CAR_Public/040723.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 23, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 145

                          Headlines

AUSTRALIA: Aborigines To Sue Queensland Over Sub-Award Wages
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in FL
BMW: FL Driver Lodges Product Liability Suit V. X5 SUV Air Bags
CAREMARK RX: County Chancellor Dismisses TN Consumer Fraud Suit
CENTRAL LOCATING: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in M.D. FL

CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Faces Travel Agents Suit in Canada Court
CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Trial in Securities Suit Set November 2004
CURRENCY TRADING: SEC Imposes Sanctions V. Broker-Dealer, Trader
ELECTRO-OPTICAL: Judge Orders $18M Disgorgement, $3.3M Penalties

EVERLASTING DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Products Due To Undeclared Egg
FLORIDA: Agencies, Hospitals Receive $2M From Taxol Settlement
HMO LITIGATION: CA Consumers Launch Suit Over "Balance Billing"
KONSTANTINOS DINO SONITIS: SEC Bars Representative From Trading
MCI/WORLDCOM: NY Court Approves Shareholder Lawsuit Settlement

MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Court Approves Shareholder Settlements
MERCK & CO.: NJ Court Dismisses Revenue Recognition Complaint
MICHAEL GRECCO: SEC Bars, Fines Securities Promoter For Bribery
MICHIGAN: Two Nonprofit Hospitals Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
MIDAS AUSTRALIA: Australian Franchisees Launch Unfair Trade Suit

NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: AHA, Seven Others Charged in Amended Suits
NORTH CAROLINA: 3 Telephone Carriers Enter Consumer Lawsuit Pact
ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls 4 Lots of Reagent Packs Due To Defects
PHILIPPINES: Pepsi Ordered To Pay "349" Fiasco Claimants P6.2M
ROBERT BALSAMO: SEC Settles Bribery Charges V. Ex-Representative

SHELL CANADA: Disputes Reported $100M Quebec Lawsuit Settlement
SMART & FINAL: CA Court Approves Settlement of Employee Lawsuits
SMART & FINAL: CA Court Refuses Review of Lawsuit Certification
SPIRO LAZARETOS: SEC Settles Bribery Charge V. Ex-Representative
SPORTSLINE.COM: FL Judge Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit

SUNRISE IMPORTS: Recalls Apricots Due To Undeclared Sulfites
UNITED STATES: Five Power Firms Faces NY Carbon Emissions Suit
UNITED STATES: Vermont Joins, Announces Suit V. Power Companies
UNITED STATES: Senate Junks Motion To Limit Debate on S. 2062
VASO ACTIVE: MA Court Consolidates Lawsuits for Securities Fraud

VLADIMIR CARVALLO: SEC Settles Bribery Charges V. Representative
WEI CHUAN: Recalls Fishery Ball Products Due To Undeclared Eggs

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Lawsuits Increased Since March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz AG Adds To Reserves After Review
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AP Incurs $728,000 in Legal Costs for 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AGII In Reinsurance Pact With Inter-Ocean
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Ltd., CNA Holdings Cases Reduced

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Corp. Sued For Asbestos In CA, OH, MS
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro and Equitas Reach Pact on Insurance
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gencorp Inc. Cases Decreased Since February
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JHI NV Asks Shareholders Approval For Funds
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Re-Assesses Asbestos Reserve

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Settlement Obligation Value Increased
ASBESTOS ALERT: Enstar Includes $12M For Losses, LAE in Reserve
ASBESTOS ALERT: Mueller Group's Lawsuits Covered By Tyco Intl
ASBESTOS ALERT: Platinum Underwriters' Predecessor Facing Claims

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BUSINESS OBJECTS: Spector Roseman Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
CARDINAL HEALTH: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
CUMBERLAND CASUALTY: Dice & Gregory Lodges Securities Suit in AL
KHV INDUSTRIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in RI

MERIX CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OR
RED HAT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
SHAW GROUP: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. LA
SHAW GROUP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Files Fraud Suit in PA
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Fraud Suit in PA

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files WA Securities Suit


                           *********


AUSTRALIA: Aborigines To Sue Queensland Over Sub-Award Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Queensland, Australia faces a possible class action filed by a
group of Queensland Aborigines, seeking reparation of sub-award
wages during the Bjelke-Petersen era, with a leaked 1999 state
cabinet document appearing to support their claim, the f2
Network (Australia) reports.

From the 1800s, Aborigines who worked for the Queensland
government were routinely paid less than half the wage paid to
non-indigenous workers.  A federal government Racial
Discriminaton Act in 1975 declared it illegal, but then
Queensland Premier Joh Bjelke-Petersen ignored the new laws
until 1986.

In 1996, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
(HREOC) found six Palm Island workers had been illegally
discriminated against.  It ordered the payment of $7,000 and a
statement of public regret to each complainant.  Premier Peter
Beattie's government used this $7,000 figure as basis for
reparative payments in 1999, the f2 Network reports.

However, a document obtained by the National Indigenous Times
this week shows the average figure in previous claims was almost
double the amount.  The document says that the government moved
to avoid litigation by setting up an administrative claims
process, aligning itself with the popular Brisbane-based
Foundation for Aboriginal and Islander Research Action (FAIRA)
to attract people to the plan.

"The average entitlement in previous claims has been around
$13,250," it said.  "Settlements mediated thus far are
considerably lower on average, and successful action by the
claimants could see the compensatory amounts rise significantly
. For these reasons, an administrative claims process is the
least speculative option in economic terms."


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Herman & Mermelstein initiated a nationwide
class action lawsuit against Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI)
seeking to recover unpaid overtime on behalf of Blockbuster
"store managers" that routinely worked more than 40 hours per
week.

The lawsuit, Miranda, et al v. Blockbuster, filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
charges that Blockbuster violated Federal Law by deliberately
misclassifying employees as store managers to avoid paying
overtime wages as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

Under the FLSA, employees are entitled to time-and-a-half pay
for each hour over 40 hours worked in a workweek. While
employees in executive, administrative and professional
positions are exempt from the Act's requirements, the mere fact
that an employee is given a title, classified by an employer as
exempt, and paid on a salary basis, does not extinguish the
right to overtime unless they are exempt under the Act. In 2001,
Blockbuster settled a case brought by Store Managers in
California for $12 million.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M Herman of Herman &
Mermelstein by Mail: 3230 Sterling Road, Suite 1, Hollywood, FL
33021 by Phone: (954) 962-2200 by Fax: (954) 962-4292 by E-mail:
herman@hermanlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.hermanlaw.com


BMW: FL Driver Lodges Product Liability Suit V. X5 SUV Air Bags
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit seeking national class action status has been
initiated by a Miami driver against German automaker BMW
alleging that the company's X5 sports utility vehicle have
defective air bags that deploy for no reason in Florida state
court in Miami-Dade County, the Dow Jones Business News reports.

In her suit, Lisa Vale, claims that the X5's have defective air
bags that deploy for no reason, and the German giant's U.S.
subsidiary signs owners to secrecy before performing free
repairs.

Ms. Vale also stated in her suit, which covers the 2001-2004
model years of the SUVs that she suffered a chemical burn on her
left arm when the driver's side air bag exploded while driving
along southern Miami in April. Her 2001 SUV was still under
warranty, but the dealer who sold her the $58,000 vehicle
planned to charge her $3,840 for repairs if she refused to sign
the confidentiality agreement.

But according David Buchko, spokesman for BMW of North America
LLC, based in Woodcliff Lake, N.J., "There's no problem with air
bag deployment in these vehicles that we're aware of," and
claims instead that there was evidence of impact damage on
Vale's SUV. On the matter of the company's alleged request for
confidentiality Mr. Buchko had no comment.

The lawsuit, which could potentially cover thousands of BMWs
nationally, seeks money for the cost of repairs, towing,
depreciation, lost use of the vehicle and lost personal time. It
also seeks court orders to force BMW to honor its warranties,
inspect air bags, perform any needed repairs, ban the
confidentiality agreements and cancel any signed agreements.

Ms. Vale's attorneys, Ervin Gonzalez and Ira Leesfield contend
that the confidentiality form violates Florida's 1990 Sunshine
in Litigation Act barring secrecy about public hazards and the
company is violating a state law banning deceptive business
practices.

For more details, contact Ervin Gonzalez of Colson Hicks Eidson
by Mail: 255 Aragon Avenue, Miami, Florida 33134-5008 (Miami-
Dade Co.) by Phone: 305-476-7400 by Fax: 305-476-7444 or visit
their Web Site: http://www.colson.com/OR Ira Leesfield of
Leesfield, Leighton, Rubio & Boyers, P.A. by Mail: 2350 South
Dixie Highway, Miami, Florida 33133 (Miami-Dade Co.) by Phone:
305-854-4900 or 800-836-6400 by Fax: 305-854-8266 or visit their
Web site: http://www.Leesfield.com


CAREMARK RX: County Chancellor Dismisses TN Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Davidson County chancellor dismissed a class action lawsuit,
which alleged that a Caremark Rx Inc. administered pharmacy
benefits plan violated the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act,
attorneys from both sides announced, according to The
Tennessean.

The suit was the second effort by J.C. Crabtree and James
Teague, two employees of Ryder Integrated Logistics, a Caremark
client, to force Caremark to change its mail-order policies.
Critics have alleged that the policies, which typically offer
lower co-payments to individuals who order by mail, serve to
funnel business to the PBM companies' mail-order centers.

Mr. Crabtree's and Mr. Teague's first lawsuit was subsequently
filed in Davidson County Chancery Court, alleging Caremark's
mail-order policies violated a state insurance statute. Although
the NIPC said it had no direct role in the case, Teague and
Crabtree were represented by Blackburn & McCune, a Nashville law
firm that frequently represents the independent pharmacy
industry's legal interests, The Tennessean reports.

Chancellor Claudia Bonnyman eventually dismissed the suit on
grounds it could not be brought using the insurance law in
question. That decision prompted the employees to file another
lawsuit this past spring alleging Caremark's policies violated
Tennessee consumer protection laws.

On Friday, Chancellor Richard Dinkins dismissed that case,
ruling that the federal laws governing employee benefits plans
prohibited its filing under the state's consumer statute.

Woody Woodruff, an attorney at the Nashville law firm Waller
Lansden Dortch & Davis who represented Caremark, declined to
comment, The Tennessean reports.


CENTRAL LOCATING: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Edwards & George, LLP and Burr & Smith, LLP on
behalf of a group of current and former locators filed a federal
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Ocala Division alleging that Central Locating Service,
Ltd., Corporation ("CLS"), routinely failed to pay them overtime
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

The complaint alleges that CLS, one of the nation's largest
locators of underground utilities, requires its locators to:

     (1) work off the clock from home downloading, sorting and
         routing their daily work assignments,

     (2) make unpaid telephone calls to contractors before
         traveling to work sites,

     (3) routinely work unpaid through lunch breaks because of
         CLS pressure to perform more "locates" than can
         typically be performed in a 40-hour workweek, and,

     (4) perform unpaid work during travel home and after they
         reach home, such as calling contractors, monitoring
         Company computers and radios, communicating with
         supervisors, and scheduling work assignments for the
         next day.

A wholly-owned subsidiary of Asplundh Tree Expert Co.,
headquartered in Willow Grove, Pa., CLS uses locators to map the
locations of underground utilities in at least 13 states,
including Alabama, Florida, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North
Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont, Virginia,
Washington, and West Virginia. According to counsel for the
locators, CLS follows the alleged procedures in all its
locations.

The lawsuit alleges that CLS's locators who complained to their
supervisors about these pay practices were told to "quit
complaining" and that they "should look for another job." One
plaintiff asserts that CLS's former CEO brushed off his
complaints by saying "he didn't have time for this."

The complaint alleges that CLS's failure to pay overtime was
willful and not done in good faith such that plaintiffs will be
entitled to up to three years of overtime pay and liquidated
damages (amounting to double the overtime pay due). Each
plaintiff who joins the lawsuit may be entitled to back pay
depending on the number of hours worked over 40 in any week,
counsel for the locators said.

Plaintiffs' counsel Sam J. Smith, of Burr & Smith, LLP in Tampa,
estimates that each locator who performed the work described
above without compensation over a three-year period could be
entitled to back pay in the thousands of dollars.

Plaintiffs' counsel, J. Derek Braziel, of Edwards & George, LLP
in Dallas, stated that "the failure to pay overtime compensation
for blue-collar workers who work out of their homes is prevalent
throughout the service industry. We intend to stop these
practices."

Represented by Burr & Smith, LLP and Edwards & George, LLP, the
plaintiffs will seek to have their case proceed as a collective
action lawsuit so that any employee who works or worked for CLS
in a similar position may join the lawsuit and seek overtime pay
and liquidated damages.

