CAR_Public/040730.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, July 30, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 150

                          Headlines

A.E. STALEY: Inks $100M Settlement For Corn Syrup Antitrust Suit
ACE INSURANCE: Reaches $14 Million Settlement With Policyholders
ANTHONY ALLEN: 32 Indictments Returned V. Businessman Over Fraud
BANK OF AMERICA: CA Court Allows Consumer Suit Over Paycheck Fee
BAYSTATE MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Billing of Uninsured Patients

BON-MACY'S: WA Consumers Sue Over Unauthorized Credit Card Fees
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: SEC Commences Cease-And-Desist Order
CUMBERLAND CASUALTY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. AL
EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Faces Suit Over Erroneous Teachers' Exams
FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Reaches $89.9M Investor Suit Settlement

FLORIDA: Colonnade Personnel Arrested, Charged With Neglect
IOWA: Des Moines City Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal "Franchise Fee"
J.P. MORGAN: Bruckner Burch Lodges Overtime Wage Lawsuit in TX
JC MANAGEMENT: SEC Initiates, Settles Administrative Proceedings
KANSAS: Reno County Jail Faces Illegal Arrest, Detention Lawsuit

LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: TN Court Approves ADA Lawsuit Settlement
METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL: Founder Pleads Not Guilty To Charges
POZEN INC.: NC Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For August
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Reaches $65M ERISA Lawsuit Settlement in CA
QWEST WIRELESS: SEC Files Fraud Suit V. CFO Michael Felicissimo

SHAW GROUP: Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For August
STANDARD & POOR'S: SEC Files Insider Trading Action V. Analyst
UNITED KINGDOM: UK Tribunal Upholds Prison Service Employee Suit
UNITED STATES: Immigrants Launch CA Suit Over Delays in Process
VICON FIBER: SEC Files Fraud Suit in NY V. Ex-VP Michael Scrivo


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CDC Says Asbestos Deaths Have Skyrocketed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Exposure Cases Pending In NY, MS
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Insurance Recovery Greater
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Longview Fibre Co. Named In Washington Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OIInc. Payments Increased For 2nd Quarter

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Fighting 116,000 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Expects Challenges Due To Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TOD Records Bodily Injury Reserve of $7.9M
ASBESTOS ALERT: AICI Disclaims Coverage For Asbestosis Claims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Consolidated Container Gets Subpoena From EPA

ASBESTOS ALERT: Smith Renovations LLC Partners Face Sentence

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BALLY TOTAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges IL Securities Suit
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in IL
COMMERCE BANCORP: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit NJ
FERRO CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in OH

FERRO CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in OH
FERRO CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in OH
INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges CA Fraud Suit
KVH INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in RI
NBTY INC.: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NY

NBTY INC.: Berger & Montague Files Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NY
NBTY INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
NETFLIX INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
NETFLIX INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
NETFLIX INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA

RED HAT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. NC
WHITE ELECTRONIC: Brain M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in AZ

                            *********


A.E. STALEY: Inks $100M Settlement For Corn Syrup Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A.E. Staley Manufacturing Co. agreed to pay $100 million to
settle an antitrust class action filed against it and onter
several corn processors who allegedly fixed the price of high
fructose corn syrup in the United States District Court in
Peoria, Illinois, the Associated Press reports.

About 20 corn syrup buyers filed the suit in 1995, alleging that
grain processors violated antitrust laws from 1988 to 1995 by
conspiring to artificially inflate the price of high fructose
corn syrup.  About 2,000 plaintiffs joined the suit, including
Coca-Cola Co., PepsiCo Inc., Kraft Foods Inc. and Quaker Oats.

The case was marked by three trips to the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals and two trips to the U.S. Supreme Court, Michael J.
Freed, co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs told AP.  Throughout
the case, the defendants claimed the price the plaintiffs paid
for the sweetener was the price that would have prevailed in a
competitive industry, Mr. Freed said.

Trial in the suit was slated to start in September.  Had the
case gone to trial and jury found in the plaintiffs' favor, any
damages awarded would have been tripled under antitrust laws.

The agreement brings to $531 million the amount plaintiffs have
agreed to pay to settle the lawsuit, with the Company being the
last defendant to settle.  Last month, Decatur, Ill.-based
Archer Daniels Midland Co. agreed to pay a $400 million
settlement.  Minneapolis-based Cargill Inc. and its American
Maize Products of Stamford, Conn., subsidiary agreed to pay a
combined $24 million.  CPC International settled for $7 million
in 1996, AP reports.

In a statement posted on its Web site, Staley parent company
London-based Tate & Lyle PLC, said Staley continues to deny
involvement in any wrongdoing, but settled to avoid the risk and
uncertainty a trial would involve.  Staley, headquartered in
Decatur, Ill., will pay its settlement amount into escrow during
the next week, according to the statement.

"In 1995, a grand jury reviewed millions of pages of evidence,
yet brought no charges against any manufacturer of high fructose
corn syrup," said Tate & Lyle general counsel Robert Gibber,
according to AP.  "However, as is typical in the U.S., this was
followed by a civil class action alleging violations of federal
antitrust laws."

The money paid by the defendants will be administered by
Philadelphia-based accounting firm Heffler, Radetich & Saitta.
After the payment of expenses and fees, the rest of the funds
will be distributed based on the amount of loss by the defendant
that have been approved by the accounting firm.

The lawsuit grew out of a federal investigation into ADM's
involvement in a price-fixing scandal involving the livestock
feed supplement lysine and citric acid, used in food, detergents
and other products.  ADM pleaded guilty to federal antitrust
charges in that case and was fined $100 million, but received
immunity from all other charges. The company was never convicted
of fixing corn syrup prices.  Three former ADM executives
received prison sentences in 1999 as a result of the price-
fixing scandal.


ACE INSURANCE: Reaches $14 Million Settlement With Policyholders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four companies in the ACE insurance group agreed to pay $14
million to settle a national class action brought by a company
in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania to recover unpaid "dividends"
on workers' compensation policies.

Manheim, Pennsylvania-based Highland Tank and Manufacturing
Company brought the case for itself and as class representative
for about 900 other companies that bought the same type of
policy.

The settlement was announced by Charles A. Frey, Jr., Vice-
President and General Manager of Highland Tank, and by the
attorneys for Highland Tank. Lead counsel for Highland Tank and
the class was Joseph F. Roda of RodaNast, P.C., Lancaster. Co-
counsel was Paul A. Zevnik of Morgan Lewis and Bockius,
Washington D.C. and Philadelphia.

The insurance companies that have agreed to pay the settlement
are Bankers Standard Insurance Company, Pacific Employers
Insurance Company, ACE P&C (formerly CIGNA P&C, Inc.) and ACE
American Insurance Co. (formerly CIGNA Insurance Company). All
four of the defendant companies are wholly owned subsidiaries of
ACE INA Holdings, Inc., which is in turn owned by ACE, Ltd., a
Cayman Islands Company based in Bermuda but traded on the New
York Stock Exchange.

Lead counsel for the Defendant companies was Paul R. Koepff of
O'Melveny & Myers, New York. Local counsel was Robert M.
Frankhouser, of Hartman, Underhill and Brubaker, Lancaster.

The settlement amount represents what is estimated to be 100% of
the unpaid policy "dividends" that were sought in the case. The
workers' compensation policies in question were sold between
1997 and 1999, and offered the potential for a partial return of
a pre-paid premium, based on the policyholders' losses during
the policy year. The partial return was called a "dividend."

Documents prepared by the insurance companies for policyholders
and brokers before the policies were bought said that
"dividends" under the policies would be based on a specific
formula, in which the policyholders' losses were a key
component. The lower the losses, the higher the "dividend."

The policies were sold while the defendant companies were owned
by CIGNA, and were assigned by CIGNA to its "CIS" (Commercial
Insurance Services) division, which CIGNA used for its small to
medium-sized customers. In July 1999, CIGNA sold all of its
property and casualty business to ACE, Ltd. for $3.5 billion,
and the CIS business went to ACE as part of that transaction.
Soon after this acquisition, ACE decided that the CIS business
was not a strategic fit with its plans, and sold the renewal
rights on that business to Employers Insurance of Wausau. ACE
then put the "dividends" of the CIS policies "on hold" in the
last quarter of 1999, and in March 2000 made that "hold"
permanent, deciding that no further "dividends" would be paid on
those policies.

ACE based its decision on the overall lack of CIS business'
profit, without regard for the individual loss record of any
customer or the "dividend" to which that customer would have
been entitled under the formula presented in the pre-sale
documents.

The dividends that were not paid on the CIS policies ran from
the last quarter of 1999 through the first quarter of 2002. ACE
estimated these to total about $14 million, roughly the same
amount that the settling ACE companies have now agreed to pay.

Highland Tank bought its policies through Murray Insurance
Associates, an insurance agency also based in Lancaster. When
ACE decided that no further dividends would be paid on the CIS
policies, Murray and its principals did everything they could,
in telephone calls and letters to ACE, to persuade ACE to
reverse that decision, but without success. Other agents and
brokers around the country did the same, but with no better
results.

Highland Tank filed its case in October 2000 in the Court of
Common Pleas of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, alleging breach
of contract, bad faith and other claims. The case was assigned
at its outset to Judge Louis J. Farina, who managed the case
throughout its course and was ultimately instrumental in getting
it settled. The case was the first national class action to be
certified in Lancaster County, and only the second national
class action to be certified in a Pennsylvania state court for a
claim under the Pennsylvania insurance bad faith law that went
into effect in July 1990. The settlement in Highland Tank's case
affects about 900 policyholders and about 1100 policies.

Written notices to all policyholders advising them of the
settlement and its provisions are expected to go out within the
next 30 days. Payments under the settlement are hoped for by the
end of the year.


ANTHONY ALLEN: 32 Indictments Returned V. Businessman Over Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Cumberland County, North Carolina grand jury returned 32 more
indictments against Fayetteville businessman Anthony Allen, who
is charged with stealing more than $15 million from 88 of his
investment clients, the Fayetteville Observer reports.

Mr. Allen, 42, owned the A.W. Allen Insurance Group and Client
Relations, an estate planning firm.  He also published the local
edition of Fifty Plus, a magazine for seniors.  The indictments
charge Mr. Allen with taking $2.19 million from his investment
clients between 1997 and 2003.

The indictments are expected to continue through this year.  The
latest indictments charge Mr. Allen with 31 counts of obtaining
property by false pretenses, 31 counts of embezzlement and three
counts of embezzlement by an insurance agent or broker.

Investigators assert that Mr. Allen was allegedly operating a
Ponzi scheme, using money from new investors to pay returns to
earlier investors.  Some of Allen's former clients have said he
persuaded them to invest by guaranteeing high returns.  Most of
Allen's clients were retired and had invested all of their
savings with him. At least 10 people have filed lawsuits in
civil court in an attempt to recover their money. Their lawsuits
are pending. Dozens of others are planning a class-action
lawsuit, which has not been filed, the Fayetteville Observer
reports.

Allen has been in the Cumberland County Jail since October. His
bail is $32.5 million.


BANK OF AMERICA: CA Court Allows Consumer Suit Over Paycheck Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in California allowed Bank of
America Corporation to be sued in state courts over fees it
charges for cashing paychecks, a decision that could open other
large national banks to litigation under state laws, the
Associated Press reports.

Federal Judge S. James Otero issued a ruling in a class action
filed against the Company on behalf of the Karis House teen
shelter in Visalia, California.

The suit alleges that the Bank gave California employers who had
payroll accounts with them no time to switch banks or warn
employees of the $5 paycheck cashing fee.  This caused employers
to be in violation of a 1911 state law requiring that provide a
location where workers can cash their paychecks at full face
value, or without having to pay a fee. The suit makes claims
under the California unfair business practices law.  The suit
seeks a court order to stop the bank from charging the fees and
a refund of the fees it already collected.

The employees could have avoided the fees by simply opening
their own accounts with the bank, Bank of America spokesman
Harvey Radin told AP.  The Company sought to have the case moved
to federal court, saying that the Bank might be treated unfairly
a Los Angeles County court.  The court denied the motion, and
sent the lawsuit back to Superior Court.  The bank was weighing
its legal options, a spokeswoman said.

Nicholas Roxborough, the Los Angeles attorney who filed the
lawsuit, called Otero's ruling a "major victory" because it
rejected the contention that federal laws protect banks from
state laws, AP reports.

Federal courts have ruled that state and local statutes can't be
applied to banks operating under a national charter. But Otero
noted that Bank of America should be accountable to California,
where it has ties going back 100 years to when the bank was
founded in San Francisco.

"In other words, of all the banks in the world, Bank of America
is the most visible bank in California," Mr. Otero told AP.
"Yet Bank of America suggests it will somehow be unfairly
treated in California because it is a foreign corporation. The
court does not agree."


BAYSTATE MEDICAL: Faces Suit Over Billing of Uninsured Patients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts non-profit hospital Baystate Medical Center faces
a class action filed in the United States District Court in
Boston, Massachusetts, alleging the hospital overcharges
uninsured patients for medical care and uses aggressive
techniques to collect its money, The Boston Globe reports.

Mississippi lawyer Richard Scruggs filed the suit, which is the
latest in a series of cases against 46 non-profit hospitals in
21 states over their billing practices of uninsured patients.
The suit alleges that the hospitals violated their agreements
with the federal and state government to provide charity care
for the poor in return for substantial tax breaks.

The suit specifically asserts, according to Mr. Scruggs, that
hospitals overcharge the uninsured and then use aggressive
collection techniques, such as seizing their homes, to collect
money they can't afford to pay.

Lead plaintiff Diane Harrington, 49, was rushed to Baystate when
she fell down some stairs two years ago, The Boston Globe
states.  Doctors treated Ms. Harrington's cuts and bruises on
her face and kept her overnight as a precaution.  However, Ms.
Harrington failed to pay her medical bill and didn't have health
insurance, so the hospital's lawyers sued Harrington for
$2,983.04, tacked on 12 percent annual interest, and threatened
to seize her personal property, according to court documents.

Jane Albert, director of public affairs for Baystate, told the
Globe the hospital doesn't comment on pending litigation, and
that executives had not seen the lawsuit.  She, however,
asserted that the hospital provides more than $15 million
annually in free care for uninsured patients.

The suits also alleged the American Hospital Association advises
its members to engage in these billing and collection practices.
"Our view is that the lawsuits are misdirected and baseless,"
spokeswoman Alicia Mitchell for the Washington trade and
lobbying group for hospitals told The Globe.  "They divert focus
away from the real issue of how we as Americans are going to
extend health insurance to everyone."

Hospital billing practices are coming under increased scrutiny
following the stream of lawsuits filed by Mr. Scruggs, the
Mississippi lawyer who helped win a $206 million settlement from
the tobacco industry for the states.  In June, congressional
leaders began a series of hearings about whether hospitals
should disclose their prices to consumers and about how
hospitals bill and collect money from patients.

Hospital billing policies generally have a much greater impact
on the poor and uninsured than on anyone else.  This is because
hospitals often charge the uninsured the full price, a sort of
"sticker price," for medical care.  However, they significantly
discount their prices for insured patients.  Health plans
negotiate these discounts in return for including the hospital
in its approved network.

"The poor are paying more for medical than the rest of us,"
Boston attorney Thomas Greene, Ms. Harrington's lawyer, told The
Globe.  "The hospitals are not putting money back into the
community by providing charity care, like they're supposed to."

Hospital attorneys denied the allegations.  Stephen Weiner, a
lawyer with the Boston firm Mintz Levin, which represents
several large hospitals, told The Globe "the Internal Revenue
Service guidelines with regard to what makes a hospital a
charity don't support the position the plaintiff lawyers are
taking."

While free care, or charity care, is a component, he said, the
IRS looks at many other factors when providing nonprofit
hospitals with tax breaks, including whether they provide
emergency rooms that are open to the public, if their boards are
representative of the community, and whether they provide health
education programs. "Free or discounted medical care is helpful,
but it's not a requirement," he continued.


BON-MACY'S: WA Consumers Sue Over Unauthorized Credit Card Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle department store Bon-Macy's faces a consumer suit filed
in Spokane County Superior Court in Washington, alleging the
Company routinely charges its credit card customers for
insurance they didn't authorize, AP Wire reports.

Washington resident Elizabeth Olson filed the suit, alleging the
department store charged her $79.99 for annual credit card
insurance she neither approved nor ordered.  The suit also names
as defendants The Bon Inc. and Financial, Administrative and
Credit Services Group of Mason, Ohio and seeks an injunction
prohibiting future charges to customer accounts for credit card
insurance they did not approve.

"We're asking the court to order Bon-Macy's to be transparent in
its billings," Darenn Scott, lawyer for the plaintiffs told AP.
"If it is for credit card insurance, it should be apparent. Part
of the problem we allege is that a consumer is not in a position
to make an assessment if the charge is valid or not."

Co-counsel Bryce Wilcox told AP it was not known how many people
might be affected by the class action, but "it could be
substantial, given the apparent randomness with which this
charge shows up in people's bills."  He noted federal law limits
individual exposure for lost or stolen credit cards to $50.

Bon-Macy's is a division of Cincinnati-based Federated
Department Stores Inc. Bon-Macy's spokesman Rob Campbell in
Seattle told AP store officials had not seen the lawsuit and had
no comment.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: SEC Commences Cease-And-Desist Order
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order requiring
Charter Communications, Inc. (Charter) to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violations and any future violations
of certain reporting, books and records, and internal control
provisions of the federal securities laws. Charter, a Delaware
corporation with its principal office in St. Louis, Missouri, is
the third largest operator of cable systems in the United
States. The Commission's Order finds that from the first through
the fourth quarters of 2001, Charter inflated its subscriber
numbers in an attempt to meet analysts' expectations for
subscriber growth and depict itself as a growing company.
According to the Order, beginning in 2001, employees at Charter
stopped disconnecting the services of customers whose services
would have ordinarily been disconnected because they were
delinquent in paying their account balances or had requested
their services be terminated. This practice was known as
"managing disconnects." By not disconnecting the services of
these subscribers, Charter inflated its subscriber count and
enabled it to meet subscriber growth targets for the company. As
a result of this conduct, the Order finds that Charter reported
materially inflated subscriber numbers to the Commission and to
the public from the first through the fourth quarters of 2001 in
its Forms 8-K, Forms 10-Q and Form 10-K. The Order further finds
that by inflating subscriber numbers Charter was able to falsely
depict itself to the public and analysts as a growing company
when Charter actually experienced flat to negative growth for
those periods.

In addition, the Order finds that in the fourth quarter of 2000,
Charter inflated its year-end revenue and operating cash flow by
$17 million when it realized its year-end revenue and operating
cash flow for 2000 was going to be short of analysts'
expectations. According to the Order, to generate additional
revenue and operating cash flow, Charter entered into one
contract under which it agreed to pay two of its digital set-top
box suppliers an additional $20 for each set-top box it
purchased and simultaneously entered into another contract under
which its set-top box suppliers agreed to purchase $20 in
advertising services from Charter for each set-top box Charter
purchased. As such, Charter gave the suppliers the money to
purchase the advertising services from Charter. By increasing
its revenue and operating cash flow with the $20 it was paid by
the suppliers as advertising revenue, Charter improperly
inflated its 2000 year-end revenue and operating cash flow that
it reported to the Commission and to the public in its Form 10-K
for 2000. Charter, while neither admitting nor denying the
Order's findings, consented to the entry of the Order and
certain remedial undertakings. In determining to accept
Charter's settlement offer, the Commission considered remedial
acts promptly undertaken by Charter and cooperation Charter
afforded the Commission staff.


CUMBERLAND CASUALTY: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. AL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cumberland Casualty & Surety Company faces a class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama. The complaint also names as defendants:

     (1) Dorinco Reinsurance Company,

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

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

     (4) Fernando Ruiz, president and chief executive officer of
         Dorinco

According to a press release dated July 21, 2004, the lawsuit
claims that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder, including rule 10b-5 of the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission.

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

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

The suit, styled " [Unknown Plaintiff], et al. v. Cumberland
Casualty & Surety Company, et al.," was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from October 16,1998 to
July 9,2004.  The plaintiff law firm in the suit is Dice &
Gregory, LLC, Mail: 2824 Seventh Street, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35401,
Phone: 888.454.2041, E-mail: sgregory@diceandgregory.com


EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Faces Suit Over Erroneous Teachers' Exams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Educational Testing Service (ETS) faces a class action filed in
the United State District Court for the Western District of
Louisiana in Lake Charles, over mistaken results in the Praxis
test, a qualifying examination for classroom teachers in
Louisiana, thetowntalk.com reports.

Attorneys Richard J. Arsenault and J.R. Whaley of the Alexandria
law firm of Neblett, Beard & Arsenault filed the suit.
Plaintiffs in the suit are Shawn M. Gray and Jared Owen, both of
Jefferson Davis Parish.

The suit alleged that the Company "designed, conducted and
scored" the test for teachers in grades 7 through 12.  Between
January 2003 and April 2004, some 486 teachers or prospective
teachers in Louisiana were mistakenly told that they had failed
the test.

The Company allegedly admitted that the essay portion of the
test "was graded more stringently than it should have been."
The suit alleges negligence by ETS in training and supervising
test graders, and breach of contract. The suit alleges 11 areas
of damage to individuals and requests trial by jury.

The teachers who were mistakenly told they failed the test
suffered embarrassment, anguish and loss of employment and
income.  Some tests were prevented from graduating from college
or taking part in graduation ceremonies, Mr. Arsenault told
thetowntalk.com.  He added some of those affected were from
Central Louisiana, thetowntalk.com reports.


FIRSTENERGY CORPORATION: Reaches $89.9M Investor Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Utility firm FirstEnergy Corporation reached an $89.9 million
settlement for the shareholder suits filed against it over last
summer's blackout, an extended outage at its Davis-Besse nuclear
power plant and its earnings restatement, the Associated Press
reports.

Last August, the Company announced plans to restate its earnings
and reduce its income by $99 million.  The Company attributed
the restatement to an accounting adjustment and called it "a
matter of changing the way certain items were accounted for."

The announcement spurred Philadelphia law firm Berger & Montague
to file a class action on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between April 24,2004 and August 5,2004.  Several
suits followed and were later consolidated in Ohio federal
court.  Two lawsuits are also pending in state court.

In April, a joint U.S.-Canadian task force report on the August
14 blackout that affected 50 million customers across the upper
Midwest, New England, New York and Ontario placed much of the
blame on FirstEnergy lines and procedures.

The Davis-Besse plant, located along Lake Erie about 30 miles
east of Toledo, started producing electricity again in March
after it was shut down for more than two years. A month after it
was closed for routine maintenance in February 2002, inspectors
found corrosion on the reactor vessel, where leaking boric acid
had eaten almost through a 6-inch-thick steel cap, AP reports.

The Company told AP that its insurers would pay $71.9 million of
the settlement, and the company's $17.9 million share would
result in a charge against second-quarter earnings of 3 cents
per share.  "With this behind us, we can continue focusing our
efforts on providing our customers with reliable and affordable
electric service, and building value for our shareholders," said
Anthony J. Alexander, president and CEO.

The utility said the agreement didn't amount to an admission of
wrongdoing.  The settlement is subject to court approval.

Attorneys who handled the various lawsuits could not be reached
for comment. Messages seeking comment were left at the
Philadelphia firm after regular business hours Tuesday and with
Cleveland and San Diego law firms that also had sued
FirstEnergy, AP reports.


FLORIDA: Colonnade Personnel Arrested, Charged With Neglect
-----------------------------------------------------------
Three South Florida residents were arrested and another was
charged for patient neglect at the Colonnade Regional Medical
Center in Lauderdale Lakes, Florida Attorney General Charlie
Crist announced in a statement.

The Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Control Unit began
investigating Colonnade based on complaints and information
provided by the Department of Children and Families' Adult
Protective Services Unit, as well as local media reports.  The
investigation revealed that facility residents did not receive
the medications prescribed by their physicians, did not receive
proper nutrition for their special conditions, did not have
access to adequate and informed staff, and endured poor sanitary
conditions.  In one case, a resident with a history of severe
mental illness was found in his wheelchair at a busy
intersection outside of the facility.

"Those responsible for this neglect obviously do not understand
the meaning of the word `caregiver,'" said AG Crist.  "It is
outrageous that some of Florida's most needy citizens have been
put in such danger.  We will continue to track down and hold
accountable those who would take advantage of the elderly and
disabled."

The residents of Colonnade were forced to live in substandard
conditions despite repeated warnings that the owner must take
corrective action.  In addition, the facility failed to pay its
own staff consistently and many employees went for months
without receiving any pay at all.  During the last year, then-
owner Gary Lampert received more than $3.5 million in Medicaid
payments.  Arrested on Tuesday were Sharon Brown, 33, of Lake
Worth, the former Director of Nursing; and Sandra Rothstein
Frank, 49, of Coral Springs, Lampert's former girlfriend who was
employed as the facility's dietician and as a corporate officer.
Each was charged with 10 counts of patient neglect.  In
addition, Regine Roy, 27, of Miramar, was arrested and charged
with one count of patient neglect.  Lampert, 53, of Miami Beach,
the former facility owner and administrator of Colonnade,
remains at large.  Patient neglect is a third-degree felony and
each count carries a maximum penalty of 5 years in prison and a
$10,000 fine.

Colonnade nursing home has been in receivership since July 2003,
preventing Lampert from further involvement in patient care.


IOWA: Des Moines City Faces Lawsuit Over Illegal "Franchise Fee"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Des Moines, Iowa faces a lawsuit over a tax that
allegedly violates state law, the IowaChannel.com reports.

In 2001, the Iowa Legislature voted to phase out a 5-percent
state sales tax on utility bills.  However, earlier this month,
the Des Moines City Council voted to collect part of the tax for
itself.  The council raised the tax on gas and electric users
from 1 percent to 3 percent, calling it a "franchise fee."

Lisa Kragnes filed the suit, saying the fee is illegal, the
IowaChannel.com reports.  Des Moines officials maintain the fee
is legal.

The fee could take effect as soon as September. City officials
have said the money would be used to add police officers,
firefighters and pay for road repairs.


J.P. MORGAN: Bruckner Burch Lodges Overtime Wage Lawsuit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Rex Burch, of the law firm Bruckner Burch on behalf of
J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. (JPM) call center employees initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status against the bank for
overtime work done without pay, which was filed in Houston
federal court, Reuters reports.

The complaint alleges that the least three years J.P. Morgan
call center employees nationwide were required to perform tasks
before and after their paid shifts, increasing their time taking
customer calls and giving the No. 2 U.S. bank about 40 minutes
of free labor per day, which is in clear violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act. The suit seeks double the amount of unpaid
overtime compensation.

The lawsuit was originally brought by Jennifer Fouyolle, who was
employed at a Houston call center from September 1999 through
approximately June 2002.

According to Mr. Burch, J.P. Morgan employs about 20,000 people
in its call centers, paying them around $10 to $12 an hour in
Texas. Mr. Burch also told Reuters that unpaid tasks include
logging onto computers, signing onto telephone systems as well
as reading memos.

For more details, contact Richard J. (Rex) Burch of Bruckner
Burch PLLC by Mail: 5847 San Felipe, Suite 3900, Houston, TX
77057 (Ft. Bend, Harris & Montgomery Cos.) by Phone:
713-877-8788 by Fax: 713-877-8065 or visit their Web site:
http://www.brucknerburch.com


JC MANAGEMENT: SEC Initiates, Settles Administrative Proceedings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted and
simultaneously settled administrative cease-and-desist
proceedings against JC Management, Inc., the investment manager
of a private investment fund and its President and sole
employee, Joseph X. Crivelli.  The Commission found that JC
Management and Crivelli violated Rule 105 of Regulation M under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in July 2002, by selling
securities short during the five business days before the
pricing of a public offering, and then covering the short
position with securities purchased in the offering.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, JC
Management and Crivelli agreed, jointly and severally, to settle
the charges against them by consenting to a Commission order
requiring that they pay disgorgement of $25,788 in illegal
trading profits and prejudgment interest and to cease and desist
from committing or causing any violations, and any future
violations, of Rule 105 of Regulation M. In a related civil
action, Crivelli, without admitting or denying the allegations
of the Commission's complaint, has consented to pay a civil
penalty of $25,000. The action is titled, SEC v. Joseph X.
Crivelli, 1:04CV01247(RMC) D.D.C. (LR-18798)


KANSAS: Reno County Jail Faces Illegal Arrest, Detention Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Reno County Jail in Kansas faces a class action filed by a
Hutchinson man who was allegedly illegally arrested and held
without probable cause for more than a week, The Wichita Eagle
reports.

On November 10,2002, police arrested Richard Lingenfelter,
allegedly under charges of kidnapping.  The officers made an
unsworn arrest report.  Two days later, Mr. Lingenfelter
appeared in Reno County District Court.  The suit alleges that
"the arresting officers did not then appear, nor did (they) file
any affidavit or other statement under oath alleging the
commission of an offense."

The court set Mr. Lingenfelter's bond at $150,000, which he said
he could not pay because he was indigent. On November 18, the
Reno County district attorney charged him with one count of
attempted kidnapping, and his bond was reduced to $15,000.  His
family raised enough to post bail, and he was released November
20.  The following spring, a judge dismissed charges against
Lingenfelter, citing insufficient evidence.

The suit alleges that Mr. Lingenfelter's stay in jail without
probable cause violated his rights under the Fourth Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that,
absent a search warrant, a suspect must face a judge and
probable cause must be determined within 48 hours of an arrest.
The suit further contends that Lingenfelter's experience wasn't
isolated, and that Reno County followed a policy that has held
hundreds of people in jail under similar circumstances.

A judge will have to grant permission for the suit to continue
as a class action.  Reno County Sheriff Randy Henderson could
not be reached for comment Wednesday, the Wichita Eagle reports.


LIFEPOINT HOSPITALS: TN Court Approves ADA Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee approved the settlement of a class action filed
against each of Lifepoint Hospitals, Inc.'s hospitals by Access
Now, Inc., a disability rights organization.

The suit alleges non-compliance with the accessibility
guidelines under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
lawsuit seeks injunctive relief requiring facility modification,
where necessary, to meet the ADA guidelines, along with
attorneys fees and costs.

In January 2002, the court certified the class action and issued
a scheduling order that requires the parties to complete
discovery and inspection for approximately six facilities per
year.  The Company intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit,
recognizing the Company's obligation to correct any deficiencies
in order to comply with the ADA.

As of June 30, 2004, the plaintiffs have conducted inspections
at 22 of the Company's hospitals.  On July 19, 2004, the court
approved the settlement agreements between the parties relating
to two of the Company's facilities.  These facilities have
completed the litigation process and now will move forward in
implementing facility modifications in accordance with the terms
of the settlement.


METABOLIFE INTERNATIONAL: Founder Pleads Not Guilty To Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metabolife International, Inc.'s founder Michael J. Ellis
pleaded not guilty to federal charges of misrepresenting the
dangers of popular diet supplement ephedra to the United States
Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Associated Press
reports.

Metabolife was one of the nation's biggest sellers of ephedra, a
herbal stimulant, through its product Metabolife 356.  Earlier
this year, the government banned its sale, after ephedra was
linked to 155 deaths and dozens of heart attacks and strokes,
including that of Steve Bechler, a 23-year-old pitcher for the
Baltimore Orioles who died during spring training last year.

According to federal prosecutors, Mr. Ellis lied when he told
the FDA in 1998 and 1999 that his company had never received
"one notice from a consumer that any serious adverse health
event has occurred because of the ingestion of Metabolife 356,"
according to court documents.  Mr. Ellis allegedly further lied
that Metabolife 356 had a "claims-free history" despite
widespread media reports of health problems associated with the
product.

Mr. Ellis was charged in the U.S. District Court in San Diego,
California on six criminal counts of making false statements to
the FDA and two counts of trying to obstruct the agency's
attempt to regulate supplements containing ephedra.

In a statement, the company said it planned to contest the
allegations and said it no longer sells ephedra-based products.
Last week, when charges were announced, Metabolife dismissed the
allegations as "utterly baseless" and accused the government of
heavy-handed tactics, such as confronting family members at
gunpoint, AP reports.  An attorney for Metabolife, which also
was named in the charges, entered a not guilty plea on behalf of
the company.  A motion hearing is scheduled for September.

According to court documents, in 1988, Ellis appeared in the
same courthouse after he was caught making methamphetamine, a
drug that shares a key ingredient - ephedrine - with Metabolife
356, the weight-loss supplement that made him wealthy. In a deal
with prosecutors, Ellis pleaded guilty to using a telephone to
further a drug deal and received five years of probation.

Prosecutors have declined to say how many deaths or injuries
were linked to Metabolife products.  The FDA asked the Justice
Department in 2002 to pursue a criminal investigation into
Metabolife, and FDA Acting Commissioner Lester Crawford
complained that Metabolife had refused and resisted the agency's
probe of ephedra.


POZEN INC.: NC Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For August
----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders have until August 3, 2004 to move for lead
plaintiff in the class action filed against POZEN, Inc.
(Nasdaq:POZN) in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Company from July 31, 2003 through May 28,
2004, inclusive, the Law Offices of Schiffrin & Barroway
announced.

The complaint charges POZEN, John R. Plachetka, Matthew E.
Czajkowski, and John R. Barnhardt with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, POZEN
is a pharmaceutical development company focused on developing a
portfolio of drugs for the global migraine market. The Company's
lead product candidates included MT 100, a proprietary
formulation containing metoclopramide hydrochloride and naproxen
sodium; MT 300, a proprietary formulation of dihydroergotamine
mesylate in a pre-filled syringe, and MT 400, which is being
developed as a co-active acute migraine therapy.

This action centers around the Company's false and misleading
statements concerning its migraine drugs MT 100 and MT 300. More
specifically, the Company failed to disclose the following
adverse facts:

     (1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that its drugs MT 100 and MT 300 were unsafe and
         ineffective;

     (2) that despite knowing these facts, the Company entered
         into various licensing agreements in order to book
         revenues and achieve positive cash flows;

     (3) that as a result of booking revenues and achieving
         positive cash flows, the defendants were able to
         manipulate the Company's stock price in order to attain
         large bonuses, which were tied to the Company's stock
         price, not the success of the Company's product
         pipeline;

     (4) with respect to the drug MT 300, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that the drug resulted
         in higher incidences of nausea and vomiting as compared
         to placebo in two Phase III trials and that the drug
         failed to show statistical superiority as compared with
         placebo with regard to controlling symptoms of
         migraines;

     (5) with respect to the drug MT 100, defendant knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that MT 100's chances
         of being approved by the FDA were less than 50% because
         of concerns about several primary end points,
         particularly pain response to migraines at two hours,
         lack of data showing consistent two-hour pain response
         and symptom relief, and worries about the drug's
         carcinogenicity; and

     (6) that MT 100's failed to show superiority to a placebo
         as measured by a two-hour response and two-hour symptom
         migraine relief.

The blow to the Company occurred on October 20, 2003, when POZEN
announced that it had received a not-approvable letter from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") related to its New
Drug Application ("NDA") for MT 300?. The letter was issued
based on the FDA's conclusion that while MT 300 achieved its
primary endpoint, it failed to achieve statistical significance
versus placebo for the relief at two hours of the secondary
symptoms of migraine (nausea, sensitivity to light, and
sensitivity to sound).

On news of this, shares of POZEN fell $5.83 per share, or 32.8
percent, to close at $11.94 per share on unusually high trading
volume on October 20, 2003.

The final blow to the Company's manipulative scheme occurred on
June 1, 2004. Then, POZEN announced that the FDA issued a not-
approvable letter on Friday, May 28, 2004 concerning the
Company's NDA for MT 100? for the acute treatment of migraine.
In the FDA letter, the FDA cited the apparent lack of
superiority of MT 100 over naproxen for sustained pain relief,
which was the primary endpoint for the two component studies.
Additionally, for the first time the FDA raised an approvability
issue concerning the risk of tardive dyskinesia ("TD") presented
by the use of metoclopramide, one of the components of MT 100.
In this regard, the FDA stated in their letter, "given the
number of patients exposed to MT 100 for at least one year in
your database (about 300), the absence of any detected cases is
consistent with a true rate of TD of about 1%, an unacceptably
high risk in the absence of any demonstrated advantage of the
product." Further, the FDA mentioned that based on animal
studies, there may be a potential risk of carcinogenicity,
presumably due to metoclopramide.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of POZEN fell $3.69 per
share, or 37.2 percent, to close at $6.23 per share on unusually
high volume.

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


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Reaches $65M ERISA Lawsuit Settlement in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Providian Financial Corporation (NYSE:PVN) settled for $65
million the class action lawsuit filed against the Company and
certain former officers by the Retirement Systems of Alabama
("RSA") and Chitwood & Harley, LLP, who serves as lead plaintiff
and lead counsel for the Class, respectively, the PrimeZone
Media Network reports.

The settlement was presented to the Court just one business day
before trial. William F. Kelley Jr., RSA General Counsel told
PrimeZone: "We are pleased with this outcome. I believe that the
active participation of RSA made a difference in this
litigation."

Attorney Martin D. Chitwood, senior member of Plaintiffs' trial
team, noted that: "This case illustrates how the lead plaintiff
mechanism of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act should
work. RSA took an active role and guided the litigation to an
outstanding result for the Class."

The case was scheduled to go to trial on June 7, 2004 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco Division). The Class consists of
purchasers of common stock of Providian during the period
between June 6, 2001 and October 18, 2001 ("Class Period"). The
settlement is subject to final documentation and court approval.
The recovery, less fees and expenses, will be distributed to
purchasers of Providian stock during the Class Period who timely
file valid proofs of claim under procedures to be implemented by
the District Court.

For more details, contact Martin Chitwood or Stuart Guber of
Chitwood & Harley by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 or 404-873-3900 or by
E-mail: mdc@classlaw.com or sjg@classlaw.com


QWEST WIRELESS: SEC Files Fraud Suit V. CFO Michael Felicissimo
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud charges
against the former chief financial officer of Qwest
Communications International Inc.'s (Qwest) wholly owned
subsidiary, Qwest Wireless LLC (Wireless), Michael Felicissimo
alleging that he fraudulently concealed $112 million of
improperly recognized revenue at Wireless. The Commission's
complaint alleges that, on several occasions between April 2001
and July 2002, Wireless's accounting group identified errors in
its accounting for revenue from the sale of mobile phone
products and services. For example, between at least January
2000 and September 2001, Wireless improperly recorded revenue
from mobile phone accessories that were given to customers for
free as an inducement to buy other products and services. These
revenue recognition errors caused Wireless, and hence Qwest, to
overstate revenue by about $57 million in 2000, $46 million in
2001, and $9 million during the first two quarters of 2002.

The Commission's complaint further alleges that over the course
of several months between September 2001 and July 2002, the
Wireless accounting group estimated the amount by which Qwest
had overstated revenue based on the errors and, on numerous
occasions, informed Felicissimo of its conclusions. Rather than
telling the president of Wireless or other higher-level Qwest
executives about the overstatements, Felicissimo concealed, and
directed others to conceal, those overstatements. For example,
after viewing a document in about July 2002 showing that the
accounting group estimated that Qwest had overstated revenue by
about $20 million in 2000, $33 million in 2001, and $9 million
through the first two quarters of 2002 based on all of the
errors, Felicissimo told a Wireless accountant to "bury" the
document.

The Commission's complaint seeks an order against Felicissimo
enjoining him from further violations of the antifraud,
reporting, books-and-records, and internal controls provisions
of the federal securities laws; imposing a civil money penalty;
ordering disgorgement of all ill-gotten gains, including
compensation, bonuses, and stock trading profits made during the
relevant period; and barring Felicissimo from acting as a
director or officer of a publicly held company.

The Commission's investigation into the conduct of others is
continuing. The action is titled, SEC v. Michael Felicissimo,
Civil Action No. 04-RB-1541 (OES), USDC, District of Colorado]
(LR-18800)


SHAW GROUP: Suit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set For August
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholders that they have until August 16, 2004 to move for
lead plaintiff in the shareholder class action filed against The
Shaw Group, Inc. (NYSE:SGR) ("Shaw" or the "Company") in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana on behalf of all securities purchasers of the Company
from October 19, 2000 through June 10, 2004, inclusive, the law
firm of Schiffrin & Barroway announced.

The complaint charges that Shaw, Tim Barfield, Jr., J.M.
Bernhard, Jr., Richard F. Gill, and Robert Belk, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between October 19,
2003 and June 10, 2004, about the Company's financial condition
thereby artificially inflating the price of Shaw's shares. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's earnings were materially lagging;

     (2) that because the Company's earnings were lagging, the
         Company's creation of $83.7 million reserve for
         contracts acquired from Stone & Webster and adjusted
         for fair market value, was solely done as a means for
         the defendants to manipulate the Company's margins and
         report positive financial results;

     (3) that the Company's practice of cannibalizing the
         reserves, created to adjust newly acquired contracts to
         fair value, had substantially depleted the gross margin
         reserves and resulted in an eventual earnings decline;

     (4) that as a consequence of this, the Company improperly
         recorded revenue and earnings in violation of its
         purported revenue recognition policy and General
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and

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

On June 10, 2004, Shaw disclosed that the Company was notified
by the SEC on June 1, 2004, that the SEC was conducting an
informal inquiry of Shaw. The SEC investigation focused on the
Company's purchase method of accounting for acquisitions. The
news shocked the market. Shares of Shaw fell $1.53 or 12.4
percent on June 11, 2004, to close at $10.75.

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


STANDARD & POOR'S: SEC Files Insider Trading Action V. Analyst
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an insider trading
action against Rick A. Marano, a former senior analyst in the
Life Insurance Group at Standard & Poor's Financial Rating
Services (S&P), his brother, William Marano, and Carl Loizzi
(Loizzi), a friend and former business partner of William
Marano's. On two separate occasions, in 2000 and 2001, Rick
Marano misappropriated material, non-public information obtained
through his employment concerning potential business
transactions involving ReliaStar Financial Corporation and
American General Corporation and tipped that information to
William Marano and Loizzi. In total, the unlawful trading
produced profits of over $1,100,000.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New
York, on the same day, announced criminal charges against Rick
A. Marano, William Marano and Carl Loizzi. Rick Marano, William
Marano and Carl Loizzi are charged with conspiracy to commit
securities fraud and securities fraud.

The Commission is charging the defendants with violating Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and is seeking an order of permanent injunction,
disgorgement with prejudgment interest and civil penalties.  The
action is titled SEC v. Rick Marano, William Marano and Carl
Loizzi, Civil Action No. 04 CV 5828 (Kimba Wood) SDNY (LR-
18799).


UNITED KINGDOM: UK Tribunal Upholds Prison Service Employee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A United Kingdom employment tribunal supported the Public and
Commercial Services (PCS) union's class action, seeking equal
pay for people in administrative, support and managerial roles
in the Prison Service, PersonnelToday.com reports.

The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were treated less favorably
as compared to their prison officer and governor colleagues.
The plaintiffs allegedly lost out on pay, even though their job
evaluation exercise had scored them favorably.

The union further alleged pay gaps of up to ú5,000, existing
between administrative and management grades and prison officer
and governor grades that have been rated as being work of equal
value.  The tribunal ruling in favor of 1,957 equal pay cases in
the service could cost the UK Government millions in
compensation claims.

Mark Serwotka, PCS general secretary, told PersonnelToday.com
the case had been going on since 1999 and it was shocking that a
government department would go to such lengths to defend
inequality.  The Prison Service is expected to appeal against
the ruling.


UNITED STATES: Immigrants Launch CA Suit Over Delays in Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrants in five states filed a class action against the
United States Government in the United States District Court in
San Francisco, California, over the government's delay in
providing them their immigration papers, the Knight
Ridder/Tribune news reports.

Immigrants in California, Illinois, Wisconsin, New York and
Florida launched the suit, calling on the government to issue
them proof of status.  The lawsuit was filed this month in San
Francisco, but it resonates among legal immigrants nationwide.

"Folks are waiting six months, a year, a year and a half, two
years. They can't get a whole host of benefits or rights without
their proof," Javier Maldonado, a plaintiffs' lawyer with a San
Antonio, Texas, group, Texas Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights, and one of several attorneys involved in the San
Francisco lawsuit, told the Knight Ridder/Tribune news.

Maria Elena Garcia-Upson, a spokeswoman for U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services in Dallas, told Knight Ridder the agency
doesn't comment on litigation.  She said the delays are
generally due to heightened security checks.  "We have to check
their backgrounds," she said.  "We have to ensure that the right
person gets the right benefit."

The agency added that it issues 20,000 green cards everyday as
well as conducts 140,000 national security background checks and
answers in-person inquiries from 25,000 visitors to information
counters at 92 offices nationwide.

Jaime Barron, a Dallas immigration attorney, told Knight Ridder
he has clients experiencing the same delays.  He believes the
problem could be bureaucratic.

Under normal procedures, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement brings deportation cases to court.  When an
immigrant gains legal residency, the file is forwarded to U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services, which handles immigration
benefits.  Mr. Barron told Knight Ridder cases may hit a snag
when files are being transferred between the agencies, which are
part of the Homeland Security Department.

Whatever the reason, the delays are a hardship for immigrants
who are left economically paralyzed if they can't show employers
they are legal residents, Barron said.  "They have to survive
however they can," he said.


VICON FIBER: SEC Files Fraud Suit in NY V. Ex-VP Michael Scrivo
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that it filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York against Vicon Fiber Optics Corporation's former vice
president of operations, Michael Scrivo. Vicon, headquartered in
Pelham Manor, New York, manufactures and sells fiber optic
illuminating systems. The case involves a scheme to inflate
Vicon's inventory in Vicon's 1999 annual report and quarterly
report for the second quarter of 2000. In its complaint, the
Commission charged Scrivo with violations of the antifraud,
reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The
Commission also announced that it instituted settled cease-and-
desist proceedings and proceedings pursuant to Rule 102(e) of
the Commission's Rules of Practice against Vicon's former CFO
Leslie Wasser. In the cease-and-desist proceeding, the
Commission made findings that Wasser violated those same
sections.

In its complaint, the Commission alleged that Scrivo engaged in
a fraudulent scheme to inflate Vicon's inventories in its 1999
year-end financial statements by including inventory, which did
not exist. In furtherance of the scheme, Scrivo fabricated
documents that reflected non-existent inventory and as a result,
Vicon's reported net loss was decreased by 22% in its 1999
financial statement. Scrivo subsequently attempted to conceal
and to reverse the overstated inventory by falsely reporting in
Vicon's second quarter 2000 Form 10-Q that the inventory was
defective and had been scrapped.

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint,
Scrivo consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining him
from violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2), and 13(b)(5)
of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13,
13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder. Scrivo also consented to be
barred from acting as an officer or director of a public company
and agreed to pay $20,000 in civil penalties.

In its administrative Order, issued on July 27, the Commission
found that Wasser, a certified public accountant, committed or
caused the same violations of the Exchange Act. Wasser consented
to the entry of an administrative Order requiring him to cease
and desist from committing or causing and violations and any
future violations of the same provisions and denying him the
privilege of appearing or practicing before the Commission as an
accountant. The action is titled, SEC v. Michael Scrivo, 04-CV-
5837, USDC, SDNY, RCC.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CDC Says Asbestos Deaths Have Skyrocketed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asbestos deaths in the United States have shot up since the late
1960s and will probably keep on climbing through the next decade
because of long-ago exposure to the substance, once widely used
for insulation and fireproofing, the government said on July 23,
2004.  In a report entitled "Changing Patterns of Pneumoconiosis
Mortality - United States, 1968-2000" the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) said 77 people died from asbestos
in 1968, and 1,493 people died from it in 2000.

In 1998, asbestos-related deaths surpassed those from coal
workers' pneumoconiosis (CWP, or black lung), reflecting in part
the decline of the coal industry, the federal agency said.  The
CDC reached its findings by reviewing the death certificates of
124,846 people with lung conditions linked to inhaling dust or
fibers from minerals such as coal or asbestos.

Use of asbestos in buildings increased greatly after World War
II and peaked in the late 1970s and early 1980s.  CDC
epidemiologist Dr. Michael Attfield said that because asbestos-
related illnesses are slow in developing (up to 40 years between
the time someone is exposed to the material and dies from it)
asbestos deaths will probably increase through the next decade.

Government regulations in the 1980s helped curb the use of
asbestos, although it is still used under heavy regulation.  It
is found in more than 3,000 products, including brake linings,
engine gaskets and roof coatings, and is present as insulation
in older buildings.

Exposure can cause asbestosis, in which asbestos fibers get into
the lungs and scar them.  The lungs get stiff and it becomes
difficult for them to take in air or to transfer oxygen to the
blood.  This can lead to frequent lung infections and heart or
respiratory failure, with no effective treatment.

Whether someone will develop asbestosis depends on such factors
as the intensity and duration of exposure and the person's age
when exposed.  For many years, CWP was a much more common lung
disease, the CDC said, but cases have been on the decline,
possibly because fewer people work in the coal mining industry
today.

Also, asbestos was probably listed on death certificates more
often in recent years as health officials became aware of its
dangers.  On the Net, CDC information can be found at
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwrwhile Environmental Protection Agency
asbestos information is at http://www.epa.gov/asbestos


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Exposure Cases Pending In NY, MS
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004, Crane Co. was a defendant, among a number
of defendants (typically over 50 and frequently in the
hundreds), in 75,428 pending cases filed in various state and
federal courts alleging injury or death as a result of exposure
to asbestos.  These filings generally do not provide meaningful
information with respect to the alleged sources of the
claimants' asbestos exposure, and a significant proportion of
such cases are typically dismissed for lack of credible product
identification against the Company.

Of the pending claims as of June 30, 2004, around 25,000 claims
were pending in New York and around 32,000 claims were pending
in Mississippi.  A substantial majority of the New York claims
have been placed on a deferred docket and are ineligible for
trial on the merits without medical evidence of asbestos-related
disease.  Generally, the Company has required evidence of
exposure to asbestos-containing materials in products
manufactured or sold by the Company, as well as medical evidence
of asbestos-related disease, as a prerequisite to settling an
asbestos claim.  A significant proportion of the resolved claims
against the Company have been dismissed without payment because
these criteria are not satisfied.  Despite this litigation
posture, the Company has recognized that the number of asbestos
claims pending against it continues to increase, and the
settlement demands from asbestos claimants continue to escalate.
The Company believes that federal legislation establishing a
trust fund to compensate asbestos victims is the most
appropriate solution to the asbestos litigation problem.  The
Company has been actively monitoring, studying and supporting
developments in federal legislation during the past year and
believes that there is a reasonable possibility that legislation
will be passed in the current or next Congress.  In addition,
the Company continues to monitor and study the structured
settlement transactions announced by certain other asbestos
defendants.

New asbestos claims filed in certain jurisdictions and the costs
of defending and settling asbestos claims continued at somewhat
higher levels in the second quarter of 2004.  While the rate of
new claims and settlement costs have varied significantly from
quarter to quarter, if these higher rates continue it could have
an adverse effect on the Company's estimate of its asbestos
liability.

The gross settlement and defense costs (before insurance
recoveries and tax effects) for the Company in the six months
ended June 30, 2004 totaled $9,000,000 and $11,900,000,
respectively.  The Company's total pre-tax cash payments for
settlement and defense costs net of the Company's cost sharing
arrangement with insurers amounted to $6,200,000 in the six
months ended June 30, 2004.

It is expected that cash payments related to the asbestos
liability will continue for many years, and that such cash
payments will increase in proportion to increases the Company
has experienced in overall claim activity and settlement and
defense costs.  In addition, there will be periods during which
cash payments increase because the Company's insurance coverage
for asbestos claims involves multiple insurers, with different
policy terms and certain gaps in coverage, and, consequently,
the timing and amount of insurance reimbursement will vary.

The liability recorded for asbestos claims constitutes
management's best estimate, based on the Company's past
experience, of costs for pending and reasonably anticipated
future claims through 2007.  Management believes that the level
of uncertainty is too great to provide for reasonable estimation
of the number of future claims, the nature of such claims, or
the cost to resolve them and, accordingly, no accrual has been
recorded for any costs which may be incurred beyond 2007.  A
long-term liability was recorded to cover the estimated cost of
asbestos claims through 2007 and a long-term asset was recorded
representing the probable insurance reimbursement for such
claims (around 40 percent of settlement and defense costs).  The
Company's liability for asbestos-related claims before insurance
recoveries, which is included in other liabilities, was
$182,000,000 and $193,000,000 at June 30, 2004 and December 31,
2003, respectively, or $109,000,000 and $116,000,000,
respectively, after probable insurance recoveries.  At June 30,
2004 and December 31, 2003 around 50% and 60%, respectively, of
the asbestos liability represented the estimated cost of
unasserted claims against the Company.

The Company's primary insurers and one umbrella insurer pay a
significant portion of its settlement and defense costs up to
the agreed available limits of the applicable policies.  The
Company has substantial excess coverage policies that are
expected to respond to asbestos claims as settlements and other
payments exhaust the underlying policies, but there is no cost
sharing or allocation agreement yet in place with the excess
insurers.  The Company has determined it probable that the
Company's insurers will pay around 40% of the estimated gross
liability.  This insurance receivable is included in other
assets.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Federal-Mogul Insurance Recovery Greater
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. (OTC Bulletin Board: FDMLQ) claims in its
second quarter 2004 results filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that its unaudited asbestos-related
insurance recoverable amounted to $821,600,000 and $806,100,000
at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003 respectively.

Federal-Mogul is a global supplier offering a wide-ranging
portfolio of products, brands and solutions to the automotive
and other industries.  The Company's principal customers include
many of the world's foremost original equipment manufacturers of
vehicles and industrial products, and aftermarket retailers and
wholesalers.  Headquartered in Southfield, Michigan, Federal-
Mogul's heritage began in Detroit in 1899.  For more information
on Federal-Mogul, visit the company's Web site at
http://www.federal-mogul.com.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Longview Fibre Co. Named In Washington Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In March 2004, Longview Fibre Co. was named as one of eight
defendants in an asbestos-related case in Cowlitz County,
Washington.  The plaintiff alleges exposure to asbestos fibers
while working at the Company's mill as a carpenter's apprentice
between 1967 and 1973.

The Company says it has had little opportunity to complete a
factual investigation.  However, based on past experience with
this type of claim, it believes that this claim will not result
in the Company having material liability, if any, for damages.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: OIInc. Payments Increased For 2nd Quarter
--------------------------------------------------------------
The asbestos-related cash payments of Owens-Illinois Inc.
(OIInc.) in the second quarter of 2004 were $45,500,000,
compared with $44,800,000 for the second quarter of 2003.  For
the six months ended June 2004, asbestos-related payments of
$95,900,000 compare with $99,900,000 for the six months ended
June 2003.  New claim filings in the second quarter of 2004
continued their downward trend.  For the six-month period ended
June 2004, new filings have declined around 55% from the six-
month period ending June 2003.

As of June 30, 2004, the number of asbestos-related lawsuits and
claims pending against the Company was around 32,000, up from
around 29,000 pending claims at December 31, 2003, due to a
lower rate of claim disposition than in the comparable earlier
period.  Additionally, the Company believes that a significant
number of those pending cases have exposure dates after the
Company's 1958 exit from the business for which the Company
takes the position that it has no liability or are subject to
dismissal because they were filed in improper forums.

The Company anticipates that cash flows from operations and
other sources will be sufficient to meet its asbestos-related
obligation on a short-term and long-term basis.  The Company
expects to conduct its annual comprehensive review of its
asbestos-related liabilities and costs in connection with
finalizing and reporting its results for the full year.

OIInc.'s asbestos-related payments for 2003 decreased
$22,100,000, or 10%, to $199,000,000, compared with $221,100,000
for 2002.  The Company expects that its total asbestos-related
payments in 2004 will be moderately lower than 2003 and will
continue to decline thereafter as the preexisting but presently
unasserted claims withheld under the claims handling agreements
are presented to the Company and as the number of potential
future claimants continues to decrease.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Industries Fighting 116,000 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004, PPG Industries Inc. was one of many
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving
around 116,000 claims, most of which relate to allegations that
PPG should be liable for injuries involving asbestos-containing
thermal insulation products manufactured and distributed by
Pittsburgh Corning Corp. (PC).  PPG has denied responsibility
for, and has defended, all claims for any injuries caused by PC
products.

From May 3-7, 2004, the Bankruptcy Court judge conducted a
hearing regarding the fairness of the settlement.  At that
hearing, creditors and other parties in interest raised
objections to the plan.  Following that hearing, the Bankruptcy
Court set deadlines for the parties to develop agreed-upon and
contested Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law and scheduled
oral argument for contested items on November 9, 2004.  Sometime
after the oral argument, the Bankruptcy Court would enter a
confirmation order of the plan if the Bankruptcy Court
determines that all requirements to confirm a plan have been
satisfied; this order may be appealed to the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania. (The District Court
may join the Bankruptcy Court in the confirmation order, in
which case an appeal to the District Court would not be
necessary.)  Assuming that the District Court approves the
confirmation order, interested parties could appeal the order to
the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals and subsequently to the
U.S. Supreme Court.

The fair value of PPG's equity forward instrument is $14,000,000
and $15,000,000 as of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003,
respectively, and is included as another current asset in the
condensed balance sheet.  The amounts due June 30, 2003, 2004
and 2005 of $75,000,000, $98,000,000 and $90,000,000,
respectively, under the fixed payment schedule, are also
included in the condensed balance sheet.  The asbestos
settlement current liability is $396,000,000 and $308,000,000 as
of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively.  The net
present value of the remaining payments is included in the long-
term asbestos settlement liability in the condensed balance
sheet, which totaled $426,000,000 and $500,000,000 as of June
30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, respectively.  Accretion expense
associated with the asbestos liability is expected to continue
at about $8,000,000 per quarter through the end of 2004 and will
be slightly less through 2005.  Net income for the second
quarter of 2004 included an after-tax charge of $6,000,000, or 3
cents a share, to reflect the net change in the current value of
the Company's obligation under the asbestos settlement
agreement.  Net income for the first six months of 2004 also
included an after-tax charge of $9,000,000, or 5 cents a share,
to reflect the net change in the current value of the Company's
obligation under the asbestos settlement agreement.  As of June
30, 2004, the amount of the total judgment against PPG, with
accrued interest, was $164,000,000.

In November 2002, PPG Industries Inc. entered into a one-year
renewable equity forward arrangement with a bank in order to
partially mitigate the impact of changes in the fair value of
PPG stock that is to be contributed to the asbestos settlement
trust.  This instrument has been renewed for an additional year.
In accordance with the terms of this instrument the bank
purchased 504,900 shares of PPG stock on the open market at a
cost of $24,000,000 through December 31, 2002 and during the
first quarter of 2003 the bank purchased an additional 400,000
shares at a cost of $19,000,000, for a total principal amount of
$43,000,000.  PPG recorded income of $4,000,000 and expense of
$1,000,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004,
respectively, and income of $5,000,000 and $1,000,000 for the
three and six months ended June 30, 2003, respectively, for the
change in fair value of this instrument, which is reflected in
"Asbestos settlement - net" in the condensed statement of
income.  The fair value of this instrument as of June 30, 2004
and December 31, 2003 was a current asset of $14,000,000 and
$15,000,000, respectively.

To the extent that lawsuits and claims involve personal injury
and property damage, PPG believes it has adequate insurance;
however, certain of PPG's insurers are contesting coverage with
respect to some of these claims, and other insurers, as they had
prior to the asbestos settlement, may contest coverage with
respect to some of the asbestos claims if the settlement is not
implemented.  PPG's lawsuits and claims against others include
claims against insurers and other third parties with respect to
actual and contingent losses related to environmental, asbestos
and other matters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Expects Challenges Due To Liabilities
--------------------------------------------------------------
On July 26, 2004, RPM International Inc. (NYSE: RPM) said in a
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission, "For 2005,
we expect raw material costs to continue to run higher and
asbestos liabilities to remain a challenge.  Despite these
challenges, we expect to be able to produce high-single digit
growth in revenues, and low double-digit growth in earnings,
generating another year of record growth and margin improvement
from our operations."

Changes in asbestos-related liabilities, net of tax were
$33,735,000 and $93,698,000 for the years ended May 31, 2004 and
2003 respectively.  Current asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to $47,500,000 at May 31, 2004, compared to $41,583,000
at May 31, 2003.  Long-term asbestos-related liabilities
amounted to $43,107,000 at May 31, 2004 and $103,000,000 at May
31, 2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TOD Records Bodily Injury Reserve of $7.9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Todd Shipyards Corp. (NYSE: TOD) is named as a defendant in
civil actions by parties alleging damages from past exposure to
toxic substances, generally asbestos, at closed former
facilities of the Company.  The cases generally include as
defendants, in addition to the Company, other ship builders and
repairers, ship owners, asbestos manufacturers, distributors and
installers, and equipment manufacturers and arise from injuries
or illnesses allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos or other
toxic substances.

Based on fact patterns, certain diseases including mesothelioma,
lung cancer and fully developed asbestosis are categorized by
the Company as "malignant" claims.  All others of a less
medically serious nature are categorized as "non-malignant".
The Company is currently defending about 25 "malignant" claims
and about 565 "non-malignant" claims.  The Company and its
insurers are defending these actions.

During the first quarter of fiscal year 2004, the Company
experienced relatively minor changes in its bodily injury
liabilities and insurance receivables.  As of June 27, 2004, the
Company has recorded a bodily injury liability reserve of
$7,900,000 and a bodily injury insurance receivable of
$5,800,000.  This compares to a previously recorded bodily
injury reserve and insurance receivable of $8,100,000 and
$5,800,000, respectively, at March 28, 2004.  These bodily
injury liabilities and receivables are classified within the
Company's Consolidated Balance Sheets as environmental and other
reserves, and insurance receivables, respectively.


ASBESTOS ALERT: AICI Disclaims Coverage For Asbestosis Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
For the first time in 2002, and continuing in 2003, Acceptance
Insurance Companies Inc. received more than a de minimis number
of asbestosis claims; it has disclaimed coverage for these
claims.


COMPANY PROFILE

Acceptance Insurance Companies Inc. (Pink Sheets: AICI)
300 West Broadway, Suite 1600
Council Bluffs, IA 51503
Phone: 712-329-3600
http://www.aicins.com

Employees                  :              26
Revenue                    : $       600,000.00
Net Income                 : $   209,700,000.00
Assets                     : $   403,600,000.00
Liabilities                : $   457,500,000.00
(As of December 31, 2002)

Description: Acceptance Insurance Companies is a holding company
that has sold its property & casualty operations to a subsidiary
of German insurer Hannover Re and insurance holding company McM.
Citing drought and poor growing conditions, Acceptance Insurance
also divested American Agrisurance, its crop insurance business.
Acceptance's only remaining operation is Acceptance Insurance
Co., which is under administrative supervision.  The company
continues to manage the run-off of discontinued and sold
businesses.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Consolidated Container Gets Subpoena From EPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
On or about June 24, 2004, Consolidated Container Co. LLC
received a document production subpoena initiated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation
Division, regarding asbestos removal activities that may have
occurred during a 2003 partial renovation of its property at
6300 Strawberry Lane, Louisville, Kentucky.  Also, the Company
has notified and responded to an information request from the
Louisville-Jefferson County Air Pollution Control District
regarding the same removal activities.  Around 300 lineal feet
or less of thermal piping insulation may have been removed.  The
Company has identified the employees who may have been involved
in the removal and informed them of the potential for exposure
to asbestos.  The Company is engaged in investigating this
matter and preparing its response to the subpoena.  The Company
cannot reliably predict the outcome of this investigation or any
federal or state proceedings.

Based on available information, however, Consolidated Container
does not expect that the ultimate liability with respect thereto
will have a material adverse effect on its operations or
financial condition.  Although compliance with environmental
laws and regulations requires ongoing expenditures and clean-up
activities, the Company's capital expenditures for property,
plant and equipment for environmental control activities and
other expenditures for compliance with environmental laws and
regulations were not material in 2003 and are not expected to be
material in 2004.

Additionally, Consolidated Container's capital expenditures
related to safety were not material in 2003 and are not expected
to be material in 2004.  The Company believes that it is in
material compliance with all applicable national, state,
provincial and local environmental and safety laws and
regulations.  It is not engaged in any clean-up activities
required by governmental regulatory authorities under
environmental laws and regulations.


COMPANY PROFILE

Consolidated Container Company LLC
3101 Towercreek Parkway, Ste. 300
Atlanta, GA 30339
Phone: 678-742-4600
Fax: 678-742-4750
http://www.cccllc.com

Employees                  :           4,130
Revenue                    : $   746,500,000.00
Net Income                 : $   318,200,000.00
Assets                     : $   690,700,000.00
Liabilities                : $   774,300,000.00
(As of December 31, 2002)

Description: Formerly named Continental Can, Consolidated
Container is one of the largest manufacturers of rigid plastic
containers in the U.S.  Consolidated markets its products to the
consumer, agricultural, and industrial chemical industries.  It
makes containers for a variety of products, including water,
milk, ketchup, salsa, soap, motor oil, antifreeze, insect
repellent, fertilizers, and medical supplies.  Procter & Gamble
is a major customer.  The company was formed when Suiza Foods
merged its plastics business with Reid Plastics.  Dean Foods
owns 40% of Consolidated Container.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Smith Renovations LLC Partners Face Sentence
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael L. Smith and Lawrence J. Williams, partners in Smith
Renovations LLC, were sentenced for illegal removal of asbestos
(a violation of the Clean Air Act) from the Evangelical Lutheran
Church in Mt. Horeb, Wisconsin in July 2002.  Smith was
sentenced to 6 months of community confinement and 5 years of
probation.  Williams was sentenced to 3 months of community
confinement and 5 years of probation.  As part of their
sentences, both men were also required to pay $50,380 in
restitution to Evangelical Lutheran Church in Mt. Horeb.

In April 2002, Smith and Williams were contracted to renovate
the church.  Despite being informed that the ceiling in the
church classrooms contained asbestos, Smith and Williams
improperly scraped the ceilings of numerous classrooms.  A
licensed asbestos abatement contractor who was at the site to
perform other work in July 2002 stopped them.  Improper removal
and bagging of asbestos can expose workers and others who enter
the area to the inhalation of airborne asbestos fibers.  Inhaled
asbestos fibers are a known cause of lung cancer, asbestosis,
and mesothelioma.

Sentencing took place on July 14 in U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Wisconsin in Madison, Wisconsin.  EPA's
Criminal Investigation Division in coordination with the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin
Occupational Health Laboratory investigated the case.  It was
prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Madison.


COMPANY PROFILE

Smith Renovations LLC
210 Hillside Court
Janesville, Wisconsin 53545
Phone: 608-741-9625
http://www.smithrenovations.com

Description: Smith Renovations LLC was founded by Michael L.
Smith to provide renovation services to churches.  Mr. Smith and
his team of artisans renovated many churches throughout the
Midwest.  They have also restored turn of the century public and
privately owned historic buildings.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


BALLY TOTAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE: BFT)
securities during the period between August 3, 1999 and April
28, 2004,

The complaint charges Bally and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Bally is a commercial operator of fitness centers, with
approximately four million members and 420 facilities located in
29 states, Canada, Asia, the Caribbean and Mexico.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the
Company's increasing financial performance.  These statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that the Company had violated Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and its own internal
         policies by prematurely recognizing revenue on certain
         non-obligatory prepaid membership dues;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (3) that, as a result, the value of the Company's reported
         revenues during the Class Period was materially
         overstated.

On April 28, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
that its Chief Financial Officer and Director, John W. Dwyer,
had resigned and that the Division of Enforcement of the SEC had
commenced an investigation in connection with the Company's
announced restatement regarding the timing of recognition of
certain prepaid dues. The Company also stated that it had
modified its existing internal controls structure, which it
believes is now effective.

In response to these disclosures, shares of the Company's stock
fell approximately 17%, to close at $4.50 per share, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

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


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges IL Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Baxter
International, Inc. (NYSE:BAX) between April 19, 2001 through
July 21, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against
defendants Baxter, Robert Parkinson, Jr., Harry M. Jansen
Kraemer, Jr., Brian Anderson and John Greisch.

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

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


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities of Baxter
International Inc. (NYSE: BAX) from April 19, 2001 through July
21, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Baxter, Robert Parkinson, Jr., Harry M.
Jansen Kraemer, Jr., Brian Anderson, and John Greisch with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More
specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants issued false and misleading statements concerning its
business and financial condition. Specifically, defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company's financial results during the Class
         Period were materially overstated;

     (2) that the overstatement occurred because the Company
         improperly and "incorrectly" recognized $40 million in
         revenues and maintained inadequate and "incorrect"
         provisions for bad debts relating to its Brazilian
         operations;

     (3) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
         results were in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

     (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results, including its net income figures, were
         materially and artificially inflated at all relevant
         times.

On July 22, 2004, Baxter announced that it planned to restate
its financial results for the years 2001 through 2003, and for
the first quarter of 2004. The restatement was primarily the
result of incorrect revenue recognition and inadequate
provisions for bad debts in Brazil during that period, which
would result in a decrease in net income over the restatement
period by an amount expected to be no more than $40 million, or
$0.07 per diluted share. The restatement was expected to result
in adjustments to sales over the period of an amount not more
than $70 million, representing less than 0.5 percent of sales in
any year. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Baxter fell
$1.48 per share, or 4.59 percent, to close at $30.79 per share
on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


COMMERCE BANCORP: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Lawsuit NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
of New Jersey against Commerce Bancorp, Inc. ("Commerce" or the
"Company"), and Vernon W. Hill, on behalf of purchasers of
Commerce Bancorp common stock (NYSE: CBH) between June 18, 2002
and June 30, 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 throughout
the Class Period, Defendants made a series of material
misrepresentations and omissions in Commerce's press releases,
public filings and conference calls. Recently, a criminal
indictment was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania against a number of individuals
including, among others, Ronald A. White, a Director of Commerce
PA, Glenn K. Holck, President of Commerce PA, and Stephen M.
Umbrell, Regional Vice President of Commerce PA ("Indictment').

The federal investigation leading up to this Indictment was
never disclosed by Commerce in its SEC filings. This Indictment
has arisen from actions taken by Commerce and/or its
subsidiaries' employees, officers and directors to gain favor
and, subsequently, business from the City of Philadelphia. The
aggressive expansion of business by Commerce as well as the
actions undertaken by these employees, officers and/or directors
violated not only the Company's Codes of Ethics and Conduct, but
also the federal securities laws. Not disclosed was that
throughout 2002, and until October 2003, Commerce Bank paid
$15,000 a month to Ronald A. White apart from his compensation
for serving on the Board, and made other payments to favor his
interest.

As detailed in the Complaint, Commerce paid White $182,000 in
2002. In return for this compensation White directed the City of
Philadelphia Treasurer to award financial services and contracts
to Commerce PA and Commerce Capital on Commerce Bank's behalf.
Additionally, during this time period, Commerce waived certain
conditions on loans and made loans on favorable terms.
Additionally, the Complaint alleges Commerce made numerous
campaign contributions and provided other remuneration to public
officials and political candidates. Banks are barred from
donating money to elected officials who oversee municipal bond
deals, but Commerce controls a Political Action Committee, which
contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to numerous
politicians and government officials.

As a result of these disclosures, as well as the Indictment on
June 30, 2004, Commerce stock tumbled from a close on June 28 of
$64.46 to $55.01 on June 30.

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 their Web site:
http://www.classlaw.com


FERRO CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Ferro Corporation (NYSE: FOE) securities between October 28,
2003 and July 22, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern 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. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


FERRO CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Ferro Corporation. ("Ferro"
or the "Company") (NYSE:FOE), between October 28, 2003 and July
22, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Ferro securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


FERRO CORPORATION: Charles J. 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 Ferro
Corporation (NYSE:FOE) between October 28, 2003 and July 22,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

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


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges CA Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit, on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("IntraBiotics" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: IBPI) between September 5, 2003 and June 22,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending before the Honorable Marilyn Hall Patel,
case no. 04-CV-3064, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against defendants
IntraBiotics, Henry J. Fuchs (President and CEO), Detlef
Albrecht (Senior VP and Chief Medical Officer), and David J.
Tucker (Principal Financial Officer). According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, IntraBiotics
claimed that the early stage results from its Phase I and II
study of the Company's leading product, iseganan, HCl
(iseganan), demonstrated that the drug was safe and well-
tolerated by patients suffering from ventilator-associated
pneumonia (VAP), an often deadly complication resulting from the
use of mechanical ventilators in hospital intensive care units.
Defendants stated that iseganan was granted fast-track status by
the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") and that the agency had
agreed to a Special Protocol Assessment such that the company
could begin pivotal late stage trials to test the efficacy and
safety of the drug which, according to defendants, would
"further speed and clarify the pathway to (FDA) approval for
this agent for VAP."

On June 23, 2004, before the market opened, the company
announced that an independent monitoring committee advised
IntraBiotics to cease its pivotal efficacy and safety trials of
iseganan because the committee detected a higher rate of
mortality and VAP in patients who were treated with the drug
than with a placebo. As a result, the Company stopped its study
of iseganan. In reaction to this news, the price of IntraBiotics
stock dropped dramatically, falling $9.45 per share, or 69
percent, from its previous day's closing price of $13.68, to
close on June 23, 2004 at $4.23, on unusually high volume. As a
result of defendants' materially false and misleading
statements, the price of IntraBiotics' securities was
artificially inflated during the Class Period, causing harm to
Class Period purchasers of IntraBiotics securities. Defendants
were motivated to engage in the fraudulent conduct so that the
company could complete a private placement of IntraBiotics stock
and warrants for total proceeds of $18.4 million, and a public
offering of 3.45 million shares of stock for total proceeds of
$42.4 million.

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


KVH INDUSTRIES: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the District of Rhode Island Court against KVH
Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq: KVHI).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from January 6, 2004 through July 2, 2004.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com


NBTY INC.: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of NBTY, Inc.
(NYSE: NTY) between April 22, 2004 and June 16, 2004, inclusive.
The lawsuit was filed against NBTY and its top executives, Scott
Rudolph and Harvey Kamil.

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 asserts that the Company
issued false and misleading statements concerning its financial
results for the quarter ending March 31, 2004. On April 22,
2004, NBTY announced increased sales in that quarter for its
various business segments, including its Direct Response
segment, which sells products through catalogs and the internet.
The increased sales were attributed to "the Company's ability to
more effectively target market its customer base."

In truth, the results were due to special sales promotions, and
not any generalized improvement in the Company's marketing
abilities. Indeed, it is alleged that in the month of April
sales in this segment dropped off 14% because the special
promotion had ended. Before this decline was revealed to the
public, defendant Rudolph sold 400,000 shares for proceeds of
over $14 million, while defendant Kamil sold 157,000 shares for
proceeds of over $6 million.

On June 17, 2004, NBTY shocked investors by announcing sales
declines in the Direct Response segment of 12% for the months of
April and May, sending shares plunging from a close of $36.50
the previous day to $26.99 on trading volume of 8.3 million
shares.

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


NBTY INC.: Berger & Montague Files Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against NBTY, Inc. ("NBTY" or the "Company") (NYSE:NTY) and
certain of its officers, in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased NBTY securities from April 22, 2004
through July 22, 2004 (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 by the SEC 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 charges that NBTY, Scott Rudolf, and Harvey Kamil
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented that the Company's increased financial results
over the prior year was attributable to a shift in the timing of
a promotional mailing and was not attributable to any long-term
improvement at the Company. As a result, defendants' positive
statements concerning the Company's prospects were lacking in a
reasonable basis at all relevant times.

On June 17, 2004, the Company announced that its Direct Response
and Vitamin World operations had experienced lower sales for the
two-month period ending May 31, 2004. When this information was
belatedly disclosed to the market on June 17, 2004, shares of
NBTY common stock fell $9.51 per share, or 26%, to close at
$26.99 per share, on extremely high trading volume.

On July 22, 2004, NBTY reported weaker-than-expected third-
quarter financial results. The Company posted third-quarter
earnings of 37 cents a share on sales of $400 million. Analysts
polled by Thomson First Call had expected it to earn 48 cents a
share on sales of $416.4 million. Weakness in the company's
Vitamin World unit contributed to the third-quarter shortfall. A
year ago, NBTY earned pro forma earnings of 37 cents a share on
sales of $308 million. Shares of NBTY traded down $4.82, or
19.7%, to $19.68.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas M.
Risen, Esq., or Diane Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager of
Berger & Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia,
PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by Fax:
215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit their
Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


NBTY INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit was on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of NBTY, Inc. ("NBTY" or the "Company") (NYSE:NBTY)
between April 22, 2004 and July 22, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

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

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
knowingly or recklessly made materially false and misleading
statements that artificially inflated the price of NBTY.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that, at the start of the
Class Period, defendants announced that the Company had
experienced a "record" quarter, in which its financial results
exceeded analyst expectations, causing shares of the Company's
stock price to rise almost 5%. Defendants attributed the
increased revenues, in part, to "the Company's ability to more
effectively target market its customer base." As part of the
same announcement, defendants advised investors that they were
confident that the Company would continue to grow its revenue
and market share. Unbeknownst to investors, however, the
improved financial results were the result of a shift in the
timing of a promotional mailing and was not attributable to any
long term improvement at the Company. As was ultimately
disclosed by defendants at the end of the Class Period, the
Company's financial results in the third quarter, which did not
include this promotional campaign, suffered from a slowdown in
sales. Moreover, by at least the start of the Class Period,
defendants knew, but failed to disclose, that sales at the
Company's Vitamin World stores were declining because customers
were increasingly purchasing their vitamins and other health
supplements at mass market merchants, such as drugstores and
deep discounters, and not at specialty health stores such as
Vitamin World. When this information was belatedly disclosed to
the market, shares of NBTY common stock fell 26%. Prior to the
disclosure of this information, defendants Rudolph, Kamil and
other NBTY insiders sold 727,200 shares of their personally-held
stock at artificially inflated prices for gross proceeds of
$26,586,000.

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


NETFLIX INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Netflix, Inc. (Nasdaq: NFLX) from October 1,
2003 through July 15, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Netflix, Reed Hastings and W. Barry
McCarthy Jr. 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 the Company's growth was adversely affected
         by substantial customer attrition;

     (2) that in order to camouflage the high rate of customer
         attrition, defendants manipulated the Company's churn
         rate; and

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants
         lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
         about the Company's growth and progress.

On July 15, 2004, Netflix reported results for the second
quarter ended June 30, 2004. The press release disclosed the
true number of customer cancellations suffered by the Company.
Following the announcement, shares of Netflix fell $8.98 per
share or 28.06 percent, on July 16, 2004, to close at $23.02 per
share.

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


NETFLIX INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the Northern District of California against Netflix,
Inc. (Nasdaq: NFLX).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price.

The complaint further alleges the Company repeatedly made
statements throughout the Class Period that its churn rate was
declining to "record lows", when in fact in some these quarters
its churn rate was markedly rising. The class period is from
October 1, 2003, and July 15, 2004.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com


NETFLIX INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Netflix, Inc. (NASDAQ: NFLX) securities 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 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. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


RED HAT: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Red Hat, Inc.
(NasdaqNM: RHAT) between December 19, 2003 and July 13, 2004,
inclusive and who were damaged thereby.  The action, is pending
against the Company and:

     (1) Matthew Szulik (CEO),

     (2) Kevin B. Thompson (CFO),

     (3) Mark Webbink (General Counsel),

     (4) Timothy Buckley (former COO) and

     (5) Paul Cormier (Exec. VP)

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Throughout the Class Period, in each
Form 10-Q and Form 10-K filed with the SEC, Defendants falsely
reported that they "ratably" recognized revenue from
subscriptions.

In fact, as the market learned on July 13, it did not. Instead,
Defendants recognized revenue from subscriptions on a monthly
basis, rather than on a daily basis. For example, if a
subscription was signed on the last day of a month, a full
month's revenue would have been recognized on that day, rather
than a day's worth of revenue. After the auditor within
PriceWaterhouse Cooper rotated, the new auditor required
recognition of revenue from subscriptions on a daily basis as
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") requires.

This change in accounting practice resulted in Red Hat's having
to restate its financial results for fiscal years 2002, 2003 and
the first quarter of 2004. The restatement, Defendants have
admitted, "is expected to result in significant percentage
differences in certain items such as quarterly operating profit
and net income." During the short seven month class period,
Defendants Buckley and Szulik sold over $34 million and $37
million respectively, while the other defendants collectively
sold an additional $8 million in Red hat securities. As a result
of defendants' allegedly fraudulent scheme, the price of Red
Hat's securities was artificially inflated, allowing insiders to
sell Red Hat's securities for millions of dollars in proceeds,
and causing plaintiff and other class members to suffer damages.

The Company also announced that the SEC has made an inquiry into
the Company's results as filed in their Form 10-K. On Monday,
June 14, 2004, Red Hat 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. Red Hat stock plummeted $4.62
or 22.7% per share, losing $600 million in market capitalization
to close at $15.73 per share.

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


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Brain M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
White Electronic Designs Corporation (NASDAQ: WEDC) securities
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 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. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the law offices of Brian M. Felgoise,
P.C. by Mail: 261 Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046
by Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by e-mail at FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *