CAR_Public/040709.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Friday, July 9, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 135

                          Headlines

ALEX SOLON: SEC Bars Trader, Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ABB LTD.: Reaches Pact with SEC, DOJ in Foreign Bribery Lawsuit
ANNUITY & LIFE: Reaches $8.7M Settlement in Reinsurance Dispute
ASHWORTH INC.: Reaches $15.25M Securities Settlement in S.D. CA
BEA SYSTEMS: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA

BLUE CROSS: Physical Therapists Sue Over Geographic Limitations
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in CA
CALIFORNIA: Homeowners File Noise Pollution Suit V. 201 Freeway
CANADA: Toronto Nurse Lodges Suit Over Mishandled SARS Outbreak
COI SOLUTIONS: SEC Issues Findings, Sanctions V. Stock Promoters

eBAY INC.: Consumers File CA Suit Over Defective Billing System
GAY MARRIAGES: ACLU Files MD Suit Seeking Right of Gays To Marry
HOME DEPOT: Charlip Law Lodges Unpaid Overtime Suit in S.D. FL
HOMELAND SECURITY: Cooley Godward Files CA Lawsuit V. LPR Status
ISRAEL: Matav-Cable Files Appeal To Overturn Tel-Aviv Judgment

JOSE ZOLLINO: SEC Issues Administrative Proceedings V. Adviser
KEY ENERGY: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. TX
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Court Finalizes $1.1B Suit Settlement
MORGAN STANLEY: Start of Sexual Harassment Trial Moved to Friday
MSI: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit Over Defective Motherboards

NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: Six New Uninsured Patient Lawsuits Lodged
NORTEL NETWORKS: Law Firm Probes For Possible ERISA Violations
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders File Stock Lawsuits in CA
PACIFICORP: Utah Regulators Reject Class Suit Over Power Outages
PINNACLE BUSINESS: SEC Orders Revocation Registered Securities

POZEN INC.: Shareholder Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
ROYAL DUTCH: NJ Plaintiffs Given 30 Days To Submit Allegations
TEXAS: Atty. General Inks Pact With Firms Over Do-Not-Call Law
TRICO MARINE: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in E.D. LA
UNITED STATES: Senate Action On Class Action Reform Bill Halted


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AFG and American Premier Fighting Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron International Faces 18,998 Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Subsidiary Faces 67,000 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Assurant Carries $36,000,000 Worth Of IBNR
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Notes Significant Amounts For Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Has Insurance For Abex Obligations
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Accrues $236 Mil For Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Subsidiaries Receive 8,400 New Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Enters Into Agreement With Ace Property
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal & Sun Review Prompts Reserves Plan

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Says Most Claims Against It Groundless
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenaris Says 20 Of 21 Dalmine Cases Settled
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Refers to Its Asbestos Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Plaintiffs At 14,000 As of March
ASBESTOS ALERT: PolyOne, Subsidiaries Named In Asbestos Lawsuits

ASBESTOS ALERT: SCOR Strengthens Reserves Latent Asbestos Claims

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BISYS GROUP: Spector Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CARDINAL HEALTH: Landskroner Grieco Lodges Securities Suit in OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH

DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
INTRABIOTICS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
LEXAR MEDIA: Spector Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
MERIX CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OR
POZEN INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC

SALOMON BROTHERS: Girard Gibbs Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Suit in E.D. PA


                            *********


ALEX SOLON: SEC Bars Trader, Settles Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission barred Alex Solon from
association with any broker or dealer. Administrative
proceedings had previously been instituted against Solon on June
2, 2004, based upon the entry of a permanent injunction against
Solon in SEC v. Leonard Alexander Ruge, et al., 97 Civ. 9306
(DAB) (SEC v. Ruge), and Solon's conviction in related criminal
proceedings. Solon consented to the entry of the bar without
admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's order
instituting proceedings against him.

The Commission's complaint in SEC v. Ruge, alleged that, from
June 1995 through February 1996, Solon and the other defendants
engaged in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the public trading
market for the securities of International Investment Group Ltd.
(IIGR) through the payment of bribes to various registered
representatives and other individuals who sold IIGR stock to
retail investors without disclosing the receipt of the bribes.
The Commission's complaint charged Solon and the other
defendants with 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. The court entered a permanent
injunction against Solon on June 26, 2003, and also barred Solon
from participating in any offering of a penny stock. The
injunction and penny stock bar were entered against Solon by
default. Solon was also convicted in a parallel criminal action
based on the same conduct underlying the Commission's complaint.


ABB LTD.: Reaches Pact with SEC, DOJ in Foreign Bribery Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled
enforcement action in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia charging ABB Ltd, a global provider of power and
automation technologies headquartered in Zurich, Switzerland,
with violating the anti-bribery, books-and-records, and
internal-accounting-controls provisions of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA). Simultaneously with the filing of the
complaint, and without admitting or denying its allegations, ABB
consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining it from
future FCPA violations, and requiring it

     (1) to pay $5.9 million in disgorgement and prejudgment
         interest,

     (2) to pay a $10.5 million penalty, which would be deemed
         satisfied by two of its affiliates' payments of
         criminal fines totaling the same amount in parallel
         criminal proceedings brought by the Department of
         Justice; and

     (3) to retain an independent consultant to review the
         company's FCPA compliance policies and procedures.

In its complaint, the Commission charged that, from 1998 through
early 2003, ABB's U.S. and foreign-based subsidiaries doing
business in Nigeria, Angola and Kazakhstan, offered and made
illicit payments totaling over $1.1 million to government
officials in these countries. According to the complaint, all of
the payments were made to influence acts and decisions by the
foreign officials receiving the payments, in order to assist
ABB's subsidiaries in obtaining and retaining business. The
complaint further alleged that the payments were made with the
knowledge and approval of certain management level personnel of
the relevant ABB subsidiaries, and that at least $865,726 of the
payments were made after ABB became a reporting company in the
United States in April 2001. Finally, the complaint charged that
ABB improperly recorded these payments in its accounting books
and records, and lacked any meaningful internal controls to
prevent or detect such illicit payments.

According to the Commission, by making these payments through
its subsidiaries, ABB violated the anti-bribery provisions of
the FCPA (Section 30A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).
The Commission further charged that, by improperly recording
these payments, ABB violated the books-and-records provisions of
the FCPA (Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934). Finally, the Commission charged that, by failing to
devise or maintain an effective system of internal controls to
prevent or detect these violations of the FCPA, ABB violated the
internal accounting controls provisions of the FCPA (Section
13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

In determining to accept ABB's settlement offer, the Commission
considered the full cooperation that ABB provided to the
Commission staff during its investigation. The Commission also
considered the fact that ABB brought this matter to the
attention of the Commission's staff and the U.S. Department of
Justice. Based in part upon ABB's cooperation, the Commission
determined to allow ABB's $10.5 million civil penalty obligation
to be deemed satisfied by two of its affiliates' payments of
criminal fines totaling $10.5 million in a parallel criminal
proceeding brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

In that parallel proceeding, also announced today, the U.S.
Department of Justice filed criminal FCPA charges against two
ABB subsidiaries, who entered guilty pleas before the Honorable
Vanessa Gilmore, United States District Judge for the Southern
District of Texas:  Houston-based ABB Vetco Gray, Inc., and
Aberdeen, Scotland-based ABB Vetco Gray UK, Ltd. (U.S. v. ABB
Vetco Gray, Inc. and ABB Vetco Gray UK, Ltd., Case No. 04-CR-
279-01 (S.D. Texas)). In particular, ABB Vetco Gray, Inc. and
ABB Vetco Gray UK, Ltd. each agreed to plead guilty to two
felony counts of violating the anti-bribery provisions of the
FCPA and to pay criminal fines that, between them, total $10.5
million.


ANNUITY & LIFE: Reaches $8.7M Settlement in Reinsurance Dispute
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to stave off a possible delisting by the New York
Stock Exchange, Annuity & Life Re Holdings Ltd. (NYSE:ANR)
settled its annuity reinsurance dispute with Transamerica
Insurance & Investment Group.

Reached through a private arbitration, the settlement required
Annuity & Life Re to pay $8.7 million that was due to
Transamerica as of April 30 under the company's reinsurance
treaty with Annuity & Life. The two companies are to calculate
monthly settlements under the treaty.

A subsidiary of Dutch insurer Aegon N.V., Transamerica filed for
arbitration in February in its dispute with Annuity & Life Re,
protesting a $5 million offset the reinsurer claimed was owed to
it for investment-related expenses and claiming that
Transamerica also owed interest on its reinsurance payments.
Transamerica ultimately agreed to the $5 million offset as part
of the settlement.

Annuity & Life Re, which has been plagued by accounting problems
for nearly two years, previously was forced to restate its
third-quarter 2003 earnings after it had incorrectly released
$3.8 million of liabilities associated with its Transamerica
annuity reinsurance contract.

In December 2002, at least four law firms filed lawsuits seeking
class-action status on behalf of stockholders, alleging
"material misrepresentations to the market" by the company,
BestWire Services reports.

In a preliminary proxy statement filed June 18 with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, Annuity & Life Re said it
would propose consolidating the company's common share capital
in a reverse stock split at a ratio between 1-for-2 and 1-for-
20. The proposal would require shareholders' approval at the
company's Aug. 5 annual meeting before it could be implemented.

The proposal came in response to a notice from the stock
exchange informing the company that, for the second time, its
average per-share closing price over a 30-day trading period
failed to surpass $1, in violation of the NYSE's continued
listing standards. Exchange rules require the company to now
submit a plan for bringing its share price above the $1 minimum
within an agreed-upon "cure period," or face delisting of the
stock.


ASHWORTH INC.: Reaches $15.25M Securities Settlement in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashworth, Inc. (Nasdaq:ASHW), a leading golf inspired Sportswear
Company, reached a tentative settlement to conclude a securities
class action lawsuit brought in 1999 against the Company and
certain current and former directors and officers in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

The litigation was brought on behalf of a class of investors who
purchased the Company's stock in the open market between
September 4, 1997 and July 15, 1998. Under the settlement, all
claims will be dismissed and the litigation will be terminated
in exchange for a payment of $15.25 million, approximately 82%
of which will be paid by Ashworth's insurance carriers. As part
of the settlement, Ashworth also agreed to adopt modifications
to certain corporate governance policies. Ashworth expects to
record a pretax charge in its third quarter of fiscal year 2004
of approximately $3 million related to settlement of this suit.

"Although the Company was fully prepared to defend the
litigation, the Company decided to settle in order to put this
5-1/2 year old case behind us and allow management to focus on
running and growing the business," said Terence W. Tsang,
Ashworth Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and
Chief Operating Officer. "This settlement will put the
shareholder litigation behind us."

The Company entered into the settlement agreement solely for the
purpose of settling this litigation and believes that settling
this matter at this time is in the best interest of shareholders
as it avoids further protracted litigation. The terms of the
agreement, which are subject to final court approval and notice
to class members, includes no admission of liability or
wrongdoing by the Company or other defendants.


BEA SYSTEMS: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
BEA Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors face
several securities class actions, alleging violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to the
investing public regarding 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.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under docket number 04-CV-
2275, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
November 13,2003 to May 13,2004.  The plaintiffs' law firms are:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP (San Diego), Mail:
         401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone:
         619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail: info@lcsr.com;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP (San Francisco),
         Mail: 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
         94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail:
         info@lcsr.com;

     (3) Marc S. Henzel, Mail: 210 West Washington Square, Third
         Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215-625-9999,
         Fax: 215-440-9475, by e-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com;

     (4) Geller Rudman, PLLC, Mail: 197 South Federal Highway,
         Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432 by Phone: 561-750-
         3000, by Fax: 888-262-3131,
         E-mail: info@geller- rudman.com


BLUE CROSS: Physical Therapists Sue Over Geographic Limitations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Physical therapists have brought a lawsuit to challenge an
arrangement between California's largest health insurer, Blue
Cross, and Los Angeles-based Physical Therapy Providers Network
(PTPN), under which the companies limit the number of "in
network" physical therapists available to Blue Cross members in
any one area.

The geographic limitations reduce competition, in violation of
state antitrust laws, and force Blue Cross patients to pay
higher, "out of network" charges to obtain the physical therapy
prescribed by their doctors, according to the lawsuit, according
to the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights (FTCR).

Under the arrangement, Blue Cross has designated PTPN its
"exclusive" gatekeeper. Only physical therapists who are
accepted by PTPN are authorized by Blue Cross as "in-network"
providers. Their patients pay the lower, negotiated "in network"
price for treatment. However, PTPN rejects 75 percent of the
physical therapists who apply, according to an internal memo
obtained by FTCR, on the grounds that the location is "full."

PTPN requires those it accepts to pay it hefty fees for the
coveted spots. Meanwhile, physical therapists have been forced
to wait for up to twelve years to get on the approved list,
during which they must pay PTPN fees just to remain on the
waiting list.  At present, the PTPN/Blue Cross "geographic
restriction rules" limit the number of therapists to as few as
one per half-mile in urban areas.

"The Blue Cross arrangement with PTPN stifles competition among
physical therapists, undermines quality health care and limits
the choice available to Blue Cross members," Harvey Rosenfield
of the non-profit Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights,
co- counsel in the suit with the noted antitrust firm of Blecher
& Collins, said in a statement.

The class action, brought under the state's antitrust and
consumer protection statutes, seeks an injunction forcing Blue
Cross and PTPN to cease the anticompetitive conduct, remove the
restrictions and permit all qualified physical therapists to
become network providers.  It was brought after extensive
complaints were made to Blue Cross and PTPN about their
practices. FTCR's legal staff also brought the matter to the
attention of the companies informally, to no avail. "Now these
companies are going to be brought to justice in the courts,"
said Rosenfield.


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Objects, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
face several securities class actions, alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Business Objects is a
worldwide provider of business intelligence solutions.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Business Objects shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.  The true facts, which were known to the defendants
but actively concealed by defendants from shareholders, were as
follows:

     (1) the Company's integration of the Crystal Decisions
         acquisition was a disaster and the defendants were
         struggling to hide the integration problems in order to
         save face;

     (2) many of the Company's customers/partners were confused
         about the synchronization of pricing and new solution
         bundles and delaying their purchases, or foregoing them
         all together, in favor of Business Objects'
         competition;

     (3) the Company was internally projecting poor demand for
         the Company's Enterprise 6 products, a material drop in
         European orders and losing significant sales to
         Microsoft and Cognos;

     (4) the Company's software license revenue growth was not
         as robust as defendants projected for the first quarter
         of 2004, and in fact, half of the gain ($12-$13
         million) was attributable to currency gains associated
         with the Euro vs. the dollar;

     (5) the acquisition costs of Crystal Decisions far exceeded
         the Company's projections resulting in an erosion of
         the Company's growth margins; and

     (6) the Company's balance in deferred revenue was inflated
         due to manipulations in the deferred revenue balance of
         Crystal Decisions upon acquisition.

Further, the complaint alleges that on April 30, 2004, shares of
Business Objects plunged as much as 22% after its first-quarter
profit fell, coming in at the lower end of its target range and
missing analyst forecasts. Then on May 5, 2004, it was reported
that the Securities and Exchange Commission was looking into the
Company's 'practices with respect to backlog.'

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from April 23,2003 through May 30,
2004.  Plaintiffs law firms are:

     (i) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Mail: 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39,
         Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-668-7987., Fax:
         610-660-0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

    (ii) Charles J. Piven, Mail: World Trade Center-
         Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD,
         21202, Phone: 410-332-0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

   (iii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP (Los Angeles),
         Mail: 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA,
         90071, Phone: 213-617-9007, Fax: 213-617-9185, E-mail:
         info@lcsr.com;

    (iv) Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP (San Diego), Mail:
         401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone:
         619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-7423, E-mail: info@lcsr.com;

     (v) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Mail: 330 Main Street, Hartford,
         CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-
         mail: sn06106@AOL.com;

    (vi) Geller Rudman, PLLC, Mail: 197 South Federal Highway,
         Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000,
         Fax: 888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com


CALIFORNIA: Homeowners File Noise Pollution Suit V. 201 Freeway
---------------------------------------------------------------
Following a major legal victory, the owners of more than 1,000
additional homes have joined a lawsuit against the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino Associated Governments and the
California Department of Transportation, alleging that traffic
noise from the 210 Freeway extension is responsible for personal
injuries and property damages and has caused their property
values to plummet.

The lawsuit, originally filed on behalf of Ronald and Joyce
Willemsen of Rancho Cucamonga and several others last year,
alleges that traffic noise pollution from the freeway's
extension across Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties is much
higher than federal, state and local standards permit, is
greater than residents were led to believe and that disclosure
notices to homeowners inaccurately portrayed the freeway's
route. In addition, the suit charges that the freeway was
negligently built and has caused earth resettling that affects
the foundations of homes. Plaintiffs are represented by Santa
Monica based Verboon, Milstein & Peter.

California Superior Court Judge Craig Kamansky ruled that while
class action certification wasn't appropriate in the case, the
complaint could be amended to include the owners of the more
than 1,000 additional homes who have come to the law firm with
similar allegations about the freeway's noise and negligent
construction.

"We are very pleased that Judge Kamansky has allowed these
individuals and families to join this lawsuit so that they may
have their day in court," said Wayne Kreger, attorney for the
plaintiffs. "Various studies have shown that the noise on the
210 Freeway expansion exceeds acceptable levels. The defendants
have not taken any steps to remediate these excessive noise
levels. Thus, the plaintiffs were forced to take them to court
in order to seek a remedy to the serious problems that have been
caused by the construction and maintenance of the 210 Freeway."

In seeking to amend the complaint, Verboon, Milstein & Peter
attorneys argued that adding plaintiffs wouldn't be an undue
hardship on the defendants since they were already on notice
about the nature of the claims. What's more, including the
additional plaintiffs will allow all the claims to be resolved
in one proceeding rather than through hundreds of individual
lawsuits.

Monetary damages have been demanded in an amount that has not
yet been specified. Consultants have been retained to determine
that issue and what remediation, such as installation of dual-
paned windows in homes, the defendants will be responsible for.

For more details, contact the law offices of Verboon, Milstein &
Peter, LLP by Mail: 2800 Donald Douglas Loop North, Santa
Monica, Ca 90405 by Phone: 310-396-9600 by Fax: 310-396-9635


CANADA: Toronto Nurse Lodges Suit Over Mishandled SARS Outbreak
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Toronto nurse who contracted severe acute respiratory syndrome
(SARS) initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status against
the city, provincial, and federal governments, asserting that
the public health authorities halted precautions too soon and
put political considerations above health and safety concerns,
the American Health Consultants reports.

The suit is seeking damages and compensation of $600 million
(Canadian) on behalf of about 200 people who became ill from
SARS after April 15, 2003.

Andrea Williams, a nurse at North York General Hospital, still
wanted to wear a mask when she was admitted on May 20 for a
surgical procedure, says her attorney, Douglas Elliott of Roy,
Elliott, Kim, O'Connor in Toronto. Yet when she emerged from
general anesthesia, Williams no longer had her mask and was not
given a new one, her suit asserts.

The next day, public health officials alerted Williams that she
had been exposed to SARS and needed to be tested. She developed
SARS, became "extremely ill," and was hospitalized for a couple
of weeks.

In fact, nurses at North York had raised an alarm about a
cluster of SARS-like symptoms in five members of a family. That
turned out to be the beginning of the second wave of SARS cases.

Elliott contends that the hospital was pressured by public
health authorities to relax infection control precautions
because the government wanted the World Health Organization to
withdraw a travel advisory to the area. Williams still suffers
from some impairment to her memory and concentration that she
says is related to her SARS infection and treatment, her
attorney told the American Health Consultants.

For more details, contact Douglas Elliott of Roy Elliott Kim
O'Connor LLP by Mail: 10 Bay Street, Suite 1400, Toronto, ON M5J
2R8 by Phone: 416-362-1989 or 1-866-877-0109 by Fax:
416-362-6204 by E-mail: cpp@reko.ca or visit their Web site:
http://www.reko.ca/


COI SOLUTIONS: SEC Issues Findings, Sanctions V. Stock Promoters
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission entered an Order Making
Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions Pursuant to Section
15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against Melvin L.
Levine and Michael T. Reiter. The Order finds that Levine and
Reiter, both stock promoters, had each pled guilty to one count
of conspiracy to commit wire, mail and securities fraud of a
ten-count indictment which alleged that they had conspired in a
scheme     involving the issuance of COI Solutions, Inc. stock
through a fraudulent Form S-8 offering. The indictment alleged
that Levine, among others, had agreed to sell these shares to an
offshore shell company that he controlled and owned, for a
nominal amount. The shell company would, in turn, sell the
shares to an undercover agent of the FBI, who was posing as a
representative of an offshore mutual fund for approximately $16
million. The indictment also alleged that Levine would receive
$2.4 million for his role in the scheme and that Reiter had also
agreed to help recruit securities brokers who would artificially
increase the market price of the COI stock by recommending and
selling shares of COI to their customers in exchange for bribes.

The Order also finds that Levine pled guilty to conspiracy to
commit wire and securities fraud to another indictment
concerning the manipulation of Rhino Ecosystems, Inc. stock. In
the Rhino indictment, Levine was charged with conspiring with
Rhino's officers in another scheme involving the issuance of
free trading stock through a fraudulent S-8 offering.

On September 15, Levine was sentenced to 37 months in prison and
two years of supervised release and Reiter is currently awaiting
sentencing. The Order bars Levine and Reiter from participating
in any offering of a penny stock. Levine and Reiter both
consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or
denying any of the findings contained therein.


eBAY INC.: Consumers File CA Suit Over Defective Billing System
---------------------------------------------------------------
Online auction company eBay, Inc. faces a class action filed in
California Supreme Court by two of its users, over the ongoing
problems with its new billing system that caused accounts to be
double-billed and money improperly withdrawn, out-law.com
reports.

eBay users Robert Cerreta and Nancy Spaulding filed the suit,
alleging that the online auction's new billing system, launched
February 16, was defective.  eBay users sign up to a standard
agreement, which requires them to pay for listing their goods on
the site for sale, with payment being deducted automatically
from their accounts, out-law.com reports.  News reports over the
last months revealed that some sellers have found discrepancies
in their accounts, including double-billing and overcharging.

eBay officially recognized the problem back in April, posting a
notice on its Announcements Board to reassure users that the
problem would be dealt with, and e-mailing affected users
individually.  The suit charged that "despite its initial
admission that it was double-billing customers as a result of
errors in its billing system, eBay began denying that customers
were adversely affected at all."

Ebay has made no comment on the lawsuit, out-law.com reports.


GAY MARRIAGES: ACLU Files MD Suit Seeking Right of Gays To Marry
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the
City of Baltimore, Maryland and four Maryland counties, seeking
the right of same-sex couples to get married, the Associated
Press reports.

According to Maryland law, marriage is specifically defined as
between a man and a woman.  In February, Attorney General Joseph
Curran sent a memo to state legislators and the clerks of court,
reminding them not to issue licenses to gay couples.

The suit, filed in Baltimore Circuit Court, was filed on behalf
of nine couples and a man whose partner recently died.  The
plaintiffs had sought marriage licenses and were denied, Ken
Choe of the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, based in New
York, told AP.

The ACLU has pending legal challenges in Massachusetts, Oregon,
New York, Washington state, California and Nebraska.  Other
groups have filed lawsuits in New Jersey and Florida to legalize
gay marriage.


HOME DEPOT: Charlip Law Lodges Unpaid Overtime Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Charlip Law Group of Hollywood initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status against Home Depot on behalf of a former
employee claiming that the Company has not properly paid
overtime to its employees, the Palm Beach Post Online reports.

Gonzalo Flores, a former account representative for the Atlanta-
based home improvement chain, filed the suit in U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami.

The suit claims Home Depot violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
by not paying employees for overtime they logged while traveling
between different Home Depot stores for work.

The Charlip Law Group is asking the court to make the case a
class action to include Home Depot employees nationwide seeking
unpaid overtime.

For more details, contact CHARLIP LAW GROUP, LC by Mail:
Harrison Executive Centre, 1930 Harrison Street, Suite 208,
Hollywood, FL 33020 by Phone: (954) 921-2131 by Fax:
(954) 921-2191 by E-mail: dcharlip@charliplawgroup.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.charliplawgroup.com/


HOMELAND SECURITY: Cooley Godward Files CA Lawsuit V. LPR Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cooley Godward LLP and the Lawyers' Committee
for Civil Rights under Law of Texas (Texas Lawyers' Committee)
initiated a national class-action lawsuit against Attorney
General John Ashcroft and Secretary Tom Ridge, head of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), for denying proof of
status to lawful permanent residents.

The lawsuit, Santillan et al. v. Ashcroft et al., was filed in
federal district court in San Francisco.

The class action suit charges that DHS offices nationwide are
consistently rejecting lawful permanent residents' requests for
documentation of their LPR status. "Let's be clear: the people
filing this lawsuit are here legally," said John C. Dwyer, a
partner of Cooley Godward, which is handling the suit on a pro
bono basis. "These plaintiffs have been granted lawful permanent
resident status by federal immigration judges; they have the
right to be here. But, because of the illegal conduct of the
government, they have been deprived of all the benefits that
flow from their status including, most importantly, the right to
work."

One of the plaintiffs, Flora R. of Merced, California explained,
"I was about to be promoted at work, but I lost my job and
health benefits because I had no proof that I was authorized to
work." Without their "green cards" or other documentation which
proves their LPR status to employers and authorities, these
legal residents are often prevented from securing employment,
enrolling in school and traveling to their native countries to
visit relatives including young children and ailing, elderly
parents. They also live in fear of not being able to demonstrate
that they are lawfully in the U.S. if stopped and questioned by
state or federal officials. The problem exists throughout the
United States and is not limited to immigrants from particular
countries or ethnic groups.

In removal proceedings, immigrants can apply for LPR status if
they meet certain criteria. Immigrants seeking LPR status
provide all necessary documentation to an Immigration Judge, who
then reviews the application for LPR status and considers all
the evidence. If the Immigration Judge approves the application,
and the government does not appeal, the order granting LPR
status becomes final.

"These immigrants have complied with all of the requirements for
obtaining legal residency, including background checks. DHS must
now give these legal residents proof of their lawful status so
that they can work, go to school and travel abroad," said Javier
N. Maldonado, Executive Director of the Texas Lawyers'
Committee. "Without their green cards, their hard-won freedoms
are meaningless."

The plaintiffs are asking the federal court to certify a
nationwide class, declare certain DHS practices unlawful,
prohibit DHS from denying the plaintiffs documentation of LPR
status, and order the agency to issue proof of LPR status to the
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' attorneys are asking that DHS provide
temporary documentation during the long wait for processing. The
lawsuit seeks relief for all persons who were or will be granted
LPR status in U.S. immigration courts.

"How long do these lawful permanent residents have to wait to
lawfully support their families and contribute to society? Six
months, a year, two?" asked Ricardo Cedillo, Board President of
the Texas Lawyer's Committee. "It is about time DHS stops
treating every immigrant like a potential terrorist and allows
these legal immigrants to exercise their rights."

Profiles of several of the plaintiffs in the case follow:

     (1) Flora R. of Merced, CA is a native of Mexico and has
         lived in the U.S. for almost 20 years. In May 2003, she
         was granted LPR status on the basis that she and her
         mother were victims of abuse by her father. But to date
         Flora R. still has not received proof of that status.
         Flora R. lost her job with a major retail chain, where
         she was about to be promoted, because she could not
         prove she was authorized to work.

     (2) Marcos S. of Covina, CA is a native of Honduras. In
         December 2003, he was granted LPR status on the basis
         that he was an orphan in need of long-term foster care.
         But to date Marcos S. has not received proof of that
         status. As a result, Marcos S. cannot enroll in a
         community college program to obtain his high school
         diploma, nor can he work to support himself.

     (3) Ziber I. of Wisconsin Rapids, WI is a native of
         Macedonia. Ziber I. was granted LPR status on the basis
         of his marriage to a U.S. citizen. Ziber I. would like
         to travel to Macedonia to see his ten-year-old daughter
         and his mother, who is elderly and very ill. He has not
         seen his mother or daughter in eight years. Yet without
         proof of legal resident status, he is concerned that he
         may not be able to leave and re-enter the United
         States.

     (4) Zoila L. of Miami, FL is a native of Guatemala. In
         October 2003 Zoila L. was granted LPR status under the
         Nicaraguan Adjustment and Central American Relief Act.
         She has not received any documentation of her LPR
         status and as a result has not been able to renew her
         driver's license which she needs to drive to work, take
         her children to school and attend English classes.

For more details, contact Landis Babcock of Cooley Godward LLP
by Phone: 415-693-2634 by E-mail: lbabcock@cooley.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.cooley.com/LPROR Martin Acevedo by
Phone: 210-277-1603 x306 or by E-mail:
macevedo@txlawyerscommittee.org


ISRAEL: Matav-Cable Files Appeal To Overturn Tel-Aviv Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matav-Cable Systems Media Ltd. (Nasdaq:MATV), a leading Israeli
provider of digital cable television services, filed an appeal
in the Israeli Supreme Court on July 5, 2004, seeking to
overturn the judgment issued by the Tel-Aviv District Court in
May 2004 denying the plaintiffs' motion for certification of a
class action against the three Israeli cable companies
concerning the content of sport channels.

The appeal was filed against Matav and Golden Channels & Co.
Matav intends to defend against the appeal.

On December 4, 2002, Matav issued a press release regarding the
original motion for certification a class action, which was
filed by seven Israeli residents who requested recognition of
their action as representing 1,050,000 subscribers of all three
cable companies. On May 30, 2004, Matav issued a press release
regarding the District Court's denial of the motion, which is
also described in Matav's Annual Report on Form 20-F on file
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Matav is one of Israel's three cable television providers,
serving roughly 25 percent of the population. Matav's
investments include approximately 5.3 percent of Partner
Communications Ltd., a GSM mobile phone company, and 10 percent
of Barak I.T.C. (1995), one of the three international
telephony-service providers in Israel.

For more details, contact Ori Gur-Arieh, Counsel Matav Cable
Systems by Phone: +972-9-860-2261 OR Ayelet Shaked Shiloni of
Integrated IR by Phone: +1-866-447-8633 (United States) /
+972-3-635-6790 (Israel) or by E-Mail: ayelet@integratedir.com


JOSE ZOLLINO: SEC Issues Administrative Proceedings V. Adviser
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(f) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Order) against Jose P. Zollino
(Zollino).

In the Order, the Division of Enforcement alleges that on Jan.
7, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Texas entered a judgment against Zollino permanently enjoining
him from future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and aiding and abetting violations of Sections
206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act (SEC v. Inverworld, Inc.,
et al., Civil Action Number SA-99-CV-0822 W.D. Tex.). The
Commission's complaint alleged that since Jan. 1, 1997,
InverWorld, at the direction of Zollino, managed approximately
$433 million on behalf of at least 1,000 Mexican and other Latin
American investors. Contrary to representations that client
funds would be primarily invested in safe, secure investments,
InverWorld instead recommended and/or invested a substantial
portion of client funds in extremely risky and undisclosed
investments. In addition, InverWorld grossly misrepresented the
true value of client investments in monthly account statements.
Further, InverWorld created a complex web of affiliated offshore
entities, such as IWG Services, Ltd. and IG Services, Ltd., to
disguise the true nature of InverWorld's investment activities.

The Division of Enforcement further alleges that on May 15,
2002, Zollino pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud in
violation of 18 U.S.C. 371 and conspiracy to launder monetary
instruments in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1956 (U.S. v. Zollino,
Criminal Action Number SA-01-CR-180 W.D. Tex.). The object of
the conspiracy was to commit securities fraud, among other
things. Zollino's plea agreement arose out of his involvement in
the fraudulent activities of InverWorld. On Oct. 9, 2002, the
court sentenced Zollino to 144 months imprisonment and ordered
him to pay criminal restitution of $341,787,496. Zollino is
currently incarcerated at Forrest City Federal Correctional
Facility in Forrest City, Arkansas.

A hearing before an administrative law judge will be scheduled
to determine whether the allegations in the order are true, to
provide the Respondent an opportunity to dispute these
allegations, and to determine what remedial action, if any, is
appropriate in the public interest. The Order directed the
Administrative Law Judge to issue an initial decision within 210
days from the date of service of the Order.


KEY ENERGY: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in W.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy Services, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from May 29,2003 to June 4,2004.

The suits allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  More specifically, the suits allege 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 on 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.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court in the
Western District of Texas, under docket number EP04-CA-0227.
The plaintiff law firms are:

     (1) Charles J. Piven, Mail: World Trade Center-
         Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD,
         21202, Phone: 410-332-0030 Fax: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), Mail:
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY,
         10119, Phone: 212-594-5300 by Fax: 212-868-1229 by E-
         mail: info@milbergweiss.com;

     (3) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Mail: 330 Main Street, Hartford,
         CT, 06106, Phone: 800-797-5499 by Fax: 860-493-6290, E-
         mail: sn06106@AOL.com;

     (4) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706 by Fax:
         610-667-7056 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (5) Wolf Popper, LLP, Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY,
         10022-6689 Ave Phone: 877-370-7703, Fax: 212-486-2093,
         by E-mail: IRRep@wolfpopper.com;

     (6) Geller Rudman, PLLC, Mail: 197 South Federal Highway,
         Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000,
         Fax: 888-262-3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Court Finalizes $1.1B Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
California Superior Court Judge Paul H. Alvarado has granted
final approval to the $1.1 billion settlement of the California
Microsoft antitrust case, concluding that the dollar amount of
the agreement "constitutes fair, reasonable and adequate
compensation to the Class."

Judge Alvarado's decision states the California settlement is
more favorable than settlements reached in any other states.
"The amount of the settlement benefits available in California
on a per license basis far exceeds the amount available to class
members in other settling states, often by a factor of five or
six times," Alvarado ruled.

More than 14 million California consumers and businesses are
eligible to collect large refunds on past purchases of Microsoft
operating systems and applications software.

In his 31-page order, Judge Alvarado also dismissed all of the
objections raised to the settlement, which was announced in
2003. Calling the antitrust litigation brought by Townsend and
Townsend and Crew on behalf of 14 million California consumers
"an unprecedented case in many ways," Judge Alvarado stated that
the Court was presented with "daunting legal issues and damage
issues." He also noted that:

     (1) "There were great risks that were incurred by
         plaintiffs in this litigation."

     (2) "The settlement was done for the benefit of the Class
         and will benefit the Class.

     (3) "The settlement was achieved as a result of a
         tremendous effort by both parties."

     (4) "Both parties engaged in a great amount of law and
         motion practice, and made a tremendous effort to
         thoroughly prepare for trial before agreeing upon the
         terms of the settlement."

San Francisco attorney Richard Grossman, whose firm Townsend and
Townsend and Crew was the lead partner in the class action case
against Microsoft, hailed the Superior Court's ruling and urged
class members to continue filing their claims. "It's easy to
fill out a simple claim form and mail it to get their share,"
Grossman said. "California consumers and companies doing
business in the state are realizing the significant benefits
achieved under this settlement as we have received more than
600,000 claims so far with thousands more pouring in from across
the state every week," Grossman added.

The $1.1 billion settlement averages refunds of more than 22
percent of the money that businesses and consumers spent on key
Microsoft products during a seven-year period. Those eligible
for the refund include consumers and businesses that purchased
Microsoft operating systems or specified applications software
either pre-installed on a computer or bought separately between
February 18, 1995 and December 15, 2001 for use in California.

For more details, contact Richard Grossman of Townsend and
Townsend and Crew LLP by Mail: Two Embarcadero Center, Eighth
Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 by Phone: 415-273-7580 by E-mail:
rlgrossman@townsend.com or visit the settlement Web site:
http://www.microsoftcalsettlement.comor call 1-800-960-5660.


MORGAN STANLEY: Start of Sexual Harassment Trial Moved to Friday
----------------------------------------------------------------
The historic trial of the sexual harassment suit against Morgan
Stanley has been delayed, as United States District Judge
Richard Berman postponed the start of proceedings to Friday
afternoon, Reuters reports.

The suit, filed on September 10,2001, alleges that the brokerage
denied women promotions, allowed sexual groping, office strip
shows and other forms of sexual harassment.  The suit, filed on
behalf of more than 300 women who have worked in the firm's
institutional equities division since 1995, focuses on salary
and promotion issues, an earlier Class Action Reporter (July
8,2004) reports.

Jury selection was slated to begin on Wednesday, but Judge
Berman postponed it, saying he was taking the time to review
objections to expert witnesses whom the parties wanted to
testify at the trial.

The firm could face tens of millions of dollars in damages if
found liable.  The trial is expected to last about three weeks.
The Company has denied wrongdoing and says it is committed to
providing a bias-free workplace.


MSI: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit Over Defective Motherboards
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motherboard maker MSI faces a class action filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Court in California, alleging the Company
failed to alert users to faults that could stop computers from
operating properly, the Inquirer reports.

Electronic Connections Corporation and another 100 unknown "Jane
and John Does" filed the suit, charging the Company with making
misrepresentations and concealing material information in the
marketing, advertising and sales of motherboards, according to
the court submission seen by the Inquirer.  The Company
allegedly sold motherboards with defective components and,
though faced with numerous complaints "failed and refused to
warn consumers about the defects inherent in its motherboards."


NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: Six New Uninsured Patient Lawsuits Lodged
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uninsured patient plaintiffs filed six new class actions against
nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals in Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, New Jersey, and Oklahoma, namely:

     (1) a suit v. Lee Memorial Health Systems, filed in the
         United States District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida, Ft. Myers Division, by Law offices of Archie
         Lamb, LLC and Carlton & Carlton, Attorneys at Law;

     (2) a suit v. Florida Hospital Healthcare System, Inc.,
         d/b/a Florida Hospital and Adventist Health Systems,
         filed in the United States District Court for the
         Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division by Law
         offices of Archie Lamb, LLC and Carlton & Carlton,
         Attorneys at Law;

     (3) a suit v. The Medical College of Georgia, filed in the
         United States District Court for the Southern District
         of Georgia, in Augusta, Georgia, by Cathy & Strain,
         Vroon & Crongeyer, LLP and Barrett Law Office;

     (4) a suit v. St. Dominic Health Services, Inc., St.
         Dominic-Jackson Memorial Hospital, filed in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Mississippi, Jackson Division by The Scruggs Law Firm,
         P.A., Barrett Law Office, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
         Bernstein, LLP, David L. Merideth, M.D., J.D., and
         Sonny Merideth, Esq.;

     (5) a suit v. Saint Barnabas of Livingston, New Jersey,
         filed in the United States District Court for the
         District of New Jersey in Newark by Bernstein, Liebhard
         & Lifshitz, LLP; and

     (6) a suit v. Integris Health Systems, Inc., filed in the
         United States District Court for the Western District
         of Oklahoma by Law offices of Archie Lamb LLC.

Each of the lawsuits charges the respective defendant nonprofit
hospital systems and hospitals with victimizing the uninsured
plaintiff patients by failing to fulfill their obligations to
provide government required charity care in return for
substantial tax exemptions.

The lawsuits charge the defendants with requiring their
uninsured patients to pay unfair and unreasonable health care
prices that are far in excess of the discounted amounts accepted
by these same defendants from their insured patients.

With the filings of today's litigations, twenty-seven uninsured
patient class action lawsuits now have been brought against
defendant nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals in fifteen
states across the country. These defendant nonprofit hospital
systems control approximately 250 hospitals in aggregate.

It is anticipated that, over the course of the litigations filed
today, it will be revealed that the six defendant nonprofit
hospital systems and hospitals have for years spent only a small
percentage of their sizeable revenues on charity care for the
uninsured while reaping enormous cash windfalls from their tax
exempt status. The litigations make clear that, while the
defendants have long track records of providing significant
discounts for healthcare to patients who either are privately
insured or use third party payors such as Medicare and Medicaid,
they charge their uninsured patients gross or "sticker" price.

Consequently, the only patients who are required by the
defendants to pay the full excessive healthcare costs are the
uninsured, the patient group that can least afford such costs.
Furthermore, the defendants often engage in predatory and
harassing collection tactics to force payment from the numerous
uninsured patients unable to pay these "sticker" prices, often
hounding the patients for years and, in numerous instances,
forcing personal bankruptcies.

Despite their misconduct, the defendants along with the other
twenty-one nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals previously
sued since June 17 and their trade organization, the American
Hospital Association ("AHA"), are engaged in an ongoing attempt
to mislead the public and governmental authorities with a
campaign of misinformation and misleading financial data
regarding their financial strength, financial needs, and their
use of financial resources.

According to the 2003 annual report issued by Adventist Health
System in Winter Park, Florida, the Adventist system generated a
profit of over $203 million in 2003, and holds cash and
investments in excess of $1.7 billion. Both the profits and cash
and investments of the Winter Park system have increased
considerably over the three-year period covered by the report
published by Adventist.

In some cases, large investment losses have obscured the fact
that the hospital itself is operating at a profit. St. Dominic
Health of Jackson, MS reported investment losses of almost $31.3
million in 2002, while the hospital itself reported a profit of
over $7.2 million in the same period, according to IRS filings.
St. Dominic reported over $187 million in total cash and
investments at the end of 2002, according to returns filed with
the IRS.

In New Jersey, Saint Barnabas was cited as operating four of the
ten most expensive hospitals in the state of New Jersey,
according to a 2003 report published by the Institute for Health
& Socio-Economic Policy. The hospitals operated by Saint
Barnabas ranked 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 7th most expensive in the
state, according to the study.

Named as a conspirator in the litigations filed today, as well
as in the other litigations filed against nonprofit hospital
systems and hospitals since June 17 is the AHA.

For more details, contact Richard Scruggs, The Scruggs Law Firm,
P.A. by Phone: (662) 281-1212 or visit the Website:
http://www.nfplitigation.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Law Firm Probes For Possible ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The New York law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP commenced an
investigation against Nortel Networks (NYSE:NT) for violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)
in relation to its handling of investments in the Company's
employee retirement benefit plan.

In particular, the investigation focuses on whether the Company
and certain Plan administrators breached their fiduciary duties
by negligently misrepresenting and negligently failing to
disclose material facts to the Plan and the Plan participants in
connection with the management of the Plan's assets and
negligently permitting the Plan to purchase and hold Nortel
stock when it was imprudent to do so.

The material facts being investigated include, but are not
limited to the fact that, in April of 2003, Nortel advised
investors that it would be restating its financial results for
2000, 2001 and 2002 and the first and second quarters of 2003.
Then, after reporting solid fourth quarter results that far
surpassed analysts' expectations, the Company shocked investors
by announcing that it would be restating its financial results
yet again, this time for the just-reported fourth quarter of
2003 as well.

Subsequently, in a clear indication of the severity of the
Company's problems, the Company announced that it would be
placing defendants its CFO, Douglas Beatty, and controller,
Michael Gollogly, on paid leave of absence, pending the
completion of the Company's independent review being undertaken
by its audit committee. Following this announcement, shares of
Nortel common stock fell $1.19 per share, or 18.5%, to close at
$5.24 per share on extremely high trading volume.

In April 2004, the Company fired Beatty, Gollogly and its CEO,
Frank Dunn and disclosed that its previously announced
restatement would be worse than earlier planned. In addition,
the Company disclosed that its financial results for Q1 2004
would be indefinitely delayed. On this news, Nortel shares
plunged to below $4.00 per share. Subsequently, a number of
class actions were filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Company as well as
Dunn, Beatty and Gollogly alleging violations Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton of Wechsler Harwood
LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022
by Phone: (877) 935-7400, Ext. 286 (Toll Free) or by E-mail:
jmn@whesq.com.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Shareholders File Stock Lawsuits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between June 11, 2003 and June 8, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges OmniVision, Shaw Hong, H. Gene McCowan,
and John T. Rossi with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint alleges that defendants, during the
Class Period, issued a series of material misrepresentations to
the market concerning the Company's financial condition thereby
artificially inflating the price of OmniVision's common 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 knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company was losing customers to larger
         rivals such as Micron Technologies, Inc., Texas
         Instruments Inc., and National Semiconductor
         Corporation;

     (2) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded that
         its surging growth was hitting a plateau, due to the
         decline in the customer base;

     (3) that the defendants, in order to mask the decline in
         growth, manipulated the Company's financial results
         through improper revenue recognition, which was in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;
         and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated and inaccurate at all relevant
         times.

On June 9, 2004, OmniVision announced, before the market opened,
that it had rescheduled the release of its fiscal 2004 fourth-
quarter and year-end results to June 23, 2004, after the close
of the market, from the previously announced date of June 9,
2004. Additionally, OmniVision announced that it was considering
the restatement of financial results for certain quarters of
fiscal 2004 and, possibly, fiscal 2003. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of OmniVision fell $7.84 per share or 30.78
percent on June 9, 2004, to close at $17.63 per share, on
unusually high volume.

The suits are filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs' law firms are:

     (1) Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP, Mail: 601 California
         Street - Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone:
         415-981-4800;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP (San Francisco),
         Mail: 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
         94111, Phone: 415-288-4545, Fax: 415-288-4534, E-mail:
         info@lcsr.com;

     (3) Geller Rudman, PLLC, Mail: 197 South Federal Highway,
         Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000,
         Fax: 888-262-3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com


PACIFICORP: Utah Regulators Reject Class Suit Over Power Outages
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Utah Public Service Commission rejected a bid to file a
class action against PacifiCorp, over last December's massive
power outages, following a Christmas storm that dumped nearly
two feet of snow in the valleys, deseretnews.com reports.

In a 300-page Company report filed in May, Company officials
said that the massive snowstorm, which affected roughly 190,000
PacifiCorp customers along the Wasatch Front, was one of the
worst to hit the state in the past 75 years.  They added that
many of the resulting outages were caused by tree limbs falling
on power lines.  Combined with other failures, including the
breakdown of the company's automated outage management system,
about a third of PacifiCorp's Utah customers lost their
electricity, some for up to five days.

Due to the size of the storm, PacifiCorp officials filed to have
it classified by the commission as a "major event."  Such a
classification would exempt the utility from making payments to
customers who experienced an extended outage.  The Company did
grant bill credits of more than $1.8 million to 13,871 customers
who faced outages longer than 48 hours as a result of the
December storm.

Georgia B. Peterson, Janet B. Ward, William Van Cleaf and David
Hiller filed the suit seeking statutory penalties on Utah Power
parent company PacifiCorp of $40 million to $160 million, or
about $500 to $2,000 for each of the 80,000 customers who
experienced outages of more than 24 hours.

The Commission rejected the class-action bid, saying it was not
convinced that a class-action designation was warranted or
permitted.  "As to the individual customers' request that we
order PacifiCorp to pay monetary awards as compensation for
damages suffered . we conclude that the individual customers
have failed to provide an adequate legal basis upon which such
relief is available from the commission," Tuesday's order said,
the Deseret News reports.

The commission rejected a part of the petition that raised
issues unrelated to the 2003 power outages, such as PacifiCorp's
management of coal assets and management and disposition of
land.  However, the order said petitioners could raise those
issues with the state's Division of Public Utilities.

"The division has statutory power to conduct its own
investigations or studies upon complaint, . and we believe that
the division will objectively consider the claims," the
commission order said.  "Should the division conclude that
future commission action is warranted, we trust that the
division will bring its recommendation to the commission."

Lawyer for the plaintiffs David Irvine told Deseret News that he
had not yet read the order.  "We'll take a look at it and
evaluate what we think our options are," he said.  "We have a
number of options that we can pick from at this point, and I
doubt that this is the end of the matter."

Utah Power spokesman David Eskelsen told the Deseret News that
the company thinks the commission's order is "appropriate."  "We
look forward to resolving the remainder of these issues,
specifically on what happened during the storm, as opposed to
the other issues that were brought forward," he said.


PINNACLE BUSINESS: SEC Orders Revocation Registered Securities
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission revoked the registration
of the securities of Pinnacle Business Management, Inc. (d/b/a
Serac Holdings, Inc.). The Order Instituting Public Proceedings,
Making Findings, and Revoking Registration of Securities
Pursuant to Section 12(j) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Order) was issued on July 6, 2004. Pinnacle consented to the
entry of the Order revoking its securities registration without
admitting or denying the facts or allegations in the
Commission's Order.

The Order finds that Pinnacle failed to comply with Section
13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13, thereunder
because it has not filed an Annual Report on Form 10-K since
April 17, 2001, when it filed its annual report for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2000. Pinnacle also has not filed quarterly
reports on Form 10-Q for any fiscal period subsequent to the
quarter ended June 30, 2001. In addition, in a Form 8-K filed
with the Commission on Aug. 4, 2003, Pinnacle announced that two
officers had resigned and that it had one remaining officer and
director. This Form 8-K further disclosed that the company had
no assets, no operating business and no sources of revenue.

Previously, on May 8, 2002, the Commission filed a civil action
in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, alleging that on April 2, 2002, Pinnacle issued
a false and misleading press release regarding a proposed spin-
off of a subsidiary. SEC v. Pinnacle Business Management, Inc.,
et al., 8:02-CV-822-T-17  (M.D. Fla.), Litigation Rel. No.
17507. The same day, the Commission also suspended trading in
Pinnacle's securities. Exchange Act Rel. No. 34-45890. On Dec.
15, 2003, the Court for the Middle District of Florida entered
an order permanently enjoining Pinnacle and two company
officials from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws. Pinnacle and the company officials consented to
the injunctions without admitting or denying the allegations in
the Commission's complaint (LR-18506).

The Commission cautions broker dealers, shareholders, and
prospective purchasers that they should carefully consider the
foregoing information along with all other currently available
information and any information subsequently issued by the
company.  Further, brokers and dealers should be alert to the
fact that, Section 12(j) provides, in pertinent part: No member
of a national securities exchange, broker, or dealer shall make
use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate
commerce to effect any transaction in, or to induce the purchase
or sale of, any security the registration of which has been and
is suspended or revoked.


POZEN INC.: Shareholder Faces Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pozen, Inc. faces several securities class action, alleging that
it violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

According to the complaint, POZEN is a pharmaceutical
development company focused on developing a portfolio of drugs
for the global migraine market.  The Company's lead product
candidates included MT 100, a proprietary formulation containing
metoclopramide hydrochloride and naproxen sodium; MT 300, a
proprietary formulation of dihydroergotamine mesylate in a pre-
filled syringe; and MT 400, which is being developed as a co-
active acute migraine therapy.

The complaint charges the Company with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning its migraine drugs MT 100 and
MT 300.  More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

     (1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that its drugs MT 100 and MT 300 were unsafe and
         ineffective;

     (2) that despite knowing these facts, the Company entered
         into various licensing agreements in order to book
         revenues and achieve positive cash flows;

     (3) that as a result of booking revenues and achieving
         positive cash flows, the defendants were able to
         manipulate the Company's stock price in order to attain
         large bonuses, which were tied to the Company's stock
         price, not the success of the Company's product
         pipeline;

     (4) with respect to the drug MT 300, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that the drug resulted
         in higher incidences of nausea and vomiting as compared
         to placebo in two Phase III trials and that the drug
         failed to show statistical superiority as compared with
         placebo with regard to controlling symptoms of
         migraines;

     (5) with respect to the drug MT 100, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that MT 100's chances
         of being approved by the FDA were less than 50% because
         of concerns about several primary end points,
         particularly pain response to migraines at two hours,
         lack of data showing consistent two-hour pain response
         and symptom relief, and worries about the drug's
         carcinogenicity; and

     (6) that MT 100 failed to show superiority to a placebo as
         measured by a two-hour response and two-hour symptom
         migraine relief.

The complaint further alleges that the blow to the Company
occurred on October 20, 2003, when POZEN announced that it had
received a not-approvable letter from the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration ('FDA') related to its New Drug Application
('NDA') for MT 300. The letter was issued based on the FDA's
conclusion that while MT 300 achieved its primary end point, it
failed to achieve statistical significance versus placebo for
the relief at two hours of the secondary symptoms of migraine
(nausea, sensitivity to light, and sensitivity to sound). On
news of this, shares of POZEN fell $5.83 per share, or 32.8
percent, to close at $11.94 per share on unusually high trading
volume on October 20, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the final blow to the Company's
manipulative scheme occurred on June 1, 2004. Then, POZEN
announced that the FDA issued a not-approvable letter on Friday,
May 28, 2004 concerning the Company's NDA for MT 100 for the
acute treatment of migraine. In the FDA letter, the FDA cited
the apparent lack of superiority of MT 100 over naproxen for
sustained pain relief, which was the primary end point for the
two component studies. Additionally, for the first time the FDA
raised an approvability issue concerning the risk of tardive
dyskinesia ('TD') presented by the use of metoclopramide, one of
the components of MT 100. In this regard, the FDA stated in
their letter, 'given the number of patients exposed to MT 100
for at least one year in your database (about 300), the absence
of any detected cases is consistent with a true rate of TD of
about 1%, an unacceptably high risk in the absence of any
demonstrated advantage of the product.' Further, the FDA
mentioned that based on animal studies, there may be a potential
risk of carcinogenicity, presumably due to metoclopramide. News
of this shocked the market. Shares of POZEN fell $3.69 per
share, or 37.2 percent, to close at $6.23 per share on unusually
high volume.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock from July 31,2003 to May 28,2004.
The plaintiffs' law firms are:

     (i) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Mail: 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39,
         Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-668-7987, Fax: 610-
         660-0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

    (ii) Charles J. Piven, Mail: World Trade Center-
         Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD,
         21202, Phone: 410-332-0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

   (iii) Paskowitz & Associates, Phone: 800-705-9529, E-mail:
         classattorney@aol.com;

    (iv) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax:
         610-667-7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (v) Geller Rudman, PLLC, Mail: 197 South Federal Highway,
         Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561-750-3000,
         Fax: 888-262-3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com


ROYAL DUTCH: NJ Plaintiffs Given 30 Days To Submit Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Litigation in the leading class action lawsuit against Royal
Dutch/Shell is expected to resume after more than two months'
delay, the UK Sunday Business reports.

Judge John Bissel, who is adjudicating the case for the District
Court of New Jersey, sent his formal opinion and order on the
case to New York's Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, giving the
firm 30 days to submit its allegations. The law firm is
representing the Pennsylvania state pension fund, which has been
appointed lead plaintiff in the case.

"This will be the definitive instrument. This is going to give
you the roadmap of the case," Keith Fleischman, a partner at the
firm, told the Sunday Business. "We have found out a whole bunch
of new information. The focus of our investigation, what we feel
are the most important aspects of the case, will be in the
amended complaint."

Bissel had been expected to give the firm his final order on 14
May, but has been delayed by other cases. The plaintiffs are
claiming upwards of $150 million (E123 million) in losses from
the decline in Shell shares due to the reserves downgrade in
January.

The order, seen by the Sunday Business, accuses Shell of
"issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the investing public between 1999 and 2004".

Of present Shell executives, it names boss Jeroen van der Veer,
exploration head Malcolm Brinded, and its former chief financial
officer Judy Boynton, who is still employed in an undisclosed
capacity at the firm.

It also names former executives Maarten van den Bergh, Harry
Roels, Paul Skinner, Mark Moody-Stuart and Phil Watts, but not,
significantly, former exploration chief Walter van de Wijver,
who was forced to resign after it emerged he had fought Watts
over his wish to disclose the reserves problems, but had failed
to alert the board.

Last month, a second-class action suit was launched at the New
Jersey state court, which reportedly also seeks to force Shell
executives to return bonuses and severance payments.


TEXAS: Atty. General Inks Pact With Firms Over Do-Not-Call Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott secured settlements with
eight companies that violated the "Texas No-Call" law
prohibiting telemarketing calls to consumers who signed up to
avoid being disturbed by sales pitches and calls about business
services.

"The Attorney General and the Public Utility Commission of Texas
committed resources to enforcing this law protecting consumers
from nuisance telephone calls.  Our lawsuits and resulting
settlements today have sent a strong message," said Attorney
General Abbott.  "We will continue to take legal action against
those who ignore this important consumer law."

"Texans are getting fewer unwanted telemarketing calls because
of the No-Call list," said Commissioner Julie Parsley of the
Public Utility Commission.  "The PUC welcomes the strong support
of the Attorney General as we work together to enforce this
effective law."

The companies settling with the Attorney General, with civil
penalties and attorneys' fees to be paid totaling $59,250,
include:

     (1) ABIO Financial Group Inc. of Dallas, (financial
         planning), $2,500, $5,000;

     (2) Auto Finance 4 Pre-Owned Cars of Stafford, $1,500,
         $2,000;

     (3) Joe Cookston & Sons Inc. of Garland, (home siding),
         $2,000, $6,000;

     (3) Joseph C. Sparks of Katy, (dba Area Wide Auto Glass),
         $1,000, $1,000;

     (4) Kiwi Services Inc. of Fort Worth,, (carpet cleaning),
         $2,000, $7,500;

     (5) Life Corp. of Arlington, (dating service), $6,000,
         $7,000;

     (6) Longhorn Yacht Club Inc. of Irving, (time share),
         $5,000 (attorneys' fees only);

     (7) Prosource Roofing of Dallas, Ltd., $7,250, $3,500

In addition, permanent injunctions prohibit the companies from
making telemarketing calls to consumers whose names appear on
either the Texas or federal No-Call lists.  The companies must
maintain up-to-date lists for reference.  When requested,
company representatives must also freely give consumers,
regulatory and consumer protection officials, law enforcement
officers or others the names, addresses and phone numbers of
their businesses.

Another seven defendants remain in litigation, and the Attorney
General's Consumer Protection Division continues to investigate
other companies for Texas No-Call violations.

Consumers began signing up for the Texas No-Call registry in
January 2002 as a first step toward stopping unwanted
telemarketing calls to their homes. During the 2003 legislative
session, changes to the law made it possible for consumers to
add their cell phone numbers to this list.

Rep. Burt R. Solomons (R-Carrollton), who authored the original
legislation, said, "I am extremely pleased to see that the No-
Call law is working as intended to protect consumers, and that
Attorney General Abbott is vigorously committed to enforcing the
penalties for violations."

Texans can sign up residential phone numbers for the no-call
list for $2.25 and is effective for three years.  More
information is available by going online at www.texasnocall.com
or by calling 1-866-896-6225 (1-866-TXNOCAL).

The first No-Call list of consumers became mandatory for
telemarketers to purchase in April 2002. Beginning in July 2002,
they were prohibited from calling consumers whose names appeared
on the lists.


TRICO MARINE: Shareholders Commence Securities Suit in E.D. LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trico Marine Services, Inc. faces a securities class action,
alleging that the Company issued false and misleading
representations thereby causing Company shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels.

The lawsuit further alleges that Trico continuously informed
investors that, even though the Company was sustaining losses
each quarter, its future earnings prospects were favorable.  The
complaint further alleges that these favorable prospects were
touted even though the defendants were in possession of
information which showed that the Company's operations would
continue to experience losses and their core business was in an
area of declining revenues.  The action is pursuing remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana, and is styled "Weizman, et al. v.
Trico Marine Services, Inc., et al., case no 04-CV-1565."  The
suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's stock
from May 6,2003 to May 10,2004.  The plaintiffs law firm is
Federman & Sherwood, Mail: 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, e-mail:
wfederman@aol.com


UNITED STATES: Senate Action On Class Action Reform Bill Halted
---------------------------------------------------------------
Due to accusations of election-year politicking, Senate action
on the class action reform bill has been halted, AP Online
reports.

Action on the bill effectively stopped when Senate Majority
Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., put up barriers to all amendments
after he failed to reach agreement with Democrats on which ones
would be allowed.

The legislation would shift many class-action suits into federal
court in an effort to stop lawyers from seeking out state courts
that sometimes hand out huge damage awards. The plan has passed
the House in a different version and has the support of more
than 60 senators.

The bill is before the full Senate with the legislative season
already shortened by the upcoming political conventions and the
election. Also, lawmakers from both parties see the bill as one
of their last chances to get votes, in the form of amendments,
on their big issues.

Democrat Leader Sen. Tom Daschle of South Dakota, in his
dialogue with Sen. Frist, said that limiting amendments, both
those related and unrelated to the class-action issue, was "an
absolute guarantee it will never get passed."

Sen. Frist later announced the Senate would vote Friday on
proceeding with the bill, but several Democrats said he would
fail to achieve the 60-vote majority needed if he continued to
block amendments not related to the class-action issue.

Critics of the bill say moving cases into federal court would
make it difficult for people to exercise their right to sue over
corporate wrongdoing.

Supporters cite the phenomenon of venue shopping, where lawyers
steer class-action cases to state courts that have earned a
reputation for handing such large awards that defendants decide
to settle rather than risk a trial.

In some cases lawyers take in millions in fees while the class-
action members receive little more than coupons for future
purchases.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AFG and American Premier Fighting Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group Inc. and American Premier Underwriters,
Inc. are parties to litigation and receive claims asserting
alleged injuries and damages from asbestos and other hazardous
and toxic substances and workplace hazards and have established
loss accruals for such potential liabilities.  The ultimate loss
for these claims may vary materially from amounts currently
recorded as the conditions surrounding resolution of these
claims continue to change.

In addition to AFG's potential exposure for asbestos and
environmental claims, it is also subject to mass tort claims.
Mass tort losses have included lead, silica and various chemical
exposures.  In 2002 and 2001, AFG increased property and
casualty reserves relating to prior year's asbestos and
environmental claims by a total of $157,000,000.  As of December
31, 2003, the aggregate net reserves held by AFG's insurance
company subsidiaries for asbestos, environmental and mass tort
claims was $423,000,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ameron International Faces 18,998 Claimants
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of May 31, 2004, Ameron International Corp. was a defendant
in asbestos-related cases involving 18,998 claimants, compared
to 18,489 claimants as of February 29, 2004.  For the quarter
ended May 31, 2004, there were new claims involving 537
claimants, dismissals and/or settlements involving 28 claimants
and no judgments.  Net costs and expenses incurred by the
Company for the quarter ended May 31, 2004 in connection with
asbestos-related claims were about $115,000, and for the six
months ended May 31, 2004, net costs and expenses incurred were
less than $200,000.

The Company is one of numerous defendants in various asbestos-
related personal injury lawsuits.  These cases generally seek
unspecified damages for asbestos-related diseases based on
alleged exposure to products previously manufactured by the
Company and others, and at this time the Company is generally
not aware of the extent of injuries allegedly suffered by the
individuals or the facts supporting the claim that injuries were
caused by the Company's products.  Based upon the information
available to it, the Company is not in a position to evaluate
its potential exposure as a result of such claims.  Hence, no
amounts have been accrued for loss contingencies related to
these lawsuits.  The Company continues to defend all such
lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ArvinMeritor Subsidiary Faces 67,000 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
ArvinMeritor reported in a regulatory filing that its subsidiary
Maremont Corp. had around 67,000 and 63,000 pending asbestos-
related claims at March 31, 2004 and September 30, 2003,
respectively.  Although Maremont has been named in these cases,
in the cases where actual injury has been alleged very few
claimants have established that a Maremont product caused their
injuries.  The decline in the pending claims liability since
September 30, 2003 was due to a decline in the cost per
indemnity claim.  Billings to insurance companies for indemnity
and defense costs of resolved cases were $6,000,000 in the six
months ended March 31, 2004.

Maremont manufactured friction products containing asbestos from
1953 through 1977, when it sold its friction product business.
Arvin Industries Inc. acquired Maremont in 1986.

Maremont shared in the payments of defense and indemnity costs
of asbestos-related claims with other Center for Claims
Resolution (CCR) members.  The CCR handled the resolution and
processing of asbestos claims on behalf of its members until
February 1, 2001, when it was reorganized and discontinued
negotiating shared settlements.  There was $1,000,000 in
billings to insurance companies related to committed settlements
in the six months ended March 31, 2004.  Upon dissolution of the
CCR, Maremont began handling asbestos-related claims through its
own defense counsel and is committed to examining the merits of
each asbestos-related claim.  For purposes of establishing
liabilities for pending asbestos-related claims, Maremont
estimates its defense and indemnity costs based on the history
and nature of filed claims to date and Maremont's experience.
Maremont developed experience factors for indemnity and
litigation costs using data on actual experience in resolving
claims since the dissolution of the CCR and its assessment of
the nature of the claims.

Several former members of the CCR have filed for bankruptcy
protection, and these members have failed, or may fail, to pay
certain financial obligations with respect to settlements that
were reached while they were CCR members.  Maremont is subject
to claims for payment of a portion of these defaulted member
shares (shortfall).  In an effort to resolve the affected
settlements, Maremont has entered into negotiations with
plaintiffs' attorneys, and an estimate of Maremont's obligation
for the shortfall is included in the total asbestos-related
reserves.  In addition, Maremont and its insurers are engaged in
legal proceedings to determine whether existing insurance
coverage should reimburse any potential liability related to
this issue.  There were no payments by the company related to
shortfall and other in the six months ended March 31, 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Assurant Carries $36,000,000 Worth Of IBNR
---------------------------------------------------------------
Assurant Inc. has exposure to asbestos other general liability
claims arising from its participation in various reinsurance
pools from 1971 through 1983, which arose from a short duration
contract that it discontinued writing.  The Company carried case
reserves for these liabilities as recommended by the various
pool managers and bulk reserves incurred but not reported (IBNR)
of $37,000,000 (before reinsurance) and $36,000,000 (after
reinsurance) in the aggregate at December 31, 2003.  Any
estimation of these liabilities is subject to greater than
normal variation and uncertainty.  However, based on information
available, and after consideration of the reserves reflected in
the financial statements, Assurant believes that any changes in
reserve estimates for these claims are not reasonably likely to
be material.  Asbestos, environmental and other general
liability claim payment, net of reinsurance recovery, was
$2,900,000 for the year ended December 31, 2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chubb Notes Significant Amounts For Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Corp. reported that its loss reserves at March 31, 2004
and December 31, 2003 included significant amounts related to
asbestos claims.  The components of loss reserves were as
follows:

                                        March 31,   December 31,
                                           2004         2003
                                        ----------   ----------
                                             (in millions)
Gross loss reserves
  Total, per balance sheet .......      $   18,299   $   17,948
  Less:
Related to asbestos and toxic
  waste claims ...................           1,265        1,295

Reinsurance recoverable
  Total, per balance sheet .......      $    3,264   $    3,427
  Less:
Related to asbestos and toxic
  waste claims ...................              55           55

The loss reserves related to asbestos claims are significant
components of the Corporation's total loss reserves, but they
distort the growth trend in its loss reserves.  Adjusted to
exclude such loss reserves, Chubb's loss reserves, net of
reinsurance recoverable, increased by $556,000,000 during the
first quarter of 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cooper Has Insurance For Abex Obligations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cooper Industries Ltd. reported in a regulatory filing that to
the extent it is obligated to Pneumo-Abex Corp. for any
asbestos-related claims arising from the Abex product line,
Cooper has rights, confirmed by Pneumo, to significant insurance
for such claims.

With the assistance of independent advisors Bates White LLC in
the fourth quarter of 2001, Cooper completed an analysis of its
potential exposure for asbestos liabilities in the event
Federal-Mogul Corp. rejects the 1998 agreement in which Cooper
sold its discontinued Automotive Products business and the stock
of those subsidiaries to Federal-Mogul, including the Abex
product line obtained from Pneumo in 1994.  In conjunction with
the sale, Federal-Mogul indemnified Cooper for certain
liabilities of these subsidiary companies, including liabilities
related to the Abex product line and any potential liability
that Cooper may have to Pneumo pursuant to a 1994 Mutual
Guaranty Agreement between Cooper and Pneumo.

Based on Cooper's analysis of its contingent liability exposure
resulting from Federal-Mogul's bankruptcy, Cooper concluded that
an additional fourth-quarter 2001 discontinued operations
provision of $30,000,000 after-tax, or $.32 per share, was
appropriate to reflect the potential net impact of this issue.
The analysis included a review of the twenty-year history of
Abex Claims; the average indemnity payments for resolved claims;
the jurisdictions in which claims had been filed; Bates White
LLC data on the incidence of asbestos exposure and diseases in
various industries; existing insurance coverage including the
insurance recovered by Pneumo and Federal-Mogul for pre-
bankruptcy claims and the contractual indemnities.  Assumptions
were made regarding future claim filings and indemnity payments,
and, based on the advisor's data, the expected population of
persons exposed to asbestos in particular industries.  All of
this data was used to determine a reasonable expectation of
future claims, indemnity payments and insurance coverage.
Cooper is preserving its rights as a creditor for breach of
Federal-Mogul's indemnification to Cooper and its rights against
all Federal-Mogul subsidiaries.  Cooper intends to take all
actions to seek a resolution of the indemnification issues and
future handling of the Abex-related claims within the Federal-
Mogul bankruptcy proceedings.

Throughout 2003, Cooper worked towards resolution of the
indemnification issues and future handling of the Abex-related
claims within the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy proceedings.  This
included negotiations with the Representatives regarding
participation in Federal-Mogul's proposed 524(g) asbestos trust.
Based on the status of the recent negotiations in 2004, Cooper
concluded that it is probable that Federal-Mogul will reject the
1998 Agreement.  Cooper also concluded that the Representatives
would require any negotiated settlement through the Federal-
Mogul bankruptcy to be at the high end of the Bates White LLC
liability analysis and with substantially lower insurance
recovery assumptions and higher administrative costs.

During late February and early March 2004, Cooper reassessed the
accrual required based on the current status of the negotiations
with the Representatives and the liability and insurance
receivable that would be required to be recorded if this matter
is not settled within the Federal-Mogul bankruptcy.  Cooper
concluded that resolution within the Federal-Mogul proposed
524(g) asbestos trust would likely be within the range of the
liabilities, net of insurance recoveries, that Cooper would
accrue if this matter were not settled within the Federal-Mogul
bankruptcy.  Accordingly, Cooper recorded a $126,000,000 after-
tax discontinued operations charge, net of a $70,900,000 income
tax benefit, in the fourth quarter of 2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crown Holdings Accrues $236 Mil For Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004, Crown Holdings Inc.'s accrual for pending
and future asbestos-related claims was $236,000,000.  The
Company estimates that its probable and estimable asbestos
liability for pending and future asbestos-related claims would
range between $236,000,000 and $403,000,000.  The accrual
balance of $236,000,000 includes $133,000,000 for unasserted
claims and $21,000,000 for committed settlements that will be
paid over time.

Historically (1977-2003), Crown Cork estimates that around one-
quarter of all asbestos-related claims made against it have been
asserted by claimants who claim first exposure to asbestos after
1964.  However, because of Crown Cork's settlement experience to
date and the increased difficulty of establishing identification
of the subsidiary's insulation products as the cause of injury
by persons alleging first exposure to asbestos after 1964, the
Company has not included in its accrual and range of potential
liability any amounts for settlements by persons alleging first
exposure to asbestos after 1964.

Assumptions underlying the accrual and the range of potential
liability include that claims for exposure to asbestos that
occurred after the sale of the U.S. company's insulation
business in 1964 would not be entitled to settlement payouts and
that the Pennsylvania asbestos legislation and Texas tort reform
legislation described above are expected to have a highly
favorable impact on Crown Cork's ability to settle or defend
against asbestos-related claims in those states, and other
states where Pennsylvania law may apply.  The Company's accrual
includes estimates for probable costs for claims through the
year 2013.  The upper end of the Company's estimated range of
possible asbestos costs of $403,000,000 includes claims beyond
that date.

The Company reported that in April 2004, the State of
Mississippi enacted legislation that limits the asbestos-related
liabilities under Mississippi law of companies such as Crown
Cork & Seal Co. Inc. that allegedly incurred these liabilities
because they are successors by corporate merger to companies
that had been involved with asbestos.  The new Mississippi
legislation caps asbestos-related liabilities at the fair market
value of the predecessor's total gross assets adjusted for
inflation.  Crown Cork has paid significantly more for asbestos-
related claims than the total value of its predecessor's assets.
Crown Cork intends to integrate the legislation into its claims
defense strategy.  The Company cautions, however, that the
legislation may be challenged.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Subsidiaries Receive 8,400 New Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Subsidiaries of EnPro Industries Inc. (NYSE: NPO) received 8,400
new asbestos claims filings during the first quarter, down 16%
from the first quarter of last year, as new claims continued to
come in at lower rates.  Claims received in the quarter included
3,500 from a Mississippi lawsuit that was amended to add Garlock
Sealing Technologies as a defendant.
"The Mississippi claims, which were already in the legal system,
inflated new claims against our subsidiaries in the quarter.
Excluding them, new claims came in at about the same rate as in
each of the third and fourth quarters of 2003," said Mr. Ernie
Schaub, president and CEO of EnPro.  "These three quarters
suggest a rate that, while still large, is well below the lowest
number of new claims received in any year since 1994.  This is
certainly encouraging, and we hope indicative of a real decline
in the incidence of asbestos-related disease, consistent with
the expectations and predictions of the medical community."

Although total payments for asbestos-related claims declined
when compared to the first quarter of 2003, payments net of
insurance proceeds increased to $16,800,000 in the first quarter
of 2004, compared to $9,800,000 a year ago.  Net payments
increased because of delays in the collection of insurance,
pending the outcome of arbitration between the company and
certain insurance carriers over documentation requirements and
standards recently imposed by those carriers.  The company has
previously stated it expects to prevail in the dispute and
remains optimistic it will recover delinquent insurance proceeds
in the second half of the year.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT Enters Into Agreement With Ace Property
----------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Industries Inc. is involved in Pacific Employers Insurance
Company et al., v. ITT Industries, Inc., et al., Supreme Court,
County of New York, N.Y., Case No. 03600463.   The parties in
the case are seeking an appropriate allocation of responsibility
for the Company's historic asbestos liability exposure among its
insurers.  The action has been stayed to allow the parties to
negotiate an acceptable allocation arrangement.

In April 2004, the Company and Ace Property & Casualty Co.
entered into an agreement resolving both cases as they relate to
Ace Property & Casualty Co.  The Company will pursue similar
agreements with several of its other insurers.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Royal & Sun Review Prompts Reserves Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
In June 2003 Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance Group PLC
commissioned an independent review of its property and casualty
loss reserves by Tillinghast-Towers Perrin.  The loss reserve
review covered the Company's total property and casualty loss
reserves in the United Kingdom, the United States, Scandinavia,
Canada and Ireland as at March 31, 2003.  Included within this
scope were the Company's asbestos reserves in the U.K. and the
U.S.

In particular, Royal & Sun has exposure to asbestos and
environmental claims in the U.S., and asbestos claims in the
U.K., other employer liability claims in the U.K. and workers'
compensation claims in the U.S.  All of these are significant
reserves for the Company and all are subject to specific
actuarial calculations.  Traditional loss reserving techniques
cannot wholly be relied on and the Company has employed
specialized techniques to determine reserves using knowledge of
both internal asbestos and environmental experts and external
legal and professional advisors.  In addition, the prevalence of
asbestos-related claims is a more recent development in the U.K.
than in the U.S.  As such, there is less data and information
relating to asbestos claims in the U.K. available to conduct the
Company's U.K. asbestos reserving analysis and thus more
potential for variability in ultimate outcomes.  In 2003 the
total discount related to asbestos and environmental claims
amounted to GBP377,000,000.

The adverse loss reserve development for 2003 was mainly due to
reserve strengthening for asbestos, general liability and
workers' compensation in the U.S. and asbestos in the U.K.
These increases in reserves, in particular the reserves for
asbestos, have incident dates going back a number of years and
so have impacted the cumulative redundancy/(deficiency) for
several years.

The merger of Royal Insurance and Sun Alliance in 1996 did not
bring about any material change in reserving methodology or
require additional reserving.  The most significant methodology
change after the merger was the use of consulting actuaries in
1999 to model pollution and asbestos risks on the Company's
inbound reinsurance book of business covering old U.S. risks.

Total net outstanding A&E claims reserves at the end of 2003
amounted to GBP1,147,000,000. Net A&E reserves have increased
from GBP1,052,000,000 at the end of 2002, primarily as a result
of the increase in asbestos reserves of GBP261,000,000 before
the effect of discounting following reports received from
independent actuarial consulting firms offset by settlement of
claims and exchange movements.  The A&E reserves are mainly in
the U.K. and the U.S. (about GBP1,107,000,000), and to a lesser
extent in Canada (about GBP41,000,000).  Amounts recoverable
from re-insurers as of December 31, 2003 amounted to
GBP305,000,000.

U.S. asbestos reserves were further strengthened by
GBP80,000,000 before the effect of discounting following
publication of the Tillinghast Report in 2003.  U.K. asbestos
reserves were increased by GBP179,000,000 before the effect of
discounting to move the reserves further up the range of
possible outcomes.

In May 2004 the Company reached agreement in principle with the
Administrators of Turner & Newall (T&N), an asbestos products
manufacturer in administration.  This agreement makes available
a sum of money towards compensating workers exposed to asbestos
by T&N during the years covered by the policies.  This concludes
Royal & Sun's involvement in any asbestosis liabilities of the
T&N companies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TRW Says Most Claims Against It Groundless
---------------------------------------------------------------
While certain of TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation's
subsidiaries have been subject in recent years to asbestos-
related claims, management believes that such claims will not
have a material adverse effect on the Company's financial
condition or results of operations.  In general, these claims
seek damages for illnesses alleged to have resulted from
exposure to asbestos used in certain components sold by the
Company's subsidiaries.  Management believes that the majority
of the claimants were assembly workers at the major U.S.
automobile manufacturers.

The vast majority of these claims name as defendants numerous
manufacturers and suppliers of a wide variety of products
allegedly containing asbestos.  Management believes that, to the
extent any of the products sold by these subsidiaries and at
issue in these cases contained asbestos, the asbestos was
encapsulated.  Based upon several years of experience with such
claims, management believes that only a small proportion of the
claimants has or will ever develop any asbestos-related
impairment.

Neither settlement costs in connection with asbestos claims nor
average annual legal fees to defend these claims have been
material in the past.  The Company and its subsidiaries dispute
these claims and it has been the policy to defend against them
aggressively.  Many of these cases have been dismissed without
any payment whatsoever.  Moreover, there is significant
insurance coverage with solvent carriers with respect to these
claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tenaris Says 20 Of 21 Dalmine Cases Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenaris S.A. (whose subsidiary Techint Investments Netherlands
BV or "Tenet," was party to the contract pursuant to which
Dalmine S.p.A. was privatized) reported that Dalmine is subject
to two civil proceedings and a consolidated criminal proceeding
before the Court of Bergamo, Italy, for work-related injuries
arising from the use of asbestos in its manufacturing processes
from 1960 to 1980.  Of the 21 cases originally involved in the
consolidated criminal proceeding, 20 have been settled.

In addition to the civil and criminal cases, another 29 asbestos
related out-of-court claims have been forwarded to Dalmine.
Dalmine estimates that its potential liability in connection
with the claims not yet settled or covered by insurance is about
EUR8,800,000 ($10,700,000).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Pacific Refers to Its Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Pacific Corporation (NYSE: UNP) noted in a regulatory
filing that the outcome of claims and litigation related to
occupational illnesses arising from exposure to asbestos and
diesel fumes could affect the Corporation's and its
subsidiaries' future results.

Union Pacific Corporation's Union Pacific Railroad is the
leading rail freight carrier in the U.S., transporting coal,
chemicals, industrial products and other freight over a system
of more than 33,000 route miles in 23 states in the western U.S.
The Corporation owns 27,400 route miles of its rail network;
leases and trackage rights, which allow it to use other
railroads' tracks, account for the rest.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Plaintiffs At 14,000 As of March
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corp. is a defendant in around 3,700 active
cases in which, as of March 31, 2004, around 14,300 plaintiffs
have filed claims alleging injury resulting from exposure to
asbestos.  Almost all of these cases involve multiple defendants
(typically from 50 to more than 100 defendants).  Nearly 13,000,
or more than 90 percent, of the plaintiffs in cases in which
U.S. Steel is a defendant are in jurisdictions which permit
filings with massive numbers of plaintiffs.  Based upon U.S.
Steel's experience in such cases, the actual number of
plaintiffs who ultimately assert claims against U.S. Steel is
likely to be a small fraction of the total number of plaintiffs.
These claims against U.S. Steel fall into three major groups:

(1) claims made under certain federal and general maritime
laws by employees of the Great Lakes Fleet or
Intercoastal Fleet, former operations of U.S. Steel;

(2) claims made by persons who allegedly were exposed to
asbestos at U. S. Steel facilities (referred to as
"premises claims"); and

(3) claims made by industrial workers allegedly exposed to
products formerly manufactured by U.S. Steel.

While U.S. Steel has excess casualty insurance, these policies
have multi-million dollar self-insured retentions.  To date,
U.S. Steel has not received any payments under these policies
relating to asbestos claims.  In most cases, this excess
casualty insurance is the only insurance applicable to asbestos
claims.

As discussed in U.S. Steel's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2003, management views the verdict and
resulting settlement in the March 28, 2003 Madison County case
as aberrational, and believes that the likelihood of similar
results in other cases is remote, although not impossible.
Through March 31, 2004, U.S. Steel has not experienced any
material adverse change in its ability to resolve pending claims
as a result of the Madison County settlement.

In every asbestos case in which U.S. Steel is named as a party,
the complaints are filed against numerous named defendants and
generally do not contain allegations regarding specific monetary
damages sought.  To the extent that any specific amount of
damages is sought, the amount applies to claims against all
named defendants and in no case is there any allegation of
monetary damages against U.S. Steel.  Around 89 percent of the
cases against U.S. Steel state that the damages sought exceed
the amount required to establish jurisdiction of the court in
which the case was filed.  (Jurisdictional amounts generally
range from $25,000 to $75,000.)  Around 4 percent do not specify
any damages sought at all, around 6 percent allege damages of
$1,000,000 or less, another 0.6 percent allege damages between
$2,000,000 and $10,000,000, and 0.4 percent allege damages over
$10,000,000.


ASBESTOS ALERT: PolyOne, Subsidiaries Named In Asbestos Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
PolyOne Corp. or its subsidiaries have been named in various
lawsuits involving multiple claimants and defendants relating to
alleged asbestos exposure in the past by, among others, workers
and their families at plants owned by the Company or its
predecessors or on board ships owned or operated by the Company
or its predecessors.  PolyOne believes that any liability that
may finally be determined should not have a material adverse
effect on its consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows.


COMPANY PROFILE

PolyOne Corp. (NYSE: POL)
PolyOne Center
33587 Walker Road
Avon Lake, OH 44012
Phone: 440-930-1000
http://www.polyone.com

Employees                  :           6,550
Revenue                    : $ 1,964,500,000.00
Net Income                 : $   251,100,000.00
Assets                     : $ 1,900,900,000.00
Liabilities                : $ 1,534,100,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Formed by the 2000 merger of plastics companies
Geon and M.A. Hanna, PolyOne Corp. is among North America's
largest plastics compounders and resins distributors.  The
company's performance plastics unit produces custom-made
compounded plastics and custom-formulated colorants for plastic
manufacturers throughout North America and Europe.  Other
segments produce rubber compounds for the rubber industry and
engineered films for a variety of industrial applications,
though the company is considering selling those units.  PolyOne
also distributes about 3,500 resins from some 20 suppliers.  It
has operations in Asia, the Americas, Australia, and Europe.


ASBESTOS ALERT: SCOR Strengthens Reserves Latent Asbestos Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Like other reinsurance companies, SCOR is exposed to asbestos
related risks, particularly in the United States.  Insurers are
required under their contracts with SCOR to notify the Company
of any claims or potential claims that they are aware of.
However, the Company often receives notices from insurers of
potential claims related to asbestos risks that are imprecise,
as the primary insurer may not have fully evaluated the risk at
the time it notifies the Company of the claim.  SCOR believes
that its reserves as at December 2003 are sufficient to cover
its estimated liabilities relating to environmental and asbestos
claims.  During the third quarter of 2003, these reserves were
strengthened for an amount of EUR9,000,000, primarily with
respect to latent asbestos-related claims.  In addition, due to
the changing legal environment and changes in tort law, the
evaluation of the final cost of SCOR's exposure to asbestos
related claims appears to be increasing, in uncertain
proportions.  2003 reserves are EUR19,000,000 for asbestos; 2003
paid claims and LAE are EUR600,000 for asbestos.

The Group Large Claims Committee chaired by the Group General
Manager reviews on a monthly basis all large claims, including
litigation claims and asbestos claims.  SCOR has developed a
policy of buying back its longstanding liabilities on asbestos
exposures whenever the possibility exists to do so on a
commercially reasonable basis, i.e., whenever SCOR determines,
based on its assessment of the potential exposure of the Group
based on actuarial techniques and market practices, that the
terms of the final negotiated settlement are attractive in light
of the possible development of future liabilities.  Preference
is given to selected treaties with regard to specific
circumstances such as the maturity of claims, the level of
claims information available, the status of cedents and market
settlements.  It is the intention of management that this
commutation policy be further pursued and developed in 2004 and
in subsequent years.  It is anticipated that the policy will
affect settlement patterns to a limited degree in future years.

SCOR's exposure to asbestos and environmental liabilities stems
from its participation in both proportional and non-proportional
treaties and in facultative contracts, which have generally been
in run-off for many years.  The Group's reserves for losses and
LAE include an estimate of its ultimate liability for asbestos
and environmental claims for which an ultimate value cannot be
estimated using traditional reserving techniques and for which
there are significant uncertainties in estimating the amount of
the Group's potential losses.  SCOR and certain of its
subsidiaries, of which principally SCOR Paris and SCOR U.S.,
have received and continue to receive notices of potential
reinsurance claims from ceding insurance companies which have in
turn received claims asserting environmental and asbestos losses
under primary insurance policies, in part reinsured by Group
companies.  Such claims notices are frequently merely
precautionary in nature and generally are unspecific, and the
primary insurers often do not attempt to quantify the amount,
timing or nature of the exposure.  In addition, due to the
changing legal and regulatory environment and changes in tort
law, the final cost of SCOR's exposure to asbestos related
claims appears to be increasing.


COMPANY PROFILE

SCOR (NYSE: SCO, Euronext Paris: SCO)
1, avenue du G,n,ral de Gaulle
92074 La D,fense Cedex, France
Phone: +33-1-46-98-7000
Fax: +33-1-47-67-0409
http://www.scor.com

Employees                  :           1,256
Revenue                    : $ 4,712,000,000.00
Net Income                 : $   589,000,000.00
Assets                     : $16,738,000,000.00
Liabilities                : $15,534,000,000.00
(As of December 31, 2002)

Description: SCOR provides treaty (groups of risks) and
facultative (individual risks) reinsurance through offices
worldwide, each of which specializes in the needs of a specific
industry segment and the local language.  In the U.S., SCOR
operates under the General Security and Commercial Risk
monikers.  The company reinsures property & casualty, life,
accident, and health insurance lines.  SCOR's property and
casualty business accounts for more than a third of sales.  Most
of the company's business comes from Europe and North America.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BISYS GROUP: Spector Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. commenced a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of The BISYS Group, Inc. ("BISYS" or the "Company")
(NYSE: BSG) between October 23, 2000 through May 17, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws 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 that during the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
financial statements that misrepresented the financial condition
of the Company to investors. On May 17, 2004 it was revealed in
a press release issued by the Company stating that the
previously reported adjustment of $24.7 million to commissions
receivable in its Life Insurance Division needed to be increased
to roughly $70-$80 million and this adjustment would require the
Company to make "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."

For more details, contact Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. by
Mail: 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-496-0300 or (888) 844-5862 by Fax: 215-496-6611 or by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Business Objects S.A. ("Business Objects" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: BOBJ) between April 23, 2003 through April
29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period,
which artificially inflated the company's stock price.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period:

     (1) the Company failed to successfully integrate Crystal
         Decisions, a software company acquired during the Class
         Period;

     (2) the Company was experiencing slower than projected
         revenue growth;

     (3) the Company had improperly recognized deferred revenues
         from a backlog of customer contracts, thereby
         materially inflating the Company's reported financial
         results; and

     (4) the demand for Business Objects' Enterprise 6 software
         was less than reported by the Company, and that the
         software was unstable and potentially incompatible with
         other of the Company's products.

On April 29, 2004, Business Objects reported disappointing
first-quarter 2004 results, including earnings of $0.10 per
diluted share, which was at the bottom of the range previously
forecast by defendants, and missed analysts' consensus estimates
of $0.15. Moreover, the Company reported disappointing revenues
of $217 million and provided second-quarter 2004 guidance, which
was well below analysts' consensus estimates. In reaction to
this news, the price of the Company's American Depository Shares
dropped $6.66, or 23.3%, from their closing price on April 29,
2004, to close on April 30, 2004 at $21.92, on unusually high
volume. On May 4, 2004, Business Objects disclosed in its first-
quarter 2004 report, filed with the SEC, that the SEC had
commenced an informal inquiry into the Company's "practices with
respect to backlog," or customers contracts that have not yet
been recognized on a company's balance sheet or income
statement.

For more details, contact Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. by
Mail: 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-496-0300 or (888) 844-5862 by Fax: 215-496-6611 or by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP commenced a
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Callidus Software, Inc. ("Callidus") (Nasdaq:CALD) common stock
during the period between November 19, 2003 and June 23, 2004
(the "Class Period"), including those who acquired their shares
pursuant to the Company's November 2003 Initial Public Offering
("IPO").

The complaint charges Callidus and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Callidus is a provider of enterprise incentive management
("EIM") software systems to global companies across multiple
industries.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Callidus stock to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and prospects. According to the
complaint, the defendants knew but concealed from the public the
following adverse facts:

     (1) the Company's financials were suffering at the time of
         the IPO due to competition from established enterprise
         software vendors, including Siebel, and established ERP
         vendors, such as SAP, who could bundle their EIM
         offerings with other software products and therefore
         compete more aggressively on prices;

     (2) in the Company's license revenues, the Company was,
         prior to the Company's IPO, experiencing a material
         adverse trend in this business segment;

     (3) as a result of the Company experiencing a severe
         adverse trend in "license" revenue, the Company's
         future "service" revenue would be materially and
         adversely impacted for future quarters;

     (4) the Company used as a barometer for its sales forecasts
         its 18 quota-carrying sales representatives who were
         severely behind on hitting their unrealistic quotas;
         and

     (5) prior to the IPO, the Company had planned on bringing
         its Cezanne software team "in-house," which would
         dramatically impact the Company's earnings per share in
         future quarters.

On June 24, 2004, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the Company's "chairman and chief
executive resigned, and it warned that second-quarter and full-
year results would not meet . . . financial targets." On this
news the Company's shares fell to $5.01 per share, well below
the Class Period high and even the IPO price.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Callidus common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins
LLP, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions
and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Landskroner Grieco Lodges Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Landskroner-Grieco-Madden, Ltd. initiated a class action lawsuit
on behalf of purchasers of securities of Cardinal Health, Inc.
("Cardinal Health" or the "Company") (NYSE:CAH) between and
including October 24, 2000 and June 30, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The class action lawsuit is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, located in
Columbus, Ohio. In addition to Cardinal Health, the Complaint
names the following officers of the Company as Defendants:
Robert D. Walter, George Fotiades, and Richard J. Miller

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
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 false and misleading statements regarding the
financial condition of Cardinal Health and the Company's ability
to earn profits during the class period. The Complaint
specifically alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants caused Cardinal Health's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and
misleading financial statements. The company failed to properly
record the impairment to its investments, misclassified non-
operating revenues as operating revenues, causing the Company's
financial results to be inflated and giving a misleading picture
of the Company to investors.

The Complaint also alleges that Cardinal Health and its top
officers inflated the price of the Company's common stock in
order to pursue an accelerated securities sale program.
Defendants knew that by concealing Cardinal Health's true
financial results they could foster the perception in the
business community that Cardinal Health was a "growth company,"
i.e., it was the only way Cardinal Health could post the revenue
and earnings per share ("EPS") growth claimed by Defendants.
Further, it is alleged that Cardinal Health improperly accounted
for investments in its financial statements, such that its
financial statements were not a fair presentation of Cardinal
Health's results and were presented in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and SEC rules.

For more details, contact Jack Landskroner, Esq. or Debra
Spaller, Paralegal of Landskroner-Grieco-Madden, Ltd. by Mail:
1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200, Cleveland, Ohio 44113 by Phone:
(866) 522-9500 or (216) 522-9000 by E-mail:
jack@landskronerlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.landskronerlaw.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated 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 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). If you bought the securities of Cardinal during the
Class Period and sustained damages, you may, no later than sixty
days from July 2, 2004 move for appointment of "lead plaintiff."

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Cardinal
Health 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 Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(312) 634-0057 or by E-mail: Lasky@laskyrifkind.com


DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Descartes Systems Group, Inc. ("Descartes" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: DSGX) between June 4, 2003 through May 6,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws 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 that statements made by the
defendants during the Class Period were each materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts:

     (1) that Descartes' financial statements were materially
         false and misleading;

     (2) that the Company was recording revenue on contingent
         contracts where contingencies were unfulfilled and in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         and SAB 101;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
         ensure the accuracy of its financial statements; and

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

For more details, contact Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. by
Mail: 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-496-0300 or (888) 844-5862 by Fax: 215-496-6611 or by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


INTRABIOTICS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the Northern District of California on behalf
of purchasers of the common stock of IntraBiotics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("IntraBiotics" or the Company) between
September 5, 2003 and June 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges IntraBiotics and certain of its officers
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
IntraBiotics is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
development of an oral solution of iseganan hydrochloride
(iseganan HCI), an antimicrobial drug, for the prevention of
ventilator-associated pneumonia ("VAP").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
failed to disclose and indicate:

     (1) that iseganan was not safe and well-tolerated at
         therapeutically relevant doses when administered to the
         oral cavity;

     (2) that the drug caused a higher rate of VAP and mortality
         as comparted to placebo;

     (3) that despite knowing and/or recklessly disregarding the
         aforementioned facts, the defendants nevertheless
         raised capital through offerings of its common stock
         (including a June 3, 2004 public offering of 3,450,000
         shares for proceeds of $42.2 million) in order to
         portray to the market that iseganan was a viable
         marketable product that was on the "fast track" to FDA
         approval; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the defendants
         statements concerning iseganan were lacking in any
         reasonable basis.

On June 23, 2004, the Company announced that an independent data
monitoring committee recommended to the Company that it
discontinue its pivotal trial of iseganan for the prevention of
VAP based on an interim analysis of the data. A higher rate of
both VAP and mortality was observed by the data monitoring
committee in the active treatment group compared to the placebo
group. As a result, IntraBiotics had stopped the study.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of IntraBiotics fell
$9.45 per share or 69 percent, to close at $4.23 per share on
unusual high trading volume.

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


LEXAR MEDIA: Spector Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. commenced a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Lexar Media, Inc. ("Lexar" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: LEXR) between July 17, 2003 through
April 16, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period by
failing to disclose and/or misrepresenting:

     (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 quicker
than Lexar had previously anticipated. News of this information
caused Lexar stock to fall $5.03 per share or 32.56 percent on
April 16, 2004, to close at $10.42 per share.

For more details, contact Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. by
Mail: 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-496-0300 or (888) 844-5862 by Fax: 215-496-6611 or by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


MERIX CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OR
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. commenced a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon, on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Merix Corporation ("Merix" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: MERX)
between July 1, 2003 through May 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting during the Class Period that
Merix was well-positioned for continued growth and profitability
and that its business was growing at a faster pace than its
competitors. However, the defendants knew, or recklessly
disregarded, that actual demand for the Company's high-end
services was declining and demand for its products was driven by
inventory build-up by its customers, who would meet end-user
demand by selling off the inventory, thereby cutting into new
sales for Merix. As a result of Defendants' failure to disclose
these highly material facts about Merix's business, the
Company's stock was artificially inflated during which time
Merix insiders, including defendants Hollinger and Brown,
personally sold a total of 162,138 shares for total proceeds of
$3,398,478.

On May 13, 2004, after the close of trading, Merix issued a
press release announcing that instead of earning a profit of
between $0.19 and $0.22 per share for its fourth quarter of
2004, as the Company had previously stated it expected to earn,
it now expected to report a loss of $0.03 to $0.06 per share. In
response to this announcement, the price of Merix common stock
dropped from a closing price of $15.32 per share on May 13, 2004
to $10.68 per share on May 14, a one-day drop of over 30% on
unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. by
Mail: 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-496-0300 or (888) 844-5862 by Fax: 215-496-6611 or by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com


POZEN INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client against POZEN, Inc.
(Nasdaq:POZN) ("POZEN" or the "Company") in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. POZEN
is a pharmaceutical development company focused primarily on
developing a line of drugs for the global migraine market.

The complaint charges POZEN and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of false
and misleading statements regarding its migraine drugs MT 100
and MT 300 that caused the Company's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels between July 31, 2003, and May 28,
2004, (the "Class Period"). While POZEN's stock was trading at
these artificially high levels, corporate insiders received
significant proceeds from the sale of their POZEN shares.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements that failed to disclose the following facts:

     (1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that its drugs MT 100 and MT 300 were unsafe and
         ineffective;

     (2) that despite knowing these facts, the Company entered
         into various licensing agreements in order to book
         revenues and achieve positive cash flows;

     (3) that as a result of booking revenues and achieving
         positive cash flows, the defendants were able to
         manipulate the Company's stock price in order to attain
         large bonuses, which were tied to the Company's stock
         price, not the success of the Company's product
         pipeline;

     (4) with respect to the drug MT 300, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that the drug resulted
         in higher incidences of nausea and vomiting as compared
         to a placebo in two Phase III trials and that the drug
         failed to show statistical superiority as compared to a
         placebo with regard to controlling symptoms of
         migraines;

     (5) with respect to the drug MT 100, defendant knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that MT 100's chances
         of being approved by the FDA were less than 50% because
         of concerns about several primary end points,
         particularly pain response to migraines at two hours,
         lack of data showing consistent two-hour pain response
         and symptom relief, and worries about the drug's
         carcinogenicity; and

     (6) that MT 100 failed to show superiority to a placebo as
         measured by a two-hour response and two-hour symptom
         migraine relief.

The complaint alleges that defendants' materially false and
misleading statements and material omissions caused investors to
purchase POZEN shares at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and to be damaged thereby.

Also, according to the complaint, the truth about the Company's
products MT 300 and MT 100 was not known until October 20, 2003,
and June 1, 2004, respectively. On October 20, 2003, POZEN
announced that it had received a not-approvable letter from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") regarding the
Company's New Drug Application ("NDA") for MT 300. In response
to this news, POZEN's stock price dropped over 32%. Similarly,
on June 1, 2004, POZEN announced that it had received a not-
approvable letter from the FDA regarding the Company's NDA for
MT 100. This news caused the Company's stock to fall 37%. The
complaint seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of POZEN common stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Mary Ann Fink
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005
by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com


SALOMON BROTHERS: Girard Gibbs Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP initiated a
class action and derivative lawsuit on behalf of clients of
Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. ("SSB") who purchased or held shares
of the Salomon Brothers or Smith Barney family of mutual funds
(the "Funds"), operated by Citigroup Inc. (NYSE:C), between
March 22, 1999 and March 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit asserts claims under the Securities Act of
1933, Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the common
law.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds named below,
are as follows:

     (1) Salomon Brothers All Cap Value Fund (Sym: SUBAX, SUBBX,
         SUBZX)

     (2) Salomon Brothers Balanced Fund (Sym: STRAX, STRBX,
         STRCX)
     (3) Salomon Brothers California Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CCAIX, SCUBX, SCULX)

     (4) Salomon Brothers Capital Fund (Sym: SCCAX, SPABX,
         SACPX, SCCCX)

     (5) Salomon Brothers High Yield Bond (Sym: SAHYX, SBHYX,
         SHYOX, SHYCX)

     (6) Salomon Brothers International Equity Fund (Sym: SAIEX,
         SAIBX, SAICX)

     (7) Salomon Brothers Investors Value Fund (Sym: SINAX,
         SBINX, SAIFX, SINOX)

     (8) Salomon Brothers Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SLCAX,
         SALBX, SALCX)

     (9) Salomon Brothers Mid Cap Fund (Sym: SMDAX, SMDBX,
         SMDZX)

    (10) Salomon Brothers National Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CFNIX, SNABX, SNALX)

    (11) Salomon Brothers New York Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CFTNX, SNFBX, SNFLX)

    (12) Salomon Brothers SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
         SJRAX, SJRBX, SJRZX)

    (13) Salomon Brothers SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym:
         SOLAX, SOLBX, SOLZX)

    (14) Salomon Brothers SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SVEAX,
         SVEBX, SCEZX)

    (15) Salomon Brothers SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: SSWAX,
         SSWBX, SSWZX)

    (16) Salomon Brothers Short/Intermediate U.S. Government
         Fund (Sym: SUSAX, SUSBX, SUSCX)

    (17) Salomon Brothers Small Cap Growth (Sym: SASMX, SBSMX,
         SCSMX)

    (18) Salomon Brothers Strategic Bond Fund (Sym: SSTAX,
         SBSBX, SSTCX)

    (19) Smith Barney Aggressive Growth Fund (Sym: SHRAX, SAGBX,
         SAGCX)

    (20) Smith Barney All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym: SPAAX,
         SPBBX, SPBLX)

    (21) Smith Barney Appreciation Fund (Sym: SHAPX, SAPBX,
         SAPCX, SAPYX)

    (22) Smith Barney Arizona Municipals Fund (Sym: SLAZX,
         SAZBX, SAZLX)

    (11) Smith Barney Balanced Portfolio (Sym: SBBAX, SCBBX,
         SCBCX)

    (12) Smith Barney California Municipals Fund (Sym: SHRCX,
         SCABX, SCACX)

    (13) Smith Barney Classic Values Fund (Sym: SCLAX, SCLBX,
         SCLLX)

    (14) Smith Barney Conservative Portfolio (Sym: SBCPX, SBCBX,
         SBCLX)

    (15) Smith Barney Diversified Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym:
         CFLGX, CLCBX, SMDLX)

    (16) Smith Barney Diversified Strategic Income Fund (Sym:
         SDSAX, SLDSX, SDSIX)

    (17) Smith Barney Dividend and Income Fund (Sym: SUTAX,
         SLSUX, SBBLX)

    (18) Smith Barney Financial Services Fund (Sym: SBFAX,
         SBFBX, SFSLX)

    (19) Smith Barney Florida Portfolio (Sym: SBFLX, FLABX,
         SFLLX)

    (20) Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund (Sym: SHFVX, SFVBX,
         SFVCX)

    (21) Smith Barney Georgia Portfolio (Sym: SBGAX, SBRBX,
         SGALX)

    (22) Smith Barney Global All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
         SPGAX, SPGGX, SPGLX)

    (23) Smith Barney Global Government Bond Portfolio (Sym:
         SBGLX, SBGBX, SGGLX)

    (24) Smith Barney Global Portfolio (Sym: CAGAX, CAGBX,
         SGPLX)

    (25) Smith Barney Government Securities Fund (Sym: SGVAX,
         HGVSX, SGSLX)

    (26) Smith Barney Group Spectrum Fund (Sym: SGSAX, SGSBX,
         SFTLX)

    (27) Smith Barney Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCGRX, SGRBX,
         SCGCX)

    (28) Smith Barney Hansberger Global Value Fund (Sym: SGLAX,
         SGLBX, SGLCX)

    (29) Smith Barney Health Sciences Fund (Sym: SBIAX, SBHBX,
         SBHLX)

    (28) Smith Barney High Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCHAX, SCHBX,
         SCHCX)

    (29) Smith Barney High Income Fund (Sym: SHIAX, SHIBX,
         SHICX)

    (30) Smith Barney Income Portfolio (Sym: SCAAX, SCIAX,
         SCILX)

    (31) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity CA Municipals Fund
         (Sym: ITCAX, STDBX, SIMLX)

    (32) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity NY Municipals Fund
         (Sym: IMNYX, SNMBX, SINLX)

    (33) Smith Barney International All Cap Growth Portfolio
         (Sym: SBIEX, SBIBX, SBICX)

    (34) Smith Barney International Large Cap Fund (Sym: CFIPX,
         SILCX, SILLX)

    (35) Smith Barney Investment Grade Bond Fund (Sym: SIGAX,
         HBDIX, SBILX)

    (36) Smith Barney Large Cap Core Fund (Sym: GROAX, GROBX,
         SCPLX)

    (37) Smith Barney Large Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
         SPSAX, SPSBX, SPSLX)

    (38) Smith Barney Large Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBCIX, SBCCX,
         SBGCX)

    (39) Smith Barney Large Capitalization Growth Fund (Sym:
         SBLGX, SBLBX, SLCCX, SBLYX)

    (40) Smith Barney Limited Term Portfolio (Sym: SBLTX, STMBX,
         SMLLX)

    (41) Smith Barney Managed Governments Fund (Sym: SHMGX,
         MGVBX, SMGLX)

    (42) Smith Barney Managed Municipals Fund (Sym: SHMMX,
         SMMBX, SMMCX)

    (43) Smith Barney Massachusetts Municipals Fund (Sym: SLMMX,
         SMABX, SMALX)

    (44) Smith Barney Mid Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBMAX, SBMDX,
         SBMLX, SMBYX)

    (45) Smith Barney Municipal High Income Fund (Sym: STXAX,
         SXMT, SMHLX)

    (46) Smith Barney National Portfolio (Sym: SBBNX, SBNBX,
         SBNLX)

    (47) Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund (Sym: SHNJX,
         SNJBX, SNJLX)

    (48) Smith Barney New York Portfolio (Sym: SBNYX, SMNBX,
         SBYLX)

    (49) Smith Barney Oregon Municipals Fund (Sym: SHORX, SORBX,
         SORLX)

    (50) Smith Barney Pennsylvania Portfolio (Sym: SBPAX, SBPBX,
         SPALX)

    (51) Smith Barney S & P 500 Index Fund (Sym: SBSPX)

    (52) Smith Barney SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
         ARMZX, ARMBX, ARMGX)

    (53) Smith Barney SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym: SOPAX,
         SOPTX, SBPLX)

    (54) Smith Barney SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SCRAX, SCVSX,
         SMCLX, SCVYX)

    (55) Smith Barney SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: GRIAX,
         GRIBX, SGAIX)

    (56) Smith Barney Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
         SHDAX, SHDBX, SHDLX)

    (57) Smith Barney Short-Term Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Sym: SBSTX, SHBBX, SSTLX)

    (58) Smith Barney Small Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBDSX, SBDBX,
         SBDLX)

    (59) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SBSGX, SBYBX,
         SBSLX)

    (60) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         CFSGX, SMOBX, SGOLX)

    (61) Smith Barney Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBVAX, SBVBX,
         SBVLX)

    (62) Smith Barney Social Awareness Fund (Sym: SSIAX, SESIX,
         SESLX)

    (63) Smith Barney Technology Fund (Sym: SBTAX, SBTBX, SBQLX)

    (64) Smith Barney Total Return Bond Fund (Sym: TRBAX, TRBBX,
         SBTLX)

    (65) Smith Barney U.S. Government Securities Fund (Sym:
         SBCGX, SBUBX, SBULX)

The class action is pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York under docket number 04-cv-
5289. The class action is brought against defendants Salomon
Brothers Asset Management, Inc., Smith Barney Fund Management
LLC, Citigroup Asset Management, Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.
(f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney Inc.), Citigroup Global Markets
Holdings Inc., Citigroup, Inc., R. Jay Gerken, Dwight B. Crane,
Joseph J. McCann, Burt N. Dorsett, Cornelius C. Rose, Jr.,
Elliot S. Jaffe, each of the Funds and the registrants of the
Funds.

According to the complaint, defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to class members and violated the federal securities laws
by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to SSB
clients during the Class Period. In particular, the complaint
alleges that SSB, through its financial advisors, purported to
provide objective financial advisory services. In fact, SSB had
an undisclosed interest in steering clients into the in-house
Salomon Brothers or Smith Barney mutual funds, which were poor
performers in relation to the rest of the market. The complaint
further alleges that SSB improperly charged and collected
excessive undisclosed fees from class members and used those
fees to compensate financial advisors for steering more clients
into SSB mutual funds, thereby perpetuating the unlawful and
deceitful scheme. According to the complaint, as a result of
defendants' fraudulent and manipulative conduct, SSB violated
its clients' trust and prevented its clients from making fully
informed investment decisions.

For more details, contact Daniel Girard, Jonathan Levine or
Aaron Sheanin of Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo LLP by Mail: 601
California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco, CA 94108 by Phone:
(866) 981-4800 by E-mail: mail@girardgibbs.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.girardgibbs.com/SalomonSmith.html


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Vicuron" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: MICU) between March 17, 2003 through May 24,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws 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 that during the Class
Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Vicuron
stock by concealing critical material information regarding the
details of both the safety and efficacy of anidulafungin.
Defendants concealed key adverse information regarding the
development and commercialization of anidulafungin, raising
serious concerns for the very approval of the drug for the
treatment of esophageal candidiasis and other selected
indications.

For more details, contact Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. by
Mail: 1818 Market Street, Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-496-0300 or (888) 844-5862 by Fax: 215-496-6611 or by
E-mail: classaction@srk-law.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 Seorin, 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  * * *