For more details, contact Sam J. Smith, Esq. or Marguerite
Longoria, Esq. of BURR & SMITH, LLP by Mail: 442 W. Kennedy
Blvd., Ste. 300, Tampa, FL 33606 by Phone: (813) 253-2010 OR
J. Derek Braziel, Esq. of EDWARDS & GEORGE, LLP by Mail: 208 N.
Market St., Ste. 400, Dallas, TX 75202 or by Phone:
(214) 749-1400, Ext. 5505 or (214) 763-2077 [Cell] OR call
1-866-949-1400 or log into http://www.utilitylocatorovertime.com


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina's ruling granting summary
judgment in favor of Continental Airlines, Inc. and other
defendants in the class action filed against them, styled "Sarah
Futch Hall d/b/a/ Travel Specialists v. United Air Lines, et
al."

This class action was filed in federal court on June 21, 2000 by
a travel agent, on behalf of herself and other similarly
situated U.S. travel agents, challenging the reduction and
subsequent elimination of travel agent base commissions.  The
amended complaint alleged an unlawful agreement among the
airline defendants to reduce, cap or eliminate commissions in
violation of federal antitrust laws during the years 1997 to
2002.  The plaintiffs sought compensatory and treble damages,
injunctive relief and their attorneys' fees.

The class was certified on September 18, 2002.  On October 30,
2003, a summary judgment and order was granted in favor of all
of the defendants.

Several travel agents who purportedly opted out of the Hall
class action filed similar suits against Continental and other
major carriers alleging violations of antitrust laws in
eliminating the base commission:

     (1) Tam Travel, Inc. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., et al.
         (U.S.D.C., Northern District of California), filed on
         April 9, 2003;

     (2) Paula Fausky, et al. v. American Airlines, et al.
         (U.S.D.C., Northern District of Ohio), filed on May 8,
         2003; and

     (3) Swope Travel Agency, et al. v. Orbitz LLC et al.
         (U.S.D.C., Eastern District of Texas), filed on June 5,
         2003

By order dated November 12, 2003, these actions were transferred
and consolidated for pretrial purposes by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation to the Northern District of Ohio.


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Faces Travel Agents Suit in Canada Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Continental Airlines, Inc. was named as defendant in the amended
statement of claim filed in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial
Division, styled "Always Travel, et. al. v. Air Canada, et al."

The amended statement of claim alleges that between 1995 and the
present, the Company, the other defendant airlines, and the
International Air Transport Association conspired to reduce
commissions paid to Canada-based travel agents in violation of
the Competition Act of Canada.  Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification is pending.


CONTINENTAL AIRLINES: Trial in Securities Suit Set November 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the securities fraud class action filed against
Continental Airlines, Inc. is set for November 2004 in the
United States District Court in Phoenix, Arizona.

The suit relates to the sale of certain America West stock in
1998 brought against America West Airlines, America West
Holdings Corporation and various other defendants, entitled
"Employer-Teamsters Joint Council No. 84 Pension Trust Fund v.
America West Holdings Corp., et al."

This action was first filed in March of 1999, but was dismissed.
Plaintiffs then filed a Second Amended Consolidated Complaint in
January 2001, which was dismissed with prejudice in June of
2001.  Plaintiffs appealed that dismissal and in 2003 the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the lower court's
dismissal.  In January 2004 the class was certified. Defendants'
motions for summary judgment are pending.


CURRENCY TRADING: SEC Imposes Sanctions V. Broker-Dealer, Trader
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Administrative Law Judge has issued an Order Making Findings
and Imposing Sanctions By Default Against Currency Trading
International, Inc., and Christian J. Weber (Default Order) in
the Matter of Currency Trading International, Inc., et al.  The
Order Instituting Proceedings alleged that on May 3, 2004, the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
entered a final judgment which, among other things, permanently
enjoined Currency Trading International, Inc., and Christian J.
Weber from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Default Order finds these
allegations to be true. It revokes the registration of Currency
Trading International, Inc., as a broker-dealer, and bars
Christian J. Weber from association with any broker or dealer.


ELECTRO-OPTICAL: Judge Orders $18M Disgorgement, $3.3M Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote granted summary judgment in
favor of the Securities and Exchange Commission and against the
ten remaining defendants in a civil action arising out of the
fraudulent offering and sale of securities of Electro-Optical
Systems Corporation. In its order, the court found that Thomas
Cavanagh, Frank Nicolois, and their company U.S. Milestone had
violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and that Thomas Brooksbank,
James Franklin, and Thomas Hantges had violated Securities Act
Sections 5(a) and 5(c). The Court also granted summary judgment
against relief defendants Karen Cavanagh, Beverly Nicolois,
their company Cromlix, LLC, and Edward Kaufer.

In granting the Commission's motion for summary judgment, the
court permanently enjoined Cavanagh, Nicolois, and Milestone
from violating, directly or indirectly, Securities Act Sections
5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) and Exchange Act Section 10(b). The court
permanently enjoined Brooksbank, Franklin, and Hantges from
violating, directly or indirectly, Securities Act Sections 5(a)
and 5(c).

The court also ordered that Cavanagh, Nicolois, and Milestone
pay, jointly and severally, disgorgement of $15,564,863.02 - the
total amount of the market fraud - plus interest, less any
disgorgement amounts actually paid by other defendants and
relief defendants. Cavanagh, Nicolois, and Milestone were also
each ordered to pay a civil penalty of $1,000,000. The court
ordered Brooksbank, Franklin, and Hantges to pay, jointly and
severally, disgorgement of $889,275.00 plus interest. In
addition, Brooksbank, Franklin, and Hantges were ordered to
individually pay disgorgement of $185,337.79, $50,926.50, and
$304,654.29, respectively, plus interest. These three defendants
were also each ordered to pay a civil penalty of $125,000.
Relief defendants Karen Cavanagh, Beverly Nicolois, and their
company Cromlix were ordered to pay, jointly and severally,
disgorgement of $803,660.75 plus interest.  Relief defendant
Edward Kaufer and defendant Brooksbank were ordered to pay,
jointly and severally, disgorgement of $213,150.97 plus
interest. The order granting the Commission's motion for summary
judgment resolves all outstanding claims. The action is titled
SEC v. Thomas Cavanagh, et al., 98 Civ. 1818 (SDNY) DLC (LR-
18787)


EVERLASTING DISTRIBUTORS: Recalls Products Due To Undeclared Egg
----------------------------------------------------------------
Everlasting Distributors, Inc. of Bayonne, NJ, is recalling its
Jane Jane frozen products as mentioned above because they may
contain undeclared egg. People who have allergies or severe
sensitivity to egg run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The recalled "Jane Jane" frozen products were distributed in the
Asian East Coast market.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the egg-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of egg.

Consumers who have purchased the "Jane Jane" frozen products are
urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

For more details, contact Everlasting Distributors, Inc. by
Phone: (201) 823-0800


FLORIDA: Agencies, Hospitals Receive $2M From Taxol Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida agencies and public hospitals affected by a drug
manufacturer's conduct regarding the anticancer drug Taxol have
received payments totaling $2,164,266 from the company, Attorney
General Charlie Crist announced in a statement.

Of this total, $1,545,542 will be directed to the state's
General Revenue Fund, while $618,724 will go to 11 public
hospitals around the state.  The payments represent the final
installments from a settlement with Bristol-Myers Squibb, which
was accused of unlawfully monopolizing the manufacture and sale
of Taxol and its generic form paclitaxell. These installments
are in addition to checks mailed last month to more than 800
eligible Floridians as part of the settlement agreement.

"Citizens receiving life-giving treatment for cancer deserve to
receive that treatment at the best available price," said AG
Crist.  "This settlement made on behalf of consumers enabled
them and hospitals that were overcharged to receive some
restitution."

The settlement was the result of an antitrust case filed against
Bristol-Myers Squibb by the Florida Attorney General's Office
and attorneys general from the 49 other states, the District of
Columbia and U.S. territories.  The lawsuit alleged that the
company obtained invalid patents for Taxol, which delayed the
availability of lower-cost generic substitutes.  As a result of
the company's actions, patients had to pay higher prices for the
drug. The settlement was approved last November and victims were
asked to submit claims before February 29.

Hospitals receiving funds include:

     (1) Broward General Medical Center,

     (2) Coral Springs Medical Center,

     (3) Halifax Medical Center,

     (4) Imperial Point Medical Center,

     (5) Jackson Memorial Hospital,

     (6) Lee Memorial Health System,

     (7) Memorial Regional Hospital,

     (8) North Broward Medical Center,

     (9) North Broward Hospital District,

    (10) Sarasota Memorial Healthcare System,

    (11) South Broward Hospital District

More than 800 claims were submitted by individual Floridians,
and restitution for these victims totaled more than $453,000.
Those checks were mailed in June.  Individuals whose Taxol
treatments were covered in part by insurance, or who paid the
entire cost of one treatment, received checks for $525. Those
who paid the entire cost for two or more treatments received
$438 for each treatment.


HMO LITIGATION: CA Consumers Launch Suit Over "Balance Billing"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers launched a class action suit against several health
management organizations (HMOs), challenging the practice of
"balance billing," in which hospitals bill patients to boost low
insurance reimbursement rates, Reuters reports.

The suit, filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of
California consumers, charged the HMOs with fraud and breach of
the state's unfair trade practices law.  The suit names as
defendants:

     (1) WellPoint Health Networks (NYSE:WLP) Inc.,

     (2) Blue Cross of California,

     (3) Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Co.,

     (4) Cigna Health Care of California Inc.,

     (5) PacifiCare of California, a unit of PacifiCare Health
         Systems Inc. (NYSE:PHS),

     (6) Prudential Health Care of California and

     (7) Aetna Health Management Inc, units of Aetna Inc.
         (NYSE:AET)

Through "balance billing," insurers allow contracting hospitals
to bill patients for the difference between what the insurer
paid them and what they believe the services are worth, even if
they agreed to take the lower fee, the lawsuit alleges.  The
amounts sought by hospitals are sometimes the discounts that the
hospital granted to the patient's insurance company in exchange
for the patient's business, lawyers told Reuters. According to
California law, insurers are required to ensure that hospitals
do not charge patients for services that are fully covered under
their health plans.

The suit seeks a court order to stop the practice and also
demands that consumers be allowed to see their files for the
last four years to determine whether they were subjected to
balance billing.

Michael Chee, spokesman for WellPoint and Blue Cross of
California, declined to comment on the lawsuit but said the
companies' contracts do not allow hospitals to bill patients for
the balance of services that are fully covered, Reuters reports.

Mr. Chee said, however, that patients who are injured in car
accidents are supposed to use their auto insurance coverage to
pay their hospital bills. In those cases, hospitals would not be
bound by WellPoint's rates or contract, he said.

"But the entity that starts getting billed is the health
insurance company," Mr. Chee said.  "Most health insurance
policies say they are allowed to recover expenses from that
(auto insurance)."

The remaining insurers could not be reached for comment,
according to Reuters.

California law prohibits insurers from recovering their costs
for healthcare in such cases until the patient is "made whole,"
and the insurer must then discount the billed amount owed to
account for lawyers fees, but hospitals don't have those legal
constraints, attorney Michael Cohen told Reuters.  "Essentially
the insurance companies are transforming the hospitals into
their collection agencies," Cohen, who represents lead plaintiff
Ronald Allen Gass, said. "It does two things for insurers: the
hospital can get more money ... and it saves the HMO the expense
of having a collection agency."


KONSTANTINOS DINO SONITIS: SEC Bars Representative From Trading
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Making
Findings, Imposing Remedial Sanctions, and Imposing a Cease-and-
Desist Order Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act) and Sections 15(b)(6) and 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) as to
Konstantinos Dino Sonitis (Order). The Order finds that Sonitis,
while a registered representative at various broker-dealers,
received bribes in exchange for creating retail demand for one
penny stock, Healthwatch Inc., by recommending that stock to his
retail customers. The Order further finds that Sonitis did not
disclose to his customers that he received additional
compensation to make his penny stock recommendations.

Based on the above, the Order finds that Sonitis willfully
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Order

     (1) orders Sonitis to cease and desist from committing or
         causing any violation and any future violations of
         Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of
         the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,

     (2) bars Sonitis from participating in any offering of
         penny stock, and

     (3) bars Sonitis from association with any broker or
         dealer.

Sonitis consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting
or denying the factual findings therein.


MCI/WORLDCOM: NY Court Approves Shareholder Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federal District Court Judge Denise Cote of the Southern
District of New York has ordered current and former shareholders
who are affected by the class-action lawsuit be notified of the
details of the class action settlement, beginning no later than
August 2, 2004, and has set a September 1, 2004 deadline for
current and former MCI and WorldCom (Nasdaq:MCIP) shareholders
who wish to "opt-out" of the MCI/WorldCom shareholder class
action settlement to file the opt-out forms, the PrimeZone Media
Network reports.

Current and former shareholders must opt-out by September 1,
2004 if they desire to pursue individual claims against the
defendants including Salomon Smith Barney, now operating as
Citigroup Global Markets a unit of Citigroup, Inc. (NYSE:C).
Parker & Waichman has established a website
http://www.worldcomstockfraud.com to assist current and former
shareholders in obtaining a free evaluation.

The firm believes that the settlement agreement does not fairly
compensate victims of MCI/WorldCom stock fraud and strongly
encourages current and former shareholders who purchased or
acquired shares between April 29, 1999 and June 25, 2002 to
explore their legal options before the opt-out deadline expires.

Current and former WorldCom and MCI shareholders who do not
specifically "opt out" of the class action are automatically
included in the Class Action Settlement.

For more details, contact David Krangle, Esq. of Parker &
Waichman, LLP by Phone: 1-800-LAW-INFO (1-800-529-4636) by E-
mail: dkrangle@yourlawyer.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.yourlawyer.com



MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: Court Approves Shareholder Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Measurement Specialties, Inc. (Amex: MSS), a designer and
manufacturer of sensors and sensor-based consumer products,
reported the court approval of its settlements of both the
shareholder class action, In re Measurement Specialties, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civ. Action No. 02-CV-1071 (D.N.J.), and
the Securities and Exchange Commission's civil action, SEC v.
Measurement Specialties, Inc. and Kirk Dischino, Civ. Action No.
04-CV-3000 (D.N.J.).

The final judgments were consistent with previously disclosed
settlement terms.

For more details, contact Frank Guidone, CEO of Measurement
Specialties, Inc. by Phone (973) 808-3023 or Investor Contact:
Aimee Boutcher by Phone: (973) 239-2878


MERCK & CO.: NJ Court Dismisses Revenue Recognition Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted a motion by Merck & Co., Inc., Medco Health Solutions
and certain officers and directors to dismiss a purported class
action complaint.

The case involves claims related to Merck's revenue recognition
practice for retail co-payments paid by individuals to whom
Medco Health Solutions provides pharmaceutical benefits, as well
as other allegations. The complaint was dismissed with
prejudice.

The Court's decision is subject to appeal. Merck is awaiting
decision on a motion before the same Court to dismiss a related
shareholder derivative action.


MICHAEL GRECCO: SEC Bars, Fines Securities Promoter For Bribery
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Making
Findings, Imposing Remedial Sanctions, and Imposing a Cease-and-
Desist Order Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act) and Sections 15(b)(6) and 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) as to Michael T.
Grecco (Order). The Order finds that Grecco, an undisclosed
promoter of microcap securities, arranged for the payment of
bribes to brokers to induce those brokers to cause their retail
customers to purchase five penny stocks, ATR Industries, Inc.,
Learner's World, Inc., Rollerball International, Inc., Hytk
Industries, Inc., and Healthwatch Inc., while associated with
DMN Capital Investments, Inc. Grecco received substantial
profits for arranging such bribe payments tobrokers.

Based on the above, the Order finds that Grecco willfully
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Order

     (1) orders Grecco to cease and desist from committing or
         causing any violation and any future violations of
         Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of
         the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,

     (2) bars Grecco from participating in any offering of penny
         stock,

     (3) bars Grecco from association with any broker or dealer,
         and

     (4) orders Grecco to pay disgorgement of $45,000 plus
         prejudgment interest, but waives payment of such amount
         and does not impose a civil penalty based  upon
         Grecco's sworn representations in his statement of
         financial condition.

Grecco consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting
or denying the factual findings therein.


MICHIGAN: Two Nonprofit Hospitals Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two Michigan nonprofit hospital systems faces class actions,
charging them with claiming more charity care than they provided
and charging uninsured patients more than those with insurance,
the Associated Press reports.

Royal Oak-based William Beaumont Hospital, Beaumont Properties,
Inc. and Novi-based Trinity Health-Michigan, Inc. faces class
actions filed by Lansing attorney Frank Kelley in the United
States District Court in Detroit.

The Kelley suit is similar to lawsuits filed against several
other hospitals and hospital systems nationwide on behalf of
uninsured patients by a group of lawyers, headed by Richard
Scruggs of Mississippi.  The lawsuits also allege the hospitals
are operating more like for-profit businesses than not-for-
profits, although they receive tax exemptions for being profits.
The hospitals allegedly failed to give required charitable
medical care to poor patients and charged uninsured patients
higher prices than the discounted amounts accepted from insured
patients.

"Through these wallet biopsies, the AHA's co-defendants'
priorities are not necessarily on the appropriate health care
treatment for the uninsured patient but rather on gouging the
uninsured patient with exorbitantly inflated prices," Mr.
Scruggs said in a news release.

Mike Killian, vice president of marketing for Beaumont, told the
Associated Press the system's hospitals provide $91 million in
uncompensated care each year.  He said he suspected the hospital
was targeted by the suit because it's one of the largest in the
state.  "This is a brand-new thing, and it's a national trend.
It was only a matter of time before some Michigan hospitals
became involved," he said.

Trinity Health spokesman Kevin DiCola said the system had not
seen the complaint Wednesday evening and could not comment on
specific allegations.

"Trinity Health wants to provide every assurance that we are
devoted to caring for everyone regardless of ability to pay and
to improving the health of our community," Mr. DiCola read from
a prepared statement. "We are deeply troubled by the legal
action taken against us and other nonprofit hospitals and health
systems who are devoted to caring for the poor and uninsured."

Mr. Scruggs has also filed against hospitals in Florida,
Georgia, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania as well as
the American Hospital Association (AHA), which is the hospital
industry's top trade association.

AHA spokeswoman Alicia Mitchell called the suits misguided and
baseless, and said the association "categorically denies" the
accusations that it has not done anything to solve the health
insurance problem.  "All this does is detract from the real
problems we face with health care," Ms. Mitchell told AP.


MIDAS AUSTRALIA: Australian Franchisees Launch Unfair Trade Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
International muffler business and franchisor Midas' Australian
unit faces a class action filed on behalf of about 30
franchisees, over the Company's moves to terminate several
franchise agreements, The Sunday Mail (Australia) reports.

The franchisees allege the Company terminated their agreements
to operate under the Midas umbrella for illegitimate reasons.
The franchisees also criticized the Australian Competition &
Consumer Commission for deserting them instead of protecting
them.  The Company denied the claims, saying it has always acted
legally.

Former Midas franchisee Ray Borradale joined the campaign after
the Company took away his franchise.  He told The Sunday Mail he
was now set to lose everything else he owned, because no one in
government or the ACCC was willing to intervene in his dispute
with Midas Australia, his former franchisor.

Mr Borradale said "The ACCC has received complaints and on
receipt of a response from Midas to those complaints, just
accepted that response, stapled it to the original complaint and
then it was case closed. All without confirming the details
within the Midas response - it was just accepted."

Other disgruntled franchisees have been angered by the ACCC
chairman Graeme Samuel asking small businesses to contact the
competition body if they think they have been victims of
unconscionable conduct.

Ron Utoyo, another Midas franchisee who has been battling his
franchisor, was angered by what he saw recently on television.
"I watched Business Sunday on television and Graeme Samuel was
interviewed," he told the Sunday Mail.  "I really can't believe
what I heard in that interview, because it's really the opposite
of what most Midas franchisees are experiencing at the moment."

Al Marr, vice-president and general counsel of Midas
International Corporation has become involved in the dispute,
informing Mr. Utoyo that his complaints and those of other Midas
Australia franchisees have not fallen on deaf ears.

"We have spoken a number of times to (Midas Australia chief)
Philip Bonney and his team regarding the various allegations
made by you and your fellow franchisees," he told The Sunday
Mail.  "As you can imagine, Philip and his team vehemently deny
any wrongdoing whatsoever."


NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: AHA, Seven Others Charged in Amended Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. named as a defendant the American
Hospital Association ("AHA") and the hospital industry's trade
association, in class action lawsuits brought by uninsured
patients against nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals in
Florida, Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and
Pennsylvania. In addition to naming the AHA as a defendant in
eight new class action lawsuits, all previous class action
lawsuits filed since June 17, 2004, are being amended to also
name AHA as a defendant.

These eight new class action lawsuits by uninsured patients also
name nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals in Florida,
Georgia, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania
as defendants. The lawsuits charge that the defendant nonprofit
hospital systems and hospitals, working with the AHA, have
failed to provide government required charity care to uninsured
patients. With the filings of these lawsuits, 39 litigations are
underway in 20 states against defendants that control
approximately 340 hospitals in aggregate.

The new class action lawsuits that have been or will be filed
today by uninsured patients are:

     (1) In Florida:  Defendants: Orlando Regional Healthcare
         System, Inc. and American Hospital Association; United
         States District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida Orlando Division; litigation filed by Carlton &
         Carlton, P.A. and Law Offices of Archie Lamb, LLC;

     (2) In Georgia:  Defendants:  Northeast Georgia Medical
         Center and American Hospital Association; United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Georgia;
         litigation filed by Vroon & Crongeyer, LLP;

     (3) In Michigan: Defendant: Trinity Health-Michigan, Inc.
         and Trinity Health Corporation and American Hospital
         Association; United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of Michigan; litigation filed by
         Kelley Cawthorne and Vroon & Crongeyer, LLP; Defendant:
         William Beaumont Hospital and Beaumont Properties, Inc.
         and American Hospital Association; United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan;
         litigation filed by Kelley Cawthorne and Vroon &
         Crongeyer, LLP;

     (4) In New Mexico: Defendant: Presbyterian Healthcare
         Services and American Hospital Association; United
         States District Court for the District of New Mexico;
         litigation filed by Moody & Warner, P.C., Law Offices
         of Archie Lamb, LLC and E. Kirk Wood, Esq.;

     (5) In New York: Defendant: Long Island Jewish Medical
         Center, North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset,
         North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., and
         American Hospital Association; United States District
         Court Eastern District of New York; litigation filed by
         Bernstein, Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP, Vroon & Crongeyer,
         LLP and Barrett Law Office, P.A.;

     (6) In Ohio: Defendant: ProMedica Health System, Inc. and
         American Hospital Association; United States District
         Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Western
         Division; litigation filed by Weisman, Kennedy & Berris
         Co., L.P.A. and Zoll & Kranz, LLC;

     (7) In Pennsylvania: Defendant: Albert Einstein Medical
         Center, Albert Einstein Healthcare Network, Jefferson
         Health System and American Hospital Association; United
         States District Court for the Eastern District of
         Pennsylvania; litigation filed by Law Offices Bernard
         M. Gross, P.C. and Vroon & Crongeyer, LLP and Bernstein
         Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP.

As described in the lawsuits, co-defendant AHA has fashioned and
promoted to, among others, the administrations and Boards of
Trustees of nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals, business
methods calculated to defeat the rights of uninsured patients
even though the co-defendant nonprofit hospital systems and
hospitals continue to amass enormous economic benefits from tax
exemptions related to providing charitable healthcare to this
patient class. Among other things, the AHA encourages its co-
defendant nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals, to perform
"wallet biopsies" on uninsured patients. Through these "wallet
biopsies", the AHA's co-defendants' priorities are not
necessarily on the appropriate healthcare treatment for the
uninsured patient but rather on gouging the uninsured patient
with exorbitantly inflated prices, in some cases up to 300
percent more than for insured patients. If and when the
uninsured patient can't pay, the co-defendant nonprofit hospital
systems and hospitals often complete the procedure by
intimidating and harassing the uninsured patient through goon-
like and predatory collection tactics that frequently scar the
patient for life, including the trauma of personal bankruptcy.
These "wallet biopsies" and collection tactics by the co-
defendant nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals, which are
advised by the co-defendant AHA, have both the purpose and
effect, in many instances, of successfully discouraging the
uninsured patient from ever again seeking healthcare at the
defendant nonprofit hospital. This, in turn, enables the
defendant nonprofit hospital to further avoid its government
obligation to provide charitable healthcare to the uninsured.

Furthermore, the AHA schemes side-by-side with its co-
defendants, in implementing numerous other charitable healthcare
avoidance tactics, including working with the co-defendant
nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals with respect to
manipulative accounting techniques and "spinning" the public and
governmental authorities away from the wrongdoings being
perpetrated by its co-defendants on uninsured patients. With
defendant AHA's involvement, its co-defendant nonprofit hospital
systems and hospitals have for years siphoned from the country's
financially hard-pressed healthcare systems, local communities
and states potentially trillions of dollars, according to some
estimates.

These new class action lawsuits detail that the AHA's co-
defendant hospital systems and hospitals require uninsured
patients to pay unfair and unreasonable healthcare prices that
are far in excess of the discounted amounts accepted by these
same defendants from insured patients, including those who are
privately insured or use third party payors such as Medicare and
Medicaid. The facts, as demonstrated in the lawsuits, are clear.
The defendant nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals force
uninsured patients to pay the "gross" or "sticker" price for
healthcare. Consequently, and in direct contradiction of their
missions and government obligations, the defendants make the
uninsured patients, the patient group that can least afford such
expenditures, to pay full excessive healthcare costs.

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



NORTH CAROLINA: 3 Telephone Carriers Enter Consumer Lawsuit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three of the nation's largest wireless telephone carriers have
agreed to change their sales practices to benefit consumers,
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced in a
statement.

"Consumers deserve to have fair, accurate information when
they're making a purchase," said AG Cooper.  "These changes will
help consumers make better choices and get better service."

Cooper joined attorneys general from 31 other states in reaching
settlements with three of the nation's largest wireless
telephone carriers, Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless, and
Sprint PCS, to resolve allegations of misleading advertisements
and unclear disclosures to customers.  Under the agreements, the
wireless carriers must provide consumers with better coverage
maps and give new customers time to cancel contracts without
paying penalties.  The companies have also agreed to change the
way they advertise and sell their services and coverage.

The wireless carriers included in the agreements are estimated
to have more than 2 million North Carolina subscribers.  Many
consumers have complained to AG Cooper's office about problems
with their wireless service.

Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless, and Sprint PCS have
previously given customers "rate maps" of a calling area that
indicated where certain rates were available.  In some cases,
these maps showed all of the United States colored in, leading
customers to believe that the carrier's service would work
anywhere in the country.  However, coverage was not necessarily
available in the entire area due to lack of cell towers, lack of
roaming agreements, lack of capacity during peak times, and
obstructions such as buildings, hills, and trees.  Under today's
agreements, the companies will now provide coverage maps to
consumers that are as accurate as possible.

In addition, the companies have agreed to give new customers at
least two weeks to try out their wireless service to make sure
it is available where they need and want it.  During the return
period, new customers will be able to cancel their service
contracts for any reason without having to pay an early
termination fee.  If customers cancel within three days, the
carrier will also reimburse any activation fee paid when signing
up for the service.

Other provisions of the agreement call for better disclosures in
the carriers' advertisements and retail, Internet, and
telemarketing sales practices.  The changes are designed to give
consumers comprehensive information about the costs and limits
of wireless service.

States participating in the settlement include Alabama,
Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois,
Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,
Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,
Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia,
Wisconsin and Wyoming.

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


ORTHO-CLINICAL: Recalls 4 Lots of Reagent Packs Due To Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics in cooperation with the Food and
Drug Administration notified healthcare professionals of a Class
I recall of VITROS Immunodiagnostic Products Troponin I Reagent
Pack, Lots 1110, 1130, 2510, and 2530, a laboratory test used by
professionals to measure the quantity of cardiac troponin I in
human blood to aid in the diagnosis of heart attack. The recall
was initiated due to random occurrences of false positive test
results, which could lead to unnecessary medical procedures.
Clinical laboratories were instructed by the firm to stop using
the product, discard any remaining material and notify the
health care provider who ordered the test. FDA considers that
the probability of life threatening consequences is likely to
occur by use of these products.

Clinical laboratories were instructed by the firm to stop using
the product, discard any remaining material and notify the
health care provided who ordered the test. FDA considers that
the probability of life threatening consequences is likely to
occur by use of these products. Class I recalls are the most
serious type of recall and involve situations where there is a
reasonable probability that use of the product will cause
serious injury or death.

For more details, contact Sherry L. Phillips - Director,
Worldwide Compliance of Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics by Mail: 100
Indigo Creek Drive, Rochester, New York 14626-5101 by Phone:
585-453-3728 or visit the FDA web site for the Ortho-Clinical
Diagnostics press release:
http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/recalls/recall-060704-pressrelease.pdf


PHILIPPINES: Pepsi Ordered To Pay "349" Fiasco Claimants P6.2M
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Vic del Fierro, Jr., president of Coalition for
Consumer Protection & Welfare Inc. (CCPWI) two claimants in the
"349" Pepsi Number Fever Promotion fiasco of 1992 were awarded
P6.2 million, in a precedent-setting decision by the Court of
Appeals, the Inquirer News Service reports.

The appeals court, 16th Division upheld the claims of "349"
winners Pepe Pagdanganan and Pepito Lumahan and ordered Pepsi to
pay Pagdanganan P5 million, and Lumahan, P1.2 million,
respectively.

According to legal experts the decision was a "precedent-
setting" ruling that will pave the way for other claimants to
cite the decision in their respective claims against Pepsi. On
the other hand, Pepsi filed a motion for reconsideration before
the court and its appeal is still being heard.

Penned by Associate Justice Eloy R. Bello, Jr. and concurred by
Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Arsenio Magpale, the
decision virtually overturned an earlier Pasig Regional Trial
Court ruling, which junked Mr. Lumahan and Mr. Pagdanganan's
claims.

In it's decision, the court panel stated, "If there is anyone to
blame for the fiasco created by the promotion, no one else but
defendants *appellants (PepsiCo, Inc. and Pepsi Products
Philippines, Inc.) are responsible for it. It behooves upon them
to maintain the integrity of the promo by avoiding any possible
errors that would prejudice consumers." They further stated,
"With the promo mechanics as the guide, it is undisputable that
plaintiffs-appellants are very well entitled to the cash prizes
indicated on their crowns. To deny their claim despite their
compliance with the unequivocal requirements of the promotion is
contrary to the principle of good faith."

The case stemmed from the Pepsi Number Fever promotion in 1992
when Pepsi distributed more than 800,000 caps with the number
349. The number 349 was announced as the winning number for May
25, 1992. Pepsi refused to recognize the winning caps, saying it
would only award the prize to the holder of a Pepsi bottle cap
containing a pre-determined winning security code.

But the Court of Appeals pointed out that requirement was not
included in the promo mechanics and stated that, "It is highly
inequitable for Pepsi to impose an additional requirement in
order to win as a way to evade the unusually large number of 349
winners-claimants."

The court further stated the "additional requirement was a
deviation from the rules approved" by the Department of Trade
and Industry and added that the matching winning security code
is "not an express requirement" in order to win.

In reaction to the ruling Mr. Del Fierro, quoted a Senate
committee report authored by then-Senator Gloria Macapagal-
Arroyo, which stated, "Thus, so long as #349 crowns are not
tampered or fake crowns, even though coupled with 'non-winning'
security codes L-2560 and L-3560-FQ, the holders thereof may
have a legitimate claim to the indicated prize."

According Mr. Del Fierro, while only two claimants were involved
in the precedent-setting decision, it would boost the chances of
other claimants. He also told the Inquirer News Service that
CCPWI is also appealing before the CA the decision of a Las
Pi¤as court dismissing claims against Pepsi because of another
court decision, which pointed to DG Consultores as the one
liable for the fiasco.

In 1994, Del Fierro led Coalition 349 in filing a $400-million
class suit for damages against Pepsi-Cola in the U.S., the
Inquirer New Service reports.


ROBERT BALSAMO: SEC Settles Bribery Charges V. Ex-Representative
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Making
Findings, Imposing Remedial Sanctions, and Imposing a Cease-and-
Desist Order Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act) and Sections 15(b)(6) and 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) as to Robert
Balsamo (Order). The Order finds that Balsamo, while a
registered representative at various broker-dealers, received
bribes in exchange for creating retail demand for one penny
stock, Hytk Industries, Inc., by recommending that stock to his
retail customers. The Order further finds that Balsamo did not
disclose to his customers that he received additional
compensation to make his penny stock recommendations.

Based on the above, the Order finds that Balsamo willfully
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Order

     (1) orders Balsamo to cease and desist from committing or
         causing any violation and any future violations of
         Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of
         the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,

     (2) bars Balsamo from participating in any offering of
         penny stock, and

     (3) bars Balsamo from association with any broker or
         dealer.

Balsamo consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting
or denying the factual findings therein.


SHELL CANADA: Disputes Reported $100M Quebec Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shell Canada is disputing a newspaper report that stated that it
might pay about 500,000 Quebec motorists well over $100 million
in an out-of court settlement, the Canadian Press reports.

In a recent issue of the Montreal newspaper, Le Journal it
reported that the agreement could cost Shell $100 million and is
related to a fuel additive the company used in 2001 and 2002.

The company acknowledged that Quebec Superior Court approved the
settlement July 12 but said it does not expect to pay anywhere
near $100 million. They also acknowledged that Justice Benoit
Emery approved the Quebec settlement, whose details will appear
in major newspapers on July 31 and Aug. 7.

In a recent interview with the Canadian Press, spokeswoman Sonia
Larin said; "What we feel is that based on the problem and the
voluntary compensation program that we had put in place in 2002
for motorists, we believe that the number of claimants will be
relatively small."

Ms. Larin also stated that it is difficult to say how many
people are involved in the class action because there is a 90-
day claim period, which ends Nov. 5.

Shell recently announced that it would provide a compensation
package to Canada-wide motorists whose fuel pumps or gauges were
gummed up by a gasoline additive, which provoked the class-
action lawsuits. Plaintiffs in British Columbia and Ontario
filed the suits, but Shell said the settlement applied in all
provinces except Quebec, where the suit proceeded separately.


SMART & FINAL: CA Court Approves Settlement of Employee Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles granted final approval to the settlement of two
class actions filed against Smart & Final, Inc. on behalf of its
employees in California.

The first suit, styled "Camacho vs. Smart & Final Inc., was
filed by the plaintiff, on his behalf and on behalf of all other
store managers and assistant managers in California, alleging
that we misclassified the status of store managers and assistant
managers in California as exempt employees for employment
purposes.  The action sought to be classified as a "class
action" and sought unspecified monetary damages.

On February 24, 2003, following an extensive period of
investigation and discovery, the plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification.  On May 2, 2003, the Company filed its
opposing papers to plaintiff's motion for class certification.

The Company was also named as a defendant in a suit filed on
April 7, 2003 in the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles.  This suit, styled "Perea vs.
Smart & Final Inc.," was filed by the plaintiff, on his behalf
and on behalf of all other employees who participate in the
commission program in California, alleging that the Company
improperly calculated commission payments.  The action sought to
be classified as a "class action" and sought unspecified
monetary damages.

In September 2003, the Company entered into a tentative
settlement agreement for the resolution of the Camacho and Perea
actions.  In October 2003, the court consolidated the Camacho
and Perea actions and, on October 27, 2003, preliminarily
approved the settlement and set a fairness hearing and final
court certification of the settlement for January 13, 2004.
This court date was subsequently deferred to February 24, 2004.
The final approval hearing for the Camacho and Perea actions was
heard and granted by the court on February 26, 2004.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company paid into the
settlement fund $7.6 million in cash during the first quarter of
2004 and will issue $1.5 million in scrip redeemable at the
Company's Smart & Final stores.  Plaintiff's attorney fees,
costs and administrative expenses will be paid from the
settlement amount.  In addition, the Company will pay its own
attorney fees and certain other expenses.


SMART & FINAL: CA Court Refuses Review of Lawsuit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court refused Smart & Final, Inc.'s
request for further review of a lower court ruling granting
class certification to a lawsuit filed against it in the
Orange County Superior Court of the State of California.

This suit, styled Olivas vs. Smart & Final Inc., was filed by
the plaintiff and another former non-exempt store employee, on
their behalf and on behalf of all non-exempt Smart & Final
employees in California alleging that the Company failed to pay
proper overtime and other compensation.  The action seeks to be
classified as a "class action" and seeks unspecified monetary
damages.

On August 9, 2001, the Company filed a general denial to these
claims and asserted numerous defenses.  A hearing on plaintiff's
motion for class certification was heard and certification as to
nine sub-classes was granted on January 22, 2004.  The Company
filed a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeal requesting an
emergency stay of the trial court's decision and reversing the
class certification.  The Court of Appeal denied the writ.  The
Company petitioned the California Supreme Court for further
review, which was also denied. Discovery is now underway in the
case.


SPIRO LAZARETOS: SEC Settles Bribery Charge V. Ex-Representative
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Making
Findings, Imposing Remedial Sanctions, and Imposing a Cease-and-
Desist Order Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of
1933 (Securities Act) and Sections 15(b)(6) and 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) as to Spiro
Lazaretos (Order). The Order finds that Lazaretos, while a
registered representative at various broker-dealers, received
bribes in exchange for creating retail demand for five penny
stocks, ATR Industries, Inc., Learner's World, Inc., Rollerball
International, Inc., Hytk Industries, Inc., and Healthwatch
Inc., by recommending those stocks to his retail customers. The
Order further finds that Lazaretos did not disclose to his
customers that he received additional compensation to make his
penny stock recommendations.

Based on the above, the Order finds that Lazaretos willfully
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Order

     (1) orders Lazaretos to cease and desist from committing or
         causing any violation and any future violations of
         Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of
         the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,

     (2) bars Lazaretos from participating in any offering of
         penny stock, and

     (3) bars Lazaretos from association with any broker or
         dealer.

Lazaretos consented to the issuance of the Order without
admitting or denying the factual findings therein.


SPORTSLINE.COM: FL Judge Dismisses Consolidated Shareholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SportsLine.com, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPLN), a leading Internet sports
media company and publisher of CBS SportsLine.com
(http://cbs.sportsline.com), reported that the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida has
dismissed with prejudice the consolidated shareholder class
action lawsuit filed last year against the Company and certain
of its officers.

"We are pleased with the Court's decision and view the dismissal
as supportive of our contention that the lawsuit was baseless
and without merit," said Kenneth S. Gersh, SportsLine.com's vice
president and general counsel.


SUNRISE IMPORTS: Recalls Apricots Due To Undeclared Sulfites
------------------------------------------------------------
Sunrise Imports, Inc., 11 Curie Ave., Wallington, New Jersey is
recalling "ELMAS APRICOTS" manufactured by ELMAS DIS TICARET
A.S., ISTANBUL/TURKEY because it may contain undeclared
sulfites. Consumers who have allergies to sulfites may run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reactions if they
consume this product.

The recalled "ELMAS APRICOTS" with UPC #854239000252 comes in
200 gram, plastic bags, 30 to a case. Approximately 400 cases
were sold in New York.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in "ELMAS APRICOTS"
in packages, which did not declare sulfites on the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased "ELMAS APRICOTS" should return it
to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact
1-201-507-6126.


UNITED STATES: Five Power Firms Faces NY Carbon Emissions Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys general from eight states and the city of New York
intend to file a public nuisance lawsuit in the United States
District Court in Manhattan, New York against several of the
nation's largest power companies, in an effort to curb pollution
and global warming, the Associated Press reports.

Officials from California, Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New
York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin, and New York City's
corporation counsel filed the suit against:

     (1) American Electric Power Co.,

     (2) Southern Co.,

     (3) Xcel Energy, Inc.,

     (4) Cinergy Corporation and

     (5) the federal Tennessee Valley Authority

These power producers allegedly own 174 fossil fuel-burning
power plants that produce 646 million tons of carbon dioxide
annually - about 10 percent of the nation's total, the states
allege.  Greenhouse gases emitted from these plants could cause
diseases like asthma and heat related illnesses, depletion of
drinking water supplies, a decline in fisheries and erosion of
infrastructure.  The proposed lawsuit seeks to force the
defendants to cut their carbon dioxide emissions.

Marc Violette, a spokesman for New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer, declined to comment Tuesday on details but said the
lawsuit would, for the first time, put global warming on the
litigation map.  "This is a precedent-setting, first-of-its-kind
lawsuit," he told the Associated Press.

However, a director of the Washington, D.C.-based Electric
Reliability Coordinating Council, a group that includes Atlanta-
based Southern, disagreed, saying the suit tried to hold
individual companies responsible for global climate change.

"If you gave the facts of global climate change to a first-year
law student, and they recommended a public nuisance case, they
would get an `F,'" Scott Segal told AP.  "The idea that any one
company's emissions are responsible for global climate change is
more political science than environmental science."

Jeffrey Marks, with the National Association of Manufacturers,
which represents AEP, Southern and Cincinnati-based Cinergy,
said regulating carbon dioxide emissions would severely depress
the U.S. economy, limit the use of fossil fuels, and hinder
environmental improvements, AP reports.

Pat Hemlepp, a spokesman for Columbus, Ohio-based AEP, agreed,
saying, "A lawsuit is not a constructive way to deal with
climate change. There is nothing one company, five companies, or
one country can do to resolve global warming. It will require a
global commitment including developing nations."


UNITED STATES: Vermont Joins, Announces Suit V. Power Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vermont has joined with seven other States and the City of New
York in filing suit against the five largest global warming
polluters in the United States.  The suit demands substantial
cuts in heat-trapping carbon dioxide emissions that scientists
say pose serious threats to people's health, the economy and the
environment, Vermont Attorney General William H. Sorrell
announced in a statement.

"Global warming is a big problem that is only going to get
bigger," said AG Sorrell.  "The question is: what are we going
to do about it? This suit against the five top producers of CO2
gases in the United States is an important step toward
confronting this major environmental challenge."

Companies named in the suit include American Electric Power
Company, the Southern Company, the Tennessee Valley Authority,
Xcel Energy Inc., and Cinergy Corporation.  Altogether they own
approximately 174 power plants emitting nearly 646 million tons
of carbon dioxide each year - almost a quarter of the U.S.
utility industry's annual carbon dioxide emissions, and about 10
percent of the nation's total.  The action calls on the
companies to cut their pollution. The suit does not seek
monetary damages.

"Scientists say the Earth is warming faster today than at any
time in human history, and more rapidly than may be explained by
natural factors.  The most recent data from the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration show that 2003 and 2002 are tied
as the second hottest years on record, following 1998.  The five
hottest years have all occurred since 1997 and the 10 hottest
since 1990," the statement asserts.

Plaintiffs are bringing this suit because global warming is a
serious threat to communities and the environment in their
jurisdictions.  These impacts will become increasingly severe if
emissions are not reduced, the suit alleged.  According to the
suit, damages from global warming include:

     (1) more asthma and other respiratory disease;

     (2) increased heatstroke and temperature-related mortality;

     (3) loss of beaches, tidal wetlands, salt marshes, coastal
         property, fisheries;

     (4) costly impacts to coastal and urban infrastructure
         (tunnels, subways, water treatment plants, and airport
         facilities) due to rising sea levels;

     (5) loss of mountain snow pack;

     (6) property damage; and

     (7) human safety risks due to drought and floods

"In addition to the adverse health effects, potential effects in
Vermont include the loss of our hardwood forests and widespread
harm to fish and wildlife, including cold-water species, such as
trout," AG Sorrell said in the statement.

A report prepared by the National Academy of Sciences, at the
request of President Bush in 2001, reaffirmed widespread
consensus that carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions
are responsible for the problem.  Experts say if nothing is done
to cut emissions, average temperatures will rise as much as 10
degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.  By comparison,
the difference in global average temperature between now and the
last ice age was only 7-11 degrees Fahrenheit, the statement
continued.

Readily available solutions to reduce carbon dioxide pollution
include increased efficiency of coal-burning plants; switching
from coal to cleaner-burning fuels; investment in energy
conservation; and use of clean energy sources like wind and
solar power.  Clean coal technologies are becoming available
that will allow carbon dioxide to be captured from coal-fired
power plants.

Vermont and neighboring states are already taking steps to
lessen emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  For
example, in 2001 the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian
Premiers signed an agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
to 1990 levels by 2010.  Since July of last year, a coalition of
nine northeastern states has been preparing a detailed plan, due
to be released in April of 2005, to reduce CO2 emissions
throughout the northeast.  Earlier this year, Governor Douglas
issued a comprehensive energy plan for state government that
will reduce CO2 emissions from state government sources by 25%
by 2010.

The eight states filing the lawsuit include California,
Connecticut, Iowa, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont
and Wisconsin.  New York City joined the states in the suit. The
case was filed in federal district court in Manhattan, New York.
Plaintiffs are suing under the federal common law of public
nuisance, which provides a right of action to curb air and water
pollution emanating from sources in other states.  "Public
nuisance" law is a well-established and time-tested legal
doctrine that is commonly invoked in environmental cases and
forms the basis for much of today's modern environmental law.

According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency eGrid
database for year 2000 emissions, America's top five global
warming polluters, ranked by carbon dioxide emissions from
company-owned or operated power plants, are:

     (1) American Electric Power Company, Inc. (AEP)
         2002 CO2 Emissions: 226 million tons;
         2003 Reported Revenue: $15.6 billion.

         AEP operates 12 utility companies including Appalachian
         Power, Columbus Southern Power, Indiana Michigan Power,
         Kentucky Power, Kingsport Power, Ohio Power, Public
         Service Company of Oklahoma, Southwestern Electric
         Power, AEP Texas Central, AEP Texas North, Wheeling
         Power and AEP Generating.  AEP operates in 11 states
         including Arkansas, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
         Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia
         and West Virginia.

     (2) The Southern Company (SO)
         2002 CO2 Emissions: 171 million tons;
         2003 Reported Revenue: $11.28 billion.

         The Southern Company owns five utility companies,
         including Alabama Power, Georgia Power, Gulf Power,
         Mississippi Power and Savannah Electric, which operate
         in Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Georgia.

     (3) Tennessee Valley Authority
         2002 CO2 Emissions: 171 million tons;
         2003 Reported Revenue: $6.95 billion.

         TVA is a federal corporation operating in Tennessee,
         Virginia, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia and
         North Carolina.

     (4) Xcel Energy Inc. (XEL)
         2002 CO2 Emissions: 75 million tons;
         2003 Reported Revenue: $7.9 billion.

         Xcel owns five utility companies, including Northern
         States Power of Minnesota; Northern States Power of
         Wisconsin; Public Service Company of Colorado;
         Southwestern Public Service; and Cheyenne Light, Fuel
         and Power. They operate in Colorado, Kansas, Michigan,
         Minnesota, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South
         Dakota, Texas, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

     (5) Cinergy Corp. (CIN)
         2002 CO2 Emissions: 70 million tons;
         2003 Reported Revenue: $4.4 billion;

         Cinergy owns the Cincinnati Gas & Electric; Union
         Light, Heat & Power; Lawrenceburg Gas; and PSI Energy,
         Inc.  They operate in Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana.


UNITED STATES: Senate Junks Motion To Limit Debate on S. 2062
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Senate voted against a procedural motion to
limit debate on S. 2062, better known as the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2004, apparently dooming it for the year,
Reuters reports.

The Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 (S. 2062) seeks to move
class actions from state courts to federal courts and would
cover all types of suits, including securities litigations.  In
state courts, juries often find for the plaintiffs in large
award amounts as compared to federal courts where awards
typically are smaller, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(June 16,2004) story states.

Business groups in favor of the bill argue that bill would cut
back on frivolous suits and that it would prevent trail lawyers
from benefiting more than plaintiffs in many cases.  Consumer
and civil rights groups opposing the measure say the bill does
not do enough to protect consumers.

In October 2003, the bill was defeated by one vote in the US
Senate, but it was later resurrected due to the efforts of
Senators Charles Schumer (D-NY), Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and
Mary Landrieu (D-LA), who have negotiated with Majority Leader
Bill Frist, also the bill's sponsor, to craft a giveaway on the
core provisions of the bill.  Action on the bill was again
effectively stopped when Sen. Frist put up barriers to all
amendments after he failed to reach agreement with Democrats on
which ones would be allowed.

43 Senators voted against the procedural motion, while 44 voted
for it.  The bill needed 60 votes to pass the motion.  Earlier,
Senator Frist was quoted as saying that if the proposal lost
this vote, it "finishes any consideration of the bill this year
... We're out of time," Reuters reports.

The bill as written had the support of 50 Republicans, 11
Democrats and one independent.  However, several senators who
backed the bill said they could not vote to limit debate, which
would have limited senators to only "germane" amendments
afterward.  A number of senators in both parties wanted to offer
non-related amendments, on subjects ranging from raising the
minimum wage to curbing greenhouse gases.


VASO ACTIVE: MA Court Consolidates Lawsuits for Securities Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts consolidated several securities class actions
filed against Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of
its officers.

The complaints, which seek equitable and monetary relief, an
unspecified amount of damages, with interest, attorneys fees and
costs, allegedly were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's Class A common stock during the period December 11,
2003 to March 31, 2004 and allege that during that period, the
defendants violated the federal securities laws by allegedly
failing to make accurate and complete disclosures concerning the
Company, its financial condition, its business operations and
future prospects, the clinical trial and endorsement of the
Company's Termin8 anti-fungal product (previously known as
"deFEET") and the institutional demand for the Company's
securities.  These complaints are captioned as follows:

     (1) Dennis E. Smith v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
         et al., Civ. No. 04-10708 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (2) Richard Shapiro v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
         et al., Civ. No. 04-10720 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (3) Christopher Pepin v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals,
         Inc., et al., Civ. No. 04-10763 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (4) Modhi Gude, et al. v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals,
         Inc., et al., Civ. No. 04-10789 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (5) Kim Benedetto, et al. v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals,
         Inc., et al., Civ. No. 04-10808 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (6) Dean Dummer v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
         al., Civ. No. 04-10819 (RCL) (D. Mass.);

     (7) Edward Tovrea v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
         al., Civ . No. 04-10851 (RCL);

     (8) Kourosh Alipor v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
         et al., Civ. No. 04-10877 (RCL);

     (9) Paul E. Bostrom v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
         et al., Civ. No. 04-10948 (RCL);

    (10) Ira A. Turret Sep-Ira Dated 01/24/02 v. Vaso Active
         Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Civ. No. 04-10980 (RCL);

    (11) Richard Pagona v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
         al., Civ. No. 04-11100 (RCL);

    (12) James Karanfilian v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
         et al., Civ. No. 04-11101 (RCL); and

    (13) Charles Robinson v. Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
         et al., Civ. No. 04-11221 (RCL)

The Court has consolidated the cases, other than the "Tovrea"
and "Karanfilian" complaints, under the caption "In Re Vaso
Active Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 04-10708
(RCL).


VLADIMIR CARVALLO: SEC Settles Bribery Charges V. Representative
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Making
Findings, Imposing Remedial Sanctions, and Imposing a Cease-and-
Desist Order Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of
1933) (Securities Act) and Sections 15(b)(6) and 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) as to Vladimir
Carvallo (Order). The Order finds that Carvallo, while a
registered representative at various broker-dealers, received
bribes in exchange for creating retail demand for two penny
stocks, Power Explorations, Inc. and Hytk Industries, Inc., by
recommending those stocks to his retail customers. The Order
further finds that Carvallo did not disclose to his customers
that he received additional compensation to make his penny stock
recommendations.

Based on the above, the Order finds that Carvallo willfully
violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Order

     (1) orders Carvallo to cease and desist from committing or
         causing any violation and any future violations of
         Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of
         the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,

     (2) bars Carvallo from participating in any offering of
         penny stock, and

     (3) bars Carvallo from association with any broker or
         dealer.

Carvallo consented to the issuance of the Order without
admitting or denying the factual findings therein.


WEI CHUAN: Recalls Fishery Ball Products Due To Undeclared Eggs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wei Chuan USA, Inc. Bell Gardens, CA, is recalling its "Jane
Jane" Brand and "Wei Chuan" Brand Frozen Fishery Ball products
because they may contain undeclared eggs. People who have
allergies to eggs run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products: Cuttlefish
Ball, Fish Ball, Shrimp Ball, Pollock Fish Ball, Milk Fish Ball,
Squid Nugget.

The recalled products were distributed nationwide in retail
stores. The ball products are packaged in plastic bags in 8 oz
and 5 lb sizes. The squid nuggets are packaged in plastic bags
in 7 oz. and 5 lb. sizes. The 8 oz. and 7 oz. retail packages
are distributed to retail stores and directly to consumers. The
5 lb. packages are distributed to retail stores for sale by
pound from the retail stores frozen fishery cases.

The product comes in as above, package marked with ORIGIN OF
TAIWAN on the back.

This recall was initiated after an inspection at the foreign
manufacturer discovered these products were manufactured with
undeclared egg whites. No illnesses have been reported to date
in connection with this problem. The importation of these
products has been suspended until FDA and manufacturer are
certain that the problem has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased above named product are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund.

For more details, contact Robert Hsu of Wei Chuan USA, Inc., by
Phone: (323) 587-6241 ext. 236.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Electrolux Lawsuits Increased Since March
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004, the Electrolux Group (Aktiebolaget
Electrolux, or AB Electrolux) had a total of 779 lawsuits
pending in the United States, representing around 18,300
plaintiffs.  A total of 115 new cases with around 294 plaintiffs
were filed during the second quarter of 2004 and 68 pending
cases were resolved. Around 17,100 of the plaintiffs relate to
cases pending in the state of Mississippi.

The Class Action Reporter for April 30, 2004 cited 732 lawsuits
pending, representing around 22,500 plaintiffs at March 31,
2004.  Electrolux says the outcome of asbestos claims is
inherently uncertain and it cannot provide any assurances that
the resolution of these types of claims will not have a material
adverse effect on its business or on results of operations in
the future.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allianz AG Adds To Reserves After Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allianz AG reported to the Securities Exchange Commission that
in 2002, reserves were increased for asbestos and environmental
claims in the United States by EUR762,000,000 following external
and internal actuarial reviews.  In 2003 no revision of the loss
reserves related to asbestos and environmental claims was
necessary.

In recent years, the Allianz Group's property-casualty loss and
loss adjustment expense reserves in the U.S. have been
significantly impacted by claims relating to asbestos and
environmental exposures.  The Company's property-casualty
insurance business was positively affected by a significant
decrease in net claims, reflecting the comparative lower levels
of natural catastrophes and other major claim events in 2003, as
compared to 2002, which reflected the asbestos and environmental
reserve-strengthening measures of its U.S. subsidiary Fireman's
Fund for accident years 1987 and prior.  The Company recorded
this increase in September 2002 following completion of a study
by external and internal actuaries of Fireman's Funds asbestos
and environmental liabilities, which reflected deteriorating
industry-wide loss trends.  The improvement of the U.S. loss
ratio in 2003 also reflects the absence of the asbestos and
environmental reserve-strengthening measures that was recorded
in 2002.

The EUR646,000,000 of unfavorable development during 2002 is due
primarily to increases in asbestos and environmental reserves in
the U.S.  At Allianz Cornhill, reserves for accident year 2002
developed favorably by EUR181,000,000 (GBP125,000,000),
primarily from motor business, and property and pecuniary loss,
where a significant portion of the IBNR provision, in
retrospect, proved to be excessive.  Offsetting this reduction
was a EUR56,000,000 (GBP39,000,000) strengthening of bulk
reserves for U.S. asbestos, pollution and health hazard claims
on marine and aviation business.

The run-off workers compensation portfolio in Australia had an
increase in estimates of EUR28,000,000 (AUD48,000,000).  This
increase relates to accident years prior to 1987 and comes
(roughly equally) from increased assumptions for inflation,
future mesothelioma claims and future non-mesothelioma asbestos
related claims.

The total net reserve for asbestos and environmental claims
exposure related liabilities for the Allianz Group's U.S. based
subsidiaries at December 31, 2003 was EUR906,000,000 (2002:
EUR1,250,000,000), excluding inter-company reinsurance
agreements.  The total gross reserve for asbestos and
environmental claims exposure related liabilities at December
31, 2003 was EUR1,263,000,000 (2002: EUR1,704,000,000).


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AP Incurs $728,000 in Legal Costs for 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2004 Ampco-Pittsburgh Corp. (NYSE: AP) announced
that it had sales of $53,646,000 and $100,432,000 for the three
and six months ended June 30, 2004, respectively, against sales
of $45,495,000 and $89,025,000 for the comparable prior year
periods.  During the three and six months of 2004, the
Corporation incurred pre-tax legal costs of about $223,000 and
$728,000, respectively, for case management and insurance
recovery relating to lawsuits filed in connection with asbestos-
containing products manufactured decades ago in comparison to
$669,000 and $1,273,000 for the same periods of the prior year.
Net income for the three months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 was
$840,000 or $0.09 per share and $391,000 or $0.04 per share and
for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003 was $2,048,000
or $0.21 per share and $588,000 or $0.06 per share,
respectively.  Income from operations approximated $1,571,000
and $3,193,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004
against $1,507,000 and $2,197,000 for the comparable prior year
periods.

Despite increased sales, the results of the Air and Liquid
Processing segment, after adjustment for the reduction in the
asbestos-related costs mentioned, were close to flat with those
of the same quarter in 2003 and are reflective of competitive
pressures on prices as demand in the construction and energy
sectors remains weak.  Although sales improved significantly in
the quarter, margins of the Forged and Cast Rolls segment were
adversely impacted by unprecedented increases in the cost of
steel scrap, alloys and natural gas.  Selling price surcharges
have been imposed on incoming orders; however, the level of
order backlog is such that it will be towards year-end before
the escalation in costs will begin to be recovered.

The outlook for the balance of the year is for continued
weakness in both segments.  The financial condition of the
Corporation remains strong.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AGII In Reinsurance Pact With Inter-Ocean
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Argonaut Group Inc. (NASDAQ: AGII) entered into a
retroactive adverse loss development reinsurance agreement with
Inter-Ocean N.A. Reinsurance Co. Ltd. effective December 31,
2002 for the workers' compensation, commercial multiple peril,
general liability and asbestos, environmental and other latent
losses lines of business.  The ceded losses for adverse
development are calculated on a tiered structure and subject to
certain limitations.  The overall adverse development coverage
of $119,000,000 is in several layers.  Under the agreement, the
primary limitations related to asbestos, environmental and other
latent losses are

(1) $40,000,000 of adverse development is available to be
ceded

(2) $15,000,000 of adverse development is retained by the
Company

(3) $25,000,000 of adverse development is available to be
ceded

The Company retains remaining adverse development under the
agreement.

The Company has $71,400,000 of unused coverage under the Inter-
Ocean agreement for future adverse development, if any, on
asbestos environmental and other latent losses.  If the Company
were unable to maintain its current level of reinsurance or
purchase new reinsurance protection in amounts that are
considered sufficient, the Company would either have to be
willing to accept an increase in its net exposures or reduce its
insurance writings.

Argonaut Insurance Co. has discontinued active underwriting of
certain lines of business.  The Company is still obligated to
pay losses incurred on these lines that include general
liability and medical malpractice policies written in past
years.  The lines in run-off are characterized by long elapsed
periods between the occurrence of a claim and any ultimate
payment to resolve the claim.  Included in run-off lines are
claims related to asbestos and environmental liabilities arising
out of general liability policies primarily written in the
1970's and into the mid 1980's, with a limited number of claims
occurring on policies written into the early 1990's.

Argonaut Insurance is exposed to asbestos liability at the
primary level through claims filed against its direct insureds,
as well as through its position as a re-insurer of other primary
carriers.  The Company's direct liability arises primarily from
policies issued from the mid 1970s to early 1980s which pre-
dated policy contract wording that excluded asbestos exposure.
The majority of the policies were issued on behalf of small
contractors or construction companies.  The Company believes
that the frequency and severity of asbestos claims for such
insureds is typically less than that experienced for large,
industrial manufacturing and distribution concerns.

Argonaut Insurance Co. also assumed risk as a reinsurer for a
limited period of time, primarily for the period from 1970 to
1975, a portion of which was assumed from the London market.
The Company reinsured risks on policies written by direct
carriers.  Such reinsurance typically provided coverage for
limits attaching at a relatively high dollar amount which are
payable only after other layers of reinsurance are exhausted.
Some of the claims now being filed on policies reinsured by
Argonaut Insurance Co. are on behalf of claimants who may have
been exposed at some time to asbestos incorporated into
buildings they occupied, but have no current medical problems
resulting from such exposure.  Additionally, lawsuits are being
brought against businesses that were not directly involved in
the manufacture or installation of materials containing
asbestos.  The Company believes that claims generated out of
this population of claimants may result in incurred losses
generally lower than the asbestos claims filed over the past
decade and could be below the Company's attachment level.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Celanese Ltd., CNA Holdings Cases Reduced
--------------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Ltd. and/or CNA Holdings Inc., both U.S. subsidiaries
of Celanese AG, are defendants in around 600 asbestos cases, the
majority of which are premises-related.  It was mentioned in the
CAR newsletter for May 28, 2004 that Celanese Ltd. and/or CNA
Holdings were named in 620 cases.

Celanese has reserves for defense costs related to claims
arising from these matters, and believes it does not have any
significant exposure in these matters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Chase Corp. Sued For Asbestos In CA, OH, MS
----------------------------------------------------------------
As of May 31, 2004, Chase Corp. is a defendant in three personal
injury lawsuits alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos contained in the Company's products.  Of these
lawsuits, one is pending in California, one in Ohio and one in
Mississippi.  The Company expects to be voluntarily dismissed
from the lawsuit in California.  This leaves two active cases
against the Company.

In 2003, the Company was dismissed without prejudice from five
similar lawsuits.  The Company's insurer had assumed defense of
asbestos claims against the Company subject to reservation of
its rights as to coverage for any underlying liability assessed
until that insurer was liquidated in May 2003.

The Company is working to confirm coverage under the appropriate
state guaranty funds.  Although the Company cannot predict
whether or how these two claims will be pursued, management
believes that such claims will not have any material financial
impact on the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro and Equitas Reach Pact on Insurance
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 20, 2004, EnPro Industries Inc. (NYSE: NPO) issued a
press release announcing that its subsidiaries resolved a
dispute with certain of their insurance carriers and that the
insurance carriers have agreed to make a payment to an
independent trust in full settlement of certain of the
subsidiaries' asbestos insurance policies written or reinsured
by Underwriters at Lloyd's of London that are now being managed
by Equitas, a London-based company established to reinsure and
run-off the 1992 and prior years' non-life liabilities of
Lloyd's Underwriters.

EnPro and Equitas announced that they reached a comprehensive
agreement to settle the current and future insurance claims of
EnPro subsidiaries against certain underwriters at Lloyd's of
London reinsured by Equitas.  As a result of the agreement,
Equitas will pay a total of $118,000,000 to EnPro and to an
asbestos trust that has been established to resolve asbestos-
related claims made against certain EnPro subsidiaries under
policies subscribed by Lloyd's Underwriters and reinsured by
Equitas.

The settlement resolves all claims made against Lloyd's
Underwriters by EnPro and its subsidiaries.  EnPro will receive
$30,000,000 of the total settlement amount relating to
outstanding amounts for asbestos claims that EnPro asserted were
owed to its subsidiaries by Lloyd's Underwriters.  The balance
of the total will be contributed to the asbestos trust.  EnPro's
claims against its London Market Company Insurers are not
affected by the settlement.

"This agreement provides significant benefits to EnPro," said
Mr. Ernie Schaub, president and chief executive officer.
"Resolution of the dispute brings our insurance reimbursements
from Equitas up to date, while establishment of the trust
ensures we will continue to receive cash payments of the Equitas
portion of our remaining insurance in a timely and efficient
manner."

Mr. Simon Wright, Equitas' Head of Asbestos Pollution and Health
Hazard Claims, said, "We are pleased to have reached this
comprehensive resolution of asbestos and pollution related
claims with EnPro following many months of negotiations.  This
settlement again demonstrates our commitment to resolve claims,
including the largest liabilities that we face, at what we
consider to be a fair price for the exposures that we face.  We
continue to discuss comprehensive settlements with a number of
policyholders and remain willing to have similar discussions
with any other assureds, large or small, so long as they are
genuinely interested in reaching a realistic commercial
settlement."

EnPro Industries is a leader in sealing products, metal polymer
and filament wound bearings, compressor systems, diesel and
dual-fuel engines and other engineered products for use in
critical applications by industries worldwide.  For more
information about EnPro, visit the company's website at
http://www.enproindustries.com.

Equitas, based in London, was established to reinsure and run-
off the 1992 and prior years' non-life liabilities of Names, or
Underwriters, at Lloyd's of London.  Equitas actively manages
the non-life liabilities arising from policies written by
Lloyd's syndicates in 1992 and prior years.  This includes
agreeing comprehensive settlements and policy buy-backs that
extinguish current and future claims from these policyholders.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Gencorp Inc. Cases Decreased Since February
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gencorp Inc. said in a regulatory filing that as of May 31,
2004, there were 38 asbestos cases pending, including Goede et
al. v. A. W. Chesterton Inc. et al., Case No.012-9428, Circuit
Court, City of St. Louis, MO.  This is down from the 43 cases
pending at February 29, 2004.

Over the years, Gencorp and its subsidiary Aerojet have been
named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injury or
death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials or in
manufacturing operations.  The majority have been filed in
Madison County, Illinois and San Francisco, California.

In November 2002, a jury verdict against Aerojet in the amount
of about $5,000,000 in the Circuit Court of the City of St.
Louis, Missouri, led to a judgment of about $2,000,000 after
setoff based on plaintiffs' settlements with other defendants,
which the Company accrued.  In the Goede case, the $3,000,000
setoff was based on plaintiffs' settlements with other
defendants.  Post-trial motions filed by Aerojet and the
plaintiffs were denied by the trial court.  Aerojet appealed the
decision to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District (the
Appellate Court) and asked the Appellate Court to vacate the
judgment and order a new trial based on, among other things, the
trial court' actions during trial that denied Aerojet the
opportunity to introduce testimony from certain witnesses and to
introduce certain evidence at trial, and based on the trial
court's application of Missouri law rather than California law.
The appellate court heard oral arguments on December 9, 2003.
In an opinion dated May 11, 2004, the Appellate Court denied
Aerojet's appeal and affirmed the trial court's opinion.
Aerojet has filed with the Appellate Court a motion for a
rehearing and a petition to transfer to the Supreme Court of
Missouri. A ruling on that motion is expected later this year.

Legal and administrative fees for the asbestos cases for 2003
and 2002 were about $1,400,000 and $700,000, respectively.  Fees
for 2002 include costs associated with the litigation of the
Goede et al. v. A. W. Chesterton Inc. et al. matter.  However,
aggregate settlement costs and average settlement costs for 2002
do not include the Goede matter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JHI NV Asks Shareholders Approval For Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Board of James Hardie Industries NV announced on July 14,
2004 that it would recommend that shareholders approve the
provision of additional funding to enable an effective statutory
scheme to be established to compensate all future claimants for
asbestos-related injuries caused by former James Hardie
subsidiary companies.  A submission that discusses these issues
in response to Term of Reference Four of the Special Commission
of Inquiry into the Medical Research and Compensation Foundation
(MRCF) was provided to the Commission later that day.

The submission contains a number of principles proposed by JHI
NV for a future scheme for consideration by the Commissioner.
These principles, which are consistent with existing
compensation schemes and established principles of tort reform
in NSW, include

     (1) speedy, fair and equitable compensation for all
existing and future claimants, including objective criteria to
reduce superimposed (judicial) inflation;

     (2) determination of contributions to be made in a manner
which provides certainty to:

(a) claimants as to their entitlement

(b) the scheme administrator as to the amount available
for distribution; and

(c) the contributors as to the ultimate amount of their
contribution to the scheme;

(d) significant reduction in legal costs via the
removal of requirements for litigation;

(e) limitation of legal avenues outside of the scheme.

While this submission will remain confidential until noon July
28 under the confidentiality orders of the Commission, the
company confirms it is willing to contribute to a resolution in
the best interests of all parties, including current and future
asbestos claimants against the MRCF, James Hardie shareholders
and other constituents.  The submission continues to affirm the
company's legal position and will put forward detailed arguments
in response to the contentions raised in Counsel Assisting the
Inquiry's Issues Paper.

The Board is concerned that asbestos related claims are now
projected to be far in excess of amounts anticipated at the time
of establishment of the MRCF.  Subject to the Inquiry's findings
James Hardie is hopeful of being able to contribute to an
effective statutory scheme that provides resolution for
claimants and shareholders.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Allstate Corp. Re-Assesses Asbestos Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
A $318,000,000 unfavorable reserve re-estimate occurred for
Allstate Corporation's Discontinued Lines and Coverages
primarily related to a $216,000,000 re-estimate of asbestos IBNR
reserves, according to Chairman, President and CEO, Mr. Edward
M. Liddy.  Underwriting losses of $319,000,000 were primarily
related to the re-estimate of asbestos IBNR reserves, among
other things.  The re-estimate of asbestos reserves was a result
of Allstate's assessment of the impact of recent and previously
unexpected claim activity reported by direct excess
policyholders and the related re-estimates of expected future
claim activity.

Reserve additions for asbestos in the second quarter and first
six months of 2004, totaling $216,000,000, were primarily for
products-related coverage.  This increase was a result of more
claim activity and re-estimates of future claim activity for
excess insurance policyholders with existing active claims.  As
a result of the increased claim activity over prior estimates,
the Company increased its outlook for future claims.  This trend
is consistent with the trends of other carriers in the industry.
IBNR represents 65% of total net asbestos reserves, 4 points
higher than at December 31, 2003.  IBNR provides for estimated
probable future unfavorable reserve development of known claims
and future reporting of additional unknown claims from current
and new direct active policyholders and ceding companies.

Allstate's exposure to non-products-related losses represents
around 5% of total asbestos case reserves.  The Company does not
anticipate significant changes in this percentage as insureds'
retentions associated with excess insurance programs, which are
its principal direct insurance, and assumed reinsurance exposure
are seldom exceeded.  The Company did not write direct primary
insurance on policyholders with the potential for significant
non-products-related loss exposure.

Allstate's three-year average survival ratio is viewed to be a
more representative prospective measure of current reserve
adequacy than other survival ratio calculations.  At 27.5 years
as of June 30, 2004, the Company's survival ratio is at a level
it considers a strong asbestos reserve position.  A one-year
increase in the three-year average asbestos survival ratio at
June 30, 2004 would require an after-tax increase in reserves of
about $29,000,000.  To further limit its asbestos exposure, the
Company has significant reinsurance, primarily to reduce our
exposure to loss in our direct excess insurance business.  The
Company's reinsurance recoverables are estimated to be around
40% of its gross estimated loss reserves.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Settlement Obligation Value Increased
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 15, 2004 PPG Industries Inc. reported second quarter net
income of $183,000,000 ($1.06 a share), which includes
$6,000,000 (3 cents a share) reflecting the net increase in the
current value of the company's obligation under its asbestos
settlement agreement reported in May 2002.  Sales for the second
quarter of 2004 were $2,430,000,000, a PPG record for any
quarter.  That compares with second quarter 2003 net income of
$152,000,000, or 89 cents a share, which includes after-tax
charges of $7,000,000, or 4 cents a share, to reflect the net
increase in the value of the company's obligation under the
asbestos settlement, and $2,000,000, or 1 cent a share, related
to restructuring.

For the first six months of 2004, PPG recorded net income of
$298,000,000, or $1.73 a share, which includes after-tax charges
of $7,000,000, or 4 cents a share, to reflect expensing stock
options in 2004, and $9,000,000, or 5 cents a share, to reflect
the increase in the value of the company's obligation under the
asbestos settlement.  Sales for the first half of 2004 were
$4,690,000,000.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Enstar Includes $12M For Losses, LAE in Reserve
---------------------------------------------------------------
Enstar Group Inc. reported in a regulatory filing that its
reserve for unpaid losses and loss adjustment expenses (LAE) as
of December 31, 2003 and 2002 included $12,072 and $9,124
respectively, that represents an estimate of its net ultimate
liability for asbestos and environmental claims.  The gross
liability for such claims as at December 31, 2003 and 2002 was
$34,552 and $21,061, respectively.

The Company's liability for unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses as of December 31, 2003 and 2002 included $90,259 and
$45,994 respectively that represents an estimate of its net
ultimate liability for asbestos and environmental claims.  The
gross liability for such claims as at December 31, 2003 and 2002
was $196,217 and $154,856 respectively.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Mueller Group's Lawsuits Covered By Tyco Intl
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mueller Group Inc. said in a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that under the terms of the August 1999
purchase agreement relating to the acquisition of its business
from Tyco International (U.S.) Inc. in August of 1999 and its
formation, the Company is indemnified by Tyco for all
environmental liabilities arising in connection with its
business and relating to actions occurring or conditions
existing prior to the closing of that transaction, including
certain asbestos litigation.  The indemnity survives forever and
is not subject to any dollar limits.  However, the Company may
be responsible for these liabilities in the event that Tyco ever
becomes financially unable to, or otherwise fails to comply
with, the terms of the indemnity.  In addition, Tyco's indemnity
does not cover environmental liabilities to the extent caused by
the company or the operation of its business after that
transaction, nor does it cover environmental liabilities arising
out of operations at sites acquired after August 1999.

Mueller Co. is currently a defendant in seven cases alleging
asbestos exposure.  Henry Pratt Co. is a defendant in eight
asbestos lawsuits in connection with its sale of gaskets
containing asbestos and valves packaged in asbestos containing
material.  Anvil International Inc. is a defendant in three
asbestos lawsuits in connection with the sale of pipes and
gaskets allegedly containing asbestos and fittings allegedly
packaged in asbestos containing material.  Any liability
associated with these lawsuits is covered by the Tyco indemnity,
and Tyco is currently conducting the defenses.


COMPANY PROFILE

Anvil International Inc.
110 Corporate Dr., Ste. 10
Portsmouth, NH 03802
Phone: 603-422-8000
Fax: 603-422-8033
http://www.anvilint.com

Description: Anvil International manufactures cast iron
fittings, couplings, pipefittings, pipe hangers, and seamless
pipe nipples.  It also provides basic design services such as
fabrication drawings to extended design services for air
handling units, commercial piping, oil field piping, and single
line routing systems.  Anvil International has sales and
distribution offices throughout the U.S.  Its history dates back
to the 1880's.


COMPANY PROFILE

Henry Pratt Co.
401 S. Highland Ave.
Aurora, IL 60506
Phone: 630-844-4000
Fax: 630-844-4124
http://www.henrypratt.com

Description: The Henry Pratt Company designs, develops,
manufactures and markets butterfly, rectangular, ball, nuclear,
industrial, cone, sleeve and energy dissipating valves as well
as valve actuators, control systems and couplings.  Its products
are used in potable water, wastewater, power, industrial and
nuclear markets.


COMPANY PROFILE

Mueller Co.
500 W. Eldorado St.
Decatur, IL 62522-2165
Phone: 217-423-4471
Fax: 217-425-7537
http://www.muellercompany.com

Description: Mueller Co. manufactures pipe, fittings, and valves
for moving water and natural gas from one place to another.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Platinum Underwriters' Predecessor Facing Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Platinum Underwriters Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: PTP) reported in a
regulatory filing with the Securities Exchange Commission that
its Predecessor (The St. Paul Companies Inc.) continues to have
exposure, through its reinsurance of primary insurance contracts
written many years ago, to claims alleging injury or damage from
environmental pollution or seeking payment for the cost to clean
up polluted sites.  In addition, its Predecessor has received
asbestos injury claims tendered under general casualty policies
that it reinsures.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C. by Phone: 888-844-5862 or by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities fraud
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"). Although
not pled in the securities fraud class action complaint,
employees and former employees of Cardinal may also have related
claims if they participated in the Company's retirement plan.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995
("PSLRA"), attorneys filing the securities fraud class action
complaints are required to publicize the filing of such cases.
Emerson Poynter LLP filed such a complaint and issued a press
release consistent with the PSLRA. Since the publication of the
case filing, Emerson Poynter LLP has been receiving calls from
open market stock purchasers and others seeking information
about the case. Both current and former employees of the Company
who participate or have participated have similar claims that
may be pursued in a related litigation based upon the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA").

For more details, contact John G. Emerson or Scott E. Poynter of
Emerson Poynter LLP by Phone: 1+ (800) 663-9817 or
(501) 907-2555 by Fax: (501) 907-2556 or by E-mail:
shareholder@emersonfirm.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal" or the "Company")
(NYSE:CAH) between October 24, 2000 and June 30, 2004 inclusive,
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio against defendants Cardinal; its
auditor Ernst & Young LLP; Robert D. Walter (Cardinal's Chairman
and Chief Executive Officer); George L. Fotiades (Cardinal's
Chief Operating Officer) and Richard J. Miller (Cardinal's Chief
Financial Officer).

The complaint alleges that Cardinal is a full-service wholesale
distributor of pharmaceutical products that reported annual
earnings per share increases at or above 20% during the 15 years
preceding the Class Period. For this reason at least one analyst
referred to it as "a buy and hold forever stock." The complaint
further alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, defendants
managed Cardinal's earnings through improper accounting
manipulations, including but not limited to manipulations of
revenue classifications. The truth began to emerge on June 30,
2004. On that date, after the close of trading, the Company made
a string of announcements that came as a tremendous shock to
investors and abruptly ended Cardinal's reputation as a "buy and
hold forever stock":

     (1) the Company's fourth quarter earnings would be $0.93
         cents to $0.95 cents a share before special items in
         the fourth quarter, far short of the Company-guided
         analyst consensus estimates of $1.03 a share;

     (2) the Company was lowering its fiscal 2004 earnings-per-
         share growth outlook to 11% from prior (reduced)
         guidance that called for an increase in the mid-teens
         or higher;

     (3) the SEC had subpoenaed the Company's records in
         connection with the formal inquiry into its accounting
         for settlement proceeds and classification of revenue;
         and

     (4) the U.S. Attorneys' Office for the Southern District of
         New York had begun its own inquiry into the same
         subject.

This news caused a dramatic decline in Cardinal's share price
from a closing price of $70.05 on June 30, 2004 to $53.80 at
midday on July 1, 2004, for a total one day decline of 23.20%.

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


CUMBERLAND CASUALTY: Dice & Gregory Lodges Securities Suit in AL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Dice & Gregory, LLC filed a class action in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama against Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company
("Cumberland") and Dorinco Reinsurance Company ("Dorinco") for
securities fraud related to their participation in the offering
and sale of an Insured Risk Management Program ("IRMP") offered
through participating investment advisors and securities broker-
dealers. The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal
securities laws and of Florida law on behalf of investors who
invested in the IRMP from October 16, 1998, through and
including the date of filing of the Complaint (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 rule 10b-5 of
the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

The complaint names as defendants Cumberland Casualty & Surety
Company and Dorinco Reinsurance Company, Joseph M. Williams,
Cumberland's president; Carol S. Black, Secretary and Chief
Financial Officer of Cumberland; and Fernando Ruiz, president
and chief executive officer of Dorinco.

The complaint alleges that the defendants offered and sold
securities to the investing public utilizing false statements
which they knew or recklessly disregarded were misleading in
that they contained misrepresentations and failed to disclose
material facts necessary in order to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not
misleading.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the IRMP was marketed
as an account management program which would be insured against
market losses after five (5) years but which was in fact not so
insured.

For more details, contact Steven P. Gregory, Esq. by Mail: 2824
Seventh Street, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401 by Phone:
(888) 454-2041 by E-mail: sgregory@diceandgregory.com or
kyork@diceandgregory.com


KHV INDUSTRIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in RI
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of KVH
Industries, Inc. ("KVH" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:KVHI) publicly
traded securities during the period between January 6, 2004 and
July 2, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges KVH and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. KVH describes itself as a designer, manufacturer and
marketer of mobile satellite communications products for the
automotive/recreational vehicle/marine markets and navigation,
guidance and stabilization products for defense markets.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding KVH's increasing financial results and the strong
demand for its newly developed TracVision A5 and G8 satellite TV
systems (the "TracVision systems"). As alleged in the complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose, among other things:

     (1) that defendants had "stuffed" the retail channels with
         overpriced TracVision systems;

     (2) that the Company's revenues were not growing by
         millions of dollars per quarter and the purported
         growth trends in the Company's revenues could not be
         sustained; and

     (3) that KVH had not realized any material cost reduction
         in the manufacture of its TracVision systems and would
         be forced to write-down its inventory of manufactured
         goods by millions of dollars.

The complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclose
these adverse facts in order to complete a public offering of
KVH common stock, raising more than $51.5 million in much needed
capital.

On or about July 6, 2004, before the market opened for trading,
KVH stunned the investing public by announcing that it was
slashing the retail price of its TracVision systems by more than
34% and taking a multi-million dollar write down of vendor
purchase commitments and on-hand inventories to reflect the true
value of KVH's TracVision systems sales. In pre-opening market
trading, KVH common stock declined more than 19%, to open at
$9.51 per share on July 6, 2004, a 49% decline from the public
offering price just 4 months prior.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800-449-4900 by
E-mail: wsl@lcsr.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lcsr.com/cases/kvh/


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

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

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

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C. by Phone: 888-844-5862 or by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com


RED HAT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of North Carolina, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the securities of Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: RHAT) between June 19, 2001 and July 12,
2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Red
Hat, certain officers of the Company and PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP ("PWC"), the Company's auditor and principal accounting
firm.

The case name is Sinay v. Red Hat, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint specifically alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants issued to the investing public false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
publicly reported revenues and earnings. Moreover, the Company
omitted to state material information necessary to be issued in
order to make prior statements not misleading concerning its
accounting practices and compliance with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

On July 13, 2004, before the market opened, Red Hat shocked the
investing community by announcing that the Company was restating
results for fiscal year ended February 29, 2004, fiscal year
ended February 28, 2003, fiscal year ended February 28, 2002,
and fiscal first quarter ended May 31, 2004, premised on
discussions with its auditor, PWC. The Company's decision to
restate its reported results stemmed from the improper
recognition of subscription revenues during the Class Period.
This disclosure, coming on the heels of news that the Company's
Chief Financial Officer unexpectedly resigned on June 14, 2004,
and news that the SEC commenced an informal inquiry concerning
an otherwise unidentified "annual filing," caused the Company's
stock to plummet approximately 23%.

These disclosures, discussed below, contradicted much of the
information provided by Defendants to the market during the
Class Period concerning its reported revenues and results. As
detailed below, Red Hat insiders, however, faired far better
than public shareholders, having sold approximately $96 million
of their personal Red Hat holdings while in possession of
material, non-public information.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Christopher
Hinton, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.whafh.com/cases/redhat2.htm


SHAW GROUP: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of The Shaw
Group, Inc. (NYSE:SGR) ("Shaw" or the "Company") between October
19, 2000 and June 10, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Present and former employees who purchased stock through Shaw's
Retirement Plans are also included. A copy of the Complaint can
be obtained from the Court or by contacting Emerson Poynter LLP.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-
5. The complaint alleges that Defendants publicly disseminated
results of Shaw's operations and financial conditions were a
misrepresentation because they contained artificially inflated
earnings, assets and income. These results were not prepared in
accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP") and deceived investors as to the company's true
financial performance. According to the complaint, Defendants
improperly established and drew upon reserve accounts set up
from a series of acquisitions, including the acquisitions of
Stone & Webster and the IT Group in May 2002. Moreover, the
complaint alleges that Defendants prematurely recognized
revenues in violation of their own revenue recognition policy as
well as GAAP.

On June 10, 2004 Shaw announced that it had been notified by the
SEC that the SEC was conducting an inquiry that appeared to
focus on the Company's accounting for acquisitions. On this
news, shares of Shaw fell 12.4% to close at $10.75 per share.

For more details, contact John G. Emerson or Scott E. Poynter of
Emerson Poynter LLP by Phone: 1+ (800) 663-9817 or
(501) 907-2555 or by Fax: (501) 907-2556


SHAW GROUP: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Shaw Group, Inc. ("Shaw" or the "Company")
(NYSE:SGR) between October 19, 2000 and June 10, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Shaw and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Shaw's operations and financial
performance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint alleges, among
other things, that during the Class Period defendants
misrepresented and/or failed to disclose the following:

     (1) that Shaw's earnings were materially lagging;

     (2) that the reserve accounts established to adjust the
         fair market value of contracts acquired from Stone &
         Webster, Inc. were used by defendants to manipulate the
         Company's margins and report positive financial
         results;

     (3) that as a consequence of this, Shaw improperly recorded
         revenue and earnings in violation of its purported
         revenue recognition policy and Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles; and

     (4) that Shaw's steadily declining earnings did not result
         solely from the downturn in the domestic power
         generation market, but rather, the decline was also a
         function of the depletion of the Company's gross margin
         reserves.

On June 10, 2004 Shaw announced that it had been notified by the
SEC that it was conducting an inquiry that appeared to focus on
the Company's accounting for acquisitions. On this news, shares
of Shaw fell 12.4% to close at $10.75 per share.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067 by Phone: (310) 201-9150
or (888) 773-9224 by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


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

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of Vicuron
stock by concealing critical material information regarding the
details of both the safety and efficacy of anidulafungin.
Defendants concealed key adverse information regarding the
development and commercialization of anidulafungin, raising
serious concerns for the very approval of the drug for the
treatment of esophageal candidiasis and other selected
indications.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff, P.C. by Phone: 888-844-5862 or by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Fraud Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Vicuron
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Vicuron" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
MICU) between January 6, 2003 and May 24, 2004, inclusive, (the
"Class Period") against defendants Vicuron and certain officers
of the Company.

The case name is Staton v. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint specifically alleges that during the Class Period,
defendants artificially inflated the price of Vicuron stock by
concealing critical material information regarding the details
of both the safety and efficacy of Anidulafungin, the Company's
lead product candidate. Defendants concealed key adverse
information regarding the development and commercialization of
Anidulafungin, raising serious concerns for the very approval of
the drug for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis and other
selected indications.

The partial disclosure of the contents of the FDA letter on
Monday, May 24, 2004, detailing the failure of Vicuron to supply
data necessary to support its very claim for the use of
Anidulafungin for the treatment of esophageal candidiasis caused
Vicuron shares to plummet $8.86, to $13.04, for a loss of over
40% from the previous trading day and over 45% from its Class
Period high of $23.90, on volume of over 15 million shares,
causing millions of dollars in damages to members of the Class.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Christopher
Hinton, Esq., or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016
by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.whafh.com/cases/vicuron.htm


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files WA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Washington on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of Washington Mutual, Inc. (NYSE: WM) ("Washington
Mutual" or the "Company") from April 15, 2003 through June 28,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Washington Mutual, Kerry K. Killinger,
Thomas W. Casey, and Craig J. Chapman with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its solid earnings growth was inextricably
         linked to the extraordinary mortgage volumes fueled by
         low interest rates;

     (2) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded that
         its earnings growth could not be sustained and that the
         Company's business strategy was irreversibly flawed,
         regardless of the Company's efforts to substantially
         reduce operating costs and streamline and improve
         operations to drive efficiency;

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

On June 28, 2004, Washington Mutual announced that expectations
for a sustained increase in long-term interest rates would
significantly impact the Company's Mortgage Banking business
resulting in 2004 earnings below previous guidance. Higher
interest rates have lowered the Company's mortgage production
expectations at a time when cost reduction plans have not yet
fully taken effect. This news shocked the market. Shares of
Washington Mutual fell $2.84 per share, or 6.87 percent, on June
29, 2004, to close at $38.47 per share.

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


                            *********


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  * * *