CAR_Public/040727.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, July 27, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 147


                            Headlines

AETNA: Court Gives Final Approval To $5M ADA Suit Settlement
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Motion For Declaratory Judgment in Suit Nixed
AUSTRALIA: Wollongong Residents File Suit Over Speed Camera Fine
BELL CANADA: Ontario Court Dismisses $1B Shareholder Suit Appeal
CLASSIC CONCEPTS: Recalls 960 Chenille Rugs Due To Injury Hazard

CCC INFORMATION: Continues To Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL
INVERNESS MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement, Sets September 27 Hearing
JM SMUCKER: AZ Consumers File Suit Over Simply 100% Fruit Label
MICHIGAN: 1,486 MI Consumers To Receive Checks in Buspar Pact
RAYMOND SAITA: SEC Brings Settled Enforcement Action V. Ex-CPA

REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in OH
SHEETZ GAS: FDA Investigates Tomatoes As Source of Food Illness
WARREN WARE: Settles SEC Civil Action, Barred From Association
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wechsler Harwood Launches ERISA Investigation
WORLDCOM: Federal Judge Approves SEC Penalty Distribution Plan

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CARDINAL HEALTH: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Strauss & Troy Files Securities Suit in S.D. OH
COMMERCE BANCORP: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Goodkind Labaton Launches Stock Suit in CA

CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in CA
DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Scott + Scott Appears in DE Securities Suit
DRUGSTORE.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in W.D. WA
KVH INDUSTRIES: Lerach Coughlin Launches Securities Suit in RI
KVH INDUSTRIES: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in RI

KVH INDUSTRIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in RI
KVH INDUSTRIES: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in RI
MUTUAL BENEFITS: Scott + Scott Files Investor Lawsuit in S.D. FL
NETFLIX INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
RED HAT: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NC

RED HAT: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Abbey Gardy Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
RED HAT: Glancy Binkow Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in OH
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in OH

REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in OH
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit in OH
SHAW GROUP: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. LA
SHAW GROUP: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. LA
SHAW GROUP: Braun Law Group Files Securities Lawsuit in E.D. LA

WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in WA
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WA
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in WA
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in WA
WHITE ELECTRONIC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in AZ

WHITE ELECTRONIC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in AZ

                        *********

AETNA: Court Gives Final Approval To $5M ADA Suit Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Federal Court granted final approval to an agreement
between Aetna (NYSE: AET) and representatives of nearly 150,000
dentists and the American Dental Association (ADA). The goal of
the agreement is to improve communications and collaboration and
to lessen complexity in the payment of dental claims.

"We are gratified by the Court's action, which allows Aetna to
move forward in making meaningful changes to the way we interact
with dentists," said John W. Rowe, M.D., Aetna chairman and CEO.
"The dental community and Aetna share the common goal of finding
new ways to work cooperatively to achieve better dental health
for our patients and members. By setting out specific business-
practice initiatives and new levels of transparency in our
relations with dentists, Aetna is moving forward with the goal
of being a leader in creating a more efficient health care
system and forging stronger ties to health care professionals."

"The ADA is extremely pleased with the Court's decision," said
Dr. Eugene Sekiguchi, President of the American Dental
Association. "The terms of the settlement agreement are
unprecedented in the insurance industry and will significantly
strengthen the relationship between dentists and their patients.
The ADA looks forward to a new level of cooperation between
Aetna and organized dentistry, which will greatly benefit people
who are enrolled in Aetna dental plans."

The agreement approved by the Court settles a national dental
class action that had been consolidated with a series of similar
actions brought on behalf of physicians. The agreement with
dentists follows a settlement of the physician cases announced
on May 22, 2003, and given final approval on October 24, 2003.

Aetna has agreed to pay $4 million to dentists and $1 million to
the ADA Foundation. The costs associated with this agreement
were anticipated and already recorded in the second quarter of
2003, as part of the charge associated with Aetna's settlement
of the Physician Class Action Litigation.

Among the specific actions contained in the agreement are:

     (1) Establishing a Dental Advisory Committee to provide
         advice to Aetna on issues of concern to dentists.

     (2) A commitment to timely processing of "clean" claims.

     (3) Initiatives to reduce claims resubmissions.

     (4) Disclosure of claims-editing policies, procedures and
         practices.

     (5) Increased electronic connectivity, and direct web-
         enabled access to Aetna systems to verify reimbursement
         information and track claims.

The $1 million contribution to the ADA Foundation will support
initiatives to enhance dental health care for Americans.

For more details, visit:
http://www.aetna.com/legal_issues/suits/agreement_dentist.html#c
ourt_doc


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Motion For Declaratory Judgment in Suit Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court in Montreal, Canada dismissed a Quebec travel
agency's motion seeking a declaratory judgment in the lawsuit
filed against American Airlines, Inc. and three other airline
defendants, styled "Voyages Montambault (1989) Inc. v.
International Air Transport Association, et al."

The lawsuit alleges American and the other airline defendants
owe "fair and reasonable commission" to the agency, and that
American and the other airline defendants breached alleged
contracts with the agency by adopting policies of not paying
base commissions.

The motion was subsequently amended to add 40 additional travel
agencies as petitioners.  The defendants also include:

     (1) the International Air Transport Association,

     (2) the Air Transport Association of Canada,

     (3) Air Canada,

     (4) America West Airlines,

     (5) Delta Air Lines,

     (6) Grupo TACA,

     (7) Northwest Airlines/KLM Airlines, and

     (8) Continental Airlines

The court dismissed the motion on June 9,2004, and the
petitioners did not file an appeal.


AUSTRALIA: Wollongong Residents File Suit Over Speed Camera Fine
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Australian small business owner intends to launch a class
action over the accuracy of a speed camera near shops on
Balgownie Road, just outside Wollongong, Australia, smh.com.au
reports.

Businessman Tony Stoddart intends to file the country's first
ever suit against the speed camera fine on behalf of motorists
who were fined by the camera in that stretch of Balgownie Road,
saying the camera had no reason to be placed there.  "It is not
like it is a dangerous stretch of road - it's a straight stretch
that has not had problems in the past," Mr. Stoddart told
smh.com.au.  "I take issue with the signage and the reason the
camera is there and I also believe it is unreliable."

More than 1000 people initially signed a petition left in local
businesses, giving Mr. Stoddart the idea of filing a class
action.  "I have been flooded with calls in the past few weeks,"
he said.  "First I just started asking questions at local
businesses and found most people around here had been booked by
the camera."

In January, Mr. Stoddart was booked for driving at 59kmh in the
50kmh zone and did not get his fine until two months later -
another reason he is angry with the speed camera system.  "We
have a lot of people being multiple-booked by the camera," he
said. "The record so far is two people who have been booked 11
times each . We have some older drivers with perfect records
being deemed irresponsible drivers after four or five quick
tickets."

Last year the Victorian Government was forced to return more
than $6 million to drivers who had been booked by cameras that
had been found to be faulty.  NRMA's public policy manager Alan
Finlay told smh.com.au "We do have some concerns about speed
cameras.

"Late last year we wrote to Roads Minister Carl Scully and asked
for an audit of the same brand [of camera] used in Victoria . As
a result of our representations, the minister agreed there would
be an audit of all speed cameras in NSW," he continued.

A spokesman for Mr. Scully said the RTA checked its speed
cameras for faults every month, smh.com.au reports.


BELL CANADA: Ontario Court Dismisses $1B Shareholder Suit Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The two class actions filed against Bell Canada International
Inc. (TSX:BI) ("BCI") and BCE Inc. (TSX:BCE) ("BCE") on behalf
of BCI common shareholders and seeking $1 billion in damages
against BCI and BCE have been dismissed.  The Ontario Court of
Appeal upheld the lower court's decision dismissing the lawsuits
as failing to disclose a reasonable cause of action.

The Shaw action was originally filed in the Ontario Superior
Court of Justice (the "Court") on September 27, 2002, and sought
court approval to proceed by way of class action on behalf of
all persons who owned BCI common shares on December 3, 2001 in
connection with the issuance of BCI common shares on February
15, 2002 pursuant to BCI's Recapitalization Plan and the
implementation of BCI's Plan of Arrangement approved by the
Court on July 17, 2002. After Mr. Shaw's original action was
dismissed by the Court on May 9, 2003, Mr. Shaw filed an amended
statement of claim on June 27, 2003. On August 30, 2003, Mr.
Gillespie filed a lawsuit that was, except with respect to the
name of the plaintiff, substantially identical to Shaw's amended
statement of claim. These two actions were dismissed by the
Court on January 5, 2004 without leave to amend their claims.
Mr. Shaw and Mr. Gillespie appealed this decision to the Ontario
Court of Appeal, which today dismissed the appeal, upholding the
lower court's decision. Any further appeal by the plaintiffs to
the Supreme Court of Canada would require the permission of the
Supreme Court.

BCI is operating under a court supervised Plan of Arrangement,
pursuant to which BCI intends to monetize its assets in an
orderly fashion and resolve outstanding claims against it in an
expeditious manner with the ultimate objective of distributing
the net proceeds to its shareholders and dissolving the company.
BCI is listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol BI.


CLASSIC CONCEPTS: Recalls 960 Chenille Rugs Due To Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Classic Concepts of Los Angeles, and Williams Sonoma/Pottery
Barn of San Francisco, both of California is cooperating with
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 960 units of Pottery Barn Bailey
Chenille Rugs

The recalled rugs violate the federal Flammable Fabrics Act and
could ignite, presenting a risk of burn injuries.

Description: The recalled Pottery Barn Bailey Chenille Rugs are
"periwinkle blue" color only. Two models/sizes are recalled:
4479028 (8' x 10') and 4479036 (5' x 8'). These rugs are 65%
rayon and 35% cotton.

Manufactured in India the rugs were sold at Pottery Barn retail
stores nationwide, from November 11, 2002 to August 27, 2003,
for $199 to $399.

Consumers should stop using the rugs and contact Classic
Concepts to arrange for the rug to be picked up and shipped back
to Classic Concepts. Consumers will receive a full refund when
the recalled rugs are returned.

For more details, contact Classic Concepts (ask for Eden
Courtney) by Phone: (800) 254-1927, 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. (Mountain
Time) or visit the Pottery Barn Web site:
http://www.potterybarn.comor Meida Contact: Leigh Oshirak by
Phone: (415) 438-8106


CCC INFORMATION: Continues To Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Services, Inc. faces several putative class
actions and individual actions in which the plaintiffs allege
that their insurers, using valuation reports prepared by the
Company, offered them an inadequate amount for their total loss
vehicles.

One suit, styled "SUSANNA COOK v. DAIRYLAND INS. CO., SENTRY
INS., and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., No. 2000 L-1, is
pending in the Circuit Court of Johnson County, Illinois).  On
June 7, 2004, the Circuit Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed all of plaintiff's claims against
the Company.  The court also granted the summary judgment
motions of the Company's insurance company co-defendants.  The
plaintiff has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the
Court's ruling.

The company also faces two other suits, styled "MYERS v.
TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY CORP., THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY
COMPANY OF AMERICA, and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., No. 99 CH
2793" and "STEPHENS v. PROGRESSIVE CORP., PROGRESSIVE PREFERRED
INS. CO. and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES INC., No. 99 CH 15557."
On April 30, 2004, the Appellate Court of Illinois for the First
Judicial District issued an opinion in each of these cases
reversing, in part, the Circuit Court's prior rulings dismissing
plaintiffs' claims against CCC.  In particular, in each case,
the Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court's ruling that the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
does not apply to non-Illinois resident plaintiffs.  That issue
is currently before the Illinois Supreme Court in a separate
case to which CCC is not a party.  Both cases were remanded to
the Circuit Court of Cook County for further proceedings.


INVERNESS MEDICAL: Reaches Settlement, Sets September 27 Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached for the class action entitled
Sandra Wagner v. Inverness Medical Innovations, et. al., Case
No. 03-CV-404-J-20HES, pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The class action is brought on behalf of all persons in the
United States who have purchased an ovulation predictor kit
("OPK") manufactured, marketed, sold or distributed by Inverness
Medical Innovations, Inc. (AMEX: IMA), Inverness Medical, Inc.,
Unipath Diagnostics, Inc., Unipath Online, Inc. and Unipath Ltd.
("Defendants"), during the period from April 7, 1999 through May
10, 2004. The ovulation predictor kits covered by this
litigation include:

     (1) Clearblue Easy Ovulation Test Pack

     (2) Accu-Clear Early Ovulation Predictor Stick

     (3) Accu-Clear Early Ovulation Predictor Cassette

     (4) WALGREENS One Step Ovulation Predictor

     (5) TARGET One Step Ovulation Predictor

     (6) CVS One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

     (7) CVS One Step Ovulation Predictor Cassette

     (8) ALBERTSON'S One Step Ovulation Predictor Cassette

     (9) FAMILY PHARMACY One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (10) RITE AID One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (11) BRITE-LIFE One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (12) GOOD NEIGHBOR One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (13) TODAY'S One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (14) ECKERD One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (15) LONGS One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (16) EXCHANGE SELECT One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (17) BARTELL One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (18) AMERICAN FARE One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (19) BROOKS One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (20) DUANE READE One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (21) DUANE READE One Step Ovulation Predictor Cassette

    (22) SUNMARK One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (23) SAFEWAY One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (24) LEADER One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

    (25) PREMIER VALUE One Step Ovulation Predictor Stick

Plaintiff commenced this action against Defendants in April
2003. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants engaged in unlawful and
deceptive conduct in connection with their advertising, labeling
and marketing of their OPKs. Specifically, plaintiff alleges
that Defendants failed to properly label their OPKs and to warn
consumers of the substantial limitations of their OPKs which
render them useless for the large percentage of women who suffer
from Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome ("PCOS"), also called Stein-
Leventhal syndrome. According to plaintiff's complaint, PCOS is
the most common female hormonal disorder and the leading cause
of infertility among women. On October 23, 2003, the Court
denied Defendants' motion to dismiss the Complaint, and
thereafter, the parties commenced settlement negotiations.

If approved by the Court, the settlement requires that
Defendants adopt immediate and permanent changes to the product
packaging and product inserts for all of their OPK products
distributed in the United States and to make the same corrective
disclosures to their websites. Specifically, the settlement
provides that Defendants will place express warnings and
precautionary statements on the U.S. package label, package
inserts and public websites notifying consumers that PCOS may
adversely affect the reliability of Defendants' OPKs to predict
ovulation accurately. The package inserts and public websites
will also direct women with PCOS and other fertility problems to
ask their physicians if the product is suitable for them.

The parties have agreed that an award of reasonable attorneys'
fees, taxable costs, expenses and disbursements is warranted as
part of this settlement, but the parties have not yet agreed to
a definitive amount for such an award.

A hearing will be held on September 28, 2004 at 1:00 p.m.,
before the Honorable Harvey E. Schlesinger, United States
District Court Judge, at the United States District Courthouse
for the Middle District of Florida, 300 N. Hogan St.,
Jacksonville, Florida. The purpose of the hearing is to
determine whether the proposed settlement of the above class
action litigation should be approved by the Court as fair,
reasonable, and adequate, whether this litigation should be
dismissed with prejudice, and whether an incentive award to the
named plaintiff should be approved.

For more details, contact Ronald J. Aranoff of BERNSTEIN
LIEBHARD & LIFSHITZ, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th Street - 22nd
Floor, New York, NY 10016 or by Phone: (212) 779-1414 OR John A.
Boudet of GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. by Mail: 450 South Orange
Ave., Ste. 650, Orlando, FL 32803 by Phone: (407) 420-1000 by
Fax: (407) 420-5909 or visit their Web site:
http://www.gtlaw.com/


JM SMUCKER: AZ Consumers File Suit Over Simply 100% Fruit Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.M. Smucker Co. faces a consumer class action filed in Maricopa
County Superior Court in Arizona, over its "Simply 100% Fruit"
label placed on its fruit spreads, the Arizona Daily Sun
reports.

Valley residents Jennifer and Armando Pisano filed the suit on
behalf of everyone who brought the product in Arizona, alleging
that the label was deceptive.  The suit asserts that what the
Company markets under the "Simply 100% Fruit" label as
strawberry spreadable fruit is only 30 percent actual
strawberries.  Another 69 percent is fruit syrup, which is made
not from strawberries but from other ingredients including apple
and pineapple juice.  What is labeled as blueberry spread has
only 43 percent actual blueberries.

The suit charged the Company with violating Arizona's consumer
fraud laws that makes it illegal to use false pretenses,
misrepresentation, concealment, suppression or omission of any
material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of
any merchandise.

The Company refused to comment on the lawsuit, but Mary Beth
Badertscher, Smucker's manager of corporate communications, told
the Daily Sun she believes consumers are not being misled.  She
said the labels disclose what is in the jars.

For example, the strawberry product contains, in descending
order, fruit syrup, strawberries, lemon juice concentrate, fruit
pectin, red grape juice concentrate added for color, and natural
flavors.  "It clearly indicates on the label what is in there,"
she told the Sun.

However, the suit alleges that consumers are still being misled.
According to legal papers in the suit, federal law spells out
that a product must have at least 47 percent actual fruit to be
labeled as "preserves."  This product, the lawsuit says, is
being marked as a premium product despite its lower fruit
content.

Mr. Hoffman's proof is the fact that Smucker's jams and
preserves sell in the range of 18 to 19 cents per ounce. By
contrast, his pleadings say, the Pisanos and others were paying
between 24 and 25 cents an ounce for each 10-ounce jar of the
spreadable fruit.

"Smucker knew and intended that the product name 'Simply 100%
Fruit' would create an impression in plaintiffs and the putative
class that said product contained more (100%) real fruit unlike
its other jams and jellies and preserves," the lawsuit states,
with the company knowing that consumers would pay more as a
result.

The Company faces similar suits in various states, after the
Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) called on the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration last year to cite the company
for false labeling.

The Pisanos could not be reached for comment. Their attorney,
Stephen Hoffman, did not return repeated calls to his office,
the Daily Sun reports.

Ms. Badertscher told the Sun she is not worried.  "We're very
confident that we're communicating the nature of the product to
our consumer in a fair and honest manner," she said.


MICHIGAN: 1,486 MI Consumers To Receive Checks in Buspar Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nearly $900,000 will be refunded to the 1,486 Michigan consumers
who submitted timely and valid claims for purchases of Busparr
or its generic form buspirone HCL as a result of a nationwide
settlement with Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Michigan Attorney
General Mike Cox announced in a statement.

"Michigan consumers should not pay artificially high prices for
prescription drugs, especially when the market allows for less
expensive generic brands," AG Cox said.  "This settlement gives
Busparr and generic buspirone HCL consumers the relief they
deserve and reimburses them for their overly high prescription
costs."

A letter from Attorney General Cox explaining the payments will
accompany the settlement checks, which are being mailed out by
Rust Consulting, the Busparr Antitrust Litigation Administrator.
The settlement was reached in an antitrust case filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Michigan joined the other 49 states, the District of Columbia
and U.S. territories in this lawsuit.  Claims were made on
behalf of the states and for consumers who paid for Busparr and
its generic equivalent buspirone HCL.  The lawsuit asserted that
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company engaged in fraudulent conduct and
conspired with a potential competitor to prevent the entry of
generic competitors and to illegally maintain its monopoly in
the United States over the sale of the drug.  Bristol-Myers
Squibb Company denied any wrongdoing or liability.

In November 2003, the federal court approved a settlement
negotiated by the Attorneys General on behalf of the states and
consumers in all the states and territories.  As a result of the
settlement, individuals who paid all or part of the cost
associated with taking the drug Busparr or its generic
equivalent buspirone HCL during the period of January 1, 1998
through January 31, 2003, and who submitted valid claims during
the court-established claims period ending December 5, 2003,
will receive reimbursement.  While consumers will receive
different amounts of reimbursement based on what their out of
pocket payments were for Busparr or its generic, checks will
average $646.97.  Nationally, consumers will recover more than
$37 million because of this settlement.  Michigan's 1,486
consumers who submitted timely and valid claims will receive a
combined total of $894,274.25.


RAYMOND SAITA: SEC Brings Settled Enforcement Action V. Ex-CPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Public Administrative and Cease-and-Desist
Proceedings Pursuant to Sections 8A of the Securities Act of
1933, Section 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and
Rule 102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making
Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions, and a Cease-and-
Desist Order charges against Raymond A. Saitta (Saitta), a
certified public accountant   licensed in Colorado. The
Commission found that Saitta, as the partner in charge of
auditing the financial statements of Sport-Haley, Inc. for 1998,
1999, and 2000 fiscal years, caused Sport-Haley to file
materially false and misleading quarterly and annual reports
with the Commission that materially misrepresented the company's
income, WIP inventory, period costs, and discontinued headwear
operations. The Commission found that Saitta knew or was
reckless in not knowing that certain financial accounting and
reporting practices were improper and assisted in carrying out
those practices. The Commission also found that Saitta, through
his accounting firm, issued audit reports containing unqualified
opinions on Sport-Haley's financial statements even though he
knew or was reckless in not knowing the company's 1998 and 1999
financial statements were materially misstated. The Commission
also found that, after Saitta learned of the investigation of
Sport-Haley and had received requests from the Commission for
documents relating to the audit of Sport-Haley's financial
statements, he added information to the audit workpapers and
improperly altered some of the original audit workpapers.

Without admitting or denying the findings in the Commission's
order, Saitta consented to the issuance of an order requiring
that he cease and desist from committing or causing any
violations 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; and from causing any violations and any
future violations of Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act, and
Rules 12b-20, 15d-1, and 15d-13 thereunder. The order denies
Saitta the privilege of appearing or practicing before the
Commission as an accountant based on a finding that he willfully
violated and willfully aided and abetted and caused the
violation of Federal securities laws within the meaning of Rule
102(e)(1)(iii) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. Saitta may
request that the Commission consider his reinstatement after
five years.


REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Reynolds and Reynolds Company REY faces a shareholder
shareholder class action filed by the law firm of Schiffrin &
Barroway, LLP in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of its
securities from January 22, 2003 through June 24, 2004
inclusive.  The complaint charges the Company, Lloyd G.
Waterhouse, and Dale L. Medford with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

"We have seen the press release by a plaintiff's law firm
seeking additional plaintiffs to join their lawsuit against
Reynolds and Reynolds. We have not seen the complaint. However,
to the extent the complaint allegations parallel those of the
press release, we deny that they have any merit and we will
defend against the suit vigorously," said Paul S. Guthrie, vice
president, Communications, in a statement.


SHEETZ GAS: FDA Investigates Tomatoes As Source of Food Illness
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), working closely with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and several
state health and agricultural agencies, is focusing on certain
pre-sliced tomatoes as the likely source of Salmonellosis in
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia.

Since July 2, 2004, 289 cases of Salmonella have been reported
in these states. Many appear to be related to pre-sliced Roma
tomatoes purchased at deli counters in Sheetz Gas Stations
between July 2nd through July 9th based on epidemiological
investigation of the Salmonella cases.

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

FDA continues its close collaboration with the CDC, the
Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the Pennsylvania
Department of Health, and other authorities to identify the
source of the current outbreak of Salmonella and help prevent
any further spread of these outbreaks.

Individuals who believe they may have experienced the same
symptoms of illness after consuming sandwiches from this company
are urged to contact their local health department.


WARREN WARE: Settles SEC Civil Action, Barred From Association
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced the issuance of
an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to
Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, Making
Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Warren
L. Ware (Ware). The Order finds that from 2000 through Jan. 27,
2004, Ware, acting as an unregistered investment adviser,
fraudulently raised at least $16.5 million from over 600
investors in nationwide Ponzi scheme.

The Commission sued Ware and his company in an action entitled
Securities and Exchange Commission v. W.L. Ware Enterprises and
Investments, Inc., d/b/a Ware Enterprises and Investments, Inc.,
Ware Enterprises and Investments, LLC, and W.L. Ware Enterprises
and Investments, LLC, and Warren L. Ware, Case No. 6:04-CV-112-
ORL-18-JGG, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida. The Commission's suit alleged that Ware operated a
ponzi scheme called the Dreamkeeper Program. The Commission's
complaint also alleged Ware and his employees misled investors
into believing Ware was investing their funds in profitable
investments, while Ware really was sending investors false
statements and paying fraudulent interest payments that were
portions of other investors' funds. The complaint additionally
alleged Ware and his employees sold unregistered securities and
advised individuals to invest in the Dreamkeeper Program. On May
16, the District Court entered a judgment by consent against
Ware, permanently enjoining him from violations of Sections
5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940.

Based on the above, the Order bars Ware from association with
any investment adviser. Ware consented to the issuance of the
Order without admitting or denying any of the allegations in the
civil injunctive action.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Wechsler Harwood Launches ERISA Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
The firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP commenced an investigation
against Washington Mutual, Inc. ("WAMU" or the "Company")
(NYSE:WM) for violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in relation to its handling of
investments in the Company's employee retirement benefit plan
(the "Plan").

In particular, the investigation focuses on whether the Company
and certain Plan administrators breached their fiduciary duties
by:

     (1) negligently misrepresenting and negligently failing to
         disclose material facts to the Plan and the Plan
         participants in connection with the management of the
         Plan's assets and

     (2) negligently permitting the Plan to purchase and hold
         WAMU stock when it was imprudent to do so.

The material facts being investigated include, but are not
limited to allegations that, since April 15, 2003, WAMU
purportedly had issued false and misleading information
concerning its ability to hedge against a rise in interest
rates. On June 29, 2004, WAMU stunned the market with its
announcement that earnings for 2004 would be substantially less
as a result of rising interest rates and the resultant effect on
the Company's mortgage business. Shares of WAMU stock declined
precipitously in the wake of this disclosure, losing nearly $5
billion in market capitalization, or nearly 12% in value.

Subsequently, a number of class actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
against the Company and certain of its officers and directors
alleging violations Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

For more details, contact Peter W. Overs, Jr., Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400, Ext. 260 or by E-mail:
povers@whesq.com


WORLDCOM: Federal Judge Approves SEC Penalty Distribution Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 19, U.S. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued an order
approving the SEC's proposed plan for distributing to defrauded
investors the penalty paid by WorldCom (now known as MCI) in the
SEC's civil action against the company. The SEC obtained the
civil penalty judgment pursuant to a settlement with WorldCom
that was approved by Judge Rakoffon July 7, 2003. (Litigation
Release No. 18219). WorldCom satisfied the penalty judgment in
May 2004 by transferring $500 million in cash and 10 million
shares of new MCI common stock to accounts set up pursuant to
court order. The assets in these accounts will be distributed to
investor victims of the company's fraud pursuant to the plan
approved by the court and Section 308 (Fair Funds for Investors)
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

As previously announced, Richard C. Breeden the court-appointed
Distribution Agent and a former SEC Chairman, will supervise the
distribution of the civil penalty, and J. Carter Beese, Jr., a
former SEC Commissioner, will oversee the stock portion of the
distribution fund.

The distribution plan and other information regarding the
WorldCom matter are available on the Commission's website at
www.sec.gov/spotlight.shtml.

Information about filing a claim under the distribution plan
will be posted at a later date on the SEC's website at
www.sec.gov as well as on MCI's website at www.MCI.com. The
action is titled, SEC v. WorldCom, Inc., Civil Action No. 02-CV-
4963.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


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. 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
defendants 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


CARDINAL HEALTH: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio against Cardinal Health, Inc.
("Cardinal" or the "Company") (NYSE:CAH) and certain of its
senior officers on behalf of purchasers of Cardinal securities
between October 24, 2000 and June 30, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP is continuing its
investigation into Cardinal's misconduct.

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

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

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

     (3) the Company improperly accounted for $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) the Company's pharmaceutical distribution business
         falsely classified certain revenues as either operating
         revenue or revenues from bulk deliveries to consumer
         warehouses;

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

     (6) the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

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

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

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. or Lionel Z.
Glancy, Esq. 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 or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.glancylaw.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Strauss & Troy Files Securities Suit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Strauss & Troy initiated a class action lawsuit
in United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio, Eastern Division on behalf of all persons who purchased or
acquired the securities of Cardinal Health Inc. ("Cardinal" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CAH) between October 24, 2000 and June 30,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period") and who suffered damages
thereby. The action, case number 04-CV-598, is titled David Kim
vs. Cardinal Health Inc., et al.

The Complaint alleges that Cardinal, Robert D. Walter and
Richard J. Miller violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by the Company's failure to disclose and the misrepresentation
of adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them, these include:

     (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 of revenues from
         bulk deliveries 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 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. The Company also
disclosed that as part of the Securities and Exchange
Commission's formal investigation it received an SEC subpoena
and that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York has commenced an inquiry that the company understands
relates to this same subject. News of this shocked the market,
shares of Cardinal fell $17.19 per share or 24.54 percent on
July 1, 2004 to close at $52.86 per share.

For more details, contact Richard S. Wayne, Esq., or Joseph J.
Braun, Esq. of Strauss & Troy by Mail: 150 East Fourth Street,
Cincinnati, OH 45202 by Phone: 800-669-9341 or (513) 621-2120 or
by E-mail: rswayne@strauss-troy.com


COMMERCE BANCORP: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP initiated a
securities fraud class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Commerce
Bancorp, Inc. ("Commerce Bancorp" or the "Company") (NYSE: CBH)
on the open market during the period from June 1, 2002 to June
28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint, entitled Goldgrab v. Commerce Bancorp, et al.,
was filed in the United States District Court for the District
of New Jersey, and names as defendants, in addition to Commerce
Bancorp, Vernon W. Hill, II, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board; Ronald A. White, who was a
director of Commerce Bank of Pennsylvania ("Commerce PA") from
June 2002 until October 2003; Douglas J. Pauls, Chief Financial
Officer of Commerce Bancorp throughout the Class Period; Glenn
K. Holck, President of Commerce PA during the Class Period; and
Stephen M. Umbrell, a regional Vice President of Commerce PA
during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading representations and omissions in
Company press releases and public filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission. The complaint provides details about a
federal investigation that led to a criminal indictment that was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against a number of individuals, including
defendants White, Holck and Umbrell. The complaint further
alleges that Commerce Bancorp and certain of its officers and
directors engaged in improper activities, including bid-rigging,
in order to win underwriting awards and gain government
deposits, particularly from the City of Philadelphia, and that
Commerce Bancorp made numerous improper political campaign
contributions. The complaint alleges that information about
these activities, including the federal investigation, grand
jury proceedings and improper attempts to influence public
officials, was not disclosed to investors during the Class
Period despite the alleged knowledge of the Company's senior
executives, including defendant Hill.

When the truth finally began to be publicly revealed on or about
June 29, 2004, Commerce Bancorp's stock decreased from a closing
price of $64.46 per share on June 28, 2004 to a closing price of
$55.01 per share on June 30, 2004.

For more details, contact Jeffrey S. Abraham, Esq. or Lawrence
D. Levit, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by Mail: One
Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, New York 10119 by Phone:
(212) 714-2444 or (800) 938-0015 by Fax: (212) 279-3655 or by E-
mail: Jabraham@abrahamlaw.com or Larryl@abrahamlaw.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Goodkind Labaton Launches Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. (NASDAQ: COCO) between August 27, 2003 and June
23, 2004, inclusive.  The lawsuit was filed against Corinthian
and Anthony Digiovanni, David Moore and Dennis Beal.

The complaint alleges the Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
Defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them.

According to the complaint the Defendants manipulated financial
aid documents to boost loan amounts available to students,
thereby fraudulently receiving additional funds from the federal
government. The Complaint also alleges that the Defendants used
the fraudulently obtained funds to boost its revenues and stock
price.  Moreover, the Complaint alleges that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls.  As result of the illegal practices,
the Company's earning and net income were materially inflated
and in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP").

On June 24, 2004, Corinthian announced that a division of the US
Department of Education ("USDE") had uncovered violations in
obtaining federal loans at Corinthian's Bryman College campus,
in San Jose, California. Consequently, USDE revoked the school's
ability to receive advance payments on its student loans. News
of this shocked the market. On this news, shares of Corinthian
fell $2.55 or 10.18%, to close at $22.51.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 or visit the firm's Website: http://www.glrslaw.com


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Corinthian
Colleges, Inc. ("Corinthian") (NASDAQ:COCO) publicly traded
securities during the period between August 27, 2003 and June
23, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Corinthian and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Corinthian is a for-profit, post-secondary education
company. As of September 30, 2003, it operated 81 schools and
colleges and two training centers in the United States, as well
as 45 colleges and 15 training centers in seven Canadian
provinces. Its schools grant either degrees or diplomas and
offer a curriculum with an emphasis on allied health, business,
technology and criminal justice.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Corinthian
violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and
SEC rules by failing to properly report and disclose the illegal
nature of its revenue during the Class Period. These financial
statements and the statements about them were false and
misleading, as such financial information was not prepared in
conformity with GAAP, nor was the financial information a fair
presentation of the Company's operations due to the Company's
improper accounting for and disclosure about its revenues, in
violation of GAAP and SEC rules. Corinthian manipulated
financial statements by allowing the Company to generate fees
which it was not entitled to, which revenues may be forfeited
(via fines, judgments and costs associated therewith) and which
artificially inflated Corinthian's revenue, income and
receivables.

On June 24, 2004, Corinthian announced that the U.S. Department
of Education uncovered violations in how Corinthian's Bryman
College Campus in San Jose, California administers federal
student aid programs. The U.S. Department of Education revoked
the school's ability to receive advances on federal aid funds.

Following this news, Corinthian stock ended down $2.55, or more
than 10 percent, at $22.51 in active afternoon trading on the
Nasdaq.

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


DAIMLERCHRYSLER AG: Scott + Scott Appears in DE Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC entered its appearance on
July 14, 2004 in a case against DaimlerChrysler AG. This
securities fraud action is on behalf of all persons or entities
who are NOT citizens or residents of the United States and who
purchased or acquired securities of Daimler Chrysler AG between
November 17, 1998 and November 17, 2000. These securities must
have been purchased or acquired on any securities exchange NOT
based in the United States.

In 2000, a separate securities class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of foreign and domestic investors against DaimlerChrysler
(the "2000 lawsuit") pertaining to the same allegations at issue
in this action. DaimlerChrysler AG recently settled the 2000
lawsuit for $300 million. Foreign investors were excluded from
the class settlement, and therefore will not receive any of the
$300 million recovered. Scott + Scott is litigating to obtain a
monetary award on behalf of these foreign investors.

Scott + Scott, LLC entered its appearance in a class action
lawsuit that was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware against defendants DaimlerChrysler AG,
Daimler-Benz AG and various of DaimlerChrylser's top executives
for securities fraud in violation of the federal securities laws
on May 24, 2004. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of non-United
States citizens and non-United States residents ("foreign
investors") who owned shares of Chrysler that were converted to
DaimlerChrysler AG shares during the 1998 merger of the
companies and such persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of DaimlerChrysler AG, Inc. ("DaimlerChrysler" or the
"Company")(NYSE: DCX) during the period from on or about
November 17, 1998 through November 17, 2000, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), and were damaged thereby.

The lawsuit charges that Defendants misrepresented the nature of
the 1998 merger between Daimler-Benz AG and the Chrysler
Corporation. According to plaintiffs, defendants framed the
transaction as a "merger of equals", rather than an acquisition,
in order to avoid paying an "acquisition premium". Plaintiffs'
Complaint alleges that Defendants made this representation to
Chrysler shareholders in the Registration Statement, Prospectus,
and Proxy, leading 97% of Chrysler shareholders to approve the
merger. The Complaint further alleges that the Defendants made
various misrepresentations after the merger to further their
scheme.

For more details, contact attorney Neil Rothstein of Scott +
Scott, LLC by Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by
Phone: 1/619-251-0887 or 1/800-404-7770 (EDT) or 1/800-332-2259
(PDT) or 1/619-233-4565 (California) or 860/537-3818 by Fax:
860/537-4432 or 619/296-9770 or by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or nrothstein@aol.com


DRUGSTORE.COM: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in W.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
commenced a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
drugstore.com, Inc. ("drugstore.com" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
DSCM) between January 14, 2004 and June 10, 2004, inclusive,
(the "Class Period") against defendants drugstore.com and
certain officers of the Company.

The case name is Zebari v. drugstore.com, 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 further alleges that defendants knew, but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period the
following facts:

     (1) drugstore.com's gross margins were being negatively
         impacted due to its implementation of a free 3-day
         shipping promotion;

     (2) the integration of Vision Direct was eroding the
         Company's margins;

     (3) the Company's sales growth was being negatively
         impacted by cancellations resulting from expired
         prescriptions;

     (4) drugstore.com was not on track to "break even," but
         rather to incur massive losses; and

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

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Christopher
S. Hinton, Esq., George Peters, 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/drugstore.htm


KVH INDUSTRIES: Lerach Coughlin Launches Securities Suit in RI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins 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.
(NASDAQ: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 (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, visit the firm's Website: http://www.lcsr.com


KVH INDUSTRIES: Brian Felgoise Lodges 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. (NasdaqNM:KVHI) securities between January
6, 2004 and July 2, 2004, inclusive.  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 Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire by Mail:
261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046,
by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net


KVH INDUSTRIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of purchasers
of KVH Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq: 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 (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 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: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of KVH
Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq: KVHI) ("KVH") between January 6, 2004
and July 2, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included
are all those who purchased KVH's shares in the offering on or
about February 13, 2004.

The Complaint alleges that KVH and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false statements concerning KVH's
financial condition and the demand for its newly developed
TracVision A5 and G8 satellite TV systems "TracVision systems".
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose:

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

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

     (3) 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.

It is alleged that defendants concealed 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 KVH announced 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.

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


MUTUAL BENEFITS: Scott + Scott Files Investor Lawsuit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased
viatical or life settlement contracts or otherwise invested
through Mutual Benefits Corporation ("MBC" or the "Company")
including those investing in MBC through Viatical Benefactors,
LLC ("VBLLC") during the period from late 1994 through the
present ("Class Period").

The complaint alleges that since late 1994, MBC has operated as
a viatical and life settlement provider, raising money from
investors to purchase viatical and life settlement contracts. A
viatical or life settlement contract involves the sale of a life
insurance policy by a terminally ill person or senior citizen
(known within the industry as a "viator") at a price discounted
from the face value of the policy. Investors pay the premiums,
and receive the face value of the life insurance policy when the
insured, or viator, dies. In turn, the viator receives a portion
of the proceeds of his life insurance policy in a lump sum. On
information and belief MBC has allocated investor funds to
approximately 9,559 life insurance policies with an aggregate
anticipated death benefit of approximately $1.7 billion. MBC
promised investors guaranteed fixed rates of return ranging from
12% to 72%, depending upon the term of investment chosen by the
investor. The life expectancy of the viator, as determined by
MBC, in turn, determines the total rate of return.

The complaint charges defendants MBC, Viatical Benefactors, LLC
("VBLLC"), Viatical Services, Inc. ("VSI"), Kensington
Management, Inc. ("Kensington"), Rainy Consulting Corp.
("Rainy"), Twin Groves Investments, Inc. ("Twin Groves"), P.J.L.
Consulting, Inc. ("P.J.L."), SKS Consulting, Inc. ("SKS"),
Camden Consulting, Inc. ("Camden"), Joel Steinger a/k/a Joel
Steiner ("J. Steinger"), Leslie Steinger a/k/a Leslie Steiner
("L. Steinger"), Peter Lombardi ("Lombardi"), Steven Steinger
("S. Steinger"), Henry Fecker, III ("Fecker"), Clark C. Mitchell
("Mitchell"), Edgard Escobar ("Escobar"), Anthony LaMarca
("LaMarca"), A.M. Livoti, Jr., P.a. and A.M. Livoti, Jr.
(collectively "Livoti"), Citibank, N.A. ("Citibank, N.A."),
Union Planters, N.A. ("Union Planters"); RBC Centura Bank
("RBC"), and First Southern Bank ("First Southern") with
violations of Sections 12(a)(1), 12(a)(2), and 22(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 ("Securities Act"), and Sections 10(b)
and 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that since 1994, defendants
have operated or aided and abetted a billion dollar Ponzi scheme
and defrauded at least 29,000 investors -- many of whom are
retirees -- by issuing a series of material and misleading
omissions and false statements, breaching escrow agreements and
breaching their fiduciary trust to investors. The complaint
alleges that defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts which were then known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that new investor funds were diverted to cover
         shortfalls on the funds escrowed to cover life
         insurance premiums on policies assigned to earlier
         investors;

     (2) that there were gross inaccuracies in the calculated
         life expectancies of viators;

     (3) that insurance premium escrow accounts were commingled
         and deficient;

     (4) the Steingers' civil disciplinary backgrounds as well
         as $26-plus million in "consulting fees" paid to the
         Steingers or to entities that the Steingers controlled
         were not disclosed to investors; and

     (5) that MBC does not require that its sales agents be
         licensed, and that several of MBC's sales agents have
         been the subjects of state cease-and-desist orders in
         connection with the MBC offering.

On May 5, 2004, the United States Securities & Exchange
Commission ("SEC") and federal marshals raided MBC's south
Florida offices, seized the company's records and shut down
MBC's operations.

The complaint also alleges that since late 1994, MBC has
operated as a viatical and life settlement provider, raising
money from investors to purchase viatical and life settlement
contracts. A viatical or life settlement contract involves the
sale of a life insurance policy by a terminally ill person or
senior citizen (known within the industry as a "viator") at a
price discounted from the face value of the policy. Investors
pay the premiums, and receive the face value of the life
insurance policy when the insured, or viator, dies. In turn, the
viator receives a portion of the proceeds of his life insurance
policy in a lump sum. On information and belief MBC has
allocated investor funds to approximately 9,559 life insurance
policies with an aggregate anticipated death benefit of
approximately $1.7 billion. MBC promised investors guaranteed
fixed rates of return ranging from 12% to 72%, depending upon
the term of investment chosen by the investor. The life
expectancy of the viator, as determined by MBC, in turn,
determines the total rate of return.

For more details, contact attorney Neil Rothstein of Scott +
Scott, LLC by Mail: 108 Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by
Phone: 1/619-251-0887 or 1/800-404-7770 (EDT) or 1/800-332-2259
(PDT) or 1/619-233-4565 (California) or 860/537-3818 by Fax:
860/537-4432 or 619/296-9770 or by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or nrothstein@aol.com


NETFLIX INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Netflix,
Inc. (Nasdaq:NFLX) between October 1, 2003 and July 15, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


RED HAT: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed a securities
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. (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: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat" or the
"Company")(Nasdaq:RHAT) between June 19, 2001 and July 13, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Red Hat and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Red Hat's financial performance
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting
damages on investors. Red Hat provides open-source-based IT
infrastructure and systems management services for large
enterprises. Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented material adverse facts which
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded, including:

     (1) that the Company inappropriately recognized revenues
         from subscriptions;

     (2) that, as a result, the Company manipulated its
         quarterly earnings, as its net income and operating
         income were at all relevant times materially
         overstated;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

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

     (5) that the Company's financial results were materially
         and artificially inflated at all relevant times.

On July 13, 2004, Red Hat announced it had corrected its revenue
recognition practices for certain subscription agreements and,
consequently, would restate its audited financial statements for
the fiscal years ended February 2002, 2003 and 2004, and its
unaudited financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended May
31, 2004. This news shocked the market. Shares of Red Hat fell
22.70 percent.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. or Lionel Z.
Glancy, Esq. 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


RED HAT: Abbey Gardy Initiates Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a securities class action filed 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. (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., Matthew J. Szulik, Kevin B. Thompson, Timothy J.
Buckley, Paul J. Cormier and Mark H. Webbink.

The Complaint alleges that 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 that they would be
restating financial results for 2002, 2003 and the first quarter
of 2004 as a result of the change in the way they recognized
revenue from subscriptions, noting that they would now be
recognizing revenue from subscriptions on a daily basis rather
than on a monthly basis. 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.


RED HAT: Glancy Binkow Launches Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on behalf of a class consisting of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
Red Hat, Inc. (NasdaqNM:RHAT) between June 19, 2001 and July 13,
2004, inclusive.

The Complaint charges Red Hat and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Red Hat's financial performance
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting
damages on investors.  Red Hat provides open-source-based IT
infrastructure and systems management services for large
enterprises.

Plaintiff alleges the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented material adverse facts which defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded, including:

     (1) that the Company inappropriately recognized revenues
         from subscriptions;

     (2) that, as a result, the Company manipulated its
         quarterly earnings, as its net income and operating
         income were at all relevant times materially
         overstated;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

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

     (5) that the Company's financial results were materially
         and artificially inflated at all relevant times.

On July 13, 2004, Red Hat announced it had corrected its revenue
recognition practices for certain subscription agreements and,
consequently, would restate its audited financial statements for
the fiscal years ended February 2002, 2003 and 2004, and its
unaudited financial statements for the fiscal quarter ended May
31, 2004. This news shocked the market. Shares of Red Hat fell
22.70 percent.

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


REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. launched 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 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 Brian M. Felgoise, Esquire by Mail:
261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046,
by e-mail by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail:
securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of all persons who purchased
the publicly traded securities of Reynolds & Reynolds Company
(NYSE: REY) ("Reynolds") between January 22, 2003 and June 24,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are all
those who acquired Reynolds' shares through its acquisitions of
Third Coast Media, MSN Autos', and Incadea.

The Complaint alleges that Reynolds, a provider of integrated
software solutions to automotive retailers, and certain of its
officers and directors issued materially false statements
concerning Reynolds' business condition. Specifically, Reynolds
failed to disclose:

     (1) that market demand for Reynolds' cutting edge products,
         such as Reynolds Generation Series, was lackluster;

     (2) that as a consequence of lackluster demand, the
         Company's strategy for growth was seriously flawed as
         Reynolds 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) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         Reynolds and its earnings projections.

On June 24, 2004, Reynolds announced that 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. Shares of Reynolds fell $7.28 per share or
23.81%, on June 25, 2004, to close at $23.30 per share. On July
7, 2004, Reynolds announced that its CEO, Chairman and President
had resigned from the Company and its board of directors,
effective immediately. On this news, shares of Reynolds fell
another $.83 per share or 3.63% to close at $22.12 per share.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their
website: http://www.snlaw.net


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

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 that 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. 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.


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


SHAW GROUP: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana seeking damages for violations of
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
Shaw common stock from October 19, 2000, through and including
June 10, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

The complaint names as defendants: Shaw; J.M. Bernhard Jr., who
is the Company's chairman and chief executive officer; Tim
Barfield, Jr., who has been the Company's president, chief
operating officer, and director since 2003; and Robert L. Belk,
who is Shaw's chief financial officer and executive vice
president.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Shaw issued
materially false and misleading information about its financial
performance to the investing public. Specifically, the lawsuit
alleges that Shaw established excessive or "general" contract
reserves in conjunction with two acquisitions and then tapped
those "cookie jar" reserves to artificially boost its earnings
when needed. Defendants also prematurely recognized revenue in
connection with its long-term construction contracts, violating
its own reported revenue recognition policy. These actions
violated Generally Accepted Accounting Practices and resulted in
significantly overstated revenues and net income throughout the
Class Period, which in turn inflated Shaw's stock price.

The Company took advantage of the artificially inflated stock
price by offering $479 million in shares of Shaw common stock to
the public, as well as millions of dollars of debt securities.
Company insiders also took advantage of the inflated price by
selling approximately 1.94 million shares of Shaw common stock
during the Class Period, for proceeds of roughly $80 million.

After the close of trading on June 10, 2004, the Company shocked
the investing public by announcing that Shaw was the subject of
an informal investigation by the SEC into the Company's method
of accounting for acquisitions.

For more details, contact Joseph C. Merschman, Esq. of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo by Mail: One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/Securities/Signup1.asp?caseid=517


SHAW GROUP: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana against The Shaw Group,
Inc. ("Shaw" or the "Company"), Tim Barfield Jr., J.M. Bernhard,
Jr., Richard F. Gill and Robert Belk, on behalf of purchasers of
Shaw common stock (NYSE: SGR) between October 19, 2000 and June
10, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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 alleges that during the
Class Period, the Defendants issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market about the Company's financial
outlook and results of operations. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Defendants artificially inflated the
Company's reported revenues and earnings by improperly
establishing and drawing on reserve accounts that were created
in connection with a series of large acquisitions, including the
acquisition of Stone & Webster Inc. and The IT Group. The
Complaint further alleges that Defendants prematurely recognized
revenue in violation of Shaw's own purported policies and
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that Defendants
failed to disclose the extent to which Shaw was vulnerable to
changes in power generation market conditions.

After the market closed on June 10, 2004, Shaw issued a news
release and announced that on June 1, 2004, the Company had been
notified that the SEC was conducting an informal inquiry and,
with respect to the scope of the investigation, stated as
follows:

The SEC has not advised the Company as to either the reason for
the inquiry or its scope. However, the request for information
appears to primarily relate to the purchase method of accounting
for acquisitions, as presented in Shaw's Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended August 31, 2003.

On this news, Shaw's shares, which had closed at $12.28 on June
10, 2004, dropped to close at $10.05 on the next day of trading,
on heavy volume.

For more details, contact Nichole B. Adams, Esq. of Chitwood &
Harley, LLP by Phone: 1-888-873-3999, ext. 4873 by E-mail:
nba@classlaw.com or visit http://www.classlaw.com


SHAW GROUP: Braun Law Group Files Securities Lawsuit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Braun Law Group filed a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of The Shaw Group, Inc.'s
securities between October 19, 2000 and June 10, 2004,
inclusive.

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 that 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. by Phone: (310) 442-7755 or (888) 658-7100 or by E-
mail: info@braunlawgroup.com.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files 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. (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; and

     (3) 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: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer 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; and

     (3) 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 Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton by
Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892
or by E-mail: info@murrayfrank.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Brian Felgoise Lodges 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 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 Brian M. Felgoise by Mail: 261 Old
York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046, by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Washington
Mutual, Inc. (NYSE: WM) ("Washington") between April 15, 2003
and June 28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included
are present and former employees who purchased stock through
Washington's Retirement Savings Plans and all those who
purchased Washington's shares in the offering on or around March
17, 2004.

The Complaint alleges that Washington, a retailer of financial
services, and certain of its officers and directors issued
materially false 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, 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.

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


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of White
Electronic Designs Corporation (Nasdaq: WEDC) between January
23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona against defendant White Electronic and one
or more of its officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a
class action has in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of White Electronic
Designs Corporation ("White Electronic") (NASDAQ:WEDC)
securities during the period between January 23, 2003 and June
9, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges White Electronic and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. White Electronic provides semiconductor
products for the wired and wireless communication industry. The
Company's products include high-density memory products and
multi-chip modules for data communications providers. White
Electronic also designs and manufactures flat panel displays for
commercial and military aircrafts and ordnance delivery systems.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
White Electronic's increasing revenues and long-term growth
prospects. In truth and in fact, however, defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that White Electronic's increasing
revenues and earnings could not be sustained and that orders for
sales of the Company's microelectronic products for use in
military weapons and procurement programs had been declining
since at least the second quarter of fiscal 2003. Defendants
failed to disclose that the declines marked a long-term change
in priorities by the U.S. military following the build-up of
orders prior to the armed conflict in Iraq.

On June 9, 2004, White Electronic issued a press release
announcing its forecast for the third quarter of fiscal 2004,
the period ending July 3, 2004. The Company announced that it
expected net sales to be between $24-$25 million, far short of
analysts' consensus estimates of approximately $30 million in
net sales for the third quarter 2004.

Following this news, the Company's stock plummeted 83 cents or
13.9% to $5.16 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


                            *********


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 Seorin, 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  * * *