CAR_Public/040720.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 20, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 142

                           Headlines

APOLLO GROUP: Court Preliminarily Approves Wage Suit Settlement
APOLLO GROUP: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: 911 Calling System Suits Referred To FCC
AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: Court To Hear Dismissal Appeal Sept. 2004
BEAR STEARNS: Asks NY Court To Approve IPO Litigation Settlement

CATALINA MARKETING: Plaintiffs Lodge FL Consolidated Stock Suit
CELLSTAR CORPORATION: Parties Temporarily Stay DE Investor Suit
H&R BLOCK: Appeals Court Re-Affirms Certification of RICO Suit
H&R BLOCK: Law Firm Announces Details of IL Court Ruling in Suit
INTEL CORPORATION: IL Judge Certifies Consumer Suit V. Pentium 4

MAYTAG CORPORATION: EEOC Lodges Age Discrimination Lawsuit in IL
PRUCO SECURITIES: SEC Sustains NASD Complaint V. Representative
PRICESMART INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of CA Stock Suits
SHAW GROUP: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. LA
SHEETZ GAS: FDA Issues Alert on Illness Outbreaks in PA, MD, VA

SINGING MACHINE: FL Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
TRAFFIX INC.: Defers Columbia House Indemnification Resolution
TRAFFIX INC.: Arbitration Starts in Qwest Indemnification Claim
TROY GROUP: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit Over Dirk Merger
WD 40 CO.: FL, CA Consumers File Suit Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners

YOUR FLORIST: TX AG Orders Asset Freeze Due to Consumer Fraud

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
CARDINAL HEALTH: Scott + Scott To Lodge Securities Lawsuit in OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
COMMERCE BANCORP: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NJ

COMMERCE BANCORP: Charles J. Piven Lodges NJ Securities Lawsuit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Charles Piven Files C.D. CA Securities Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in CA
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges CA Securities Suit
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit in TX

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Lodges CA Securities Suit
RED HAT: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. NC
SHAW GROUP: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. LA
TROY GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA

VERITAS SOFTWARE: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in DE
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Goodkind Labaton Lodges DE Securities Lawsuit
YUKOS OIL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY


                            *********


APOLLO GROUP: Court Preliminarily Approves Wage Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Solano granted preliminary approval to the class action filed
against The Apollo Group, Inc., styled "Davis et. al. v. Apollo
Group, Inc. et. al., Case No. FCS018663."

Plaintiffs, one current and two former enrollment advisors with
University of Phoenix, filed this class action on behalf of
themselves and current and former enrollment advisors employed
by the Company in the State of California and seek certification
as a class, monetary damages in unspecified amounts, and
injunctive relief.  Plaintiffs allege that during their
employment, they and other enrollment advisors worked in excess
of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week, and contend that the
Company failed to pay overtime.

In July 2003, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify
a class.  The parties nonetheless have negotiated a settlement
on a class-wide basis.  The settlement has been preliminarily
approved by the Court and the final approval by the Court is
scheduled to occur in late July 2004.


APOLLO GROUP: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against The
Apollo Group in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Orange, captioned "Bryan Sanders et. al. v.
University of Phoenix, Inc. et. al., Case No. 03CC00430."

The Plaintiff, a former academic advisor with University of
Phoenix, filed this class action on behalf of himself and
current and former academic advisors employed by the Company in
the State of California and seek certification as a class,
monetary damages in unspecified amounts, and injunctive relief.
Plaintiff alleges that during his employment, he and other
academic advisors worked in excess of 8 hours per day or 40
hours per week, and contend that the Company failed to pay
overtime.  An initial status conference has occurred.


AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: 911 Calling System Suits Referred To FCC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuits against Audiovox Corporation, Audiovox
Communications Corporation and other manufacturers of wireless
phones and cellular service providers have been referred to the
Federal Communications Commission.

The suits allege non-compliance with FCC ordered emergency 911
call processing capabilities.  These lawsuits were consolidated
and transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, which in turn referred the cases
to the FCC to determine if the manufacturers and service
providers are in compliance with the FCC's order on emergency
911 call processing capabilities.


AUDIOVOX CORPORATION: Court To Hear Dismissal Appeal Sept. 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals will hear in
September 2004 the plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the
consolidated class action filed against Audiovox Corporation and
other suppliers, manufacturers and distributors of hand-held
wireless telephones.

The suit alleges damages relating to exposure to radio frequency
radiation from hand-held wireless telephones.  The consolidated
suit was transferred to a Multi-District Litigation Panel before
the United States District Court of the District of Maryland.
On March 5, 2003, Judge Catherine C. Blake of the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland granted the
defendants' consolidated motion to dismiss these complaints.


BEAR STEARNS: Asks NY Court To Approve IPO Litigation Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs and a substantial number of the non-bankrupt issuer
defendants and their officers and directors in the IPO
Securities Allocation Litigation pending in the United States
District District Court for the Southern District of New York,
including Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. jointly moved for a
preliminary approval of a proposed settlement among the parties.

The Company, along with many other financial services firms, was
been named as a defendant in many putative class actions filed
during 2001 and 2002 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York involving the allocation of
securities in certain initial public offerings.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

Lawsuits containing similar allegations have been filed in the
Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial
public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000.  All of these lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before United States District Court Judge Shira
Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, on
common pleadings issues.  On October 9, 2002, the Court entered
and ordered a Stipulation of Dismissal of the individual
defendants in the suits.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
entered an order denying in part the issuer defendants' motion
to dismiss.

In June and July 2003, nearly all of the issuers named as
defendants in the In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, including the Company, approved a tentative
settlement proposal that is reflected in a memorandum of
understanding.

The terms of the proposed settlement are complex but generally
provide that:

    (i) the insurers of these issuers will guarantee an ultimate
        recovery by plaintiffs, in this and related litigations,
        of $1 billion;

   (ii) these issuers will assign to plaintiffs so-called
        "excess compensation" claims against the underwriter
        defendants, including Bear Stearns, that these issuers
        allegedly possess; and

  (iii) plaintiffs will, upon final approval of the settlement,
        dismiss all claims against these issuers and the
        individual director and officer defendants.

To date, the Court has not yet ruled on the parties' motion
seeking preliminary approval.


CATALINA MARKETING: Plaintiffs Lodge FL Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Catalina Marketing Corporation and certain present and former
officers and directors of the Company and Catalina Health
Resources (CHR) were served with the consolidated amended class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division.

The consolidated suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.  The actions were originally brought on behalf of
those who purchased the Company's common stock between January
17, 2002 and August 25, 2003, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that, during the alleged class period, the
defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's business and operations with the result of
artificially inflating the Company's share price and maintained
inadequate internal controls.  The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

In October 2003, the complaints were consolidated in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida and
given the caption "In re Catalina Marketing Corporation
Securities Litigation, Case No. 8:03-CV-1582-T-27TBM."  In
December 2003, Virginia P. Anderson and the Alaska Electric
Pension Fund were named as co-lead plaintiffs.

On June 21, 2004, the Lead Plaintiffs served their Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint on behalf of those who purchased
the Company's stock between August 14, 1999 and August 25, 2003,
inclusive.  The Company and other defendants have 45 days from
the service date to move to dismiss or otherwise respond to the
Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint.


CELLSTAR CORPORATION: Parties Temporarily Stay DE Investor Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties agreed to a temporary stay of proceedings in the class
action filed against CellStar Corporation in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle County, styled as
"Ruth Everson v. CellStar Corporation, James L. Johnson, John L.
Jackson, Jere W. Thompson, Dale V. Kesler and Terry S. Parker."

The Suit alleges breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste in
connection with the Company's proposal to divest up to 70% of
its operations in the People's Republic of China (PRC), Hong
Kong and Taiwan (the "Greater China Operations").  The Suit
seeks injunctive and other equitable relief, recissory and/or
compensatory damages and reimbursement of attorney's fees and
costs.

The CellStar Asia Transaction at issue in the Everson Suit is
not anticipated to proceed prior to the fall of 2004.  The
parties agreed to a temporary stay of the proceedings until the
Company files a revised proxy statement with the Securities and
Exchange Commission relating to the CellStar Asia Transaction,
or earlier if the plaintiff determines that the transaction is
likely to proceed prior to that filing.  During the pendency of
the stay, the parties must file a status report with the court
every 60 days.  Defendants have 20 days following the expiration
of the stay to respond to plaintiff's complaint.


H&R BLOCK: Appeals Court Re-Affirms Certification of RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the certification
for a nationwide class action accusing the nation's largest tax
preparer, H&R Block Inc. (HRB) of inducing customers who wanted
their tax refunds fast into getting high-interest loans, Dow
Jones Business News reports.

The federal appeal court's decision, which alleges that Kansas
City-based H&R Block and its banking partner, Household Finance,
violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act would encompass millions of H&R customers.
Both H&R Block and Household Finance are accused of illegally
gouging customers by providing "refund anticipation loans" at
interest rates frequently exceeding 100%.

Judge Richard Posner on behalf of the panel stated that, "The
basic claim is that defendants lead the borrowers to believe
that that tax preparer is their fiduciary, much as if they had
hired a lawyer or accountant to prepare their tax returns, as
affluent people do, whereas, unbeknownst to them, the tax
preparer is engaged in self-dealing."


H&R BLOCK: Law Firm Announces Details of IL Court Ruling in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP and Levy
Angstreich Finney Baldante, Rubenstein & Coren, P.C. announced
that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed
certification of a nationwide class asserting federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") claims against
H&R Block, Inc. (NYSE:HRB) and Household International, Inc.
(successor to Beneficial Corporation), a subsidiary of HSBC
Holdings PLC (NYSE:HBC). Plaintiff Carnegie alleges that
defendants, among other things, deceived customers seeking tax
refunds into obtaining high interest loans.

Writing for the Seventh Circuit panel, Judge Posner explained,
"the basic claim is that defendants lead the borrowers to
believe that the tax preparer is their fiduciary, much as if
they had hired a lawyer or accountant to prepare their tax
returns, as affluent people do, whereas, unbeknownst to them,
the tax preparer is engaged in self-dealing. This conduct is
alleged to constitute a scheme to defraud in violation of the
federal mail and wire-fraud statutes. Violations of those
statutes are 'predicate offenses' that can form the basis of a
RICO charge."

In upholding the continued certification of the class, Judge
Posner found "there has been substantial compliance with the
requirements of the rule (governing certification), and no more
is required (citations omitted), especially in a case in which
defendants were enthusiastic proponents of class treatment until
their opportunistic change of heart." In this, the Court was
referring back to defendants' support of a sham settlement that
plaintiff Carnegie opposed and the Seventh Circuit rejected two
years ago.

For more details, contact Joanne M. Cicala, Esq., Roger W.
Kirby, Esq. or Peter S. Linden, Esq. of KIRBY MCINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by
Phone: (212) 371-6600 or (888) 529-4787 by Fax: (212) 751-2540
or by E-Mail: jcicala@kmslaw.com OR Steven Angstreich, Esq.,
Michael Coren, Esq. or Carolyn Lindheim, Esq. of LEVY ANGSTREICH
FINNEY BALDANTE RUBENSTEIN & COREN, P.C. by Mail:  1616 Walnut
Street, 5th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone:
(215) 735-1616 by Fax: (215) 545-2642 or by E-Mail:
sangstreich@levyangstreich.com


INTEL CORPORATION: IL Judge Certifies Consumer Suit V. Pentium 4
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Court in Illinois granted class certification
to a lawsuit filed against the Intel Corporation, accusing the
Company of misleading consumers into believing that the original
version of its Pentium 4 processor was faster and more powerful
than previous versions and competitors' processors, the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

The suit claims that Intel, based in Santa Clara, California,
intentionally deceived consumers when it started marketing the
Pentium 4 in 2000 as its "highest performance processor."  The
case only involves the original version of the Pentium 4, known
as "Willamette."

The law firm, Korein Tillery on behalf of Plaintiffs requested
that the suit represent everyone nationwide who had purchased a
computer with such a Pentium 4 processor.  After a two-day
hearing, Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn denied the request and
instead issued an order limiting the class to Illinois residents
who had purchased such computers for "personal, family or
household services."

Judge Mendelsohn in his order wrote, "This Court rules that
Illinois does not have a legitimate interest in applying
Illinois law to this requested nationwide class action, This
Court concludes that it is not appropriate to apply the laws of
the State of Illinois to a nationwide class-action filed by
Illinois residents in the state of Illinois against a California
corporation."

Intel spokesman Robert Manetta told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
that he could not comment on Mendelsohn's decision but added,
"We believe this suit is without merit, and we are planning a
vigorous defense."


MAYTAG CORPORATION: EEOC Lodges Age Discrimination Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission initiated a
federal class action in Chicago against Maytag Corporation
accusing them of age discrimination in the demotion of eight
regional sales managers all over the age of 50 as part of a 1999
reorganization, The Chicago Tribune reports.

The suit claims that when the Newton, Iowa-based appliance maker
in 2001 restored many of the sales positions, none of the older
managers were reinstated to their former posts despite their
continuing successes.

According to Ethan Cohen, an EEOC trial attorney involved in the
case, "Demoting people because they have gray hair is just as
illegal as doing so because they have brown skin."

Maytag is also facing a separate lawsuit filed by Matthew Max,
62, of west suburban Wayne, who was demoted from sales manager
for the Chicago region and is a party to the class-action suit.

According to the EEOC lawsuit, in eliminating 13 of its 22
regional sales manager positions in 1999, eight of those demoted
were over 50. Only one regional sales manager over 50 kept his
post, and Mr. Max's lawsuit suggested that the manager wasn't
demoted even though he had fallen short of sales quotas because
he was a close friend of a Maytag executive.

The lawsuits also alleged that a 33-year-old man named to the
newly created post of manager of field operations for the
Chicago region and an even younger consultant made "negative
age-based comments." The field operations manager expressed
concern that one demoted manager who was nearly 60 would have a
problem because of his age with new sales procedures since they
required computer literacy, according to the EEOC's lawsuit.

The consultant referred to the same manager as a "dinosaur with
a computer," the Max lawsuit alleged.


PRUCO SECURITIES: SEC Sustains NASD Complaint V. Representative
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission sustained NASD
disciplinary action against Chris Dinh Hartley of San Jose,
California. Hartley was former investment company products and
variable contracts representative with Pruco Securities
Corporation, a NASD member firm.  He was suspended for 90 days
and fined $7,500.

The Commission found that Mr. Hartley violated NASD rules by
selling securities for compensation outside the scope of his
employment without giving Pruco prior written notification and
receiving Pruco's prior written approval.  In sustaining the
sanctions assessed by the NASD, the Commission found that the
evidence in the record undercut Hartley's assertion that he was
only guilty of an innocent mistake.

The Commission noted that, despite receiving clear indications
that the notes he was planning to sell might be securities,
Hartley made no effort to consult Pruco before beginning his
sales, and falsely represented to others that he had checked
with Pruco and received its approval to sell the securities.


PRICESMART INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Consolidation of CA Stock Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved to consolidate the seven securities class
actions filed against PriceSmart, Inc. and certain of its
current and former directors, after the Company announced it
would be restating its financial statements for the fiscal year
ending August 31, 2002 and for the nine months ending May 31,
2003 on November 10,2003.  The plaintiffs also moved to have a
lead plaintiff appointed.

The suits, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, allege violations of federal
securities laws.  The complaints purport to be class actions on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock (with one
complaint also filed on behalf of purchasers of the Series A
preferred stock in a January 2002 private placement) between
December 20, 2001 and November 7, 2003 with respect to all but
one of the Federal Class Action Complaints and between November
1, 2001 and November 7, 2003 with respect to the complaint that
also addresses the Series A preferred stock, and seek damages,
rescission (in the case of the Series A preferred stock) and
attorney's fees.


SHAW GROUP: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaw Group, Inc. and certain of its current officers face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

The first filed lawsuit is styled Earl Thompson v. The Shaw
Group Inc., Tim Barfield, Jr., J.M. Bernhard, Jr., Richard F.
Gill and Robert Belk, Case No.04-1685.  The complaint filed in
the Thompson action alleges claims under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from October 19, 2000
to June 10, 2004.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that certain of the
Company's press releases and SEC filings contained material
misstatements and omissions, that the manner in which the
Company's accounted for certain acquisitions was improper and
that as a result, the Company's financial statements were
materially misstated at all relevant times.  The complaint does
not specify the amount of damages sought.

Since the filing of the Thompson lawsuit, five additional
lawsuits have been filed and other actions may also be
commenced.  Each of the additional lawsuits includes the same
defendants, and essentially alleges the same statutory
violations based on the same or similar alleged misstatements
and omissions.  Three of these actions have been consolidated in
the Eastern District of Louisiana.


SHEETZ GAS: FDA Issues Alert on Illness Outbreaks in PA, MD, VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is issuing an alert
to consumers that 57 cases of salmonella poisoning may be
associated with food purchased at deli counters contained in
Sheetz Gas Station locations in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and West
Virginia between July 2nd through July 9th.

The agency is working with the Pennsylvania Department of
Health, other state and county agencies, and the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention to determine the cause and
scope of the problem. At this time no product has been
implicated and the investigation is continuing.

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

Sheetz is a mid-Atlantic chain of gas stations with deli take-
out sections. Sheetz stores are located in Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and eastern Ohio, often along
interstate highways.

Individuals who believe they may have experienced the same
symptoms of illness after consuming food from this company are
urged to contact their local health department. FDA will keep
consumers abreast of the investigation as information becomes
available.

For more details, contact FDA - Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242 or
FDA - Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA


SINGING MACHINE: FL Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against The Singing
Machine Co., Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
securities.

The suit is styled "Frank Bielansky v. the Company, Salberg &
Company, P.A., et al - Case Number: 03-80596 - - CIV - ZLOCK."
The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)-5.  The
complaints seek compensatory damages, attorney's fees and
injunctive relief.

The Company entered into a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs in the Class Lawsuit in March 2004.  At a hearing in
April 2004, the Court gave preliminary approval for the
settlement and directed that notices be sent to shareholders
pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.  The notices advised
shareholders of their rights and responsibilities concerning the
settlement.  The Court has set a hearing on July 30, 2004 before
Judge Zlock to consider final approval of the settlement.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company
is required to make a cash payment of $800,000 and Salberg &
Company, P.A., its former auditor, is required to make a payment
of $475,000.  The Company's cash payment of $800,000 is covered
by its liability insurance and its insurer has placed this
payment in an escrow account pending final approval of the
Settlement.  In addition, the Company is obligated to issue
400,000 shares of its common stock.  The pending settlement
would also obligate the Company to implement certain corporate
governance changes, including an expansion of its Board of
Directors to six members with independent directors comprising
at least 2/3 of the total Board seats.


TRAFFIX INC.: Defers Columbia House Indemnification Resolution
--------------------------------------------------------------
Traffix, Inc. and Columbia House, one of its clients, agreed to
defer resolution of Columbia's indemnification claim against it
related to a class action filed against Columbia House, among
others, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, styled
"Rydel v. Comtrad Industries, Inc. et al., No. 02 CH 13269."

In that action, plaintiff claims to have received unsolicited
commercial e-mail from, among others, Columbia House, in
violation of Illinois law, and asserts two basic claims against
Columbia House, one for violation of Illinois' Consumers Fraud
Statute, the second for violation of Illinois' Electronic Mail
Act.

Columbia House advised the Company that it believes that
Columbia House did not approve the email in question when it was
sent, and asserted a claim for indemnification against the
Company pursuant to its contract.  The Company and Columbia
House agreed to defer resolution of the indemnification claim
(and reserved each of our respective rights).  Columbia House is
defending against the class action.  Its motion to dismiss was
granted as to the Consumer Fraud claim, but denied as to the
Electronic Mail Act claim.  The plaintiff has appealed the
partial dismissal.

In January 2003, the Company was named as a defendant in the
Rydel class action.  In an additional count in the complaint,
the plaintiff asserted that the Company violated the Illinois
Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act by providing
to a co-defendant a list of consumers who had consented to
receive commercial e-mails when, the complaint alleges, they had
not.  The complaint sought injunctive relief and unspecified
damages.  The Company's motion to dismiss the claim as against
it was granted in June 2003, and the plaintiff has filed an
appeal.


TRAFFIX INC.: Arbitration Starts in Qwest Indemnification Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitration is proceeding relating to Qwest Communications,
Inc.'s indemnification claim against Traffix, Inc. relating to a
class action filed against Qwest in the District Court of
Minnesota, County of Sibley, styled "Bindner v. LCI
International Telecom Corp. et al., Case No. C0-00-242."

In that action, plaintiffs claim that from September 1998 to
July 1999, they were misled when they were solicited to change
their long distance carrier to Qwest. They assert that they were
not told that they would have to stay at certain hotels and pay
their regular rates as part of a promotion, which offered them
free airline tickets.

The Company introduced the promotion, named "Fly Free America,"
to Qwest, and were retained by Qwest to operate the
telemarketing campaign.  In May 2000, the Company and Qwest
entered into an agreement terminating the Company's contract and
settling the amount due the Company.  The agreement contained
language which Qwest claims obligates the Company to indemnify
Qwest for any loss it may sustain by reason of this class
action.  The Company maintains that it has no liability in the
matter, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Fraud claims in the class action have been dismissed, leaving
breach of contract and false advertising claims.  The court has
certified the class and Qwest is defending the action.  The
class and defendants, without consulting the Company, have
reached a tentative settlement of the action which would provide
for Qwest to pay $700,000 in cash and up to $1.5 million in
additional cash depending on the number of claimants who file a
proof of claim.

In November 2002, the Company commenced an arbitration against
Qwest to recover certain amounts due the Company pursuant to the
May 2000 Agreement.  In December 2002, Qwest filed counterclaims
in the arbitration relating to the Fly Free America program.
Qwest asserts that the Company must indemnify Qwest for, among
other things, fines and penalties amounting to approximately
$1.5 million which Qwest claims it paid in connection with a
number of consent decrees it entered into with various state
attorneys general, an unspecified amount of attorneys' fees, and
any and all expenses, penalties or other amounts Qwest becomes
liable for in connection with the class action.

Qwest also seeks reimbursement of approximately $3.1 million it
paid us pursuant to the May 2000 Agreement.  A panel of
arbitrators was appointed in December 2003 and a preliminary
conference was held in January 2004.  After the conference, a
schedule was established for substantive motions and for
hearings in June 2004.  The arbitrators also provided for
exchanges of information in the arbitration subject to Qwest's
right to seek to prevent such exchanges.  Qwest moved to prevent
exchanges of information and this application was granted.
Qwest moved for summary judgment with respect to its
indemnification counterclaim.  That motion was denied. One
of the arbitrators was removed from the panel and the hearing
date will have to await the appointment of a new arbitrator and
a preliminary conference.  There is currently a dispute about
the appointment process.


TROY GROUP: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit Over Dirk Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
TROY Group, Inc. faces four class actions filed in California
Superior Court for Orange County, after its May 26 announcement
that TROY entered a merger agreement with Dirk, Inc.  Dirk, Inc.
is a company controlled by Patrick Dirk, the founder of TROY,
and his family members.  Mr. Dirk and his family will acquire
the outstanding shares of TROY common stock that they do not
already own.

Osmium Partners LLC, Ralph Hamer, Roy Liedtke, and Tilson Growth
Fund, LP, respectively, filed the suits.  The Liedtke complaint
also names Dirk, Inc.  In all four actions, plaintiffs allege
that defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection
with the Merger by attempting to provide the Dirk family with
preferential treatment in connection with their efforts to
complete a sale of TROY.  Plaintiffs in all four actions seek
declaratory relief, an order enjoining the acquisition, and
attorneys' fees.  The Liedtke complaint also seeks damages.

The Company and its directors have not yet been served with the
Liedtke and Tilson Growth Fund complaints.  Osmium Partners LLC
has served discovery requests, but discovery has not commenced
in the other actions.  No trial date has been set in any of
these actions.


WD 40 CO.: FL, CA Consumers File Suit Over Toilet Bowl Cleaners
---------------------------------------------------------------
WD 40 Co. faces several class actions seeking damages arising
out of the use of its toilet bowl cleaners.

On October 2, 2002, a legal action was filed against the Company
seeking class action status in the State of Florida for damage
claims arising out of the use of the automatic toilet bowl
cleaners sold by the Company under the brand names, 2000 Flushes
and X-14.  On September 4, 2003 a legal action was filed against
the Company in San Diego County California.  The complaint seeks
class action status for damage claims arising out of the use of
the automatic toilet bowl cleaners sold by the Company under the
brand names, 2000 Flushes and X-14.  On September 23, 2003, a
separate legal action was filed against the Company in San Diego
County on similar grounds.

If class certification is granted in any of the aforementioned
legal actions, it is reasonably possible that the outcome could
have a material adverse effect on the operating results,
financial position and cash flows of the Company, the Company
said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


YOUR FLORIST: TX AG Orders Asset Freeze Due to Consumer Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott obtained a temporary
restraining order to freeze assets of Your Florist of Dallas and
owner Randi Pierce, alleging the company used customers' credit
or debit card numbers to make new unauthorized charges.  A
temporary injunction hearing has been set for August 12 in
Dallas County District Court.

Although the company, also known as Flowers for You Inc. on
Henderson Avenue, told investigators the charges were the result
of computer error, the Attorney General alleges the company used
credit or debit card receipts to continue to make the charges,
and consumer complaints increased significantly thereafter.

"It is an outrage that this company knowingly lifted its
customers' financial information to activate new charges against
those customers, with the proceeds going right back to Your
Florist," said Attorney General Abbott.  "We appreciate those
customers who took the time to file complaints with us, and we
will make every effort to see they obtain credits on their
accounts or receive refunds for any overcharges they paid."

Customers provided affidavits to the Attorney General stating
that they tried without success to get company employees to
correct the errors.  Employees reportedly insisted they were
unable to fix the problem and get refunds for the customers.
Other customers reported that the company would not return
repeated phone calls or employees would promise refunds and
never provide them.

AG Abbott sought an asset freeze and restraining order today
because investigators believe the company continues to
overcharge customers in this manner. The office ultimately seeks
a permanent injunction against Your Florist.

The Attorney General alleges numerous violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and has asked the court to order
the release of funds the company unjustly has in its possession.
These funds would be restored to those victimized by the scheme
to overcharge.  AG Abbott seeks civil penalties of up to $20,000
per violation of the act, as well as attorneys' fees.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Cardinal Health, Inc. (NYSE:CAH)
("Cardinal" or "the Company") between October 24, 2000 and June
30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are all
those who acquired Cardinal's shares through its acquisitions of
Alaris Medical, Intercare, Medicap, Syncor, Boron Lepore, InGel,
Ni-Med, SP Pharmaceuticals, or International Processing Corp. as
well as present and former employees who purchased stock through
Cardinal's Retirement Savings Plans.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact John G. Emerson, Esq., Scott E.
Poynter, Esq. or Tanya Autry, Shareholder Relations Department
of Emerson Poynter by Phone: (800) 663-9817 or (800) 663-9817 or
(501) 907-2555 by Fax: (501) 907-2556 or by E-mail:
shareholder@emersonfirm.com


COMMERCE BANCORP: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Commerce
Bancorp (NYSE:CBH) ("Commerce Bank" or the "Company") between
June 1, 2002 and June 28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled Semeran v. Commerce Bancorp, et al.,
(number not yet assigned) is pending in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey and names as
defendants, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board, Vernon W. Hill, II, its Director of
Commerce Bank of Pennsylvania from June 2002 to October 2003,
Ronald A. White, its Chief Financial Officer, Douglas J. Pauls,
its President of the Commerce Bank of Pennsylvania, Glenn K.
Holck, and its Regional Vice President of Commerce Bank of
Pennsylvania, Stephen M. Umbrell.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions
in Company press releases, public filings and conference calls.
Recently, a criminal indictment was filed in U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against a number of
individuals including, among others, defendants White, Holck,
and Umbrell. The federal investigation leading up to this
indictment was never disclosed in the Company's SEC filings. As
indicated in the Complaint, the federal indictment relates to
allegations that Commerce Bank and/or its subsidiaries'
employees, officers and directors acted to gain favor and,
subsequently, business from the City of Philadelphia. The
aggressive expansion of business by Commerce Bank, as well as
the actions undertaken by the defendants, violated not only the
Company's Codes of Ethics and Conduct, but also the federal
securities laws.

Not disclosed to shareholders were the following facts:

     (1) throughout 2002, and until October 2003, Commerce Bank
         paid $15,000 a month (in addition to other payments) to
         defendant White in "consulting fees" apart from his
         compensation for serving on the Board and while he was
         acting as a top fund-raiser for Philadelphia Mayor John
         Street - for 2002, alone, Commerce paid White $182,000;

     (2) in return for White's compensation, White directed
         Corey Kemp, City of Philadelphia treasurer (also
         indicted), to award financial services and contracts to
         Commerce Bank of Pennsylvania and to Commerce Capital
         Markets on Commerce Bank's behalf;

     (3) that during this time period, Commerce Bank waived
         certain conditions on loans to Kemp and made loans on
         favorable terms;

     (4) that the Company made numerous campaign contributions
         and provided other remuneration to public officials and
         political candidates in return for business despite the
         fact that banks are barred from donating money to
         elected officials who oversee municipal bond deals; and

     (4) that the Company attempted to get around the law by
         making hundreds of thousands of dollars of campaign
         contributions through a Political Action Committee it
         controlled.

When the truth was finally revealed in the last days of June and
through the indictment on June 30, 2004, Commerce Bank stock
went tumbling from a close on June 28 of $64.46 a share to a
close on June 29 of $61.15, and on June 30 of $55.01. The stock
is down 16% since the indictment became public.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther of Wechsler Harwood, LLP
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,
New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-mail:
clowther@whesq.com


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: Charles Piven Files C.D. CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. (Nasdaq:COCO) between August 27, 2003 and June
23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California against defendant Corinthian,
Anthony Digiovanni, David Moore and Dennis Beal.

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 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
Corinthian Colleges, Inc. (Nasdaq: COCO) securities from August
27, 2003, through June 23, 2004, inclusive.

Corinthian operates approximately 150 for-profit colleges and
training centers in North America, including Bryman College,
Florida Metropolitan University, Rhodes College and the National
Institute of Technology.

The complaint alleges that Corinthian and certain of its
officers violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
the Company's lack of internal controls and that the Department
of Education had uncovered violations in the application process
for federal student loans at one of its campuses in December of
2003. The complaint further alleges that as a result, the school
had lost its ability to receive advance payments on its student
loans. Only after these events were ultimately revealed by
certain publications did the Company acknowledge them to the
investing community. In fact, during the Class Period,
defendants specifically denied knowledge of any "events or
activities that would warrant any concern in the Company's
performance," and continued to announce record results and
optimistic forecasts to the market. All the while, certain
Company insiders sold more than $18 million worth of their
personal shares of Corinthian stock during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Weiss & Yourman - Los Angeles Office
by Phone: (800) 437-7918 by E-mail: info@wyca.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.wyca.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


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Odyssey HealthCare, Inc.
(NASDAQ: ODSY) ("Odyssey HealthCare" or the "Company") between
May 5, 2003 through February 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint charges Odyssey HealthCare and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Exchange Act of
1934. The complaint alleges that during the Class Period,
Odyssey HealthCare touted its strong operational growth,
reporting substantial increases in revenues, income and earnings
per share and representing that the Company would continue to
grow organically and through acquisitions. However, unbeknownst
to members of the class, the Company's rapid growth had come at
a steep price. As investors learned after the end of the Class
Period, Odyssey HealthCare's rapid expansion was achieved, in
part, from savings earned by providing a level of care and
service that did not meet applicable guidelines, and through an
overly-aggressive admissions policy that violated Medicare
requirements. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company billed
Medicare for amounts that exceeded amounts they were entitled to
receive under applicable guidelines and exceeded the "Medicare
cap," which is highly unusual in the industry and considered a
breach of accepted practices by the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services. Throughout the Class Period, Odyssey
HealthCare insiders sold a total of 1,545,661 Odyssey HealthCare
shares at artificially inflated prices for gross proceeds of
over $50.8 million.

On February 23, 2004, after the close of ordinary trading,
Odyssey HealthCare announced its results for the fourth quarter
and year 2003 and reported that the Company's 2004 earnings per
share expectations were below analysts' estimates. In a follow-
up conference call, the Company disclosed that it would have to
reduce its revenue in the quarter by an amount equal to the
amount that exceeded the Medicare cap, and that it had
experienced an increase in day sales outstanding due to Medicare
reimbursements being held up for regulatory issues. In reaction
to the press release and conference call, the price of Odyssey
HealthCare common stock plummeted, falling from $27.43 per share
on February 23, 2004 to $20.32 per share on February 24, a one
day drop of 26% on unusually heavy trading volume (12.9 million
shares). On April 12, 2004, Barron's issued an article titled,
"Troubled Odyssey: Questions arise about hospice company's
patient care, level of Medicare," questioned whether the
Company's results reflected cost- cutting at the expense of
patient care and an overly-aggressive admissions policy.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th St.,
New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by e-mail: ODSY@bernlieb.com


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Charles Piven Lodges CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. has commenced a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq:OVTI) between February 19,
2003 through and including June 8, 2004 (the "Class Period"),
including those who purchased shares in the secondary offering
on July 16, 2003.

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

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


RED HAT: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina against Red Hat Inc. ("Red
Hat" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:RHAT), claiming the company and
two top officers misled the investing public about its finances.
The suit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of all investors who bought Red Hat common stock from
June 19, 2001, through and including July 13, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5. Named as
defendants in the suit are: Red Hat; Matthew Szulik, who was at
all relevant times the Company's president, chief executive
officer and chairman; and Kevin B. Thompson, who was at all
relevant times the Company's chief financial officer.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period Red Hat
issued materially false and misleading financial information to
the investing public. Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that Red
Hat improperly booked its subscription fee revenue. This
improper accounting violated Generally Accepted Accounting
Practices ("GAAP") and resulted in significantly overstated
quarterly operating profits and net income throughout the Class
Period, which in turn inflated Red Hat's stock price.

According to the complaint, Red Hat then used that artificially
inflated stock as currency to complete two acquisitions during
the Class Period, exchanging over $32 million in inflated Red
Hat stock as consideration for those deals. Company insiders,
including the officers named in the lawsuit, also took advantage
of the inflated prices by selling more than 3.3 million shares
of Red Hat stock and reaping almost $50 million in proceeds.

On June 13, 2004, Red Hat shocked the investing public by
announcing that the Company was the subject of an informal
investigation by the SEC and would need to restate its financial
statements for each of the past three years. The Company also
announced that it would restate its results for fiscal first-
quarter ended May 31, 2004.

In response to these revelations, the price of Red Hat's common
stock plummeted. The stock fell more than 23% on June 13, 2004
alone, falling to an intra-day low of $15.62 per share, down
$4.62.

For more details, contact Steven D. Morris, Esq. of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo by Mail: One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/RedHat-Cplt.pdf


RED HAT: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C. initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Red Hat Inc.
(Nasdaq:RHAT) ("Red Hat" or the "Company") between June 19, 2001
and July 13, 2004, inclusive ("Class Period").

The Complaint alleges the defendants (Red Hat, Matthew Szulik,
Kevin B. Thompson, Mark Webbink, Timothy Buckley and Paul
Cormier) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the Class Period, in each Form 10-Q and Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"),
defendants falsely reported that they properly recognized
revenue from subscriptions. In fact, as the market learned on
July 13, they did not. Instead, defendants recognized
subscription revenue on a monthly, rather than a daily, basis.
For example, if a subscription agreement was signed on the last
day of a month, a full month's revenue would be recognized on
that day, rather than one day's worth of revenue. After the
PriceWaterhouseCooper's auditor was rotated, the new auditor
required recognition from subscriptions on a daily basis as
required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").
This change in accounting practice resulted in the restatement
of Red Hat's financial results for fiscal years 2002, 2003 and
the first quarter of 2004. Defendants admitted that the
restatement "is expected to result in significant percentage
differences in certain items such as quarterly operating profit
and net income."

During the short seven month class period, defendants Buckley
and Szulik sold over $34 million and $37 million respectively of
Red Hat securities, while the other defendants collectively sold
an additional $8 million. As a result of defendants' allegedly
fraudulent scheme, the price of Red Hat's securities was
artificially inflated, allowing insiders to sell Red Hat
securities for millions of dollars in proceeds and causing
plaintiff and other class members to suffer damages.

The Company also announced that the SEC has made an inquiry into
the Company's results as filed in their Form 10-K. On Monday,
June 14, 2004, Red Hat unexpectedly announced that its Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO") was resigning "to pursue other
interests." The Company claims that its restatement is unrelated
to its form CFO's resignation. The price of Red Hat stock
plummeted $4.62 pr 22.7% per share, losing $600 million in
market capitalization to close at $15.73 per share.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden or Conor R. Crowley of
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. by Phone:
1-800-470-6824 or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


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

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

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


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

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

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

     (1) deliberately sandbagged the performance of the
         business;

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (b) changing auditors yet again;

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

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

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

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


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action on behalf of persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Veritas
Software Corporation (Nasdaq:VRTS) ("Veritas" or the "Company")
from April 21, 2004 through July 2, 2004, both dates inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The action, entitled Choon v. Veritas, et al., 04-CV-872 (not
yet assigned), is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Delaware and names as defendants, the
Company, its President and Chief Executive Officer, Gary L.
Bloom, and its Chief Financial Officer and Executive Vice
President of Finance, Edwin J. Gillis.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company could not meet the financial
         expectations;

     (2) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that earnings for the second quarter were unachievable
         because negotiations for significant contracts would
         not close prior to the close of the quarter;

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

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

On July 6, 2004, before the market opened, Veritas announced
preliminary results for its fiscal second quarter ended June 30,
2004. The Company announced an unexpected earnings shortfall.
News of this shocked the market. Shares of Veritas fell $9.55
per share to close at $17.00 per share, a drop of 36%.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther of Wechsler Harwood, LLP
Shareholder Relations by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor,
New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-mail:
clowther@whesq.com


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

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

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

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


YUKOS OIL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Yukos Oil Company (Pink
Sheets:YUKOF) (Pink Sheets:YUKOY) (Russia: YUKO) ("Yukos")
between February 13, 2003 and October 25, 2003 inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). Also included are all those who acquired Yukos'
shares through its acquisitions of Sibneft, Geoilbent, and
Vostochnaya.

The Complaint alleges that Yukos, a vertically integrated oil
company, issued materially false statements. Specifically,
defendants created a complex network of shell companies to evade
taxes on the production, refining and sale of oil and oil
products. These shell companies were registered in territories
with preferential tax treatment in order to receive special tax
exemptions and minimize tax liability. Since these shell
companies were not separate legal entities, Yukos was required
to recognize the full amount of the receipts associated with
these transactions for its own tax purposes and was not entitled
to the preferential tax treatment these shell companies were
granted. Accordingly, Yukos' tax liability was materially
understated and its earnings were materially overstated.

In October 2003, it was revealed that Russian authorities had
arrested Yukos' CEO, on fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion
charges. Authorities also announced that they would pursue
criminal prosecutions against other senior Yukos officials.
Ultimately, Yukos will be required to pay approximately $3.3
billion for 2000 alone due to its understatement of tax
liability. The Tax Ministry intends to audit Yukos for 2001-2003
based upon the same charges. Yukos could ultimately be expected
to pay upwards of $10 billion to the Tax Ministry for this
illegal tax evasion scheme.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *