (Nasdaq: MERX) from July 1, 2003 through May 13,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact 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


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

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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



SIEBEL SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities 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 Siebel
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: SEBL)publicly traded securities during
the period between October 1, 2001 and July 17, 2002, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Siebel Systems and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements
to the marketplace that artificially inflated the price of
Siebel Systems shares. In particular, the Company misrepresented
its business and future prospects by overstating customer
acceptance of its new product offerings -- including Siebel 7
CRM -- and failed to disclose that "independent" customer
satisfaction surveys which persuaded investors that a vast
majority of the Company's customers would purchase products from
the Company in the future were in fact carried out by an
affiliated company and could not be relied upon.

On July 17, 2002, Siebel announced its second quarter June 30,
2002 earnings reporting a precipitous drop in revenues of more
than 15% and a 33% shortfall in earnings compared to consensus
analyst forecasts. The Company also confirmed the continuing
slide in demand for Siebel Systems' products by slashing revenue
forecasts for the remainder of 2002 by an additional 25% -- or
$600,000,000 below guidance provided by defendants just six
months prior. In unusually heavy volume of 65 million shares
traded, Siebel Systems share prices dropped $2.13 on July 18 to
close at $9.61.

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


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

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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

                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *