---

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

              Friday, July 16, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 140

                          Headlines

APPLIED MICRO: Settles CA Derivative Lawsuit, Institutes Reforms
CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: CA Employees Sue Over Missing Lunch Breaks
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Ex-Executive Settles With SEC on Enron Fraud
CARL ZEISS: Recalls VISULINK 532/U Devices Due To Injury Hazard
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit

DONALD CHAMBERLAIN: SEC Sanctions Traders for Securities Fraud
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of Suit Dismissal
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in TX
FAB INDUSTRIES: Shareholders File Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits
FIRST JERSEY: Court Approves Plan to Compensate 83,000 Investors

FLORIDA POWER: FL Court Allows Consumer Lawsuit To Stay in Court
FREDERIC GLADLE: Settles SEC Securities Fraud Suit, Fined $153T
GEORGIA BOOT: Recalls 10T Logger Boots Due To Electrocution Risk
LEVI STRAUSS: CA Court Consolidates 2 Securities Fraud Lawsuits
MAD COW DISEASE: Report Says USDA Neglected To Test Most Cattle

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Japanese FTC Levies Antitrust Warning
MX FACTORS: SEC Sanctions Randall Harding for $33M Ponzi Scheme
NETGEAR INC.: Recalls 53,500 Ethernet Bridges Due To Shock Risk
NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Reaches Montana Power Suit Settlements
NTS DEVELOPMENT: CA Suit Settlement, Jeopardizes Louisville Suit

PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS: AL Hospital Sues For Overcharging on Drugs
PHILIPPINES: Victims Object As Govt Moves To Seize Marcos Funds
TENNESSEE: Carter County Settles Lawsuit, Promises Jail Reforms
USIS COMMERCIAL: OOIDA Lodges Fair Credit Reporting Act Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: U.S. Chamber Supports Sex-Bias Suit Dismissal

WORLD WRESTLING: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
ZIRKLE FRUIT: WA Workers Win Class Certification in Suit V. Firm

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Defending Against 89,800 Claimants
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Defaulted On Plaintiff's CCR Payment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Circor Intl Subsidiaries Named In Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Expects Approval For Accord In 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fortune Brands, Moen's Cases Decline To 150

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Insurance To Cover Its Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Settles With MacArthur Companies
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Sued In More U.S. States
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Pays $3.2M In Asbestos Costs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star, Subsidiaries Named In Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Says Claims Dismissed In UT, TX, GA
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OC Continues To Battle Thousands Of Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Atmos Says TXU Not To Indemnify LSG For Asbestos
ASBESTOS ALERT: Cytec Industries Discloses $53.6M Liability

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

COMMERCE BANCORP: Charles J. Piven Lodges NJ Securities Lawsuit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges CA Securities Suit
NBTY INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NY
RED HAT: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC

RED HAT: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC


                            *********


APPLIED MICRO: Settles CA Derivative Lawsuit, Institutes Reforms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation (AMCC) settled a shareholder
derivative lawsuit filed in 2001 in the San Diego Superior
Court, agreeing to initiates sweeping corporate governance
reforms that would boost the independence of its board, the San
Diego Union-Tribune reports.

Under the terms of the settlement, San Diego-based AMCC was not
required to make a financial payment, although arbitration of
attorneys' fees by both sides must still continue.  The reforms
include splitting the chief executive and chairman jobs into
separate positions, appointing a lead independent director with
agenda-setting powers and adding two new independent directors
to the board.  AMCC, which makes integrated circuits used in
telecommunications equipment, also agreed to seek a shareholder
vote for future stock option plans and option re-pricing.

According to Richard Bennett of Lens Governance Advisors, a
consulting firm that worked with shareholder litigator Lerach,
Coughlin, Stoia & Robbins on the case, an achievement of this
magnitude through a derivative action is a very rare event.

The lawsuit was a derivative action, in which shareholders sue
the board of directors on behalf of the company. It alleged that
AMCC executives made a series of false statements about the
company's finances in 2000 and 2001 that inflated its stock
price.

In February 2001, the lawsuit alleged that AMCC's true financial
condition became known when it took a $10.8 million charge and
lowered its revenue prediction. The company reported revenue of
$121.1 million for the fourth quarter in 2001, below analysts'
previous estimates of $162.3 million. The lawsuit contended that
AMCC's directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties,
wasted corporate assets and engaged in insider trading.

AMCC officials told the San Diego Union-Tribune that the
company's board had formed its own corporate governance
committee independent of the Lerach lawsuit. The committee was
making reforms to comply with standards of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act, a federal law passed in 2002 in the wake of corporate
scandals such as Enron and WorldCom.


The Company did not disclose the cost of defending itself, but
told the San Diego Union Tribune that its insurance company will
pay the claim. According to Dave Rickey, AMCC's chief executive
and chairman, the deal will have no financial impact on the
company whatsoever.


CALIFORNIA AMPLIFIER: CA Employees Sue Over Missing Lunch Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------------
California Amplifier, Inc. faces a class action filed in
California state court, alleging certain violations of the
California labor code.  Among other charges, the complaint
alleges that from October 2000 to the present time certain
hourly employees did not take their lunch break within the time
period prescribed by state law.

Notwithstanding that the delayed break was at the request of,
and for the convenience of, the affected employees, the Company
believes that it could have a liability to pay a wage premium
for these delayed lunch breaks, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously against all
allegations in the complaint and established what management
believes to be an appropriate reserve in the quarter ended
February 28, 2004.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Ex-Executive Settles With SEC on Enron Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes of the Southern District
of Texas entered a Final Judgment against Ian Schottlaender, a
former Managing Director with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce
(CIBC) in New York City. Schottlaender consented to the
Judgment. The Judgment resolves the Securities and Exchange
Commission's claims against Schottlaender in the civil action
filed against him, CIBC and others on December 22, 2003. As part
of the Judgment, Schottlaender agreed to pay approximately
$528,000 in disgorgement, penalties and prejudgment interest.

In its complaint, the Commission alleged that Schottlaender,
among others, aided and abetted Enron's manipulation of its
reported financial results through a series of complex
structured finance transactions over a period of several years
preceding Enron's bankruptcy. The 34 financings were structured
as "asset sales" for accounting and financial reporting
purposes, allowing Enron to hide from investors and rating
agencies the true extent of its borrowings. Between June 1998
and October 2001, Enron used these disguised loans to increase
reported earnings by more than $1 billion, to increase reported
operating cash flows by almost $2 billion, and to avoid
disclosure of more than $2.6 billion in debt on its financial
statements. Enron's alternative, borrowing money using the
assets as collateral, would have given Enron access to cash to
meet its operating expenses, but carried with it financial
reporting consequences -- increased debt, no positive effect
on cash flow, and no positive effect on earnings -- that would
have had a detrimental impact on Enron's credit rating and stock
price.

Schottlaender consented, without admitting or denying the
Commission's allegations, to the entry of a final judgment that
permanently enjoins him from violating the antifraud, books and
records, and internal control provisions of the federal
securities laws [Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and (B), and
13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Exchange
Act Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13 and 13b2-1]. In addition,
Schottlaender has agreed to pay a total of  $528,750:
disgorgement of $249,000, a penalty of $249,000 and prejudgment
interest of $30,750, and has agreed to the entry of an order
barring him from serving as an officer or director of a publicly
traded company for a period of five years. The Commission
intends to have these funds paid into a court account pursuant
to the Fair Fund provisions of Section 308(a) of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 (Fair Fund) for ultimate distribution to
victims of the fraud.

The Commission brought this action in coordination with the U.S.
Department of Justice Enron Task Force, the Federal Reserve Bank
of New York, and the Canadian Office of the Superintendent of
Financial Institutions. The Commission's investigation is
continuing. The action is styled SEC v. Ian Schottlaender, Case
No. H-03-5785, Hoyt (S.D. Tex.)


CARL ZEISS: Recalls VISULINK 532/U Devices Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Zeiss Meditec AG (International Securities Identification
Number DE000531370), announced a voluntary Medical Device Class
I recall of one lot of VISULINKr 532/U that may contain a
defective mirror coating. The VISULINK 532/U is used in
conjunction with the VISULASr 532s laser, a medical device
intended for use in photocoagulating ocular tissues in the
treatment of diseases of the eye. No other lots of VISULINK
532/U, VISULAS 532s lasers, or other Carl Zeiss Meditec devices
are involved in this action.

Recently, Carl Zeiss Meditec became aware of the potential that
the coating of the reflecting mirror of the VISULINK 532/U could
loosen from the surface. The reflecting mirror routes the
treatment beam to the patient's eye. Malfunction of the product
could cause the laser beam to permanently damage the retina of
the eye.

A total of six of the affected units were imported for
distribution in the United States, three of which were
introduced into commercial distribution. Carl Zeiss Meditec
notified the three customers affected on June 3, 2004 to stop
using the units immediately, and the units were removed for
repair. The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has
classified this action as a Class I recall. FDA defines a Class
I recall as a situation in which there is a reasonable
probability that the use of the product will cause serious
adverse health consequences or death. There have been no reports
of injury related to this event.

For more details, contact Carl Zeiss Meditec Customer Service by
Phone: 800-341-6968.


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CRYO-CELL International, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court of the Middle District of Florida against it,
certain of its current and former officers and directors and two
accounting firms who previously audited the Company's
consolidated financial statements.

The suit alleged violations of federal securities laws,
including improper recognition of revenue in the consolidated
financial statements presented in certain public reports of the
Company.  The amended complaint generally seeks, among other
things, certification of a class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between March 16, 1999 and May 20, 2003
and unspecified damages.

The parties have reached an agreement in principle to settle the
litigation, which is being formalized in a Memorandum of
Understanding.  The settlement remains subject to execution of
definitive settlement documents by all parties and approval by
the court.  The proposed settlement, which totals $7 million,
includes a payment of $4 million, which would be paid by the
carrier of the Company's former auditors, subject to its
applicable deductible.  In addition, the Company's insurance
carrier would pay $3 million on the Company's behalf under its
directors' and officers' insurance policy, subject to its
maximum deductible of $175,000.


DONALD CHAMBERLAIN: SEC Sanctions Traders for Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and
Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940  (Advisers
Act), Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order)
against Donald F. Chamberlin and David N. Chamberlin. The Order
finds that on June 22, 2004, in the case of SEC v. Donald F.
Chamberlin and David N. Chamberlin, No. 03-74983, U.S. District
Judge Nancy G. Edmunds for the Eastern District of Michigan,
entered a Partial Final Judgment and Order of Permanent
Injunction against Donald F. Chamberlin and David N. Chamberlin,
pursuant to their consents and without Donald F. Chamberlin and
David N. Chamberlin admitting or denying the allegations in the
Commission's Complaint, except as to personal and subject
matter jurisdiction, which they admitted, enjoining Donald  F.
Chamberlin from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c), 17(a)(1),
17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections
10(b), 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Sections  206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act
and enjoining David N. Chamberlin from violating Sections10(b),
15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder; and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the  Advisers Act.
The complaint alleged that from approximately July 1997 through
approximately August 2000, Donald F. Chamberlin and Shore
Harbour, with substantial assistance from David N. Chamberlin,
offered and sold investments in two, fraudulent prime bank
schemes, resulting in primary and secondary violations of the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The
complaint also alleged that Donald F. Chamberlin sold
unregistered securities and acted as an unregistered broker-
dealer.

Based on the above, the Order bars Donald F. Chamberlin and
David N. Chamberlin from association with any broker, dealer, or
investment adviser. Donald F. Chamberlin and David N. Chamberlin
consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or
denying any of the allegations in the civil injunctive action.


DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs withdrew their appeal of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas' dismissal of a
securities class action filed against Dynacq Healthcare, Inc.,
two of its officers, and the spouse of one of the officers.

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws and
regulations, on behalf of persons who purchased Company shares
between November 29, 1999, and January 16, 2002.  The various
complaints that were consolidated claimed that the Company
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 under the
Exchange Act, by making materially false or misleading
statements or omissions regarding revenues and receivables and
regarding whether our operations complied with various federal
regulations. The district court consolidated these actions and
appointed a lead plaintiff in the matter.

The Company and its officers moved to dismiss the complaint on
February 25, 2003.  On August 26, 2003, the Court granted the
Motion to Dismiss and denied Plaintiffs leave to amend further.
The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of appeal.


DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. and various current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

Eight lawsuits were initially filed between December 24, 2003,
and January 26, 2004, alleging federal securities law causes of
action against the Company and various current and former
officers and directors. The cases were filed as class actions
brought on behalf of persons who purchased shares of Company
common stock in the open market generally during the period of
January 14, 2003, through December 18, 2003.

Under the procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act, certain plaintiffs filed motions asking to consolidate
these actions and be designated as lead Plaintiff. The court
consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff in the
matter. An amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2004,
asserting a class period of November 27, 2002-December 19, 2003,
and naming additional defendants, including Ernst & Young LLP.

The amended complaint seeks certification as a class action and
alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a),
20(A) and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act, by publishing
materially misleading financial statements which did not comply
with generally accepted accounting principles, making materially
false or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues
and receivables, operations and financial results and engaging
in an intentional fraudulent scheme aimed at inflating the value
of Dynacq's stock.


FAB INDUSTRIES: Shareholders File Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fab Industries, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
face several class actions filed in Delaware Chancery Court,
alleging the defendants violated their fiduciary duties as well
as the provisions of the Delaware General Corporation.  The suit
relates to:

     (1) the management buy-out proposal at a price allegedly
         lower than the cash value and book value of the
         Company's shares, which was an allegedly interested
         Transaction;

     (2) the amendment to Mr. Samson Bitensky's employment
         contract;

     (3) the Company's failure to seek stockholder approval for
         the management buyout; and

     (4) the Company's failure to file a certificate of
         dissolution with the Delaware Secretary of State

The complaint does not seek a specific amount of damages, and
seeks to enjoin defendants from effectuating the planned
management buyout.

The Company believes that each of the claims described above is
without merit. Further, certain of the claims described above
have been rendered moot by the withdrawal of preliminary offer
by management-led buyout to acquire the Company, the Company
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


FIRST JERSEY: Court Approves Plan to Compensate 83,000 Investors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Federal judge Richard Owen approved a plan to distribute more
than $21 million to as many as 83,000 investors who bought First
Jersey Securities, Inc. common stock, the Ashbury Park Press
reports.

The $21 million compensation was taken from the assets of Robert
E. Brennan, 60, a former Brielle and Colts Neck resident who
sold so-called penny stocks through the Company.  In 1995, he
was ordered to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission $75
million for defrauding investors.  Mr. Brennan declared
bankruptcy two months later without paying the fine.  He
currently is serving 12 years in federal prison at Fort Dix for
bankruptcy fraud and contempt of court.

Judge Owen signed off on the plan July 2, setting in motion a
process that could reimburse investors  - at least partially -
by late fall, regulators said.  "After so many years of trying,
I think it's significant we have a proposal in place," Alistaire
Bambach, chief bankruptcy counsel for the U.S. Security and
Exchange Commission in New York, told the Ashbury Park Press.
"We're really one step closer to getting the money out to
victims, but there's still a lot of loose ends to tie up."

The money to the SEC comes from Mr. Brennan's assets that
regulators have wrestled away from him since he filed for
bankruptcy.  Among them are Due Process Golf Course in Colts
Neck and overseas trusts.  Mr. Bambach said she expects to
receive another $3 million to $5 million from the sale of the
Palm Beach Princess casino cruise ship.

The amount investors will receive depends on how much they lost,
but the distribution plan calls for more people to be reimbursed
than initially thought.  The SEC's settlement applied only to
investors who bought stock in one of six companies:

     (1) Rampart General Inc.;

     (2) Quasar Microsystems Inc. and its successor, QT&T;

     (3) Sovereign Chemical & Petroleum Products Inc.; and

     (4) Sequential Information Systems and Transnet Corporation

The agency, however, never compiled its own customer list.
Instead, it is relying on Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, a
Philadelphia settlement administrator, which had a database of
First Jersey customers compiled from a different class action
lawsuit settled in 1987.

That database of 83,000 people doesn't precisely distinguish
which customers had those six stocks, but the SEC decided
Brennan's fraud was widespread enough that customers in the
database should be included in the distribution.

That affects customers who bought any of 40 stocks, although one
commonly held stock, International Thoroughbred Breeders Inc.,
doesn't appear to be included. Customers will receive notices in
the mail.


FLORIDA POWER: FL Court Allows Consumer Lawsuit To Stay in Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Miami-Dade Circuit Court in Florida refused Florida Power &
Light Co.'s request to dismiss a class action filed against it,
alleging it overcharged commercial customers for electricity
with its thermal demand meters, the Palm Beach Post reports.

Miami framing company Albert Litter Studios, Inc. filed the
suit, alleging that the Company knowingly used meters that give
false readings.   The Company asked the court to dismiss the
suit, and asked that the Florida Public Service Commission
settle the issue and not the courts.  Judge Jerald Bagley
refused the request, allowing the suit to proceed in court.  No
other hearings in the case or the trial have been set.

"We're disappointed that that was the ruling. We still believe
that the proper jurisdiction for this issue was with the PSC,"
FPL spokesman Bill Swank told the Post.  "We're going to
consider all of our options that lie ahead of us, including
appeal."

"We're looking forward to addressing this very important
consumer issue here in Dade County," Sarah Clasby Engel, an
attorney with the Miami law firm of Harke and Clasby, which is
representing Albert Litter, told the Post.  "We know there are a
lot of consumers that this is a problem for, and we are seeking
to represent them in the class action."


FREDERIC GLADLE: Settles SEC Securities Fraud Suit, Fined $153T
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, U.S. District Court Judge
for the District of Columbia, entered a Final Judgment of
Permanent Injunction and Other Relief as to Frederic A. Gladle.
The Judgment, entered with the consent of Gladle, without
admitting or denying the allegations of the SEC's complaint,
orders Gladle to pay $57,000 in disgorgement, $43,000 in
prejudgment interest and a $57,000 penalty. The Judgment enjoins
Gladle from violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

According to the complaint, Gladle and his company, TrendsGroup
International, Inc., and other co-defendants violated various
registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws in connection with the unregistered nationwide sales of
securities issued by three general partnerships organized to
develop specialized mobile radio systems (i.e., paging systems)
in Albany, New York, Reno, Nevada and Anchorage, Alaska. The
Commission's complaint further alleged that Gladle functioned as
a broker by selling the securities, although he was not
registered as a broker as required by applicable securities
laws. The Commission's complaint also alleged that Gladle used
high pressure, sales tactics in marketing the partnership units
and had materially misrepresented the nature of the paging
systems.

On July 14, the Commission also instituted settled
administrative proceedings against Gladle. Gladle consented to
the issuance of the Commission's Order based on the entry of the
final judgment of permanent injunction against him, which bars
him from association with any broker or dealer, with the right
to reapply for association after five years. The action is
styled SEC v. Internet Telecommunications Albany System SMR, et
al., Civil Action No. 1:99CV00539 (CKK) (D.D.C.)] (LR-18783)


GEORGIA BOOT: Recalls 10T Logger Boots Due To Electrocution Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Boot, of Frankin, Tennesse is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 10,000 pairs of Georgia Boot Steel Toe Logger
Boots.

The boots may have been mislabeled to indicate that they are
resistant to electrical current, which is incorrect. This may
result in a serious shock or electrocution to consumers. Georgia
Boot has not received any reports of incidents. This recall is
being conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The recalled steel toe logger boots are brown and black and have
laces that tie up to the calf. The recalled boots have stock
numbers of G8320, G8322, and G9360, which can be found on a
label under the tongue of the boot. The same label has stitching
of the "Georgia Boot" name.

The boots were made in the United States and sold in retail shoe
stores nationwide and independent retail stores sold these boots
from October 2002 through April 2004 for between $80 and $150.

Consumers should stop using the boots immediately and return
them to the company for a free repair.

For more details, contact Georgia Boot by Mail: P.O. Box 10,
Franklin, TN 37063 by Phone: (877) 795-2410 by E-mail:
productnotice@georgiaboot.com or visit the Company's Web site:
http://www.georgiaboot.com


LEVI STRAUSS: CA Court Consolidates 2 Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division, issued an order consolidating two
recently filed class actions, styled "Orens v. Levi Strauss &
Co., et al." and "General Retirement System of the City of
Detroit, et al. v. Levi Strauss & Co., et al.," against the
Company, its chief executive officer, its former chief financial
officer, its corporate controller, its directors and its
underwriters in connection with its April 6, 2001 and June
16, 2003 registered bond offerings.  Additionally, the court
appointed a lead plaintiff and approved the selection of lead
counsel.  The consolidated action is styled In re Levi Strauss &
Co., Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-05605 RMW.

The action purports to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's bonds who made purchases pursuant or traceable to the
Company's prospectuses dated March 8, 2001 or April 28, 2003, or
who purchased the Company's bonds in the open market from
January 10, 2001 to October 9, 2003.  The action makes claims
under the federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the Company's
SEC filings and other public statements.

Specifically, the action alleges that certain of the Company's
financial statements and other public statements during this
period materially overstated its net income and other financial
results and were otherwise false and misleading, and that the
Company's public disclosures omitted to state that it made
reserve adjustments that plaintiffs allege were improper.
Plaintiffs contend that these statements and omissions caused
the trading price of the Company's bonds to be artificially
inflated.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as well as other
relief.


MAD COW DISEASE: Report Says USDA Neglected To Test Most Cattle
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Depart of Agriculture's (USDA) Office of
Inspector general stated that the agency neglected to test
majority of cattle most at risk for mad cow disease, Reuters
reports.

In a draft report also provided by the House of Representatives
Government Reform Committee, the office said, "The problems
identified during our review, if not corrected, may . reduce the
credibility of any assertion regarding the prevalence of BSE
(bovine spongiform encephalopathy) in the United States."  The
report further stated that the agency was not testing adult
cattle that died on the farm and had failed to test hundreds of
cattle condemned due to possible central nervous system disorder
- a symptom of mad cow disease and many other diseases.

"A process for obtaining samples from animals that died on the
farm has not been developed," the report said, according to
Reuters.  "These animals comprise the largest component of the
targeted high-risk population and the most difficult to
identify, obtain and test." it added.

The report also asserted that the agency failed to test 518 of
the 680 cattle condemned at slaughter for central nervous system
symptoms between fiscal 2002 and 2004.  Those symptoms indicate
an animal could be suffering from one of several illnesses,
including mad cow disease.

Ron DeHaven, head of USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, told Reuters 70 percent of its mad cow tests last month
came from dead cattle arriving at the slaughter plant.  "Nothing
in the report would cause us to change the focus of the
program," Mr. DeHaven said in an interview.

In April, federal inspectors in Texas failed to test a 12-year-
old cow even though it was possibly exhibiting a central nervous
system disorder.  The USDA admitted that it had violated its own
regulations as a result of the event.

As of Monday, the USDA had tested more than 15,000 cattle this
year. It hopes to test more than 220,000 cattle by the end of
2005. Last year, USDA only tested about 20,000 cattle for the
disease and only agreed to expand its testing after the first
U.S. case of mad cow disease was discovered last December,
Reuters reports.

Investigators told Reuters the department's failure to test most
of the animals at highest risk raised questions about the
credibility of the government's enhanced surveillance program
for the brain-wasting disease.

The USDA emphasized that the internal investigation took place
months before the enhanced surveillance program started in June,
Reuters reports.  The USDA said it would not comment on past
events, saying it has taken the necessary steps to ensure that
another incident doesn't occur.

"We're not focusing on what didn't happen in the past, but
rather ensuring that we get those samples in the future," Mr.
DeHaven said.  He added he was "very encouraged" by the large
number and type of cattle already being tested under an expanded
surveillance program that started in June.

USDA investigators recommended steps be taken to ensure that all
high-risk animals, including those that test negative for
rabies, those condemned for (central nervous) symptoms and those
that die on the farm are sampled and tested.  The U.S. beef
industry said it was working closely with USDA to ensure it has
access to all at-risk cattle.  Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman
and other top USDA officials will testify in a joint hearing on
Wednesday about the agency's handling of the BSE situation.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Japanese FTC Levies Antitrust Warning
------------------------------------------------------------
The Japanese Fair Trade Commission issued a warning against
software giant Microsoft Corporation, asking it to remove a
restrictive clause from contracts with electronics makers, the
Associated Press reports.  The clause, in effect, prevents
Japanese computer makers from demanding damages or royalties
even when rivals violate patents for important technology.

Fair Trade Commission official Toshihiro Hara said the warning
was the first in the world.  Concerns over the conditions had
increased over the last several years as Japanese manufacturers
add consumer-electronics features to Windows-installed
computers, he told reporters at the trade ministry.  "There are
concerns the clause may discourage motivation to develop
audiovisual technology and may hinder fair competition in that
technological field in our nation," Mr. Hara said, according to
AP.

Although the commission is not certain patents have been
violated, it said several major Japanese makers suspect such
violations and have objected to the provision since December
2000.  Mr. Hara refused to give the makers' names, according to
AP.

Microsoft issued a statement within hours of the warning, saying
it would contest the decision.  The Company asserted that it has
already omitted the conditions from new contracts and that the
disputed provisions are legal under Japanese, U.S. and European
Union law.  Company officials say such clauses are necessary to
protect itself from costly lawsuits, AP states.

In a statement issued through its Japanese subsidiary, Microsoft
said it would like to explain to the commission why it has the
section called "the non-assertion of patents provision" in
contracts.  "We object to the conclusions that the JFTC has
announced," the statement said, referring to the commission by
its acronym, AP reports.

Analysts said Japanese authorities were trying to curb possibly
monopolistic behavior in an effort to give more opportunities to
alternatives such as the open-source Linux software system.
"It's part of the evolving trend toward alternatives such as
Linux not only in Japan but around the world," Tatsuya Iwamura,
analyst at Marusan Securities told AP. "There's long been a
commonsense notion that something is wrong with the domination
of one maker."

The Japanese authorities said that the provision violated
Japan's fair trade law but did not set a fine or other
penalties. In 1998, the Fair Trade Commission ordered Microsoft
to stop bundling software pre-installed in personal computers in
a way that put competitors at a disadvantage. But the company
wasn't fined or charged with a crime.


MX FACTORS: SEC Sanctions Randall Harding for $33M Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 13, the Commission issued an Order Instituting
Administrative Proceeding Pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing
Remedial Sanctions against. The Order finds that the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California enjoined
Harding from future violations of the registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities
Act) and Section 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Commission's complaint in the civil action alleged that
Harding, operating as an unlicensed broker, took more than $33.6
million from investors residing across the United States through
his unregistered offer and sale of notes in Mx Factors, LLC. The
Mx Factors notes purported to pay a "guaranteed" return of 12%
in 60 or 90 days. Acting with and through Mx Factors, JTL
Financial Group, LLC, and their sales agents, the defendant
represented to investors that their funds would be used to
provide accounts receivable financing for large construction
projects backed or funded by the government.  According to the
complaint, these representations were false.  Mx Factors
actually was operating a Ponzi scheme and at least $19.9 million
in new investor funds was used to pay existing investors.
Additionally, the complaint alleges that Harding misappropriated
investor funds and collected undisclosed commissions of at least
12%. The Commission's complaint also alleged that this defendant
made material misrepresentations to prospective investors
concerning the due diligence they had conducted prior to
recommending the investment to prospective investors.

The Order bars Harding from association with any broker or
dealer. Harding consented to the issuance of this Order without
admitting or denying the Commission's findings. For further
information see SEC v. Mx Factors, LLC, et al., Case No. EDCV-
04-223-VAP (SGLx) (C.D. Cal.); LR-18599; LR-18619; Rel. 34-
44994; Rel. 34-49945.


NETGEAR INC.: Recalls 53,500 Ethernet Bridges Due To Shock Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
NETGEAR Inc., of Santa Clara, California is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 53,500 units Wall Plug Ethernet Bridges.

The plastic housing on these units can detach, posing a shock
hazard. NETGEAR has received one report from a consumer of a
detached casing. No injuries were reported.

The Wall Plug Ethernet Bridge is used to extend internet
availability throughout a home or business. It is 2.75 inches
high, 3.5 inches wide, and 2 inches thick, with a grayish silver
plastic housing. "NETGEAR" is written on the top of the housing.
The plastic housing contains a label with the model number and
the serial number on it. The model number is XE102 and the
serial numbers are XE12A32LB000001 through XE12A32LB005000 and
XE12134LB005021 through XE12143LB053586.

The bridges, which were made in China was sold at various
electronics stores, Web sites, and through the NETGEAR Web site
from February 2003 through May 2004 for between $50 and $80.

Consumers should stop using the product immediately. Remove
electrical power source to the receptacle and unplug the unit.
Contact the company for a free repair kit. The free repair kit
when affixed will ensure that the plastic housing will not
become loose or separated.

For more details, contact NETGEAR Inc. by Phone: (800) 303-5507
anytime for a free repair kit or visit their Web site:
http://www.netgear.comto order a free repair kit.


NORTHWESTERN CORPORATION: Reaches Montana Power Suit Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
NorthWestern Corporation (Pink Sheets: NTHWQ) reached a
tentative agreement to settle a class action lawsuit filed on
behalf of former shareholders of The Montana Power Company.
NorthWestern was named as a defendant due to the fact that it
purchased Montana Power LLC, which the plaintiffs claim is a
successor to The Montana Power Company. Settlement of the
litigation, which is entitled McGreevey, et al. v. The Montana
Power Company, et al, is subject to approval by the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court and the U.S. District Court in Montana. The
Company said that it expects to file a motion to approve the
settlement agreement with the Bankruptcy Court in the next
several weeks.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, a total of $67
million will be paid by the insurance carriers covering the
former Montana Power Company, Clark Fork and Blackfoot LLC,
Touch America and NorthWestern, and their officers and
directors. The agreement provides for a release of all claims
against the insured companies and their insured officers and
directors. Furthermore, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss with
prejudice the claims against the third party purchasers. The
allocation of the proceeds will be determined by the Touch
America Bankruptcy Court.


NTS DEVELOPMENT: CA Suit Settlement, Jeopardizes Louisville Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Property developer NTS Development Corporation settled a
California lawsuit brought by investors against the company and
an affiliate company for allegedly cheating investors out of
millions of dollars, jeopardizing a similar suit in Louisville,
the Courier-Journal reports.

But the attorneys who initiated the Louisville suit have
appealed the California settlement, claiming that the deal is
insufficient. The appeal, filed in a San Francisco court,
questions whether the settlement was "an abuse of discretion" by
the judge in Contra Costa County who approved the settlement.

According to investors, who made money whenever Louisville-based
NTS sold properties, the suit was initiated in 2001 claiming
that the company didn't sell buildings and collected management
fees instead. The investors also claimed that people, who sold
their investments, sometimes to a company managed by NTS
Chairman J.D. Nichols, had to sell at a discount because NTS was
not generating gains.

Under the settlement, several thousand current and former
investors could be entitled to more money or shares in a new
publicly traded company that would be easier to sell, the
Courier-Journal reports.

Meanwhile, attorneys for both parties in the Louisville case met
before Jefferson Circuit Judge Judith McDonald-Burkman to
determine the status of the suit, which was filed as a class
action. Due to developments in the California suit it was
decided that for the Louisville suit to proceed, lead plaintiff
and investment advisor Warren Heller must revise his suit.

According to Louisville attorney Alan Linker of Morris, Garlove,
Waterman & Johnson, which represents Heller along with a Chicago
law firm, an amended claim will be made by his client in due
time.


PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS: AL Hospital Sues For Overcharging on Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Alabama public health hospital filed a class action against
some of the nation's largest pharmaceutical manufacturers
including Merck, Pfizer and Eli Lilly, claiming the drug
manufacturers have been systematically overcharging public
hospitals and community health centers for drugs by as much as
$500 million per year.

In a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Alabama, Central
Alabama Comprehensive Healthcare Inc., an organization that
provides care for the indigent, claims major drug manufacturers
have charged prices far above the maximum allowed by a 1992 law
designed to provide more healthcare access to the homeless, the
disabled, children, and the poor.

The 1992 law requires drug companies to charge public hospitals
and community health centers a price lower than prices paid by
any other public or private purchaser. Although drug companies
are required to give public hospitals the best price, they have
steadfastly refused to disclose how they calculate prices, the
suit notes.  The suit seeks to represent all public hospitals
and community health centers nationwide that were allegedly
overcharged by the drug companies.

"In our view, the defendants have been hiding the truth from the
government and the hospitals for years," said Steve Berman, the
attorney representing the public hospitals and community health
centers. "We intend to prove that these drug companies have
boosted their bottom line on the backs of the poor and
disadvantaged."

The suit cites a recent report by the Office of the Inspector
General for the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services that
shows more than 97 percent of public hospitals paid prices above
the legal limit for drugs during September 2002. According to
the report:

     (1) 31 percent of the items purchased by public hospitals
         and community health centers exceeded the maximum price
         allowed;

     (2) 53 percent of the drugs sampled exceeded the maximum
         price at least once;

     (3) Public hospitals overpaid an estimated $41.1 million.

"It's shocking to think about the number of people that didn't
receive basic healthcare services because of budget shortfalls
caused by this scheme," said Mr. Berman.

According the suit, the government organizations in charge of
ensuring that hospitals are not overcharged suffer from
inadequate funding for proper day-to-day oversight, much less
investigation and prosecution of these alleged overcharges.  The
suit asks the courts for a full accounting to determine the
extent of the overcharging by drug companies, injunctive relief
to prevent further overcharging, and relief from past
overcharges.

For more information, visit http://www.hagens-berman.com/or
contact Steve Berman, Hagens Berman by Phone: 206-623-7292 or by
E-mail: steve@hagens-berman.com.  Media can contact Mark Firmani
by Phone: 206-443-9357 or by E-mail: mark@firmani.com.


PHILIPPINES: Victims Object As Govt Moves To Seize Marcos Funds
---------------------------------------------------------------
After a Hawaii federal judge ordered the release of US$40
million in funds of late dictator Ferdinand Marcos that a U.S.
as compensation to Filipino human rights victims, the Philippine
Government initiated steps to seize the funds, AP Online
reports.

Hawaii District Judge Manuel L. Real ordered transfer of the
funds from escrow to an account set up by the court in 1995,
when a Honolulu jury awarded a class action by 9,539 Filipinos
US$2 billion after finding Marcos responsible for summary
executions, disappearances and torture during his 14-year
martial law rule. But according to observers none of the victims
has received the money, which has ballooned to US$3.7 billion
with interest.

As one of its first steps in seizing the funds, Government
lawyers filed an 11-page motion with the Philippine anti-graft
court to declare the US$40 million in Marcos' U.S. deposits
seized by the Philippine government's Presidential Commission on
Good Government.

According to PCGG spokesman Nick Suarez, "While the Honolulu
court decision may be a favorable decision for the victims, the
government will appeal the case because it is the mandate of the
PCGG to pursue all ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses in the
Philippines and around the world."

Attorney Rod Domingo Jr., who represents Marcos' martial law
victims, objected, stating that his U.S. counterpart would seek
the Honolulu court's permission to distribute the funds directly
to the victims. "The Philippine government has been the chief
impediment to collection of the judgment," Mr. Domingo said.

Presidential spokesman Ignacio Bunye also welcomed the Honolulu
court's ruling, but told AP Online that, "all decisions on ill-
gotten wealth lie within the sovereign prerogative of the
Philippines."

In his ruling, Judge Real stated, "It would be unjust to prevent
the class of persons tortured, summarily executed and
disappeared from receiving the proceeds to partially satisfy
their judgment."


TENNESSEE: Carter County Settles Lawsuit, Promises Jail Reforms
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carter County settled a lawsuit over overcrowding in its jail,
promised to build a new one and complied with federal standards,
Associated Press reports.

The Carter County Commission on a 15-8 vote approved the
settlement, which also limits the inmate population to 270 until
the promised jail set to accommodate 300 inmates is completed.

Former prisoners initiated the class-action lawsuit, claiming
that dangerous overcrowding at a jail, which was poorly
maintained regularly exposed inmates to sewage and molds. They
also claimed that jail security is so lax that drug use is a
common occurrence and violence erupts almost everyday. The
prisoners also complained of poor medical care, an unsanitary
food service and the lack of recreational activities or
religious ceremonies.

The jail is located in Elizabethton, Tennessee about 100 miles
northeast of Knoxville, the Associated Press reports.

Under the term of the agreement the county agreed to a timeline
of improvements before the new building is finished, including
temporary modular units within a few months and more
correctional officers and support staff. The county also
promised that when the prisoners are transferred to the modular
units, the old cells will be sanitized and painted and broken
windows will be repaired.

Other stipulations in the agreement call for the county to keep
those charged with misdemeanors separate from those charged with
felonies, and to provide a day room and exercise activities at
least twice a week.


USIS COMMERCIAL: OOIDA Lodges Fair Credit Reporting Act Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oklahoma-based USIS Commercial Services, Inc. (doing business as
DAC Services) faces a class action filed by the Owner-Operator
Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA), along with five of its
owner-operator members, in the United States District Court for
the District of Colorado, truckinginfo.com reports.

The suit alleges that the Company, a unit of the United States
Investigative Services, is a consumer reporting agency governed
by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and that it failed to follow
procedures required by the Act.  The suit further alleges that
Among other things, OOIDA charges that USIS:

     (1) has failed to assure the maximum possible accuracy of
         data in its reports,

     (2) has acquired consumer reports for employment purposes
         without notifying drivers or obtaining their
         permission, and

     (3) has failed to adopt reasonable procedures to eliminate
         and correct errors.

"For years, OOIDA has received numerous complaints from
professional truckers of abuse and intimidation under the DAC
system," OOIDA President Jim Johnston told truckinginfo.com,
"especially with regard to the inaccuracy of reports, the
ambiguity of the terminology used in the reports and the
negative consequences of that coded language."

"The information-gathering system established by USIS makes no
provision for drivers to review or comment on carrier-submitted
Termination Record forms or submit rebuttals to such reports
before such forms are placed in the USIS database," the OOIDA
said.  "Typically, drivers learn of the need to take such action
only after experiencing adverse action based on a USIS report."

The OOIDA and its member plaintiffs are challenging the use of
certain phrases in USIS reports and asking the courts to declare
those phrases inaccurate and therefore a violation of the FCRA.
For example, they said the phrase "company policy violation" is
inherently ambiguous since policies vary widely from company to
company.  Moreover, some may deal with important matters while
others deal with trivial matters.

Other phrases challenged in the suit include "unsatisfactory
safety record," "excessive complaints," "cargo loss," "equipment
loss," "quit/dismissed during training/orientation/probation,"
and "not eligible for rehire."  The suit seeks compensatory and
punitive damages for violations of the FCRA and asks that
profits generated through obtaining reports and reporting
inaccurate statements be restored to the class.


WAL-MART STORES: U.S. Chamber Supports Sex-Bias Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to repeal a class action lawsuit initiated against
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed court
papers supporting the Arkansas-based company's bid to have a
judge's order approving class-action status overturned.

If allowed to proceed as a class action, the suit currently
pending before the U.S. District Court in San Francisco would
effectively represent as much as 1.6 million current and former
female Wal-Mart workers, who accuse the company of sexual
discrimination.

The chamber, which represents businesses across the country,
backs Wal-Mart's argument that the lawsuit is so large it is
unmanageable. Wal-Mart for its part has appealed the ruling to
the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In July 13 court filing the chamber stated that the decision
should be overturned because it opens numerous businesses to
similar suits. Companies would be under tremendous pressure to
settle the lawsuits because of the high stakes involved if a
company loses at trial. The filing further states that; "The
implications are overwhelming, the predictable effects of these
holdings will be to force employers to settle these huge claims
no matter what their merit, effectively depriving them of their
right to trial."

The filings also stated that businesses would be held hostage by
quotas, which the chamber argues is contrary to the law.


WORLD WRESTLING: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. executed the settlement for
the securities class action filed against it, Vincent K.
McMahon, Linda E. McMahon and August J. Ligouri in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The suit also names the underwriters of the Company's 1999
initial public offering

The suit asserts claims for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws relating to the Company's initial public
offering in 1999.  According to the allegations of the
Complaint, the Underwriter Defendants allegedly engaged in
manipulative practices by, among other things, pre-selling
allotments of shares of the Company's stock in return for
undisclosed, excessive commissions from the purchasers and/or
entering into after-market tie-in arrangements which allegedly
artificially inflated the Company's stock price.  The plaintiff
further alleges that the Company knew or should have known of
such unlawful practices.

The suit has been consolidated in with claims against
approximately 300 other companies that had initial public
offerings during the same general time period.  The class
plaintiffs and the issuer defendants, including the Individual
Defendants and the Company, have reached an agreement in
principle for the settlement of all claims.  This settlement, if
consummated, is not anticipated to have a material adverse
effect on the Company's financial condition or results of
operation.

While the Company strongly denies all allegations, in June 2004,
the Company and the Individual Defendants executed the
settlement agreement, subject to approval of the settlement by
the Company's primary insurer.  It is the Company's
understanding that the significant majority of issuer defendants
have executed the settlement agreement as well.  The Company
expects the settlement process will move forward; however, no
assurances can be given in this regard, the Company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


ZIRKLE FRUIT: WA Workers Win Class Certification in Suit V. Firm
----------------------------------------------------------------
Legal immigrants residing in Washington state's apple-producing
Yakima Valley won class certification from a U.S. District Court
judge for a class action lawsuit against executives of one of
the state's largest orchard owners charging that the executives
conspired to depress farmworkers' wages by hiring large numbers
of illegal workers to set low wage standards for orchard and
packing house work.

The class action lawsuit was originally filed in United States
District Court in March of 2000 under the Federal Racketeer and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and is the first of its kind in
the U.S. where legal workers have sued agricultural employers
about intentional wage depression through the use of illegal
labor.

Now certified as a class action, the suit represents an
estimated 20,000 packing house and orchard workers of Zirkle
Fruit Company, based in Selah, Washington and those legal
workers hired by Selective Employment Agency to work in Zirkle's
packing house operations.

Seattle attorney Steve Berman filed the lawsuit on behalf of
three named plaintiffs.

"We know from our investigation that a large percentage of
workers hired by Zirkle are illegal. These workers know that
they are not in any position to demand a fair wage, and as a
result, illegally depress the wages of legal farm workers,"
Berman said. "It is an insidious cycle that exploits the illegal
workers and victimizes the legal ones."

According to the lawsuit, Zirkle Fruit Co. conspired with
Selective Employment Agency to hire illegal immigrants who would
work at below prevailing wage standards at Zirkle's packing
house. The company used Selective Employment as a front,
buffering it from liability with the U.S. Immigration and
Naturalization Service (INS), the suit claims.

"We believe Zirkle's actions are horridly unfair to the
immigrant workers who have taken the legal channels to work
here-making sacrifices at every step of the way to create a
better life for their families," Berman added.

The suit seeks an end to the practice by Zirkle, and
compensation for the class members.

The judge declined to certify similar claims against executives
of Matson Fruit Company, a smaller fruit company named in the
original complaint.

The U.S. General Accounting Office estimates more than 600,000
farmworkers across the country are employed illegally. About
52,000 workers work illegally in Washington in all types of
jobs, according to estimates by the INS.

The court also ordered that class members be notified of the
class action by mail and signs in the workplace, an action
Berman believes will happen in the coming weeks. As an opt-out
lawsuit, those who do not wish to be represented by the class
action will receive instructions on removing themselves from the
case.

For more details, contact Steve Berman of Hagens Berman by Mail:
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900 - Seattle, WA 98101 by Phone:
206-623-7292 by Fax: 206-623-0594 or by E-mail:
steve@hagens-berman.com


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Co. Defending Against 89,800 Claimants
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of March 31, 2004, 3M Co. is a named defendant, typically
with multiple co-defendants, in numerous respirator
mask/asbestos lawsuits in various courts that purport to assert
claims by around 89,800 individual claimants and has accrued
liabilities of $267,000,000 and receivables for the probable
amount of insurance recoveries of $448,000,000 related to this
litigation.

Because of the time delay between payment of claims and receipt
of insurance reimbursements, the March 31, 2004 and December 31,
the 2003 amount for respirator mask/asbestos liabilities is less
than expected insurance recoveries.  Thus, the expected net
inflow of cash will increase future cash flows from operating
activities.  The first quarter of 2003 includes $6,000,000 in
expense for respirator mask/asbestos claims and litigation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AWI Defaulted On Plaintiff's CCR Payment
-------------------------------------------------------------
On June 30, 2004, the Court of Appeals of Ohio for the Seventh
District, Jefferson County, reversed the judgment of the probate
court dismissing the motion to enforce a settlement agreement
(involving the appellant Theresa Besece, CertainTeed Corp. and
Armstrong World Industries Inc.), and entered judgment for
appellant.  In Case No. 92 CV 521, entitled Theresa Besece v.
Armstrong World Industries, Inc., the plaintiff-appellant filed
a complaint on November 6, 1992, seeking personal injury damages
as a result of her husband's asbestos exposure.  Appellant
originally named 26 defendants as potential producers or
distributors of the asbestos products and materials that her
husband Lawrence L. Besece was exposed to while an employee at
Norfolk & Western Railway Co. for more than forty years.
Appellant's husband was also originally named as a plaintiff,
but apparently died while this case was pending.

On June 11, 2000, Appellant reached a settlement with The Center
for Claims Resolution (CCR), a non-party, and a non-profit
organization created to handle asbestos litigation on behalf of
its member companies.  All member companies agreed that CCR
would act as their agent in litigating and negotiating asbestos-
related claims pursuant to a written agreement entitled Producer
Agreement Concerning Center for Claims Resolution ("Producer
Agreement" between the participating asbestos producers,
including CertainTeed and Armstrong; Appellant was to receive
settlement sums only from these two member companies via CCR).
The settlement agreement covered around 1,185 railroad worker
asbestos claimants, which included Lawrence Besece.

The dispute arose when Appellant received only a partial
settlement payment from CCR in February 2001.  CCR had received
CertainTeed's "share" of Appellant's settlement, but Armstrong
did not make its requisite payment to CCR because it filed
bankruptcy on December 6, 2000.

The partial payment was issued to Appellant with a letter from
CCR providing that Appellant could declare the Settlement
Agreement null and void; seek to enforce the Settlement
Agreement against the non-paying companies; or pursue the
original, bodily injury claims against the non-paying member
companies alone.  She chose none of the options given in the CCR
letter.  Instead, Appellant asked the trial court to hold
CertainTeed, the sole paying CCR member, jointly and severally
liable for Armstrong's share of the settlement amount pursuant
to the CCR Settlement Agreement.  The appellant alleged the
Producer Agreement provides that CertainTeed must pay
Armstrong's share and that any dispute to the contrary must be
arbitrated between the participating companies, and not the
Appellant.

The court of appeals affirmed the trial court's decision to
order the dispute to arbitration, and agreed that arbitration is
appropriate. The matter was remanded to the trial court for
further proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Circor Intl Subsidiaries Named In Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Like many other manufacturers of fluid control products, Circor
International Inc. has been named as defendants in a growing
number of product liability actions brought on behalf of
individuals who seek compensation for their alleged exposure to
airborne asbestos fibers.  In particular, its subsidiaries,
Leslie, Spence, and Hoke, collectively have been named as
defendants or third-party defendants in asbestos related claims
brought on behalf of around 22,000 plaintiffs against anywhere
from 50 to 400 defendants.  In some instances, the Company also
has been named individually and/or as successor in interest to
one or more of these subsidiaries.  These cases have been
brought in state courts in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Georgia, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island, Texas, Utah and Washington, with the vast majority
of claimants having brought their claims in Mississippi.  The
cases brought on behalf of the vast majority of claimants seek
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages against all
defendants in the aggregate.  However, the complaints filed on
behalf of claimants who do seek specified compensatory and
punitive damages typically seek millions or tens of millions of
dollars in damages against the aggregate of defendants.

Any components containing asbestos formerly used in Leslie,
Spence and Hoke products were entirely internal to the product
and, Circor believes, would not give rise to ambient asbestos
dust during normal operation or during normal inspection and
repair procedures.  Moreover, to date, the Company's insurers
have been paying the vast majority of the costs associated with
the defense of these actions, particular with respect to Spence
and Hoke for which insurance has paid all defense costs to date.
Due to certain gaps in historical insurance coverage, Leslie
Controls had been responsible for in excess of 40% of the
defense costs associated with asbestos actions.  However, during
2003 the Company discovered evidence of additional policy
coverage.  As a result, the Company negotiated a revised cost
sharing understanding with Leslie's insurers that results in a
lowering of Leslie's responsibility to 29% of defense costs.  In
light of the foregoing, Circor believes that it has minimal, if
any, liability with respect to the vast majority of these cases.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Expects Approval For Accord In 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
On March 28, 2003, Corning Inc. announced that it had reached
agreement with the representatives of asbestos claimants for the
settlement of all current and future non-premises asbestos
claims against Corning and Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (PCC), which
might arise from PCC products or operations.  The Company
expects the agreement to be incorporated into a settlement fund
as part of a reorganization plan for PCC.  The plan was
submitted to the federal bankruptcy court in Pittsburgh for
approval, and is subject to contingencies, including the
resolution of legal objections that may be raised at
confirmation hearings scheduled for May 2004.  The Company will
make its contributions to the settlement trust under the
agreement after the plan is approved, becomes effective and is
no longer subject to appeal.  Corning expects the approval
process to be completed in 2004.

When the plan becomes effective, the Company's settlement will
require the contribution of its equity interest in PCC, its one-
half equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V. (PCE),
and 25,000,000 shares of its common stock.  The common stock
will be marked-to-market each quarter until the settlement plan
is approved, thus resulting in adjustments to income and the
settlement liability as appropriate.  The agreement also
includes the contribution of cash payments with a current value
of $138,000,000 over six years beginning in June 2005, which the
Company may accelerate the full payment to as early as 2005, as
needed, to maximize the related tax benefits.  In addition, the
Company will assign insurance policy proceeds from its primary
insurance and a portion of its excess insurance as part of the
settlement.

The Company recorded an additional charge of $19,000,000
($18,000,000 after tax) in the first quarter of 2004 to reflect
the mark-to-market value of its common stock compared to the
initial charge of $298,000,000 in the first quarter of 2003.
The minimum tax effect on this quarter's charge reflects the
fact that the cumulative asbestos settlement charge recorded to
date is in excess of the amount realizable for tax purposes.
Beginning with the first quarter of 2003, the Company recorded
charges of $432,000,000 ($282,000,000 after tax) to reflect the
settlement and to mark-to-market the value of its common stock.

The carrying value of Corning's stock in PCE and the fair value
of 25,000,000 shares of its common stock as of March 31, 2004,
have been reflected in current liabilities.  The remaining
$138,000,000, representing the net present value of the cash
payments discounted at 5.5%, is recorded in non-current
liabilities.

Corning's profitability in the first quarter of 2004 was driven
primarily by the smaller charge related to the asbestos
settlement, among other things.  The decrease in the operating
loss was primarily due to the improvements in gross margin and a
decrease in the asbestos charge.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Fortune Brands, Moen's Cases Decline To 150
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fortune Brands Inc. subsidiary Moen Inc. is named as a defendant
in around 150 cases claiming personal injury from asbestos.
There is a decrease from the 160 cases mentioned in the CAR
newsletter on April 2, 2004.  All of these suits name multiple
defendants and, in most cases, in excess of 75 defendants are
named in addition to Moen.

Management believes it has meritorious defenses to these actions
and that these actions will not have a material adverse effect
upon the results of operations, cash flows or financial
condition of the Company.  These actions are being vigorously
contested.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Foster Wheeler Insurance To Cover Its Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd. (OTC: FWLRF) believes that substantially all
of its liability and defense costs for asbestos claims will be
covered by insurance.  The Company's balance sheet as of March
26, 2004 includes as an asset an aggregate of about $540,800,000
in probable insurance recoveries relating to liability for
pending and expected future asbestos claims through year-end
2018.  Under an interim funding agreement in place with a number
of the Company's insurers from 1993 through June 12, 2001, these
insurers paid a substantial portion of the Company's costs
incurred prior to 2002, and a portion of the costs incurred in
connection with resolving asbestos claims during 2002 and 2003.
The interim funding agreement was terminated in 2003, as a
result of which Foster Wheeler had to cover a substantial
portion of its settlement payments and defense costs out of
working capital.  However, the Company entered into several
settlement agreements calling for insurers to make lump sum
payments, as well as payments over time, for use by the Company
to fund asbestos related indemnity and defense costs.  Some of
those settlements also reimbursed the Company for portions of
its out of pocket costs.  The Company is negotiating additional
settlements in order to minimize the amount of future costs it
will be required to fund out of working capital.

Although Foster Wheeler continues to believe that its insurers
eventually will reimburse it for substantially all of its prior
and future asbestos related costs, its ability ultimately to
recover a substantial portion of such future costs from
insurance is dependent on successful resolution of outstanding
coverage issues related to its insurance policies.  Even if
these coverage issues are resolved in a manner favorable to
Foster Wheeler, the Company's recoveries may be limited by
insolvencies among its insurers.  The Company is aware of at
least two of its significant insurers that are currently
insolvent.  The Company's insurers may also fail to reimburse
amounts owed to it on a timely basis.  If the Company does not
receive timely payment from its insurers, it may be unable to
make required payments under settlement agreements with asbestos
plaintiffs or to fund amounts required to be posted with the
court in order to appeal trial judgments.  If the Company is
unable to file such appeals, it may be ordered to pay large
damage awards arising from adverse jury verdicts, and such
awards may exceed its available cash.

In March 2004, the Company's subsidiaries and two asbestos
insurance carriers entered into settlement and release
agreements that resolve coverage litigation between the
subsidiaries and the insurance carriers.  The agreements provide
for a buy-back of insurance policies and the settlement of all
disputes between the subsidiaries and the insurance carriers
with respect to asbestos-related claims.  The agreements
resulted in the insurance carriers making payments into a trust,
established to pay the subsidiaries' indemnity and defense costs
for asbestos claims.  As a result of these settlements, the
Company reversed $11,700 of the $68,100 non-cash charge recorded
in the fourth quarter of 2003.  The 2003 non-cash asbestos
charge was due to the Company receiving a somewhat larger number
of claims in 2003 than had been expected, which resulted in an
increase in the projected liability related to asbestos.  This
charge was recorded in other deductions in the consolidated
statement of operations.  The Company projects that it will not
be required to fund any asbestos liabilities from its cash flow
for at least six years.

The number of new asbestos claims received during the quarter
declined from the number received in the fourth quarter 2003 and
the Company continued its strategy of settling with asbestos
insurance carriers by monetizing policies or arranging coverage
in place agreements.  Two such settlements occurred in the first
quarter of 2004.

The net loss for the quarter included an $11,700 pretax (and
after-tax) gain on settlements with asbestos insurance carriers,
and a $10,500 pretax gain ($6,600 after-tax) on the sale of
development rights for a power project in Italy.  While the sale
of the power project development rights is recorded as a one-
time gain, the business in Italy has historically developed and
sold such project rights, and is continuing to actively develop
other project rights that are expected to be offered for sale in
the future.

Management of the Company has considered the financial viability
and legal obligations of subsidiaries' insurance carriers and
believes that except for those insurers which have become or may
become insolvent for which a reserve has been provided, the
insurers or their guarantors will continue to adequately fund
claims and defense costs relating to asbestos litigation.  The
average cost per closed claim since 1993 is $1,900.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hartford Settles With MacArthur Companies
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. continues to receive
asbestos claims that involve significant uncertainty regarding
policy coverage issues.  Regarding these claims, The Hartford
continually reviews its overall reserve levels, methodologies
and reinsurance coverages.  Because of the significant
uncertainties that limit the ability of insurers and re-insurers
to estimate the ultimate reserves necessary for unpaid losses
and related expenses related to asbestos, the ultimate
liabilities might exceed the recorded reserves.

On April 22, 2004, all conditions to the Hartford Accident and
Indemnity Co. settlement with MacArthur Co. and its subsidiary,
Western MacArthur Co., both former regional distributors of
asbestos products during the period 1967 to 1976, were
satisfied, and the escrowed funds ($1,150,000,000 paid in the
first quarter of 2004) were disbursed to a trust established for
the benefit of present and future asbestos claimants pursuant to
the bankruptcy plan.  The completion by the Company of the
settlement resolves all disputes concerning Hartford A&I's
alleged obligations from MacArthur's asbestos liability.

Net income increased $1,800,000,000 for the first quarter ended
March 31, 2004, primarily due to the net asbestos reserve
strengthening of $1,700,000,000, after-tax, in the first quarter
ended March 31, 2003.  During the first quarter of 2004, the
Company completed a gross asbestos reserve evaluation.  The
evaluation indicated no change in the overall required gross
asbestos reserves.  Completion of the related net reserve
evaluation is anticipated during the second quarter of 2004.
The results of the gross study may not be an indication of what
may result from the net study.  Until the application of ceded
reinsurance to the direct and assumed reserves and an assessment
of collectibility are completed, the Company will not know the
impact, if any, on the required net reserves.

At March 31, 2004, asbestos reserves were $2,700,000,000, a
decrease of $1,100,000,000 compared to $3,800,000,000 as of
December 31, 2003.  The decrease in asbestos reserves is
primarily driven by the MacArthur settlement payment made in the
first quarter of 2004.  As part of the Company's gross asbestos
reserve evaluation, the Company reviewed all of its open direct
domestic insurance accounts exposed to asbestos liability as
well as assumed reinsurance accounts and certain closed
accounts.  The Company also examined its London Market exposures
for both direct insurance and assumed reinsurance.  The
evaluation indicated no change in the overall required gross
asbestos reserves.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IDEX, Subsidiaries Sued In More U.S. States
----------------------------------------------------------------
IDEX Corp. and nine of its subsidiaries have been named as
defendants in a number of lawsuits claiming various asbestos-
related personal injuries, allegedly as a result of exposure to
products manufactured with components that contained asbestos.
Such components were acquired from third party suppliers, and
were not manufactured by any of the subsidiaries.  All of the
company's settlements and legal costs, except for costs of
coordination, administration, insurance investigation and a
portion of defense costs, have been covered in full by insurance
subject to applicable deductibles.

Claims have been filed in Alabama, California, Connecticut,
Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, New
Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah and
Washington.  A few claims have been settled for minimal amounts
and some have been dismissed without payment.  None have been
tried.  No provision has been made in the financial statements
of the company, and IDEX does not believe the asbestos-related
claims will have a material adverse effect on the company's
business or financial position.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ingersoll-Rand Pays $3.2M In Asbestos Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ingersoll-Rand Co. Ltd. reported to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that for the three months ended March 31, 2004, total
costs for settlement and defense of asbestos claims after
insurance recoveries and net of tax were about $3,200,000.  The
Company believes that its reserves and insurance are adequate to
cover its asbestos liabilities and the costs of defending
against them.  The Company also mentioned that the retained
costs of Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co. (IDP), which was sold in
2000, amount to $6,800,000 and include employee benefits and
product liability costs, primarily related to asbestos claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star, Subsidiaries Named In Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the last five years, Lone Star Steel Co. ("Steel," one of
the principal operating companies of Lone Star Technologies
Inc.) has been named as one of a number of defendants in 36
lawsuits alleging that certain individuals were exposed to
asbestos on the defendants' premises.  The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified damages.  To date several of these lawsuits
have been settled for about $100,000 in the aggregate.  Of the
36 lawsuits, thirteen have been settled or are pending
settlement and nine have been dismissed or are pending
dismissal.  Steel did not manufacture or distribute any products
containing asbestos.  Some or all of these claims may not be
covered by the Company's insurance.  The Company has accrued for
the estimated exposure to known claims.

In 2003, Lone Star's subsidiary Zinklahoma Inc., inactive since
1989, was named as one of a number of defendants in five
lawsuits alleging that the plaintiffs had contracted
mesothelioma as the result of exposure to asbestos in products
manufactured by the defendants and John Zink Co.  Two of these
lawsuits have been dismissed.  Lone Star acquired the stock of
Zink in 1987 and, in 1989, sold the assets of the former Zink to
Koch Industries Inc. and renamed the now-inactive subsidiary
Zinklahoma Inc.  Lone Star retained, and agreed to indemnify
Koch against, certain pre-closing liabilities of Zink.  It is
Lone Star's understanding that Zink never manufactured asbestos
and primarily used it only in certain purchased gaskets that
were encapsulated in copper and contained in burners and flares
made by Zink prior to 1984, when Zink ceased using asbestos-
containing products entirely.  Koch continues to operate the
business as John Zink Co. LLC.  In addition, Zink LLC has been
named in eight lawsuits in which the plaintiffs, one of whom has
mesothelioma, allege exposure to asbestos in Zink's products.
Zink allegedly manufactured the flare and related components for
the flare stack in the early 1970s.  Koch is seeking
indemnification from Lone Star with respect to these lawsuits.
The costs of defending and settling the lawsuits alleging
exposure to asbestos in Zink's products have been borne by
Zink's insurance carrier.  Lone Star believes that Koch's
indemnity claim with respect to the 2001 explosion and flash
fire is covered by its insurance, subject to a deductible, and
has notified its insurance carrier of that claim.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MetLife Says Claims Dismissed In UT, TX, GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
In 2002, 2003 and 2004, trial courts in California, Utah, Texas
and Georgia granted motions dismissing claims against
Metropolitan Life Inc. on some or all of the following grounds:

(1) MetLife owed no duty to the plaintiffs -- it had no
special relationship with the plaintiffs and did not
manufacture, produce, distribute or sell the asbestos
products that allegedly injured plaintiffs;

(2) plaintiffs cannot demonstrate justifiable detrimental
reliance; and

(3) plaintiffs cannot demonstrate proximate causation.

Other courts have denied motions brought by MetLife to dismiss
cases without the necessity of trial.  There can be no assurance
that MetLife will receive favorable decisions on motions in the
future.  MetLife intends to continue to exercise its best
judgment regarding settlement or defense of such cases,
including when trials of these cases are appropriate.

MetLife Inc. reported in its Annual Report on Form 10-K that
Metropolitan Life received around 60,300 asbestos-related claims
in 2003.  During the first three months of 2004 and 2003,
Metropolitan Life received around 8,200 and 16,250 asbestos-
related claims, respectively.

A claim was made under the excess insurance policies in 2003 and
2004 for the amounts paid with respect to asbestos litigation in
excess of the retention.  As the performance of the indices
impact the return in the reference fund, it is possible that
loss reimbursements to the Company and the recoverable with
respect to later periods may be less than the amount of the
recorded losses.  Such foregone loss reimbursements may be
recovered upon commutation depending upon future performance of
the reference fund.  If in the future the Company believes the
liability for probable losses for asbestos-related claims should
be increased, an expense would be recorded and the insurance
recoverable would be adjusted subject to the terms, conditions
and limits of the excess insurance policies.  Portions of the
change in the insurance recoverable would be recorded as a
deferred gain and amortized into income over the estimated
remaining settlement period of the insurance policies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OC Continues To Battle Thousands Of Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning (OTC: OWENQ) reported that in addition to
Objectionable Claims (around 16,000 claims totaling about
$8,5,000,000, which the Company believes should be disallowed by
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware because
they appear to be duplicate claims or claims not related to the
Company), the remaining filed proofs of claim included around
9,000 claims, totaling about $7,900,000,000.  As of March 31,
2004, around 1,000 of these claims, totaling about $200,000,000,
had been withdrawn by the claimants, disallowed by the
Bankruptcy Court, or otherwise resolved.  The remaining claims
include

(1) around 2,900 claims, totaling about $1,500,000,000,
associated with asbestos-related contribution,
indemnity, reimbursement, or subrogation claims.  OC
will address all asbestos-related personal injury and
wrongful death claims in the future as part of the
Chapter 11 Cases.

(2) around 100 claims, totaling about $700,000,000,
alleging asbestos-related property damage.  Most of
these claims were submitted with insufficient
documentation to assess their validity.

Based upon its historic experience in respect of asbestos-
related property damage claims, Owens Corning does not
anticipate significant liability from any such claims.

Around 3,100 proofs of claim totaling about $2,300,000,000, with
respect to asbestos-related personal injury or wrongful death
(other than claims for contribution, indemnity, reimbursement,
or subrogation) were filed with the Bankruptcy Court.  Of these
claims, Owens Corning has identified around 1,200, totaling
about $500,000,000, as Objectionable Claims.  Of the remaining
claims, Owens Corning believes that a substantial majority
represent claimants that had previously asserted asbestos-
related claims against the Company.  Under the Plan all
asbestos-related personal injury and wrongful death claims will
be channeled to the Section 524(g) trust, subject to approval by
the Bankruptcy Court.

Beginning in late 1998, Owens Corning implemented a National
Settlement Program (NSP) to resolve personal injury asbestos
claims through settlement agreements with individual plaintiffs'
law firms.  The NSP was intended to better manage the asbestos
liabilities of Owens Corning and Fibreboard Corp., and to help
Owens Corning better predict the timing and amount of indemnity
payments for both pending and future asbestos claims.

The number of law firms participating in the NSP expanded from
around 50 when the NSP was established to around 120 as of the
Petition Date.  Each of these participating law firms agreed to
a long-term settlement agreement which varied by firm extending
through at least 2008 which provided for the resolution of their
existing asbestos claims, including unfiled claims pending with
the participating law firm at the time it entered into an NSP
Agreement ("Initial Claims").  The NSP agreements also
established procedures and fixed payments for resolving without
litigation claims against either Owens Corning or Fibreboard, or
both, arising after a participating firm entered into an NSP
Agreement ("Future Claims").  Settlement amounts for both
Initial Claims and Future Claims were negotiated with each firm
participating in the NSP, and each firm was to communicate with
its respective clients to obtain authority to settle individual
claims.  Payments to individual claimants were to vary based on
a number of factors, including the type and severity of disease,
age and occupation.  All such payments were subject to delivery
of satisfactory evidence of a qualifying medical condition and
exposure to Owens Corning's and/or Fibreboard's products,
delivery of customary releases by each claimant, and other
conditions.  Certain claimants settling non-malignancy claims
with Owens Corning and/or Fibreboard were entitled to an agreed
pre-determined amount of additional compensation if they later
developed a more severe asbestos-related medical condition.

As to Future Claims, each participating NSP firm agreed to
recommend to its future clients, based on appropriately
exercised professional judgment, to resolve their asbestos
personal injury claims against Owens Corning and/or Fibreboard
through an administrative processing arrangement, rather than
litigation.  In the case of Future Claims involving non-
malignancy, claimants were required to present medical evidence
of functional impairment, as well as the product exposure
criteria and other requirements set forth above, to be entitled
to compensation.

The NSP covered around 239,000 Initial Claims against Owens
Corning, around 150,000 of which had satisfied all conditions to
final settlement, including receipt of executed releases, or
other resolution at an average cost per claim of about $9,300.
Around 89,000 of such Final NSP Settlements had been paid in
full or otherwise resolved, and around 61,000 were unpaid in
whole or in part.  The remaining balance payable under NSP
Agreements in connection with these unpaid Final NSP Settlements
was about $510,000,000.  Through the Petition Date, Owens
Corning had received around 6,000 Future Claims under the NSP.

Around 29,000 asbestos personal injury claims were pending
against Owens Corning outside the NSP.  The information needed
for an evaluation of pending claims, including the nature and
severity of disease and definitive identifying information
concerning claimants, typically becomes available only through
the discovery process or as a result of settlement negotiations.
Owens Corning has limited information about many of such claims.

At March 31, 2004, about $106,000,000 of Administrative Deposits
previously made by Owens Corning had not been finally
distributed to claimants and, accordingly, are reflected in
Owens Corning's consolidated balance sheet as restricted assets
(under the caption "Restricted cash - asbestos and insurance
related") and have not been subtracted from Owens Corning's
reserve for asbestos personal injury claims.  As of March 31,
2004, a reserve of about $3,600,000,000 in respect of Owens
Corning's asbestos-related liabilities was one of the items
included in Owens Corning's consolidated balance sheet under the
category "Liabilities Subject to Compromise."  For periods prior
to the Petition Date, these liabilities were reflected as
current or other liabilities (depending on the period in which
payment was expected) under the category "Reserve for asbestos
litigation claims").

Based upon its discussions and negotiations with representatives
of the creditor constituencies, Owens Corning believes that some
of the creditor analyses associated with the resolution of Owens
Corning's and Fibreboard's asbestos-related liabilities in the
context of the Chapter 11 proceedings will be in excess of Owens
Corning's and Fibreboard's asbestos-related reserves.  For
example, the Official Committee of Asbestos Claimants and the
Legal Representative for the class of future asbestos claimants
took the position that the aggregate amount of pre-petition and
future asbestos claims for Owens Corning and Fibreboard, on a
combined net present value basis, is more than $16,000,000,000.

At March 31, 2004, the estimated balances of the components of
Owens Corning's asbestos-related reserve were: Unpaid Final
Settlements (NSP and other) of $600,000,000, while Other Pending
and Future Claims amounted to $3,000,000,000.  The Unpaid Final
Settlements represented the remaining estimated cost for all
asbestos personal injury claims pending against Owens Corning
which were subject to final settlement agreements for which
releases from claimants were obtained, and under which all other
conditions to settlement had been satisfied, as of the Petition
Date.  The Other Pending and Future Claims represented the
estimated cost of resolving, through the Chapter 11 process,

(1) asbestos personal injury claims pending against Owens
Corning which were subject to resolution under NSP
Agreements but for which releases were not obtained
from claimants prior to the Petition Date;

(2) all other asbestos personal injury claims pending
against Owens Corning which were not subject to any
settlement agreement; and

(3) future asbestos personal injury claims against Owens
Corning made after the Petition Date.

Owens Corning expects an ongoing high level of negotiations and
information exchanges with the various creditor constituencies
and other parties for the duration of the Chapter 11
proceedings.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Atmos Says TXU Not To Indemnify LSG For Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atmos Energy Corp. reported in a regulatory filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that TXU Gas Co. will
indemnify LSG Acquisition Corp. for all environmental
liabilities and costs arising with respect to any TXU Gas Merger
Asset as a result of any action, fact, circumstance or condition
to the extent existing or occurring on or before the Effective
Time, but excluding all environmental liabilities and costs
arising from the existence of non-friable asbestos and asbestos-
containing materials (to the extent the same do not violate
environmental laws) and any post-Closing activity that disturbs
asbestos or asbestos-containing materials.


COMPANY PROFILE

TXU Gas Co. (NYSE: TXU)
1601 Bryan St.
Dallas, TX 75201
Phone: 214-812-4600
Fax: 972-507-9715
http://www.txugas.com

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

Description: TXU Gas purchases, transports, distributes, and
sells natural gas in north-central, eastern, and western
portions of Texas.  The utility's TXU Gas Distribution unit
operates 26,000 miles of distribution mains that serve more than
1,400,000 Texas customers.  Another division, TXU Lone Star
Pipeline, operates 6,800 miles of gas transmission and gathering
lines.  TXU Gas also has gas storage assets, and it provides
asset management services.  Parent TXU Corp. agreed to sell TXU
Gas to Atmos Energy for $1,900,000,000.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Cytec Industries Discloses $53.6M Liability
------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. is the subject of numerous lawsuits and
claims incidental to the conduct of its or its predecessors'
businesses, including lawsuits and claims relating to personal
injury including asbestos matters.  As of March 31, 2004 and
December 31, 2003, the aggregate self-insured and insured
contingent liability was $72,000,000 and $72,500,000,
respectively.  The asbestos liability included in the amounts at
March 31, 2004 and December 31, 2003 was $53,600,000 and
$54,000,000, respectively, and the related insurance receivable
was $28,900,000 at March 31, 2004 and $29,100,000 at December
31, 2003.  The Company anticipates receiving a net tax benefit
for payment of those claims to which full insurance recovery is
not realized.

The following table presents information about the asbestos
claims against the Company:

                             Three Months Ended      Year Ended
                                 March 31,          December 31,
                                    2004                2003
   ------------------------------------------------------------
Claims closed in period               156               7,601
Claims filed in period              1,734               7,648
Claims open at end of period       28,533              26,955
   -------------------------------------------------------------

The ultimate liability and related insurance recovery for all
pending and anticipated future claims cannot be determined with
certainty due to the difficulty of forecasting the numerous
variables that can affect the amount of the liability and
insurance recovery.


COMPANY PROFILE

Cytec Industries Inc. (NYSE: CYT)
5 Garret Mountain Plaza
West Paterson, NJ 07424
Phone: 973-357-3100
Fax: 973-357-3065
http://www.cytec.com

Employees                  :           4,500
Revenue                    : $ 1,471,800,000.00
Net Income                 : $    77,400,000.00
Assets                     : $ 2,025,900,000.00
Liabilities                : $ 1,270,500,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Cytec Industries Inc. produces the building-block
chemicals from which it makes specialty materials (composites
and adhesives for the aerospace industry), performance products
(coatings for metal, plastic, and wood, as well as polymer
additives), and specialty chemicals used in treating water and
in industrial processes.  Cytec also sells its building-block
chemicals (melamine, sulfuric acid, and acrylamide) to third
parties.  Further downstream, the company uses its chemicals to
make acrylic sheet and extrusion and molding compounds through
joint venture with Rohm GmbH, CYRO Industries; Cytec has killed
off two other joint ventures in the past couple of years.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


COMMERCE BANCORP: Charles J. Piven Lodges NJ Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Commerce
Bancorp (NYSE:CBH) between June 1, 2002 and June 28, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against defendant Commerce and one or
more of its officers and/or directors.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Corinthian Colleges, Inc.
("Corinthian" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:COCO), between August
27, 2003 and June 23, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


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

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

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


RED HAT: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Red Hat,
Inc. ("Red Hat" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:RHAT) between June 19,
2001 and July 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

A second case was filed for shareholders who acquired shares
during a shorter proposed class period, namely December 19, 2003
through July 13, 2004, inclusive.

The cases are pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina against defendants Red
Hat and one or more of its officers and/or directors.

The actions charge that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities and forcing the Company to
restate its earnings.

No class has yet been certified in the above actions.

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


RED HAT: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division,
against Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:RHAT), Matthew J. Szulik, Kevin B. Thompson, Timothy J.
Buckley, Paul J. Cormier, and Mark H. Webbink on behalf of
purchasers of RHAT securities, during the period between
December 19, 2003 and July 13, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The civil action number is 5:04-CV-473-FL (1).

The complaint charges defendants with issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5. Among other things, the complaint alleges
that, during the Class Period, Defendants:

     (1) engaged in a scheme to defraud Red Hat's investing
         public by prematurely recognizing revenue from
         subscriptions in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

    (2) falsely reported in its quarterly and year end SEC
        filings that it recognized revenue from subscriptions
        "ratably";

    (3) misrepresented its net income and financial results;

    (4) misrepresented that its financial statements were
        prepared in accordance with GAAP; and

    (5) reported enormous profits by selling over $79 million
        worth of personally held stock at artificially inflated
        prices as a result of Defendants' fraud on the market.

On July 13, 2004, Defendants revealed that they would be
restating financial results for 2002, 2003 and the first quarter
of 2004 as a result of the change in the way they recognized
revenue from subscriptions, noting that they would now be
recognizing revenue from subscriptions on a daily basis rather
than on a monthly basis. Thus, if a subscription was signed at
the end of a month or in the middle of a month, instead of a
recognizing a full month of revenue as they had been doing, they
would be recognizing revenue only for the time in the month for
which they actually had the subscription. The restatement,
Defendants have admitted, "is expected to result in significant
percentage differences in certain items such as quarterly
operating profit and net income." As at least one analyst has
said, this situation "raises questions about the company's
financial controls and infrastructure."

The Company also announced yesterday that the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "SEC") had made an inquiry into the
Company's results for one year, though the basis for the inquiry
has not yet been fully disclosed. Notably, on Monday, June 14,
2004, Red Hat announced unexpectedly that its Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO") was resigning "to pursue other interests." The
Company claims that its restatement is unrelated to its former
CFO's resignation.

The market reacted negatively to the June 14 disclosure of the
CFO's resignation and to yesterday's news of the impending
restatement and the SEC inquiry. Yesterday's news alone resulted
in a loss of market capitalization for Red Hat of over $600
million. The stock closed at $15.73 per share, which was $4.62
or 22.7% down from the previous day's close at $20.35. Over 55
million shares traded hands on yesterday's news.

For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. of CHITWOOD &
HARLEY LLP by Mail: 2300 Promenade II, 1230 Peachtree Street,
N.E. Atlanta, Georgia 30309 by Phone: (404) 873-3900 or
(888) 873-3999 or 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888 by Fax:
(404) 876-4476 or by E-mail: lsa@classlaw.com


RED HAT: Goodkind Labaton Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:RHAT) between
June 19, 2001 and July 13, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Red Hat and Matthew
Szulik, Kevin B. Thompson and Timothy J. Buckley ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements to the market and concealed material adverse facts
concerning the Company's financial performance. In particular,
the Company's Form 10-K filed with the Securities & Exchange
Commission ("SEC") for the fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004 and the
first quarter of fiscal 2005, and the press releases announcing
the financial and business performance were materially false and
misleading by omitting to state that it had improperly
recognized revenues in its subscription business.

On July 13, 2004, Red Hat announced that it would be restating
its financial results for the fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004 and
the first fiscal quarter of 2005 due to improperly recognizing
revenues from its subscription agreements. Coupled with this
disclosure, the Company also revealed that it was the subject of
a review of its Form-10K by the SEC. Shares of Red Hat reacted
negatively to these disclosures, falling $4.62 per share to
close at $15.73, representing a decline of 22.7% on very heavy
trading volume.

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


                            *********


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  * * *