CAR_Public/040803.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 3, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 152

                          Headlines

AETNA INC.: Working To Settle Health Care Provider Suits in FL
AON CORPORATION: IL Court Grants Certification to Consumer Suit
ARCHER DANIELS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 3, 2004
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: NY Court Approves $20M New York Life Pact
AUTONATION INC.: Petitions TX Court For Review of Certification

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Overturns Dismissal Ruling
BEAZER HOMES: Reaches Pact For Mold, Construction Defects Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Reaches $300M ERISA Suit Settlements in S.D. NY
CALLAWAY GOLF: Discovery Proceeds in Consumer Fraud Suit in TN
CHELSEA PROPERTY: Shareholder Sues To Halt Simon Property Merger

EASTMAN KODAK: Africa-American Workers File Race Bias Suit in NY
ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Reaches Settlement for Securities Fraud Suit
ENRICO CORTESANO: SEC Obtains Final Judgment, Orders $150T Fine
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Summary Judgment Granted in NJ Consumer Lawsuit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Summary Judgment In NJ Consumer Lawsuit Granted

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: CA Court Dismisses Pharmacy Consumer Lawsuit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Two Deceptive Trade Lawsuits in NY Courts
GREAT ATLANTIC: Trial in Canadian Franchisee Suit Set Oct. 2004
GREAT ATLANTIC: Appeals Court Upholds NJ Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
HORIZON BLUE: NJ Judge Grants Certification To Doctors' Lawsuit

KRISPY KREME: Keller Rohrback Initiates ERISA Investigation
KS ADVISORS: SEC Obtains Judgment, Other Relief V Ex-Principals
MASTEC INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in FL
NORTHSTAR NETWORKS: SEC Bars Ex-President/CPA From Practicing
MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC: Recalls 500T TV/VCRs Due To Injury Hazard

PATINA OIL: Plaintiffs File Amended Gas Royalties Lawsuit in CO
RAYTHEON CO.: Reaches Settlement For MA Consolidated Stock Suit
SOUTH KOREA: Hemophiliacs Commence Lawsuit Over Tainted Blood
SPECTRASITE BUILDING: Winstar Files NY Antitrust Violations Suit
SPSS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. IL

STRATOS INTERNATIONAL: Trial in Suit V. Tsunami Acquisition Set
STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Approve Settlement
TENFOLD CORPORATION: Stock Suit Settlement Submitted to NY Court
UNITED PARCEL: Judge Approves Excess-Value Insurance Settlement
VECTOR MEDICAL: SEC Obtains Final Judgment V. Michael J. Farnell

WASTE MANAGEMENT: TX Court Dismisses, Stays Securities Lawsuits
WULF INTERNATIONAL: TX Court Assess $173,904.34 Monetary Penalty

                     New Securities Fraud Cases

BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Shalov Stone Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges NY Stock Lawsuit
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges NY Securities Suit
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Charles J. Piven Files NY Securities Suit
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Kirby McInerney Lodges NY Securities Suit

FERRO CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
FLIGHT SAFETY: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT
FLIGHT SAFETY: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
NASSDA CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
NASSDA CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA

NASSDA CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in OH
SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files NC Stock Fraud Suit
SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in CA
SYNOVIS TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in MN

SYNOVIS LIFE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in WA
WHITE ELECTRONIC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in DE


                           *********


AETNA INC.: Working To Settle Health Care Provider Suits in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. is continuing to work on settlements for several
class actions that are part of a wave of similar actions
targeting the health care payor industry and, in particular, the
conduct of business by managed care companies.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all
of the federal actions, including several actions originally
filed in state courts, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida for consolidated pretrial
proceedings.  The Florida federal court created a separate track
for all cases brought on behalf of health care providers.

Thirteen Provider Cases were presided over by the Florida
Federal Court, and a similar action is pending in Louisiana
state court, on behalf of purported classes of physicians.
These Provider Cases alleged generally that the Company and each
of the other defendant managed care organizations employed
coercive economic power to force physicians to enter into
economically unfavorable contracts, imposed unnecessary
administrative burdens on providers and improperly denied claims
in whole or in part, and that the defendants did not pay claims
timely or did not pay claims at proper rates.

These Provider Cases further charged that the Company and the
other defendant managed care organizations conspired and aided
and abetted one another in the alleged wrongdoing.  These
actions alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, state unfair trade statutes, state
consumer fraud statutes, state laws regarding the timely payment
of claims, and various common law doctrines and sought various
forms of relief, including unspecified damages, treble damages,
punitive damages and injunctive relief.

Effective May 21, 2003, the Company and representatives of over
900,000 physicians, state and other medical societies entered
into an agreement settling the lead physician Provider Case
pending in the Florida Federal Court.  The Physician Settlement
Agreement was approved by the Florida Federal Court on November
6, 2003.  The order of approval has been appealed to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, and the appeal
is scheduled to be argued on August 12, 2004.

The Company anticipates that, if the approval order is not
overturned on appeal, the Physician Settlement Agreement will
resolve all pending Provider Cases filed on behalf of physicians
that did not opt out of the settlement, including the Louisiana
state court action.

A Provider Case brought on behalf of the American Dental
Association made similar allegations on behalf of a purported
class of dentists.  Effective August 22, 2003, the Company and
representatives of approximately 150,000 dentists entered into
an agreement settling the dentist action.  The Dentist
Settlement Agreement was approved by the Florida Federal Court
on July 20, 2004.  The approval of the Dentist Settlement
Agreement concludes this Provider Case.

Several Provider Cases filed in 2003 on behalf of purported
classes of chiropractors and/or all non-physician health care
providers also make factual and legal allegations similar to
those contained in the other Provider Cases.  These Provider
Cases have been transferred to the Florida Federal Court for
consolidated pretrial proceedings.


AON CORPORATION: IL Court Grants Certification to Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Julia M. Nowicki of Cook County Circuit Court, Illinois
granted class action certification for a long standing lawsuit
against the Aon Corporation alleging inadequate disclosure of
income by the Company, the BestWire Services reports.

The certification will ultimately pave the way the for inclusion
of current or former policyholders of the Aon Corp., Aon Group,
and Aon Services Group as class members alongside lead
Plaintiffs Alan S. Daniel and the Williamson County (Illinois)
Agricultural Association.

The suit seeks to determine whether Aon's receiving or being
eligible for receipt, without consent of its clients,
undisclosed commissions or 'kickbacks' in connection with the
placement of insurance, violates the fiduciary or confidential
obligations imposed under Illinois law.

Filed originally as separate suits against Aon subsidiaries
Affinity Insurance Services Inc. and K&K Insurance Group
respectively, the plaintiffs' complaints both alleged the Aon
companies entered into "profit-sharing" relationships with the
underwriters without disclosing the income to their policyholder
clients.

Attorney Richard Stone of the New York-based firm Kirby,
McInerney & Squire LLP told BestWire that; "What we are charging
Aon with is having taken undisclosed profit sharing from
insurance companies, based on performance of the policies,
without then forwarding them on to the policyholders." Mr. Stone
further stated that the firm would give notice to members of the
class, but he was not prepared to provide an estimate of how
many members it might hold.

In reaction to the filing of the lawsuit, Aon spokesman Al
Orendorff stated that although Nowicki's decision is "purely
procedural and says nothing about the merits of the case," the
company will seek to overturn it on appeal.

For more details, contact Richard Stone of Kirby McInerney &
Squire LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 371-6600 or (888) 529-4787 by Fax:
(212) 751-2540 or visit their Web site: http://www.kmslaw.com/


ARCHER DANIELS: Suit Settlement Hearing Set September 3, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
Illinois - Peoria Division will hold a fairness hearing for the
proposed $400,000,000 settlement by defendant Archer Daniels
Midland Company to all direct purchasers of High Fructose Corn
Syrup in the United States during the period July 21, 1991
through June 30, 1995.

A hearing will be held on September 3, 2004 at 1:00pm in the
United States Courthouse, Courtroom A, 100 N.E. Monroe Street,
Peoria, Illinois, for the Court to determine whether the
proposed settlement with Maize And Cargill is fair reasonable
and adequate.

For more details, contact Robert N. Kaplan, Esq. of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP by Mail: 805 Third Ave. New York, New York 10022
or by Phone: (212) 687-1980 OR For more details, contact Michael
J. Freed, Esq. of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament &
Rubenstein, P.C. by Mail: 191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 1900,
Chicago, IL 60606 or by Phone: (312) 521-2000 or For more
details, contact H. Laddie Montague, Jr., Esq. of Berger &
Montague by Mail: 1622 Locus Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 or
by Phone: (215) 875-3000


ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: NY Court Approves $20M New York Life Pact
------------------------------------------------------------
The $20 million settlement for a class action lawsuit between
New York Life Insurance Co. (NYI.XX) and the descendants of
Armenians killed nearly 90 years ago in the Turkish Ottoman
Empire got final approval from U.S. District Court Judge
Christina A. Snyder, the Dow Jones Newswires reports.

Earlier reported in the January 30 issue of the CAR Newsletter
the settlement is believed to be the first ever in connection
with what Armenians say was genocide but Turkey describes as
civil unrest.

According to attorney Brian S. Kabateck, who, like co-counsel
Mark Geragos, is Armenian-American told Dow Jones that; "As
lawyers and descendants of victims of the genocide, we were able
to bring to court a lawsuit that brings some recognition of the
genocide.

Armenians have asserted that 1.5 million people were executed
between 1915 and 1923 by Turkish authorities who accused them of
helping the invading Russian army during World War I. Turkey has
rejected the genocide claim, saying Armenians were killed in
civil unrest during the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

Beginning in the 1880s until 1915 New York Life sold about 8,000
insurance policies, with less than half bought by Armenians.
Many of which have languished due to the fact that the remaining
heirs could not be found. The company has only located about
one-third of the policyholders' descendants to pay benefits.

Under the settlement about $11 million will be set aside for
potential claims by heirs of some 2,400 policyholders, $3
million will go to Armenian charities and the rest will pay
attorneys' fees and administrative costs.

France and Russia are among 15 countries that have recognized
the genocide. The U.S. has not made such a declaration.


AUTONATION INC.: Petitions TX Court For Review of Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Autonation, Inc. petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to
reconsider its denial of review of class certification for the
consolidated suit filed against three of its Texas store
subsidiaries, the Texas Automobile Dealers Association
(TADA) and approximately 700 new vehicle stores in Texas that
are members of the TADA.  The suit alleges that since January
1994, Texas dealers have deceived customers with respect to a
vehicle inventory tax and violated federal antitrust and other
laws as well.

In April 2002, in two actions (which have been consolidated),
the state court certified two classes of consumers on whose
behalf the action would proceed.  In October 2002, the Texas
Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of class
certification in the state action and the Company and other
defendants appealed the ruling to the Texas Supreme Court, which
declined to review the class certification.

In the federal antitrust case, in March 2003, the federal court
conditionally certified a class of consumers.  The Company and
other defendants are appealing the ruling to the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Appeals Court Overturns Dismissal Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
reversed the dismissal of the securities class action filed by
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP against Baxter
International and others, styled Asher v. Baxter International
Inc., No. 03-3189.  The court also remanded the suit to the
Northern District of Illinois, where the case was initially
filed.

This action arises from claims that Baxter misrepresented its
financial trends and performance throughout the class period in
the face of growing, non-public evidence of constraints on and
problems in its business. The District Court dismissed the suit,
holding that the challenged statements were of a forward-looking
nature and interpreted those statements to be protected by the
"Safe Harbor" provisions in the federal securities laws.

In a decision of first impression in the Seventh Circuit, the
Court of Appeals held that even firm-specific cautionary
statements are inadequate if they do not reflect the knowledge
of the corporation as to what risks are actually likely to
affect future results. The Seventh Circuit thus held that
determining whether cautionary statements provide an adequate
safe harbor against liability is an issue of fact, which
ordinarily cannot be decided at the pleadings stage. It thus
offers protection against the argument made by some defendants
that the "Safe Harbor" can prevent scrutiny into statements,
which are knowingly false if accompanied by some cautionary
language.

Milberg Weiss led and argued this appeal. Barry Weprin, who
argued for the plaintiffs, said, "We are very pleased with this
decision and believe that it will not only advance this
litigation but prove highly persuasive throughout the Federal
Courts."


BEAZER HOMES: Reaches Pact For Mold, Construction Defects Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beazer Homes Investment Corporation and its subsidiary Trinity
Homes LLC reached a settlement for a class action filed in
relation to construction defect and warranty complaints related
to moisture intrusion and mold.

The suit, styled "Gary Harmon and Sheri Harmon v. Trinity Homes
LLC and Beazer Homes Investment Corp.," is pending in Hamilton
County Superior Court in the State of Indiana.  The plaintiffs
are asserting that Trinity and Beazer Homes Investment
Corporation violated applicable building codes.  The complaint
attempts to define the purported class to include all owners of
a residential structure in Indiana constructed and marketed by
Trinity and Beazer Homes Investment Corp. in which a one-inch
gap with a vapor barrier does not exist between an exterior
brick veneer wall and the surface of the underlying exterior
wall.  Excluded from the class are any residents who suffer
personal injuries caused by mold infestation.

No monetary amount was stated in the claim.  No hearing on class
certification has been held at this time and no hearing for such
certification is currently scheduled.

The parties in the putative class action have engaged in a
series of mediation conferences and have reached an agreement in
principle for a settlement of the case.  The parties are
currently drafting detailed settlement documents.  The agreement
in principle contemplates a settlement that would establish an
agreed protocol and process for assessment and remediation of
the homes.  The court has ordered the parties to present any
definitive settlement documents to the court by August 6, 2004.
Although an agreement in principle has been reached, the terms
of the final settlement are subject to, among other things,
review and approval by the court and the parties to the suit.
It is anticipated that the process of review and approval of the
settlement will not be completed for several months and thus
there can be no assurance that a final settlement will
ultimately be reached.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Reaches $300M ERISA Suit Settlements in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana, the Louisiana
State Employees' Retirement System, the General Retirement
System of the City of Detroit and the Fresno County Employees'
Retirement Association ("Lead Plaintiffs") won preliminary
approval from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York for a settlement in the securities class
action litigation, In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities
Litigation, pending against the pharmaceutical firm Bristol-
Myers Squibb Company.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (NYSE: BMY) has agreed to pay $300
million to the Class of investors who purchased the company's
common stock between October 19, 1999 and March 10, 2003. The
Class Members were allegedly damaged by the artificial inflation
of Bristol Myers's stock price due to the defendants' materially
false and misleading statements and omissions regarding the
company's financial condition and the prospect for the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration's approval of the drug Erbitux, in which
Bristol-Myers invested $2 billion for the drug's development.
The settlement resolves all of the Class Members' claims against
the company and the individual defendants Peter R. Dolan,
Harrison M. Bains, Jr., Peter Ringrose, Charles A. Heimbold,
Frederick S. Schiff, Michael F. Mee, Richard J. Lane, and Curtis
L. Tomlin.

While Lead Plaintiffs and their court-appointed counsel
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo believe that the claims asserted
against the defendants are meritorious, in April 2004, the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint was dismissed by the Court
with prejudice. The settlement was reached by the parties while
Lead Plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the complaint was
pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

"In view of the material risks associated with this appeal,
including the protracted time it would take to resolve the
appeal and to pursue subsequent litigation if the dismissal was
reversed, this settlement provides for an immediate recovery for
the Class, subject to the Court's final approval. This result is
attributable to the Lead Plaintiffs' commitment to corporate
accountability and reform," said Daniel Berger, a partner at
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

"This settlement underscores the vital role institutional
investors play in achieving recoveries through class actions,"
said Jeffrey C. Block, a partner at Berman DeValerio Pease
Tabacco Burt & Pucillo.

In October 2002, the Court appointed the Teachers' Retirement
System of Louisiana; the General Retirement System of the City
of Detroit; the Louisiana State Employees' Retirement System and
the Fresno County Employees' Retirement Association to serve as
Co-Lead Plaintiffs for the Class, and the Court appointed
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and Berman DeValerio
Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo as Co-Lead Counsel. On April 11,
2003, Lead Plaintiffs filed the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint on behalf of the Class against the defendants.

For more details, visit: http://www.blbglaw.comor
http://www.bermanesq.com


CALLAWAY GOLF: Discovery Proceeds in Consumer Fraud Suit in TN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Callaway Golf Company and Callaway Golf Sales Company in
the Circuit Court of Sevier County, Tennessee, Case No.2001-241-
IV, on behalf of consumers in Tennessee and Kansas who purchased
select Callaway Golf products on or after March 20, 2000.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company adopted a
New Product Introduction Policy governing the introduction of
certain of the Company's new products in violation of Tennessee
and Kansas antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The
plaintiff is seeking damages, restitution and punitive damages.

On November 4, 2002, Callaway Golf Sales Company was served with
a complaint filed in the District Court of Sedgwick County,
Kansas, Case No.02C3607, seeking to assert an alleged class
action on behalf of Kansas consumers who purchased select
Callaway Golf products covered by the New Product Introduction
Policy.  Callaway Golf Company is also named in the Kansas case.

The plaintiff in the Kansas case seeks damages and restitution
for the alleged class under Kansas law.  The trial court in the
Kansas case has stayed the matter in light of the prior pending
case in Tennessee.


CHELSEA PROPERTY: Shareholder Sues To Halt Simon Property Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Property Group, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Court of Chancery in Essex County, New Jersey seeking to enjoin
the proposed merger of the Company with Simon Property Group,
Inc., whereby Simon will acquire all of the outstanding common
stock and operating partnership units of the Company in a
transaction valued at approximately $3.5 billion in cash and
stock.

The complaint, which was brought by a purported stockholder of
the Company, names the Company and each of the members of its
board of directors as defendants.  The complaint alleges the
defendants have violated fiduciary duties of care, loyalty,
candor and independence owed to the public stockholders of the
Company.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action
certification, a declaration that the merger agreement is
unenforceable, a preliminary and permanent injunction against
the defendants from proceeding with or closing the merger unless
and until the Company implements a procedure that is free from
conflicts of interest and an award of attorneys' and costs of
suit.


EASTMAN KODAK: Africa-American Workers File Race Bias Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak faces a class action filed by its current and
former African-American employees at Eastman Kodak in the United
States District Court for the Western District of New York,
claiming the company has, for more than a decade:

     (1) paid black employees less than their white colleagues;
         promoted them less frequently;

     (2) permitted harassment by their white counterparts; and

     (3) practiced other civil rights employment violations

The workers also alleged Kodak has been aware of the practice of
continuing wage and promotion disparity and maintains a pattern
of harassment of African-American employees by their white
colleagues that results in a hostile work environment for
Kodak's black workers.

"Kodak says it's been taking steps to address discrimination,"
said attorney Clayborne E. Chavers, whose Washington-based The
Chavers Law Firm is co-lead firm representing the plaintiffs.
"But the steps they've been taking amount to a cover-up, window
dressing."

William T. Coleman, III, of Philadelphia law firm Berger &
Montague is lead counsel in the case. Woods Oviatt Gilman of
Rochester and Garwin and Bronzaft, Gerstein & Fisher of New York
City are co-counsels.

The suit, which is seeking unspecified damages, was filed by 10
plaintiffs and the Employees Committed for Justice, an
association that represents 1,000 African-American current and
ex-Kodak employees that was founded in 2002 to bring an end to
Kodak's pattern of racial discrimination in the workplace.

"You think you have had your share of discrimination and then
you hear the stories of other people and it brings tears to your
eyes," said Olin Singletary, a former employee who accepted an
offer of early retirement after years of discrimination. "I was
afraid back then, but I'm not afraid anymore. I'm just one of
many."

The action was taken after a breakdown in negotiations over
several months between Kodak, one of the icons of American
business, and the plaintiffs' attorneys. Talks had begun in
February when the Buffalo office of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found after a four-and-half-year
investigation that the company had been engaging in
discriminatory practices.

In 1998, about 130 African-American employees took their
complaints about discriminatory compensation to the Rev. Norvel
Goff, president of the Rochester chapter of the NAACP. He
communicated the complaints to Kodak, which initiated an
internal wage and promotion analysis.

As a result of the analysis, Kodak acknowledged a disparity in
pay and promotions for African-American employees in some
departments. Kodak created the "Do the Right Thing Award," a
program that paid $10 million in back pay as well as $3 million
in annual raises to correct racial and gender inequality in pay
dating to 1990.

However, the suit claims hundreds of class members who had
suffered race discrimination were not made aware of this program
and complaints against Kodak continued to rise. Kodak later
established an alternative dispute resolution mechanism through
discussions with Rev. Goff called the "ADR Peer Review Process."
Goff and Kodak agreed that African-American employees serve on
five peer review panels and would hear claims submitted through
the process. The suit alleges Kodak never publicized the peer
review or made it available to all black employees. Because of
this failure to deal with illegal conduct, the issues regarding
discriminatory behavior at Kodak worsened.

" 'The Do the Right Thing' and peer review program never
fulfilled their commitment to Kodak's African-American
employees," said Mr. Chavers. "We've never received the data
from Kodak on who received compensation and what was recommended
by the peer review panel. In addition, many of the African-
American employees whose concerns these programs were supposed
to address, never knew of this process. We only have evidence of
500 to 600 employees who were aware of these programs."

While Kodak launched the "ADR Peer Review Process," the EEOC
began its investigation into the bias charges in October 1999,
which culminated in its conclusion in February 2004 that Kodak
had allowed harassment to continue in several divisions and
cited many examples of racial epithets made against black
employees at Kodak.

For more details, contact Angela Harrington of Harrington
Communications by Mail: 11 Dundar Street, Springfield, NJ 07081
by Phone: 973-912-8196 or by Fax: 973-912-7225 OR Stephen
Whinston, Esq. of Berger & Montague, P.C. by Phone: 215-875-3000
OR Clay Chavers, Esq. of The Chavers Law Firm, P.C. by Phone:
202-835-1800 or visit their Web site:
http://www.kodakdiscrimination.com


ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: Reaches Settlement for Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. reached a settlement for the
securities class actions and shareholder derivative lawsuits
filed against it and certain of its officers and directors.

As a result of the Company's March 2003 announcement that it was
reviewing certain accounting matters and would be restating some
of its financial statements, between March 26, 2003 and May 20,
2003, three purported class action lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon against
the Company and:

     (1) David F. Bolender (former director, CEO and Chairman of
         the Board),

     (2) James T. Dooley (former President and CEO), and

     (3) Joseph L. Reinhart (former Acting CFO)

The complaints were filed on behalf of a purported class of
persons who purchased the Company's common stock between
September 17, 2002 and at the latest April 15, 2003, and alleged
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the Act) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, as well as
Section 20(a) of the Act.  The complaints have been consolidated
under the name "In re Electro Scientific Industries, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. CV 03-404-HA."

Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel for plaintiffs have been
appointed.  The plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint
(the Consolidated Complaint) was filed on October 10, 2003,
which shortened the purported class to purchasers between
September 17, 2002 and March 20, 2003, and added Donald R.
VanLuvanee (ESI's President and CEO from 1992 until April 2002),
John R. Kurdock (ESI's former VP Operations), and James Lorenz
(ESI's former Corporate Controller) as additional defendants.

The Consolidated Complaint alleges that defendants made false
and misleading statements during the purported class period
about the Company's financial condition and performance,
business prospects, and operations, artificially inflating its
stock price and leading to the restatement first announced on
March 20, 2003.

In March 2003, the Company's Audit Committee commenced an
investigation into certain accounting matters.  As a result of
the investigation, which was completed on July 11, 2003, the
Company restated its financial statements for the fiscal year
ended June 1, 2002 and for the quarters ended August 31, 2002
and November 30, 2002.

On March 31, 2003 and April 28, 2003, two separate purported
shareholder derivative complaints were filed in the Circuit
Court of Oregon in Washington County.  The complaints were
consolidated under the name "In re Electro Scientific
Industries, Inc. Derivative Litigation, Lead Case No. C 031067
CV."  A consolidated complaint was filed on September 24, 2003,
and names as defendants James Dooley (former President and CEO),
David Bolender (former director, CEO and Chairman), Joseph
Reinhart (former Acting CFO), Barry Harmon (director and former
President and CEO), and current or former directors W. Arthur
Porter, Gerald Taylor, Larry Hansen, Vernon Ryles, Keith Thomson
and Jon Tompkins.  The Company is named as a "nominal
defendant."

The Complaint, which purports to be brought on behalf of ESI,
alleges that all defendants breached fiduciary duties owed to
ESI, abused their alleged control over ESI, wasted corporate
assets, are liable for gross mismanagement, and were unjustly
enriched by their conduct.  The Complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of monetary damages and seeks various equitable remedies,
including a constructive trust on the proceeds received by
the defendants from trading ESI common stock, and attorneys'
fees and costs.

As filed, the Complaint is derivative in nature and does not
seek monetary damages from ESI or the imposition of equitable
remedies on ESI.  A special litigation committee of the
Company's board of directors, with the assistance of independent
legal counsel, was appointed to conduct an investigation
relating to the allegations asserted in the Complaint.

On April 22, 2004, the Company announced an agreement in
principle to settle both the class action and derivative
actions.  The settlement, which is subject to court approval,
calls for the payment of $9.3 million, of which approximately
$3.8 million will be paid by the Company and approximately $5.5
million will be paid by its insurance carrier.


ENRICO CORTESANO: SEC Obtains Final Judgment, Orders $150T Fine
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission on May 13, 2004, through
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
obtained a Final Default Judgment of Permanent Injunction and
Other Relief (Final Judgment) against Defendant Enrico Cortesano
(Cortesano). The Final Judgment, entered by default, enjoins
Cortesano from violations of Sections 5(c), 17(a) and 20(c) of
the Securities Act of 1933. In addition to injunctive relief,
the Final Judgment orders Cortesano to pay a civil penalty in
the amount of $150,000. The action is titled, SEC v. Enrico
Cortesano, CASE NO. 03-62039-CIV-ALTONAGA (S.D. Fla.)] (LR-
18811).

Enrico Cortesano (Cortesano) is a defendant in a Securities and
Exchange Commission (Commission) complaint alleging securities
fraud against Enrico Cortesano (Cortesano) filed on November 14,
2003 and is also the subject of a cease-and-desist Order issued
by the Commission in 2001.

The Commission's Complaint alleges that from at least November
2001 to January 2003, Cortesano engaged in an Internet prime
bank offering through a website that offered bank debenture
trading programs. According to the Commission's complaint, the
website described these programs as "the buying and selling of
bank debentures within the international money markets by the
top 100 world banks." The Commission's complaint alleges that
these investments do not exist, and that many of the
misrepresentations are similar to the fraudulent conduct
detailed in a cease-and-desist Order issued by the Commission in
2001 against Cortesano.

The Commission's complaint sought permanent injunction and civil
money penalties against Cortesano based on his violations of
Sections 5(c), 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of
1933, and seeks an Order requiring him to comply with the 2001
cease-and-desist Order.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Summary Judgment Granted in NJ Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County
granted summary judgment in favor of Express Scripts, Inc., its
subsidiary National Prescription Administrators, Inc. (NPA) in
the class action filed against them and Benecard Prescription
Services, styled "City of Paterson, et al. v. Benecard et. al.
Cause No. L-005908-02."

On September 13, 2002, plaintiffs filed this action against
Benecard Prescription Services and NPA, alleging violations of
the New Jersey Consumer Protection Act.  The allegations by the
plaintiffs assert that various business practices of the
defendants violated the statute.  Neither Express Scripts nor
NPA owns any interest in Benecard, which is an independent
entity.  Subsequently, plaintiff added ESI as a defendant and
added claims for common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation,
and breach of contract.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class
of similarly situated plaintiffs and seek unspecified monetary
damages.

Both NPA and ESI have filed answers denying liability.  On
March 7, 2004, their motion for summary judgment on the consumer
protection counts was granted.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Summary Judgment In NJ Consumer Lawsuit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Camden County
granted summary judgment in favor of Express Scripts, Inc. (ESI)
and its subsidiary National Prescription Administrators, Inc.,
in the class action filed against them, styled "International
Association of Firefighters, Local No. 22, et al. v. National
Prescription Administrators and Express Scripts, Inc, Cause No.
L03216-02."

The suit alleges that NPA had breached agreements with two
benefit plans to whom NPA had provided services under an
umbrella agreement with a labor coalition client.  ESI was also
named as a defendant under a theory of de facto merger.   The
plaintiffs purport to bring the action on behalf of a class of
similarly situated plans.

The lawsuit alleges that NPA had not paid the plans the rebates
to which they were entitled under the agreement.  Claims for
unspecified money damages are asserted under the New Jersey
Consumer Protection Act, and for breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.

The Company and NPA filed answers denying liability. On July 23,
2004, summary judgment was granted in favor of NPA and ESI on
the customer fraud counts.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: CA Court Dismisses Pharmacy Consumer Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California dismissed with prejudice the consumer class action
filed against Express Scripts, Inc. and other pharmacy benefit
management companies, styled "Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark,
et al., Cause No. 021327 VAP."

The complaint, filed by several California pharmacies as a
putative class action, alleged rights to sue as a private
attorney general under California law.  The complaint alleged
that the Company, and the other defendants, failed to comply
with statutory obligations under California Civil Code Section
2527 to provide its California clients with the results of a bi-
annual survey of retail drug prices.

On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice on the
grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the action.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Two Deceptive Trade Lawsuits in NY Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces two class actions alleging deceptive
trade practices, pending in New York state and federal courts.

The first suit, styled "Scheuerman et al. v. Express Scripts,
Cause No. 2372-04," was filed in the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Country of Albany on behalf of all individuals who
receive health benefits through the New York Health Insurance
Program.

Another previously disclosed case purporting to seek relief for
the same class on the same claims was previously filed by the
same counsel in another New York State court, "Wagner et al. v.
Express Scripts."  The complaint alleges that certain business
practices constitute a breach of fiduciary duty and violate the
New York State statute on deceptive trade practices.  The
complaint seeks injunctive relief and unspecified monetary
damages.  The Company has removed this case to federal district
court.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Trial in Canadian Franchisee Suit Set Oct. 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the breach of contract class action filed against The
Great Atlantic & Pacific Company of Canada, Limited is set for
October 2004 in a Canadian court.

In April 2002, three Canadian Food Basics franchisees commenced
the suit as representative plaintiffs for a purported class of
approximately 70 current and former Canadian Food Basics
franchisees.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in
connection with A&P Canada's alleged failure to distribute to
the franchisees the full amount of vendor allowances and/or
rebates to which the franchisees claim they are entitled under
the operative franchise agreements.

The Company disputes the plaintiff-franchisees' claim and has
filed a counterclaim seeking to recover subsidies made by it to
the plaintiffs.  The lawsuit was certified as a class action in
December 2002.  A majority of the class members have opted out
of the proceeding.  The Company's appeal of the class
certification order was dismissed and the Company is seeking
leave to file a further appeal.


GREAT ATLANTIC: Appeals Court Upholds NJ Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the securities class action filed against The Great
Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.

The suit is filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey and styled "In re The Great Atlantic &
Pacific Tea Company, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02 CV 2674
(FSH)."  The suit alleged claims under Sections 10(b) (and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 arising out of the Company's July 5, 2002
filing of restated financial statements for fiscal 1999, fiscal
2000 and the first three quarters of fiscal 2001.  The complaint
sought unspecified money damages, costs and expenses.

On January 17, 2003, defendants filed a motion seeking to
dismiss the Complaint.  In an Opinion & Order entered September
18, 2003, the District Court dismissed plaintiffs' Complaint
without prejudice.  After declining to file a Second Amended
Complaint, plaintiffs appealed the District Court's dismissal of
their Complaint to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit.


HORIZON BLUE: NJ Judge Grants Certification To Doctors' Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Newark, New Jersey Superior Court Judge James S. Rothschild Jr.
allowed a pediatrician's suit seeking millions of dollars from
Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey for alleged
problems with reimbursement to proceed as a class action, The
Record reports.

In his ruling, the judge stated that the suit had merit and that
Dr. John I. Sutter was a valid representative of the doctors as
a class.  The suit is filed on behalf of more than 40,000 New
Jersey physicians against Horizon, which is the largest HMO in
the state, according to Dr. Sutter's attorney, Eric D. Katz of
Livingston.  The suit makes claims under New Jersey's prompt-
payment laws and seeks monetary damages for Horizon's alleged
failure since 1996 to pay claims on time and to pay interest on
claims it paid late.

Attorney Katz told The Record that; "We were able to estimate
damages in the tens of millions of dollars, based on information
from the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance.

The suit also seeks separate damages for two subsets of
physicians within the larger group including one where it is
alleged that Horizon intentionally altered and manipulated bills
submitted by nearly 2,000 pediatricians to pay them less. While
the other alleges that Horizon did not pay appropriate
compensation to about 3,000 doctors entitled to monthly payments
based on the number of patients who selected them as their
primary care providers.

Dr. Sutter also alleges that "significant claims processing
abuses" by the HMO have jeopardized doctors' ability to provide
quality care and to pay their own expenses, such as equipment,
supplies, salaries, and overhead.


KRISPY KREME: Keller Rohrback Initiates ERISA Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Keller Rohrback LLP commenced an investigation
against Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. ("Krispy Kreme" or the
"Company") (NYSE:KKD) for violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). The investigation focuses
on investments in Company stock by the Krispy Kreme Doughnut
Corp. Retirement Savings Plan and the Krispy Kreme Profit
Sharing Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plans") between August 21,
2003 and the present (the "Class Period").

Keller Rohrback's investigation focuses on concerns that Krispy
Kreme and other fiduciaries for the Plans may have breached
their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by

     (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans'
         assets by imprudently investing a significant amount of
         the Plans' assets in Krispy Kreme stock;

     (2) failing to monitor and provide fiduciary appointees
         with information that the appointing fiduciaries knew
         or should have known that the monitored fiduciaries
         must have in order to prudently manage the Plans'
         assets;

     (3) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         participants and beneficiaries; and

     (4) breaching their duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

Specifically, Keller Rohrback is investigating allegations that,
during the Class Period, Krispy Kreme stock was an imprudent
retirement investment because

     (i) Krispy Kreme repeatedly reported strong operational
         growth and substantial increases in revenues, income
         and earnings per share and represented that the Company
         would continue to grow when in reality Krispy Kreme had
         been suffering from increasingly poor sales
         performance;

    (ii) Krispy Kreme adopted a business model and strategy for
         increasing sales that was predicated on the perpetual
         addition of new stores and the hyping of the Company's
         entry into new markets, which resulted in unsustainable
         surges in sales that fell off once the hype ceased and
         the novelty of the new store wore off; and

   (iii) Krispy Kreme's wholesale business was saturating the
         market with Krispy Kreme products which decreased the
         Company's overall profit margin; and

    (iv) the price of Krispy Kreme's common stock was therefore
         artificially inflated during the Class Period.

The Company announced that it was also under investigation by
the Securities and Exchange Commission. The inquiry generally
concerns the Company's franchise re-acquisitions and the
Company's previously announced reduction in earnings guidance.
Today the stock closed at $15.74 per share. At the start of the
class period, August 21, 2003, the stock traded as high as
$47.50 per share.

For more details, contact Jennifer Tuato'o - Paralegal of Keller
Rohrback, L.L.P. by Phone: 800/776-6044 or by E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit the following:
http://www.erisafraud.comor http://www.seattleclassaction.com


KS ADVISORS: SEC Obtains Judgment, Other Relief V Ex-Principals
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission on May 25, 2004, through
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
obtained Judgments of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief
(Judgments) against Defendants Scott Fine (Fine) and Kevin Boyle
(Boyle). The Judgments, entered with the consent of Boyle and
Fine, without admitting or denying the allegations of the SEC's
Complaint, enjoin them from violations of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and
206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. In addition to
injunctive relief, the Judgments provide for disgorgement and
the imposition of civil penalties in amounts to be reached by
agreement of the parties and/or by the Court upon the SEC's
motion. The action is titled, SEC v. KS Advisors, Inc., KS
Condor Partner, LTD., II, Damian Partners, LLC, Scott Fine and
Kevin Boyle, Case No. 2:04 -CV-105- FTM-29DNF (M.D. Fla.) (LR-
18812).

On February 26, 2004, the SEC filed an emergency action to halt
an alleged hedge fund fraud conducted by Ft. Myers-based KS
Advisors, Inc. (KS Advisors) and its principals, Scott Fine
(Fine) and Kevin Boyle (Boyle). According to the Commission's
Complaint, since at least 2000, Fine and Boyle have used their
company, KS Advisors, to raise approximately $10 million from
about 100 investors nationwide and abroad through investments in
two hedge funds, KS Condor Partners, Ltd., II (Condor II) and
Damian Partners, LLC (Damian Partners). On February 27, 2004,
Judge Steele, U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, issued various emergency orders against the defendants,
including temporary restraining orders, asset freezes against KS
Advisors, Condor II, and Damian Partners, the appointment of a
receiver, and other emergency relief.

The Commission's Complaint alleges the representations made by
KS Advisors, Boyle and Fine to the hedge funds' investors about
the ever-increasing profits and net asset values of Condor II
and Damian Partners were completely false. According to the
Commission's Complaint, the investments made by Boyle and Fine
on behalf of the hedge funds, which consist mostly of
speculative options trading, have lost millions of dollars. The
Commission's Complaint also alleges that Fine and Boyle charged
investors fraudulent fund performance fees based on the
fictitious gains in the values of the two hedge funds and
additional undisclosed "advisory fees."

The Commission's complaint charges KS Advisors, Condor II,
Damian Partners, Fine and Boyle with violating Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and KS Advisors,
Fine and Boyle with violating Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act).


MASTEC INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasTec, Inc. and certain of its officers face a consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Courts for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities (NYSE:MTZ) between May
13, 2003 and April 12, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint charges MasTec, Austin Shanfelter, and Donald
Weinstein with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that defendants made material misstatements
with respect to the Company's financial results.


NORTHSTAR NETWORKS: SEC Bars Ex-President/CPA From Practicing
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule
102(e) of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings
and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Timothy J.
Buzzelli.

The Order states that on Aug. 21, 2002, the Commission filed a
complaint against Buzzelli and other defendants in SEC v.
NorthStar Networks, Inc., et al., 3:02-CV-1788M (USDC/Northern
District of Texas). On July 19, 2004, the court entered a final
judgment against Buzzelli, by consent, permanently enjoining him
from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
from aiding and abetting violations of Section 13(a) and
13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13a-1 and 13a-13
thereunder.

Additionally, the Court barred Buzzelli from serving as an
officer or director of a public company. The Order further
relates that the Commission's complaint alleged, among other
things, that Buzzelli formerly NorthStar's president, along with
the other named defendants raised over $1 million from
approximately 250 investors through the fraudulent offer and
sale of NorthStar's common stock; that Buzzelli and the other
defendants falsely represented to investors, among other things,
that NorthStar had over $10 million in assets, that major
defense contractors were interested in its purportedly patent
pending computer cooling system, and that the company had multi-
million dollar contracts with large, publicly traded
telecommunications companies; and that Buzzelli aided and
abetted NorthStar's filing of a misleading registration
statement with the Commission and its subsequent failure to file
periodic reports.

Based on the above, the Order suspends Buzzelli from appearing
or practicing before the Commission as an accountant. Buzzelli
consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting or
denying any of the findings in the Order.


MATSUSHITA ELECTRIC: Recalls 500T TV/VCRs Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Matsushita Electric Corporation of America, Secaucus, New Jersey
is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 500,000 Panasonic,
Quasar, RCA, and JCPenney Combination TV/VCRs.

The TV/VCR cabinets can break when lifted by the ventilation
holes in the top rear of the cabinet, permitting the TV/VCR to
fall and injure hands and feet. About 10 incidents have been
reported in which the TV/VCR cabinet broke at the ventilation
holes when lifted or carried, resulting in the TV/VCR dropping
to the floor. Minor cuts and bruises have been reported in four
incidents.

The recalled combination TV/VCRs are gray/black and have these
brand names: Panasonic, Quasar, RCA, or JCPenney. The cabinets
have ventilation holes in the top rear of the cabinet. Only the
13" and 20" Combination TV/VCR sets manufactured between January
1, 1995, and December 30, 1995, are recalled. These sets can be
identified by the model number, which appears on the front and
rear of the cabinet. The following model numbers are included in
this recall:

Brand, Model
Panasonic, 13-inch models: PV-M1325, PV-M1345, PVM1365AD, AG-
513B & 20-inch models: PV-M2025, PV-M2035, PV-M2045, PV-M2065,
AG-520B

Quaser, 13-inch model: VV-1305 20-inch models: VV-2005T, VV-
2005, VV-2025

Thomson (RCA), 13-inch models: T13015BC, T13018BC & 20-inch
models: T20015BC, T20018BC, T20020BC

JCPenney, 20-inch model: 685-0879

Manufactured in the U.S.A., the TV/VCR Combos were sold at
retail stores nationwide from January 1995 through December 1996
for between $300 and $490, depending on the model.

Consumers should contact Panasonic, Quasar, RCA, and JCPenney to
receive a free retrofit kit to cover the ventilation holes and
prevent lifting from this area.

For more details, contact Panasonic by Phone: (800) 833-9626
between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. (ET) Monday through Friday or visit
Panasonic's Web site: http://www.Panasonic.comOR Bill Pritchard
- Media Contact by Phone: (201) 348-7182


PATINA OIL: Plaintiffs File Amended Gas Royalties Lawsuit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Patina Oil &
Gas Corporation in Colorado state court, alleging the Company
improperly deducted certain costs in connection with its
calculation of royalty payments relating to its Colorado
operations.

The suit was based upon the Colorado Supreme Court's ruling in
July 2001 in the suit, styled "Rogers v. Westerman Farm Co.,"
which resulted in uncertainty regarding the deductibility of
certain post-production costs from payments to be made to
royalty interest owners.

In May 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint narrowing
the class of potential plaintiffs, and thereafter filed a motion
seeking to certify the narrowed class as described in the
amended complaint.  The Company has filed an answer to the
plaintiff's amended complaint.


RAYTHEON CO.: Reaches Settlement For MA Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Raytheon Co. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
present and former officers in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts.

The consolidated complaint principally alleged that the
defendants violated federal securities laws by making misleading
statements and by failing to disclose material information
concerning the Company's financial performance during the
purported class period.

In March 2000, the court certified the class of plaintiffs as
those people who purchased the Company's stock between October
7, 1998 and October 12, 1999.  In August 2001, the court issued
an order dismissing most of the claims asserted against the
Company and the individual defendants.  In March 2003, the
plaintiff filed an amendment to the Consolidated Complaint which
sought to add the Company's independent auditor as an additional
defendant.  In May 2003, the court issued an order dismissing
one of the two claims that had been asserted against the
Company's independent auditor.

In February 2004, the Company and the individual defendants
filed a motion for summary judgment, which the plaintiff
opposed.  The Company's independent auditor also filed a motion
for summary judgment, which the plaintiff also opposed.  The
court heard arguments on the summary judgment motions in April
2004 and denied the motions.  Without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing, in May 2004, the Company reached an agreement in
principle to settle this class action lawsuit on behalf of the
Company and all individual defendants.

The terms of the settlement, which must be approved by the
court, include a cash payment of $210 million and the issuance
of warrants for the Company's stock with a stipulated value of
$200 million.  The warrants will have a five-year term with a
strike price of $37.50 and will be issued when the settlement
proceeds are distributed to the claimants.  Upon final approval,
the settlement will resolve all claims asserted against the
Company and the individual defendants.

In May 2004, the Company's independent auditor also reached a
settlement with the plaintiff, which is also subject to court
approval.  In connection with the settlement, the Company
recorded a charge of $329 million, of which $325 million was
included in other expense, a $410 million accrued expense, and
an $85 million receivable for insurance proceeds primarily
related to this settlement.  The charge for the settlement will
be revised in future quarters to reflect changes in the fair
value of the warrants after they are issued.


SOUTH KOREA: Hemophiliacs Commence Lawsuit Over Tainted Blood
-------------------------------------------------------------
The South Korean Government faces a class action filed by the
Law Firm J. L. and members of the Korea Hemophilia Association
(KOHEM), on behalf of Twenty-three hemophiliacs, seeking 1
billion KRW ($858,396.2774) in compensation for their
contracting hepatitis and AIDS virus from contaminated blood,
the Asia Intelligence Wire reports.

In their suit the groups claim that the health authorities are
responsible for 23 hemophiliacs' infection with hepatitis C.
They also accuse authorities of turning a blind eye to safe
testing methods and management of blood even though the existing
blood test has been vulnerable to infection since the hepatitis
C virus (HCV) test was introduced in 1990s.

Compared to the infection rate for ordinary people with
hepatitis C, hemophiliacs are hundreds of times more prone to
contracting the disease. The infection rate for ordinary people
stands at 0.2-0.4 percent, and is on the decline every year,
while hemophiliacs show 2.3 percent at the age of 0-4, 2.4
percent at the age of 5-9, 63.3 percent at the age of 10-19 and
65.9 percent for those over 20.

Lawyers who filed the compensation suits told the Asia
Intelligence Wire that other hemophiliacs aside from the 23
would join the class action in late August.


SPECTRASITE BUILDING: Winstar Files NY Antitrust Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SpectraSite Building Group, Inc., the Building Owners and
Managers Association of New York, other real estate investment
trusts and privately held commercial real estate companies face
a class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Winstar Communications, LLC and Winstar of New York, LLC filed
the suit against more than 800 owners and managers of commercial
real estate properties that have entered into leases or other
arrangements with them.  The suit asserts claims for violations
of federal and state antitrust law, and federal communications
law, and seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages and
specific performance.

The claims are premised upon the allegations, among others, that
the defendants, through BOMA and other rooftop managers
including SpectraSite Building Group, Inc., conspired to fix
rental prices of building access for telecommunications services
by disseminating non-public pricing information among the
defendants that stabilized building access rates for competitive
telecommunications providers such as Winstar.


SPSS INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
SPSS, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed on
behalf of shareholders who acquired the Company's securities
(NASDAQ: SPSS) securities between May 2, 2001 and March 30,
2004, inclusive, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The suits also name as
defendants Company officers Jack Noonan and Edward Hamburg.

The class action alleges that defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements to the market during the Class Period,
which had the effect of artificially inflating the market price
of Company securities. The statements, the action claims was a
blatant violation of federal securities laws.


STRATOS INTERNATIONAL: Trial in Suit V. Tsunami Acquisition Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in the lawsuit filed against Stratos International,
Inc. in relation to its February 2002 acquisition of Tsunami
Optics, Inc. is set for October 19, 2004.

The acquisition agreement contemplated a potential earn-out
payment of up to $18 million in common stock if certain
financial targets were achieved following the acquisition.  In
June 2002, Catherine Lego, as representative of the former
Tsunami shareholders, filed a lawsuit against the Company
alleging, among other things, that the Company breached
the acquisition agreement by refusing to allow Tsunami to
operate as a separate subsidiary, firing the Tsunami executives
that it believed were necessary to operate the business and
thereby making it impossible for Tsunami to achieve the targets
required to receive any earnout payments.

The complaint also alleged fraud and violations of federal
securities laws in connection with the acquisition of Tsunami.
Plaintiffs sought $38 million in damages or the rescission of
the acquisition agreement.

The Company filed a counterclaim against Ms. Lego and several
other shareholders and officers of Tsunami which alleges fraud,
breach of contract and violations of federal securities laws.
The counterclaim seeks compensatory and punitive damages.

In April 2004, the Court entered an order in favor of the
Company to dismiss with prejudice 11 of 13 counts of the
plaintiffs' complaint.  The alleged damages sought for the
plaintiffs' two remaining claims (breach of contract and
rescission) remain unchanged at $38 million.  The court denied
the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Company's counterclaims of
fraud and violations of federal securities law and granted the
plaintiff's motion to dismiss the allegation of breach of
contract.


STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Plaintiffs Ask NY Court To Approve Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Stratos Lightwave, Inc. (now known as Stratos
International, Inc.) and certain of its directors and executive
officers.

The complaint also names as defendants the underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering.  The complaint is
substantially identical to numerous other complaints filed
against other companies that went public over the last several
years.

The suit generally alleges, among other things, that the
registration statement and prospectus from the Company's June
26, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain
alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.  The
complaints charge the Company and two or three of its directors
and executive officers with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and/or Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) to the Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaint also alleges claims solely against the
underwriting defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.

In 2003, the Company agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding,
which reflects a settlement of these class actions as between
the purported class action plaintiffs, the Company and the
defendant officers and directors, and the Company's liability
insurer.  Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding,
the Company's liability insurers will pay certain sums to the
plaintiffs, with the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs'
recovery from the underwriters in the IPO class actions as a
whole.  The plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims
against the Company and its officers and directors, and the
Company will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it may
have against the underwriters.

The plaintiffs have filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement, which, if granted, will lead to the mailing of
class-wide notices of the settlement and a hearing date for
approval of the settlement.


TENFOLD CORPORATION: Stock Suit Settlement Submitted to NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed settlement of the securities class action filed
against Tenfold Corporation, certain of its officers and
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering
has been submitted to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws pursuant
to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act 1934 on the basis of an alleged
failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation and
manipulative practices.

Similar complaints have been filed against over 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998.  The
individual officer and director defendants entered into tolling
agreements and, pursuant to a Court Order dated October 9, 2002,
were dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court granted a Motion to Dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against 116 defendants, including the Company.

On June 27, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors approved a
proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in this matter.
In June 2004, a settlement agreement was submitted to the Court
for preliminary approval.  The settlement would provide, among
other things, a release of TenFold and of the individual
defendants for the alleged wrongful conduct in the Amended
Complaint.

The Company agreed to undertake other responsibilities under the
partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims we may have against
the Company's underwriters.  The underwriters filed a memorandum
with the Court opposing preliminary approval of the settlement.
Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by our insurers.  The Company agreed to
approve the settlement subject to a number of conditions,
including the participation of a substantial number of
other issuer defendants in the proposed settlement, the consent
of our insurers to the settlement, and the completion of
acceptable final settlement documentation.  Furthermore, the
settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness and approval by
the Court overseeing the litigation.


UNITED PARCEL: Judge Approves Excess-Value Insurance Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a 36-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Richard M. Berman
approved the final settlement of 27 class action lawsuits
involving the sale of excess-value insurance by United Parcel
Service Inc. (UPS), The Dow Jones Newswires reports.

The lawsuits arose from a dispute between UPS and the Internal
Revenue Service over the company's spin-off attempts of its
insurance business, where in UPS ultimately prevailed, but found
itself the target of numerous lawsuits regarding its excessive-
value insurance. UPS typically covers the first $100 of a
shipment's value and gives its customers the option to purchase
excess-value insurance to cover parcels valued above that
threshold.

Under the terms of the settlement the Atlanta shipping company
would issue vouchers to affected customers that could be
redeemed for free delivery services. However the federal judge
deferred a decision on a request to award plaintiffs' attorneys
more than $19 million in fees.

A UPS spokesman was quoted by Dow Jones as saying that, "It is
absolutely impossible for anyone to estimate the cost of the
voucher program, and we believe it will be notably less than the
maximum value suggested by the plaintiffs."

According to court documents though a Plaintiffs expert
estimated that the actual "face value" of the program is $265
million and that the fair market value to class members is $205
million.


VECTOR MEDICAL: SEC Obtains Final Judgment V. Michael J. Farnell
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission on May 17, 2004, through
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
obtained a Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other
Relief (Final Judgment) against Defendant Michael J. Farnell
(Farnell). The Final Judgment, entered   with Farnell's consent,
enjoins him from violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 15(a) and 10b of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The
Final Judgment also permanently bars Farnell from participating
in a penny stock offering. In addition to injunctive relief, the
Final Judgment provides for disgorgement and the imposition of a
civil penalty in amounts to be reached by agreement of the
parties and/or by the Court upon the SEC's motion. The action is
titled, SEC v. Vector Medical Technologies, Inc., Michael H.
Salit, James P. Farnell, Michael J. Farnell, David A. Zimmerman
and Stanley B. Wasser, Case No. 03-80858-CIV-HURLEY (S.D. Fla.)
(LR-18810).

The SEC complaint, which was filed in United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida on September 11,
2003, charged Michael J. Farnell (M. Farnell) along with Vector
Medical Technologies, Inc. (Vector) and fellow traders; Michael
H. Salit (Salit), James P. Farnell (J. Farnell), David A.
Zimmerman (Zimmerman) and Stanley B. Wasser (Wasser) with
securities fraud for their participation in a securities boiler
room operation that raised just under $16 million from defrauded
investors, mostly physicians, in an unregistered public
distribution of stock. The Commission's complaint alleges that
the defendants sought out physician investors to join Vector's
medical advisory board as a ruse to solicit them to purchase
stock in Vector, a developmental stage biomedical company
purporting to have a patch capable of delivering insulin and
other high-density molecular weight drugs through the skin.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: TX Court Dismisses, Stays Securities Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. and certain of its former officers
continue to face three securities fraud suits in Texas state and
federal courts.

The petitions allege that the plaintiffs are substantial holders
of the Company's common stock who intended to sell their stock
in 1999, or to otherwise protect themselves against loss, but
that the public statements the Company made regarding its
prospects, and in some instances statements made by the
individual defendants, were false and misleading and induced the
plaintiffs to retain their stock or not to take other measures.

The plaintiffs assert that the value of their retained stock
declined dramatically and that they incurred significant losses.
The plaintiffs assert claims for fraud, negligent
misrepresentation, and conspiracy.

The first of these cases was dismissed by summary judgment by a
Texas state court in March 2002.  That dismissal was reversed in
the first quarter of 2004 by an intermediate appellate court,
and the Company is appealing that decision.  The second case
also filed in state court is stayed pending resolution of the
first case.  In March 2004, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the third case, which was pending in federal
court, and the plaintiffs have appealed that dismissal.



WULF INTERNATIONAL: TX Court Assess $173,904.34 Monetary Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission on July 20, 2004, through
the district court for the Western District of Texas obtained an
order requiring George R. Wulf to pay disgorgement and
prejudgment interest of $53,904.34 and a civil penalty of
$120,000 for his role in issuing fraudulent press releases about
Wulf International Ltd., a company for which Wulf is the
founder, former chairman, and former chief executive officer.
The Commission's complaint alleged that, between January 2001
and April 2002, Wulf International, through Wulf, made
fraudulent statements in press releases concerning:

     (1) its receipt of financing commitments for low-income
         housing projects in the Philippines and Pakistan;

     (2) its receipt of approval from the Philippines government
         for the housing project in that country; and

     (3) related earnings projections.

Previously, the court entered judgments permanently enjoining
Wulf International and Wulf from violating the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws. The previous judgment against
Wulf also barred him from acting or serving as an officer or
director of any public company, and from participating in an
offering of penny stock. Wulf International and Wulf consented
to those judgments without admitting or denying any of the
allegations in the Commission's complaint. The action is titled,
SEC v. Wulf International Ltd. and George R. Wulf, Civ. No.
A03CA-565SS (USDC, WDTX) (LR-18814).


                     New Securities Fraud Cases


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Shalov Stone Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons including American
and Canadian investors who purchased the securities of Bennett
Environmental, Inc. (AMEX: BEL) (TSX: BEV) in the period from
June 2, 2003 to July 22, 2004. The firm cautions investors that
although many lawyers may advertise about participation in the
lawsuit, few of them have actually filed lawsuits.

"The Bennett lawsuit alleges that the company and its ranking
executives polluted the market with misleading information for
more than a year about the company's largest contract, which was
largely withdrawn immediately after Bennett announced it," said
Ralph M. Stone, a partner at the firm. "This enabled the
company's insiders to unload tens of thousands of shares at an
enormous profit, leaving public investors holding the bag."

Following the publicity generated by Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP's
lawsuit, several lawyers will issue press releases about
lawsuits, even though they have not investigated them or filed
them, in an effort to solicit clients. The law firm has filed
the first lawsuit relating to Bennett Environmental, Inc. Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP is continuing to conduct a significant
investigation of Bennett Environmental, which is only available
to its clients and is not available to other law firms.

The law firm is continuing to investigate the company and has
developed significant information concerning other contracts,
and numerous other disclosure violations committed by the
defendants.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP by Mail: 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New
York, NY 10018 by Phone: (212) 239-4340 or E-mail:
tciarlone@lawssb.com



BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges NY Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Bennett Environmental, Inc. (AMEX: BEL) securities between June
2, 2003 and July 22, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, 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 Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Bennett Environmental, Inc.
("Bennett" or the "Company") (AMEX:BEL) (TSE:BEV), between June
2, 2003 and July 22, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

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 Bennett 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


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Charles J. Piven Files NY 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 Bennett
Environmental, Inc. (AMEX:BEL) (TSX Venture Exchange:BEV)
between June 2, 2003 and July 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York and includes American and Canadian
investors. 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


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Kirby McInerney Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
Bennett Environmental Inc. ("Bennett" or the 'Company')
(AMEX:BEL) securities during the period from June 2, 2003
through July 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Bennett and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect -- during the Class
Period -- of artificially inflating the price of Bennett's
shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
misrepresented the status of the largest contract in the
Company's history by making repeated public statements about the
contract that failed to disclose that in fact, the contract had
been substantially withdrawn almost immediately after its
execution.

For more details, contact Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP by Mail:
830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
(212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-Mail: vlee@kmslaw.com or
visit their Web site:
http://www.kmslaw.com/new_cases/bennett/bennett.htm


FERRO CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock 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 Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 by
Phone: (866) 759-2275 or by E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com


FLIGHT SAFETY: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Flight
Safety Technologies, Inc. (AMEX:FLT) between January 14, 2003
and July 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut against defendant Flight Safety
Technologies, Inc. and one or more of its officers and/or
directors. The action charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. 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, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


FLIGHT SAFETY: Rosen Law Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of purchasers of Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. (AMEX:
FLT) ("Flight Safety' or the "Company') publicly traded
securities during the period between January 14, 2003 and July
16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period'), against defendants
Flight Safety and certain of its officers and directors.

The complaint charges that Flight Safety and certain of its
officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and state common laws by
making a series of materially false and misleading statements
concerning the SOCRATES Wake Vortex Detector.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm by Phone: 866-767-3653 or by E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
or visit their Wen site: http://www.rosenlegal.com


NASSDA CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Nassda Corporation
("Nassda" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:NSDA), between December 13,
2001 and June 11, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"), including
those who purchased shares pursuant to the Company's Initial
Public Offering ("IPO"). The class action lawsuit was filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Nassda 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


NASSDA CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Nassda Corporation (Nasdaq: NSDA) ("Nassda") between December
13, 2001 and June 11, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
including those who purchased their shares pursuant to its
initial public offering.

The Complaint alleges that Nassda and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false statements concerning
Nassda's business condition. Specifically, defendants failed to
disclose that Nassda, whose founders are all former employees of
Synopsys Corporation ("Synopsys"), engaged in misappropriation
of trade secrets and infringement of a patent entitled
"Hierarchical Power Network Simulation and Analysis Tool for
Reliability Testing of Deep Submicron Designs" (the "'053
patent"). Synopsys has filed two suits against Nassda alleging
that Nassda has induced or contributed to the infringement of
the '053 patent by making infringing products and creating
source code for infringing products and then selling,
distributing, advertising and marketing those infringing
products to others.

On June 14, 2004, Nassda revealed that the California state
court had issued orders on June 11, against defendants in the
Synopsys litigation which limited Nassda's defenses and
established as fact that the first 60,000 lines of source code
of Nassda's Hierarchial Storage and Isomorphic Matching ("HSIM")
software product and all ideas and concepts reflected therein
were derived from Synopsys' code or other Synopsys materials
while the defendants were employed by Synopsys. The court also
ruled that the defendants acted in concert to intentionally
alter, destroy, lose or misplace items requested in discovery
and conceal evidence. On this news, Nassda plummeted to below
$4.00 per share.

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


NASSDA CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Files Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of Nassda Corporation ("Nassda" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:NSDA), between December 13, 2001 and June 11, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

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

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 by
Phone: (866) 759-2275 or by E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com


REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of Reynolds & Reynolds Co. ("Reynolds" or the
"Company") (NYSE:REY), between January 22, 2003 and June 24,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit
was filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
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 Reynolds securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 by
Phone: (866) 759-2275 or by E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com


SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files NC Stock Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
salesforce.com, inc. (NYSE: CRM) securities between June 21,
2004 through July 21, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, 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 Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, Case No. C0403119, entitled Santos v.
Salesforce.com, Inc., on behalf of persons who acquired the
securities of Salesforce.com, Inc., ("Salesforce") (NYSE: CRM)
between June 21, 2004 and July 21, 2004 (the "Class Period").

Salesforce.com, based in San Francisco, California, is a
provider of on-demand customer relationship management (CRM)
solutions and delivers integrated and scalable enterprise
applications for companies of all sizes. Among its clients are
AOL Time Warner, Autodesk, Avis, Cigna, Daiwa Securites, Dow
Jones Newswires, First Union National Bank, Fujitsu, Nokia,
Siemens PT&D, Textron Fastening Systems and USA Today.

The company went public on June 21, 2004 with its price
increasing to $17.20 on the first day of trading from the
offering price of $11.00 per share. The complaint alleges that
Salesforce.com and certain of its officers violated the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by making false and misleading statements to the investing
public regarding its business and prospects, causing the stock
price to trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class
Period. At the same time, defendants sold off more than $117
million worth of their personal shares.

As more fully detailed in the Complaint, defendants concealed
from the public that Salesforce.com was expecting earnings to
decline in FY2005 and that there was a clear trend in the
Company's diluted earnings per share, which investors would
normally price into the Company's IPO price. The Company also
failed to disclose that the trend in diluted EPS had started to
decline itself prior to the IPO, resulting in the stock trading
at inflated prices during the Class Period.

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


SYNOVIS TECHNOLOGIES: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Synovis Life Technologies,
Inc. (NASDAQ: SYNO) securities during the period between October
16, 2003 and May 18, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements
about the Company's business and prospects, which artificially
inflated the price of the Company's securities. The true facts,
which were known by the defendants, but concealed from the
investing public, included:

     (1) the Company's surgical business was not on track for
         year-to-year growth but was actually declining;

     (2) the Company's Peri-Strips were actually losing market
         share to a competing device made by Gore-Medical;

     (3) even defendants' explanations for "why" the Company's
         Peri-Strips sales fell short were grossly false and
         misleading, as defendants claimed that sales fell due
         to capacity constraints, i.e., the number of surgeons
         qualified to perform procedures had declined, taking
         sales down as well, which claim was false for several
         reasons, including that Peri-Strips are only used in
         25% of gastric by-pass procedures and therefore growth
         would track with market acceptance; and even if the
         number of gastric by-pass procedures did decline, the
         medical communities' conversion to the "laproscopic"
         method (which uses S-12 Peri-Strips) from the "open"
         method (which used 103 Peri-Strips), would have stemmed
         this decline in the Company's Peri-Strips sales;

     (4) the Company's "interventional" side had little to zero
         growth prospects; and

     (5) as a result of the above, the Company's projections of
         fiscal 2004 EPS of $.56-$.60 and revenues of $75-$79
         million were false and misleading.

On May 19, 2004, before the market opened, Synovis drastically
cut its guidance for fiscal 2004 in a press release which
stated, in pertinent part: "At the halfway point of the year, we
have fallen behind our own expectations and have clearly not met
the expectations of the market. While the interventional
business showed significant sequential improvement during the
second quarter, it is not yet back to fiscal 2003 levels. In the
surgical business, several factors affecting the gastric bypass
market evolved during the second quarter, constraining recent
Peri-Strips sales growth and near-term growth prospects for
Peri-Strips use in gastric bypass surgery. The magnitude of the
revenue shortfall in the interventional business, combined with
changes in the gastric bypass market, significantly reduce the
likelihood of the strong year-over-year growth we expected in
fiscal 2004."

On this news, Synovis stock fell from a close of $14.65 on May
18, 2004 to a close of $9.25 on May 19, 2004, for a single-day
decline of more than 36% on very heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or
(610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel1


SYNOVIS LIFE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud
lawsuit against Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. ("Synovis")
(Nasdaq:SYNO) and certain of its officers and directors, on
behalf of all persons who purchased Synovis securities on the
open market from October 16, 2003 through May 18, 2004. The
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota. The complaint can be viewed on Wolf
Popper's website or obtained from the Court.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
concealed the following materially adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company's surgical business was not on track
         for year-to-year growth and was actually declining;

     (2) that the performance of the Company's surgical business
         lagged because of disappointing sales of its Peri-
         Strips product;

     (3) that the performance of the Company's interventional
         business had little to zero growth prospects and was
         suffering because Synovis' largest customers were not
         placing orders due to inventory build-up; and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's projections of fiscal
         2004 EPS of $0.56-$0.60 and revenue of $75-$79 million
         had no reasonable basis and were false and misleading.

Defendants' misrepresentations were revealed on May 19, 2004,
when Synovis issued a press release reporting its revenue and
earnings for fiscal 2004, which were drastically below its
previously touted 2004 guidance.

As a result of the news, shares of Synovis plummeted in trading
on May 19, 2004, closing at $9.25 per share on trading volume of
2,121,700 shares, compared to a closing price of $14.65 on
volume of 79,000 shares just the previous day.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. of Wolf
Popper LLP by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by
Phone: 212-451-9668 or 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or
877-370-7704 or by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington, Case No. C041693, entitled Russo
v. Washington Mutual, Inc., on behalf of purchasers of
Washington Mutual, Inc. (NYSE: WM) securities from April 15,
2003, through June 28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Washington Mutual is a financial services company that serves
consumers and small to mid-sized businesses.

The complaint alleges that Washington Mutual and certain of its
officers violated federal securities laws by making material
false and misleading statements throughout the Class Period
regarding the company's financial health and future business
prospects, all the while failing to disclose that the company's
profits were due in large part to large volumes of mortgages as
a result of current low interest rates and that these profits
were not sustainable over the long run.

After the close of trading on June 28, 2004, the company
announced that it "expects its mortgage loan volumes and gain on
sale margins to be below expectations." As a result of this
announcement, company shares fell to a low of $36.80 on the
following day, a drop of 11% on unusually high volume.

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


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of purchasers of White Electronic Designs
Corporation (NASDAQ: WEDC) securities during the period between
January 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004 (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, Esq. of The Law
Offices of Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave, Suite 202
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004-2808 by Phone: (888) 643-6735 or
(610) 660-8000 by Fax: (610) 660-8080 by E-mail:
Mhenzel182@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Veritas Software Corporation
(Nasdaq:VRTS) ("Veritas") between April 21, 2004 and July 6,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Veritas, and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false statements concerning the
Company's business condition. Specifically, defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded the fact that negotiations for
significant contracts had not advanced far enough to reasonably
conclude they would close. Nevertheless, defendants confirmed
expectations that revenue for second-quarter 2004 would be $490
to $505 million and earnings per share for the quarter would be
$0.21 to $0.23. According to the complaint, Defendants
confirmation of these earnings expectations were lacking in
reasonable basis and were made in order to maintain the
Company's share price and avoid the negative fallout that would
occur as a result of an accurate disclosure of Veritas'
contractual prospects and financial condition.

On July 6, 2004, the Defendants announced that Veritas' second
quarter 2004 revenues would actually be "in the range of $475
million to $485 million" and that its GAAP earnings per share
would, in fact, "be in the range of $0.17 to $0.19." On this
news, Veritas' share price plunged from $26.55 to $17.00, a drop
of 36%.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *