---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Monday, July 12, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 136

                          Headlines

ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Convicts Founder, Sons of Fraud
AVONDALE INC.: Faces Four Antitrust Lawsuits Over Open-End Yarns
COMMERCE BANCORP: CEO Denies Fraud Claims in NJ Shareholder Suit
DUPONT: Faces Multi-Million Dollar Fine, Investigation Continued
ENRON CORPORATION: SEC Charges Ex-CEO For Fraud, Insider Trading

FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Orlando Man Lodges Price-Gouging Lawsuit
FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Reaches $92M VA Augmentin Antitrust Settlement
GUAM: Lawyers Question ETIC Settlement, Claims Money Not Enough
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Denies Lawsuit Claims V. Company

INDONESIA: Jakarta Judge Dismisses Pricing Suit V. Water Firms
JEWELRY IMPORTERS: Recalls 150M Jewelry Items Containing Lead
LYBRAND: SEC Files Proceedings, Seeks Penny Stock Bars V. Execs
MARTHA STEWART: Court Refuses Plaintiff's Request For New Trial
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: SEC Bars Accountant, Asses $1.45M Fine

OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Certification Refusal
ROYAL ALLIANCE: SEC Sanctions Manager, Registered Broker-Dealer
SMITH BARNEY: Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For July 27, 2004
SOUTHERN COLD: FDA Seizes Adulterated Crabmeat Due Health Risk
UNITED STATES: Group Disappointed over S. 2062 Bill Stalemate

US PIPE: Reaches $6.5M Race Discrimination Suit Settlement in AL

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

99 CENTS: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
BISYS GROUP: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securites Suit in S.D. NY
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA

CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Stock Suit
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Suit in CA
LEHMAN ABS: Krislov & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MERIX CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in OR

MERRILL LYNCH: Alfred Yates Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
SHAW GROUP: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. LA
TROY GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Goodkind Labaton Lodges DE Securities Lawsuit


                          *********


ADELPHIA COMMUNICATIONS: Court Convicts Founder, Sons of Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New York found Adelphia
Communications Corporation founder John Rigas and his
son, Timothy, guilty of fraud and conspiracy in the
multibillion-dollar collapse of the cable television company,
Reuters reports.

Federal prosecutors charged John Rigas; two of his sons, Timothy
and Michael; and another former Adelphia executive, Michael
Mulcahey, with looting the company at the expense of investors
to pay for everything from personal land deals to vacation
homes.

In June 2002, the Company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection after it revealed that it was liable for 2.3 billion
that the Rigas family borrowed to buy company stock in a bid to
retain control.

Prosecutors alleged that John Rigas used the company treasury to
pay for personal expenses.  He allegedly used $26 million to buy
timberland in front of his ranch because he did not want his
view to be obstructed.  Company was also used to fund a golf
course, country club memberships and vacations in Mexico, and
that executives used corporate jets for personal travel.

John Rigas, 79, and Timothy Rigas, the company's former finance
chief, were found guilty on 18 counts of bank fraud, securities
fraud and conspiracy, and acquitted on five counts of wire
fraud.  Each faces up to 30 years in prison on bank fraud, the
most serious charge, Reuters reports.

Michael Rigas, a former Adelphia vice president, was acquitted
of conspiracy and wire fraud.  The jury has not reached a
verdict on securities and bank fraud charges.  Mulcahey,
Adelphia's former director of internal reporting and the only
defendant to testify at trial, was found not guilty of all fraud
and conspiracy charges.

The jury returned its verdicts after an 18-week trial and eight
days of deliberations.  Judge Leonard Sand asked the jury to
return on Friday to resume deliberations.

"This is a mixed verdict, and it demonstrates the difficulty in
gaining convictions even when there appears to be overwhelming
evidence of guilt," Robert Mintz, a partner at McCarter &
English LLP, in Newark, New Jersey, told Reuters.  "Proof that
executives lived the lavish lifestyle is not necessarily proof
that they stole money from the company."

Adelphia remains in Chapter 11, and under new management moved
its headquarters to Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company was
recently put up for sale, and many analysts have said it might
fetch more than $20 billion.


AVONDALE INC.: Faces Four Antitrust Lawsuits Over Open-End Yarns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avondale, Inc. and various other defendants face three class
actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle and
Western Divisions of North Carolina, and one class action filed
in the Circuit Court for Shelby County, Tennessee.  All
complaints seek, under antitrust laws, various damages and
injunctive relief related to the pricing and sale of open-end
yarns.

These complaints are in preliminary procedural stages and do not
have scheduled trial dates.  Additionally, the federal court
complaints may be combined.


COMMERCE BANCORP: CEO Denies Fraud Claims in NJ Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vernon W. Hill II, founder and CEO of Commerce Bancorp Inc.
(CBH) categorically denied allegations of fraud in a lawsuit
filed on behalf of bank shareholders, the Gannett New Jersey
reports.

The law firm of Scott + Scott filed a lawsuit in U.S. District
Court on behalf of Commerce shareholders claiming those sales
and other company tactics violated regulations and wronged
shareholders. The firm is seeking class-action status.  The
lawsuit alleges that Mr. Hill touted the stock to investors and
then sold some of his own shares even as he knew the company was
being investigated in a Philadelphia city corruption scandal.
The lawsuit further claims that Mr. Hill acted improperly by
conducting the stock deals but not disclosing to the SEC that
the company was part of a federal investigation.

According to Lawrence Wiseman, Mr. Hill's attorney, he only
exercised an option to buy additional shares that was about to
expire and some went back to the bank in a cashless transaction.
Mr. Wiseman also stated that his client bought 126,622 shares
and then disposed of 87,287 shares valued at $4.6 million and
that none of the shares were sold on the open market.

Two top officers in Cherry Hill-based Commerce's Pennsylvania
operations have been indicted on charges that they made
otherwise unavailable loans to Philadelphia's city treasurer to
steer business to the bank.

The Commerce officials charged in the Philadelphia case are
Glenn K. Holck and Stephen M. Umbrell, president and vice
president of Commerce's Philadelphia operations. They both
pleaded not guilty last week to charges of conspiracy and fraud.


DUPONT: Faces Multi-Million Dollar Fine, Investigation Continued
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical giant DuPont faces a multi-million dollar fine over its
failure to disclose information on potential risks of a chemical
used to make Teflon, several government officials told AP
Online.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) alleges that from 1981
to 2001, DuPont failed to comply with federal reporting
requirements regarding the synthetic chemical perfluorooctanoic
acid, known as PFOA or C8. According to the EPA, the chemical is
used in the manufacturing of fluoropolymers, including Teflon
products, at DuPont's Washington Works facility near
Parkersburg, W.Va.

DuPont maintains the chemical isn't harmful to humans or the
environment, and that it has complied with reporting
requirements, spokesman Clif Webb told AP Online.  However,
residents living near the plant say their health and drinking
water have been harmed by the chemical. They have filed a class-
action lawsuit, with a trial expected to begin in September.

In the EPA case, DuPont faces a potential maximum fine of some
$300 million though it's unlikely the agency will pursue such a
figure, said Tom Skinner, head of the EPA's enforcement office.

Attorney Ed Hill, who is representing residents near the West
Virginia plant, told AP Online that the first phase of their
class-action lawsuit will determine if DuPont should be required
to provide medical testing to residents, while the later phases
will focus on property damages and restitution.


ENRON CORPORATION: SEC Charges Ex-CEO For Fraud, Insider Trading
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated civil charges
against Kenneth L. Lay, former Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer of Enron Corp., for violating, and aiding and abetting
violations of, the antifraud, periodic reporting, books and
records, and internal controls provisions of the federal
securities laws, specifically Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Exchange Act Rule 10b-
5, and for aiding and abetting the violation of Sections 13(a),
and 13(b)(2)(A) and (B) of the Exchange Act, and Exchange Act
Rules 12b-20 and 13a-11.

In this action, the Commission is seeking disgorgement of all
ill-gotten gains, civil money penalties, a permanent bar from
acting as a director or officer of a publicly held company, and
an injunction against future violations of the federal
securities laws.  The amended complaint, filed before the
Honorable Melinda Harman, U.S. District Court Judge for the
Southern District of Texas, seeks to add Mr. Lay to its pending
action against Jeffrey K. Skilling, Enron's former President,
CEO and Chief Operating Officer, and Richard A. Causey, Enron's
former Chief Accounting Officer.

The proposed Second Amended Complaint alleges Mr. Lay and others
engaged in a wide-ranging scheme to defraud by falsifying
Enron's publicly reported financial results and making false and
misleading public representations about Enron's business
performance and financial condition.  In addition, the proposed
Second Amended Complaint alleges that Mr. Lay profited from the
scheme to defraud by selling large amounts of Enron stock at
prices that did not reflect its true value. The sales also
occurred while Lay was in possession of material non-public
information concerning Enron and generated unlawful proceeds in
excess of $90 million during 2001.

Specifically, Mr. Lay sold over $70 million in Enron stock back
to the company to repay cash advances on an unsecured Enron line
of credit. In addition, while in possession of material non-
public information, he amended two program trading plans to
enable him to sell an additional $20 million in Enron stock in
the open market.  His proceeds from the sales constitute illegal
gains resulting from his scheme to defraud.

Specifically, the Commission's Proposed Second Amended Complaint
alleges as that Mr. Lay, along with others at Enron, engaged in
a wide-ranging scheme to defraud in violation of the federal
securities laws.  During 2001, with specific knowledge of
rapidly deteriorating performances of Enron's business units,
Mr. Lay made numerous false and misleading public statements
about Enron's financial condition. As Enron's Chairman and CEO,
he had oversight of Enron's business units and supervised the
senior executives and managers of these units, reviewed drafts
of public filings and draft press releases, and participated in
conference calls with investment analysts.

In presentations to the investing public, Mr. Lay and others
heavily emphasized the performance and potential of Enron
Broadband Services (EBS) and Enron Energy Services (EES). To
support what Enron had already said about EES, Mr. Lay and
others concealed passive losses in EES' business through
fraudulently manipulating Enron's  "business segment reporting."
They accomplished this at the close of the first quarter of 2001
through a reorganization designed to conceal the magnitude of
EES' business failure, which was known to Lay as early as
January 2001.  With Lay's approval, Enron hid that failure from
the investing public by moving large portions of EES' business -
which Lay and others knew at the time would have to otherwise
report hundreds of millions of dollars in losses - into Enron
Wholesale, which was the Enron business segment housing most of
the company's wholesale energy trading operations and income. As
Lay and others knew, Enron Wholesale had ample earnings to
absorb the EES losses, while at the same time continuing to meet
its own internal budget targets. Lay made the false and
misleading statements to persuade investors that Enron's
profitability would continue to grow, to maintain credit
ratings, to influence investment analysts, and to prop up the
share price of Enron stock.

Mr. Lay knew of Enron's use of structured transactions
specifically prepays and the infamous Raptors - to misstate its
financial results. Enron entered into circular transactions that
were characterized as prepay forward contracts in order to
disguise borrowings as cash from operations. Lay was aware of
the importance and magnitude of prepay transactions to create
operating cash flow and thereby maintain Enron's investment
grade credit rating.  Lay was aware that the credit rating
agencies were not told the magnitude of Enron's prepay
obligations and that this information was not disclosed in
Enron's public filings. In addition, Enron created the Raptor
structures to "hedge" volatile assets against any potential
decline in value. The manner in which Enron structured and
funded the Raptors meant that any hedging losses in the Raptors
would ultimately be borne by Enron. Lay understood that Enron
used the Raptors for earnings management and that decreases in
the price of Enron stock threatened the viability of the
Raptors.

On July 13, 2001, Skilling unexpectedly told Lay he was
resigning because he felt there was nothing he could do to stop
the decline in Enron's stock price.  On August 14, Enron issued
a press release, with Lay's approval, that announced Skilling
had resigned for personal reasons. In a conference call with
investment analysts later that same day, Lay repeatedly asserted
that, "there are absolutely no problems that had anything to do
with Jeff's departure . there are no accounting issues, no
trading issues, no reserve issues . unknown, previously unknown
problems, issues . I can honestly say that the company is
probably in the strongest and best shape . that it's probably
ever been in."  Regarding EES, Lay offered that "we've been
doubling revenue and doubling income quarter on quarter, year on
year for now about the last three years. We expect that to
continue to grow very, very strong."

After Skilling resigned, Lay met repeatedly with Enron's senior
management, who described for him Enron's deteriorating
financial condition. Lay was advised internally of accounting
improprieties regarding the Raptors and that various assets and
investments were overvalued on Enron's books and records by
approximately $7 billion. During this period, Lay repeatedly
received internal financial reports consistent with these
problems. In August and September, senior executives informed
Lay that Enron was facing an increasing earnings shortfall,
hundreds of millions of dollars in losses, a proposed non-
recurring charge relating to certain investments, and an
accounting error in excess of $1 billion. Enron's problems were
so severe that a senior executive informed Lay that Enron needed
to consider being acquired or selling its prized pipelines.

Mr. Lay continued to mislead the public in August and September
2001. Despite specific knowledge of Enron's deteriorating
financial condition, Lay continued to make false and misleading
public statements about Enron's financial performance. In
meetings with research analysts and in public statements, Lay
falsely and misleadingly stated there were "no accounting
issues," "no reserve issues," and "no other shoes to fall" at
Enron. Lay made a series of false and misleading statements
during an Enron employee online forum, including that: "the
third quarter is looking great. We will hit our numbers. We are
continuing to have strong growth in our businesses," "we have
record operating and financial results," and "the balance sheet
is strong." In addition, Lay misled Enron employees regarding
his purchases of Enron stock when he informed them that he had
purchased additional shares over the last couple of months. In
making this statement, Lay concealed that he had made net sales
of over $20 million in Enron stock in the preceding two months.

In a meeting with other senior executives one month prior to
Enron's third quarter earnings release, Lay learned that Enron
had incorrectly accounted for the Raptor transactions, and as a
result, Enron shareholders' equity would be reduced by $1.2
billion. Lay also knew that the Raptors were being terminated
and combined with other pending write-downs that would result in
an earnings charge of $1.01 billion. Specifically, Lay knew that
these two items - the $1.01 billion earnings charge and the $1.2
billion reduction of shareholder equity - were unrelated, and
that the reduction to shareholders' equity was required whether
or not the Raptors were terminated. Lay reviewed and approved
Enron's earnings release that reported a "nonrecurring" earnings
charge of $1.01 billion, a majority of the charge ($544 million)
relating to the early termination of the Raptors. Lay knew that
the characterization of the termination of the Raptors as
"nonrecurring" losses was erroneous and inconsistent both with
advice Enron had received from its auditor and Enron's past
treatment of Raptor earnings as recurring operating earnings.
Lay and others intentionally omitted any reference to the $1.2
billion equity reduction from the press release. In a conference
call with analysts to discuss the earnings release, Lay falsely
stated that "in connection with the early termination" of the
Raptors, Enron's shareholders' equity would be reduced by $1.2
billion. Lay did not disclose, as he knew, that the reduction
was principally due to a significant accounting error, as
opposed to the termination of the Raptors.

In an effort to calm deepening public concern regarding the
decline in Enron's stock price, Lay participated in conference
calls with analysts and others. In these calls, Lay made false
and misleading statements regarding Enron's financial health.
For example, Lay stated, "[Enron is] not trying to conceal
anything. We're not hiding anything," and "we're really trying
to make sure that the analysts and the shareholders and the debt
holders really know what's going on here. So, we are not trying
to hold anything back." In a telephone call with a prominent
credit rating agency, Lay falsely stated that Enron and its
auditors had "scrubbed" the company's books and that no
additional write-downs would be forthcoming. In fact, Lay knew
that Enron was carrying its international assets at billions in
excess of their fair value and that Enron had failed to disclose
a $700 million goodwill impairment.  In an all-employee meeting
to reassure Enron's employees, Lay falsely described Enron's
liquidity, stating that "our liquidity is fine. As a matter of
fact, it's better than fine, it's strong ."

At the time he made the statement, Lay knew that Enron had been
forced to offer its prized pipelines as collateral for a $1
billion bank loan and that the only source of liquidity was a $3
billion line of credit, which was fully utilized on Lay's
authority.  In addition, Lay made misleading statements about
Enron stock and its prospects. Lay misleadingly stated, "as sad
as the current market price is . but we're going to get it back"
and "that doesn't mean we can't get back up to the $80s or $90s
in the not-too-distant future."  At the time he made the
statement, with Enron stock trading at less than $20 per share,
Lay did not disclose that he had quietly sold over $65 million
of Enron stock back to the company during 2001.

From January 25, 2001 to November 27, 2001, Lay took advances on
a non-collateralized $4 million line of credit with Enron in the
total amount of $77,525,000. Thereafter, in twenty separate
transactions, Lay repaid the credit line by selling $70,104,762
worth of Enron stock back to the company, at prices he knew did
not accurately reflect Enron's true financial condition.  For
example, after learning of Enron's undisclosed plan to hide over
$500 million in EES losses in ENA, Lay sold 1,086,571 shares of
Enron common stock back to the company, in 11 transactions, for
a total of $34,081,558. Following Skilling's resignation on
August 14, 2001, at a point when Lay was learning more about
Enron's deteriorating financial condition, Lay sold 918,104
shares of Enron common stock back to the company, in five
transactions, totaling $26,066,474. As Lay tried to prop up
Enron's stock price following Enron's third quarter earnings
release on October 16, 2001, Lay sold 362,051 shares of Enron
stock back to the company, in four transactions, totaling
$6,050,232. Enron's shareholders and employees, much less the
public, did not learn of Lay's sales of Enron stock back to the
company until February 2002, over two months after Enron filed
for bankruptcy protection.  Lay also made withdrawals from his
line of credit totaling $7.5 million between October 24 and
November 27, 2001, at a point when Enron's financial condition
was crumbling.

On November 1, 2000, Lay established two program sales plans
under Commission Rule 10b5-1. Subsequently, Lay amended both
plans.  At the time Lay amended both plans, he was in possession
of material nonpublic information concerning Enron's
deteriorating financial condition, meaning Lay cannot use the
plans as a defense to insider trading charges.  Under the
amended plans, Lay unlawfully sold over 350,000 Enron shares for
total proceeds in excess of $20 million.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Richard A. Causey, Jeffrey K.
Skilling and Kenneth L. Lay, Civil Action No. H-04-0284."


FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Orlando Man Lodges Price-Gouging Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for an uninsured Orlando man facing a $135,000 bill
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status against Florida
Hospital, accusing them of price-gouging, predatory bill
collecting and other discriminatory practices targeting
uninsured people, the Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News
reports.

The civil action in Orlando's federal district court was one of
a half dozen suits filed the same day against a number of
nonprofit hospitals from Florida to New Jersey, alleging they
violated their tax-exempt status and nonprofit mission by
financially abusing people without insurance.

The suit alleges Florida Hospital shows preferential treatment
for insured patients, shifts higher charges onto the uninsured
and often harasses them in collections. "They charge their
uninsured patients significantly more, generally pursuing the
poor or uninsured relentlessly by aggressive and humiliating
collection techniques," the suit said.

Florida Hospital called the lawsuit's claims inaccurate,
misleading and without merit. The hospital said the case
involved a somewhat infrequent situation in which an uninsured
patient incurred major expenses, but did not qualify for
financial assistance. More than 75 percent of uninsured patients
never pay a cent on their bills, officials told Knight-Ridder /
Tribune Business News.

The suit represents Orlando resident Edward Jellison, a disabled
roofer who was charged more than $116,600 for an 18-day stay at
Florida Hospital in 2002. Medicare or insured patients would
have been charged about $14,000 for similar treatment, the suit
claims.

Florida Hospital officials said they have tried to work with
Jellison to settle the bill, but without success. They said the
case has become muddled since Jellison became a client of the
consumer group, Consejo de Latinos Unidos, or Council of United
Latinos, led by activist K.B. Forbes.

Morrison said the last settlement offer they received from Mr.
Jellison was $13,000, which the hospital considered unacceptable
for a $116,000 bill that had mushroomed to $135,000 including
interest.

Mr. Forbes' group had referred Mr. Jellison to Archie Lamb, an
Alabama lawyer who specializes in class-action health-care
litigation. Lamb also has worked with Richard Scruggs, the
Mississippi lawyer who won class-action battles against major
tobacco companies in the 1990s. Scruggs' firm is now also
involved in some of the other cases against nonprofit hospitals.

"We're glad to see the Lamb and Scruggs law firms taking up
these cases, It helps level the playing field," Mr. Forbes told
the Knight-Ridder / Tribune Business News.

The Lamb firm, based in Birmingham, Ala., received widespread
publicity recently for its class-action battles with the
nation's managed health-care plans.


FLOWSERVE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against Flowserve Corporation in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas, alleging that the
Company violated federal securities laws during a period
beginning on March 29, 2001 and ending September 27, 2002.  The
second consolidated amended complaint also names as defendants:

     (1) C. Scott Greer, Chairman, President and Chief
         Executive Officer,

     (2) Renee J. Hornbaker, former Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer,

     (3) the Company's outside auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers,
         LLP,

     (4) Banc of America Securities LLC and

     (5) Credit Suisse First Boston

The second amended complaint asserts claims under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, and seeks unspecified compensatory damages, forfeiture by
Mr. Greer and Ms. Hornbaker of unspecified incentive-based or
equity-based compensation and profits from any stock sales, and
recovery of costs.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Reaches $92M VA Augmentin Antitrust Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) agreed to settle US anti-trust cases
involving the antibiotic product Augmentin, GSK is also
progressing towards settlement of certain other legal matters
for which additional provision is required.

GSK will pay $92 million (50 million pounds sterling) in
settlement of class action lawsuits brought on behalf of direct
purchasers, including pharmaceutical wholesalers, and indirect
purchasers such as consumers and third party payers. The
settlements are being submitted for review to the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, where the cases have
been pending since 2002. GSK continues to believe that its
actions were appropriate in obtaining and enforcing its patents
for Augmentin.

The settlement of all these legal matters will be covered using
existing provisions together with an additional legal charge,
which will be taken in the Company's earnings in the second
quarter of 2004. This legal charge is expected to be
approximately 170 million pounds and will be largely offset by
gains realized from the sale of equity investments and other
income. Taken together, these items are therefore expected to
have minimal impact on the second quarter's earnings.


GUAM: Lawyers Question ETIC Settlement, Claims Money Not Enough
---------------------------------------------------------------
Local attorneys have challenged the settlement that Attorney
Mike Phillips ironed out for taxpayers against the government of
Guam claiming that too much money was given for the work that
was performed by the attorney, the Pacific News Daily reports.

Mr. Phillips represents taxpayer Julie Santos in a class-action
lawsuit against the government of Guam, which has failed to pay
the Earned Income Tax Credit since 1998. The tax credit, which
was created in 1973, is an incentive for the working poor.

Mr. Phillips and the government reached a $60 million agreement
about two weeks ago, but the agreement is not final and still is
in court.  The amount is about half of what the government owes.
The proposed settlement, which was signed by federal Judge
Joaquin Manibusan stated that Mr. Phillips would receive 10
percent, or $6 million, leaving $54 million to be distributed to
eligible taxpayers.  According to the attorneys, Mr. Phillips
could be paid up to $6 million over the next nine years for his
role in settling the tax lawsuit.

However, a motion to intervene was filed in federal court on
behalf of taxpayer Christina Naputi, who is represented by
attorney Thomas Fisher.  He told the Pacific Daily News that the
settlement reached allows ineligible people to be paid thereby
reducing the amount of money available for his client Naputi and
others like her.  Mr. Fisher said there is a three-year statute
of limitations on tax claims, and he said taxpayers should not
be paid for any claims beyond three years.

There also exist a second legal challenge, which could be filed
during the next few days by attorney Robert Kutz, who said the
settlement was improperly reached before basic questions were
answered.  Among other things, the courts need to determine
whether Ms. Santos adequately represents the interests of
everyone who is affected, Mr. Kutz told the Pacific Daily News.

Mr. Phillips told the Pacific Daily News that he reached a good
settlement with the government that guarantees $20 million will
be paid during the next year, with $40 million more during the
following eight years.


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Denies Lawsuit Claims V. Company
--------------------------------------------------------------
IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: IBPI) faces one or
more purported class action lawsuits against the Company, Dr.
Henry Fuchs, Dr. Detlef Albrecht, and David Tucker, officers of
the Company, have been filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, asserting alleged
violations of the Federal securities laws, the Company said in a
press release.

The lawsuits seek certification of a class consisting of those
who purchased IntraBiotics common stock between September 5,
2003 and June 22, 2004.  The Company and its officers deny the
claims asserted in the lawsuits and intend to defend the suits
vigorously.


INDONESIA: Jakarta Judge Dismisses Pricing Suit V. Water Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Due to its failure to comply with legal procedures in a class
action lawsuit against PT Thames PAM Jaya (TPJ) and PT PAM
Lyonnaise Jaya (Palyja), the Central Jakarta District Court
dismissed all charges by the Jakarta Water Consumers Community
(Komparta), the Asia Intelligence Wire reports.

Presiding Judge Suripto ruled that the court found that Komparta
lacked legal standing as it only had powers of attorney from
three out of the eight customers who had complained of the water
firms' poor service. Judge Suripto said since Komparta was not
entitled to represent the customers, the court had to reject the
suit and drop all charges and demands against the defendants.

Komparta filed the suit last June, after the firms' insisted on
raising water rates despite customer complaints of a lack of
improvement in the service.  Komparta demanded compensation
amounting to Rp 990 million (US$110,000) for material losses and
claimed punitive damages of Rp 1 billion. It also demanded the
firms publish a public apology to customers in several major
media.

While the water firms' defense team was satisfied with the
verdict, Komparta lawyer J.J. Armstrong Sembiring was unhappy
with the ruling.  He questioned the verdict since an earlier
ruling by the court had concluded that all legal procedural
requirements including the letter of authorization were
fulfilled.

Komparta though has stated that it will appeal the verdict, and
if necessary, file a new class action suit against the firms.


JEWELRY IMPORTERS: Recalls 150M Jewelry Items Containing Lead
-------------------------------------------------------------
The toy jewelry importers A & A Global Industries, Inc., of
Cockeysville, Md.; Brand Imports, LLC, of Scottsdale, Ariz.;
Cardinal Distributing Co. Inc., of Baltimore, Md.; and L. M.
Becker & Co., Inc., of Kimberly, Wis. is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 150 million pieces of toy jewelry sold in
vending machines across America.

CPSC has determined that some of this toy jewelry contains
dangerous levels of lead, posing a risk of lead poisoning to
children. Only about half of the 150 million pieces of toy
jewelry actually contains lead, but, because it is difficult to
distinguish the lead jewelry from the non-lead jewelry, the
industry decided to recall all of it.

CPSC has received one report of lead poisoning when a child
swallowed a piece of toy jewelry containing lead that was
previously recalled. No reports of injury or illness have been
received for the recalled products announced today. Young
children sometimes mouth or swallow items like these, and lead
can leach from the jewelry into the child's body. Lead poisoning
in children is associated with behavioral problems, learning
disabilities, hearing problems and growth retardation.

The four firms have advised the Commission that they have
stopped importing toy jewelry with lead and are committed to
working with the CPSC staff on eliminating hazardous levels of
lead in future importations of toy jewelry.

"With millions of pieces of jewelry involved in this recall, I
urge parents to search their children's toys for this jewelry,"
said CPSC Chairman Hal Stratton. "Throw away this recalled toy
jewelry." CPSC has issued guidance urging firms to eliminate
lead in consumer products, or, if lead is used, to assure it is
not accessible. CPSC collected and analyzed some samples of toy
metal jewelry sold in vending machines and found that 10 of
those products had lead that could be accessible to children.
The industry volunteered, out of an abundance of caution, to
recall additional products.

This toy jewelry recall involves various styles of rings,
necklaces and bracelets. The rings are gold- or silver-colored
with different designs and paint finishes with various shaped
center stones. The necklaces have black cord or rope or gold- or
silver-colored chains. The necklaces have pendants, crosses or
various geometrical designs or shapes, and can include
gemstones. The various styles of bracelets include charm
bracelets, bracelets with medallion links, and bracelets with
faux stones. All the jewelry was manufactured in India.

The toy jewelry was sold in vending machines located in malls,
discount, department and grocery stores nationwide from January
2002 through June 2004 for between $0.25 and $0.75. The industry
estimates that this toy jewelry is kept in homes for a short
period of time, but parents should look for these items in their
homes.

Consumers should throw away recalled jewelry.

For more details, contact the Toy Jewelry Recall Hotline by
Phone: (800) 441-4234 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or visit the firms' Web site:
http://www.toyjewelryrecall.com


LYBRAND: SEC Files Proceedings, Seeks Penny Stock Bars V. Execs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings pursuant to Section
15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Richard
S. Kern, Donald R. Kern, and Charles Wilkins, based on the final
judgment entered against them in SEC v. Lybrand, et al., Civ.
No. 00-1387 (S.D.N.Y.). The U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York entered a final judgment on Oct. 6, 2003,
enjoining the Kerns and Wilkins from future violations of
Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933. In
addition, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York entered final judgments of consent on June 28, 2004,
enjoining the Kerns and Wilkins from violating Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Commission's complaint in that action alleged, among other
things, that from April 1998 through January 1999, the Kerns and
Wilkins participated in a scheme to create artificial trading
markets for certain shell corporations, and used manipulative
trading practices to drive up the stock prices of the shell
corporations for their benefit. In particular, the complaint
alleged that the Kerns and Wilkins transferred millions of
unregistered shares of the shell corporations' securities to
Lybrand to manipulate, and sold unregistered shares to the
public. The Kerns and Wilkins realized profits of $5.9 million
as a result of their sales of the shell corporations'
unregistered securities.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, to provide the Kerns and Wilkins an opportunity to dispute
these allegations, and to determine whether a penny stock bar is
appropriate and in the public interest.


MARTHA STEWART: Court Refuses Plaintiff's Request For New Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum refused to
grant Martha Stewart a new trial, after a United States Secret
Service laboratory director was indicted for perjury during Ms.
Stewart's first trial, Reuters reports.

Martha Stewart, 62, who built a media empire on tips for
gracious living, was found guilty in March of lying to
investigators over her suspicious stock sale in biotech company
Imclone Systems, Inc. in December 2001.  Prosecutors said she
was tipped that ImClone's founder, Sam Waksal, was dumping his
shares. The defense said there was a preexisting deal to sell
her shares if the price fell to $60, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (June 21, 2004) reports.

U.S. Secret Service laboratory director Larry Stewart (not
related to Ms. Stewart) was charged with two counts of perjury,
after he testified, as an expert witness, that he was involved
in examinations of a worksheet kept by Ms. Stewart's broker
Peter Bacanovic.  However, court documents relate that Mr.
Stewart was only consulted briefly during the examination and
did not do the actual testing.  Mr. Stewart has denied the
charges.

Lawyers for Ms. Stewart then asked for a new trial, saying the
verdict against their client was "corroded" by the testimony.
Government prosecutors refuted the argument, saying that a new
trial should not be allowed because her lawyers failed to show
the false testimony had any effect on the jury's verdict.

Mr. Stewart's testimony supported an allegation that Mr.
Bacanovic altered Ms. Stewart's portfolio worksheet to add an
"@60" mark next to an entry for ImClone's stock.  However, the
jury had acquitted Mr. Bacanovic on the one charge related to
the marking.

"...the jury convicted defendants of lies that had nothing to do
with the $60 agreement. The outcome would have been no different
had Lawrence's entire testimony been rejected by the jury, or
had Lawrence not testified at all," Judge Cedarbaum said in her
43-page ruling.

"Because there is no reasonable likelihood that this perjury
could have affected the jury's verdict, and because overwhelming
independent evidence supports the verdict, the motions are
denied," she continued, Reuters reports.

The judge also denied a hearing on the matter.  Judge Cedarbaum
earlier rejected arguments that the conviction should be
dismissed because a juror lied on the jury selection
questionnaire and made public statements showing his bias
against the rich and famous.  The ruling paves the way for the
domestic maven's sentencing next week on her conspiracy and
obstruction of justice convictions.

"We are very disappointed that Judge Cedarbaum has once again
rejected Martha Stewart's request for a new trial without
holding a hearing," Robert Morvillo, Stewart's lawyer, said in a
statement, Reuters reports.  "We continue to believe that the
unprecedented double perjury - by both a key government witness
and a juror - prevented Martha Stewart from receiving a fair
trial."

The defense team plans to raise these and other issues on an
appeal to be filed after Stewart's sentencing, scheduled for
July 16.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: SEC Bars Accountant, Asses $1.45M Fine
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission Commission issued an
Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule
102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings,
and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Kirk J.
Dischino.

The Order finds that on June 30 the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey entered a final judgment permanently
enjoining Dischino against further violations of the relevant
antifraud, reporting, books-and-records, and internal controls
provisions of the federal securities laws in the civil action
entitled SEC v. Measurement Specialties, Inc. and Kirk J.
Dischino, 04 Civ. 3000 (KSH)(D.N.J.).

The Commission's complaint in the civil action, filed on June
28, charged Dischino with accounting fraud and insider trading
in connection with his conduct as the chief financial officer of
Measurement Specialties, Inc. (MSI), a New Jersey-based
manufacturing company. The complaint also charged MSI with
accounting fraud. Both defendants settled the civil action,
without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations. The
final judgment requires MSI to pay a penalty of $1 million, and
requires Dischino to pay disgorgement and penalty totaling in
excess of $450,000. On June 28 Dischino pleaded guilty to
related criminal charges.

Based on the entry of the injunction in the civil action, the
Order suspends Dischino from appearing or practicing before the
Commission as an accountant. Dischino consented to the issuance
of the Order without admitting or denying the findings in the
Order.


OMNOVA SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal Suit Certification Refusal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio's refusal to grant class certification
to the securities suit filed against OMNOVA Solutions, Inc.,
GenCorp, Inc. and certain retiree medical plans of both
Companies, seeking certain retiree medical benefits.

A group of former GenCorp Inc. employees who retired from
GenCorp facilities filed the suit on behalf of an alleged class
of all eligible retirees from 12 plants formerly represented by
the United Rubber Workers.  Plaintiffs' claims are based
primarily on certain GenCorp labor agreements, which expired in
the mid-1990's or earlier, and GenCorp's adoption of a
replacement retiree health care plan that capped benefit levels.

In addition, the Company previously demanded indemnification
from GenCorp.  This demand was denied and the dispute was
submitted to binding arbitration.  On May 26, 2004, the
arbitrator ruled in favor of OMNOVA and ordered GenCorp, among
other things, to indemnify and hold harmless OMNOVA from the
claims in the litigation.


ROYAL ALLIANCE: SEC Sanctions Manager, Registered Broker-Dealer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative and Cease-and-Desist Proceedings,
Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and a Cease-
and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against J. Michael Scarborough and Royal Alliance Associates,
Inc. (Royal Alliance), a broker-dealer registered with the
Commission and headquartered in New York, New York.

Scarborough has been the manager of Royal Alliance's branch
office in Annapolis, Maryland since 1996. Without admitting or
denying the findings in the Order, Scarborough and Royal
Alliance consented to sanctions imposed by the Order.

The Commission's Order finds violations of the federal
securities laws by Scarborough in connection with the offer and
sale of Class B shares issued by mutual funds, as well as
supervisory failures by Scarborough and Royal Alliance. From
1998 through early 2000, Scarborough, through the registered
representatives under his supervision, sold brokerage customers
Class B mutual fund shares in amounts that would have entitled
them to sales charge discounts for large purchases (breakpoints)
had they purchased Class A shares of the same funds.
Scarborough, along with the registered representatives,
disclosed the characteristics of Class A shares and Class B
shares to customers, including a description of the discounts to
which the customers would have been entitled, but did not tell
them that Class A shares generally produce higher returns than
Class B shares of the same mutual fund when purchased in amounts
of $100,000 or more. If all of the customers who purchased Class
B shares in amounts of $100,000 or more had purchased Class A
shares instead, those customers would have paid $1.7 million
less in commissions.

The Order finds that between 1998 and early 2000, of the 406
broker-dealer customers who qualified for a breakpoint at the
$100,000 level or above, 399 customers, or 98 percent, purchased
Class B shares even though all of these customers would have
paid lower commissions and fees and enjoyed higher overall
returns had they purchased Class A shares.

The Order finds that Scarborough also failed reasonably to
supervise registered representatives at the branch office who
engaged in this conduct under his direction. Similarly, Royal
Alliance failed reasonably to supervise Scarborough, its branch
manager, as well as the registered representatives, with regard
to these mutual fund sales practices. Although Royal Alliance
had policies and procedures addressing the type of sales
practices that Scarborough utilized, it failed to implement
systems to adequately monitor compliance with these policies and
procedures.

The Order finds that Scarborough willfully violated Sections
17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and that Scarborough
and Royal Alliance failed reasonably to supervise with a view to
preventing violations of the securities laws.

The Commission ordered that Scarborough cease-and-desist from
committing or causing any violations and any future violations
of the provisions charged; be suspended from acting in any
supervisory capacity with any broker or dealer for a period of
nine months; and pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest in
the total amount of $2,111,084, and a civil penalty of $50,000.
Royal Alliance was censured; ordered to disgorge $1 and to pay a
civil penalty of $150,000; and required to comply with certain
undertakings. The disgorgement and penalty payments will be
distributed to harmed customers pursuant to a Fair Fund.


SMITH BARNEY: Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For July 27, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP reminds all
purchasers and holders of the securities of the Smith Barney and
Salomon Brothers families of funds (the "Funds") owned and
operated by Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C), and certain of its
subsidiaries and affiliates, between March 22, 1999 and March
22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period") and on behalf of the
Funds, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Act of
1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the
common law that the deadline to move for Lead Plaintiff is on
July 27, 2004.

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 action, numbered 04-CV-4055 is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York 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.) ("SSB"),
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. The Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald
is the Judge presiding over the action.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder; Sections 34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940; Section 206 of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940; and the common law. The Complaint charges
that defendants engaged in an unlawful and deceitful course of
conduct designed to improperly financially advantage defendants
to the detriment of plaintiff and the other members of the
Class. The complaint alleges that defendants, in clear
contravention of their disclosure obligations and fiduciary
responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that SSB had been
aggressively pushing its sales personnel to sell Smith Barney
and Salomon Brothers funds by creating various undisclosed
incentives for brokers to sell the proprietary funds. In
addition, according to the complaint, unbeknownst to investors,
the investment advisers to the Funds (Citigroup Asset
Management, SSB, Salomon Brothers Asset Management, Inc. and
Smith Barney Fund Management LLC) paid excessive commissions,
directly or indirectly, to SSB, the broker dealer, which came
directly out of the Funds' assets, as payments to SSB for its
steering clients towards the proprietary funds. The investment
advisers profited from this scheme by earning increased
management fees, while Citigroup Global Markets benefited from
increased commissions and Citigroup profited as the ultimate
parent of Citigroup Global Markets and the investment advisers.
The clear losers were plaintiff and the other members of the
Class, whose assets were diverted to line defendants' pockets
without any benefit to them whatsoever.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Kim E. Levy, Peter
E. Seidman or Michael R. Reese Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
LLP by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Fl., New York, NY
10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


SOUTHERN COLD: FDA Seizes Adulterated Crabmeat Due Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S.
Marshals seized approximately 1,144 cases of Bernard's brand
frozen crabmeat, while it was being held for sale at Southern
Cold Storage Company, Baton Rouge, LA, on July 2, 2004 because
it was adulterated with an unapproved food additive,
chloramphenicol.

The U.S. Marshals seized approximately 304 cases of pasteurized
special white crabmeat; 200 cases of pasteurized special claw
crabmeat; and 640 cases pasteurized jumbo lump crabmeat.
Imported from China, the frozen crabmeat can be identified by
lot number 1302 with the sell by date of January 18, 2007. The
seized crabmeat has an estimated value of $86,944.

In accordance with the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, food
products that contain chloramphenicol are adulterated and are
not permitted to be sold in or imported into this country.

Chloramphenicol is a broad-spectrum antibiotic drug used to
treat life-threatening infections in humans, usually when other
alternatives are not available. The use of this antibiotic is
limited because of its potentially life-threatening side effect,
idiosyncratic aplastic anemia. For the very small number of the
population susceptible to this side effect, exposure to
chloramphenicol could be serious or life threatening. Because of
the current uncertainty regarding the dose-response relationship
between chloramphenicol ingestion and aplastic anemia, it is not
possible to define a safe level for the presence of this
antibiotic in food products.

In June 2002, FDA announced increased sampling of imported
seafood for the presence of chloramphenicol. This action was
taken because some states and other countries detected low
levels of chloramphenicol in imported shrimp and crayfish.

The agency will continue to detain or seize any food imports
that contain chloramphenicol to ensure that this product is not
released for human or animal consumption in the United States.

For more details, contact the U.S. Food & Drug Adminstration by
Phone: 301-827-6242 (Media Inquiries) or 888-INFO-FDA (Consumer
Inquiries)


UNITED STATES: Group Disappointed over S. 2062 Bill Stalemate
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Chamber of Commerce expressed disappointment
at the U.S. Senate's 44-43 vote against invoking cloture (60
votes are needed to invoke cloture) on S. 2062, the Class Action
Fairness Act.

"This was a vote against America's workers, employers and
consumers that continue to be victimized by a legal system run
amok," said Stanton D. Anderson, Executive Vice President and
Chief Legal Officer of the U.S. Chamber, and Chair of the Class
Action Fairness Coalition. "Although we are disappointed at the
procedural gimmicks that continue to stymie an up-or-down vote
on the bill, we remain committed to passing this reasonable and
vital piece of legislation this year."

The procedural legislation would curb class action lawsuit abuse
in state courts by allowing greater scrutiny of settlements that
provide coupons or something else of little or no value to
consumers, but return millions in legal fees to class action
attorneys. In addition, the bill would stop the rampant practice
of venue shopping of large national class actions by allowing
federal courts to hear more national class action lawsuits
involving plaintiffs and defendants from multiple states.

Last November, a bipartisan group of Senators negotiated a
legislative compromise on class action lawsuit abuse. That
compromise ensures genuine local class action lawsuits remain in
state courts where they belong, and that legal fees in coupon
settlements be determined as a percentage of the actual coupons
redeemed or the number of hours the lawyers actually worked.

"After months of negotiation and bipartisan agreement on a
compromise bill, the time is now to pass class action reform,"
continued Anderson. "We urge the Senate to put partisanship
aside in the name of true reform that benefits all Americans."


US PIPE: Reaches $6.5M Race Discrimination Suit Settlement in AL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Pipe and Foundry Co. agreed to pay $6.5 million to
settle the class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of the 1,832
black employees at the company, the Knight-Ridder / Tribune
Business News reports.

As part of the settlement, which was approved recently by The
U.S. District Court in Birmingham, the pipe valves and fittings
manufacturer also agreed to expand the training and posting of
management jobs in Chattanooga and four other plant sites to
help more minorities enter the company's higher-paying
positions.

"This consent decree will help ensure that the company's most
qualified employees, regardless of race, will be used in a way
that best utilizes their skills," Jon Goldfarb, an attorney for
Wiggins, Childs, Quinn & Pantazis in Birmingham told the Knight-
Ridder / Tribune Business News.

The Birmingham law firm will net about $2 million from the
lawsuit against U.S. Pipe. Black employees of U.S. Pipe who
worked at the company for at least three years between 1998 and
2004 and were denied promotions may qualify to share in the
other $4.5 million of the settlement.

U.S. Pipe has denied any wrongdoing. But company officials said
they have strengthened efforts to promote minorities to
management positions.

Jim America, who joined the company in August as vice president
of human resources, will manage the consent degree, fair
employment programs and diversity training. An advisory council
was also created to help promote more black managers and skilled
craft workers at U.S. Pipe.

According to Jim America, vice president of human resources and
designated manager of the consent decree about 35 percent of the
work force at the five affected plants in the settlement are
black and about 15 percent of the company's management is black.
"We believe the programs we've implemented are benefiting staff,
enriching the corporate culture and enhancing the work
atmosphere for everyone," Mr. America told the Knight-Ridder /
Tribune Business News.


                New Securities Fraud Cases


99 CENTS: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of 99 Cents Only Stores ("99 Cents" or the "Company")
(NYSE:NDN), between March 11, 2004 and June 10, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendant violated sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series
of material misrepresentations to the market, thereby
artificially inflating the price of 99 Cents securities.
Throughout the Class Period, 99 Cents reported increased sales
and overall growth and profitability in publicly disseminated
press releases and SEC filings, and forecasted positive earnings
and revenue targets. Moreover, defendants represented that the
Company was increasing its "footprint" in the United States by
opening as many as 25 new stores. However this purported success
was the result of defendants' fraudulent scheme to artificially
inflate the price of 99 Cents securities during the Class
Period.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) expenses were improperly accounted for with respect to
         advertising and product distribution;

     (2) profit margins were negatively impacted by the rising
         cost of supplies, litigation, and workers compensation;

     (3) inventory was materially overstated by at least $10
         million worth of perishable food products;

     (4) the Company's Los Angeles distribution center was in
         such a state of disrepair that it was unable to
         efficiently deliver and restock local 99 Cents store
         shelves, which had a negative impact on sales;

     (5) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (6) defendants' earning projections lacked any reasonable
         basis in fact.

On June 11, 2004, when markets were closed in observance of a
national holiday, 99 Cents issued a press release announcing
that the Company was significantly revising downwards its
guidance for the second quarter 2004. The Company stated that it
was lowering its retail sales estimates to $235 - $238 million
from $242 - $247 million, and the Company's earnings per share
guidance to $0.04 - $0.07 per share from $0.19 - $0.20 as a
result of a cut back in new store openings, and lower than
expected comparable sales and gross margins resulting from
rising dairy, fuel, litigation, and workers compensation costs.
The Company also stated in the release that its Los Angeles
distribution center was "operating at over-capacity which
negatively impacted labor productivity, store deliveries, store
level in-stock positions, and consequently comp sales." In
addition, the Company conceded that it lacked adequate internal
controls and that it had to implement further measures to
"ensure that proper management and systems infrastructure is in
place to re-establish desirable earnings growth." The future of
the Company was so uncertain that defendants refused to provide
any guidance for the remainder of the year. In reaction to this
news, the price of 99 Cents stock dropped $6.38 per share, or
31.1%, from its closing price on June 10, 2004 to a closing
price of $14.10 on the next trading day, June 14, 2004

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. or Christine
A. Giovannelli, Esq. of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP by Phone:
(212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com/join.html


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Business
Objects S.A. (Nasdaq:BOBJ) between April 23, 2003 and April 30,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against defendant Business
Objects S.A. and one or more of its officers and/or directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


BISYS GROUP: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securites Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of The BISYS
Group, Inc. (NYSE:BSG) between October 23, 2000 and May 17,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants BISYS, Lynn J.
Mangum, Russell P. Fradin, James L. Fox and Kevin Dell.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Callidus Software, Inc.
("Callidus" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CALD), between November
19, 2003 and June 23, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"),
including those who acquired their shares pursuant to the
Company's November 2003 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Callidus
Software, Inc. (Nasdaq:CALD) between November 19, 2003 and June
23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Callidus Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: CALD)
("Callidus" or the "Company") from November 19, 2003 through
June 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Callidus, Michael A. Braun, Ronald J.
Fior, Reed D. Taussig, John R. Eickhoff, R. David Spreng, Terry
L. Opnendyk and George B. James with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (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.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L.
Berman, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (Nasdaq: COCO)
("Corinthian" or the "Company") from August 27, 2003 through
June 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Corinthian, Anthony Digiovanni, David
Moore, and Dennis Beal with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company manipulated financial aid documents to
         boost loan amounts available to students, thereby
         fraudulently receiving additional funds from the
         federal government;

     (2) that the Company used the fraudulently obtained funds
         to boost its revenues and stock price;

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

     (4) that as result of the illegal practices, the Company's
         earning and net income were materially inflated and in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
         ("GAAP").

On June 24, 2004, Corinthian announced that a division of the US
Department of Education ("USDE") had uncovered violations in
obtaining federal loans at Corinthian's Bryman College campus,
in San Jose, California. Consequently, USDE revoked the school's
ability to receive advance payments on its student loans. News
of this shocked the market. Shares of Corinthian fell $2.55 or
10.18 percent, on June 24, 2004, to close at $22.51.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L.
Berman, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of IntraBiotics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("IntraBiotics" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:IBPI), between September 5, 2003 and June 22, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


LEHMAN ABS: Krislov & Associates Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Krislov & Associates, Ltd. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of
Corporate Backed Trust Certificates, Verizon New York Debenture-
Backed Series 2004-1 ("Certificates") between January 5, 2004
and May 11, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The suit named as defendants Lehman ABS Corp. ("LABS" or
"Lehman"), U.S. Bank Trust National Association, Corporate
Backed Trust Certificates Verizon New York Debenture-Backed
Series 2004-1 Trust (the "Trust"), Lehman Brothers Inc., RBC
Dain Rauscher and Banc of America Securities LLC, alleging
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933.

The Complaint alleges that in January 2004, the Trust offered
and issued to the investing public, through Lehman, 8,205,760
Certificates pursuant to a Registration Statement, Prospectus
and Prospectus Supplement (the "Prospectus"). Certificates were
sold for $25.00 each and paid a 6.20% interest rate. Securities
and Exchange Commission rules regarding the sale of such
Certificates require that the issuer of the underlying
securities, here Verizon New York, Inc., file certain periodic
reports with the SEC. If the issuer of the underlying securities
decides not to file those reports, any Corporate Backed Trust
relating to those securities must be liquidated.

On May 7, 2004, Lehman announced that Verizon New York, Inc.,
the issuer of the Debentures underlying the Certificates, had
elected to suspend the required reports to the SEC and that the
Trust must be terminated. This announcement triggered an event
of default under the terms of the Trust, requiring the
liquidation of the Trust assets. The price of the Certificates
closed at $22.00 on May 11, 2004, the day that the Trustee
announced that it would liquidate the Debentures and the last
day of trading for the Certificates.

The Complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially
misleading because it omitted to state material information that
defendants had an obligation to disclose, including the material
fact that Verizon, the parent of Verizon New York, had
established a plan in early 2003 to possibly no longer
separately report its domestic operating telephone subsidiaries,
including Verizon New York.

For more details, contact Clinton A. Krislov, Esq., Michael R.
Karnuth, Esq., or Jessica J. Mead, Esq. of Krislov & Associates,
Ltd. by Mail: Civic Opera Building, Suite 1350, 20 North Wacker
Drive, Chicago, Illinois, 60606 by Phone: (312) 606-0500 by Fax:
(312) 606-0207 or by Email: mail@krislovlaw.com


MERIX CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in OR
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Merix
Corporation (Nasdaq:MERX) between July 1, 2003 and May 13, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Oregon against defendant Merix, Mark Hollinger and
Jamie s. Brown.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Alfred Yates Lodges Securities Lawsuit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr. PC initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired shares or other ownership
units of any of the Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MER) mutual
funds carrying the "Merrill Lynch" brand name (the "MLIM Funds")
through Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated
("MLPF&S") acting as broker between May 20, 1999 to the present
(the "Class Period") and who were damaged thereby, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Merrill
Lynch & Co., Inc. ("ML&Co."), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner &
Smith Incorporated ("MLPF&S") and Merrill Lynch Investment
Managers L.P. ("MLIM LP").

The action charges defendants with engaging in an unlawful and
deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly financially
advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiffs and other
members of the Class. As part and parcel of defendants' unlawful
conduct, defendants, in contravention of their disclosure
obligations, fiduciary responsibilities and National Association
of Securities Dealers ("NASD") Rules, failed to properly
disclose that defendants systematically applied incentives and
demerits to induce and compel MLPF&S's mid-level managers to
maximize sales of mutual funds carrying the MLIM brand name. In
turn, these mid-level managers -- Regional Directors, Directors
and Resident Managers -- brought intense pressure to bear on the
Financial Advisors under their supervision to steer the
Financial Advisors' clients away from mutual funds owned and
managed by other entities and into MLIM Funds. By investing in
the MLIM Funds, plaintiffs and other members of the Class
received a return on their investment that was substantially
less than the return on investment that they would have received
had they invested the same dollars in a comparable fund.
MLPF&S's undisclosed plan and scheme has operated as a wrongful
and deceptive exploitation of the misplaced trust of its
clients.

For more details contact the law office of Alfred G. Yates, Jr.
and Associates by Mail: 429 Forbes Avenue, Suite 519, Pittsburgh
PA 15219 by Phone: (412) 391-5164 or (800) 391-5164 or by E-
mail: yateslaw@aol.com


SHAW GROUP: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of The Shaw
Group, Inc. (NYSE:SGR) between October 19, 2000 and June 10,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


TROY GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action in the Orange County Superior Court of the State of
California on behalf of an institutional shareholder of Troy
Group, Inc. ("Troy" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:TROY) that
controls in excess of 5% of the Company's shares. The plaintiff
brings this stockholder class action on behalf of the holders of
Troy common stock against Troy's management and directors for
breaching their fiduciary duties in their efforts to complete
the sale of Troy to Dirk, Inc., a company controlled by the
founder of Troy and his family (the "Proposed Acquisition").
Dirk, Inc. owns more than 67% of Troy's outstanding shares. This
suit follows the suit filed also by Lerach Coughlin Stoia &
Robbins LLP on behalf of Osmium Partners, an institutional
shareholder controlling in excess of 3% of the Company's shares.

The complaint alleges that instead of carrying out their
fiduciary obligation to seek the highest price reasonably
available for Troy's shareholders, the defendants instead
conspired to engineer a sale of the Company to one buyer, and
one buyer only: the Dirk family. Furthermore, the complaint
alleges that the defendants sought to depress the share price of
the stock, such that they could take the company private at an
artificially low price, by engaging in a series of actions to
both frighten investors as well as reduce the reported
profitability of the business. Consequently, the complaint
alleges that the Dirks' current offer of $3.06 per share
represents a tremendous discount to even the most conservative
estimate of the Company's true value. Moreover, the Dirks' offer
is well below the Company's current share price of $3.53 per
share (based on the closing share price on Thursday, July 8,
2004).

The complaint details the history of the defendants' carefully
orchestrated, long-running scheme to take the Company private
for their own benefit at an absurdly low price, which is, in
effect, stealing from the Company's outside shareholders. To
carry out their plan, the complaint alleges that the Dirks, in
conjunction with the Company's conflicted Board of Directors:

     (1) deliberately sandbagged the performance of the
         business;

     (2) created a black cloud over the Company by switching
         accountants on four occasions in the past two years,
         which in turn;

     (3) delayed the Company's filings with the SEC on multiple
         occasions, which in turn;

     (4) caused the Company's shares to be delisted at one
         point.

The complaint further alleges that all of these actions caused
investors to panic and the stock to crash. Then, with the stock
artificially depressed, the defendants proceeded with their plan
to take the Company private by making a lowball offer in March
2002 and refusing to even consider multiple higher offers from
outside bidders.

When the Dirks' initial offer was ultimately rejected by
shareholders, they redoubled their efforts to depress the stock
price and demoralize shareholders such that they would accept a
second lowball offer by:

     (a) replacing two board members with close business
         associates of the Dirks;

     (b) changing auditors yet again;

     (c) issuing unwarranted negative guidance about the
         Company's future prospects; and

     (d) once the second lowball offer was made, hiring an
         unqualified firm to render a flawed and deficient
         fairness opinion.

In essence, the Proposed Acquisition by the Dirk family is the
product of numerous bad faith actions and a hopelessly flawed
process, which have violated the defendants' fiduciary
obligations and subverted the interests of the plaintiff and the
other public stockholders of Troy.

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


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Goodkind Labaton Lodges DE Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Veritas
Software Corporation ("Veritas" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:VRTS)
between April 21, 2004 and July 6, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Veritas, Edwin J. Gillis
and Gary L. Bloom ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that during the class period Defendants
had actual knowledge of or recklessly disregarded the fact that
although the Company was involved in negotiations for
significant contracts, those negotiations had not advanced far
enough to reasonably conclude they would close. Despite the
Defendants having no reasonable basis to do so, Defendants
caused the Company to confirm expectations that its revenue for
second-quarter 2004 would be $490 to $505 million and earnings
per share for the quarter would be $0.21 to $0.23. The complaint
also alleges that Defendants confirmed these earnings
expectations without reasonable basis and in order to maintain
the Company's share price and avoid the negative fallout that
would occur as a result of an accurate disclosure of the
Company's contractual prospects and financial condition.

Only three weeks after Defendants confirmed their second quarter
2004 expectations, on July 6, 2004, the Defendants shocked the
market by suddenly announcing that the Company's second quarter
2004 revenues would actually be "in the range of $475 million to
$485 million" and that its GAAP earnings per share would, in
fact, "be in the range of $0.17 to $0.19." As a result of this
news, the Company's share price plunged from $26.55 to $17.00,
or 36% in heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: 800-321-0476 or visit
their Web site: http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=Veritas



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *