CAR_Public/040804.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 4, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 153

                          Headlines

ALASKA: State, Disabilities Groups Settle Lawsuit V. Exit Exams
AMERICAN EXPRESS: AZ Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Renews Motion For FL Suit Settlement Approval
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in NY Courts
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Dismiss IL Mutual Fund Fraud Suit

AT&T CORPORATION: NJ Court Grants Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
AT&T CORPORATION: Discovery Closed in DE Securities Fraud Suit
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Parties Stay Consolidated Suit in DE Court
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: NY Court To Rule on Stay, Dismissal of Suit
CALIFORNIA: Board of Education Approves $188M Lawsuit Settlement

CHICAGO PIZZA: CA Court To Hold Wage Settlement Hearing in Oct.
CHICAGO PIZZA: Plaintiff Drops Several Claims in CA Wage Lawsuit
CLEVELAND CLINIC: Named in Nationwide Uninsured Patients' Suit
COMCAST CORPORATION: Faces Stock Suits Over At Home Relationship
COPPER MOUNTAIN: Plaintiff Dismisses CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit

COPPER MOUNTAIN: Forges Final Settlement For NY Securities Suit
CORNING INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NY Securities Suit
COUNTERFEIT DRUGS: FDA Warns V. Counterfeit Zocor, Carisoprodol
DOE RUN: Faces More Suits Over Ottawa County Mining Operations
EASTMAN KODAK: African-American Employees Files Race Bias Suit

ENRON BROADBAND: SEC Settles Fraud Suit V. Ex-CFO, Fined $14.7M
FIRST HORIZON: GA Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal
FOUNTAINHEAD ASSET: SEC Files PA Action To Stop Hedge Fund Fraud
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: GA Court Grants Preliminary Approval to Pact
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Faces IL FCRA Violations Lawsuits

GOLDMAN LENDER: SEC Initiates Proceedings V. Ex-Representatives
GROUP 1: Fights Certification of Three TX Consumer Fraud Suits
H&R BLOCK: NY Judge Dismisses Suit Over Tax Suits' Concealment
INFOSPACE INC.: WA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Mediation Fails, RESPA Violations Suit Proceeds

IRWIN MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Document Preparation Fees Suit
IRWIN UNION: Reaches Settlement for TILA Violations Suit in MA
JANA FOODS: Issues Alert On Undeclared Eggs in Goat Milk Cheese
JASON POLLAK: SEC Bars Trader From Association, Offering Stock
JEWISH HOLOCAUST: NY Claims Group Dispenses $401.1M To Survivors

MCI WORLDCOM: Parker & Waichman Reminds Shareholders of Deadline
NASSDA CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in CA
NEW YORK: Judge Grants Class Status For Disabled Children's Suit
NEWSDAY: Advertisers Launch NY Lawsuit Over Inflated Circulation
POZEN INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. NC

SCHERING PLOUGH: Reaches Pact With MI Over Claritin Rebates Suit
SCHERING PLOUGH: Reaches Agreement With FL Over Claritin Pricing
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suits
TELXON CORPORATION: OH Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
UNION PACIFIC: Judge Sets Hearing For $65M Settlement Proposal


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases


KVH INDUSTRIES: Berger & Montague Files Securities Lawsuit in RI
SYNOVIS LIFE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
VERITAS SOFTWARE: Braun Law Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA


                          *********


ALASKA: State, Disabilities Groups Settle Lawsuit V. Exit Exams
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached between the state of Alaska and
groups supporting students with disabilities in a class action
lawsuit regarding the exit exams, KTVA.COM reports.

According to state officials, the terms of the settlement will
offer students with learning disabilities alternative ways to
determine their knowledge when taking the exit exams which at
the same time, preserves the credibility of the high stakes
testing.

Disability Rights Advocates Attorney Sid Wolinsky described to
KTVA.COM that the settlement; "is the most constructive
resolution that has ever been reached in a case of this nature,
it is a win-win situation for everybody."

Signed by all parties, the settlements would allow for special
modifications for students with disabilities on a case-to-case
basis, that could include such things as graphic calculators,
read-aloud programs, and smaller classroom testing settings. If
unsuccessful, the students with learning disabilities would be
waived from the exit exams again for the year 2005.

State Attorney General Gregg Renkes told KVTA.COM that the
settlement moves the state forward with two important goals:
great accountability in education and it creates fair
educational opportunities for students with disabilities.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: AZ Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
refused to dismiss the class action filed captioned "Haritos et
al. v. American Express Financial Corporation and IDS Life
Insurance Company."

The suit is filed by plaintiffs who purport to represent a class
of all persons that have purchased financial plans from AEFA
advisors during an undefined class period.  Plaintiffs allege
that the sale of the plans violates the Investment Advisers Act
of 1940 (IAA). The suit seeks an unspecified amount of damages,
rescission of the investment advisor plans and restitution of
monies paid for such plans.

In June 2004, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the action as a matter of law.  The Court did indicate, however,
that the plaintiffs may not have a compelling case under the
IAA.  Notwithstanding the Court's denial of the Company's motion
to dismiss, the Company believes that the plaintiffs' case
suffers from various factual and legal weaknesses and it intends
to continue to defend the case vigorously, the Company stated in
a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Renews Motion For FL Suit Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
The American Express Company and certain of its subsidiaries
filed a motion the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida in the case captioned "Lipuma v. American
Express Bank, American Express Travel Related Services Company,
Inc. and American Express Centurion Bank," renewing the request
seeking preliminary approval of a nationwide class action
settlement to resolve all lawsuits and allegations with respect
to the Company's collection and disclosure of fees assessed on
transactions made in foreign currencies.

The Company has been named in several purported class actions in
various state courts alleging that the Company violated the
respective state's laws by wrongfully collecting amounts
assessed on converting transactions made in foreign currencies
to U.S. dollars and/or failing to properly disclose the
existence of such amounts in its Cardmember agreements and
billing statements.  The plaintiffs in the actions seek, among
other remedies, injunctive relief, money damages and/or
attorneys' fees on their own behalf and on behalf of the
putative class of persons similarly situated.

The settlement had been preliminarily approved by the Court in
February 2004; however, subsequent to such preliminary approval,
the matter was reassigned to another judge in the same court who
vacated the preliminary approval order and invited the parties
to present the settlement for consideration once again.  The
motion asked the Court to preliminarily approve a settlement
pursuant to which the Company would deposit $75 million into a
fund that would be established to reimburse class members with
valid claims, make certain contributions to charitable
organizations to be identified later and pay attorneys' fees and
make certain changes to the disclosures in its Cardmember
agreements and billing statements regarding its foreign currency
conversion practices.

The motion also asked the court to enjoin all other proceedings
that make related allegations pending a final approval hearing
including, but not limited to the following cases:

     (1) Environmental Law Foundation, et al. v. American
         Express Company, et al., Superior Court of Alameda
         County, California (filed March 2003);

     (2) Rubin v. American Express Company and American Express
         Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Circuit Court of
         Madison County, Illinois (filed April 2003);

     (3) Angie Arambula, et al. v. American Express Company, et
         al., District Court of Cameron County, Texas, 103rd
         Judicial District (filed May 2003);

     (4) Fuentes v. American Express Travel Related Services
         Company, Inc. and American Express Company, District
         Court of Hidalgo County, Texas (filed May 2003);

     (5) Wick v. American Express Company, et al., Circuit Court
         of Cook County, Illinois (filed May 2003);

     (6) Bernd Bildstein v. American Express Company, et al.,
         Supreme Court of Queens County, New York (filed June
         2003);

     (7) Janowitz v. American Express Company, et al., Circuit
         Court of Cook County, Illinois (filed September 2003);
         and

     (8) Paul v. American Express Company, et al., Superior
         Court of Orange County, California (filed January
         2004)


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in NY Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Express Company faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled:

     (1) Naresh Chand v. American Express Company, American
         Express Financial Corporation and American Express
         Financial Advisors, Inc.;

     (2) Elizabeth Flenner v. American Express Company et al.
         (March 2004);

     (3) John B. Perkins v. American Express Company et al.
         (March 2004);

     (4) Kathie Kerr v. American Express Company et al. (April
         2004); and

     (5) Leonard D. Caldwell, Gale D. Caldwell and Richard T.
         Allen v. American Express Company et al. (April 2004)

In addition, in July 2004, a purported class action captioned
Ronald Beer v. American Express Company et al. was filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County.

The plaintiffs in each of the lawsuits allege violations of
certain federal securities laws and/or state statutory and
common law.  The plaintiffs, among other things, allege that the
defendants did not adequately disclose AEFA financial advisors'
incentive to sell American Express-branded mutual funds to
clients, as well as the "incentive arrangements" for the sale to
and continued holding by AEFA clients of mutual funds of eleven
mutual fund families ("preferred funds") from whom AEFA received
revenue sharing payments. The lawsuits seek an unspecified
amount of damages, rescission and restitution.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Plaintiffs Dismiss IL Mutual Fund Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a class action, styled "Corgan
v. American Express Financial Corporation and American Express
Financial Advisors," filed in the Circuit Court of St. Clair
County, Illinois.  The complaint also names various other
defendants that are not affiliated with the Company and its
subsidiaries.

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of all persons
holding shares in mutual funds within various defendants'
respective fund complexes, including AEFA's, within the last ten
years.  The plaintiff alleges that persons holding shares in the
defendants' funds were damaged by defendants' "breaches of
prospectuses, subscription agreements and confirmations."  The
lawsuit seeks damages and attorneys' fees.  The plaintiffs
voluntarily dismissed their complaint in May 2004.


AT&T CORPORATION: NJ Court Grants Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted in part summary judgment for the common stock class
action filed against AT&T Corporation and others, asserting
claims under Section 11, Section 12(a)(2) and Section 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.  The Company faces another suit, similar to the common
stock suit.

The first suit alleges, among other things, that AT&T made
material misstatements and omissions in the Registration
Statement and Prospectus for the AT&T Wireless initial public
offering (the Wireless Case).  The second lawsuit alleges, among
other things, that AT&T knowingly provided false projections
relating to AT&T common stock (Common Stock Case).  The
complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount, but, because
the trading activity during the purported class periods was
extensive, the amounts ultimately demanded may be significant.

In March 2004, AT& T and the other defendants moved for summary
judgment in both the Common Stock and Wireless Cases, and the
plaintiffs moved for summary judgment in the Wireless Case.  In
June 2004, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
motion for summary judgment in the Common Stock Case.  The Court
held that the plaintiffs could not prove that the alleged
misrepresentation caused the decline in shareholder value with
regard to any of their claims except for the December 1999
projections concerning AT&T Business Services and AT& T Consumer
Services.

This decision is ultimately subject to appeal, although such an
appeal is unlikely until after a final judgment is entered in
the case.  The Court allowed the plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim
to go forward.  The trial on the remaining claims in the Common
Stock Case is set to commence on October 5, 2004.  No trial date
has been set in the Wireless Case.


AT&T CORPORATION: Discovery Closed in DE Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is now closed in the consolidated amended securities
class action filed against AT&T Corporation by then-shareholders
of Tele-Communications, Inc. (TCI) Series A TCI Group Common
Stock, relating to the Company's acquisition of TCI.  The suit
also names as defendants the directors of TCI.

The suit, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery, alleges that
former members of the TCI board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties to Common A shareholders by agreeing to
transaction terms whereby holders of the Series B TCI Group
Common Stock received a 10% premium over what Common A
shareholders received in connection with the transaction.  The
complaint further alleges that AT&T aided and abetted the TCI
directors' breach.

On September 8, 1999, AT&T moved to dismiss the amended
complaint for failure to state a cause of action against it.  On
July 7, 2003, the court granted AT&T's motion to dismiss on the
ground that the complaint failed to adequately plead AT& T's
"knowing participation," as required to state a claim for aiding
and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty.  The other claims made
in the complaint remain outstanding.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Parties Stay Consolidated Suit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated class actions filed against Cablevision Systems
Corporation and each of its directors in Delaware Chancery Court
are currently stayed by agreement of the parties pending
resolution of a related action brought by one of the plaintiffs
to compel the inspection of certain books and records of the
Company.

In August 2002, purported class actions naming as defendants the
Company and each of its directors were filed, alleging breach
of fiduciary duties and breach of contract with respect to the
exchange of the Rainbow Media Group tracking stock for
Cablevision NY Group common stock.  The suit was filed on behalf
of all holders of publicly traded shares of Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock.  The actions sought to:

     (1) enjoin the exchange of Rainbow Media Group tracking
         stock for Cablevision NY Group common stock,

     (2) enjoin any sales of "Rainbow Media Group assets," or,
         in the alternative, award rescissory damages,

     (3) if the exchange is completed, rescind it or award
         rescissory damages,

     (4) award compensatory damages, and

     (5) award costs and disbursements

The actions were consolidated into one action on September 17,
2002, and on October 3, 2002, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated action.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: NY Court To Rule on Stay, Dismissal of Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New York Supreme Court has yet to decide on Cablevision
Systems Corporation's motion to stay, or in the alternative,
dismiss the class action filed against Cablevision Systems
Corporation, directors and certain current and former officers
and employees of the Company's Rainbow Media Holdings and
American Movie Classics subsidiaries, for failure to state a
claim.

The Teachers Retirement System of Louisiana filed the suit,
which relates to the August 2002 Rainbow Media Group tracking
stock exchange and alleges, among other things, that the
exchange ratio was based upon a price of the Rainbow Media Group
tracking stock that was artificially deflated as a result of the
improper recognition of certain expenses at the national
services division of Rainbow Media Holdings.  The complaint
alleges breaches by the individual defendants of fiduciary
duties.  The complaint also alleges breaches of contract and
unjust enrichment by the Company.  The complaint seeks monetary
damages and such other relief as the court deems just and
proper.

On October 31, 2003, the Company and other defendants moved to
stay the action in favor of the previously filed actions pending
in Delaware or, in the alternative, to dismiss for failure to
state a claim.


CALIFORNIA: Board of Education Approves $188M Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Board of Education approved a settlement for a
class-action lawsuit that accuses the state neglecting its
poorest students, the Associated Press reports.

Filed four year ago by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)
on behalf of dozens of school children in 18 different school
districts, the suit alleges that the districts shortchanged
students in several areas, including:

     (1) overcrowded schools that have deplorable conditions,
         with leaky roofs, poor plumbing, rodent and insect
         infestations.

     (2) insufficient or out-of-date textbooks.

     (3) large numbers of uncredentialed teachers or high
         turnover of teachers.

The budget signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger set-aside $188
settle the lawsuit, known as the Williams case. Individual
school district boards though must still approve the settlement
agreement before it can be made public.

Aside from approving the agreement, the state board also
appointed two members to work with the governor's office on
legislation that would eventually implement the settlement.


CHICAGO PIZZA: CA Court To Hold Wage Settlement Hearing in Oct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of Orange will
hold a final fairness hearing for the settlement of the employee
class action filed against Chicago Pizza & Brewery, Inc. on
October 2004.

On March 10, 2003, a former Company employee, on behalf of
himself and other employees and former employees of ours
similarly situated and working in California, filed the suit,
alleging that the Company violated provisions of the California
Labor Code covering meal and rest beaks for employees, along
with associated acts of unfair competition and seeks payment of
wages for all meal and rest breaks allegedly denied to its
California employees for the period from October 1, 2000 to the
present.

The Company reached a tentative proposal with class counsel to
settle the suit.  The Proposal, which is subject to a definitive
agreement and is not yet binding, and which will be subject to
Court approval if finalized between counsel, provides that
members of the plaintiff class may make claims for certain lost
wages against an approximately $950,000 settlement fund, funded
by the Company.  Pursuant to the Proposal, the Company's
liability to the employees would not exceed the amount of the
settlement fund.

If the Court approves the Agreement, the action will be
dismissed with prejudice, after the parties' obligations under
the Agreement are satisfied.  The Proposal was developed from
mediation, which was concluded in December 2003.

In May 2004, the court reviewed the terms of the Proposal and
requested that technical changes be made to it, none of which
will materially change our obligation under the Proposal.  This
amount has been reduced to $900,000 based upon subsequent court
determination and the $50,000 reversal has been reflected in the
second quarter ended June 27, 2004.


CHICAGO PIZZA: Plaintiff Drops Several Claims in CA Wage Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed several claims in a class action
filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court in California, on
behalf of the Company's employees.

The suit alleges causes of action for:

     (1) failure to pay reporting time minimum pay;

     (2) failure to allow meal breaks;

     (3) failure to allow rest breaks;

     (4) waiting time penalties;

     (5) civil penalties;

     (6) reimbursement for fraud and deceit;

     (7) punitive damages for fraud and deceit; and

     (8) disgorgement of illicit profits

It is possible that this matter will be consolidated with the
class action currently pending in Orange County Superior Court.
On June 28, 2004, Plaintiff stipulated to dismiss her second,
third, fourth, and fifth causes of action.  As of the date of
this Report, the plaintiff in the action has filed an amended
complaint, but no other action has been taken.


CLEVELAND CLINIC: Named in Nationwide Uninsured Patients' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cleveland Clinic is the latest target of a nationwide class-
action lawsuit against nonprofit health systems that allegedly
abuse their status as charitable institutions, WYKC.COM reports.

Seeking unspecified damages, the suit alleges that the hospital
systems have failed to provide affordable medical care in
exchange for tax breaks that are granted by the government. The
suit further alleges that nonprofit hospitals routinely charge
uninsured patients more for medical care and then aggressively
pursue payment.

However the Clinic told WKYC.COM that it provided more than $194
million in charity care through its health system last year and
that it consistently provides financial assistance to those in
need.


COMCAST CORPORATION: Faces Stock Suits Over At Home Relationship
----------------------------------------------------------------
Comcast Corporation continues to face several lawsuits,
including several class actions as a result of its alleged
conduct with respect to its investment in and distribution
relationship with At Home Corporation.  At Home was a provider
of high-speed Internet services that filed for bankruptcy
protection in September 2001.

The Company, Brian L. Roberts (its President and Chief Executive
Officer and a director), AT&T (the former controlling
shareholder of At Home and also a former distributor of the At
Home service) and other corporate and individual defendants
faces several securities class actions in the Superior Court of
San Mateo County, California, alleging breaches of fiduciary
duty in connection with transactions agreed to in March 2000
among At Home, AT&T, Cox Communications, Inc. (Cox is also an
investor in At Home and a former distributor of the At Home
service) and the Company.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, AT&T and others also face a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleging securities law
violations and common law fraud in connection with disclosures
made by At Home in 2001.

A lawsuit was also filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Delaware in the name of At Home by certain At
Home bondholders against the Company, Brian L. Roberts, Cox and
others, alleging breaches of fiduciary duty relating to the
March 2000 transactions and seeking recovery of alleged short-
swing profits of at least $600 million pursuant to Section 16(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 purported to have arisen
in connection with certain transactions relating to At Home
stock effected pursuant to the March 2000 agreements.

Finally, a lawsuit is pending in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of California filed by certain
At Home bondholders against Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC and
Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc., as well as AT& T,
AT&T Credit Holdings, Inc. and AT& T Wireless Services, Inc.,
seeking to avoid and recover certain alleged "preference"
payments in excess of $89 million allegedly made to the
defendants prior to the At Home bankruptcy filing.

The actions in San Mateo County, California have been stayed by
the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
California, the court in which At Home filed for bankruptcy, as
violating the automatic bankruptcy stay.  The preference action
in U.S. Bankruptcy Court has also been stayed by agreement of
the parties.

In the Southern District of New York actions, the court ordered
the actions consolidated into a single action.  All of the
defendants served motions to dismiss on February 11, 2003.  The
court dismissed the common law claims against the Company and
Mr. Roberts, leaving only a claim for "control person" liability
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In a subsequent
decision, the court limited the remaining claim against the
Company and Mr. Roberts to disclosures that are alleged to have
been made by At Home prior to August 28, 2000.  The Delaware
case has been transferred to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, and the Company moved to
dismiss the Section 16(b) claims.


COPPER MOUNTAIN: Plaintiff Dismisses CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action filed against Copper
Mountain Networks, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California has been dismissed with
prejudice.

On October 20, 2000, a Company stockholder, Ariel Hernandez, on
behalf of himself and purportedly on behalf of a class of
Company stockholders against the Company and two officers of
the Company, alleging violations of the federal securities laws
arising out of recent declines in the Company's stock price.
Thereafter, approximately twenty-three similar complaints were
filed in the Northern District, along with related derivative
actions against certain of the Company's current and former
officers and directors in California Superior Court (Aaron v.
Gilbert, et. al.) and Delaware.

The Complaints allege claims in connection with various alleged
statements and omissions to the public and to the securities
markets.  The twenty-three Northern District Complaints have
been consolidated into a single action identified as "In re
Copper Mountain Networks Securities Litigation, case number C-
00-3894-VRW."  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Northern District action, which was heard on November 29, 2001.
The motion was re-argued on February 19, 2004.  On April 2,
2004, the Northern District dismissed the securities litigation
against the Company, its CEO and its former CFO.

Portions of the complaint relating to financial projections and
forward-looking statements were dismissed "with prejudice" based
on the "safe harbor" warnings given by the Company.  The Court
also dismissed all of the remaining allegations in the complaint
based on deficiencies in those allegations.  On June 23, 2004,
all of the remaining allegations that were dismissed without
prejudice in the Northern District action were dismissed with
prejudice at the plaintiff's request.  Plaintiffs informed the
Court that, after additional investigation, they were unable to
identify facts necessary to support their allegations.


COPPER MOUNTAIN: Forges Final Settlement For NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Copper Mountain Networks, Inc. executed a final settlement
agreement with plaintiffs in the securities class action filed
against it and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, now captioned "In re Copper Mountain Networks, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10943."

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) violated
section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations
that the Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus
failed to disclose material facts regarding the compensation to
be received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.

The amended complaint also contains a claim for violation of
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted deceit on investors.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and other
relief.

Similar complaints collectively referred to here as the "IPO
Lawsuits," were filed in the same court against hundreds of
other public companies who conducted IPOs between 1998 and 2000.
On August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for
pretrial purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to
dismiss the IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the Issuers (among
others).  On October 9, 2002, the Court entered an order
dismissing the Company's named officers and directors from the
IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling
the statute of limitations with respect to these officers and
directors until September 30, 2003.  On February 19, 2003, the
court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the claims
against the Company and almost all of the Issuers, and denying
the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against the
Company and many of the other issuers.

In June 2003, the Issuers reached a tentative settlement
agreement with the plaintiffs that would, among other things,
result in the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the
issuers and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits.
In addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the
event that the Plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in
settlement or judgment against the Underwriter defendants in the
IPO Lawsuits, the Plaintiffs will be entitled to recover the
difference between the actual recovery and $1 billion from the
insurers for the Issuers.

In September 2003, in connection with the tentative settlement,
those officers and directors who had entered tolling agreements
agreed to extend those agreements so that they would not expire
prior to any settlement being finalized.  In June 2004, the
Company executed a final settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.

The settlement is still subject to a number of conditions,
including action by the Court certifying a class action for
settlement purposes and formally approving the settlement.  The
Underwriter defendants have opposed both the certification of a
settlement class action and judicial approval of the settlement.


CORNING INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Corning, Inc. and three of its
officers and directors, alleging violations of the U.S.
securities laws in connection with Corning's November 2000
offering of 30 million shares of common stock and $2.7 billion
zero coupon convertible debentures, due November 2015.  The suit
is pending in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York.

The suit alleges the Company and the three officers and
directors made misleading disclosures and non-disclosures that
allegedly inflated the price of Corning's common stock in the
period from September 2000 through July 9, 2001.  The plaintiffs
in these actions seek to represent classes of purchasers of
Corning's stock in all or part of the period indicated.

The consolidated amended complaint requests substantial damages
in an unspecified amount to be proved at trial.  In February
2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to allege the requisite elements of the claims with
particularity.  The Court heard arguments on May 29 and June 9,
2003 and on April 9, 2004 entered a Decision and Order
dismissing the complaint.  In May 2004, Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Second
Circuit.


COUNTERFEIT DRUGS: FDA Warns V. Counterfeit Zocor, Carisoprodol
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a warning to the
public about counterfeit versions of the drugs Zocor
(simvastatin) and carisoprodol that were recently imported from
Mexico by individual Americans.

Tests indicate that the counterfeit Zocor did not contain any
active ingredient and that the counterfeit carisoprodol differed
in potency when compared to the authentic product.  Carisoprodol
is a drug used in the treatment of painful musculoskeletal
conditions and Zocor is a cholesterol lowering drug.  The
counterfeit versions were reportedly purchased at Mexican border
town pharmacies and sold under the names Zocor, 40/mg, (lot
number K9784, expiration date November 2004), and Carisoprodol,
350/mg, (lot number 68348A).

Patients who rely on these counterfeit versions of the drugs
could develop serious health risks (with the counterfeit Zocor)
or have insufficient pain relief (with the counterfeit
carisoprodol), the FDA said in a statement.

FDA has repeatedly expressed its concern about the purchase by
Americans of drugs from foreign countries. As demonstrated by
this incident, purchasers cannot assume that the products meet
the quality, efficacy, and safety standards of FDA authorized
products or that FDA is assuring the quality, safety, and
efficacy of products purchased from outside the United States.

Medications purchased within the US system for prescription
drugs have undergone rigorous testing and review to verify their
identity, potency, and purity and to ensure that they are safe
and effective for their intended use. In addition, there are
safeguards to help maintain the integrity of the products while
in shipment to pharmacies and prior to dispending to patients.

Anyone who may have recently purchased the above described
versions of Zocor 40/mg and Carisoprodol 350/mg from Mexican
pharmacies should consult with their physician as well as notify
their local FDA field office.  FDA is investigating this matter
and working with the Mexican authorities to ensure that further
sale and importation of these products is halted.


DOE RUN: Faces More Suits Over Ottawa County Mining Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation faces two additional class
actions, alleging personal injury to forty-five children and
three children, respectively as a result of past mining
operations in Ottawa County, Oklahoma.

Ten lawsuits were previously filed alleging personal injury to
twenty-five children and one adult living in Ottawa County
against eight companies, including the Company, who allegedly,
either through predecessors or subsidiaries, mined lead and zinc
in Ottawa County or commercially used the chat or tailings in
Ottawa County.

One case is a class action lawsuit for personal injury and
property damage in Ottawa County.  Five of these suits were
dismissed leaving claims alleged by seven children.  An
additional class action lawsuit for damages to natural resources
and land owned by members of the Quapaw Tribe was filed on
December 10, 2003 against seven companies, including the
Company.  Six individuals filed an additional class action
lawsuit against six companies, including Doe Run, in Ottawa
County, Oklahoma on February 9, 2004.


EASTMAN KODAK: African-American Employees Files Race Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eastman Kodak Company (NYSE: EK) faces a race discrimination
suit filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York by law firm Berger & Montague on behalf of
all past, present and future African-American Kodak employees,
and seeks to put an end to years of racial discrimination. The
suit was filed by ten current and former African-American
employees of Kodak, and the Employees Committed for Justice, an
organization of approximately 1,000 current and former Kodak
employees.

The Complaint alleges that Kodak has engaged in ongoing,
pervasive racial discrimination against its African-American
employees. Specifically, the suit charges that Kodak pays
African-Americans less than white employees, assigns them to
lower job classifications and wage grades, discriminates against
them in their job evaluations, and denies them opportunities for
training, mentoring, promotion and advancement provided to
similarly situated Caucasian employees. The suit also alleges
that Kodak assigns African-Americans to more difficult and
dangerous jobs than their Caucasian co-workers, which also offer
less opportunity for job advancement, and has subjected them to
a continuing pattern and practice of harassment resulting in an
ongoing racially hostile work environment. Finally, the suit
alleges that Kodak retaliates against African-Americans who
complain about these practices. The lawsuit seeks an end to
Kodak's discriminatory and retaliatory practices, make whole
relief for the Class, and punitive damages.

The Plaintiffs' allegations were confirmed by a four-and-a-half-
year investigation conducted by the EEOC, which resulted in a
determination that Kodak has engaged in a pattern and practice
of discrimination against its African-American employees.
According to the EEOC's determination, "egregious incidents of
harassment [at Kodak] continue today."

The lawsuit is brought by attorneys Stephen A. Whinston, William
T. Coleman, III and Shanon J. Carson of the law firm of Berger &
Montague, P.C., with Clayborne E. Chavers and Selim Ablo of The
Chavers Law Firm, P.C., Washington D.C. joining Berger &
Montague, P.C. as co-lead counsel in this lawsuit. The
Plaintiffs are also represented by Bruce E. Gerstein of Garwin,
Bronzaft, Gerstein & Fisher, L.L.P., New York City, New York,
and William G. Bauer of Woods Oviatt Gilman, LLP, Rochester, New
York.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Whinston or William T.
Coleman, III by Phone: (215) 875-3000 or visit the litigation
Web site: http://www.kodakdiscrimination.com


ENRON BROADBAND: SEC Settles Fraud Suit V. Ex-CFO, Fined $14.7M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission settled civil fraud
charges filed against Kenneth D. Rice, former Chief Executive
Officer of Enron Broadband Services (EBS). The complaint, filed
on May 1, 2003, in the U.S. District Court in Houston, charged
Rice and other executives from EBS with fraud and insider
trading. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Commission's complaint, Rice has agreed to be enjoined
permanently from violating Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, and to be
barred permanently from acting as an officer or director of a
public company. The Commission settled its action in
coordination with the Justice Department's Enron Task Force,
which entered into a guilty plea with Rice on related criminal
charges. In resolving the parallel civil and criminal
proceedings, Rice has agreed to pay disgorgement and a civil
penalty totaling more than $14.7 million and to cooperate with
the government's continuing investigation.

As alleged in the Commission's complaint, Rice and other EBS
executives engaged in a wide-ranging fraudulent scheme to, among
other things, inflate the value of Enron stock through a series
of false and misleading statements and the omission of material
information in such public statements about the technology,
financial condition, performance and value of EBS. The false and
misleading statements by Rice and others were made in press
releases over a two-year period as well as in presentations and
statements made at Enron's annual analyst conferences in January
2000 and 2001. As a result of the false statements, Enron's
stock price was artificially inflated. Rice then sold large
amounts of Enron stock at the inflated levels, at a time when he
knew that the statements were false and misleading and when he
was in possession of material non-public information concerning
the true status of EBS' technology and commercial success.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the Enron Task
Force. The Commission's investigation is continuing. The action
is titled, SEC v. Kenneth D. Rice, et al., Civil Action No. H-
03-0905 (Harmon) (S.D. Tx.)


FIRST HORIZON: GA Court Yet To Rule on Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia has yet to rule on First Horizon Pharmaceutical
Corporation's motion to dismiss the securities class action
filed against it, all members of the Company's Board of
Directors, certain former and current officers, and the
Company's underwriters for its public offering completed on
April 24, 2002.

The consolidated lawsuit is seeking to be certified as a class
action lawsuit, but has not yet been granted that status.  The
consolidated amended complaint generally alleges that the
Company issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market in connection with the Company's public
offering on April 24, 2002 and thereafter relating to alleged
"channel stuffing" activities.

The amended complaint asserts that Defendants violated Sections
11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  The amended
complaint further alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The amended complaint also alleges controlling
person liability on behalf of certain of the Company's officers
under Section 15 of the Securities Act and Section 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act.  Plaintiffs in this consolidated class
action lawsuit seek unspecified compensatory damages in an
amount to be proven at trial.


FOUNTAINHEAD ASSET: SEC Files PA Action To Stop Hedge Fund Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency civil
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Anthony P. Postiglione, Jr. (Postiglione),
of Malvern, PA and William J. Lennon  (Lennon), of Media, PA,
sole shareholders of defendant Fountainhead Asset Management,
LLC (FAM), the general partner of, and unregistered investment
adviser to, a hedge fund, defendant Fountainhead Fund, LP (the
Fund), located in Wayne, PA. Pursuant to the Commission's
motion, the Honorable Legrome D. Davis issued an order
temporarily enjoining the defendants from violating the
antifraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940;
freezing the defendants' assets; appointing a receiver; granting
expedited discovery; and scheduling a hearing on the
Commission's motion for a preliminary injunction for Aug. 5,
2004.

The Commission's complaint alleges that, from November 2001
through the present, Postiglione and Lennon have raised
approximately $5 million for the Fund from at least 18 private
investors. Through a series of fraudulent acts, defendants
Postiglione and Lennon, acting through FAM, have obtained assets
fraudulently, have lulled investors into keeping their assets in
the Fund, and have misused investor funds. The complaint alleges
that, from the inception of the Fund through the present,
Postiglione and Lennon have sent false quarterly statements and
newsletters to investors, consistently overstating the Fund's
value and performance. In addition, they have overstated the
amount of Postiglione's personal investment in the Fund and the
Fund's performance in order to lure new investments. Further, in
violation of their fiduciary duties to their clients,
Postiglione and Lennon excessively traded several Fund
securities accounts for the sole purpose of generating soft
dollar credits, which they then withdrew as cash and used for,
among other things, their own personal living expenses. The
complaint alleges that, during the course of this fraud,
Postiglione and Lennon also misappropriated several hundred
thousand dollars of Fund assets for their personal use. As of
the date of filing, investor funds in the Fund totaled
approximately $1.7 million.

The complaint alleges that defendants Postiglione, Lennon, FAM,
and the Fund have violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and that Postiglione, Lennon, and FAM have violated Sections
206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The complaint seeks
permanent injunctions, disgorgement together with prejudgment
interest, and civil penalties. The action is titled, SEC v.
Anthony P. Postiglione, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3604
(ED Pa.) (LR-18816)


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: GA Court Grants Preliminary Approval to Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
class action filed against one of Genworth Financial, Inc.'s
insurance subsidiaries and other life insurance companies,
styled "McBride v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia dba GE Life
and Annuity Assurance Co."

The suit is related to the sale of universal life insurance
policies.  The complaint was initially filed in Georgia state
court as a class action on behalf of all persons who purchased
certain universal life insurance policies from that subsidiary
and alleges improper practices in connection with the sale and
administration of universal life policies.  The plaintiffs
sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

On December 1, 2000, the Company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.  No class has
been certified.  The Company vigorously denied liability with
respect to the plaintiff's allegations.  Nevertheless, to avoid
the risks and costs associated with protracted litigation and to
resolve our differences with policyholders, the Company agreed
in principle on October 8, 2003 to settle the case on a
nationwide class action basis with respect to the insurance
subsidiary named in the lawsuit.

The settlement provides benefits to the class, and allows the
Company to continue to serve its customers' needs undistracted
by disruptions caused by litigation.  The settlement documents
have been finalized and submitted to the court for approval.
The court will hold a final fairness hearing on August 12, 2004
to determine whether to give final approval to the settlement.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Subsidiary Faces IL FCRA Violations Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
One of Genworth Financial, Inc.'s mortgage insurance
subsidiaries faces two lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, styled "William Portis et
al. v. GE Mortgage Insurance Corp." and "Karwo v. Citimortgage,
Inc. and General Electric Mortgage Insurance Corporation."

Each action seeks certification of a nationwide class of
consumers who allegedly were required to pay for the Company's
private mortgage insurance at a rate higher than the Company's
"best available rate," based upon credit information the Company
obtained.  Each action alleges that the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA) requires an "adverse action" notice to such borrowers
and that the Company violated the FCRA by failing to give such
notice.

The plaintiffs in Portis allege in the complaint that they are
entitled to "actual damages" and "damages within the Court's
discretion of not more than $1,000 for each separate violation"
of the FCRA.  The plaintiffs in Karwo allege that they are
entitled to "appropriate actual, punitive and statutory damages"
and "such other or further relief as the Court deems proper."


GOLDMAN LENDER: SEC Initiates Proceedings V. Ex-Representatives
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securites and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings against Americo Robert Gallo (Gallo) and Oren
Fachler (Fachler), individuals formerly associated with Goldman
Lender and Traderz, which operated as unregistered broker-
dealers. The Order Instituting Proceedings (Order) alleges that
Gallo and Fachler were employed as registered representatives of
Montrose Capital Management Ltd and Meridian Equities Co.

On June 20, 2002, and July 15, 2002, respectively, Gallo and
Fachler were permanently enjoined by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York from violating the
broker-dealer registration and antifraud provisions of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint in the civil injunctive action alleged that both
Gallo and Fachler participated in fraudulent offerings through
several phony private placements, including Traderz and Niki
Taylor. Gallo and Fachler sold stock to retail customers through
high-pressure sales tactics and false and misleading
representations to fraudulently induce investors to buy the
stock.

In October 2001 Fachler was convicted of criminal charges
arising out of the same conduct that gave rise to the civil
injunctive action. In particular, Fachler was convicted, based
on his guilty plea, of securities fraud and conspiracy to commit
securities fraud and wire fraud and sentenced to, among other
things, 30 months in prison.

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


GROUP 1: Fights Certification of Three TX Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Group 1 Automotive Inc. is opposing class certification for
three lawsuits filed against a number of its Texas dealership
subsidiaries, the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA)
and certain new vehicle dealerships in Texas that are members of
the TADA.

Two suits are pending in state court, while one is pending in
federal court.  The three actions allege that since January
1994, Texas dealers have deceived customers with respect to a
vehicle inventory tax and violated federal antitrust and other
laws.

In April 2002, the state court in which two of the actions are
pending certified classes of consumers on whose behalf the
action would proceed.  On October 25, 2002, the Texas Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of class certification
in the state court actions.  The defendant parties petitioned
the Texas Supreme Court for review of that certification
decision on appeal, and on March 26, 2004, the court denied
those petitions.  The defendant parties filed a motion for
rehearing of the denial on May 10, 2004, along with supporting
briefs.  The plaintiff class responded to the motion for
rehearing on June 14, 2004.  The defendant parties filed a reply
brief on June 24, 2004, and the plaintiff class sur-replied on
July 9, 2004.  The parties await the Court's decision on the
motion for rehearing.

In the other action, on March 26, 2003, the federal court also
certified a class of consumers, but denied a request to certify
a defendants' class consisting of all TADA members.  On May 19,
2003, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request for
permission to appeal the class certification ruling of the lower
federal court.  Briefing on the merits of defendants' appeal was
completed on February 13, 2004.  The parties participated in
mediation in 2003.

That mediation resulted in a settlement proposal from the
plaintiff class representatives to the defendant dealers,
including the Company's Texas dealership subsidiaries.  The
proposal was contingent on achieving a certain minimum level of
participation among the defendant dealers based on the number
of transactions in which each dealer engaged.  Because the
participation threshold was not satisfied, the proposal failed.


H&R BLOCK: NY Judge Dismisses Suit Over Tax Suits' Concealment
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Michael Mukasey of the Southern District of
New York dismissed a class-action lawsuit against H&R Block
Inc., which accuses them of concealing the fact that it was
facing more than 20 suits over tax refund anticipation loans,
the Kansas City Star reports.

In their suit, Plaintiffs claimed that they didn't know about
some of those earlier lawsuits that Block was facing until
November 2002. They also claim that they only knew of the suits
through a recently published report by Florida investment
services firm, Avalon Research Group Inc.

However, in his ruling, the judge stated that he dismissed the
claims due to the fact that the plaintiffs waited too long to
file their suit. He further stated that ample information about
the refund suits had been available in Securities and Exchange
Commission filings, news reports and courthouse documents for
more than two years before the Avalon report, which calculated
that Block might be liable for as much as $2 billion if it lost
refund suits that were pending at the time was published.


INFOSPACE INC.: WA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington approved the settlement of the securities class
action filed against InfoSpace, Inc. and its former chief
executive officers, styled "In RE InfoSpace, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

The complaint alleges that the Company and its former chief
executive officer made false and misleading statements about the
Company's business and prospects during the period between
January 26, 2000 and January 30, 2001.  The complaint alleges
violations of the federal securities laws and does not specify
the amount of damages sought.

The Court appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel, and a
consolidated complaint was filed in January 2002, which among
other things, added the Company's former chief financial officer
as a defendant.  In April 2002, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint.

An amended complaint was filed in May 2002 adding Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc. and one of its analysts as defendants, in response
to which the Company filed a new motion to dismiss in July 2002.
The various claims pending against the Merrill Lynch parties
have been severed from the case.  The court later approved a
settlement of the case pursuant to which the Company's insurance
carriers paid $34.3 million to the class (with no payments made
by InfoSpace or the other defendants), and the case was
dismissed with prejudice.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Mediation Fails, RESPA Violations Suit Proceeds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation failed to reach a settlement with
parties in the class action filed against it in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, as
mediation ended unsuccessfully.

The suit, filed in April 1996, alleging the Company violated the
federal Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) relating
to its payment of broker fees to mortgage brokers.  In June
2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the
district court's certification of a plaintiff class and the case
was remanded for further proceedings in the federal district
court.

In November 2001, by order of the district court, the parties
filed supplemental briefs analyzing the impact of an October 18,
2001 policy statement issued by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) that explicitly disagreed with the
judicial interpretation of RESPA by the Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit in its ruling upholding class certification in this
case.

In response to a motion from Irwin Mortgage, in March 2002, the
district court granted Irwin Mortgage's motion to stay
proceedings in this case until the 11th Circuit decided the
three other RESPA cases originally argued before it with this
case.  The 11th Circuit subsequently decided all of the RESPA
cases pending in that court.  In one of those cases, the 11th
Circuit concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion
in certifying a class action under RESPA.  Further, in that
decision, the 11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in
effect, overruling its previous decision upholding class
certification in the Company's case.

In March 2003, Irwin Mortgage filed a motion to decertify the
class and the plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for summary
judgment.  On October 2, 2003, the case was reassigned to
another U.S. district court judge.  In response to an order from
the court, the parties met and submitted a joint status report
at the end of October 2003.  On June 14, 2004, at the court's
request, the parties engaged in mediation, which was
unsuccessful.  The court then reassigned this case to a new
judge.

If the class is not decertified and the district court finds
that Irwin Mortgage violated RESPA, Irwin Mortgage could be
liable for damages equal to three times the amount of that
portion of payments made to the mortgage brokers that is ruled
unlawful.  Based on notices sent by the plaintiffs to date to
potential class members and additional notices that might be
sent in this case, the Company believes the class is not likely
to exceed 32,000 borrowers who meet the class specifications,
the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Court Certifies Document Preparation Fees Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Marion County, Indiana Superior Court granted class
certification to a lawsuit filed against Irwin Mortgage
Corporation, alleging that it charged a document preparation fee
in violation of Indiana law for services performed by clerical
personnel in completing legal documents related to mortgage
loans.

Irwin Mortgage filed an answer on June 11, 2003 and a motion for
summary judgment on October 27, 2003.  On November 3, 2003, the
court ruled that a determination on class certification would
precede any action on Irwin Mortgage's summary judgment motion.

On March 15, 2004, the court held a hearing on plaintiff's
motion for class certification and certified a class on June 18,
2004 consisting of Indiana borrowers who were allegedly charged
the fee by Irwin Mortgage any time after April 17, 1997.


IRWIN UNION: Reaches Settlement for TILA Violations Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company reached a settlement for the
class action filed in the United States District Court in
Massachusetts in July 2001, involving loans purchased by the
Bank from an unaffiliated third-party originator.

The plaintiffs allege a failure to comply with certain
disclosure provisions of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA)
relating to high rate loans in making second mortgage home
equity loans to the plaintiff borrowers.  The complaint seeks
rescission of the loans and other damages.

A limited class was certified.  As originally specified, the
plaintiff class included those borrowers who obtained a mortgage
loan originated by the third-party originator with prepayment
penalty provisions during the three-year period prior to the
filing of the suit.  Subsequently, the court further restricted
the class to those borrowers with high-rate loans subject to the
Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act who refinanced their
loans and paid a prepayment penalty.  A preliminary analysis led
us to conclude that fewer than 100 loans qualified for class
membership.

In June 2004, the parties reached an agreement in principle to
settle this matter for a nonmaterial amount, which has been
reserved.  The settlement is contingent upon the negotiation of
a final settlement agreement and is subject to the approval of
the district court.


JANA FOODS: Issues Alert On Undeclared Eggs in Goat Milk Cheese
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jana Foods LLC of Secaucus, NJ, is notifying consumers that
Cablanca brand Goat Cheese, imported from Holland, contains
lysozyme made from egg whites. People who have an allergy to
eggs may run the risk of serious reaction if they consumer this
product.

Cablanca Goat Cheese is sold in bulk 9 lb. wheels, and is sold
at retail in portions of approximately 7-9 oz. The Cablanca Goat
Cheese was sold from January through May 2004 to distributors in
the following states: New Jersey, Georgia, California,
Massachusetts, Oregon, Colorado and Minnesota, and also to one
retail store in Florida.

The recall was initiated on June 1 after it was discovered that
the egg white lysozyme containing product was distributed in
packaging that did not declare the presence of egg white
lysozyme, which was omitted by the manufacturer. All import and
distribution of this product was suspended until the product
held by the importer, distributors and retailers was relabeled
to indicate the presence of egg white lysozyme in the product.

Consumers who purchased Cablanca Goat Cheese are urged to check
the product label, and if it does not indicate "egg white
lysozyme" as an ingredient, are requested to return it to the
place of purchase for a full refund.

For more details, contact Jana Foods by Phone: 201-866-1304


JASON POLLAK: SEC Bars Trader From Association, Offering Stock
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission barred Jason H. Pollak
from associating with any broker or dealer and from
participating in any offering of a penny stock. Pollak was a
principal of the now defunct Tiger Eye Capital, LLC, a
Uniondale, New York company that operated as an unregistered
broker-dealer. The order barring Pollak, issued pursuant to
Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, was based
upon Pollak's April 28, 1998 New York state court conviction for
a Class C felony of attempted enterprise corruption. Pollak had
participated in an enterprise that engaged in the selling and
distributing of securities in an illegal manner. Pollak
consented to the entry of the order.

The Commission's order was based on the following findings:

     (1) Mr. Pollak was a registered representative with
         Josephthal Lyon & Ross, Inc. ("Josephthal") from
         February 1992 to December 1993, and Westfield Financial
         Corp. ("Westfield") from December 1993 to November
         1994. Josephthal and Westfield were broker-dealers
         registered with the Commission during the period of
         Respondent's association.

     (2) From at least 1996 through 1997, Respondent was a
         principal with Tiger Eye Capital, LLC ("Tiger Eye"),
         then a Uniondale, New York business entity operating as
         an unregistered broker-dealer engaged in, among other
         things, the effecting of transactions in securities for
         the account of others.

     (3) Pollak engaged in an offering of a penny stock when he
         indirectly sold the securities of TSI Environmental,
         Inc. ("TSI") to public investors through nominee
         accounts. TSI was a penny stock within the meaning of
         Exchange Act Sections 3(a)(51) and 15(g) and Rules
         promulgated thereunder.

     (4) On April 29, 1998, in a criminal action before the
         Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New
         York, Respondent was convicted of one count of a Class
         C felony of attempted enterprise corruption pursuant to
         a plea of guilty, and on December 18, 2002, Respondent
         was sentenced to five years probation. In his
         Allocution, Respondent admitted to having been part of
         a group that engaged in a pattern of criminal activity
         for the purpose of selling and distributing securities,
         including the securities of TSI, in an illegal manner.
         (See People v. Pollak., Ind. No. SCI 3376/98,
         98N039610.)


JEWISH HOLOCAUST: NY Claims Group Dispenses $401.1M To Survivors
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, Inc.
(Claims Conference), the body responsible for implementing
German slave labor compensation payments to Jewish Holocaust
survivors, is making the largest-ever one-day Holocaust
compensation payment this week. It will distribute a total of
$401.1 million to 131,681 Holocaust survivors living in 62
countries who performed slave and forced labor.

This represents a second payment to former Nazi-era slave and
forced laborers who received initial distributions totaling $703
million beginning in 2001.

The payments are the result of U.S. class-action lawsuits filed
in 1999 by Holocaust survivors against German companies that
used slave and forced labor during World War II. The lawsuits
brought about negotiations that led to the establishment of the
DM 10 billion German Foundation "Remembrance, Responsibility,
and the Future."

In addition, the Claims Conference has made slave labor payments
from the Swiss Banks Settlement, reached in U.S. District Court
under Chief Judge Edward R. Korman of the Eastern District of
New York, also as a result of class-action lawsuits. These
payments are compensation for wartime Nazi and German business
profits transacted through Swiss banks. The settlement released
Swiss Banks from any claims from Nazi victims relating to
companies that profited from slave labor and deposited such
revenues and profits in Switzerland. Under this portion of the
program, the Claims Conference has paid more than $217 million
to 150,140 survivors.

With this week's payments, the Claims Conference will have
distributed since 2001 more than $1.3 billion in compensation
payments to Jewish former slave and forced laborers, resulting
from Holocaust class-action lawsuits.

"These payments represent the first time that German industry as
a whole has acknowledged its role in Holocaust-era crimes. They
are a small measure of justice, for which survivors have waited
for more than 60 years," said Gideon Taylor, Claims Conference
Executive Vice President.

"In three years, the Claims Conference has worked with
tremendous efficiency and speed to distribute these funds to
survivors in their lifetimes. It has been an enormous task
carried out with skill and compassion. These recoveries have
made a tremendous difference to tens of thousands of Holocaust
survivors," said attorney Mel Weiss of Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman LLP, one of the lead attorneys in the cases that
brought about the settlement.

The Program for Former Slave and Forced Laborers entailed levels
of technology, staffing, and international coordination
unprecedented in the Claims Conference's previous half-century.
To meet the challenge of processing 265,000 applications in
eight languages within a relatively short time period, the
Claims Conference created an advanced system of computerized
processing. Every application form was digitally scanned. By
relying on state-of-the art programs that were tailored to the
project and were highly adaptable, the Claims Conference
achieved full electronic processing, with significant advantages
in data collection, integration and investigation.

"Thousands of elderly, frail survivors in countries around the
world have great needs that are increasing as they age. The
remarkable speed of these payments, distributed at low cost,
will greatly assist them in their last years and hopefully make
their lives just a little bit easier," said Professor Burt
Neuborne of New York University law school, who helped negotiate
the settlement and sits on the Board of Directors of the German
Foundation.

Half of the DM 10 billion Foundation's funding is provided by
the German government, the other by the country's businesses.
German industry and business benefited from slave and forced
labor during World War II. In addition, the Nazis utilized such
labor in building railroads and air bases, in military
production, and in concentration camps.

Under the German law creating the fund for these payments, the
compensation had to be paid in two installments, in order to
ensure adequate funds to make first payments to all eligible
applicants. Included in the survivors being sent payments this
week are 33,510 in the U.S., who will receive a total of $103.6
million, and 61,901 in Israel, who will receive a total of
$191.4 million.

"This program is as much about restituting history as it is
about restituting money. There are 131,000 Jewish survivors of
camps and ghettos alive today and we will not allow their names
to be forgotten or their stories to be lost," said Gideon
Taylor.

The program will leave behind it a list of the names of
virtually all Jewish Holocaust survivors alive today, a
comprehensive identification of almost all places where Jews
were incarcerated during the Holocaust, and finally a small
symbolic acknowledgement by Germany of the horrors that hundreds
of thousands of individuals endured 60 years ago.

To help survivors document their claims to meet the requirements
of the German Foundation, the Claims Conference undertook pro-
active research in 150 Holocaust-related archives scattered in
30 countries around the world. Claims Conference researchers
scoured paper and microfilmed lists -- often handwritten and not
alphabetized -- in order to match the names of claimants to any
documentation that would meet the requirements established by
the German Foundation.

Sources of information included concentration camp lists, ghetto
registers, transport lists, labor battalion rosters, lists of
slave laborers in factories and plants, lists of inmates on work
gangs, lists of prisoners released or liberated from
concentration camps by Allied forces or humanitarian groups,
lists of recipients of packages sent by friends and relatives
through the Red Cross, and testimonials of survivors produced in
the immediate aftermath of the Nazi occupation, among others.

The German Foundation was established in 2000 by German
government and industry after negotiations with the Claims
Conference; attorneys representing Holocaust survivors; and the
governments of the U.S., Israel, and several Eastern European
nations. The agreement was conditional upon the advent of "legal
peace," which was achieved through the dismissal of the class-
action lawsuits. In a novel legal device, statement of interest
was filed in the New Jersey and New York Federal Courts by the
U.S. government urging for the dismissal of the cases due to the
signing of the international agreement.

The Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany (Claims
Conference) represents world Jewry in negotiating for
compensation and restitution for victims of Nazi persecution and
their heirs. The Claims Conference administers compensation
funds, recovers unclaimed Jewish property, and allocates funds
to institutions that provide social welfare services to
Holocaust survivors and preserve the memory and lessons of the
Shoah.


MCI WORLDCOM: Parker & Waichman Reminds Shareholders of Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Parker & Waichman LLP reminds current and former
MCI WorldCom (Nasdaq:MCIP) shareholders and employees that only
31 days remain to opt-out of the proposed class action
settlement. The deadline to opt-out of the class action
settlement is September 1, 2004. Current and former shareholders
who don't specifically opt-out of the class action settlement
will automatically be included in the settlement.

It is estimated that shareholders lost in excess of $100 billion
on MCI WorldCom securities. It is believed that the proposed
settlement will provide shareholders with less than 2 cents for
every dollar lost. Parker & Waichman believes this proposed
settlement does not provide adequate compensation for MCI
WorldCom shareholders. Parker & Waichman urges shareholders to
determine whether they would be better served by opting out of
the proposed settlement.

Current and former WorldCom and MCI shareholders and employees
can visit http://www.worldcomstockfraud.com and
http://www.worldcomclassaction.com to view and download the
WorldCom class action opt-out form entitled, "Notice of Class
Action."

Current and former shareholders who desire to opt-out of the
WorldCom class action settlement must mail the opt-out form or
required information before the September 1, 2004 opt-out
deadline. This will permit them to pursue individual claims
against the defendants, including Citigroup. Current and former
WorldCom and MCI shareholders who do not specifically opt-out of
the proposed class action settlement by filing the required form
or information will automatically be included in the proposed
settlement.

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


NASSDA CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nassda Corporation and certain of its officers and directors
face a securities class action lawsuit filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit asserts claims against the Company, Sang S. Wang, An-
Chang Deng, Tammy Shu-Hua Liu and Yen-Son Huang on behalf of a
putative class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
between December 13, 2001 and June 11, 2004.  The class action
alleges that the named defendants violated certain provisions of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false
and misleading representations in press releases and financial
statements filed with the SEC relating to the Company's
financial results.  The complaint's allegations derive largely
from allegations contained in the Synopsys trade secret
litigation currently pending in California State Superior Court.


NEW YORK: Judge Grants Class Status For Disabled Children's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles P. Sifton of the Federal District Court in
Brooklyn granted class action status for a lawsuit filed against
the New York City school system, which accuses them of removing
children with special needs from their classrooms and assigning
them to places that lack the special services they require, the
New York Times reports.

Filed two years ago by Advocates for Children, a nonprofit
organization on behalf of nine plaintiffs, who are identified
only by their initials, the suit alleges that thru the years,
disabled and special education children have been suspended,
excluded, transferred, discharged or otherwise removed from city
schools without adequate notice, without being informed of their
legal rights, and, in some cases, without required procedures.
The suit further alleges that students are at times placed in
environments that cannot provide the conditions or services they
require and are entitled to by law, like smaller student-teacher
ratios and instruction tailored to their special needs thus they
fall completely behind in their schoolwork.

Named, as defendant in is the state's Department of Education,
which according to the complaint "instituted a policy, practice
and custom under which children with disabilities have been
illegally excluded from school and denied educational services
to which they are entitled by federal and state law."

Attorney Elisa Hyman of Advocates for Children and lead counsel
in the class action suit, told the New York Times that the
significance of the judge's ruling is that if the lawsuit is
successful, the Department of Education could be forced to make
widespread changes in its practices instead of having to simply
address the problems of the nine plaintiffs.


NEWSDAY: Advertisers Launch NY Lawsuit Over Inflated Circulation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Publications Newsday and Hoy, New York faces two purported class
actions filed in New York Federal Court by certain of their
advertisers, alleging that they were overcharged for advertising
as a result of inflated circulation numbers at these two
publications.  The purported class action also alleges that
entities which paid a Newsday subsidiary to deliver advertising
flyers were overcharged.

On July 21, 2004, another lawsuit was filed in New York Federal
Court by certain advertisers of Newsday alleging damages
resulting from inflated Newsday circulation numbers as well as
federal and state antitrust violations.

The Company intends to vigorously defend these suits.  Newsday
is a morning newspaper published seven days a week and
circulated primarily in Long Island, New York, and in the
borough of Queens in New York City.  Hoy, New York, is a Spanish
language newspaper that is also published seven days a week,
according to a regulatory filing.


POZEN INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pozen, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
claiming violations of securities laws.

These actions have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes and
any other similar federal actions that may be filed will also be
consolidated with these actions for pre-trial purposes.  The
Company expects that a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for the
consolidated cases will be appointed.

The complaints allege, among other claims, violations of federal
securities laws, including violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5, and
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the
individual defendants.  The complaints allege that the Company
made false and misleading statements concerning its product
candidates, MT 100 and MT 300, during the class period.  The
complaints request certification of a plaintiff class consisting
of purchasers of the Company stock between July 3, 2003 and May
28, 2004, and in one complaint, between October 10, 2000 and May
28, 2004, and seek, among other relief, unspecified damages,
plus costs and expenses, including attorneys' and experts' fees.


SCHERING PLOUGH: Reaches Pact With MI Over Claritin Rebates Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Michigan reached a settlement with pharmaceutical
manufacturer Schering Plough Inc. (Schering) over its
underpayment of Medicaid Drug Rebates on the antihistamine drug
Claritin, netting more than $2.6 million for Michigan's Medicaid
program, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox announced in a
statement.

"Michigan's Medicaid program exists to help provide affordable
health care to those in need," AG Cox said.  "When companies
engage in actions that keep prescription drug costs high, they
do a disservice to Michigan and will be held accountable. This
settlement today will help reimburse Medicaid and ensure that in
the future, pharmaceutical companies fulfill their legal
obligations to the State of Michigan."

The settlement, which includes 49 states and the District of
Columbia, arises out of Schering's alleged failure to provide
Medicaid programs with the "best price" available for Claritin,
as required by The Federal Medicaid Drug Rebate statute.
Federal law mandates that pharmaceutical manufacturers file
"best price" information with the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS), which then uses the information to
calculate rebates for state Medicaid programs.

Under the law, the manufacturer's report to CMS must include all
discounts, rebates, payments and other incentives related to the
drug.  Schering allegedly provided two HMOs with discounts,
concessions and incentives in order to keep Claritin on their
formulary in lieu of a less expensive competitor product, which
was not reported to CMS as required by law.  The result was that
the states received millions less in rebates from Schering than
would have been paid had "best price" reporting been done
appropriately.

Michigan's settlement was reached in conjunction with a federal
settlement negotiated by the United States Attorney's Office in
Philadelphia.  Schering has agreed to plead guilty to a federal
charge relating to the anti-kickback statute and will enter into
a corporate integrity agreement to guide its future behavior.


SCHERING PLOUGH: Reaches Agreement With FL Over Claritin Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Florida reached an agreement with pharmaceutical
manufacturer Schering-Plough to pay $7.4 million to the Florida
Medicaid program, Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist
announced in a statement.

The payment results from claims that the company overcharged on
its popular antihistamine drug, Claritin.  As part of the
settlement, 49 states, the District of Columbia, and the federal
government will recover $423 million in restitution and
penalties.

All pharmaceutical manufacturers supplying products to Medicaid
recipients must offer the "best price" available for that
product.  The law requires that the "best price" be included in
the discounts, rebates, payments and other incentives that
manufacturers must file with the Centers for Medicare and
Medicaid Services (CMS).  CMS uses this information to calculate
rebates for state Medicaid programs.  Schering-Plough allegedly
provided health maintenance organizations with certain
discounts, concessions and incentives for Claritin that the
company did not report to CMS.  Therefore, Medicaid did not
receive the "best price."

"Our citizens deserve the confidence that the price they are
paying for pharmaceutical drugs is the fairest possible price,
not a price that will unfairly fetch a higher profit for drug
manufacturers," said AG Crist.  "We are here to ensure that fair
Medicaid practices are extended to all parties involved."

The federal government will receive $282.3 million to resolve
the company's civil liability for underpaying the Medicaid drug
rebates.  The 48 other states' $133.3-million share will be
allocated according to each individual state's respective
Medicaid program use of Claritin.  The total recovery for all 49
states and the District of Columbia represents double the actual
damages sustained from the rebate underpayments, which totaled
$70.35 million.

Florida's $7.4-million share of the penalty money will be
divided between the Agency for Health Care Administration and
the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Symbol Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for three
securities class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.

On March 5, 2002, a purported class action was filed, entitled
Pinkowitz v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., et al., on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of the company between October
19, 2000 and February 13, 2002, inclusive.  The suit named as
defendants the Company, Tomo Razmilovic, Jerome Swartz and
Kenneth Jaeggi.

The complaint alleged that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the class period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of Symbol's securities.
Subsequently, a number of additional purported class actions
containing substantially similar allegations were also filed
against Symbol and certain Symbol officers in the Eastern
District of New York.

On September 27, 2002, a consolidated amended complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, consolidating the previously filed
purported class actions. The consolidated amended complaint
added Harvey P. Mallement, George Bugliarello and Leo A. Guthart
(the then current members of the Audit Committee of Symbol's
Board of Directors) and Brian Burke and Frank Borghese (former
employees of Symbol) as additional individual defendants and
broadened the scope of the allegations concerning revenue
recognition.  In addition, the consolidated amended complaint
extended the alleged class period to the time between April
26, 2000 and April 18, 2002.

On March 21, 2003, a separate purported class action lawsuit was
filed, entitled "Edward Hoyle v. Symbol Technologies, Inc., Tomo
Razmilovic, Kenneth V. Jaeggi, Robert W. Korkuc, Jerome Swartz,
Harvey P. Mallement, George Bugliarello, Charles B. Wang, Leo A.
Guthart and James H. Simons," in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  On May 7, 2003, a
virtually identical purported class action lawsuit was filed
against the same defendants by Joseph Salerno.

The Hoyle and Salerno complaints are brought on behalf of a
purported class of former shareholders of Telxon Corporation
("Telxon") who obtained Symbol stock in exchange for their
Telxon stock pursuant to Symbol's acquisition of Telxon
effective as of November 30, 2000.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a
Registration Statement and Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus in
connection with the Telxon acquisition that contained materially
false and misleading statements that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of Symbol's securities.

On October 3, 2003, Symbol and the individual defendants moved
to dismiss the Hoyle action as barred by the applicable statute
of limitations.  Prior to a decision of the Court on the motion
to dismiss, the parties have reached an agreement that the Hoyle
and Salerno matters would be resolved as part of the Pinkowitz
settlement described above.

On June 3, 2004, the Company reached a settlement of the
Pinkowitz, Hoyle and Salerno lawsuits.  Under the settlement,
Symbol agreed to pay $98,000 in cash and stock to the class.  In
addition, the $37,000 civil penalty by the Commission, will be
distributed to class members as described above.  The settlement
is subject to court approval.

Dr. Jerome Swartz, Symbol's co-founder and former chairman,
agreed to pay $4,000 in cash to the class to settle the
Pinkowitz and Hoyle class action claims with respect to him.
This $4,000 has been recorded as a component of recovery for
legal settlements within operating expenses during the three
months ended June 30, 2004, as this was previously recorded in
the amount estimated to be paid by the Company.  Claims brought
by the plaintiffs against former Symbol employees Tomo
Razmilovic, Kenneth Jaeggi, Brain Burke and Frank Borghese were
not settled.


TELXON CORPORATION: OH Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio approved the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Telxon Corporation, styled "In re
Telxon Corporation Securities Litigation."

Certain alleged stockholders of Telxon filed the suit on behalf
of themselves and purported classes consisting of Telxon
stockholders, other than the defendants and their affiliates,
who purchased stock during the period from May 21, 1996 through
February 23, 1999, or various portions thereof, alleging claims
for "fraud on the market" arising from alleged
misrepresentations and omissions with respect to Telxon's
financial performance and prospects and an alleged violation of
generally accepted accounting principles by improperly
recognizing revenues.  The named defendants are the Company, its
former president and chief executive officer, Frank E. Brick,
and its former senior vice president and chief financial
officer, Kenneth W. Haver.

The complaint alleges that the defendants engaged in a scheme to
defraud investors through improper revenue recognition practices
and concealment of material adverse conditions in Telxon's
business and finances.  The amended complaint seeks
certification of the identified class, unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On November 13, 2003, Telxon and the plaintiff class reached a
tentative settlement of all pending shareholder class actions
against Telxon.  Under the settlement, Telxon anticipated that
it would pay $37,000 to the class.  As a result of anticipated
contributions by Telxon's insurers, Telxon expected that its net
payment would be no more than $25,000.

On December 19, 2003, the settlement received preliminary
approval from the Court.  On February 12, 2004, the Court
granted its final approval of the settlement.  On February 27,
2004, the Company paid $25,000 to the class in accordance with
the settlement.

Telxon has not settled its lawsuit against its former auditors,
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC"), and, as part of the proposed
settlement of the class action, Telxon has agreed to pay to the
class, under certain circumstances, up to $3,000 of the proceeds
of that lawsuit.

On February 20, 2001, Telxon filed a motion for leave to file
and serve a summons and third-party complaint against third-
party defendant PwC in the shareholders' class action
complaints. Telxon's third-party complaint against PwC concerns
PwC's role in the original issuance and restatements of Telxon's
financial statements for its fiscal years 1996, 1997 and 1998
and its interim financial statements for its first and second
quarters of fiscal year 1999, which are the subject of the class
action litigation against Telxon.  Telxon states causes of
action against PwC for contribution under federal securities
law, as well as state law claims for accountant malpractice,
fraud, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, fraudulent
misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, breach of
contract and breach of fiduciary duty.

With respect to its federal claim against PwC, Telxon seeks
contribution from PwC for all sums that Telxon may be required
to pay in excess of Telxon's proportionate liability, if any,
and attorney fees and costs. With respect to its state law
claims against PwC, Telxon seeks compensatory damages, punitive
damages, attorney fees and costs, in amounts to be determined at
trial.

Fact discovery was completed on December 19, 2003.  Expert
discovery was concluded on April 16, 2004.  On April 20, 2004,
PwC made a supplemental production of documents to Telxon which
included thousands of pages of materials never previously
produced in the litigation.  Because fact and expert discovery
had already closed, Telxon filed a motion for sanctions against
PwC, requesting, among other things, the entry of default
judgment against PwC for discovery misconduct.  The district
court referred the motion to the magistrate judge for a
report and recommendation.  On July 2, 2004, the magistrate
judge issued a report and recommendation that the district court
enter default judgment on liability against PwC and in favor of
Telxon. PwC filed objections to the magistrate judge's report
and recommendation on July 19, 2004. Telxon has to reply to the
objections by August 2, 2004. The district court will then rule
upon PwC's objections and either accept, reject, or modify the
recommended disposition of the magistrate judge. The district
court is not required to hold a hearing.

Assuming the district court follows the magistrate judge's
report and recommendation and enters default judgment against
PwC and in favor of Telxon, a trial on the issue of damages
should occur in late 2004 or early 2005.


UNION PACIFIC: Judge Sets Hearing For $65M Settlement Proposal
--------------------------------------------------------------
On August 30, 2004 a federal judge will hold a hearing to
reflect on a proposed $65 million class action settlement by
Union Pacific (UNP) in relation to a May 2000 Louisiana
derailment, the Dow Jones Newswires reports.

According to Union Pacific over 10,000 formal claims have been
filed against the company, since the suits filing. Under the
proposed settlement, Union Pacific will be released from all
claims for damages involved in the litigation.

The accident, which happened near Eunice, Louisiana on May 27,
2000, caused the evacuation of 4,000 residents and involved the
derailment of a total of thirty-four cars of a 113-car freight
train. The derailment also caused the spillage of hazardous
chemicals into a nearby bayou.

In April 2002, the National Transportation Safety Board's
investigators blamed the accident on Union Pacific railroad's
poor track inspection system, which allowed two sections of
track to separate.


          Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


September 20-21, 2004
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Boston Common, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 20-21, 2004
NATIONAL ASBESTOS LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21, 2004
E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 21, 2004
PARALEGALS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin City Center, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27-28, 2004
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27-28, 2004
REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 29-30, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

October 4-5, 2004
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 7-8, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, West Palm Beach
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 21, 2004
PARALEGALS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25-26, 2004
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 26, 2004
PVC LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 4-5, 2004
CK039
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES,
TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 8, 2004
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8, 2004
HRT LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8-9, 2004
CALIFORNIA SECTION 17200 CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ZYPREXA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ARTHRITIS DRUG LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ANTI-SLAPP CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 11-12, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 2-3, 2004
TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
ALI-ABA
New York
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 19-21, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago Tuition $
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614



TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


KVH INDUSTRIES: Berger & Montague Files Securities Lawsuit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against KVH Industries, Inc. ("KVHI" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: KVHI) and certain of its officers, in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island on behalf of all
persons or entities who purchased KVHI securities from January
6, 2004 through July 2, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC by issuing materially false
and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

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

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

     (2) that KVHI would be forced to write-down its inventory
         by millions of dollars.

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

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

For more details, contact Berger & Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622
Locust St., Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 800-424-6690 by
Fax: 215-875-4604 or by E-mail: info@bm.net


SYNOVIS LIFE: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all purchasers
of Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. ("Synovis") (NASDAQ: SYNO)
securities between October 16, 2003 and May 18, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Synovis and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. 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 the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or (212)
779-1414 or by E-mail: SYNO@bernlieb.com


VERITAS SOFTWARE: Braun Law Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Braun Law Group, P.C., initiated a class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of Veritas
Software Corporation, Inc.'s (Nasdaq:VRTS) securities ("Veritas"
or the "Company") between April 21, 2004 and July 6, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). Veritas is traded on the Nasdaq
under the ticker symbol VRTS.

Defendants include Veritas, Edwin G. Gillis and Gary L. Bloom.
The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-
b(5).

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false statements concerning Veritas' financial
condition. Specifically, although the Company was involved in
negotiations for significant contracts, defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded the fact that those negotiations had not
advanced enough to reasonably conclude they would close.
Nevertheless, defendants caused the Company to confirm
expectations that its 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.

On July 6, 2004, just three weeks after defendants confirmed
their second quarter 2004 expectations, defendants stunned the
market by announcing that the Company's 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." As a result of this news,
the Company's share price plunged from $26.55 to $17.00, or 36%
in heavy trading volume.

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


                            *********


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  * * *