---

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

             Thursday, August 5, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 154

                          Headlines

ADAMS GOLF: Plaintiffs Start Appeal of Securities Suit Dismissal
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
AVON PRODUCTS: CA Court Refuses To Vacate Sales Suit Dismissal
BAUSCH & LOMB: Reaches $12.5M Shareholder Suit Settlement in NY
BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in GA Court

BRISTOL-MYERS: Likely To Pay $75M To Settle Suit Over ImClone
CALIFORNIA: Major Web Companies Targeted in Suit V. Gambling Ads
CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: IL Consumers Launch Unsolicited Fax Suit
COOPERS & LYBRAND: SEC Settles Fraud Case V. Ex-AHERF Auditors
DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Appeal of TX Stock Lawsuit Dismissal Dropped

DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: To Ask TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
ENRON CORPORATION: Ex-Broadband Exec To Plead Guilty to Fraud
FIDELITY BROKERAGE: SEC Metes $1 Million Fraud Violations Fine
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Court Hears Appeal of Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
FRANKLIN ADVISERS: To Pay $50M To Settle SEC Market Timing Case

GE LIFE: Reaches Settlement For GA Life Insurance Fraud Lawsuit
HALLIBURTON CO.: SEC Sues, Fines Officials For Accounting Fraud
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For NJ Stock Lawsuit
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Fiduciary Duty Suit
IDAHO: High Court Upends District Court Ruling V. Field Burning

LANDSTAR SYSTEM: FL Court Dismisses Claims of Plaintiff in Suit
LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Continues To Face Manganese Injury Lawsuits
MERRILL LYNCH: To Seek Dismissal of NY Mutual Fund Fraud Suits
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Reaches $31.5M Antitrust Settlement in NM
MINUTEMAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suits Over Floor Coating Product

NEWSDAY: Court Allows Settlement Talks To Proceed in NY Lawsuit
NEXPRISE INC.: Reaches Tentative Settlement of CA Stock Lawsuit
NEXPRISE INC.: Submits Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
ODYSSEY PICTURES: Shareholders Launch Fourth CA Securities Suit
PACER INTERNATIONAL: CA High Court Nixes Review of Suit Rulings

PRAXAIR INC.: 414 Manganese Injury Suits Coordinated in OH Court
SPX CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Consolidated NC Stock Suit
TENNESSEE: Resident Lodges Civil Rights Suit V. Sex Offender Law
THERAGENICS CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement For GA Stock Lawsuit
U.N. DOLLARS: SEC Lodges Administrative Proceedings V. Officers

UNITED STATES: Study Says Average Cases V. Firms Dropped By 6.3%
VORNADO AIR: Recalls 1M Portable Room Heaters Due To Fire Hazard

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AKSYS LTD.: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Stock Suit
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Frank & Sailer Lodges Securities Suit in NC

TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in NY
THORATEC CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges CA Securities Suit
WHITE ELECTRONIC: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Lawsuit in AZ


                           *********


ADAMS GOLF: Plaintiffs Start Appeal of Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed their opening briefs in their appeal of the
dismissal of the securities class action filed against Adams
Golf, Inc., certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the three underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering (IPO) in the United States District Court of the
District of Delaware.

The complaint alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, in connection with
the Company's IPO.  In particular, the complaints alleged that
the Company's prospectus, which became effective July 9, 1998,
was materially false and misleading in at least two areas.
Plaintiffs alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that
unauthorized distribution of the Company's products (gray market
sales) threatened the Company's long-term profits.  Plaintiffs
also alleged that the prospectus failed to disclose that the
golf equipment industry suffered from an oversupply of inventory
at the retail level, which had an adverse impact on the
Company's sales.  The plaintiffs were seeking unspecified
amounts of compensatory damages, interests and costs, including
legal fees.

On December 10, 2001, the court dismissed the consolidated,
amended complaint citing that the plaintiffs failed to plead any
facts supporting their claim that the Company or its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws.  On January
14, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend the
Judgment of Dismissal.  In the motion, plaintiffs alleged that,
if given another opportunity, they would amend the original
complaint to state actionable claims.  The motion was denied on
August 27, 2003. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on
September 25, 2003.


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the securities class action
filed against Avon Products, Inc. on behalf of certain classes
of holders of Avon's Preferred Equity-Redemption Cumulative
Stock (PERCS).

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, alleges various contract and
securities law claims related to the PERCS (which were fully
redeemed in 1991) and seek aggregate damages of approximately
$145.0, plus interest.  A trial of this action took place and
concluded in November 2001.

In March 2004 the court rendered a decision in favor of the
Company and dismissed the suit.  The plaintiffs then filed a
Notice of Appeal initiating an appeal of the court's decision to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


AVON PRODUCTS: CA Court Refuses To Vacate Sales Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California chose not to
vacate its dismissal of a class action filed against Avon
Products, Inc. on behalf of Avon Sales Representatives who
"since March 24, 1999, received products from Avon they did not
order, thereafter returned the unordered products to Avon, and
did not receive credit for those returned products."

The suit, styled "Blakemore, et al. v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust enrichment
and violation of the California Business and Professions Code.

The Company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action.  The Superior Court sustained the
Company's demurrers and dismissed plaintiffs' causes of action
except for the unjust enrichment claim of one plaintiff, the
amount of which is nominal.  The court also struck plaintiffs'
class allegations.

Plaintiffs filed Petitions for Writ of Mandate with the Court of
Appeal of the State of California seeking to overturn the
Superior Court's dismissals in respect of the complaints.  On
June 24, 2004 the Court of Appeal issued an Alternative Writ of
Mandate and Order mandating that the Superior Court vacate its
prior rulings or, in the alternative, show cause why such a
mandate should not issue.  Separately, plaintiffs filed with the
Superior Court a motion for reconsideration of the court's
decision striking plaintiffs' class allegations in this matter,
which decision was unaffected by the action of the Court of
Appeal.

The Superior Court chose not to vacate its rulings in respect to
the complaints, so the parties are proceeding with briefs and
oral argument on the issues before the Court of Appeal.
Argument before the Court of Appeal is scheduled to take place
on November 29, 2004.  The Superior Court also chose not to
change its ruling striking plaintiffs' class allegations and the
plaintiffs have appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Reaches $12.5M Shareholder Suit Settlement in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bausch & Lomb (NYSE:BOL) signed a settlement agreement, subject
to Court approval, to settle a three-year old consolidated
shareholder class action suit now pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York. The suit
alleges that the value of the Company's stock was artificially
inflated by alleged false and misleading statements about
expected financial results for the fiscal year 2000. The Company
agreed to settle the lawsuit for $12.5 million in cash, all of
which will be paid by the Company's insurance carrier.
Accordingly, there will be no charges against earnings for this
matter.

The settlement agreement is subject to preliminary approval by
the Court later this month and is subject to final review at a
fairness hearing that is likely to be scheduled for later this
year. Class members are likely to be defined as purchasers of
Bausch & Lomb common stock from January 27, 2000 through August
24, 2000.

Commenting on the settlement agreement, Senior Vice President
and General Counsel Robert B. Stiles said, "We have always made
it a practice to keep our shareholders informed of significant
developments in our businesses and we believe we communicated
fully, fairly and promptly during the period at issue. We were
prepared to defend the Company vigorously against these
allegations. We have agreed to this proposed settlement in order
to eliminate the burden and expense of further protracted
litigation, so that we can put this matter behind us and
concentrate our full attention on growing our businesses and
providing increased value to our shareholders."


BELLSOUTH CORPORATION: Faces ERISA Violations Suit in GA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
BellSouth Corporation faces a new class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).  The suit also names as defendants the
Company's directors, three of its senior officers and other
individuals.

Earlier, in September and October 2002 three substantially
identical class actions were filed.  The cases have been
consolidated and on April 21, 2003, a Consolidated Complaint was
filed.

The plaintiffs, who seek to represent a putative class of
participants and beneficiaries of BellSouth's 401(k) plans
allege in the Consolidated Complaint that the company and the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties in
violation of ERISA, by among other things:

     (1) failing to provide accurate information to the Plans'
         participants and beneficiaries;

     (2) failing to ensure that the Plans' assets were invested
         properly;

     (3) failing to monitor the Plans' fiduciaries;

     (4) failing to disregard Plan directives that the
         defendants knew or should have known were imprudent and

     (5) failing to avoid conflicts of interest by hiring
         independent fiduciaries to make investment decisions.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of damages,
injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Likely To Pay $75M To Settle Suit Over ImClone
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. will likely shell out $75 million to
settle a Securities and Exchange Commission action that accuses
the company of manipulating its inventory of drugs to inflate
its reported sales after paying $300 million to settle a
shareholder class action lawsuit, alleging the company lied
about accounting and its investment in ImClone Systems Inc., an
expert familiar with the matter told the Associated Press.

The expert, on condition of anonymity, told AP the SEC could
announce the settlement with Bristol-Myers on Wednesday,
confirming an earlier report by The Wall Street Journal.  The
settlement is believed to be one of the largest SEC penalties in
recent years for alleged accounting violations against a viable
company that continues to operate, virtually surpassing a $10
million fine assessed against the Xerox Corporation in 2002.

The SEC, the Justice Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office
in New Jersey have been investigating a Bristol-Myers program
that offered wholesalers huge discounts to buy more prescription
medicines than they could sell. A federal grand jury convened in
Newark early this year to pursue a criminal investigation.

The inventory manipulation, known as "channel stuffing," is not
illegal, but some industry observers have called the level at
Bristol-Myers excessive. It occurred during a period when the
company was trying to keep pace with rivals posting double-digit
growth in profits. Some industry experts have questioned whether
key Bristol-Myers managers benefited financially through bigger
bonuses based on company sales levels.

Based in New York but with research headquarters in Princeton,
N.J., the company disclosed in March 2003 that it had overstated
revenue for 1999-2001 by $2.5 billion as a result of the
discounts to wholesalers.

During 2003's fourth quarter, Bristol-Myers took a $225 million
charge to establish reserves for liabilities stemming from the
pending government investigations and civil litigation. Some
analysts read that as a sign the company was nearing settlements
of the government cases.


CALIFORNIA: Major Web Companies Targeted in Suit V. Gambling Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Google, Yahoo and other high profile Web companies face a class
action filed in San Francisco Superior Court in California,
alleging that some gambling ads on the sites are violating
California law, the CNET Networks reports.

The 60-page suit alleges that the online businesses sell rights
to Web advertisements based on searches for terms such as
"illegal gambling," "Internet gambling" and "California
gambling." It further alleges the use geotracking software to
target particular regions, including California, for illegal
gambling ads.

According to attorney Ira Rothken, one of several attorneys from
firms involved in the class-action lawsuit, the suit seeks to
force the companies to stop accepting the advertisements and
give California "millions of dollars in ill-gotten gains."

Internet gambling, which has become a multibillion-dollar-a-year
business and is usually focused on online poker or blackjack.
Yahoo and Google, make money by raking in a majority of the
millions of dollars gambling firms spend on very aggressive
advertising.

For more details, contact Ira P. Rothken, Esq. of ROTHKEN LAW
FIRM by Mail: 1050 Northgate Drive, Suite 520, San Rafael, CA
94903 by Phone: 415-924-4250 or by E-mail: ira@techfirm.com


CHOLESTECH CORPORATION: IL Consumers Launch Unsolicited Fax Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cholestech Corporation faces a class action filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, styled "Northshore Dermatology
Center, S.C. v. Cholestech Corporation, and Does 1-10, Case
No. 04CH05342."

The complaint alleges the Company violated the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act and various Illinois state laws by
sending unsolicited advertisements via facsimile transmission to
residents of Illinois.  The complaint seeks class certification
and statutory damages of $500 to $1,500 each on behalf of a
class that would include all residents of Illinois who received
an unsolicited facsimile advertisement from the Company.


COOPERS & LYBRAND: SEC Settles Fraud Case V. Ex-AHERF Auditors
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission through the Honorable
Norma L. Shapiro, U.S. District Court Judge, Eastern District of
Pennsylvania obtained Final Judgments against William F.
Buettner, Mark D. Kirstein, and Amy S. Frazier, members of the
Coopers & Lybrand, LLP (now PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP)
engagement team that audited the consolidated financial
statements of Allegheny Health, Education and Research
Foundation (AHERF) for the year ending June 30, 1997.

(1) The Final Judgment as to defendant Buettner permanently
         enjoins him from violating Section 10(b) of the
         Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule
         10b-5 thereunder, and requires him to pay a civil money
         penalty of $40,000.00.

     (2) The Final Judgments as to defendants Kirstein and
         Frazier enjoin them from participating as a member of
         the engagement team of any independent auditing firm
         that issues audit reports in connection with the
         financial statements of any public or private entity
         for a two-year period.

The defendants consented to the entry of the final judgments
without admitting or denying the allegations of the Second
Amended Complaint (complaint).

According to the allegations of the complaint, Buettner,
Kirstein, and Frazier, all certified public accountants, served
respectively as the engagement partner, the senior manager, and
the manager on the failed audit of AHERF, at its height the
largest nonprofit healthcare organization in Pennsylvania. The
Commission's complaint alleged that each of them actively
participated in a fraudulent scheme to mask AHERF's
deteriorating financial condition. In so doing, the defendants
participated in the creation and issuance of, and failed to
correct, audit reports that contained unqualified opinions
concerning AHERF's 1997 consolidated financial statements and
AHERF's 1997 supplementary consolidating and combining financial
information. For its fiscal year 1997, AHERF reported net income
when, in reality, it was operating at substantial net loss.

The scheme, as alleged in the complaint, involved the fraudulent
transfer of  $99.6 million of reserves from the books of a
recently-acquired entity to the books of a group of AHERF-
related entities collectively known as the Delaware Valley
Obligated Group (Delaware Valley). The transferred reserves were
used by Delaware Valley to either increase its own reserves or
to reduce expenses related to the write-off of uncollectible
accounts receivable. Buettner, Kirstein and Frazier played an
active role in the fraud by, among other things, helping AHERF
plan fraudulent transfers of reserves and subsequently
conducting the 1997 audit in a manner intended to hide both the
fraud and their involvement in it. Furthermore, the Commission's
complaint alleged that they failed to expand their audit to
address the improper transfers, or to investigate evidence of
other transfers that violated Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP), as required by Generally Accepted Auditing
Standards (GAAS).

The Commission also announced that on August 2 it had instituted
and simultaneously settled a Rule 102(e)(3) proceeding against
Buettner, which was based upon the entry of the District Court
injunction. Buettner consented to an Order suspending him from
appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant
with the right to apply for reinstatement after a period of four
years. The action is titled, SEC v. William F. Buettner, Mark D.
Kirstein and Amy S. Frazier, USDC EDPA, 01-CV-3898 (LR-18818;
AAE Rel. 2073)


DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: Appeal of TX Stock Lawsuit Dismissal Dropped
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs abandoned their appeal of the dismissal of the
securities class action filed against Dynacq International,
Inc., two of its officers, and the spouse of one of the officers
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas.

The suit alleged violations of federal securities laws and
regulations.  The suit, in which the plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages, payment of costs and expenses and other
equitable or injunctive relief, was brought in early 2002
following a sharp high volume increase in short sales of the
Company's common stock.  The putative class covered those
persons who purchased the Company shares between November 29,
1999 and January 16, 2002.

The suit claimed the Company violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
and Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act by making materially false
or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues and
receivables and regarding whether the Company's operations
complied with various federal regulations.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
September 6, 2002.  The Company and its officers moved to
dismiss the complaint on February 25, 2003.  On August 26, 2003,
the Court dismissed with prejudice and denied plaintiffs leave
to amend further.  The plaintiffs thereafter filed a notice of
appeal.


DYNACQ HEALTHCARE: To Ask TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynacq Healthcare, Inc. intends to ask the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division) to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
alleging federal securities law causes of action against it and
various current and former officers and directors.

Eight cases were initially filed against the Company between
December 24, 2003 and January 26, 2004.  The cases were filed as
class actions brought on behalf of persons who purchased shares
of Company common stock in the open market generally during the
period of January 14, 2003 through December 18, 2003.  Under the
procedures of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
certain plaintiffs have filed motions asking to consolidate
these actions and be designated as lead plaintiff.  The court
consolidated the actions and appointed a lead plaintiff in the
matter.

An amended complaint was filed on June 30, 2004, asserting a
class period of November 27, 2002 & December 19, 2003 and naming
additional defendants, including Ernst & Young LLP.  The amended
complaint seeks certification as a class action and alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20(A) and Rule
10b-5 under the Exchange Act, by publishing materially
misleading financial statements which did not comply with
generally accepted accounting principles, making materially
false or misleading statements or omissions regarding revenues
and receivables, operations and financial results and engaging
in an intentional fraudulent scheme aimed at inflating the value
of Dynacq's stock.


ENRON CORPORATION: Ex-Broadband Exec To Plead Guilty to Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The former head of Enron Corporation's high-speed internet unit
was expected to change his plea from innocent to guilty last
week, due to insider trading charges relating to the energy
giant's collapse, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Rice was scheduled to change his plea from innocent at a
court hearing Friday morning, according to an anonymous source
close to the case.  The crime to which Mr. Rice would plead
wasn't immediately clear, although the source said he has agreed
to cooperate with authorities.

Mr. Rice, head of Enron Broadband Services, allegedly sold 1.2
million shares of Enron stock for more than $76 million while he
knew the unit was failing.  The Justice Department charged that
the unit never made a dime and was abandoned shortly after
Enron's bankruptcy filing in December 2001.

Mr. Rice is one of 30 people charged in the government's 2 1/2-
year investigation into the Enron collapse, including the
company's founder and former chairman, Kenneth Lay, and former
CEO Jeffrey Skilling. Seven were connected to the broadband
division.

Mr. Rice, who has been free on $3 million bond, was forced to
forfeit several pieces of expensive jewelry upon his indictment,
including a sapphire and diamond necklace and bracelet belonging
to his wife.  U.S. District Judge Vanessa Gilmore also placed a
hold on a Shelby sports coupe and a Ferrari, a particularly
expensive 1995 race model, that Rice owned, meaning he could
keep them but couldn't sell them. The judge said she didn't want
the cars "all dinged up" in an impound lot, AP reports.


FIDELITY BROKERAGE: SEC Metes $1 Million Fraud Violations Fine
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative And Cease-And-Desist Proceedings,
Making Findings, And Imposing Remedial Sanctions Pursuant To
Sections 15(b) And 21C Of The Securities Exchange Act Of 1934
(Order) against Fidelity Brokerage Services, LLC (Fidelity
Brokerage).

The Order finds that between January 2001 and July 2002,
Fidelity Brokerage violated the broker-dealer record-keeping
requirements of the federal securities laws because employees in
at least 21 of its 88 branch offices altered or destroyed the
firm's books and records. The violations related to Fidelity
Brokerage's annual internal inspections, which were designed to
determine whether branch offices were complying with the firm's
policies and procedures, NYSE rules, and the federal securities
laws. The firm's managers pressured branch office employees to
obtain perfect inspections and gave advance notice of when the
inspections would occur. Certain Fidelity employees took
advantage of the advance notification and improperly prepared
for the inspections. In preparing for these inspections, the
employees discovered that some branch office records were
incomplete or not completed in accordance with firm policies and
procedures. The employees then altered or destroyed the records
so that the inspectors would not discover the incomplete
records. The records included new account applications, letters
of authorization, and variable annuity forms maintained at the
branch offices. These actions were not discrete or isolated. At
least 62 employees engaged in some form of this conduct in at
least 21 branch offices, primarily in the firm's Western region.
The conduct caused Fidelity Brokerage to maintain inaccurate or
incomplete books and records in violation of the federal
securities laws.

Based on the above, the Order censures Fidelity, orders Fidelity
to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations
and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 17a-4 thereunder, and orders Fidelity to pay a civil
money penalty in the amount of $1,000,000. Fidelity consented to
the issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of
the findings in the administrative proceeding. In determining to
accept Fidelity's settlement offer, the Commission considered
remedial acts promptly undertaken and cooperation afforded the
Commission staff. The Commission also acknowledged that pursuant
to Fidelity's agreement with the NYSE in related proceedings,
Fidelity will pay a fine in the amount of $1,000,000 to the
NYSE. The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the NYSE in
its investigation.


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Court Hears Appeal of Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals completed
briefing plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Foundry Networks, Inc. and certain of
its officers, following its announcement of its anticipated
financial results for the fourth quarter ended December 31,
2000.

The suit, styled "In re Foundry Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. C-00-4823-MMC," alleged violations
of federal securities laws and purported to seek damages on
behalf of a class of stockholders who purchased the Company's
common stock during the period from September 7, 2000 to
December 19, 2000.

The Company then brought four successful motions to dismiss the
complaint.  Although the court granted each of the four
dismissal motions, it also provided plaintiffs leave to amend
the complaint.  On August 29, 2003, following the dismissal of
the four amended complaints, the court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case with prejudice and without leave
to amend and, on September 2, 2003, entered judgment in the
Company's favor, dismissing the plaintiffs' fifth amended
complaint.

On September 29, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On
January 15, 2004, the plaintiff/appellants filed their opening
brief with the Court of Appeals.  On April 2, 2004, the Company
filed its responsive brief.  On May 14, 2004, the plaintiff
appellants filed a reply brief.  The parties are awaiting a
schedule for oral argument from the Court of Appeals.


FRANKLIN ADVISERS: To Pay $50M To Settle SEC Market Timing Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission settled administrative
and cease and desist proceedings against Franklin Advisers, Inc.
(Franklin), a registered investment adviser for many of the
mutual funds in the Franklin Templeton Investments (FT) complex.
The Commission's order finds that Franklin violated the federal
securities laws by allowing improper market timing in FT funds.
Under the settlement, Franklin will pay a civil penalty of $20
million, pay disgorgement of $30 million, and undertake
compliance measures designed to protect against future
violations. The penalty and disgorgement amounts will be
distributed to shareholders of the FT funds affected by the
market timing.

The Commission's order finds that Franklin engaged in the
following misconduct:

     (1) During at least 1996-2001, Franklin followed an
         undisclosed practice under which it approved requests
         to conduct market timing in a manner that conflicted
         with certain guidelines in FT mutual fund prospectuses.

     (2) During 1998-2000, Franklin allowed a representative of
         a broker-dealer to market time a fund that prohibited
         investments by market timers.

     (3) Franklin failed to disclose that over 30 identified
         market timers were allowed to freely market time for
         several months in 2000, contrary to prospectus language
         that indicated market timing would be monitored and
         restricted.

     (4) After other identified timers were told to stop their
         activities in September 2000, Franklin gave one favored
         timer permission to continue to time $75 million in
         assets with unlimited trades for several more months.

     (5) Also after September 2000, Franklin gave a known market
         timer permission to time a mutual fund that prohibited
         investments by market timers simultaneously with the
         timer making a $10 million investment in a new hedge
         fund.

The order finds that Franklin violated Sections 206(1) and
206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and Section 34(b)
of the Investment Company Act of 1940, and requires Franklin to
cease and desist from violating these provisions. Franklin
consented to entry of the order without admitting or denying the
findings.


GE LIFE: Reaches Settlement For GA Life Insurance Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Georgia preliminarily approved the settlement of a class action
filed against GE Life and Annuity Assurance Co. (GELAAC), styled
"McBride v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia dba GE Life and
Annuity Assurance Co.," related to the sale of universal life
insurance policies.

The complaint was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased
certain of our universal life insurance policies and alleges
improper practices in connection with the sale and
administration of universal life policies.  The plaintiffs
sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

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.  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.


HALLIBURTON CO.: SEC Sues, Fines Officials For Accounting Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil action in
federal district court, and issued a cease-and-desist order
(Order) relating to Halliburton Company's (Halliburton) failure
to disclose a change to its accounting that materially increased
its reported income. Halliburton is a Texas-based provider of
products and services to the petroleum and energy industries.
Halliburton and its former controller, Robert C. Muchmore, Jr.
consented to the cease-and-desist order without admitting or
denying the findings in the Order. Halliburton and Muchmore also
agreed to pay civil penalties of $7.5 million and $50,000,
respectively. The Commission's Order noted that the penalty, in
part, reflects the Commission's view that there were
unacceptable lapses in the company's conduct during the course
of the investigation, which had the effect of delaying the
production of information and documentation necessary to the
staff's expeditious completion of its investigation.

The Commission finds in its Order that commencing in the second
quarter of 1998, Halliburton altered its accounting practice on
several large project contracts so that it could begin
offsetting cost overruns with estimated recoveries on claims it
had not yet resolved with customers. According to the Order,
although permitted under Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles in appropriate circumstances, this practice was a
significant departure from Halliburton's longstanding public
disclosure regarding its recognition of claims revenue. In the
previous five consecutive years, dating back to 1993,
Halliburton disclosed in its Forms 10-K that it recognized
revenue from such claims only after the claim was resolved with
the customer. Pursuant to that practice, until the claim was
resolved the company recorded losses caused by cost overruns.

The Commission finds in its Order that, as a result of
Halliburton's undisclosed change in accounting practice, cost
overruns and resulting losses on several contracts were reduced
or eliminated, triggering material increases to Halliburton's
income: in its 1998 Form 10-K, by 46.1%, and in its Forms 10-Q
for the second and third quarters of 1998, by 24.8% and 5.7%,
respectively, and in its Forms 10-Q for the first, second and
third quarters of 1999, by 14.8%, 7.5% and 11.6%, respectively.
Additionally, the change in claims recognition policy materially
enhanced Halliburton's publicly disclosed 1997-1998 quarter-to-
quarter income comparisons. Despite the material impact of the
accounting change on Halliburton's reported income, the company
did not disclose the change until March 2000, in its 1999 Form
10-K - almost two years after the change went into effect.

The settled Order requires that Halliburton and Muchmore cease
and desist from committing or causing violations and future
violations of Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act) and that Halliburton cease and desist from
committing or causing, and Muchmore cease and desist from
causing, violations and future violations of Section 13(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules
12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.

In its civil suit, the Commission charges Gary V. Morris,
Halliburton's former chief financial officer, with violating
Sections 17(a)(2) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act and aiding
and abetting Halliburton's violations of the reporting
provisions of the Exchange Act: Section 13(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder. Morris,
Halliburton's highest-ranking financial officer, bore ultimate
responsibility for ensuring that Halliburton disclosed its
accounting change. The Commission alleges that Morris improperly
caused the revenue related to this undisclosed accounting change
to be reported in Halliburton's Commission filings, each of
which he signed. Moreover, Morris participated in the
preparation of earnings releases and in analyst teleconferences
in which Halliburton's net income was touted - without
disclosure of the change in accounting that had materially
enhanced the net income figures. In its lawsuit, the Commission
is seeking a permanent injunction and a civil money penalty
against Morris.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For NJ Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc. and three of its former officers
reached a settlement for the class action filed against them in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by purportedly making false and
misleading statements and by failing to disclose material
information concerning Honeywell's financial performance,
thereby allegedly causing the value of Honeywell's stock to be
artificially inflated.  The court has certified a class
consisting of all purchasers of Honeywell stock between December
20, 1999 and June 19, 2000.

On June 4, 2004 Honeywell and the lead plaintiffs agreed to a
settlement of this matter which requires a payment to the class
of $100 million.  Honeywell's contribution to the settlement is
$15 million, which amount had previously been fully reserved.
Honeywell's insurance carriers will pay the remainder of the
settlement.  The settlement is subject to court approval and
other contingencies.  A court hearing on the terms of the
settlement is scheduled for August 16, 2004.  Although members
of the class may opt out of the settlement, Honeywell believes
that any such claims would be fully insured.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Dismissal of Fiduciary Duty Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc. and several of its current and
former officers and directors asked the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the class action
filed against them, alleging that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to participants in the Honeywell Savings and
Ownership Plan.

The defendants allegedly made false and misleading statements,
failed to disclose material information concerning Honeywell's
financial performance, and failed to diversify the Savings
Plan's assets and monitor the prudence of Honeywell stock as a
Savings Plan investment.


IDAHO: High Court Upends District Court Ruling V. Field Burning
---------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho Supreme Court overturned a District Court ruling that
found a controversial law that protects farmers who burn their
fields from lawsuits over the resulting smoke as being
unconstitutional, The Spokesman-Review reports.

According to Linda Clovis, director of the North Idaho Farmers
Association, North Idaho farmers "are all pretty excited" about
the court victory.

However Steve Berman, the class action attorney who argued the
case against the law, told The Spokesman-Review that the fight
isn't over, saying he plans both to appeal to the U.S. Supreme
Court and file a new lawsuit in federal court. Patti Gora,
executive director of Safe Air For Everyone, a Sandpoint group
that opposes field burning on health grounds, said she found the
decision "appalling."

Ms. Gora added, "We're disappointed that the courts are placing
the profits of about 100 people above the public health interest
of nearly half a million who breathe in this airshed," she said.

Writing for the majority, Justice Roger Burdick, stated that
banning neighbors from suing for trespass or nuisance when thick
smoke flows onto their property from burning fields doesn't
equal an unpaid "taking" of their property rights. Judge Burdick
also wrote that, "The mere interruption of the use of one's
property, as it is less than a permanent, complete deprivation,
does not mandate compensation." The justices also decided that
the law, known as House Bill 391 when it was passed in 2003,
didn't violate the public interest and wasn't an
unconstitutional "local or special" law.

However, Justice Wayne Kidwell disagreed with the ruling and
wrote, "The majority opinion has misinterpreted and misapplied
the Idaho Constitution," stating further that the law was a
"local or special" law because it protected only farmers in the
state's 10 northernmost counties. According to the judge they
are the only ones who must comply with smoke-management rules
including advance registration of their fields. Under the law,
farmers who comply with those smoke-management rules can't be
sued over their field-burning smoke.

Judge Kidwell further wrote that, "It seems clear that the
statute does not apply equally to all areas of the state."

For more details, contact Steve Berman of Hagens Berman by Mail:
1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101 by Phone:
206-623-7292 by Fax: 206-623-0594 or by E-mail:
steve@hagens-berman.com


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: FL Court Dismisses Claims of Plaintiff in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Jacksonville, Florida
dismissed all claims of one of six plaintiffs in the class
action filed against Landstar System, Inc., over the Company's
motor carrier leases with independent truckers.

On November 1, 2002, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers
Association, Inc. (OOIDA) and six individual Independent
Contractors filed the suit, alleging that certain aspects of the
leases, also known as "owner operators" violate the federal
leasing regulations and seeks injunctive relief, an unspecified
amount of damages and attorneys' fees.

On March 8 and June 4, 2004, the Court dismissed all claims of
one of six plaintiffs on grounds the ICC Termination ACT is not
applicable to leases signed before the Act's January 1, 1996,
effective date, and dismissed all claims of all remaining
Plaintiffs against four of the seven Company entities previously
named as Defendants:

     (1) Landstar System, Inc.,

     (2) Landstar Express America, Inc.,

     (3) Landstar Gemini, Inc. and

     (4) Landstar Logistics, Inc.

With respect to the remaining claims, the June 4, 2004 Order
held that the Act created a private right of action to which a
four-year statute of limitations applies.  The putative class
has not been certified. Further party pleadings are pending.


LINCOLN ELECTRIC: Continues To Face Manganese Injury Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lincoln Electric Holdings, Inc. continues to face several cases
alleging manganese-induced illness involving claims by 9,580
plaintiffs.  In each instance, the Company is one of a large
number of defendants.

The claimants in cases alleging manganese induced illness seek
compensatory and, in most instances, punitive damages, usually
for unspecified sums.  The claimants allege that exposure to
manganese contained in welding consumables caused the plaintiffs
to develop adverse neurological conditions, including a
condition known as manganism.  Many of the cases are single
plaintiff cases but some multi-claimant cases have been filed
(including alleged class actions in various states and multi-
claimant actions in Mississippi and West Virginia).

At June 30, 2004, cases involving 4,818 claimants were filed in
or transferred to federal court (Northern District of Ohio)
where the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has
consolidated these cases for pretrial proceedings (the "MDL
Court").  On April 2, 2004, the Company, together with other co-
defendants, removed the multi-claimant action pending in state
court in West Virginia (with 2,447 claimants) to federal court
in West Virginia.  On June 17, 2004, the Company, together with
other co-defendants, filed a motion before the MDL Court to
exclude from manganese trials any expert testimony that welding
fumes cause or accelerate the onset of Parkinson's Disease.

On October 28, 2003, an Illinois state court jury in a manganese
trial involving one claimant returned a verdict against the
Company and two unaffiliated co-defendants.  The verdict amount
was $1 million, which will be reduced significantly by payments
by the two unaffiliated co-defendants.  A substantial portion of
the remaining amount is to be covered by insurance.  The Company
has appealed the judgment based on this verdict and believes it
has meritorious grounds for appeal.


MERRILL LYNCH: To Seek Dismissal of NY Mutual Fund Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Merrill Lynch & Co. intends to ask the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss four
putative class actions filed against it, alleging it failed to
disclose incentives to mid-level managers to maximize the sale
of mutual funds carrying the Merrill Lynch brand name and that
these mid-level managers pressured financial advisers to
maximize the sale of these funds.

In addition, Merrill Lynch is a defendant in a putative class
action captioned "Thomas J. DeBenedictis v. Merrill Lynch & Co.,
et al.," which was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.  This putative class action alleges
that the registration statements and prospectuses for the
Merrill Lynch Funds should have stated, but omitted to state,
that for certain investors Class B shares are inherently
inferior to Class A, C, and D shares.  These cases seek
an unspecified amount of damages and other relief.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Reaches $31.5M Antitrust Settlement in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Hinkle, Hensley, Shanor, & Martin, L.L.P.,
Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, & Robbins, L.L.P., and Freedman, Boyd,
Daniels, & Hollander, L.L.P. counsel for a proposed class of New
Mexico consumers, and Microsoft Corp. jointly settled a class
action lawsuit alleging that Microsoft Corp. (Nasdaq: MSFT)
violated New Mexico's antitrust and unfair competition laws.

The settlement, which received preliminary approval on July 29,
2004 from the First Judicial District Court for the State of New
Mexico, will make vouchers available to class members that may
be used to buy any manufacturer's desktop, laptop and tablet
computers; any software available for sale to the general public
and used with those computer products; and specified peripheral
devices for use with computers. The total amount of vouchers
issued will depend on the number of class members who claim
vouchers, and the maximum value of the vouchers that may be
issued to class members will be $31.5 million.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Microsoft will
provide one-half of the difference between $31.5 million and the
value of vouchers issued to class members to New Mexico's public
schools in the form of vouchers that may be used by the schools
to purchase a broad range of hardware products, Microsoft(R) and
non-Microsoft software, and professional development services.
The vouchers will be made available to public schools in which
50 percent or more of the students are eligible for reduced-fee
or free meals under the National School Lunch Program or
distributed as determined by the judge presiding over the
settlement. Such schools will also receive vouchers worth 50% of
the difference between the amount of vouchers issued to class
members and the amount redeemed by them.

"This settlement not only provides benefits for New Mexico
consumers and businesses, but also to schools within the state
by giving them the means to upgrade their existing computer
systems and become more technologically advanced," said David
Freedman, attorney for the plaintiffs.

"We're pleased by the opportunity to help schools all across New
Mexico get the computers and software they need," said Brad
Smith, general counsel for Microsoft. "This settlement allows us
to focus on the future and building great software, and avoids
the cost and uncertainty of litigation."

Details of the settlement are set forth in a settlement
agreement filed in the First Judicial District Court for the
State of New Mexico. Under the settlement, consumers and
businesses that, between December 8, 1995 and December 31, 2002,
resided in New Mexico and purchased certain Microsoft operating
system, productivity suite, spreadsheet or word processing
software for use in New Mexico and not for resale will be
eligible to apply for the vouchers.


MINUTEMAN INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suits Over Floor Coating Product
---------------------------------------------------------------
Minuteman International, Inc. faces several complaints or
counterclaims, in connection with one of its floor coating
products, namely:

     (1) Minuteman International, Inc. vs. AM-PM Cleaning Corp.,
         filed in 2002 in the Waltham District Court, Middlesex
         County, Massachusetts;

     (2) Overland Supply, Inc. v. Multi Clean, Inc., filed on
         July 17, 2002 in the Superior Court, Providence, Rhode
         Island;

     (3) Matthews & Sons Floors, Inc. v. Minuteman
         International, Inc. filed on May 7, 2003 in the
         Superior Court, New Hanover County, North Carolina;

     (4) Nyeco, Inc. Floor Technologies, LLC, Learning
         Foundation of Wilmington, Inc. v. Jeff Cohen, d/b/a
         Custom Tattoo Co. v. Minuteman International, Inc. et
         al., filed on May 7, 2003 in the Superior Court, New
         Hanover County, North Carolina;

     (5) Bill Tate d/b/a Precision Clear floor Care v. Minuteman
         International, Inc., filed on July 2, 2003 in the
         District Court, Garfield County, Oklahoma; and

     (6) Staples, Inc. v. Overland Supply, Inc., Minuteman
         International, Inc., Multi Clean, Inc., filed on July
         18, 2003 in the Superior Court, Middlesex County,
         Massachusetts

In general, the plaintiffs seek damages allegedly caused by or
resulting from use of the floor coating product.  The Nyeco case
is a putative class action but no determination has been made
that it may proceed as a class action.  Discovery is in the
early stages.  Answers to interrogatories filed by certain of
the plaintiffs in the cases through the second quarter of
2004 allege property and other damages aggregating approximately
$10 million (exclusive of punitive damages).


NEWSDAY: Court Allows Settlement Talks To Proceed in NY Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Magistrate Judge William Wall gave the Newsday newspaper
the go ahead to begin settlement talks with advertisers that
were billed at rates based on inflated circulation levels, the
NY Daily News reports.

The decision was reached after the judge denied a motion by
attorney Joseph Giaimo, who tried to block the talks.  He is
seeking class-action status for a suit charging Newsday with
circulation hiking fraud.

In court his fillings, attorney Giaimo, on behalf of 10 Newsday
advertisers, stated that the paper's plan to settle claims in an
effort to minimize damages undermined "the whole purpose of the
class action." Mr. Giaimo told the Daily News that he would
appeal the decision or seek to reargue his motion and at the
same time try to put an ad in Newsday informing advertisers
about the suit and the potential for damages.

However, Robert Hirth, counsel for Newsday and its executives
named in the suit, argued that communications with prospective
members of a class action are permitted in the course of doing
business.

Meanwhile the parent company of Newsday and Spanish-language
Hoy, Tribune Co. earmarked $35 million to cover settlements
talks. Newsday will also lower its ad rates and reimburse
advertisers if its audited circ sinks below 525,000 on weekdays
or 575,000 on Sunday through 2005 as part of a proposed
settlement.


NEXPRISE INC.: Reaches Tentative Settlement of CA Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nexprise, Inc. (formerly Ventro Corporation) tentatively reached
an agreement to settle the consolidated securities class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California against it and certain of its officers
and directors on behalf of putative classes of persons who
purchased the Company's securities during time periods from
December 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The suit, styled "In re Ventro Corp. Sec. Litig., Master File
No. Civ. 01-1287 SBA," also names as a defendant the
underwriters for the Company's offering of convertible notes.
The lawsuit generally alleges that the Company and certain
individuals violated the federal securities laws by making false
and misleading statements during 2000, including in the
Company's registration statement for its convertible notes
offering.

Following several motions to dismiss and the filing of amended
complaints, the Court set a trial date for January 20, 2005 with
respect to the issues remaining in the case, and discovery
commenced.  The parties have tentatively reached an agreement in
principle to settle the securities action.  The Company's
portion of the settlement would be funded by insurance.


NEXPRISE INC.: Submits Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nexprise, Inc. (formerly Ventro Corporation) submitted the
proposed settlement for the securities class action filed
against it, several of its officers and directors, and the
underwriters of its initial public offering to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The class action has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes
with more than one thousand other actions, filed against more
than 300 other issuers of securities, affiliated individuals and
dozens of underwriters of the securities offerings in "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the initial public
offering of the Company's common stock, incorporated in the
Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, was materially false and misleading because
it failed to disclose, among other things, that the underwriters
had made secret arrangements for aftermarket purchases of the
securities and made arrangements for excessive and improper
underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage
commissions.  Plaintiffs are claiming damages of an unspecified
amount based on the subsequent decline in the market price of
the Company's shares below their original offering price.

In recent months in the IPO Allocation Litigation, counsel for
the plaintiffs, liaison counsel for the issuer defendants and
counsel for insurers of the issuer defendants have taken part in
continuing discussions mediated by a former federal district
court judge to explore a possible settlement of the claims
against all of the issuer defendants, including the Company.

In June 2003, a memorandum of understanding was entered into by
and among the plaintiffs, liaison counsel for the issuer
defendants and counsel for the insurers which would result in
dismissal of the action against the issuers, including the
Company, on terms that would not require any current payment by
the Company and are believed by the Company's board of directors
to carry only a remote risk that any future payment by the
Company would be required.  In addition, the plaintiffs would
release the Company and its officers and directors from the
claims that have been asserted against them in the IPO
Allocation Litigation as a part of the proposed settlement.

On June 30, 2003, the Company's board of directors approved the
memorandum of understanding and authorized the Company to enter
into the proposed settlement.  On June 14, 2004, the proposed
settlement was submitted to the Court for its required approval,
and the Court has taken the motion for preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement under submission.  The IPO Allocation
Litigation in general, and the litigation against the Company in
particular, are in an early phase, and no date has yet been set
by the court for completion of pre-trial discovery or trial.


ODYSSEY PICTURES: Shareholders Launch Fourth CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a fourth securities class action against
Odyssey Pictures Corporation in California State Court.

In March 1996, a class action complaint was filed against the
Company entitled "Dennis Blewitt v. Norman Muller, Jerry Minsky,
Dorian Industries, Inc. and Communications and Entertainment
Corp."  The complaint seeks damages in connection with the
Company's treatment in its financial statements of the
disposition of its subsidiary, Double Helix Films, Inc. in June
1991.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of all
persons who purchased shares of the Company's common stock from
and after June 1992.

A second action, alleging substantially similar grounds, was
filed in December 1996 in Federal Court in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California under the
caption heading "Diane Pfannebecker v. Norman Muller,
Communications and Entertainment Corp., Jay Behling, Jeffrey S.
Konvitz, Tom Smith, Jerry Silva, David Mortman, Price Waterhouse
& Co., Todman & Co., and Renato Tomacruz."

Following the filing of the second action, the first action was
dismissed by stipulation in May 1997.  The Company filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint in the second action and after a
hearing on the motion in July 1997, the Court dismissed the
federal securities law claims as being time-barred by the
applicable statute of limitations, and dismissed the state
securities law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court's dismissal of this
action on appeal.  The case was refiled in California state
court in August 1998.  The Court granted motions to dismiss two
of the complaints filed by the Plaintiff, whereupon a third
complaint was filed.

More recently, a fourth amended complaint has been filed adding
claims that the defendants, including the Company, violated
provisions of the California Securities Laws.  No trial date has
been set in this matter.


PACER INTERNATIONAL: CA High Court Nixes Review of Suit Rulings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court denied the petitions for appeal of
several issues in the class action filed against two of Pacer
International, Inc.'s subsidiaries engaged in the local cartage
and harbor drayage operations, namely Interstate Consolidation,
Inc., which was subsequently merged into Pacer Cartage, Inc.,
and Intermodal Container Service, Inc.

The suit was filed in July 1997 in the State of California, Los
Angeles Superior Court, Central District, alleging, among other
things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business practices, and
conversion of money received, in connection with monies
(including insurance premium costs) allegedly wrongfully
deducted from truck drivers' earnings.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Judge Pro Tempore
Submission Agreement in October 1998, pursuant to which they
waived their rights to a jury trial, stipulated to a certified
class, and agreed to a minimum judgment of $250,000 and a
maximum judgment of $1.75 million.  In August 2000, the trial
court ruled in the Company's favor on all issues except one,
namely that in 1998, the Company's subsidiaries failed to issue
to the owner-operators new certificates of insurance disclosing
a change in the Company's subsidiaries' liability insurance
retention amount, and ordered that restitution of $488,978 be
paid for this omission.  Plaintiffs' counsel then appealed all
issues except one (the independent contractor status of the
drivers), and the Company's subsidiaries appealed the insurance
retention disclosure issue.

In December 2003, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's
decision as to all but one issue, reversed the trial court's
decision that the owner-operators could be charged for the
worker compensation insurance coverage that they elected to
obtain through the Company's subsidiaries, and remanded back to
the trial court the question of whether the collection of worker
compensation insurance charges from the owner-operators violated
California's Business and Professions Code and, if so, to
determine an appropriate remedy.

The Company sought review at the California Supreme Court of
this workers compensation issue, and the plaintiffs sought
review only of whether the Company's subsidiaries' providing
insurance for the owner-operators constituted engaging in the
insurance business without a license under California law.  In
March 2004, the Supreme Court of California denied both parties'
petitions for appeal, thus ending all further appellate review.

As a result, the only remaining issue is whether the Company's
subsidiaries' collection of worker compensation insurance
charges from the owner-operators violated California's Business
and Professions Code and, if so, what restitution, if any,
should be paid to the owner-operator class.  The schedule for
this new trial, which will be litigated in the same trial court
that heard the original case, has not yet been set.

The same law firm prosecuting the suit has filed a separate
class action lawsuit in the same jurisdiction on behalf of a
putative class of owner-operators (the "Renteria" class action)
who are purportedly not included in the above-mentioned suit.
The claims in the Renteria case, which is being stayed pending
full and final disposition of the remaining issue in Albillo,
mirror those in Albillo, specifically, that the Company's
subsidiaries' providing insurance for their owner-operators
constitutes engaging in the insurance business without a license
in violation of California law, and second, that charging the
putative class of owner-operators in Renteria for workers
compensation insurance that they elected to obtain through the
Company's subsidiaries violated California's Business and
Professions Code. We believe that the final disposition of the
insurance issue in Albillo in the Company's favor precludes the
plaintiffs from re-litigating this issue in Renteria.


PRAXAIR INC.: 414 Manganese Injury Suits Coordinated in OH Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Praxair, Inc. faces 414 lawsuits filed in various courts,
alleging personal injury caused by manganese contained in
welding fumes manufactured prior to 1985 by a predecessor
company of Praxair.

The suits also name many other companies as defendants, and
allege that exposure to manganese contained in welding fumes
caused neurological injury.  The cases were pending in state and
federal courts in Iowa, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas,
Louisiana, Georgia, West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas, Indiana,
Utah, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Alabama.  There were a total
of 9,527 individual claimants in these cases.  One case is a
class action which has not been certified.

All of the cases filed in or removed to federal courts have been
(or are in the process of being) transferred by the Judicial
Panel for Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and,
in most instances, punitive damages.

In the past, Praxair has either been dismissed from the cases
with no payment or has settled a few cases for nominal amounts,
the Company revealed in a regulatory filing.  Praxair believes
that it has meritorious defenses to these cases and intends to
defend itself vigorously.


SPX CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Consolidated NC Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation and certain of its current and former executive
officers face a consolidated securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock during a specified period.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The plaintiffs generally allege that the Company made false and
misleading statements regarding the forecast of its 2003 fiscal
year business and operating results in order to artificially
inflate the price of its stock.

Additionally, on April 23, 2004, an additional class action
complaint was filed, alleging breaches of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by the Company, its
general counsel and the Administration Committee regarding one
of its 401(k) defined contribution benefit plans arising from
the plan's holding of Company stock.


TENNESSEE: Resident Lodges Civil Rights Suit V. Sex Offender Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Davidson County resident, named only as John Doe, filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in a U.S. District Court in
Nashville, claiming that the amended "Sex Offender Registration
and Monitoring Act of 1995" is violating not only his
constitutional rights but those of all sex offenders covered by
the law, the Nashville City Paper reports.

The suit requested that the federal court block the enforcement
of the law and grant class-action status to an estimated 7,000
sexual offenders, who would have very few choices in where they
could live.

For the past year, the state law has prohibited convicted sex
offenders from residing or working within 1,000 feet of a school
or day-care center. The law, which took effect on August 1
created more stringent reporting requirements for sexual
offenders and also elevated violations from misdemeanor to
felony status, punishable by up to six years in prison instead
of one year.

According to the unnamed plaintiff's attorney, Brent Horst the
new law left intact the school-zone restrictions, which
"violates a number of constitutional provisions." He also argued
that the new statute shouldn't be applied to people convicted
before the law was passed and that it doesn't take into
consideration the severity of the criminal conviction and
whether the sexual crime was against a child. Attorney Horst
also cited a similar law that was shot down by an Iowa judge
last year, which limited residency within 2,000 feet of a
school.

However, Sharon Curtis-Flair, state Attorney General's Office
spokesperson, referred to an AG opinion in 1997 stating that the
provisions of the registry law were constitutionally sound. The
opinion though focused in privacy issues connected with the
registry and not the school zone provisions and according to
legal experts, the U.S. Supreme Court has since upheld laws
requiring sexual offenders to sign a registry.

For more details, contact the Law Office of Brent Horst by Mail:
1215 7th Ave., North Nashville, TN 37208 by Phone:
(615) 259-9867 by Fax: (615) 259-9859 by E-mail:
b-horst@comcast.net or visit their Web site:
http://www.brenthorstlaw.com


THERAGENICS CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement For GA Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Theragenics Corporation reached an agreement to settle the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws,
including Sections 10(b), 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The complaint, as
amended, purports to represent a class of investors who
purchased or sold securities during the time period from January
29, 1998 to January 11, 1999.  The amended complaint generally
alleges that the defendants made certain misrepresentations and
omissions in connection with the performance of the Company
during the class period and seeks unspecified damages.

On May 14, 1999 a stockholder of the Company filed a derivative
complaint in the Delaware Court of Chancery purportedly on
behalf of the Company, alleging that certain directors breached
their fiduciary duties by engaging in the conduct that is
alleged in the consolidated federal class action.  The
derivative action has been stayed by the agreement of the
parties.  On July 19, 2000, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated federal class action for
failure to state a claim against the Company, and granted the
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

On August 21, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint and on March 30, 2001, the Court denied the
defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' second amended
complaint.  The Court also denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration.  Subsequently, the Court certified the class
and the parties commenced discovery.  Discovery in the case is
complete.  The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on
September 30, 2003.

On July 1, 2004, while the summary judgment motion was pending,
the Company, the Company's directors and officers' liability
insurance carrier, and the plaintiffs' counsel reached an
agreement to settle the consolidated federal class action for an
amount within the remaining limits of the Company's directors
and officers' liability insurance.  The plaintiffs will dismiss
their lawsuit against the defendants and, on behalf of the
settling class, release defendants from any and all liability
arising from the incidents alleged in the second amended
complaint.  The Company will not be required to make any
financial contribution toward the settlement.  The settlement is
contingent upon, among other things, preliminary approval of the
settlement by the Court, notice to the class, and final approval
of the settlement by the Court.  The derivative lawsuit is still
pending.  Its status is currently being reevaluated in light of
the settlement of the securities class action lawsuit.


U.N. DOLLARS: SEC Lodges Administrative Proceedings V. Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings pursuant to Section 15(b)(6) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, against Harold F. Harris (Harris) and
Ronald E. Crews (Crews)(together Respondents), based on the
final judgment and injunctions entered against them in
Securities and Exchange Commission v. U.N. Dollars Corp., et
al., 01-CV-9059 (S.D.N.Y.). The Commission's complaint in that
case alleged that Harris and Crews, as officers and directors
of U.N. Dollars Corp., violated the registration and antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws by participating in a
scheme to manipulate the price and trading volume of U.N.
Dollars Corp. common stock. According to the Commission's
complaint, Harris and Crews improperly provided ten million
shares of unrestricted stock to pay a manipulator to affect the
price and trading of their company's shares, and drafted
materially false and misleading press releases to deceive
investors and create an artificial market for U.N. Dollars Corp.
stock.

On March 13, 2003, the Honorable Allen G. Schwartz, U.S.
District Judge for the Southern District of New York, entered
final judgment of default against Harris and Crews and
permanently enjoined them from violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The Court also ordered Harris and Crews to disgorge proceeds of
the fraud and pay civil monetary penalties and barred Harris and
Crews from acting as an officer or director of any public
company. On May 13, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit affirmed the entry of judgment by Judge Schwartz.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, and in connection therewith, to afford Respondents an
opportunity to establish defenses to such allegations, and to
determine whether penny stock bars are appropriate and in the
public interest.

The Order requires the Administrative Law Judge to issue an
initial decision no later than 210 days from the date of service
of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission's
Rules of Practice.


UNITED STATES: Study Says Average Cases V. Firms Dropped By 6.3%
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a new survey of national litigation trends by law firm
Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P., the average number of cases pending
among U.S. companies has dropped from 16 to 15 since 2001, a
decrease of 6.3%.

However the docket for larger corporations has grown sharply.
Companies with gross revenues of $1 billion or more reported
that their median number of pending cases was 86, up from 79
cases in 2001. That's a jump of nearly 9%. Moreover, 41% of in-
house attorneys canvassed believe that the pace of lawsuits will
continue to rise.

Fulbright's study of 300 general counsel found that corporate
litigation is hardly just a defensive measure: 88% of companies
said that they initiate lawsuits at least some of the time. Only
12% said they never bring an action as plaintiffs.

This is the first time that Fulbright has surveyed corporate law
departments for their views on the state of litigation in the
U.S. The 300 respondents -- 83% identified themselves as general
counsel or chief legal officer, the rest as staff attorneys --
represent one of the largest samples of in-house counsel for a
research study of corporate litigation issues.

"Our primary goals with this survey were to identify emerging
litigation trends and to assess the current litigation concerns
of U.S. corporations," said Steve Dillard, head of Fulbright's
worldwide litigation practice. "We wanted to understand the
primary factors driving corporate caseloads, but also current
thinking on litigation economics, technology, the efficacy of
mediation and arbitration, and certainly not least, general
counsel attitudes toward outside counsel.

"We certainly got what we asked for," added Mr. Dillard.
"Respondents identified areas of likely litigation growth and
concentration. And they showed great candor in expressing
themselves on how law firms can improve their delivery of
services. This was not a shy group by any means."

Companies from 41 states were represented in the survey, with
the heaviest concentrations in the Midwest, Texas, California,
and New York, as well as Southern and Atlantic states. The
median-sized company had annual gross revenues of $600 million,
but that average reflected a broad range of enterprises: 30%
reported revenues of under $100 million, while another 30% had
revenues of $1 billion or more, including 18% with sales north
of $2 billion. Eight primary industries were represented:
manufacturing, energy, financial services, health care,
technology/communications, retail/wholesale, real estate, and
insurance.

Here is a summary of key findings in the Fulbright U.S.
Corporate Litigation Trends Survey:

     (1) Top Five Litigation Concerns - In-house counsel were
         asked to rank their top five areas of litigation
         exposure.  The Number One concern was labor and
         employment, with 62% identifying it as the chief cause
         of action.  Retailers especially fear employment suits
         -- 76% said it was their top concern.  The Number Two
         concern was contract disputes (58%), followed by
         intellectual property, product liability and class
         action lawsuits.

     (2) Industry Splits - The rankings were definitely skewed
         by industry.  For instance, 77% of counsel at
         technology companies fingered intellectual property
         disputes a top concern, whereas only 19% of financial
         services counsel viewed IP the same way.  Energy
         companies cited Environmental/toxic tort litigation far
         more than any other industry. Similarly, product
         liability litigation was mentioned most by
         manufacturers.  The single biggest litigation fear was
         expressed by health care providers of whom 87%
         identified professional liability as their top concern,
         even more than employment or contract dispute. No other
         industry even came close to that level.  Bankruptcy was
         cited most by financial companies; class actions
         singled out most by retailers; and antitrust litigation
         was mentioned most by manufacturers.

     (3) Size Matters - A company's size also affected its view
         of litigation. For companies below $100 million in
         revenues, IP litigation was a top concern by 40% of
         counsel; for companies above $1 billion in sales, the
         number fell to 32%.  Counsel at the largest companies
         expressed greater concern over class action filings
         (41%), than did companies below $100 million in
         revenues (19%).  Likewise, environmental cases and
         government investigations were perceived as far more
         serious a threat for billion-dollar enterprises.  In a
         small surprise, more billion-dollar companies feared
         bankruptcy litigation than smaller companies -- a sure
         sign of the times.

     (4) Insurance Docket Rules - In terms of active cases, the
         sector facing the greatest onslaught of current
         litigation appears to be the insurance industry, by a
         large margin.  The median number of cases in the U.S.
         reported by insurance company respondents was 152.  A
         very distant second was health care, with 37 average
         cases.  Counsel at real estate and tech companies
         reported the lowest litigation rates, at 4.6 and 4.5
         cases respectively.

     (5) Where the Cases Aren't - In the 1980s, with the Justice
         Department applying novel racketeering laws to
         prosecute crimes, RICO litigation would likely have
         been a leading concern for many companies.  Today, it
         doesn't register at all -- less than 1% of corporate
         counsel cited RICO as impacting their litigation.
         Other areas drawing small responses, regardless of the
         industry or company size:  tax (6%), government
         contracts (4%), franchise/distribution (4%), admiralty-
         aviation (3%), and international arbitration (2%).

     (6) Non-U.S. Cases Steady - The Fulbright survey found that
         that the volume of corporate litigation outside the
         U.S. has increased only marginally in the last three
         years:  29% of reporting companies face international
         litigation today (compared to 26% in 2001), though once
         again that average can swing greatly according to size
         and industry.  Only 9% of companies below $100 million
         in revenues cite non-U.S. cases; that number jumped to
         54% for billion-dollar enterprises.  Manufacturers
         reported more international cases than any other
         industry, followed by energy and technology companies,
         whereas insurance companies had the fewest.

"Despite all the recent headlines about government
investigations, securities enforcement, tax shelter schemes, and
antitrust battles, most companies are more focused on litigation
that arises directly from doing business or from operations,
such as employment and contract disputes," said Robert Owen, a
Fulbright litigation partner in New York who helped
conceptualize the survey.

He noted that the wide swings in results by company revenues,
region, and industry underscore the protean nature of the
litigation landscape in the U.S. "The disparities make clear
that successful litigation demands very specific skill sets and
case strategy, something that was echoed through the many
comments we received from respondents, who repeatedly said that
outside counsel needs to understand their particular business
needs."

For more details, visit the Fulbright & Jaworski L.L.P. Web
site:
http://www.fulbright.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=correspondence.for
mfindings


VORNADO AIR: Recalls 1M Portable Room Heaters Due To Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vornado Air Circulation Systems Inc., of Andover, Kansas is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 1 million Portable
electric whole room heaters.

A faulty electrical connection can cause the heater to overheat
and stop working, posing a fire hazard to consumers. Vornado has
received 24 reports of heater fires, though no injuries have
been reported.

The recalled portable electric whole room heaters are designed
for indoor use and have model numbers 180VHr, VHr, Intellitempr,
EVHr, and DVHr. The model numbers are located on the bottom of
each unit. Each heater is about 11 _ inches long, 9 « inches
wide, and about 12 inches tall; weighs about 6 lbs.; and has the
"Vornado" name and symbol on the front.

Assembled in the United States, the heaters were sold by
retailers and distributors nationwide, as well as Vornado's Web
site, sold the heaters from July 1991 through January 2004 for
between $50 and $120.

Consumers should stop using the recalled heaters immediately and
contact Vornado to arrange for shipping and a repair, free of
charge.

For more details, contact Vornado Air Circulation Systems Inc.
by Phone: (888) 221-5431 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday or log on to the company's Web site:
http://www.vornado.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AKSYS LTD.: Squitieri & Fearon Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a class action
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against Durus Life Sciences Master Fund, Ltd; Durus
Capital Management, LLC; Aksys, Ltd.; and Scott Sacane on behalf
of persons who sold short shares of Aksys securities ("Aksys" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:AKSY) during the period from January 1,
2003 through July 24, 2003 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
about their ownership of Aksys securities and that when the
market learned the truth, the price of Aksys securities
increased substantially.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of himself and all
short sellers of Aksys securities during the Class Period.
Excluded from the Class are the defendants and members of their
immediate families, any entity in which a defendant has a
controlling interest and the heirs of any such excluded party.

For more details, contact Lee Squitieri of Squitieri & Fearon,
LLP by Phone: (212) 421-6492 or by E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Bennett
Environmental, Inc. (Amex: BEL; TSE: BEV) ("Bennett") between
June 2, 2003 to July 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Also included are all those who acquired Bennett's shares
through its acquisition of ELI Eco Logic International.

The Complaint alleges that Bennett, a provider of thermal
treatment services for the remediation of contaminated soil, and
certain of its officers and directors issued materially false
statements concerning the Company's business condition.
Specifically, defendants misrepresented the status of the
largest contract in the Company's history by making repeated
public statements about the contract that failed to disclose
that in fact, the contract had been substantially withdrawn
almost immediately after its execution. As a result of the
foregoing, the Company's backlog was artificially inflated in
the amount of $200 million, the amount of the repudiated
contract.

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


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Bennett Environmental Inc. (Amex: BEL)
("Bennett" or the "Company") from June 2, 2003 through July 22,
2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bennett, John Bennett, Allan Bulckaert,
Danny Ponn, Richard Stern, and Robert Griffiths with violations
of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its Phase III Contract to treat soil had been
         repudiated by the U.S. Army;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         backlog was artificially inflated in the amount of $200
         million or the amount of the repudiated contract; and

     (3) therefore, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
         their positive statements about the Company's growth
         and progress.

On July 22, 2004, Bennett reported on the status of its contract
to treat soil contaminated with wood treatment chemicals from
Phase III of the Federal Creosote Superfund Site ("FC Site") in
Manville, New Jersey. The U.S. Army Engineering Corps purported
to withdraw its consent to the Phase III Contract but consented
to ship up to 10,000 tons for treatment under the Phase III
Contract. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Bennett
fell $2.13 or 21.45 percent per share, on July 22, 2004, to
close at $7.80 per share.

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


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., commenced a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Callidus Software, Inc.
("Callidus" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:CALD) between November 19,
2003 and June 23, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Callidus and certain officers and
directors ("Defendants").

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. Specifically, Defendants caused Callidus
stock to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business prospects. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that Defendants knew but concealed that the Company's
financials were suffering at the time of the Initial Public
Offering ("IPO") due to competitive pressures from existing
enterprise software vendors, that the Company was experiencing a
negative trend in its licensing revenues prior to the IPO, that
the Company used its sales representatives to gage future sales
even though they were given unrealistic quotas.

On June 24, 2004, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release indicating that its Chairman and Chief Executive
Office had resigned and it warned that it would not meet its
financial targets. In reaction to this news, shares of Callidus
fell to $5.01, well below the IPO price.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.laskyrifkind.com


SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Frank & Sailer Lodges Securities Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, against the company and certain key
officers and directors on behalf of all purchasers of the
securities of salesforce.com, inc. (NYSE:CRM) ("salesforce" or
the "Company") between June 21, 2004 through July 21, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that salesforce, Marc R. Benioff, and
Steve Cakebread violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its revenues and earnings per share were
         steadily declining;

     (2) that the defendants concealed the aforementioned facts
         from the investing public in order to boost the price
         of the I.P.O., which netted the Company $126 million;
         and

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

On July 21, 2004, salesforce warned that profit and revenue for
the full year will be lower than expected, and the stock
promptly plunged. Shares of salesforce fell $4.36 per share or
27.15 percent, on July 21, 2004, to close at $11.70 per share.

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


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. ("Taro" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: TARO) between February 20, 2003 and July 29,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending before the Honorable Richard M. Berman,
case no. 04-CV-5696, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Taro, Barrie
Levitt (Executive Chairman), Aaron Levitt (President), Daniel
Moros (Vice Chairman), Samuel Rubenstein (General Manager) and
Kevin Connelly (Chief Financial Officer). According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by knowingly or recklessly issuing
a series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Taro presented itself as a
pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets
generic drugs, and that the Company claimed throughout the Class
Period that it had successfully expanded its product line to
include proprietary drugs and novel drug delivery systems.
Unbeknownst to investors, the Company suffered from undisclosed
adverse factors that were having a negative impact on Taro's
financial performance and condition including but not limited to
the following:

     (1) defendants were unable to maintain profitability in
         Taro's generic drug division or generate free cash flow
         from the introduction of higher margin proprietary
         products sufficient to offset the expense of its new
         product launches;

     (2) defendants had failed to properly record the full
         expense of developing new proprietary drug products,
         such that it was materially false and misleading for
         defendants to state that the roll-out of Taro's new
         proprietary drugs was not and would not adversely
         affect the Company's near- or long-term profitability;

     (3) defendants understated the negative effects of
         increasing competition on the Company's financial
         performance; and

     (4) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked any
         reasonable basis to claim that Taro was operating
         according to plan or that Taro could maintain
         profitability in the near-term.

The truth emerged on July 29, 2004. On that date, the Company
announced a second-quarter loss of $0.31 per share, far below
the Company-guided analyst consensus estimate of $0.44 per share
earnings, and that drug sales had dropped to $49.1 million from
$74.8 million in the prior second quarter. On this news, Taro's
share price fell more than $11.50 per share to a new multi-year
low of $18.68 per share.

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


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. ("Taro") (NASDAQ:TARO)
securities during the period between February 17, 2004 and July
28, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Taro and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Taro Pharmaceuticals develops, manufactures and markets
prescription and OTC pharmaceutical products.

According to the complaint, on July 29, 2004, prior to the
market opening, Taro issued a press release announcing that its
sales had declined to $49.1 million during the second quarter
ended June 30, 2004, a drop of more than 41% compared to Taro's
first quarter 2004 sales. The Company also reported a net loss
for the quarter of $8.9 million, or $0.31 per share, compared
with net income of $14.8 million, or $0.50 per diluted share,
for the year-ago quarter. On this news, Taro common shares fell
to a low of $18.05 per share before recovering to close at
$24.14 per share.

The complaint alleges that:

     (1) many of the Company's largest generic drug wholesale
         customers were engaging in wholesale-to-wholesale
         trading activities in excess inventory of generic drug
         products, including Taro generic drug products, thus
         artificially inflating demand for and the price of the
         Company's products;

     (2) that the Company's reserves for product returns,
         rebates, chargebacks and other sales allowances were
         not adequate and failed to reflect the true operating
         risks associated with Taro's sales of generic drugs to
         its wholesale customers far in excess of the actual
         retail demand for such products; and

     (3) based on the foregoing, defendants' opinions,
         projections and forecasts concerning the Company and
         its operations were lacking in a reasonable basis at
         all times.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 or by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/taro/


THORATEC CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of Thoratec Corporation ("Thoratec") (NASDAQ:THOR) publicly
traded securities during the period between April 28, 2004 and
June 29, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Thoratec and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Thoratec is the leading supplier of implantable heart
pumps and left ventricular assist devices. The Company
manufactures these circulatory support products for use by
patients with congestive heart failure, including "end-stage"
patients. Traditionally these products have been used in such
patients as a "bridge to transplant," for patients awaiting a
heart transplant. In contrast, "Destination Therapy," or
permanent support, is the Company's flagship new treatment
option for patients with end-stage heart failure

The Company claims that its HeartMate XVE ("HeartMate") is an
approved ventricular assist device designed to provide permanent
support for these patients. The Complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, defendants made a number of false and
misleading statements regarding expected sales and the market
for the HeartMate as a "Destination Therapy" treatment for end-
stage heart failure patients. As a result of these statements,
Thoratec's stock traded at artificially inflated levels and
defendants were able to complete a $143.7 million note offering.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period defendants
knew but concealed from the investing public the following
adverse material facts:

     (1) even as the Company estimated that as many as 100,000
         patients per year in the U.S. could be helped by their
         new Destination Therapy treatment option, the actual
         "true" market for the product was far less than
         claimed, as it was severely constrained by limited
         reimbursement dollars available under Medicare and
         Medicaid service guidelines;

     (2) although the defendants claimed that there were
         approximately 900 hospital centers in the U.S.
         qualified for the practice of Destination Therapy and
         implantation of the HeartMate, in fact less than 75
         centers have been designated as Medicare-approved for
         Destination Therapy;

     (3) Medicare had rigid preset reimbursement guidelines and
         schedules for Destination Therapy that could only
         translate into a serious negative impact on the
         Company's FY2004 sales projections for the HeartMate;

     (4) cardiothorasic surgeons were rejecting and/or not
         accepting the HeartMate as a viable device for
         Destination Therapy patients because of issues with the
         device's reliability in a long-term setting;

     (5) the demand for the Company's Destination Therapy
         implants was not growing at the rate claimed;

     (6) the Company's Destination Therapy implant estimate for
         FY2004 of between 300 to 500 pumps was grossly
         overstated and was internally projected to be a
         fraction of this estimate;

     (7) the Company's FY2004 projections of $190-$200 million
         were overstated by tens of millions of dollars;

     (8) not only were CMS reimbursement charges delaying the
         number of implants, implantation centers and medical
         professionals had delayed any significant expansion of
         the existing implant programs until after October 1,
         2004 (the expected date of the availability of a
         significant increase in the CMS reimbursement rate);
         and

     (9) sales of the HeartMate implants would be depressed
         until Q4 2004, and as a result, the Company's earnings
         shortfall experienced in Q1 2004 (versus Q4 2003 and Q1
         2003) would not be made up for nearly one year, until
         Q1 2005, at best.

On June 29, 2004, after the market closed, Thoratec released its
preliminary results for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. These
results were much worse than previous forecasts. On this news
the price of Thoratec stock dropped precipitously to $10.74 per
share, a drop of more than 25% from the previous day's close, on
extraordinarily heavy volume of over 11 million shares.

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


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Lawsuit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of White Electronic Designs Corporation
("White Electronic" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:WEDC) between
January 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against White Electronic, Hamid
R. Shokrgozar, Edward A. White and William J. Rodes
("Defendants").

The complaint charges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding White Electronic's increasing revenues and long-term
growth prospects. However, the complaint alleges, Defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that White Electronic's
increasing revenues and earnings could not be sustained and that
orders for sales of the Company's microelectronic products for
use in military weapons and procurement programs had been
declining since at least the second quarter of fiscal 2003.
Defendants failed to disclose that the declines marked a long-
term change in priorities by the U.S. military following the
build-up of orders prior to the armed conflict in Iraq.

On June 9, 2004, White Electronic issued a press release
announcing its forecast for the third quarter of fiscal 2004,
the period ending July 3, 2004. The Company announced that it
expected net sales to be between $24-$25 million, far short of
analysts' consensus estimates of approximately $30 million in
net sales for the third quarter 2004. On this news, the price of
White Electronic shares fell 13.9% to $5.16 per share, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.laskyrifkind.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  * * *