---

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

              Monday, July 26, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 146

                           Headlines

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholder Lodges DE Suit V. JPM Equity Arm
AMERICAN HONDA: Consumers Launch Fraud Suit Over Defective SUVs
AUSTRALIA: Midwives Protest Lack of Indemnity Insurance
CARGILL INC.: Reaches $24M Settlement in Price Fixing Lawsuit
CELLULAR COMPANIES: MI State Participates in Consumer Settlement

CENTEX SECURITES: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit V. Broker
CIBC MELON: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint V. Ex-Broker
COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS: EEOC Lodges Sexual Harassment Suit in NY
CRAFTMATIC ORGANIZATION: CA Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Suit
DEL GLOBAL: Ex-VP Settles SEC Fraud Suit, Barred From Practicing

DOCTOR'S CHOICE: FL A.G. Crist Reaches Medicaid Fraud Settlement
EMISSION CONTROLS: SEC Lodges FL Fraud Complaint V. Company, CEO
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Reports on Legal Costs, Consolidation of Suits
KD ACQUISITIONS: Recalls Chicken Due To Listeria Contamination
KMART CORPORATION: Recalls 38,6OO Water Guns Due To Injury Risk

MISSOURI: Judge Abandons Asbestos Cases Without Stating Reason
NORTHEAST GEORGIA: Faces GA Consumer Fraud Suit For Overcharging
PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE: Patients Launch Overcharging Suit in NM
RHODE ISLAND: Relatives of Feb. 2003 Fire Victims Lodge Lawsuit
STAR MARK: Recalls "Dried Vegetables" Due To Undeclared Sulfites

TELECOM FIRMS: Korein Tillery Seeks Payment of $350M Settlement
UICI: Stock Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For July 26, 2004
UNITED STATES: Chamber Calls For Reform To Prevent Lawsuit Abuse
WYETH: New Fen-Phen Trust Solution Approved, To Help 40T Victims

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BUSINESS OBJECTS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CARDINAL HEALTH: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. Ohio
CARDINAL HEALTH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
CUMBERLAND CASUALTY: Dice & Gregory Launches AL Securities Suit
KVH INDUSTRIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges RI Securities Suit

KVH INDUSTRIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in RI
KVH INDUSTRIES: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Lawsuit in RI
MERIX CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OR
NETFLIX INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
RED HAT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC

RED HAT: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in OH
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in OH
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files OH Stock Suit
SHAW GROUP: Braun Law Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA

VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Stock Suit in PA
VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges PA Stock Suit
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in WA
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in WA
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in WA

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in WA


                            *********


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: Shareholder Lodges DE Suit V. JPM Equity Arm
---------------------------------------------------------------
An AMC Entertainment Inc. (AEN) shareholder filed a lawsuit
seeking class action status in Delaware's Chancery Court over
the proposed $2 billion acquisition of the theater chain by J.P.
Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) and it's private equity arm Apollo
Management LP, the Dow Jones Business News reports.

The suit alleges Apollo Management is using its control of AMC
to push public shareholders out of the company at an unfair
price. Filed by PRFT Partners, identified as an AMC shareholder,
the suit does not name J.P. Morgan as a defendant.

In the suit, PRFT Partners, stated Apollo Management owns common
and preferred stock in AMC Entertainment that, if converted,
would give the equity firm 52.5% of AMC's stock. It further
stated that the deal offered to shareholders earns them $19.50 a
share in cash, a premium of 14% over Wednesday's closing price.
But, instead of taking the cash being offered to other
shareholders, Apollo Management will hold on to its major equity
position in AMC after the company goes private.

PRFT Partners also stated in its suit that only Apollo will be
able to benefit from AMC's future profits, while other
shareholders are frozen out. The deal is expected to result in
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s private equity arm owning 50.1% of the
company, while Apollo holds the remaining 49.9%.


AMERICAN HONDA: Consumers Launch Fraud Suit Over Defective SUVs
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda faces a nationwide class action filed on behalf
of purchasers of 2003 and 2004 Honda CR-Vs in connection to the
Company's sale of defective CR-Vs for these model years,
Autonet.com reports.

Abbey Gardy, LLP, Puls Taylor & Woodson, and Harris Kessler &
Goldstein, LLC filed the suit, alleging that due to a design
defect, oil may leak onto the vehicles' hot exhaust systems,
causing it rapidly ignite.  Some CR-Vs have been known to burst
into flames.  In many instances, the vehicles have been totally
destroyed.  The Company has not issued a recall regarding the
defect.


AUSTRALIA: Midwives Protest Lack of Indemnity Insurance
-------------------------------------------------------
Around 30 midwives gathered outside the Royal Darwin Hospital in
Darwin, Australia to protest the Federal Government's alleged
failure to protect the rights of midwives and mothers, the
Australian Broadcasting Company reports.

Last week, the Northern Territory Nurses Board failed to re-
register midwives because of a lack of indemnity insurance.  The
Maternity Coalition says the Commonwealth has ignored calls to
include midwives in medical indemnity legislation.  It says this
leaves midwives open to class action and puts women in
unnecessary danger.

The protesters believe women should be given the right to decide
where and how they give birth, a choice they say is being denied
by the Federal Government.

Greens Senator Kerry Nettle joined the protest, warning the
Northern Territory may set a precedent.  "It's an issue that
will become even more of a concern as we see similar decisions
taken in the Northern Territory reoccur in the southern states
and around the country," he told the Australian Broadcasting
Company.


CARGILL INC.: Reaches $24M Settlement in Price Fixing Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cargill Inc. reached a $24 million settlement in a class action
lawsuit that accused the company of conspiring to fix prices of
a food sweetener, the Reed Business Information - US reports.

Cargill along with Archer Daniels Midland and A.E. Staley
Manufacturing, a unit of British-based Tate & Lyle, was accused
of plotting to fix the price of high-fructose corn sugar. The
original suit was filed in 1995 by 18 food and beverage makers
who said the violations go as far back as the late 1980s.


CELLULAR COMPANIES: MI State Participates in Consumer Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Michigan is participating in the 32-state consumer
protection settlement with three of the nation's largest
wireless telephone carriers over alleged misleading
advertisements and unclear disclosures relating to wireless
service agreement terms and coverage areas, Attorney General
Mike Cox announced in a statement.

Pursuant to the agreement, Verizon Wireless, Cingular Wireless,
and Sprint PCS are required to provide accurate service coverage
maps, give consumers at least two weeks to terminate service
contracts without penalty and alter the way they market their
wireless phone services and coverage.

"It's important for Michigan consumers to be able to comparison
shop for good deals and make informed decisions when purchasing
services," AG Cox said. "Under this settlement, these companies
have taken steps that will give new cell phone customers easy to
understand information about cellular plans and allow them to
cancel their contract without paying hefty early termination
fees."

Wireless carriers previously provided rate maps to consumers
that depicted calling areas across the United States, indicating
where rates were available.  In fact, those maps were not always
accurate, and coverage was not necessarily available in the
entire calling area.  The three companies will now provide maps
that are as accurate as possible under current technology.
Also, the carriers have agreed to give new customers 14 days to
try out their wireless service to ensure service is available in
the area of their choosing.  During the return period, new
customers may terminate their contracts for any reason without
paying the early termination fee provided for in the contract.

In addition, new customers can cancel their service contracts
for any reason within three days without paying an early
termination fee.  The carrier will also return any activation
fee the consumer may have paid upon signing up for the service.
Other provisions of the agreement call for disclosures in
advertisements and retail, Internet and telemarketing sales
channels which are designed to provide consumers with
comprehensive information about the costs and limits of their
wireless service.

The states entering into the settlement with the carriers are
Michigan, Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia,
Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, 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.


CENTEX SECURITES: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit V. Broker
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to
Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act) against Ronald D. Brouillette (Brouillette).

The Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that on July 1,
Brouillette was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia from future violations of Sections 5(a),
5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The
Commission filed its complaint against Brouillette and others on
Sept. 25, 2003.

The Division also alleges the complaint in the underlying
injunctive action stated Brouillette was involved in a
fraudulent pump and dump scheme to sell the securities of Pay
Pop, Inc., a now defunct company, to the market. The complaint
alleged, among other things, that Brouillette, as a broker at
Centex Securities, set up accounts in the name of Pay Pop
principals, as well as nominee accounts based on false
information, and effected trades between these accounts to
create the appearance of genuine demand for Pay Pop stock. The
complaint further alleged Brouillette drafted the trade or
transfer authorizations required by his firm's clearing broker,
and secured the required nominee signatures, knowing that these
would be forged by, or at the direction of, one of the Pay Pop
principals. The complaint also alleged that Brouillette was
active in assuring that there were buyers for Pay Pop stock by
making false representations to his customers or by omitting
material information, in addition to making numerous baseless
assurances of quick gains to encourage customer purchases of Pay
Pop stock, and making unauthorized trades in his clients'
accounts in pay pop stock. The complaint further alleged that
Brouillette never disclosed to customers to whom he sold Pay Pop
stock that he was simultaneously selling millions of Pay Pop
shares on behalf of Pay Pop principals or for his own benefit.

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

The Commission directed that an administrative law judge shall
issue an initial decision no later than 210 days from the date
of service of this order.


CIBC MELON: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint V. Ex-Broker
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to
Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act) against Alnoor Jiwan (Jiwan).

The Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that on July 1,
Jiwan was enjoined by the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia from future violations of Sections 5 and 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission filed
its complaint against Jiwan and others on Sept. 25, 2003.

The Division also alleges the complaint in the underlying
injunctive action alleged that Jiwan was involved in a
fraudulent pump and dump scheme to sell securities in Pay Pop,
Inc., a now defunct company. The complaint alleged, among other
things, that Jiwan accepted a series of bribes in exchange for
which he agreed to have his employer, CIBC Mellon Trust Company
(CIBC Mellon), serve as Pay Pop's transfer agent and issue Pay
Pop stock, neither registered with the Commission nor exempt
from registration, without restrictive legends as part of a pump
and dump scheme. The complaint further alleged that Jiwan was
advised by a Pay Pop principal that the company's former
transfer agent would not agree to issue Pay Pop stock
certificates without restrictive legends unless the stock was
registered with the Commission or unless it received an attorney
opinion letter confirming that the shares were exempt from
registration, as required by United States law. Jiwan accepted
bribes in the form of Pay Pop stock, placed in the name of a
nominee in an effort to evade detection, in exchange for which
Jiwan agreed that he would not require there to be a
registration statement in effect for Pay Pop, or proof of any
exemption from such registration for CIBC Mellon to issue
legend-free Pay Pop stock. The complaint further alleged that,
as a result, CIBC Mellon issued legend-free stock certificates
representing at least 75 million shares of Pay Pop stock, which
Pay Pop principals and others then sold on the open market.

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

The Commission directed than an administrative law judge shall
issue an initial decision no later than 210 days from the date
of service of the Order Instituting Proceedings.


COMPREHENSIVE BENEFITS: EEOC Lodges Sexual Harassment Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York district office of the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission filed a sexual-harassment class action
lawsuit against Comprehensive Benefits Consultants, a Melville
benefits-administration company, Newsday reported.

The suit, which doesn't name the defendants since the EEOC sues
companies, not individual defendants, alleges some of the
company's female employees had to endure obscene remarks and
inappropriate touching from the company's owner and his son.

The federal agency filed the suit in the U.S. District Court in
Brooklyn on behalf of Jean Marie Addeo, a former Comprehensive
employee, and Laura Hart, who still works for the company. But
according to EEOC trial lawyer Monique Roberts the class action
lawsuit could encompass up to 10 current and former female
employees.

The company's lawyer denies the allegations and told Newsday
that, "In order to win, you have to come up with evidence--they
are not going to have the evidence," said Brian Sokoloff of
Miranda & Sokoloff. Mr. Sokoloff also pointed out that some
current employees the women claim witnessed the alleged behavior
swore they didn't in affidavits sent to the EEOC.

However, both women claim they and other women were repeatedly
hugged and grabbed, called obscene names and given sexual jokes
to read at work. It was unclear from the complaint which actions
were attributed to the father or to the son, Newsday reported.


CRAFTMATIC ORGANIZATION: CA Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A team of lawyers, including Chavez & Gertler LLP, a class
action firm based in Mill Valley, California, the AARP
Foundation, a national senior advocacy group based out of
Washington, D.C., and Legal Assistance to the Elderly, Inc., a
San Francisco nonprofit advocacy organization representing
seniors initiated a lawsuit against Craftmatic Organization,
Inc. and Craftmatic of California, Inc., the manufacturer and
distributor of Adjustable Beds, for violating several consumer
protection laws and targeting senior citizens and persons with
disabilities for unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business
practices.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court under several
state consumer protection statutes, seeks to stop Craftmatic
from engaging in a variety of business practices, including:

     (1) using a sweepstakes promotion to obtain consumer's home
         addresses for the purpose of making high pressure, in-
         home sales presentations, without telling consumers of
         Craftmatic's intent to do so;

     (2) misleading consumers with a "price drop" sales practice
         in which Craftmatic's sales representatives represent
         that they are giving consumers a "special deal" on the
         Adjustable Beds;

     (3) failing to fully disclose cancellation policies as
         required by law; and,

     (4) making credit sales without disclosing the interest
         rate or other basic truth in lending disclosures
         required by law.

Ida Robinson, the plaintiff in the case is an 87-year-old
retiree living on a fixed income. She says that she responded to
a television ad promoting Craftmatic's "Win a Free Bed
Sweepstakes," but that she did not realize that entering the
contest would lead to an in-home sales presentation for the
Craftmatic Adjustable Bed. A Craftmatic representative came to
her home and gave her a sales presentation for the bed,
including engaging in the "price drop" sales practice.

According to Mark A. Chavez, a consumer attorney with Chavez &
Gertler, a critical component of Craftmatic's business model is
to target vulnerable consumers for the in-home sale of
overpriced beds. "Craftmatic employs a wide variety of unfair
and deceptive practices to induce elderly, disabled, and ill
consumers to buy its products. We intend to force Craftmatic to
clean up its business practices in this state."

Another lawyer for the plaintiffs, Chris Palamountain, stated
that "Craftmatic is building one misleading business practice
upon another upon another to pressure senior citizens and
consumers with disabilities into the purchase of an expensive
bed without providing them even with the opportunity to see the
bed, much less try it out."

For more details, contact Mark A. Chavez of Chavez & Gertler LLP
by Mail: 42 Miller Ave., Mill Valley, CA 94941 by Phone:
415-381-5599 by Fax: 415-381-5572 or by E-mail:
info@chavezgertler.com


DEL GLOBAL: Ex-VP Settles SEC Fraud Suit, Barred From Practicing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e)
of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Michael H. Taber,
CPA.

The Commission's Order was based upon the entry of a final
judgment, dated June 7, 2004, by the Honorable Kimba M. Wood of
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York,
which among other things, enjoined Taber from violating the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. The
Commission's complaint alleged that Taber was the chief
financial officer and a vice president of Del Global
Technologies, Inc. (Del) and participated in a fraudulent
accounting scheme, in contravention of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles, that materially overstated Del's revenues
for every fiscal quarter from 1997 through 2000. The complaint
further alleged that Taber misled Del's outside accountants by,
among other things, directing the creation of phony invoices and
credit memos. Based on the above, the Order suspends Taber from
appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant.
Taber consented to both the entry of the final judgment and the
issuance of the Order without admitting or denying the
allegations in the civil injunctive action.


DOCTOR'S CHOICE: FL A.G. Crist Reaches Medicaid Fraud Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist reached a settlement with
Doctor's Choice Medical Equipment of Largo, Inc., for
fraudulently billing the Medicare and Medicaid programs.  The
company has agreed to pay more than $1.38 million to settle
allegations that it double-billed and submitted false claims for
medical equipment sales.

"Health care fraud is taken seriously in this state," said AG
Crist.  "We are committed to protecting the people's money and
ensuring that those funds go toward the delivery of legitimate
health care services."

An investigation conducted by the Attorney General's Medicaid
Fraud Control Unit and the U.S. Attorney's Office uncovered that
Doctor's Choice improperly billed the Medicare and Medicaid
programs for certain durable medical items, such as nebulizer
supplies and wheelchairs, from January 1994 to December 1998.
The company double-billed Medicare and Medicaid for some items
and billed them for others never ordered or supplied.

Doctor's Choice was sold to new owners in 1999. The new owners
discovered some of the improper billing and disclosed it to the
government.  An employee of Doctor's Choice also came forward
and disclosed certain other improprieties.  As a whistleblower,
she will receive a share of the settlement.

Of the $1.38-million settlement, the State of Florida will
receive more than $777,000. Approximately $383,000 of this will
be returned to the Medicaid program and $54,000 will be paid to
the Doctor's Choice whistleblower.  The remaining $329,000 will
be paid to the Office of the Attorney General and the U.S.
Attorney's Office as a penalty.  The U.S. Attorney's Office
recovered more than $608,000 for the Medicare program.  The
whistleblower will receive a share of these funds as well.


EMISSION CONTROLS: SEC Lodges FL Fraud Complaint V. Company, CEO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida against
Emission Controls Corporation and Syd Cooke, its President and
CEO, for violating the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws by falsely claiming to have developed a device
that could decrease harmful emissions while increasing vehicle
fuel efficiency.

According to the Commission's complaint, in a December 2002
demonstration, Cooke used manipulated test results to convince a
group of investors and stockbrokers that the device was capable
of lowering vehicle emissions to near-zero levels, and that,
based on the test results, Cooke and Emission Controls issued a
fraudulent Jan. 3, 2003, press release falsely claiming the
device could increase fuel efficiency while decreasing harmful
emissions.

The complaint seeks an injunction, civil monetary penalty, and
an order of disgorgement against Emission Controls for
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act
Rule 10b-5. It seeks an injunction, officer and director bar,
civil monetary penalty, and order of disgorgement against Cooke
for his violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5.

Previously, the Commission ordered a ten-day trading suspension
in Emission Controls securities because of questions raised
about the accuracy and adequacy of publicly disseminated
information concerning, among other things, Emission Controls'
products and business prospects. The action is titled SEC v.
Emission Controls Corporation and Syd Cooke, USDC SDFL, Civil
Action No. 04-14195-CIV-GRAHAM/LYNCH) (LR-18788)


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Reports on Legal Costs, Consolidation of Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services Inc. (ESI) reports that the costs
associated with an ongoing government inquiry and related
lawsuits involving the alleged falsification of student
attendance records, grades and graduate job placement statistics
has reached $15.3 million, Dow Jones Business News reports.

ITT Educational, of Carmel, Ind., told Dow News that it
continues to work with the U.S. Department of Justice, the
Securities and Exchange Commission and the Office of the
Attorney General for the State of California in resolving
several on-going investigations.

The company also reported that a series of securities class
action lawsuits precipitated by the stock decline were
consolidated and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, and that an amended consolidated
complaint was also being filed in a separate shareholder
derivative lawsuit following the consolidation of those actions
into one proceeding.


KD ACQUISITIONS: Recalls Chicken Due To Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia-based KD Acquisitions I Braselton recalled more than two
tons of cooked chicken prepared a little over a week ago,
because they may possibly have been contaminated with listeria,
the United States Department of Agriculture announced, according
to the Associated Press.

The recall includes 14-pound boxes of "Tyson, Fully Cooked
Chicken Breast Filet Fritters with Rib Meat, 3806" and 20-pound
boxes of "Spare Time, Fully Cooked, Chicken Breast Fillet
Fritters with Rib Meat, 3806."  The chicken was produced on July
13 and distributed to warehouses in Georgia and Arkansas.

Also included in the recall are the Company's 12-pound boxes of
"America's Choice, Fully Cooked, Breaded Seasoned Chicken
Nuggets, 07046" with the codes "4195P17933" and "P 17933,"
7produced on July 13 and distributed to grocery stores in
Maryland and New York.

A private laboratory reported a positive result for listeria
monocytogenes this week.  However, the USDA said there had been
no reports of illness associated with consumption of the chicken
products.

Health officials say listeriosis, caused by eating listeria-
tainted food, results in a higher rate of hospitalization than
any other food borne illness. Pregnant women, the elderly and
those with weak immune systems are at the highest risk, AP
reports.


KMART CORPORATION: Recalls 38,6OO Water Guns Due To Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kmart Corporation, of Troy, Michigan is cooperating with the
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
about 38,600 units of Pool Pump Water Guns.

The cone-shaped nozzle can unexpectedly come off the water gun
and be propelled causing injury. There have been four reports of
injuries to children including cuts and bruises to the face and
head.

The 15-inch-long water guns are shaped like giant syringes. When
placed in a pool, they fill with water when the handle at the
top of the device is pulled, and shoot water when the handle is
pushed. They have either an orange tube with green handle and
nozzle or a yellow tube with blue handle and nozzle. There is no
writing on the water guns themselves.

Manufactured in Hong Kong, the water guns were sold at all Kmart
stores nationwide from January 2004 through June 2004 for about
$2.

Consumers should stop using the water guns and return them to a
Kmart store for a full refund. For more details, contact Kmart
at (866) KMART4U anytime.


MISSOURI: Judge Abandons Asbestos Cases Without Stating Reason
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas G. Byron, who is in charge
of asbestos cases in the county, has stepped down from those
duties without any explanation, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reports.

Due to an explosion of asbestos litigation in Madison County,
the county courts and Judge Byron, have drawn the ire of defense
lawyers and national tort reform groups, who accuse them of
being too friendly to plaintiffs.

According to Chief Judge Edward Ferguson, Circuit Judge Phillip
J. Kardis will take over the vacated asbestos docket, but
reiterated that Judge Byron will retain his duties overseeing
other civil suits.

In the last few years, Judge Byron's rulings have come under
increasing scrutiny. Some of his most notable rulings include a
March 2003 decision wherein Judge Byron handed down a $10.1
billion judgment, including $1.8 billion in legal fees, in a
class action case against Philip Morris USA. A week later, he
presided over an asbestos trial that produced a $250 million
jury verdict against U.S. Steel; the company later settled the
case for an undisclosed amount.

Many critics of the court system say that the case, which
involved an Indiana man who had been exposed to asbestos in his
home state, had no place in an Illinois courtroom.

Earlier this year, a conservative legal foundation reported the
judge to the Judicial Inquiry Board of Illinois after Byron said
in open court that he would bar the law firm of former U.S.
Attorney General Griffin Bell from his courtroom.

Gretchen Schaefer, a spokeswoman for the American Tort Reform
Association, declined to comment specifically on Judge Byron,
but, referring to the U.S. Steel case and others like it,
Schaefer told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: "We hope to see
fairness and balance in the courtroom of whatever judge takes
over the docket, that the judge will put the citizens and
taxpayers of Madison County first and keep these cases that
belong elsewhere out of his courtroom."


NORTHEAST GEORGIA: Faces GA Consumer Fraud Suit For Overcharging
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vroon & Crongeyer on behalf of uninsured
patients initiated a lawsuit against the Northeast Georgia
Medical Center in Gainesville accusing them of billing their
uninsured patients with inflated amounts, and then aggressively
seeking payments, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reports.

The lawsuits spearheaded by attorney Richard Scruggs in 20 other
states claims that nonprofit hospitals have enjoyed tax-exempt
status while they amassed millions of dollars in cash and
securities. In the process, the lawsuits allege, the hospitals
have broken their promise to the government to operate as a
charity provider by charging the uninsured at rates that are far
higher than those billed to patients with insurance.

Northeast Georgia declined to comment on the lawsuit, saying
that officials had not had sufficient time to review it. The
organization, with two hospitals, had operating revenues of
$320.4 million in fiscal year 2003 and according to a hospital
spokeswoman they have provided $29.5 million in indigent and
charity care that same year.

To further bolster their claims that the allegation are not
true, a group of nonprofit hospital executives, in an interview
with the Journal-Constitution, called the lawsuits "outrageous,"
saying their hospitals annually provide millions of dollars of
free care to the uninsured. Dr. Robert Lipson, WellStar's CEO,
even added that, "Hospitals in Georgia are enormously community-
minded. The physicians in this state provide a tremendous amount
of indigent care. To say these groups are gouging the poor is
beyond belief."

But attorney Bryan Vroon of the Atlanta law firm Vroon &
Crongeyer, scoffed at such rhetoric and said, "There are
countless people we can show you who don't have the ability to
pay, and are being gouged."

For more details, contact Bryan Vroon of Vroon & Crongeyer by
Mail: 1230 Peach St., Suite 2450, Atlanta, GA 30309 by Phone:
(404) 607-6710 by Fax: (404) 607-6711 by E-mail:
bvroon@vclawfirm.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.vclawfirm.com


PRESBYTERIAN HEALTHCARE: Patients Launch Overcharging Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Archie C. Lamb, LLC has initiated a class
action lawsuit against New Mexico-based Presbyterian Healthcare
Services accusing them of overcharging uninsured patients for
their care, the Albuquerque Journal reports.

The complaint alleges that Presbyterian charges the uninsured
"significantly more" for care than it does those who have
insurance, then "relentlessly" seeks to collect its fees with
aggressive and humiliating techniques.

The law firm, in their complaint cited one of its clients,
Richard Garcia, who was treated by Presbyterian in its emergency
room last Jan. 23 and charged him $8,530, a rate that they
claim, "far exceeded the actual cost of providing the care and
treatment." The complaint said Presbyterian refused to offer
Garcia charitable care and has left him "in an untenable
financial position teetering on the brink of ruin." Attorney
Archie C. Lamb, who filed the suit further stated that
Presbyterian stared to make harassing phone calls soon after.

But Presbyterian spokesman Todd Sandman told the Albuquerque
Journal that; "Presbyterian is not surprised to learn we've been
named in this frivolous lawsuit," and called the complaint "a
cut-and-paste action where the facts do not exist to support the
claims."

Mr. Lamb's suit is one of a number that have been brought by law
firms nationwide against nonprofit hospitals in 20 states.

For more details contact the law offices of Archie C. Lamb, LLC
by Mail: 2017 Second Avenue, North Birmingham, AL 35203
(Jefferson Co.) by Phone: 205-324-4644 or 800-324-4425 by Fax:
205-324-4649 or visit their Web site: http://www.archielamb.com


RHODE ISLAND: Relatives of Feb. 2003 Fire Victims Lodge Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
More than 200 relatives of victims of the February 20,2003
nightclub fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island filed a lawsuit in
Providence Superior Court, citing dozens of defendants including
the state, club owners, a former band tour manager and a fire
inspector, the Associated Press reports.

100 people were killed and more than 200 were injured in the
fire that razed The Station nightclub, allegedly caused by
onstage fireworks during a performance of the rock band Great
White.

The suit, filed by a group of lawyers representing the majority
of those who survived the fire or had family members who
perished, has the largest group of plaintiffs to file suit for
the deadly blaze.  The suit charged club owners Jeffrey and
Michael Derderian of negligently failing to obtain a license for
pyrotechnics and failing to install safe soundproofing material.

The suit further alleged that fire inspector Denis Larocque
failed to note the presence of the foam used as soundproofing
during a series of routine fire inspections conducted after the
Derderians bought the club in March 2000.  The highly flammable
foam is blamed for spreading the fire quickly through the one-
story wooden nightclub.  The suit also accused some members of
Great White, and the band's former tour manager Dan Biechele, of
negligence for igniting the pyrotechnics.

Several other lawsuits on behalf of families and survivors have
been filed in U.S. District Court in Providence, AP reports.


STAR MARK: Recalls "Dried Vegetables" Due To Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Star Mark Management Inc., 1101 Metropolitan Ave., Brooklyn, NY
11211, is recalling "Fortuner's Dried Vegetable," because it
contains undeclared sulfites. Consumers who have a severe
sensitivity to sulfites may run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled "Fortuner's Dried Vegetable" is packaged in
uncoded, 12 oz., clear plastic bags. The product was sold in the
New York City area.

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

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

Consumers who have purchased "Fortuner's Dried Vegetable" are
urged to return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the Star Mark Management, Inc. at
(718) 486-0188.


TELECOM FIRMS: Korein Tillery Seeks Payment of $350M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Korein Tillery is attempting to force AT&T and
Lucent Technologies to pay out the rest of a $350 million class
action settlement of a lawsuit filed over leased telephones in
Madison County Court, Illinois, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reports.

Lucent reported in March that the companies had paid out $8.4
million to people who made claims, which was only 10 percent of
the $84.5 million the lawyers collected in the case. A Lucent
spokesman said the companies planned to keep the money that had
not been collected.

In an interview with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch Attorney
Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery law firm said that he didn't
know exactly how much class members had collected, however, he
disagrees with the companies' stance that they get to keep any
unclaimed money.

In his new motion, Mr. Tillery called for Circuit Judge Andy
Matoesian to appoint a special administrator to determine how
much was paid to class members and devise a way of paying out
the rest of the money. He also asks the judge to settle disputes
over the $50 million in phone cards that AT&T was supposed to
deliver to six charitable organizations.

The settlement, reached in August 2002 and approved by Judge
Matoesian the same year, set out a single claims period, which
ended on Jan. 15, 2003 and does not specify what happens to
unclaimed money.

For more details, contact Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery by
E-mail: stillery@koreintillery.com or visit this link:
http://www.koreintillery.com/attorneys/detail.cfm?&id=111


UICI: Stock Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For July 26, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiff deadline for the class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division on behalf of purchasers of UICI (NYSE:UCI)
common stock during the period between January 17, 2000 and July
21, 2003 is set for July 26,2004.

The complaint charges UICI and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. UICI is a diversified financial services company offering
financial services, health administrative services, and
insurance through its various subsidiaries and divisions to
niche consumer and institutional markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants, who controlled and were senior officers of UICI,
engaged in a scheme to conceal UICI's badly flagging Academic
Management Services Corp. ("AMS") division to prevent a decline
in the UICI's stock price. UICI's actual financial results and
the true status of its operations were concealed by defendants,
which artificially inflated or maintained the market price of
UICI shares during the Class Period.

Each of the statements issued during the Class Period was
allegedly false and misleading and misrepresented and/or the
defendants failed to disclose material adverse information
including:

     (1) that defendants knowingly tolerated UICI's inadequate
         internal accounting controls and consequently lacked
         any reasonable basis for the financial results reported
         by them;

     (2) that UICI's reported income was materially overstated
         by in excess of $65 million;

     (3) that only through UICI's accounting fraud had UICI
         achieved the earnings reported by defendants;

     (4) that the AMS division was not successful and its
         fundamentals and prospects were deteriorating; and

     (5) that UICI had failed to account for costs associated
         with liabilities resulting from its AMS program and its
         reserves were materially understated.

On July 21, 2003, UICI revealed that it would record a charge of
at least $65 million. This revelation caused trading in UICI
stock to be halted on the New York Stock Exchange and ultimately
to plummet to less than $12 per share, a decline of 45% from its
Class Period high of $21.22 per share.

Shareholders outside the United States may also join the action,
regardless of which exchange they used to purchase their shares.
To serve as lead plaintiff, however, you must meet certain legal
requirements. You can join this class action as lead plaintiff
online at http://www.murrayfrank.com/cases.htm.

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


UNITED STATES: Chamber Calls For Reform To Prevent Lawsuit Abuse
----------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate legislative action and a host of other reforms are
needed to protect America's small business owners from lawsuit
abuse, said Lisa Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber
Institute for Legal Reform, in testimony before the House Small
Business Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform and Oversight.

"No sector of our economy is hit harder by lawsuit abuse than
small business owners," said Ms. Rickard, pointing to a recent
study showing the tort system costs U.S. small businesses $88
billion a year.  "Small businesses are paying a high price for
our legal crisis in the form of lost opportunities to expand
their businesses and invest in tens of thousands of new American
jobs."

The total annual cost of the tort system to U.S. businesses
(large and small) is $129 billion per year, according to the
study, conducted for ILR by NERA Economic Consulting.  Small
businesses with $10 million or less in revenue bear 68 percent
of that cost.  That equates to about $150,000 a year for each
small business - money that could be used to hire additional
employees, expand operations or improve health coverage.

"Frivolous lawsuits are hitting the pocketbooks of hard-working
Americans, threatening their jobs and raising prices," she
added. "I urge Congress to protect our economy, save American
jobs, and take swift action to pass the vital legal reform bills
that are pending before this Institution."

ILR supports a variety of legal reform bills currently pending
before Congress, including the Class Action Fairness Act, the
Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act, the Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act, and the Small Business Liability Reform Act.

The mission of the Institute for Legal Reform is to make
America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone.
It seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial and educational activities at the national,
state and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation, representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector and region.

A full copy of Rickard's testimony and the ILR study is
available online. http://www.legalreformnow.com.


WYETH: New Fen-Phen Trust Solution Approved, To Help 40T Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Counsel, a coalition of more than 45 firms and 150
attorneys representing the rights of over 45,000 victims who
have been damaged by Fen-Phen reported that negotiations to
create an amendment to the Fen-Phen Trust have been tentatively
approved by both sides. The proposed agreement -- labeled the
7th Amendment -- will allow Wyeth to pay immediate reduced
settlements to more than 40,000 Fen-Phen victims.

"Both sides have worked very hard over the past several months
for a fair, efficient solution that ensures that the funds will
be there to help victims today, and in the future," said Jerry
Alexander, a victim representative and member of the 7th
Amendment Liaison Committee.

Representatives from Wyeth and the 7th Amendment Liaison
Committee have been working with Michael Fishbein, one of the
attorneys representing the victim class action, for more than
one year on an agreement that may resolve up to 90% of the
pending matrix level claims currently filed with the Wyeth Fen-
Phen Trust. This agreement would create a new $1.275 billion
fund for a new class of Trust members who opt to receive reduced
settlements immediately, leaving the original $3.75 billion
Trust to help the victims who have ongoing health problems in
years to come.

"There are thousands and thousands of Fen-Phen victims who have
waited for years to get the help they were promised. For the
majority of these victims, it is good to have the choice to get
a reduced settlement now instead of waiting through the lengthy
audit process that has been established," said Wayne Spivey,
Chairman of the 7th Amendment Liaison Committee. "Also, since
many of these victims will have health problems for the rest of
their life, there is peace of mind in knowing there will still
be funding to help the most seriously ill victims in years to
come," said Mr. Spivey.

The Fen-Phen Trust was established in 2001 after the Mayo Clinic
reported that Pondimin, a drug sold by Wyeth as half of the Fen-
Phen combination, caused serious heart and lung damage. It was
later reported that another Fen-Phen ingredient produced by
Wyeth, Redux, caused the same type of damage. Since its
creation, more than 90,000 cases have been filed with the $3.75
billion Trust, and as of January 2004 fewer than 3,000 of these
cases were settled.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. launched a
securities class action 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. (NasdaqNM:BOBJ)
between April 23, 2003 through April 29, 2004, inclusive.

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 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 --
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.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stull Stull & Brody initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of Cardinal
Health, Inc. (NYSE:CAH) between October 24, 2000 and June 30,
2004, inclusive against Cardinal Health, Inc., Robert D. Walter,
and Richard J. Miller.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 24, 2000 and
June 30, 2004.

More specifically, the complaint alleges the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts known
to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. by Mail: 6 East
45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax:
212-490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Cardinal Health, Inc. (NYSE:CAH) between October 24, 2000 and
June 30, 2004 inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
against the Company, and:

     (1) its auditor Ernst & Young LLP,

     (2) Robert D. Walter, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer;

     (3) George L. Fotiades, Chief Operating Officer and

     (4) Richard J. Miller, 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:"

     (i) 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;

    (ii) 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;

   (iii) 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

    (iv) 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 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 the firm's Website:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


CUMBERLAND CASUALTY: Dice & Gregory Launches AL Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
An investor sued Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company and
Dorinco Reinsurance Company 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.

Dice & Gregory, LLC filed the class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  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 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 also names as defendants:

     (1) Joseph M. Williams, Cumberland's president;

     (2) Carol S. Black, Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
         of Cumberland; and

     (3) 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 or by E-mail: sgregory@diceandgregory.com.


KVH INDUSTRIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges RI Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers of KVH
Industries, Inc. KVHI publicly traded securities during the
period between January 6, 2004 and July 2, 2004.

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.  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 Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L.
Berman, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


KVH INDUSTRIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of KVH
Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq:KVHI) between January 6, 2004 and July
2, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island against defendant KVH and one or more
of its officers and/or directors.

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

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


KVH INDUSTRIES: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Lawsuit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
KVH Industries, Inc. (NASDAQ: KVHI) securities between January
6, 2004 and July 2, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Rhode Island, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact the law offices of Brian M. Felgoise,
P.C. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046
by Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


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

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 by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com.

NETFLIX INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a complaint in the
Northern District of California against Netflix, Inc.
("Netflix") (Nasdaq: NFLX) for alleged acts in violation of U.S.
securities fraud laws.

The complaint alleges that, between October 1, 2003, and July
15, 2004 (the Class Period), Netflix and its CEO Reed Hastings,
CFO Barry McCarthy and Chief Marketing Officer Leslie Kilgore
failed to disclose the number of subscriber cancellations being
suffered by the Company, even as they repeatedly touted the
large number of new subscribers being added to the Company's
subscriber base.

The complaint further alleges that they also consistently
understated the Company's churn rate (the percentage of its
subscribers that cancelled per month). They achieved this by
using an improper calculation of the rate that produced an
artificially low churn rate in quarters in which the Company was
adding substantial numbers of new subscribers.

The standard definition of churn rate (and the definition used
by other publicly-traded companies that report churn rate such
as Sprint and Nextel Partners) is "the percentage of
participants who discontinue their use of a service divided by
the average number of total participants during a given period
of time." Netflix instead divided canceling subscribers by
subscribers at the beginning of the period plus subscriber
additions.

Because beginning subscribers plus new subscribers were
consistently a larger number than average subscribers throughout
the Class Period, the Company reported an artificially low churn
rate throughout the Class Period by erasing the effect that
canceling subscribers had on average subscribers during each
period.

Moreover, it is alleged that the Company repeatedly made
statements throughout the Class Period that its churn rate was
declining to "record lows," when in fact in some of these
quarters its churn rate was markedly rising. For example, in the
third quarter of 2003, Netflix claimed that its churn rate had
reached a new record low of 5.2% when in fact its churn rate had
risen from 7% to 7.7% during the quarter.

Disclosure of actual subscriber cancellations and the actual
churn rate was critically important for investors analyzing the
Company's prospects and the potential of its business model. The
Company spends approximately $35 in marketing expense to acquire
each new subscriber. Had investors known that the Company was
being forced continuously to replenish its subscriber base
through additional marketing expenditures; it would have called
into question the potential long-term profitability of the
Company and the viability of its business model. In other words,
the Company's artificially low claimed churn rate obscured the
fact that it was not retaining many subscribers long enough to
break even on them.

The truth came to light when, after the market closed on July
15, 2004, the Company issued an earnings release which, for the
first time, disclosed the number of subscriber cancellations
during previous quarters. Specifically, the press release stated
that, while the Company had added 537,000 new subscribers during
the second quarter, it had suffered 422,000-subscriber
cancellation, meaning 72% of the Company's 583,000 new
subscribers in the second quarter of 2004 had merely replaced
subscribers who had cancelled. The release also showed that 41%
of the Company's 760,000 new subscribers in the second quarter
had merely replaced subscribers who had cancelled, and 71% of
the Company's 327,000 new subscribers in the second quarter of
2003 had merely replaced subscribers who had cancelled.

In response, Netflix shares declined from $32 per share to $20
per share over the next two days, a decline of 38%. During the
Class Period, the shares had traded as high as $39.77 per share,
during which period Hastings, McCarthy and Kilgore sold
approximately $13 million in Netflix shares.

For more detail, contact Scott + Scott, LLC by Phone:
800/404-7770 (EDT) or 800/332-2259 (PDT) or 860/537-3818
(Connecticut) or 619/233-4565 (California) or by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
NetflixSecuritiesAction@scott-scott.com


RED HAT: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action 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. RHAT between June 19,
2001 and July 12, 2004, inclusive, 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., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., George Peters, or Derek Behnke by Mail: 270
Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016, by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence
should make reference to Red Hat.


RED HAT: Abbey Gardy Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina on behalf of a class of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of Red Hat, Inc. (Nasdaq: RHAT) between
December 18, 2003 and July 12, 2004 inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The Complaint names as defendants Red
Hat, Inc., and:

     (1) Matthew J. Szulik,

     (2) Kevin B. Thompson,

     (3) Timothy J. Buckley,

     (4) Paul J. Cormier and

     (5) Mark H. Webbink

The Complaint also alleges Defendants issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period thereby artificially inflating the price of Red Hat
securities.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud the investing public
by prematurely recognizing revenue during the Class Period to
boost Red Hat's apparent performance and its stock price, while
at the same time selling millions of dollars of their personal
Red Hat holdings.  Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants
falsely reported that they "ratably" recognized revenue from
subscriptions.

On July 13, 2004, Defendants revealed they would be restating
financial results for 2002, 2003 and the first quarter of 2004
as a result of the change in the way they recognized revenue
from subscriptions, noting that they would now be recognizing
revenue from subscriptions on a daily basis rather than on a
monthly basis. Defendants admitted, that the restatement "is
expected to result in significant percentage differences in
certain items such as quarterly operating profit and net
income." As at least one analyst has said, this situation
"raises questions about the company's financial controls and
infrastructure."

On Monday, June 14, 2004, Red Hat announced unexpectedly that
its Chief Financial Officer ("CFO") was resigning "to pursue
other interests." The Company claims that its restatement is
unrelated to its former CFO's resignation. The market reacted
negatively to the impending restatement and the SEC inquiry. The
stock closed at $15.73 per share, which was $4.62 or 22.7% down
from the previous day's close at $20.35.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. by
Mail: Abbey Gardy, LLP, 212 East 39th Street, New York, New York
10016 by Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 (Toll Free) or
by E-mail: slee@abbeygardy.com.


REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Brian Felgoise Files Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
The Reynolds and Reynolds Company (NYSE: REY) securities between
January 22, 2003 and June 24, 2004, inclusive (the Class
Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact the law offices of Brian M. Felgoise,
P.C. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046
by Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of The Reynolds
& Reynolds Company (NYSE:REY) between January 22, 2003 and June
24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against defendants Reynolds, Lloyd G.
Waterhouse and Dale L. Medford.

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

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


REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files OH Stock Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of The Reynolds & Reynolds Company (NYSE: REY)
("Reynolds" or the "Company") from January 22, 2003 through June
24, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Reynolds, Lloyd G. Waterhouse, and Dale L.
Medford 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 market demand for the Company's cutting edge
         products, such as Reynolds Generation Series, was
         lackluster;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         strategy for growth was seriously flawed as the Company
         was forced to expend additional resources to pitch new
         products to unwilling customers, while neglecting the
         marketing of its more conventional revenue-producing
         products; and

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

On June 24, 2004, Reynolds announced it anticipated revenues and
earnings would be lower than its previous estimates when the
Company reported results for its third fiscal quarter on July
21, 2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Reynolds
fell $7.28 per share or 23.81 percent, on June 25, 2004, to
close at $23.30 per share. On July 7, 2004, Reynolds announced
that CEO, Chairman and President Lloyd "Buzz" Waterhouse had
resigned from the Company and its board of directors, effective
immediately. On the news shares of Reynolds plummeted further.
Shares of Reynolds fell a further $.83 per share or 3.63
percent, on July 7, 2004, to close at $22.12 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  19004toll by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


SHAW GROUP: Braun Law Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Braun Law Group initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of The Shaw
Group, Inc.'s securities ("Shaw" or the "Company") between
October 19, 2000 and June 10, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). Also included are all those who acquired Shaw's
securities through its acquisitions of Badger Technologies, The
IT Group, Stone & Webster, or Energy Delivery Services and all
those who purchased shares in the secondary offering on October
23, 2003. Shaw is traded on the New York Stock Exchange under
the ticker symbol SGR.

Defendants include Shaw, Tim Barfield, Jr., J.M. Bernhard, Jr.,
Richard F. Gill, and Robert Belk.

The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-
b(5).

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false statements concerning Shaw's financial
condition. Specifically, defendants inflated Shaw's reported
revenues and earnings by improperly establishing and drawing on
reserve accounts established in connection with a series of
large acquisitions, including the acquisitions of Stone &
Webster and The IT Group. Additionally, defendants prematurely
recognized revenue in violation of Shaw's own purported policies
and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and failed to
disclose the extent to which Shaw was vulnerable to changes in
power generation market conditions.

On June 10, 2004, Shaw announced the SEC was conducting an
inquiry focused on Shaw's accounting for acquisitions. On this
news, Shaw stock, which had traded as high as $62.37, fell 12.4%
to a closing price of $10.75 on June 14, 2004. During the class
period, Company insiders sold shares of Shaw for proceeds in
excess of $80 million. Additionally, during the Class Period,
Shaw sold $490 million convertible zero coupon, liquid yield
option notes.

For more details, contact Michael D. Braun, Esq. or Marc L.
Godino, Esq. of The Braun Law Group, P.C. by Phone:
(310) 442-7755 or (888) 658-7100 or by E-mail:
info@braunlawgroup.com


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Stock Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NasdaqNM:MICU)
between March 17, 2003 through May 24, 2004, inclusive.

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.
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 by Phone:
888 844 5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit the
firm's Website: http://www.srk-law.com.


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges PA Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated a securities
class action 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. MICU between
January 6, 2003 and May 24, 2004, inclusive, against the Company
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 by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New
York, New York 10016, by Phone: (800) 575-0735 or by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.whafh.com. All e-mail correspondence should make
reference to Vicuron.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action 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) from April 15,
2003 through June 28, 2004, inclusive.

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. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Washington Mutual, Inc. (NYSE: WM) securities between April 15,
2003 and June 28, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Washington, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact the law offices of Brian M. Felgoise,
P.C. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046
by Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP filed a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington at Seattle on behalf of purchasers of the
securities and/or sellers of put options of Washington Mutual,
Inc. ("Washington Mutual" or the "Company")(NYSE:WM), between
April 15, 2003 and June 28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Washington Mutual, Inc., Kerry K.
Killinger, Thomas W. Casey, Deanna W. Oppenheimer, William W.
Longbrake, Craig J. Chapman, James G. Vanasek, and Michelle
McCarthy with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's ability to grow in the face of any
expected interest rate increases, as well as the Company's
purported financial hedging strategies. On June 29, 2004,
investors learned the truth about the Company after Defendants
issued a press release announcing a very significant earnings
and net income shortfall which far exceeded any guidance
previously sponsored and endorsed by Defendants. According to
this release, increases in interest rates had, in fact, impacted
the Company's mortgage banking business to such an extent that
earnings for the full year were revised to as low as $3.00 per
share, compared to the up to $4.80 per share guidance provided
at the inception of the Class Period. In addition, Defendants
had not properly hedged the Company's interest rate risk such
that is was now having a material adverse impact on Washington
Mutual, Inc. Following the publication of this surprising and
belated news, the Company's common shares fell to $36.50 per
share, from a closing price of $41.31 per share on June 29,
2004; a decline of nearly 12%.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. or Christine
A. Giovannelli, Esq. of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 18 East
41st Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: (212) 213-6222 by Fax:
(212) 213-9405 by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.nyclasslaw.com/join.html


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Washington
Mutual, Inc. (NYSE:WM) between April 15, 2003 and June 28, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Washington against defendant Washington Mutual, Inc.
and one or more of its officers and/or directors.

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

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