CAR_Public/040714.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, July 14, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 138


                            Headlines

AGENT ORANGE: Lawyer Confident Vietnamese Will Be Compensated
CARDINAL HEALTH: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in S.D. OH
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit Filed in S.D. TX
COMMERCE BANCORP: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in NJ Court
DEL GLOBAL: Reaches Settlement For SEC Securities Fraud Lawsuit

DRUGSTORE.COM: Shareholder Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
FERDINAND MARCOS: HI Court Orders $40M To Be Paid To Victims
GRIST MILL: Recalls Granola Bars Due To Salmonella Contamination
HERITAGE BOND: CA Bonds Lawsuit Updated, Lead Counsel Announces
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suits in N.D. CA

LINKNET INC.: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. "Boiler Room" Operator
MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Settlement For EEOC Gender Bias Lawsuit
PARTY CITY: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
PHILIP MORRIS: IL High Court Urged To Uphold $10.1B Judgment
RICHARD HARKLESS: SEC Lodges Civil Contempt Motion in C.D. CA

UNISTAR FINANCIAL: SEC Settles Enforcement Action V. Former CPA
UNITED STATES: Hispanic Farmers' Race Bias Lawsuit Consolidated
VITANA FINANCIAL: NC Court Halts Unsolicited Phone Sales Calls
WILMINGTON TRUST: Consents to SEC-Filed Cease-and-Desist Order
WORLDCOM: Seeks Repayment of Former CEO Ebbers' $400M Loan

YUKOS OIL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
CARDINAL HEALTH: Scott + Scott To Lodge Securities Lawsuit in OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
COMMERCE BANCORP: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA

COMMERCE BANCORP: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
HIBERNIA FOODS: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
MERRILL LYNCH: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SALOMON BROTHERS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY

UICI INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Launches PA Securities Suit
YUKOS OIL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
YUKOS OIL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

                            *********


AGENT ORANGE: Lawyer Confident Vietnamese Will Be Compensated
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for the Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange expressed
confidence that the defendants will be held accountable for the
injuries the plaintiffs faced after being exposed to the
defoliant used by American forces during the Vietnam war, Agence
France-Presse reports.

The suit, filed on January 30 in the United States District
Court in Brooklyn, New York, is pending on behalf of three
adults in Vietnam and all other Vietnamese exposed to herbicides
during the war.  The Hanoi-based Vietnam Association for Victims
of Agent Orange leads the suit, which seeks compensatory and
punitive damages.  The suit accuses several companies, including
Dow Chemical, Monsanto and Occidental Petroleum, of complicity
to war crimes and crimes against humanity.

From 1961 to 1971, American and South Vietnamese forces sprayed
millions of liters of herbicide over South Vietnam to destroy
vegetation used by communist forces for cover and food.  Agent
Orange was the most common mixture used.

According to a study released last year by scientists from the
United States, Germany and Vietnam, Agent Orange was still
contaminating people through their food.  Dioxin, the
defoliant's deadly component, can cause an increased risk of
cancers, immunodeficiencies, reproductive and developmental
changes, nervous system problems and other health effects,
according to medical experts, AFP reports.

The Vietnamese government asserts that the defoliant has caused
health problems for more than one million Vietnamese and
continues to have devastating consequences.  It further stated
that the United States has a moral and humanitarian
responsibility to heal the wounds of the war but it has never
formally asked for compensation for Agent Orange victims.
Washington, however, insists there is no direct evidence linking
dioxin with any illnesses, AFP states.  Agreeing to disagree,
both governments signed a pact in March 2002 on a framework for
more research into the impact of the defoliant.

Constantine Kokkoris, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs,
believes the case is strong.  "I am confident, and my confidence
is buoyed by the judge's comments at the initial conference on
March 18. He said we had a serious case," the American national
told AFP in an interview last week during a visit to Vietnam.
"The law in the United States has evolved, as has the scientific
evidence of the effects of Agent Orange, and it is now possible
to have a serious claim."

Kokkoris and his legal team arrived in Vietnam on June 29 on a
two-week mission to meet Agent Orange victims and medical
experts.  He says more names are expected added to the list of
plaintiffs.

He admits that justice for the victims still remains a long way
off.  He expects the defendants to file a motion in September to
have the case dismissed, but he is confident it will not be
thrown out.  Nevertheless, acutely aware of the potential
pitfalls ahead, the US attorney refuses to rule out the
possibility of an out of court settlement.

"Certainly, we would consider it if a reasonable offer was made.
A case like this could take years and it is very time-
consuming," he told AFP.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Health, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio.  The Complaint alleges that Cardinal, and certain of its
officers and directors issued materially false statements
concerning the Company's financial condition.

Specifically, defendants failed to disclose:

     (1) that Cardinal manipulated various aspects of its
         accounting practices to continuously portray
         profitability to market;

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

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

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

The Complaint is on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Cardinal Health, Inc. between
October 24, 2000 and June 30, 2004 inclusive.  Also included are
all those who acquired Cardinal's shares through its
acquisitions of Alaris Medical, Intercare, Medicap, Syncor,
Boron Lepore, InGel, Ni-Med, SP Pharmaceuticals, or
International Processing Corporation.  Present and former
employees who purchased stock through Cardinal's Retirement
Savings Plans are also included.

On June 30, 2004, Cardinal announced expected earnings per share
for fiscal 2004, which were below prior guidance. Separately,
the company announced that on June 21, as part of the Securities
and Exchange Commission's (SEC) formal investigation disclosed
by the company on May 14, it received an SEC subpoena. On this
news, Cardinal fell $17.19 per share or 24.54% on July 1, 2004
to close at $52.86 per share.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from October 24,2000 to June 30, 2004.  The
plaintiff firms are:

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

     (2) Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York,
         NY, 10017

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

     (4) Scott & Scott LLC, Mail: P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich
         Avenue, Colchester, CT, 06415, Mail: 860-537-5537, Fax:
         860-537-4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit Filed in S.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Central Freight Lines, Inc. faces a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, alleging violations of federal securities
laws.  The suit also names as defendants Robert V. Fasso,
Patrick J. Curry, and Jeffrey A. Hale.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Act of 1933. On
December 12, 2003, Central Freight announced that had completed
an IPO of 8.5 million shares of stock pursuant to a
Prospectus/Registration Statement. The IPO was priced at $15.00
per share for total net proceeds of $77.9 million after
underwriting discounts and commissions.

In fact, the Prospectus/Registration Statement was materially
false and misleading and failed to disclose, among other things,
the following:

     (1) that the Company's dynamic resource planning process
         implementation was going disastrously;

     (2) that the Company's aggressive expansion projects were
         negatively affecting the Company's margins;

     (3) that the Company's insurance and claims accrual rate
         was off because the Company failed to have sufficient
         reverses for accident frequency; and

     (4) that the Company was experiencing severe operational
         issues.

As this adverse information was disclosed, the Company's shares
eventually plummeted to $8.55 per share.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities on December 12,2003.  The plaintiff firms are:

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

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

     (3) Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York,
         NY, 10017;

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

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


COMMERCE BANCORP: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in NJ Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commerce Bancorp, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
face a securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint alleges that Commerce and certain of its officers
and directors engaged in improper, inherently unsustainable, and
potentially criminal bribery and bid-rigging in order to win
underwriting awards and gain government deposits.  In recent
indictments of two executives and a director of Commerce
Bank/Pennsylvania, it is alleged that such practices were used
to procure over USD$50 million in government deposits and
USD$1.7 million in fees from the City of Philadelphia alone.
Moreover, the indictments indicate that the practices included
the direct participation of Commerce's chairman and chief
executive officer. Others involved have been indicted as well.

The complaint further alleges that Commerce, through massive
political campaign contributions to politicians in Pennsylvania
and New Jersey, regularly violated Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board's rule G-37. This rule prevents banks from
underwriting bond offerings for issuers if they have contributed
more than USD$250 to the political campaigns of the officials of
the issuer. These violations, as well as the bribery and bid-
rigging, were illegal, inherently unsustainable, and not
disclosed to investors during the Class Period. Had they been
disclosed, they would have called into question the massive
growth in municipal underwriting and government deposits
repeatedly touted by Commerce during the Class Period.

The complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants,
who include officers and directors of Commerce, had intimate
knowledge of FBI investigations and grand jury proceedings
delving into the actions of defendants Commerce, Ronald White
('White'), Glenn Holck ('Holck'), and Stephen Umbrell
('Umbrell'). The FBI raided the law offices of White, Director
of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, on October 16, 2003. Thereafter,
the attorneys representing Holck, president of Commerce
Bank/Pennsylvania, and Umbrell, regional vice-president of
Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, had access to the telephone tapes
that were at the center of the eventual criminal indictments. It
is alleged that these tapes clearly establish the culpability of
the three Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania defendants.

During the grand jury proceedings, various Commerce officers
testified, many of them with representation from attorneys from
the law firm of a member of the Board of Directors of Commerce.
In December 2003 and January 2004, a few months after the raid
on White's law offices, the Chairman and CEO sold Commerce
shares for insider sale proceeds of USD$5.9 million. Despite the
intimate knowledge of Commerce senior executives, including its
Chairman and CEO, of the investigation and criminal grand jury
proceedings, it is alleged that such information was never
disclosed to investors during the Class Period and only became
known on or about June 29, 2004.

On that, US Attorney Patrick Meehan announced that a Commerce
director and two executives had been indicted. White, Director
of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania until October 2003, has been
charged with conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, 22
counts of wire fraud, four counts of mail fraud, two counts of
extortion, and five counts of making false statements to the
FBI. If convicted on all counts, he faces a maximum sentence of
555 years imprisonment and an USD$8.25 million fine. Holck,
president of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, is charged with
conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, eight counts of wire
fraud, and one count of mail fraud. Umbrell, regional vice-
president of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, is charged with
conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, eight counts of wire
fraud, and one count of mail fraud. If convicted on all counts,
he faces a maximum sentence of 185 years imprisonment and a
USD$2.5 million fine.

Currently, 18% of Commerce's deposits are from municipalities,
more than any of its rivals. Analysts have expressed concern
that such government deposits may shrink as a result of the
indictments. One analyst, Gerald Cassidy of RBC Capital Markets,
stated: '[The concern is that] those municipal treasurers and
county clerks may sit back and reassess: 'Are we all going to be
tainted with any kind of brush?'' The price of Commerce's
commonstock has declined by approximately 20% since the day
before the indictments were officially announced.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock from June 1,2002 to June 28,2004.  The plaintiff firms
are:

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

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

     (3) Scott & Scott LLC, Mail: P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich
         Avenue, Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537,
         Fax: 860-537-4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


DEL GLOBAL: Reaches Settlement For SEC Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Del Global Technologies Corporation (DGTC) ("Del Global")
resolved a dispute over a January 2002 shareholder litigation
settlement and also obtained final court approval for a proposed
SEC settlement.

Del Global resolved the dispute related to a motion filed on
February 6, 2004 to enforce a January 2002 class action
settlement agreement entered into by Del Global. In the February
2004 motion, the plaintiff class claimed damages due to Del
Global's failure to timely complete a registration statement for
the shares of common stock issuable upon exercise of certain
warrants granted in the original class action settlement in
2002. In the February 2004 motion, the class sought damages of
$1.25 million together with interest and costs, and a
declaration that $2 million in subordinated notes issued as part
of the 2002 class action settlement were immediately due and
payable.

In settling this matter, Del Global has agreed to modify the
exercise, or "strike," price of the warrants issued in 2002 from
$2.00 to $1.50 per share, and to extend the expiration date of
such warrants by one year to March 28, 2009.

In connection with this settlement, Del Global will recognize
litigation settlement expense of approximately $455,000 during
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004, ending July 31, 2004. This
settlement charge will be comprised of a non-cash charge of
approximately $350,000 related to the value of warrant
modifications, plus associated legal and valuation costs.

Del Global also obtained the final approval from the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
regarding the settlement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of previously announced claims against the Company.
These claims had been initiated in connection with the
restatement of financial statements filed by former management
for the fiscal years 1997 through the third quarter of fiscal
2000.


DRUGSTORE.COM: Shareholder Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drugstore.com, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington.  The suit also names as defendants Kal Raman, Robert
Barton, and Sridhar Iyer.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  Defendant Raman is also charged with violating
Section 20A of the Exchange Act.  The complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued false and
misleading projections of the Company's fiscal year 2004 and
second quarter 2004 earnings and overall profitability.

While the market was focused on the positive guidance Defendants
issued, Company insiders, including Defendants, sold millions of
their Company stock.  After selling nearly all of his holdings,
Defendant Raman resigned as CEO while the Company issued revised
downward guidance.  Upon the Company's disclosure its stock
plummeted 38%, on usually high trading volume of 3.8 million
shares, from its June 10, 2004 close of $4.91 per share to a
close of $3.06 on June 14, 2004.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities from January 20, 2004 to June 10, 2004.  The
plaintiff law firms are:

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

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Seattle), mail:
         1001 4th Avenue, Suite 2550, Seattle, WA, 98154, Phone:
         206-839-0730, Fax: 206-839-0728, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com;

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


FERDINAND MARCOS: HI Court Orders $40M To Be Paid To Victims
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
ruled that the $40 million that once belonged to deceased
Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos should be distributed to
plaintiffs in a class action filed against the Marcos estate,
the South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

Around 9,000 Filipinos sued the Marcos estate for compensation
for human rights abuses like summary executions, torture and
disappearances that happened during the strongman's twenty year
term.  In 1995, a Honolulu jury awarded the plaintiffs $40
million after finding Mr. Marcos guilty of the charges.  The $40
million has been held in an escrow account because of competing
claims of ownership by the Marcos estate, the Philippine
government and the plaintiffs.  It has grown to $3.7 billion
with interest.

U.S. District Judge Manuel Real ruled the assets should begin
paying plaintiffs in the suit and denied a motion to freeze the
assets pending an appeal by Arelma Corporation, a Panamanian
financial company that originally held the $40 million.  Jay
Ziegler, an attorney for Arelma, told the Sun-Sentinel the
company will likely appeal the ruling.

The $40 million is separate from $658.2 million in frozen Swiss
assets that the Philippine Supreme Court awarded to the
Philippine government last year.  Former President Marcos and
his family fled to Hawaii after he was toppled in a "people
power'' revolt in February 1986, ending his 20-year rule.  He
died in Honolulu in 1989 without admitting any wrongdoing.


GRIST MILL: Recalls Granola Bars Due To Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Grist Mill Company of Lakeville, MN, is voluntarily recalling
Fruit & Nut Trail Mix Granola Bars and Muesli Cereals, sold
under retailer brand names because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Salmonella.

The Fruit & Nut Trail Mix Granola Bars are packaged in 7.4 oz.
boxes, with expiration dates between June 6, 2004 (JUN0604) and
December 31, 2004 (DEC3104). The Muesli Cereals are packaged in
a 15.3 oz. box with the expiration dates between September 10,
2004 (SEP1004) and December 10, 2004 (DEC1004).

Salmonella is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The Fruit & Nut Trail Mix Granola Bars were distributed
nationwide to retail chains and are sold under their brand
names: Acme, Albertson's, BiLo, Food Club, Food Lion, Fred
Meyer, Giant, Giant Eagle, Great Value, Hill Country Fare,
Hyvee, Jewel, Kroger, Laura Lynn, Meijer, Millville, Our Family,
Price Chopper, Ralph's, Roundy, Stater Brothers, Stop & Shop,
Sunny Select, Tops and Weis. The Muesli Cereals were distributed
nationwide to retail chains and are sold under their brand
names: Acme, Albertson's, Archer Farm, Best Choice, Central
Market, Flavorite, Fred Meyer, Harris Teeter, Hyvee, Jewel,
Kroger, Ralph's, Safeway, Select Healthy Advantage, Shaw's, and
Shop & Save.

Almonds received by Grist Mill Company were randomly tested for
the presence of Salmonella. This ingredient testing did not
reveal a presence of Salmonella in raw almonds before the
ingredient was used to manufacture the subject products and
there are no reported illnesses associated with these products.
However, the company is working with FDA to assure the quality
and safety of the food supply.

This recall is in response to a voluntary recall by Paramount
Farms of California of whole and diced raw almonds based on over
20 possible illnesses associated with the almonds nationwide.

These products should not be consumed but rather returned to the
store of purchase for a full refund.

For more details, contact Grist Mill's information line at
1-800-233-7022.


HERITAGE BOND: CA Bonds Lawsuit Updated, Lead Counsel Announces
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Brian Barry, Co-Lead Counsel in the class
action, In Re Heritage Bond Litigation, 02 MDL 1475 DT (RCx),
pending in the Central District of California, herewith provides
this update on the litigation pending since November 2001.

On July 12, 2004, the Hon. Dickran Tevrizian granted Plaintiffs'
motion to certify the class. The class is defined as follows:
The Class consists of all Persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired Heritage Bonds at any time, but excludes the following:

     (1) any Person otherwise qualifying for inclusion in the
         Class who makes a timely and valid request for
         exclusion from the Class;

    (2) the Settling Defendants, or their immediate families;

    (3) any Person (and, in the case of a natural person, any
        member of his or her immediate family) that is or at any
        time has been a defendant in this Class Action;

    (4) any entity in which a current or former defendant in
        this Class Action has a controlling interest;

    (5) any Person who, as of the date that notice is sent to
        the Class of the pendency of this Class Action, has
        recovered monies in excess of $2,000, whether via
        settlement, judgment, to otherwise, in any Individual
        Proceeding; and

    (6) any Person who, as of the deadline for opting out of the
        Class, files or maintains an Individual Proceeding.

The following Partial Settlements have been reached:

    (i) The Accountant Defendants settled the case for $1.25
        million. On May 10, 2004, the Court preliminarily
        approved the settlement.

   (ii) The Miller & Schroeder executive defendants have settled
        the class action for $575,000 in cash and a stipulated
        judgment of $2 million whereby the $2 million would be
        paid if and when the executives are successful in their
         legal action to force the insurance company to cover
         the class action claims. The Court preliminarily
         approved the settlement on June 14, 2004.

   (iii) The Attorney Defendants (Joel Boehm, Sabo & Green, and
         Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo) settled the
         class action for $6 million. On June 14, 2004 the Court
         preliminarily approved the settlement.

    (iv) An agreement in principal has been reached with U.S.
         Trust (NYSE: SCH). The settlement will be documented
         shortly and we expect the motion for preliminary
         approval to be heard some time in August 2004.

The settlement monies will go into an escrow fund for the
benefit of the bondholders. At this time, bondholders do not
have to take any action to participate. We estimate that notice
and a claim form will be sent to the bondholders in October
2004.

The case is proceeding against a number of defendants including
Robert and Debra Kasirer, the Officers and Directors of Heritage
and two wholly owned subsidiaries of Century Business Services
Inc. (NASDAQ: CBIZ). The CBIZ subsidiaries, Valuation Counselors
Group, Inc. and Zelenkofske, Axelrod & Co., Ltd., prepared
appraisals and feasibility studies in each of the 11 bond
offerings at issue. The total damages claimed by the Class
exceed $90,000,000.

The case involves eleven municipal bond offerings in California,
Florida, Illinois and Texas, which raised over $130,000,000
between December 1996 and March 1999. The money raised was to be
used to acquire, renovate and reopen former hospitals in these
four states as facilities designed to assist elderly persons and
Alzheimer's patients. Plaintiffs allege that the bond offerings,
identified below, constituted a huge Ponzi scheme. On June 29,
2004, the Securities & Exchange Commission filed a complaint
against five individuals associated with the bond offerings
(Robert Kasirer, Jerold Goldstein, Joel Boehm, James Iverson,
and Vic Dhooge) alleging violations of federal securities laws.
The investigation by the Department of Justice continues.

BONDS COVERED BY THE CASE

     (a) Bonds issued by the Danforth Health Facilities
         Corporation in Texas for Danforth Gardens (December 20,
         1996), Sam Houston Gardens (March 3, 1997), and Duval
         Gardens (July 10, 1998).

     (b) Bonds issued by the Tarrant County Health Facilities
         Development Corporation in Texas for St. Joseph Gardens
         (May 15, 1997 and October 5, 1998), Valley Gardens
         (March 11, 1999), and Eastwood Gardens (November 13,
         1998).

     (c) Bonds issued by the City of Mexico Beach, Florida for
         Heritage House of Sarasota (December 22, 1997) and
         Heritage House of Seminole (December 21, 1998).

     (d) Bonds issued by the City of Chicago, Illinois for
         Heritage House of Chicago (July 24, 1998).

     (e) Bonds issued by the Desert Hot Springs Public Financing
         Authority in California for Heritage Hospital (August
         20, 1998).


For more details, contact the Law Office of Brian Barry by
Phone: 310-788-0831 by E-mail: bribarry1@yahoo.com or visit the
settlement Web site: http://www.heritagebondsclassaction.com


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Intrabiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. faces several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The suits also name as
defendants certain of the Company's officers and directors.

According to a press release dated July 07, 2004, the Complaint
alleges that IntraBiotics, a biopharmaceutical company, and
certain of its officers and directors issued materially false
statements concerning the Company's drug iseganan.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose:

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

     (2) that the drug caused a higher rate of ventilator -
         associated pneumonia ('VAP') and mortality as compared
         to placebo;

     (3) that despite knowing and/or recklessly disregarding the
         aforementioned facts, the defendants nevertheless
         raised capital through offerings of its common stock in
         order to portray to the market that iseganan was a
         viable marketable product that was on the 'fast track'
         to FDA approval; and

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

On June 23, 2004, the Company announced that an independent data
monitoring committee recommended to IntraBiotics that it
discontinue its pivotal trial of iseganan for the prevention of
VAP based on an interim analysis of the data. On this news,
IntraBiotics fell $9.45 per share or 69%, to close at $4.23 per
share.

The suits are filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
stock from September 5,2003 through June 22,2004.  The plaintiff
firms are:

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

     (2) Green & Jigarjian LLP, Mail: 235 Pine Street, 15th
         Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104, Mail: 415-477-6700,
         Fax: 415-477-6710;

     (3) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, Mail: 275 Madison Ave 34th
         Flr, New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212-682-1818, Fax:
         212-682-1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com;

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

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


LINKNET INC.: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. "Boiler Room" Operator
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted proceedings
pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act) against Dale Carone with respect to his
association with any broker or dealer. The Division alleges that
Carone was enjoined from future violations of Sections 5(a),
5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities of 1933 Act and Sections 10(b)
and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Order alleges that the complaint in the underlying
injunctive action alleged that LinkNet, Inc. (LinkNet) and
LinkNet de America Latina, Ltd. (Latina), companies that
employed Carone, had conducted a fraudulent offering scheme,
collectively raising over $17 million and defrauding more than
1900 investors located throughout the United States. The
complaint alleged that LinkNet and Latina hired Carone and
others to organize and operate a boiler room to solicit
investors to purchase securities in LinkNet and Latina.  The
complaint further alleged that Carone directed the activities of
the boiler room and that Carone and others made numerous
misrepresentations to investors, including: that a public
offering of LinkNet stock was imminent; that LinkNet's stock
would shortly be listed on Nasdaq; and that LinkNet and Latina
had contracts for the sale of hundreds of millions of minutes of
long distance service that would generate millions of dollars in
revenue to the companies. The complaint also alleged that Carone
and others also failed to disclose that at least thirty percent
of the offering proceeds were paid as commissions to the boiler
room operations. The complaint finally alleged that Carone acted
as an unregistered broker in connection with sales of the stock
of LinkNet and Latina, and through the boiler room operations of
those issuers.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, to provide Carone an opportunity to dispute these
allegations, and to determine what sanctions, if any, are
appropriate.


MORGAN STANLEY: Reaches Settlement For EEOC Gender Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Investment firm Morgan Stanley reached a $54 million settlement
for the gender discrimination suit filed against it by the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, alleging a pattern of
discrimination that refused promotions and gave lesser salaries
to its women employees, the Associated Press reports.

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

Opening statements in the suit were scheduled Monday before U.S.
District Judge Richard Berman.  The CEO of Morgan Stanley and
the chairperson of the EEOC, which brought the suit in 2001, had
personally become involved in settlement talks over the weekend,
he told AP.

He added the settlement would include $12 million for Allison
Schieffelin, the former Morgan Stanley bond seller at the heart
of the allegations.  In addition, Morgan Stanley is to implement
"far-reaching" measures to enhance the role of women in its work
force, including an outside monitor.


PARTY CITY: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Party City Corporation reached a settlement for overtime class
action filed against it in the Los Angeles Superior Court in
California by an assistant manager in one of its California
stores for himself and on behalf of other members of an alleged
class of Party City store managers were misclassified as exempt
from California overtime wage and hour laws.  The Class members
sought the disgorgement of overtime wages allegedly owed by the
Company to them but not paid as well as punitive damages and
statutory penalties.

On March 30, 2004, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle
to settle this lawsuit for $5.5 million on a "claims made"
basis, which means that a payout to class members will only
occur when claims are actually made by Class members.
Previously, the Company recorded a pre-tax charge of $1.4
million related to this lawsuit.

In connection with the agreement-in-principle, the Company
recorded an additional pre-tax charge of $4.1 million during the
third quarter of Fiscal 2004 to fully cover the settlement
payments, attorneys' fees and the estimated expenses of
administering the settlement.  The settlement provided for
pursuant to the agreement-in-principle is subject to certain
conditions, including the negotiation and execution of a
definitive settlement agreement and the approval of the terms of
the definitive settlement agreement by the Superior Court after
notice to the members of the class who have the right to object.


PHILIP MORRIS: IL High Court Urged To Uphold $10.1B Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers who initiated a class-action lawsuit on behalf of 1
million smokers against Philip Morris USA urged the Illinois
Supreme Court to force the company to pay the $10.1 billion
judgment in the case, the Associated Press WorldStream reports.

Thirty health and consumer groups including the American Cancer
Society, the American Lung Association and Public Citizen signed
onto court briefs urging the justices to uphold a March 2003
trial court decision that ordered the cigarette-maker to pay the
money for misleading smokers into thinking light cigarettes were
less harmful than regular ones, plaintiff attorney George Zelcs
told the Associated Press.

The company appealed the judgment in December and also has been
successful in getting a $12 billion court-ordered appeal bond,
which covered the judgment plus interests and court costs, cut
nearly in half.

Mr. John Sorrells, a spokesman for Philip Morris corporate
parent, Altria Group Inc., told the Associated Press it was no
surprise health and consumer groups filed amicus briefs for the
plaintiffs in their response to the company's appeal.

The company has argued it never meant for customers to think
light cigarettes carried fewer toxins than regular brands, but
merely offered smokers a milder taste.

"The case is not a personal-injury action filed by a smoker
claiming he or she didn't know of the dangers of tobacco," said
Joel Affrick, chief executive of the American Lung Association
of Metropolitan Chicago, at a news conference called by the
plaintiffs' attorneys. "This was a hard-fought suit over bedrock
principals of fairness to consumers," Mr. Affrick adds.

For more details, contact George Zelcs of Korein Tillery by
Mail: Three First National Plaza, 70 West Madison Street, Suite
660 Chicago, IL 60602-4269 by Phone: (312) 641-9750 by Fax:
(312) 641-9751 by E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.koreintillery.com/


RICHARD HARKLESS: SEC Lodges Civil Contempt Motion in C.D. CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed with the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California an
Application for an Order to Show Cause why Richard M. Harkless
of Riverside, California should not be held in civil contempt
for failing to comply with the Court's Preliminary Injunction
and Orders of March 8, 2004.

According to the SEC's court papers, Harkless has not complied
with the court's orders to provide accounting to the SEC and
repatriate assets to the United States. According to the SEC,
Harkless also has dissipated assets and taken action on behalf
of co-defendant Mx Factors, LLC without the consent of the court
or the court-appointed receiver, in direct contravention of the
March 8th orders. Should the Court hold Harkless in civil
contempt, the SEC asked that the Court impose a sanction
sufficiently coercive to compel his compliance with the orders.
Specifically, the SEC asked the Court to incarcerate Harkless,
levy a daily fine, and confiscate his passport until Harkless
complies with the orders. The Court set a hearing for July 15 at
10:00 a.m. on the Commission's contempt application.

According to the SEC's contempt application, since March 8,
2004, at least $264,290 has been transferred from Mx Factors-
related bank accounts in Belize to Olocun, S.A. de C.V., a crab
fishing operation run by Harkless in Ensenada, Mexico. Harkless
also has failed to provide the receiver with access to any of
Mx's records still in his possession or under his control and
has failed to provide the SEC with accountings, even though he
was to have delivered them to the SEC by March 18, 2004. In
addition, Harkless has not repatriated any assets or other
property held in foreign locations, even though he was required
to repatriate those assets over three months ago. The SEC also
presented the Court with evidence that Harkless traveled outside
the United States recently.

The SEC filed a complaint against Harkless and his co-defendants
on Feb. 26, 2004, in federal court in Riverside, alleging that
the defendants fraudulently induced at least 247 investors
nationwide and in Mexico to invest over $35 million in the notes
of Mx Factors, which purportedly paid a "guaranteed" return of
12% in 60 or 90 days. Mx Factors actually was operating a Ponzi
scheme and used at least $19.9 million in new investor funds to
pay existing investors. The SEC obtained orders freezing each of
the defendants' assets, appointing a permanent receiver over Mx
Factors, BBH Resources, LLC and JTL Financial, LLC, requiring Mx
Factors and Harkless to repatriate assets from abroad, and
preliminarily enjoining all of the defendants from future
violations of the securities registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, Sections 5(a), 5(c)
and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and
15(a) of Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. The orders also preliminarily enjoined defendants
BBH Resources, JTL Financial, Daniel J. Berardi, Jr., Thomas
Hawkesworth, and Randall W. Harding from future violations of
the broker-dealer registration provisions. The SEC also seeks
other relief, including disgorgement and civil penalties,
against all defendants. In June, Berardi, Hawkesworth and
Harding consented to permanent injunctions against future
violations of the securities laws as well as permanent bars from
associating with any broker or dealer. [SEC v. Mx Factors, LLC,
et al., Civil Action No. EDCV-04-223-VAP (SGLx) (C.D. Cal.)]
(LR-18779)


UNISTAR FINANCIAL: SEC Settles Enforcement Action V. Former CPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an order
instituting public administrative proceedings pursuant to Rule
102(e)(1)(ii) of   the Commission's Rules of Practice, making
findings, and imposing remedial sanctions against Michael
Karlins, CPA.  Karlins was a certified public accountant with
the firm of Karlins, Arnold & Corbitt, P.C. and was retained to
conduct an audit of the financial statements of Unistar
Financial Services Corp. in 1999. The Commission found that
Karlins engaged in intentional or reckless conduct that resulted
in violations of generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS).
Due in part to Karlins' conduct, Unistar recorded in excess of
$75 million dollars in goodwill and "customer lists" in a
related party transaction, which violated Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles. As a result, Unistar's financial
statements included in its 1998 Form 10-KSB and its Forms 10-QSB
for the third quarter of 1998 and the first and second quarters
of 1999 were materially misstated. Karlins violated GAAS
standards including the general GAAS standard concerning due
professional care, the standard of field work relating to
sufficient competent evidential matter, and the standard of
field work relating to professional skepticism. Without
admitting or denying the findings in the Commission's order,
Karlins consented to the issuance of an order denying him the
privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission as an
accountant, but providing that after three years from the date
of the order he may request that the Commission consider his
reinstatement. The order was based on a finding that Karlins
engaged in improper professional conduct within the meaning of
Rule 102(e)(1)(ii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice.


UNITED STATES: Hispanic Farmers' Race Bias Lawsuit Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated 300 Hispanic farmers have banded together and
signed on as plaintiffs in the federal class action Garcia v.
Veneman, alleging the U.S. Department of Agriculture loan
program, the Farm Service Agency, places roadblocks in front of
Hispanic farmers, The Monitor reports.  Also named as a
Defendant in the suit seeking class action status is Ann
Veneman, concurrent U.S. Secretary of Agriculture.

According to Stephen Hill, an attorney for the plaintiffs, if
class action status is granted by the U.S. District Court judge
in Washington, D.C., the suit in essence allows the farmers to
sue the agency all together.

The Hispanic farmers' lawsuit is nearly identical to two others
filed by black and Native American farmers. The black farmers'
suit, Pigford v. Veneman, was settled in 2003 for what has
amounted to more than $1 billion. While the USDA settled, that
lawsuit did not require the agency to alter the way it awards
farm loans.

"No one has come close to bringing USDA into the 20th century,
let alone the 21st century," Hill told The Monitor. "Nothing in
the way of how they did business was changed. They (minority
farmers) are being denied applications in the first instance."
Hill and his co-counsel, Ken Anderson, visited to Valley last
week to meet with some of the plaintiffs and other Hispanic
farmers that could benefit from the lawsuit.

Though declining comment on the lawsuit, USDA spokesman Ed Loyd
said told The Monitor, "FSA's mission is to serve all farmers
regardless of race."

If the Hispanic farmers are certified as a class, then the
lawsuit is expected to go to trial later this year. Though
monetary damages are being sought, the focus is on forcing
change at FSA.  "It's not going to be a straight money thing for
us," Mr. Hill told The Monitor.


VITANA FINANCIAL: NC Court Halts Unsolicited Phone Sales Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wake County Superior Court in North Carolina ordered Vitana
Financial Group, a California company pitching satellite
television systems, to stop calling North Carolina consumers on
the Do Not Call Registry.

"This company refused to listen to people's wishes and ignored
the law," State Attorney General Roy Cooper said in a statement.
"Now, there is one less telemarketer making unwanted calls to
people in North Carolina."

Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning granted AG
Cooper's request today to stop the Company from making illegal
telemarketing calls into North Carolina while a suit against the
company moves forward.   AG Cooper filed a complaint last month
asking the court to permanently stop Vitana from making
telemarketing calls in violation of state and federal laws and
to require the company to pay fines.

As alleged in the complaint, California-based Vitana called
North Carolina consumers whose numbers are listed on the Do Not
Call Registry.  The company, operating as Satellite Systems
Network and Direct Satellite Network, made telemarketing calls
with prerecorded pitches that promised consumers, "if you are
able to get back with me right away, we will also include in
your package a brand new home theatre with 6 speakers, a DVD
player and a CD player as a free gift just for trying out the
service."

More than a dozen consumers complained to AG Cooper's office
about getting multiple prerecorded calls from Vitana at home and
at work.  Prerecorded telemarketing calls are illegal in North
Carolina unless a live operator first asks if the consumer wants
to hear the taped message.  According to one consumer who
complained about the calls, Vitana telemarketers left 10
messages on his office answering machine in just one day with
the same prerecorded message.

Since North Carolina's Do Not Call law took effect, AG Cooper's
office has received more than 2,800 written complaints from
consumers who signed up for the Registry but are still receiving
telemarketing phone calls.  The Attorney General's office is
actively investigating complaints about several other companies
and has taken action to stop a number of telemarketers from
making calls illegally.  Telemarketers have paid the state over
$120,000 for violations to date.  Consumers who have signed up
can report telemarketers who call them to AG Cooper's office by
calling 1-877-5-NO-SCAM toll-free within the state or by
visiting www.ncdoj.com.

A total of 1.9 million North Carolina numbers have been placed
on the Registry since it began last summer.  To sign up for the
Registry, North Carolinians can go to www.nocallsnc.com or call
1-888-382-1222.  Consumers who sign up for the Registry are
protected by both state and federal law.

"Consumers shouldn't have to deal with interruptions from
telemarketers trying to sell them products they don't want," AG
Cooper said.  "My office means business when it comes to
enforcing consumers' rights."

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


WILMINGTON TRUST: Consents to SEC-Filed Cease-and-Desist Order
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted an Order
Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, Making Findings, and
Imposing a Cease-and-Desist Order Pursuant to Section 203(k) of
the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 against Wilmington Trust
Company (Wilmington Trust), of Wilmington, Delaware. Without
admitting or denying the findings in the Commission's Order,
Wilmington Trust consented to a cease-and-desist order.

The Commission's Order finds that Wilmington Trust served as
custodian for certain assets of an advisory client of Landis
Associates, LLC (Landis), a registered investment adviser, and
Michael L. Hershey, its president. Pursuant to the custodial
agreement, Wilmington Trust was required to prepare account
statements reflecting the advisory client's assets held in the
custody account. The Order finds that on forty-six occasions
from July 1998 through July 2000, the chief financial officer
of Tremont Medical, Inc., a private company, with Hershey's
approval and authorization, sent false instructions to
Wilmington Trust to disburse funds  supposedly for the purchase
of Tremont common stock, in an amount totaling $8.1 million.
In reality, the disbursements were cash advances. In reliance on
and in accordance with these instructions, Wilmington Trust
recorded these cash advances as the purchase of common stock. As
Tremont stock had no readily ascertainable market value,
Wilmington Trust then prepared account statements reflecting
purchases of common stock at $1.00 per share with a market value
of $3.25 per share, assigning these values based on certain
prior transactions, without objection from Hershey. Wilmington
Trust then sent these statements each month to the advisory
client, Hershey and Landis. Wilmington Trust did not obtain
stock subscription agreements, stock certificates, or other
documents to support these transactions. As a result, the
account statements it prepared and sent contained erroneous
information about the nature and value of the investments in
Tremont.

The Order further finds that, in the summer of 2000, with
Hershey's knowledge and approval, Tremont issued two notes to
the advisory client. These notes operated retroactively and
captured the previous cash advances, as well as future transfers
of funds. At that time, Wilmington Trust should have but failed
to provide the advisory client with statements that reversed the
earlier transactions to reflect the conversion to debt.

The Order finds that Wilmington Trust was a cause of Landis'
violations of Section 204 of the Investment Advisers Act and
Rules 204-2(a)(3) and (7) thereunder. These provisions require
that registered investment advisers maintain and preserve
accurate books and records. Wilmington Trust is ordered to cease
and desist from causing any violations and future violations of
these provisions.


WORLDCOM: Seeks Repayment of Former CEO Ebbers' $400M Loan
----------------------------------------------------------
Worldcom/MCI filed documents in New York Bankruptcy Court,
seeking the repayment of a US$400 million loan made to Bernard
Ebbers, its former chief executive officer, The Register
reports.

Mr. Ebbers reportedly used Company shares to buy Canada's
largest cattle ranch and a shipyard.  When the share price
started to come under pressure the company lent him money to
underwrite his loans and stop him selling stock.  Mr. Ebbers is
believed to have returned some of the money with the proceeds of
share sales.  The company is also seeking to end Mr. Ebbers'
generous pension and benefits package.

Last week, Mr. Ebbers, and 18 other executives reached a
settlement of a lawsuit filed against them by ex-WorldCom
employees who saw the value of their pensions collapse along
with WorldCom's share price.  In November, Mr. Ebbers faces
trial for fraud and conspiracy for his part in the $11 billion
collapse of WorldCom, the Register states.


YUKOS OIL: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yukos Oil Company faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, charging it, certain of its officers and directors and
its accounting advisors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Yukos is one of Russia's leading vertically-integrated oil
companies, and one of the world's largest non-state owned oil
companies.  The complaint alleges that defendants created a
complex network of shell companies to evade taxes on the
production, refining and sale of oil and oil products.  These
shell companies were registered in territories with preferential
tax treatment to enable these companies to receive special tax
exemptions in order to minimize Yukos' tax liability.

Since these shell companies were not separate legal entities, as
Yukos maintained control over the operations of these companies,
Yukos was required to recognize the full amount of the receipts
associated with these transactions for its own tax purposes and
was not entitled to the preferential tax treatment these shell
companies were granted. Accordingly, Yukos' tax liability was
materially understated and its earnings were materially
overstated in violation of GAAP.

Defendants' scheme began to unravel in October 2003 when the
market learned that Russian authorities had arrested the
Company's largest shareholder and CEO, defendant Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, and had charged him with fraud, embezzlement and
evading taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars that was owed
to the government. At this time, the Russian authorities also
announced that they would pursue criminal prosecutions against
other senior Yukos officials. Ultimately, Yukos, which has been
audited by the Tax Ministry of Russia for its fiscal year 2000
tax returns, will be required to pay approximately $3.3 billion
for 2000 alone due to its understatement of its tax liability,
including interest and penalties. The Tax Ministry intends to
audit Yukos' books for 2001-2003 based upon the same charges.
Yukos could ultimately be expected to pay upwards of $10 billion
to the Tax Ministry for defendants' involvement in the illegal
tax evasion scheme.

As a result of the revelation of defendants' wrongdoing,
investors have suffered massive damages as the price of Yukos'
securities plummeted.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from February 13,2003 to October 25,2003.  The
plaintiff firms in the suits are:

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

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

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

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

     (5) Scott & Scott LLC, Mail: P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich
         Avenue, Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860-537-5537,
         Fax: 860-537-4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Callidus Software,
Inc. (Nasdaq: CALD) ("Callidus") between November 19, 2003 and
June 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are
all those who purchased shares pursuant to the November 2003
IPO.

The Complaint alleges that Callidus, a provider of enterprise
incentive management ("EIM") software systems, and certain of
its officers and directors issued materially false statements.
Specifically, Callidus failed to disclose:

     (1) Callidus was suffering at the time of the IPO due to
         competition from established enterprise software and
         ERP vendors, who could bundle their EIM offerings with
         other software products and therefore compete more
         aggressively on prices;

     (2) Callidus was, prior to its IPO, experiencing a material
         adverse trend in license revenues;

     (3) as a result of the adverse trend in "license" revenue,
         Callidus' future "service" revenue would be adversely
         impacted for future quarters;

     (4) Callidus 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, Callidus 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, Callidus issued a
press release announcing that its "chairman and CEO resigned,
and it warned that second-quarter and full-year results would
not meet financial targets." On this news, shares of Callidus
fell to $5.01 per share, well below the Class Period high and
even the IPO price.

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


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

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

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


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

The complaint charges that Cardinal, Robert D. Walter, and
Richard J. Miller violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company manipulated various aspects of its
         accounting practices to continuously portray
         profitability to market;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Cardinal Health, Inc.
(NYSE:CAH) ("Cardinal" or "the Company") between October 24,
2000 and June 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Also included are all those who acquired Cardinal's shares
through its acquisitions of Alaris Medical, Intercare, Medicap,
Syncor, Boron Lepore, InGel, Ni-Med, SP Pharmaceuticals, or
International Processing Corp. Present and former employees who
purchased stock through Cardinal's Retirement Savings Plans are
also included.

The Complaint alleges that Cardinal and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false statements concerning the
Company's financial condition. Specifically, defendants failed
to disclose:

     (1) that Cardinal manipulated various aspects of its
         accounting practices to continuously portray
         profitability to market;

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

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

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

On June 30, 2004, Cardinal announced expected earnings per share
for fiscal 2004 which were below prior guidance. Separately, the
company announced that on June 21, as part of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's (SEC) formal investigation disclosed by
the company on May 14, it received an SEC subpoena. On this
news, Cardinal fell $17.19 per share or 24.54% on July 1, 2004
to close at $52.86 per share.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.murrayfrank.com//newcases_214.htm


COMMERCE BANCORP: Bernard Gross Files Securities Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. commenced a class
action lawsuit, numbered 04cv 3259, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, before
the Honorable Timothy J. Savage, against defendants Commerce
Bancorp ("Commerce" or the "Company")(NYSE:CBH) and Vernon W.
Hill, II - Chairman of the Board of Directors, President and
Chief Executive Officer - on behalf of all persons who purchased
Commerce's common stock (NYSE:CBH), between June 18, 2002 and
June 30, 2004 (the "Class Period") seeking remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges that Commerce and Vernon W. Hill II made
material misrepresentations and omissions in Commerce's press
releases, public filings and conference calls. Recently, a
criminal indictment was filed in U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania against a number of individuals
including, among others, Ronald A. White, a director of Commerce
PA, Glenn K. Holck, president of Commerce PA and Stephen M.
Umbrell, regional vice president of Commerce PA. ("Indictment")
The federal investigation leading up to this Indictment was
never disclosed by Commerce in its SEC filings. This Indictment
has arisen from actions taken by Commerce and/or its
subsidiaries' employees, officers and directors to gain favor
and, subsequently, business from the City of Philadelphia. The
aggressive expansion of business by Commerce as well as the
actions undertaken by these employees, officers and/or directors
violated not only the Company's Codes of Ethics and Conduct, but
also the federal securities laws. Not disclosed was that
throughout 2002, and until October 2003, Commerce Bank paid
$15,000 a month to Ronald A. White apart from his compensation
for serving on the Board, and made other payments to favor his
interest. For 2002, Commerce paid White $182,000. In return for
this compensation White directed Corey Kemp, City of
Philadelphia treasurer, to award financial services and
contracts to Commerce PA and Commerce Capital on Commerce Bank's
behalf. Additionally, during this time period, Commerce waived
certain conditions on loans and made loans on favorable terms.
Additionally, during this time period, Commerce made numerous
campaign contributions and provided other remuneration to public
officials and political candidates. Banks are barred from
donating money to elected officials who oversee municipal bond
deals, but Commerce controls a Political Action Committee, which
contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to numerous
politicians and government officials. As a result of these
disclosures, as well as the indictment on June 30, 2004,
Commerce stock went tumbling from a close on June 28 of $64.46 a
share to a close on June 29 of $61.15, and on June 30 of $55.01.
The stock is down 16% since the indictment became public.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. or Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross by Phone:
866- 561-3600 or 215-561-3600 or by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
their Web site:
http://www.bernardmgross.com


COMMERCE BANCORP: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Commerce Bancorp., Inc. (NYSE:
CBH) ("Commerce") between June 1, 2002 and June 28, 2004 (the
"Class Period"), including those who purchased in the secondary
offering on September 11, 2003. Also included, are all those who
acquired Commerce's shares through its acquisitions of The Porch
Agency and present and former employees who purchased stock
through Commerce's Retirement Savings Plans.

The Complaint alleges that Commerce, and certain of its officers
and directors regularly violated the securities laws.
Specifically, through massive political campaign contributions
to politicians in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, defendants
violated Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's rule G-37 which
prevents banks from underwriting bond offerings for issuers if
they have contributed more than $250 to the political campaigns
of the officials of the issuer. These violations were illegal
and not disclosed to investors during the Class Period.
Additionally, it is alleged that the defendants, had intimate
knowledge of FBI investigations and grand jury proceedings
delving into the actions of Commerce and certain officers.
Indeed, it is alleged that Commerce had access to the telephone
tapes, which clearly establish the culpability of the three
Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania defendants and were at the center of
the eventual criminal indictments.

On June 30, 2004, US Attorney Patrick Meehan announced that a
Commerce director and two executives had been indicted.

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Corinthian Colleges,
Inc. (Nasdaq: COCO) ("Corinthian") between August 27, 2003 and
June 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are
all those who acquired Corinthian's shares through its
acquisition of CDI Education.

The Complaint alleges that Corinthian, and certain of its
officers and directors issued materially false statements.
Specifically, Corinthian knew but failed to disclose:

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

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

     (3) that as result of the illegal practices, Corinthian'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. As a result, USDE revoked the school's
ability to receive advance payments on its student loans. On
this news, shares of Corinthian fell $2.55 or 10.18% to close at
$22.51 on June 24, 2004.

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


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

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

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

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased or
otherwise acquired shares or other ownership units of any of the
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 MLIM Funds, and the symbols for the respective MLIM Funds
named below, are as follows:

     (1) ML Aggregate Bond Index Fund (Sym:  MDABX, MAABX)

     (2) ML Balanced Capital Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDCPX, MBCPX,
         MCCPX)

     (3) ML Basic Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDBAX, MBBAX, MCBAX)

     (4) ML Bond Fund, Inc. -- Core Bond Portfolio (Sym:  MDHQX,
         MBHQX, MCHQX)

     (5) ML Bond Fund, Inc. -- High Income Portfolio (Sym:
         MDHIX, BHIX, MCHIX, MAHIX)

     (6) ML Bond Fund, Inc. -- Intermediate Term (Sym:  MDCTX,
         MBCTX, MCCTX, MACTX)

     (7) ML California Insured Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDCMX,
         MBCMX, MCCMX, MACMX)

     (8) ML Developing Capital Markets Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDDCX,
         MBDCX, MCDCX, MADCX)

     (9) ML Disciplined Equity Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDDGX, MBDGX,
         MCDGX, MADGX)

    (10) ML Dragon Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDDRX, MBDRX, MCDRX, MADRX)

    (11) ML Equity Dividend Fund (Sym:  MDDVX, MBDVX, MCDVX,
         MADVX)

    (12) ML EuroFund  (Sym:  MDEFX, MBEFX, MCEFX, MAEFX)

    (13) ML Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDFMX, MBFMX,
         MAFMX)

    (14) ML Focus Twenty Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDFOX, MBFOX, MCFOX,
         MAFOX)

    (15) ML Focus Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDPNX, MBPNX, MCPNX,
         MAPNX)

    (16) ML Fundamental Growth Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDFGX, MBFGX,
         MCFGX, MAFGX)

    (17) ML Global Allocation Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDLOX, MBLOX,
         MCLOX, MALOX)

    (18) ML Global Balanced Fund (Sym:  MDGNX, MBGNX, MCGNX,
         MAGNX)

    (19) ML Global Financial Services Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDFNX,
         MBFNX, MCFNX, MAFNX)

    (20) ML Global Growth Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDGGX, MBGGX, MCGGX,
         MAGGX)

    (21) ML Global SmallCap Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDGCX, MBGCX,
         MCGCX, MAGCX)

    (22) ML Global Technology Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDGTX, MBGTX,
         MCGTX, MAGTX)

    (23) ML Global Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDVLX, MBVLX, MCVLX,
         MAVLX)

    (24) ML Healthcare Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDHCX, MBHCX, MCHCX,
         MAHCX)

    (25) ML International Equity Fund (Sym:  MDIEX, MBIEX,
         MCIEX, MAIEX)

    (26) ML International Fund (Sym:  MDILX, MBILX, MCILX,
         MAILX)

    (27) ML International Index Fund (Sym:  MAIIX)

    (28) ML International Value Fund (Sym:  MDIVX, MBIVX, MCIVX,
         MAIVX)

    (29) ML Internet Strategies Fund (Sym:  MANTX, MBNTX, MCNTX,
         MDNTX)

    (30) ML Large Cap Core Fund (Sym:  MDLRX, MBLRX, MCLRX,
         MALRX)

    (31) ML Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym:  MDLHX, MBLHX, MCLHX,
         MALHX)

    (32) ML Large Cap Value Fund (Sym:  MDLVX, MBLVX, MCLVX,
         MALVX)

    (33) ML Latin America Fund, Inc.  (Sym:  MDLTX, MBLTX,
         MCLTX, MALTX)

    (34) ML Low Duration Fund (Sym:  MDDUX, MBDUX, MCDUX, MADUX)

    (35) ML Mid Cap Value Fund (Sym:  MDRFX, MBRFX, MCRFX,
         MARFX)

    (36) ML Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. -- Insured  (Sym:  MDMIX,
         MBMIX, MCMIX, MAMIX)

    (37) ML Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. -- Limited Maturity (Sym:
         MDLMX, MBLMX, MCLMX, MALMX)

    (38) ML Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. -- National  (Sym:  MDNLX,
         MBNLX, MCNLX, MANLX)

    (39) ML Municipal Intermediate Term Fund  (Sym:  MDMTX,
         MBMTX, MCMTX, MAMTX)

    (40) ML Resources Trust  (Sym:  MDGRX, MBGRX, MCGRX, MAGRX)

    (41) ML New Jersey Municipal Bond Fund  (Sym:  MDNJX, MBNJX,
         MCNJX, MANJX)

    (42) ML New York Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDNKX, MBNKX,
         MCNKX, MANKX)

    (43) ML Pacific Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDPCX, MBPCX, MCPCX,
         MAPCX)

    (44) ML Pan-European Growth Fund (Sym:  MDPEX, MBPEX, MCPEX,
         MAPEX)

    (45) ML Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDPYX,
         MBPYX, MCPYX, MAPYX)

    (46) ML S&P 500 Index Fund MDSRX  (Sym:  MASRX, MDUGX)

    (47) ML Short Term U.S. Government Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDAJX,
         MBUGX, MBAJX, MCUGX, MCAJX)

    (48) ML Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym:  MRUSX, MBSWX, MCSWX,
         MASWX)

    (49) ML Small Cap Index Fund (Sym:  MDSKX, MASKX)

    (50) ML Small Cap Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDSPX, MBSPX,
         MCSPX, MASPX)

    (51) ML Strategy All-Equity Fund  (Sym:  MDAEX, MBAEX,
         MCAEX, MAAEX)

    (52) ML Strategy Growth and Income Fund (Sym:  MDTGX, MBTGX,
         MCTGX, MATGX)

    (53) ML Strategy Long-Term Growth Fund (Sym:  MDYLX, MBYLX,
         MCYLX, MAYLX)

    (54) ML U.S. Government Mortgage Fund  (Sym:  MDFSX, MBFSX,
         MCFSX, MAFSX)

    (55) ML U.S. High Yield Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDCHX, MBCHX,
         MCCHX, MACHX)

    (56) ML Utilities and Telecommunications Fund (Sym:  MDGUX,
         MBGUX, MCGUX, MAGUX)

    (57) ML World Income Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDWIX, MBWIX, MCWIX,
         MAWIX)

The case, numbered 04-cv-3759, is pending before the Honorable
Richard Owen in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Merrill Lynch &
Co. ("ML&Co.") (NYSE: MER), 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, the Complaint alleges, 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. The Complaint further alleges that, 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. As also
alleged in the Complaint, MLPF&S's undisclosed plan and scheme
has operated as a wrongful and deceptive exploitation of the
misplaced trust of its clients.

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


SALOMON BROTHERS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a class
action and derivative lawsuit on behalf of 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 1934, the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the
common law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The case, numbered 04-cv-4055, is pending before the Honorable
Naomi Reice Buchwald 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. Jaffee, each of the Funds and the registrants of
the Funds.

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 Complaint
further alleges that 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 Complaint also alleges
that 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.

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


UICI INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client against UICI, Inc.
(NYSE:UCI) ("UICI" or the "Company") in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas. UICI provides
insurance, primarily health and life insurance, to niche
consumer and institutional markets. The Company also provides
certain financial and insurance related products and services
through its subsidiaries.

The complaint charges UICI and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of false
and misleading financial statements that caused the Company's
shares to trade at artificially inflated levels between January
17, 2000, and July 21, 2003 (the "Class Period"). While UICI's
stock was trading at these artificially high levels, the
Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, Academic Management Services
Corp. ("AMS"), completed the sale of $335 million in auction
rate notes backed by federally- and privately-insured student
loans held in the AMS portfolio. In addition, corporate insiders
received millions of dollars in proceeds from the sale of their
UICI shares during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
financial statements that misrepresented the financial condition
of UICI because they failed to disclose or indicate that:

     (1) UICI lacked adequate internal accounting controls;

     (2) as a result of these inadequate accounting controls,
         the Company's financial results were artificially
         inflated;

     (3) certain statements made by defendants regarding UICI's
         financial results and prospects were lacking in any
         reasonable basis; and

     (4) the Company's wholly-owned subsidiary, AMS, had
         insufficient collateral, a higher percentage of
         alternative loans than permitted by the loan
         eligibility provisions, and that AMS and its
         subsidiaries had deficiencies with respect to their
         reporting requirements.

According to the complaint, defendants' materially false and
misleading statements and material omissions caused investors to
purchase UICI shares at artificially inflated prices during the
Class Period and to be damaged thereby.

The complaint also alleges that the truth about the Company's
operations and its financial condition was not revealed to
investors until July 21, 2003, when UICI issued a press release
announcing the discovery of a shortfall in the type and amount
of collateral supporting two of the securitized student loan
financing facilities entered into by three special financing
subsidiaries of AMS. In addition, UICI revealed, at this time,
that all seven special financing subsidiaries of AMS and AMS may
have failed to comply with their respective reporting
obligations under the financing documents.

Following the release of this information, the price of UICI's
stock dropped significantly. The complaint seeks to recover
damages on behalf of all purchasers of UICI common stock during
the Class Period.

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


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Veritas Software Corporation
(Nasdaq: VRTS) ("Veritas") between April 21, 2004 and July 6,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Veritas, and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false statements concerning the
Company's business condition. Specifically, defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded the fact that negotiations for
significant contracts had not advanced far enough to reasonably
conclude they would close. Nevertheless, defendants confirmed
expectations that 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. According to the complaint, Defendants
confirmation of these earnings expectations were lacking in
reasonable basis and were made 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 Veritas'
contractual prospects and financial condition.

On July 6, 2004, the Defendants announced that Veritas' 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." On this
news, Veriatas' share price plunged from $26.55 to $17.00, a
drop of 36%.

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


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Launches PA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals Incorporated
(NasdaqNM:MICU) between January 6, 2003 and May 24, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The action is for remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. by Mail: The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202 Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808, by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or
(610) 660-8000, by Fax: (610) 660-8080, by E-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


YUKOS OIL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
of Yukos Oil Company (Pink Sheets: YUKOF), (Pink Sheets: YUKOY),
(Russia: YUKO) ("Yukos" or the "Company") from February 13, 2003
through October 25, 2003, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that the Company, Mikhail Khodorkovsky,
Platon Lebedeev, and Bruce Misamore, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between February 13, 2003 and
October 25, 2003. 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, in order to hide a building and
         significant tax burden, reported financial statements
         that were materially and artificially inflated
         throughout the Class Period by failing to report
         approximately USD 3.4 billion in taxes;

     (2) that the Company's building and significant tax burden
         totaled approximately USD 3.4 billion, this was
         accomplished through such deceptive practices, as
         selling oil at discount rates to the Company's own
         shell companies abroad or in tax-exempt zones, which
         then resold the oil at market rates thereby effectively
         lowering the tax payments by transferring profits to
         low-tax or no-tax zone;

     (3) that the Company and its Individual Defendants knew
         and/or recklessly disregarded the fact that the
         approximately USD 3.4 billion tax burden would
         materially deflate the Company's overtly "positive"
         financial results and therefore all statements about
         future prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made: and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's reported
         financial results were in violation of US GAAP.

On October 26, 2003, armed Russian security agents stormed
aboard oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky's private plane during a
pre-dawn Siberian refueling stop and arrested him on allegations
of massive tax evasion and fraud. This news shocked the market.
Shares of Yukos fell $2.42 per share or 16.78 percent to close,
on October 27, 2003, the next trading day, at $12.00 per share.
On November 29, 2003, two of Russia's biggest oil companies,
Yukos and Sibneft, abruptly suspended their landmark merger,
unraveling the creation of one of the world's largest private
oil producers. On this news shares of Yukos plummeted further.
Shares fell an additional 64 cents per share or 5.33 percent to
close at $11.36 per share. On December 3, 2003, the Russian
government declared that the embattled Yukos oil company and its
affiliates owed $5 billion in unpaid taxes, a new escalation of
the politically charged campaign against the firm five days
before parliamentary elections. Following the announcement
shares of Yukos continued to plummet. By December 10, 2003,
shares of Yukos were worth $9.51 per share.

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


YUKOS OIL: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Yukos Oil Company ("Yukos") (OTC: YUKOF.PK) (OTC: YUKOY.PK)
(Russia :YUKO) between February 13, 2003 and October 25, 2003
(the "Class Period").

Plaintiffs allege that Yukos and certain of its officers and
directors were in violation of the United States Federal
securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

The complaint charges Yukos, certain of its officers and
directors and its accounting advisors with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Yukos is one of Russia's
leading vertically-integrated oil companies, and one of the
world's largest non-state owned oil companies.

The complaint alleges that defendants created a complex network
of shell companies to evade taxes on the production, refining
and sale of oil and oil products. These shell companies were
registered in territories with preferential tax treatment to
enable these companies to receive special tax exemptions in
order to minimize Yukos' tax liability. Since these shell
companies were not separate legal entities, as Yukos maintained
control over these companies, Yukos was required to recognize
the full amount of the receipts associated with these
transactions for its own tax purposes and was not entitled to
the preferential tax treatment these shell companies were
granted. Accordingly, Yukos' tax liability was materially
understated and its earnings were materially overstated in
violation of GAAP-Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

Defendants' scheme began to unravel in October 2003 when the
market learned that Russian authorities had arrested the
Company's largest shareholder and CEO, defendant Mikhail
Khodorkovsky, and had charged him with fraud, embezzlement and
evading taxes on hundreds of millions of dollars that was owed
to the government. At this time, the Russian authorities also
announced that they would pursue criminal prosecutions against
other senior Yukos officials. Ultimately, Yukos, which has been
audited by the Tax Ministry of Russia for its fiscal year 2000
tax returns, will be required to pay approximately $3.3 billion
for 2000 alone due to its understatement of its tax liability,
including interest and penalties. The Tax Ministry intends to
audit Yukos' books for 2001-2003 based upon the same charges.
Yukos could ultimately be expected to pay upwards of $10 billion
to the Tax Ministry for defendants' involvement in the illegal
tax evasion scheme.

As a result of the revelation of defendants' wrongdoing,
investors have suffered massive damages as the price of Yukos'
securities plummeted. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on
behalf of purchasers of Yukos' securities during the Class
Period (the "Class"). Yukos has offered the Russian government a
$7.5 billion tax settlement, according to a published report.
Under terms of the offer, Yukos would make payments over three
years to cover back taxes from 2000 to 2003, Reuters reported
Sunday, citing the Russian Interfax news service.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *