CAR_Public/040806.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 6, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 155

                          Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 19,572 Accords Due To Defective Lights
AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 130,617 CR-Vs Due To Defective Air Bags
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Recalls 99 BMW R12-00 GSs Due To Oil Leaks
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Recalls 181 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard

BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Shalov Stone Launches Litigation Website
BRISTOL-MYERS: Agrees To Pay $150M Settlement For SEC Fraud Suit
BLUE MARTINI: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of NY Lawsuit Settlement
BRISTOL-MYERS: Agrees To Pay $150M Settlement For SEC Fraud Suit
CHUBB CHILE: Offers New Insurance Products To Cover Litigation

DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Recalls 438,391 PT Cruisers Due To Fire Hazard
DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Recalls 8,108 Vehicles Due To Fuel Pump Defects
DEAN FOODS: SEC Lodges, Settles Insider Trading Suit V. Officers
FERRARI NORTH: Recalls 487 Vehicles Due To Steering Hose Defects
FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 3,426 Vehicles For Wheel Defects

GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 281 Pontiac Grand Prix Due To Crash Risk
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 670 Saturn IONs Due To Fuel Pipe Defects
GLOBIX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
HENRY SCHEIN: Individual Claims Remain in TX Consumer Fraud Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Asks Court To Dismiss Class Claims in Fraud Suit

IMS HEALTH: Reaches Settlement For Prescription Data Lawsuits
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 81,883 Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 18,545 Vehicles Due To Fire Hazard
KIA MOTORS: Recalls 262,636 Vehicles Due To Seat Belt Defects
KPNQWEST N.V.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

KWIKEE PRODUCTS: Recalls 2,442 Hydraulic Jacks For Injury Hazard
LANCER CORPORATION: TDH Partners Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit
MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 20T Minivans Due To FMVSS 120 Noncompliance
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 16,690 Vehicles Due To Lid Spring Defects
MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 143,387 Vehicles Due To System Defects

MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Natural Gas Lawsuit
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 29,330 AWD SUVs Due To Injury Hazard
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 1,211 Vehicles Due To Injury Hazard
PRG SCHULTZ: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Securities Suit

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Asks CO Court To Rule on Issues in Lawsuit
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Oppose Right-of-Way Settlements
NEW JERSEY: Residents Lodge Suit V. Privately Owned Dams, State
OSRAM SYLVANIA: Recalls 5.6M B10 Light Bulbs Due To Injury Risks
SUBARU OF AMERICA: Recalls 1,959 Vehicles Due To Injury Hazard

TOYOTA NORTH: Recalls 1,959 Lexus LS 430 Due To Crash Hazard
TRIUMPH MOTORCYCLES: Recalls 2,792 Motorcycles Due To Fire Risks
TYSON FOODS: Discovery Completed in FLSA Violations Suit in AL
TYSON FOODS: Reissues Notices To Class Members in PA FLSA Suit
TYSON FOODS: FLSA Violations Suit Trial Set September 7, 2004

TYSON FOODS: TN Court To Rule on Summary Judgment in Worker Suit
TYSON FOODS: Files Petition in OK High Court V. Certification
TYSON FOODS: DE Court Modifies Summary Judgment Ruling in Suit
TYSON FRESH: AL Court Grants JMOL Motion in Cattle Growers' Suit
UNITED STATES: SCAS Identifies More Than $5.55B in Settlements

UNITED STATES: Study Uncovers Less Securities Suits, Added Costs

                         Asbestos Alerts

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ace Ltd. Survival Ratios Adversely Affected
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany International Claims Show Increase
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has 120T Claims Pending
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Has $1.741M Expense Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Corp. Sea-Land Claims Increased In 2004

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSXT Inc. Reserve For Asbestos Decreased
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Discloses Settlement Charges
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crane Co. Facing Various Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster's Rating Outlook Negative
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Asbestos Liability At $70M As Of June

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Insurance Receivables Lowered
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FDMLQ Injury Trust To Own 50.1% Of Stock
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson Charges Include GBP19.2M Exposure
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HPC Litigation Creates More Liabilities
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Paid $9M Charge For Bendix Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ISG Expects $5M Asbestos Removal in 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LECO Facing 37,552 Asbestos Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SEE Posts $512.5M Settlement Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Says Active Cases To Be Reduced
ASBESTOS ALERT: Potomac Insurance Noted Asbestos-Related Loss

ASBESTOS ALERT: USG Subsidiaries Reorganize To Resolve Claims

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

GEXA CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Stock Suit
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges NY Securities Suit
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Murray Frank Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
THORATEC CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges CA Securities Suit

THORATEC CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in CA


                           *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Practices Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye initiated a class
action lawsuit against American Express (AMEX) for unfair
business practices, claiming that cardholders are denied the 20-
day grace period to make payments as stipulated in their
agreements, resulting in late payments and subsequent finance
charges for many consumers.

In Pomerance v. American Express, Civil Case BC318328, the
plaintiff alleges that AMEX intentionally delays mailing its
monthly billing statements to account holders so that statements
are not received until at least approximately one week after the
billing period closes.

Furthermore, the fact that AMEX does not consider a payment made
until it is received--rather than the postmark date that the
payment is sent--provides account holders with even less time to
make timely payments. These billing practices virtually deprive
account holders of any meaningful grace period, forcing them to
mail their payments almost immediately upon receipt of the
billing statements in order to avoid a finance charge and/or a
late fee.

"In essence, the 20-day grace period is illusory as most people
have far less than that to pay the balance of their bills,"
explains Drew Pomerance, a partner of Los Angeles based
Roxborough, Pomerance & Nye LLP who filed the case on behalf of
the plaintiff.

The lawsuit also claims that AMEX intentionally mails its
billing statements in envelopes without postmarks to hide its
delayed billing practices, making it impossible for cardholders
to determine whether or not the delays are due to AMEX or the
post office.

"We are seeking an injunction, requiring American Express to
change its billing practices by sending out billing statements
as soon as the billing period closes and to postmark its billing
statement envelopes," adds Pomerance. "Furthermore, the lawsuit
seeks restitution for all cardholders who have been paying
charges due to the company's fraudulent billing practices."

Mr. Pomerance estimates that hundreds of thousands of
cardholders in California have been paying finance charges
without real cause, and that restitution can reach millions of
dollars for class members.

The lawsuit joins other class actions alleging a variety of
wrongdoing in AMEX's billing practices. In one case, Boehr v.
American Express, the plaintiff alleges that when American
Express receives a payment after 10 a.m. on the day it is due,
the company does not post the payment until the next day,
thereby incurring one day of finance charges on that account.

"Clearly, something should be done to correct American Express'
billing practices and protect consumers from paying out
unnecessary fees," concludes Mr. Pomerance.

For more details, contact Drew E. Pomerance of Roxborough,
Pomerance & Nye LLP by Mail: Westwood Place, 10866 Wilshire
Boulevard, Suite 1200, Los Angeles, CA 90024-4336 (Los Angeles
Co.) by Phone: 310-470-1869 or 310-474-2251 by Fax: 310-470-9648
or 310-474-5741 or by E-mail: dep@rpnlaw.com


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 19,572 Accords Due To Defective Lights
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 19,572 units of Year 2000-2001
Honda Accord passenger vehicles.

Manufactured from May 1999 to October 2000, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain passenger vehicles, the dimmer
control for the instrument panel lights could fail due to heat
buildup. If this occurs, the instrument lights may fail and, at
night, the driver may not be able to see the instrument panel
gauges, such as the speedometer.

Dealers will replace a multiplex control unit for the instrument
panel lights. The manufacturer has reported that owner
notification is expected to begin during July 2004. Owners may
contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009.


AMERICAN HONDA: Recalls 130,617 CR-Vs Due To Defective Air Bags
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 130,617 units of Year 2002-2004
Honda CR-V SUVs.

Manufactured from April 2002 to April 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain sport utility vehicles, the wiring
harness of the driver's front air bag was incorrectly wired. In
the event of a crash, the air bag inflation rate will be
incorrect, which could increase the risk of injury.

Dealers will repair the wiring. The manufacturer has reported
that owner notification is expected to begin during July 2004.
Owners may contact Honda at 1-800-999-1009.


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Recalls 99 BMW R12-00 GSs Due To Oil Leaks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bayerische Motoren Werke is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 99 units of Year 2005 BMW R12-00
GS motorcycles.

Manufactured from January to March 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain motorcycles, the Integral Anti-lock
Brake System (IABS) sensor sealing O-ring connection at the rear
axle housing may have been damaged during the assembly process,
causing oil leakage. If this happens, oil could contact the rear
wheel and the rear wheel brake disk. The rider may not be able
to control the motorcycle, which could result in a crash.

Dealers will replace the rear wheel IABS sensor sealing O-ring.
The manufacturer has reported that owner notification is
expected to begin during July 2004. Owners may contact BMW at
1-800-831-1117.


BAYERISCHE MOTOREN: Recalls 181 Motorcycles Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bayerische Motoren Werke is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 181 units of Year 2005 BMW K1200
LT and Year 2004 BMW R1150 RT motorcycles.

Manufactured since April 2004, the NHTSA has determined that on
certain motorcycles, an incorrect sealing ring was mounted to
the piston of the rear brake master cylinder. If only the rear
brake were applied during riding, insufficient braking pressure
would be available to slow the motorcycle, which could increase
the risk of a crash.

Dealers will replace the rear brake master cylinder. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification is expected to
begin during July 2004. Owners may contact BMW at
1-800-831-1117.


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Shalov Stone Launches Litigation Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
In response to the large demand for information about the
Bennett Class Action, the law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP
opened a new website, www.bennettclassaction.com to address
investor interest and to facilitate joining the class action. On
July 28, 2004, Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP filed a class action on
behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Bennett
Environmental, Inc. (AMEX: BEL; TSX: BEV) in the period from
June 2, 2003 to July 22, 2004.

The new website includes information about the class action as
well as new evidence strongly supporting the claims in the
lawsuit.

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

Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP has developed significant information
concerning numerous other alleged disclosure violations
committed by the defendants. The lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and
includes American and Canadian investors.

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


BRISTOL-MYERS: Agrees To Pay $150M Settlement For SEC Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Bristol-Myers reached
$150 million settlement for a civil action that the Commission
has filed against the New York-based pharmaceutical company for
perpetrating a fraud scheme to overstate its results from the
first quarter of 2000 through the fourth quarter of 2001.
Bristol-Myers overstated its results primarily by:

     (1) engaging in channel-stuffing near the end of every
         quarter in amounts sufficient to meet sales and
         earnings targets set by officers (channel-stuffing);
         and

     (2) improperly recognizing about $1.5 billion in revenue
         from consignment-like sales  associated with the
         channel-stuffing contrary to generally accepted
         accounting principles (GAAP).

When Bristol-Myers' results fell short of Wall Street analysts'
earnings estimates, the Company used improper accounting,
including "cookie jar" reserves, to further inflate its
earnings. Simultaneous with the filing of the civil action,
Bristol-Myers agreed to the following relief without admitting
or denying the allegations in the Commission's Complaint, except
as to jurisdiction, which is admitted:

     (i) a permanent injunction against future violations of
         certain antifraud, reporting, books and records and
         internal controls provisions of the federal securities
         laws;

    (ii) monetary relief for the benefit of shareholders,
         including a civil penalty of $100 million plus a $50
         million shareholder fund; and

   (iii) various remedial measures, including the appointment of
         an independent advisor to review Bristol-Myers'
         accounting practices and internal control systems and
         periodically assess the status of remedial actions
         undertaken or  planned by the Company in those and
         other areas, such as financial reporting.

The action is titled, SEC v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Civil
Action No. 04-3680 (D.N.J.) (Hochberg, J.)


BLUE MARTINI: Plaintiffs Seek Approval of NY Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to approve the settlement of a
consolidated securities class action filed against Blue Martini
Software, Inc. and:

     (1) Monte Zweben,

     (2) William Zuendt,

     (3) Andrew Verhalen,

     (4) certain of its former officers and directors,

     (5) Goldman Sachs and

     (6) the other underwriters of the Company's initial public
         offering, or IPO

Several suits were initially filed and were later consolidated
under the title "In re Blue Martini Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation."  Plaintiffs claim that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws because the Company's IPO
registration statement and prospectus allegedly contained untrue
statements of material fact or omitted material facts regarding
the compensation to be received by, and the stock allocation
practices of, the IPO underwriters.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same Court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted IPOs of their common
stock since the mid-1990s.  On August 8, 2001, all IPO-related
lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before United
States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York.  In accordance with Judge Scheindlin's orders, the Company
did not answer the complaint, and no discovery was served.  Also
in accordance with Judge Scheindlin's orders, plaintiffs filed
amended consolidated complaints on April 19, 2002.

The Company joined in a global motion to dismiss the IPO
Lawsuits on July 15, 2002.  On October 9, 2002, the Company's
directors and officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant
to a stipulated dismissal and tolling agreement between the
plaintiffs and certain individual defendants. On November 1,
2002, Judge Scheindlin presided over an all-day hearing on the
global motions to dismiss. On February 19, 2003, Judge
Scheindlin issued a ruling on the global motion to dismiss; with
respect to the Company, the motion was granted in part and
denied in part.

In June 2003, the Company joined in a tentative global
settlement that would, among other things, result in the
dismissal with prejudice of all claims against all issuers and
their officers and directors in the IPO-related lawsuits, and
the assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that
the issuers may have against their IPO underwriters.  The
tentative settlement provides that, in the event that the
plaintiffs ultimately recover less than $1 billion in settlement
or judgment against the underwriter defendants in the IPO-
related lawsuits, the plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.  The tentative
settlement does not involve any payment or admission of
wrongdoing by the Company.

In July 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the
Company entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding
reflecting the settlement terms.  In September 2003, in
connection with the possible settlement, the Company's officers
and directors described above who had entered tolling agreements
with plaintiffs agreed to extend those agreements so that they
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized.

In July 2004, the IPO underwriter defendants filed a response
opposing the motion for approval.  Though Blue Martini executed
the final settlement agreement in May 2004, it remains subject
to a number of procedural conditions, as well as formal approval
by the court.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Agrees To Pay $150M Settlement For SEC Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Bristol-Myers reached
$150 million settlement for a civil action that the Commission
has filed against the New York-based pharmaceutical company for
perpetrating a fraud scheme to overstate its results from the
first quarter of 2000 through the fourth quarter of 2001.
Bristol-Myers overstated its results primarily by:

     (1) engaging in channel-stuffing near the end of every
         quarter in amounts sufficient to meet sales and
         earnings targets set by officers (channel-stuffing);
         and

     (2) improperly recognizing about $1.5 billion in revenue
         from consignment-like sales  associated with the
         channel-stuffing contrary to generally accepted
         accounting principles (GAAP).

When Bristol-Myers' results fell short of Wall Street analysts'
earnings estimates, the Company used improper accounting,
including "cookie jar" reserves, to further inflate its
earnings. Simultaneous with the filing of the civil action,
Bristol-Myers agreed to the following relief without admitting
or denying the allegations in the Commission's Complaint, except
as to jurisdiction, which is admitted:

     (i) a permanent injunction against future violations of
         certain antifraud, reporting, books and records and
         internal controls provisions of the federal securities
         laws;

    (ii) monetary relief for the benefit of shareholders,
         including a civil penalty of $100 million plus a $50
         million shareholder fund; and

   (iii) various remedial measures, including the appointment of
         an independent advisor to review Bristol-Myers'
         accounting practices and internal control systems and
         periodically assess the status of remedial actions
         undertaken or  planned by the Company in those and
         other areas, such as financial reporting.

The action is titled, SEC v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Civil
Action No. 04-3680 (D.N.J.) (Hochberg, J.)


CHUBB CHILE: Offers New Insurance Products To Cover Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chubb Chile plans to offer new products to cover class actions,
which recently became legal in Chile, technical/commercial
manager Guillermo Garcˇa of the Chilean subsidiary of the U.S.-
based insurance group Chubb (NYSE: CB) told BNamericas.

In the past only individuals could file suit under Chilean
consumer law, however recent amendments have made it possible
for groups of people to file class action complaints.  According
to Mr. Garcia, "Class actions are common in the US and other
developed countries, therefore Chubb, as a North American
company, has experience dealing with this type of contingency,
or subsidiary, Chubb Chile already provides insurance coverage
to local companies including vineyards, which will most likely
be effected by the new class action legislation, Chubb will
therefore need to upgrade its coverage in this area."

Mr. Garcia further told BNAmericas, "Since the legislation is
new to Chile there are many different points to consider, and
for now our lawyers are analyzing the impacts regarding how it
would affect insurance companies, we do not, however, expect
class actions to have an immediate effect on the market."

With the new consumer law affecting many segments in the
insurance industry, Chubb according to Mr. Garcia is considering
all possible changes in the market in order to revamp their
product line.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Recalls 438,391 PT Cruisers Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 438,391 units of Year 2001-2005
Chrysler PT Cruisers.

Manufactured from January 2000 to April 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain vehicles equipped with 2.4L non-turbo
engines and automatic transaxles, the high pressure power
steering hose routing could allow contact with the automatic
transaxle differential cover, potentially damaging the hose.
Power steering fluid leakage in the presence of an ignition
source can result in an under hood fire.

Dealers will inspect and relocate, or replace as necessary, the
power steering hose and confirm the torque of the hose fastener
at the steering gear end. The manufacturer has not yet provided
an owner notification schedule for this campaign. Owners may
contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403.


DAIMLERCHRYSLER: Recalls 8,108 Vehicles Due To Fuel Pump Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
DaimlerChrysler Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 8,108 units of Year 2004
Chrysler Sebring and Stratus.

Manufactured from April to June 2004, the NHTSA has determined
that on certain 2-door coupe passenger vehicles, the fuel return
line hose fitting on the electric fuel pump may be improperly
molded. Breakage could result in a leakage of fuel, and in the
presence of an ignition source, it could result a fire.

Dealers will replace the fuel pump. The manufacturer has not yet
provided an owner notification schedule for this campaign.
Owners may contact DaimlerChrysler at 1-800-853-1403.


DEAN FOODS: SEC Lodges, Settles Insider Trading Suit V. Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled complaint
against Michael J. McCloskey, Rance C. Miles, Luis E. Vallejo
and Daniel Harris for engaging in insider trading in the
securities of Dean Foods Company (Dean Foods) in advance of the
April 5, 2001, announcement that Suiza Foods Corporation would
merge with Dean Foods. The Commission's complaint, filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges that
McCloskey and Miles were officers of a dairy business that had
entered into a confidential milk supply contract with Dean Foods
in early 2001. According to the complaint, McCloskey and Miles
obtained material nonpublic information from Dean Foods which
they used to purchase Dean Foods securities the day before the
Dean Foods-Suiza Foods merger announcement and to tip others
including Vallejo, McCloskey's long-time friend, and Harris,
Miles' broker. Collectively, the four defendants realized
illegal profits totaling $113,801.

The Commission alleges McCloskey and Miles received the last
piece of material nonpublic information on April 4, 2001, when
they were given the "green light" to make public their
previously confidential milk supply agreement. McCloskey, in
light of this and other information known to him, concluded that
this meant the Suiza Foods-Dean Foods merger was "coming down."
After receiving the information, McCloskey purchased 3,000
shares of Dean Foods stock on margin for $97,500. McCloskey also
tipped others, including his long-time friend Luis Vallejo.
Vallejo purchased 7,000 shares of Dean Foods stock the same day
for $229,170.  According to the complaint, Miles also purchased
500 shares of Dean Foods stock and 250 out-of-the-money call
options contracts for $43,050 after receiving the information
about the "green light" from McCloskey. Miles also tipped
others, including his broker, Harris. Harris purchased 100
shares of Dean Foods stock for $3,259. He also tipped one of his
clients, recommending that he sell short Suiza Foods stock.

After the public announcement of the merger on April 5, 2001,
Dean Foods stock increased from its April 4, 2001 close of
$32.50 to as high as $38.80 on April 5, 2001, or a 19% increase.
Following the announcement, the four individuals sold their Dean
Foods securities and realized substantial illegal profits.
McCloskey sold his stock on April 5, 2001, realizing one-day
illegal profits of $15,900. Miles sold his Dean Foods stock and
options between April 5 and April 11, 2001, earning illegal
profits of $60,530. Vallejo sold his stock on April 5, 2001,
earning $36,830 in illegal profits. Harris sold his stock on
April 5, 2001, realizing one-day profits of $541. McCloskey,
Miles, and Harris each tipped others. Collectively, the tippees
(other than Vallejo) earned $10,799.05.

Simultaneous with the filing of this action, the Commission has
agreed to accept the individuals' offers to settle this matter.
Each of them has agreed, without admitting or denying the
allegations in the complaint, to the entry of a final judgment
permanently enjoining them from future violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Exchange Act
Rule 10b-5. In addition, McCloskey has consented to pay
$92,730.45, representing full disgorgement of his illegal
profits and his tippees' profits (except Vallejo) in the amount
of  $25,930.65, prejudgment interest of $4,039.15, and a one-
time civil penalty of $62,760.65  on his own profits and those
of his tippees. Miles has consented to pay $133,311.34,
representing full disgorgement of his and his tippees' illegal
profits of $61,839.40, prejudgment interest of $9,632.54, and a
one-time civil penalty of $61,839.40 on his own profits and
those of his tippees. Vallejo has consented to pay $79,396.62,
representing full disgorgement of his illegal profits of
$36,830.00, prejudgment interest of $5,736.92, and a one-time
civil penalty of   $36,830.00. Harris has consented to pay
$624.00, representing one dollar in disgorgement and a one-time
civil penalty of $623 on his own profits and those of his
tippee. In addition, Harris has agreed, based upon the
anticipated entry of the injunction in this matter, to a
Commission Order barring him from association with any broker or
dealer with the right to reapply after two years.

The Commission also would like to acknowledge the assistance of
the Pacific Exchange in this matter. The action is titled, SEC
v. Michael J. McCloskey, Rance C. Miles, Luis E. Vallejo and
Daniel Harris, Case No. 1:04CV01294, D.D.C. (LR-18819)


FERRARI NORTH: Recalls 487 Vehicles Due To Steering Hose Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferrari North America Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 487 units of the following
vehicles:

     (1) Ferrari 360 Modena, 2003

     (2) Ferrari 360 Spider, 2003

     (3) Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale, 2004

The NHTSA has determined that on certain passenger vehicles, an
oil leak in the hydraulic steering delivery pipe from the pump
to the steering rack may occur, which could lead to a gradual
reduction of the assisted steering function. Such circumstances
could lead to loss of vehicle control and could result in a
crash.

Dealers will replace the steering delivery hoses from the pump
to the steering rack. The manufacturer has reported that owner
notification is expected to begin during July 2004. Owners may
contact Ferrari at 1-201-816-2651.


FLEETWOOD ENTERPRISES: Recalls 3,426 Vehicles For Wheel Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 3,426 units of the following
vehicles:

Fleetwood Mallard, model 2004
Fleetwood Pioneer, model 2004
Fleetwood Prowler, model 2004
Fleetwood Terry, model 2004
Fleetwood Wilderness, model 2004
Fleetwood Pride, models 2002-2004
Fleetwood Triumph, models 2002-2004

Manufactured from January 2002 to April 2004, the NHTSA has
determined on conventional and fifth wheel travel trailers
equipped with aluminum wheels, the wheels may not have had the
proper wheel lug nut torque applied. Additionally, paint applied
to the mating surface of the hub may cause the lug nuts to
loosen, particularly after the wheel has been removed for
service.

Dealers will inspect, repair, or replace any damaged wheels, lug
nuts, lug studs, and mating surfaces. Dealers will also remove
paint film from the mating surfaces. The manufacturer has
reported that owner notification is expected to begin during
July 2004. Owners may contact Fleetwood at 1-800-509-3418.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 281 Pontiac Grand Prix Due To Crash Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 281 units of Year 2004 Pontiac
Grand Prix passenger vehicles.

Manufactured since May 2004, the NHTSA has determined that on
certain passenger vehicles have a condition where the front
frame rear body mount bracket may fracture and degrade to the
point where the intermediate steering shaft could separate,
resulting in loss of steering control, which increases the risk
of a crash.

Dealers will inspect the front frame assembly and replace it if
necessary. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification
is expected to begin during August 2004. Owners may contact
Pontiac at 1-800-620-7668.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls 670 Saturn IONs Due To Fuel Pipe Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
General Motors Corporation is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 670 units of the Year 2004
Saturn ION passenger vehicles:

Manufactured from March to May 2004, the NHTSA has determined
that certain passenger vehicles equipped with supercharged 2.0l
4-cylinder (LSJ) engines were built with a fuel feed pipe that
could crack and leak fuel near the fuel rail. Fuel leakage, in
the presence of an ignition source, could result in a fire.

Dealers will replace the fuel feed pipe assembly. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification began on June
9, 2004. Owners may contact Saturn at 1-800-972-8876.


GLOBIX CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Globix Corporation reached a tentative settlement for the
putative class action filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled
"In re Globix Corp Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-00082."
This lawsuit also names as defendants its former officers:

     (1) Marc Bell,

     (2) Peter Herzig (who remains a director of Globix) and

     (3) Brian Reach

The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the Company's securities between November 16, 2000 and December
27, 2001.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed in this lawsuit on
June 28, 2002.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, but withdrew this motion without
prejudice in the course of settlement discussions with the
parties.

On March 31, 2004, the parties entered into an agreement in
principle to settle all claims against the defendants for
$3,500, all of which would be covered by insurance.  The
proposed settlement is subject to the approval of the court. If
the settlement is not approved by the court, the Company intends
to re-file its motion to dismiss.


HENRY SCHEIN: Individual Claims Remain in TX Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Only individual claims asserted on behalf of the named
plaintiffs remain in the class action filed against Henry
Schein, Inc. and one of its subsidiaries in the District Court
in Travis County, Texas, styled "Shelly E. Stromboe and Jeanne
Taylor, on Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly
Situated vs. Henry Schein, Inc., Easy Dental Systems, Inc. and
Dentisoft, Inc., Case No. 98-00886."

The petition alleges, among other things, negligence, breach of
contract, fraud, and violations of certain Texas commercial
statutes involving the sale of certain practice management
software products sold prior to 1998 under the Easy Dental name.

In October 1999, the trial court, on motion, certified both a
Windows sub-class and a DOS sub-class to proceed as a class
action pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 42.  It is estimated that
approximately 5,000 Windows customers and approximately 10,000
DOS customers were covered by the class action that was
certified by the trial court.  On September 14, 2000, the Court
of Appeals affirmed the trial court's certification order.

On January 5, 2001, the Company filed a Petition for Review in
the Texas Supreme Court.  On October 31, 2002, the Texas Supreme
Court issued an opinion in the case finding that the trial
court's certification of the case as a class action was
improper.  The Texas Supreme Court reversed the Court of
Appeals' judgment in its entirety, and remanded the case to the
trial court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

On August 29, 2003, class counsel filed amended papers seeking
certification of an amended Windows class and an amended DOS
class.  The only claim asserted for class certification by the
Windows class was for the alleged breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability.  The only claims asserted for class
certification by the DOS class were for alleged violations of
the Texas Unsolicited Goods Statute and the Federal Unordered
Merchandise Act.  By Order dated December 10, 2003, the trial
court granted Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
the DOS Class claims.  By granting summary judgment on the
claims asserted on behalf of the DOS class, the DOS motion for
class certification became moot because certain class claims
asserted by the named class representatives for the DOS class
were found to be without merit.

By Order dated January 13, 2004, the trial court denied the
amended motion for class certification filed by the Windows
Class in its entirety.  The deadline for the Windows Class to
file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the amended motion
for class certification was February 2, 2004.  No appeal was
filed on or before that date.


HENRY SCHEIN: Asks Court To Dismiss Class Claims in Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. asked the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Morris County to dismiss the class action claims in
the lawsuit filed against it, styled "West Morris Pediatrics,
P.A. and Avenel-Iselin Medical Group, P.A. vs. Henry Schein,
Inc., doing business as Caligor, Case No. MRS-L-421-02."

The complaint purports to be on behalf of a nationwide class,
but there has been no court determination that the case may
proceed as a class action.  Plaintiffs seek to represent a class
of all physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers
throughout New Jersey and across the United States.  This
complaint, as amended in August 2002, alleges relating to sales
of a vaccine product in the year 2001, among other things:

     (1) breach of oral contract,

     (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing,

     (3) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,

     (4) unjust enrichment,

     (5) conversion, and

     (6) promissory estoppel

The class action discovery period ended on February 23, 2004.
The plaintiffs also requested a class action determination.  The
motions will be heard in August 2004.


IMS HEALTH: Reaches Settlement For Prescription Data Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
IMS Health, Inc. reached a settlement for the litigation pending
against it and approximately 60 software vendors from which the
Company purchased prescription data in the 1990's (and, for many
of these vendors, from which the Company continues to purchase
data).

The litigation alleged the Company misappropriated the trade
secrets (i.e., prescription data) of thousands of pharmacies in
the United States and used this information either without
authorization or outside the scope of any authorization.  This
same conduct was alleged to breach contracts between the Company
and the software vendors from which the Company had purchased
this prescription data.

One action was brought in state court in southern Illinois
(Circuit Court of the 20th Judicial Circuit) by two pharmacies.
Plaintiffs sought class action status, representing all
pharmacies whose data was sold to the Company by their pharmacy
dispensary software vendors from 1990 to the present.  The
pharmacies were seeking $100,000 in actual damages plus an
unspecified amount of unjust enrichment damages (i.e., share of
the Company profits) derived from use of the prescription data
by the Company and the other defendants, or, in the alternative,
a reasonable royalty paid for the use of the prescription data.
However, the Company believed and continues to believe that its
practices with respect to the acquisition and use of this
prescription data are consistent with applicable law and
industry practices, and that the claims were without merit.

Another suit, filed in the same court, was originally brought in
1994 against Mayberry Systems, a small developer of pharmacy
dispensary software in the Midwest.  Two pharmacy customers
alleged Mayberry Systems was taking prescription data from their
systems without authorization, and selling it to others
(including the Company).  The Company was subsequently added to
the lawsuit in 1996, alleging that the Company knew or should
have known that Mayberry Systems was taking the data and selling
it without authorization (i.e., misappropriation of trade
secrets).  The lawsuit was later certified as a class action on
behalf of all former and current customers of Mayberry Systems
(approximately 350 pharmacies).  Plaintiffs were demanding
damages in the amount of $20,000 plus punitive damages and
attorney's fees.

Although the Company believed the two actions were without
merit, it pursued a joint settlement of the cases.  During the
third quarter of 2003, the Company proposed a preliminary
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs' counsel on both the
actions, subject to several significant contingencies.  On
February 17, 2004, the Illinois state court approved the
proposed settlement.  The period for the filing of
appeals and motions for rehearing expired on March 18, 2004.

Under the settlement, the Company will make certain cash
payments, provide certain product credits and enter into certain
agreements for the purchase of data originating from the
independent pharmacy plaintiffs.  This will provide the Company
the opportunity to acquire new data for new offerings while
eliminating the costs and risks of litigation.  During the first
half of 2004, the Company paid approximately $7,400 related to
this settlement and received $5,500 from insurance coverage.


INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 81,883 Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
International Truck & Engine Corporation is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
issuing a June 2004 voluntary recall for about 81,883 units of
the following vehicles:

International 1552, 1999-2004
International 1652, 1999-2004
International 3000, 1999-2004
International 3400, 1999-2004
International 3800, 1999-2004
International 4700, 1999-2004
International 4900, 1999-2004
International CE, 1999-2004
International FE, 1999-2004
International RE, 1999-2004

Manufactured from February 1999 to April 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain school buses and heavy-duty trucks,
the anti-lock brake system (ABS) electronic control unit (ECU)
may misinterpret a wheel speed signal. The signal may improperly
activate the ABS, instead of deactivating the ABS. This may
result in the driver experiencing a hard pedal feel and a
decrease in deceleration at the end of the stop, resulting in
extended stopping distances that could cause a crash.

Dealers will inspect and repair the affected vehicles. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification to school bus
owners began on June 11, 2004, and to truck owners on August 13,
2004. Owners may contact International at 1-800-448-7825.


INTERNATIONAL TRUCK: Recalls 18,545 Vehicles Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
International Truck & Engine Corporation is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
issuing a June 2004 voluntary recall for about 18,545 units of
the following vehicles:

International 4300, 2000-2001
International 4400, 2000-2001
International 7300, 2000-2004
International 7400, 2000-2004
International 7500, 2000-2004
International 7600, 2002-2004
International 7700, 2003-2004
International 8500, 2001-2004
International 8600, 2002-2004

Manufactured from November 2000 to May 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain heavy duty trucks equipped with
International DT540, Cummins, or Caterpillar I-6 engines, the
positive battery cable between the batteries and the starter may
rub against an electrical ground cable between the starter and
frame rail, resulting in an electrical short and/or fire.

Dealers will inspect for chafing. If there is no evidence of
chafing, a saddle clamp will be installed. If there is evidence
of chafing, the damaged cables will be replaced and a saddle
clamp installed. The manufacturer has reported that owner
notification is expected to begin during August 2004. Owners may
contact International at 1-800-448-7825.


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 262,636 Vehicles Due To Seat Belt Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kia Motors America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 262,636 units of the following
vehicles:

Kia Sephia, 1999-2000
Kia Sportage, 1999-2000
Kia Spectra, 2000

Manufactured from March 1998 to November 2000, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain passenger and sport utility vehicles,
certain front safety belt buckles may emit a "click" sound
during the buckling process that is similar to the sound emitted
when a buckle is being latched. This might indicate to the user
that it is latched, when it is not. The latch can then pull out
of the buckle when tension is applied. In the event of a crash,
the seat occupant may not be properly restrained, increasing the
risk of injury.

Dealers will replace both front seat belt buckles. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification is expected to
begin during August 2004. Owners may contact Kia at
1-800-333-4542.


KPNQWEST N.V.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KPNQwest N.V. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to dismiss the amended securities
class action filed against it and certain of its officers and
former executives, on behalf of certain purchasers of KPNQwest
securities.

The suit alleges that Willems Ackermans, former Executive Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer, engaged in a fraudulent
scheme and deceptive course of business in order to inflate
KPNQwest revenue and securities.  Mr. Ackermans was the only
defendant named in the original complaint.  On January 9, 2004,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding as defendants the
Company, certain of its former executives who were also on the
supervisory board of KPNQwest, and others.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages and/or rescission as appropriate against
defendants, as well as an award of plaintiffs' fees and costs.


KWIKEE PRODUCTS: Recalls 2,442 Hydraulic Jacks For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kwikee Products Company, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 2,442 units of Kwikee Level Best
3010 hydraulic jacks.

Manufactured from January 2000 to May 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain hydraulic jacks installed as original
equipment on 2000-2004 Alfa Leisure brand "See Ya" and "Gold"
motor homes, it is possible that prolonged vibration and/or
unusual jack loading will result in the footpad retaining
bolt(s) loosening to point the steel footpad may be lost. Using
the jack without the footpad could result in personal injury to
the operator or others.

Kwikee will provide replacement of all footpad retaining bolts.
Owners can contact the nearest authorized dealer or warranty
service center to arrange for the free installation of improved
bolts. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification
began during June 2004. Owners may contact Kwikee at
1-800-736-9961.


LANCER CORPORATION: TDH Partners Voluntarily Dismisses Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
TDH Partners voluntarily dismissed, without prejudice a
purported class action lawsuit filed on May 14, 2004 against the
Lancer Corporation (Amex: LAN). The filing of the lawsuit by TDH
Partners had resulted in the issuance of several press releases
by other plaintiff law firms attempting to participate in the
single lawsuit. Lancer was never served with the lawsuit.

To Lancer's knowledge, no other class action litigation or
shareholder lawsuit has been filed against the Company.

The voluntary dismissal of the purported class action by the
plaintiffs follows the news that BDO Seidman, LLP, Lancer's
independent auditor, had completed its reaudit of Lancer's
financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2000, 2001
and 2002, and that the reaudit did not result in any change in
the previously disclosed financial statements. The results of
the reaudit were originally disclosed by Lancer in a news
release dated July 1, 2004.


MAZDA NORTH: Recalls 20T Minivans Due To FMVSS 120 Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda North American Operations is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June
2004 voluntary recall for about 20,000 units of Year 2003-2004
Mazda MPV minivans.

Manufactured from August 2003 to May 2004, The NHTSA has
determined that certain minivans fail to conform to the
requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 120,
"Tire Selection and Rims for Motor Vehicles Other than Passenger
Cars." The tire inflation pressure indicated on the vehicle
certification label is not correct. The labels show the maximum
tire pressure as 240 KPA/32 psi when it should be shown as 240
KPA/35 psi. As a result of this error, the load ratios for the
205/65R15 94H and the 215/60R16 95H tires exceed the levels
permitted by FMVSS No. 120. If the tire is operated in an under-
inflated condition, the load carrying capacity of the vehicle
may be compromised, increasing the risk of a crash.

Owners will be provided with a corrected label that they can
apply to their vehicle, or they can have a dealer install the
label, if desired. The manufacturer has reported that owner
notification is expected to begin during July 2004. Owners may
contact Mazda at 1-800-222-5500.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 16,690 Vehicles Due To Lid Spring Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June 2004
voluntary recall for about 16,690 units of Year 2003-2004
Mercedes Benz CL and S classes of passenger vehicles.

Manufactured from November 2002 to October 2003, the NHTSA has
determined on certain passenger vehicles, the trunk lid springs
could fail. If the trunk lid is manually lifted, it may not
remain in the up position and could cause injury if it comes
down while someone is reaching into the trunk.

Dealers will replace both trunk lid springs. The manufacturer
has reported that owner notification is expected to begin during
July 2004. Owners may contact Mercedes-Benz at
1-800-367-6372.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Recalls 143,387 Vehicles Due To System Defects
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June 2004
voluntary recall for about 143,387 units of Year 2003-2004
Mercedes Benz SL Class passenger vehicles.

Manufactured from October 2001 to May 2004, the NHTSA determined
that on certain passenger vehicles, the electronic monitoring
system of the Sensotronic Brake Control (SBC) is designed to
monitor the pressure gradient within the high-pressure line of
the brake system. If an unacceptable pressure gradient is
detected, the system will switch, as it is designed to do, into
the hydraulic function mode. If vehicles are not routinely
serviced and have extremely high mileage combined with a high
number of brake actuations, or a high brake actuation frequency,
the pump motor of the SBC may run out of permissible tolerances,
thereby triggering the hydraulic function mode.

Dealers will inspect the SBC hydraulic unit, replacing it if
necessary. The manufacturer has not yet provided an owner
notification schedule for this campaign. Owners may contact
Mercedes-Benz at 1-800-367-6372.


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Natural Gas Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Co. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the
consolidated class action filed against it and other natural gas
companies.

The suit alleges that the defendants have engaged in unlawful
manipulation of the prices of natural gas futures and options
contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)
during the period January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002.

MidAmerican Energy is mentioned as a company that has engaged in
wash trades on Enron Online (an electronic trading platform)
that had the effect of distorting prices for gas trades on the
NYMEX.  The plaintiffs to the class action do not specify the
amount of alleged damages.

The original complaint in this matter, styled "Cornerstone
Propane Partners, L.P. v. Reliant, et al.," was filed on August
18, 2003 in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York naming MidAmerican Energy and MidAmerican Energy
Holdings Company.

On October 1, 2003, a second complaint, Roberto, E. Calle
Gracey, et al., was filed in the same court but did not name
MidAmerican Energy or MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company.  On
November 14, 2003, a third complaint, Dominick Viola, et al.,
was filed in the same court and named MidAmerican Energy and
MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company as defendants.

On November 19, 2003, an Order of Voluntary Dismissal Without
Prejudice of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company was entered by
the court dismissing MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company from
the Cornerstone and Viola complaints and MidAmerican Energy
Holdings Company was dismissed from the suit.  On December 5,
2003, the court entered Pretrial Order No. 1, which among other
procedural matters, ordered the consolidation of the
Cornerstone, Calle Gracey and Viola complaints and permitted
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint in this matter.

On January 20, 2004, plaintiffs filed "In Re: Natural Gas
Commodity Litigation," as the amended complaint reasserting
their previous allegations.  On February 19, 2004, MidAmerican
Energy filed a Motion to Dismiss and joined with several other
defendants to file a joint Motion to Dismiss.  The plaintiffs
filed a response on May 19, 2004, contesting both Motions to
Dismiss.


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 29,330 AWD SUVs Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
issuing a June 2004 voluntary recall for about 29,330 units of
Year 2004 Mitsubishi AWD Endeavors.

Manufactured from January 2003 to May 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain AWD sport utility vehicles, the
retaining bolts that attach the drive shaft to the center
bearing flange and/or the rear differential flange may be
missing, not sufficiently tightened, or over tightened. If the
retaining bolts were to fall out, the drive to the rear wheels
may be interrupted. In the worst case, the driver shaft may fall
down, increasing the potential for a vehicle crash.

Dealers will inspect the assembly and replace the bolts if
necessary. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification
is expected to begin during August 2004. Owners may contact
Mitsubishi at 1-888-648-7820.


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Recalls 1,211 Vehicles Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
issuing a June 2004 voluntary recall for about 1,211 units of
Year 2004 Mitsubishi Endeavors.

Manufacture from March to April 2004, the NHTSA has determined
that on certain sport utility vehicles, the foot of the driver's
seat riser may develop a crack, resulting in reduced strength of
the seat anchorage. In the event of a crash, the seat could
become detached, increasing the risk of occupant injury.

Dealers will inspect the driver's seat bracket to determine
whether it requires replacement. If so, the dealer will replace
it with a new, improved part. The manufacturer has reported that
owner notification is expected to begin during July 2004. Owners
may contact Mitsubishi at 1-888-648-7820.


PRG SCHULTZ: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against PRG Schultz International, Inc. and certain
of its present and former officers in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division,
styled "In re Profit Recovery Group International, Inc. Sec.
Litig., Civil Action File No.1:00-CV-1416-CC."

Plaintiffs allege that the Company, John M. Cook, Scott L.
Colabuono, the Company's former Chief Financial Officer, and
Michael A. Lustig, the Company's former Chief Operating Officer,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder by allegedly
disseminating false and misleading information about a change in
the Company's method of recognizing revenue and in connection
with revenue reported for a division.  Plaintiffs purport to
bring this action on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
the Company's stock between July 19, 1999 and July 26, 2000.
Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
payment of litigation fees and expenses, and equitable and/or
injunctive relief.

On January 24, 2001, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint for failure to state a claim under the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act, 15U.S.C. 78u-4 et seq.  The
Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss on June 5, 2001.
Defendants served their Answer to Plaintiffs' Complaint on June
19, 2001.  The Court granted Plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification on December 3, 2002.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. asked the United States
District Court in Colorado to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, alleging violations of
federal securities laws.

Since July 27, 2001,13 putative class actions were filed against
the company.  One of those cases has been dismissed.  By court
order, the remaining actions have been consolidated into a
consolidated securities action.

On August 21, 2002, plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
action filed their Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, or the Fourth Consolidated Complaint, which
defendants moved to dismiss.  On January 13, 2004, the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part.
In that order, the court allowed plaintiffs to file a proposed
amended complaint seeking to remedy the pleading defects
addressed in the court's dismissal order and ordered that
discovery, which previously had been stayed during the pendency
of the motions to dismiss, proceed regarding the surviving
claims.

On February 6, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Fifth Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint, or the Fifth Consolidated
Complaint.  The Fifth Consolidated Complaint attempts to expand
the putative class period previously alleged in the Fourth
Consolidated Complaint, seeks to restore the claims dismissed by
the court, including claims against certain individual
defendants who were dismissed as defendants by the court's
dismissal order, and to add individual defendants who were not
named as defendants in plaintiffs' previous complaints.  The
Fifth Consolidated Complaint also advances allegations related
to a number of matters and transactions that were not pleaded in
the earlier complaints.

The Fifth Consolidated Complaint is purportedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of publicly traded securities of Qwest
between May 24, 1999 and July 28, 2002, and names as defendants
the Company and:

     (1) former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Joseph P.
         Nacchio,

     (2) former Chief Financial Officers Robin R. Szeliga and
         Robert S. Woodruff,

     (3) former Qwest officers and current directors and

     (4) Arthur Andersen LLP

The Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things,
that during the putative class period, Qwest and certain of the
individual defendants made materially false statements regarding
the results of Qwest's operations in violation of section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act,
that certain of the individual defendants are liable as control
persons under section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and that
certain of the individual defendants sold some of their shares
of Qwest's common stock in violation of section 20A of the
Exchange Act.

The Fifth Consolidated Complaint further alleges Qwest and
certain other defendants violated section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Act, by preparing and
disseminating false registration statements and prospectuses for
the registration of Qwest common stock to be issued to U S WEST
shareholders in connection with the merger of the two companies,
and for the exchange of $3 billion of Qwest's notes pursuant to
a registration statement dated January 17, 2001, $3.25 billion
of Qwest's notes pursuant to a registration statement dated July
12, 2001, and $3.75 billion of Qwest's notes pursuant to a
registration statement dated October 30, 2001.

Additionally, the Fifth Consolidated Complaint alleges certain
of the individual defendants are liable as control persons under
section 15 of the Securities Act by reason of their stock
ownership, management positions and/or membership or
representation on the Company's Board of Directors, or the
Board.  The Fifth Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.  However, counsel for
plaintiffs has indicated that the purported class will seek
damages in the tens of billions of dollars.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Asks CO Court To Rule on Issues in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications International, Inc. asked the Denver
District Court to rule on certain discrete issues of law
affecting the class action filed against it and certain current
and former officers and directors on behalf of stockholders of U
S WEST.

The complaint alleges Qwest had a duty to pay a quarterly
dividend to U S WEST stockholders of record as of June 30, 2000.
Plaintiffs further claim that the defendants attempted to avoid
paying the dividend by changing the record date from June 30,
2000 to July 10, 2000, a claim the Company denied.

In September 2002, Qwest filed a motion for summary judgment on
all claims.  Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment on their breach of contract claims only.  On July 15,
2003, the court denied both summary judgment motions.
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
contract remain pending.  The case is now in the class
certification stage, which Qwest is challenging.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Oppose Right-of-Way Settlements
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several plaintiffs' counsels opposed the settlement proposed by
Qwest Communications International, Inc. for the right-of-way
suits filed against it on behalf of landowners in:

     (1) Alabama,

     (2) California,

     (3) Colorado,

     (4) Georgia,

     (5) Illinois,

     (6) Indiana,

     (7) Kansas,

     (8) Louisiana,

     (9) Mississippi,

    (10) Missouri,

    (11) North Carolina,

    (12) Oregon,

    (13) South Carolina,

    (14) Tennessee and

    (15) Texas

Class certification was denied in the Louisiana proceeding and,
subsequently, summary judgment was granted in Qwest's favor.  A
new Louisiana class action complaint has recently been filed.
Class certification was also denied in the California
proceeding, although plaintiffs have filed a motion for
reconsideration.  Class certification was granted in the
Illinois proceeding.  Class certification has not been resolved
yet in the other proceedings.

The complaints challenge Qwest's right to install its fiber
optic cable in railroad rights-of-way and, in Colorado, Illinois
and Texas, also challenge Qwest's right to install fiber optic
cable in utility and pipeline rights-of-way.  In Alabama, the
complaint challenges Qwest's right to install fiber optic cable
in any right-of-way, including public highways.  The complaints
allege that the railroads, utilities and pipeline companies own
a limited property right-of-way that did not include the right
to permit Qwest to install Qwest's fiber optic cable on the
plaintiffs' property.

The Indiana action purports to be on behalf of a national class
of landowners adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over which
Qwest's network passes.  The Alabama, California, Colorado,
Georgia, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North
Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas actions
purport to be on behalf of a class of such landowners in those
states, respectively.  The Illinois action purports to be on
behalf of landowners adjacent to railroad rights-of-way over
which Qwest's network passes in Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin.  Plaintiffs
in the Illinois action have filed a motion to expand the class
to a nationwide class.  The complaints seek damages on theories
of trespass and unjust enrichment, as well as punitive damages.

Together with some of the other telecommunication carrier
defendants, in September 2002, Qwest filed a proposed settlement
of all these matters (except those in Louisiana) in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.  On
July 25, 2003, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and entered an order enjoining competing class action
claims, except those in Louisiana.  Accordingly, with the
exception of the Louisiana actions, all other right of way
actions are stayed.


NEW JERSEY: Residents Lodge Suit V. Privately Owned Dams, State
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fifteen Lumberton residents who suffered damage from last
month's flooding that resulted from several private dams
breaking that sent water down the Rancocas Creek initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in a New Jersey Superior
Court, the Courier Post Online reports.

Named in the suit are four municipalities namely Medford Lakes,
Medford Township, Tabernacle and Evesham, the state, private dam
owners and the engineers for the owners.

Filed by Plaintiffs attorney Edward Petkevis, the suit alleges
negligence by the defendants caused the dams to burst during
record rains July l2 causing floods, which the state estimates
to have caused $40 million in property damages. According to Mr.
Petkevis, the dams and their classifications violated the state
Safe Dam Act because of the improper construction, inspection,
maintenance and repair. Though not mentioned in the suit, the
exact number of property owners affected by the flooding is
estimated by Mr. Petkevis at about 800. The suit also seeks a
restraining order to halt construction of new dams until each
can be fully investigated, however Mr. Petkevis told the Courier
Post that he is not pressing for such an order.

The suit also claims that the municipalities bear some of the
responsibility, since they have roads or utility easements on
some of the dams, which are mostly privately owned. The suit
also blamed the state, since it is responsible for raising the
hazard classification of the dams due to the fact that suburban
growth along the creek increased the potential for more damage.

According to Mr. Petkevis, 11 dams and their owners, such as the
Birchwood Colony Club and YMCA Camp Ockanickon in Medford, which
could not be reached for comment, are named in the suit. The
attorney also expects to add other dams, including Upper and
Lower Aetna in Medford Lakes.

The latest state Department of Environmental Protection figures
indicate 19 dams failed and others were damaged.

For more details, contact Edward R. Petkevis by Mail: 1380
Hornberger Ave., Roebling, New Jersey (Burlington Co.)


OSRAM SYLVANIA: Recalls 5.6M B10 Light Bulbs Due To Injury Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Osram Sylvania Products Inc., of Danvers, Massachusetts is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 5.6 million of 60 watt
B10 D‚cor Light Bulbs.

The glass bulb can separate from its base and break during use.
The broken glass can present a laceration injury to consumers,
the hot broken bulb can present a burn injury to consumers, and
an exposed bulb filament can present a shock hazard if handled
while power remains applied to the fixture. Osram Sylvania has
received 119 reports of the glass bulbs breaking, including 29
reports of minor cuts or burns from consumers picking up broken
glass from a hot bulb.

The recalled 60-watt B10 medium base light bulbs were sold in
packages of two or four units. The bulbs are clear. Some were
packaged as "Ceiling Fan" and "Double Life" light bulbs.
"SYLVANIA" is printed on the front of the packaging and on the
bulb base. The bulbs involved have a UPC bar code on the back of
the package ending in the following five digits: 13323, 13329,
13333, 13442, 13445, 13454, 13565, 13650, and 13721.

Manufactured in the United States, the light bulbs were sols at
all Home improvement centers, grocery, drug and discount
department stores from September 2002 through June 2004 for
between $2 and $4.

If the bulb is broken, consumers should first unplug the light
fixture or turn off the main circuit breaker before attempting
to remove the bulb. Cloth or leather gloves should also be worn
to prevent cuts or scratches during bulb removal. Remove the
light bulbs from any fixture where they are installed and
contact OSRAM Sylvania for free replacement bulbs.

For more details, contact Osram Sylvania Products Inc. by Phone:
(877) 423-3772 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


SUBARU OF AMERICA: Recalls 1,959 Vehicles Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Subaru of America, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by issuing a June 2004
voluntary recall for about 1,959 units of Year 2005 Subaru
Legacy and Outback vehicles.

Manufactured from October 2003 to June 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that the left and right side curtain air bags in
certain vehicles may not fully deploy rapidly enough when
activated in a side impact collision. This may result in failure
to provide the intended head protection, increasing the risk of
injury.

Dealers will replace the left and right side curtain air bag
modules. The manufacturer has reported that owner notification
began on June 11, 2004. Owners may contact Subaru at
1-800-782-2783.


TOYOTA NORTH: Recalls 1,959 Lexus LS 430 Due To Crash Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
issuing a June 2004 voluntary recall for about 14,259 units of
Year 2004 Lexus LS 430 passenger vehicles.

Manufactured from July 2003 to January 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain passenger vehicles, the impeller
inside the fuel pump may have been improperly molded. Alcohol in
some fuels may deform the impeller and cause it to come into
contact with the pump housing. The fuel pump could seize, which
may result in engine stalling, thereby increasing the
possibility of a crash.

Dealers will replace the fuel pump. The manufacturer has
reported that owner notification is expected to begin during
July 2004. Owners may contact Lexus at 1-800-255-3987.


TRIUMPH MOTORCYCLES: Recalls 2,792 Motorcycles Due To Fire Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triumph Motorcycles (America) Ltd. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
issuing a June 2004 voluntary recall for about 2,792 units of
Year 2002-2003 Triumph Bonneville America and Year 2003-2004
Triumph Speedmaster motorcycles.

Manufactured from June 2001 to March 2004, the NHTSA has
determined that on certain motorcycles, the electrical power
supply cable to the starter motor may come into direct contact
with the oil cooler return pipe due to improper assembly. This
could cause the insulation on the starter cable to degrade.
Should the starter motor cable insulation become worn, an
electrical short could occur, increasing the risk of a fire or
not allowing the motorcycle to start.

Dealers will examine the cable for signs of contact with the oil
cooler pipe. The cable will be re-positioned. The manufacturer
has reported that owner notification is expected to begin during
July 2004. Owners may contact Triumph at 1-678-854-2010.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Completed in FLSA Violations Suit in AL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the class action filed against Tyson Foods, Inc. in
by 11 of its current and former employees of the Company in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama has been largely completed.

The suit, styled "M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (Fox),"
alleges the Company violated requirements of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).  The suit alleges the Company failed to
pay employees for all hours worked and/or improperly paid them
for overtime hours.  The suit specifically alleges that
employees should be paid for time taken to put on and take off
certain working supplies at the beginning and end of their
shifts and breaks and the use of "mastercard" or "line" time
fails to pay employees for all time actually worked.  Plaintiffs
seek to represent themselves and all similarly situated current
and former employees of the Company, and plaintiffs seek
reimbursement for an unspecified amount of unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.

At filing, 159 current and/or former employees consented to join
the lawsuit and, to date, approximately 5,100 consents have been
filed with the court.  Plaintiff's motion for conditional
collective treatment and court-supervised notice to additional
putative class members was denied on February 27, 2004.  The
plaintiffs re-filed their motion for conditional collective
treatment and court-supervised notice to additional putative
class members on April 2, 2004.  No trial date has been set.


TYSON FOODS: Reissues Notices To Class Members in PA FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. reissued notice of their potential claims
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to approximately 2,170
employees who did not previously receive notice, in relation to
the class action filed against it by seven employees, in
compliance with the United States Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.

The suit, styled "De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc.," was
initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  The suit alleges that the employees
claim violations of the FLSA for allegedly failing to pay for
time taken to put on, take off and sanitize certain working
supplies, and violations of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and
Collection Law.  Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and
all similarly situated current and former employees of the
poultry processing plant in New Holland, Pennsylvania, and
plaintiffs seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.

Currently, there are approximately 500 additional current or
former employees who have filed consents to join the lawsuit.
The court, on January 30, 2001, ordered that notice of the
lawsuit be issued to all potential plaintiffs at the New Holland
facilities.  On July 17, 2002, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to certify the state law claims.  On September 23, 2002,
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the Company's
petition to review the court's decision to certify the state law
claims.  On September 8, 2003, the Court of Appeals reversed the
district court's certification of a class under the Pennsylvania
Wage Payment & Collection Law, ruling that those claims could
not be pursued in federal court.  The appellate court further
ruled that the Company must reissue notice of their potential
FLSA claims to approximately 2,170 employees who did not
previously receive notice.  The Court of Appeals remanded the
matter to the district court to proceed accordingly on September
30, 2003.

Any additional opt-ins should be received by mid-September 2004,
the Company said in a regulatory filing.  Further proceedings in
the district court are pending.


TYSON FOODS: FLSA Violations Suit Trial Set September 7, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Tyson Foods, Inc., and
its subsidiary Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (TFM, formerly IBP, Inc.)
styled "Maria Chavez, et al. vs. IBP, Lasso Acquisition
Corporation and Tyson Foods, Inc." is set for September 7,2004
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington.

Several employees of TFM's Pasco, Washington beef slaughter and
processing facility filed the suit alleging various violations
of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 -
219, as well as violations of the Washington State Minimum Wage
Act, RCW chapter 49.46, Industrial Welfare Act, RCW chapter
49.12, and the Wage Deductions-Contribution-Rebates Act, RCW
chapter 49.52.

The lawsuit alleges TFM and/or the Company required employees to
perform unpaid work related to the donning and doffing of
certain personal protective clothing, both prior to and after
their shifts, as well as during meal periods.  Plaintiffs
further allege that similar prior litigation entitled "Alvarez,
et al. vs. IBP (Alvarez)," which resulted in a $3.1 million
final judgment against TFM, supports a claim of collateral
estoppel and/or is res judicata as to the issues raised in this
new litigation.  Plaintiffs are seeking reimbursement for an
unspecified amount of damages, exemplary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, attorney fees and costs.

TFM filed a timely Notice of Appeal in the suit and plaintiffs
filed a timely notice of Cross-Appeal.  On August 5, 2003, the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's
decision in part and reversed the lower court's decision in
part, and remanded the case to the lower court for recalculation
of damages.  If the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals is upheld in its entirety, TFM will have additional
exposure in Alvarez of approximately $5 million.  TFM filed a
petition for rehearing by the panel of the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals that heard Alvarez or, in the alternative, a
rehearing en banc, which was denied on December 2, 2003.

TFM also filed a petition to certify state law claims to the
Washington Supreme Court which was denied on September 23, 2003.
On December 5, 2003, TFM filed a Petition to Stay the Mandate
indicating that it will be filing a Petition for Certiorari with
the U.S. Supreme Court seeking the Court's review of the Ninth
Circuit's adverse opinion.  A Stay of the Mandate was ordered by
the Ninth Circuit on December 10, 2003.  A Petition for
Certiorari was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court on February 26,
2004.  Briefing on the Petition is now complete, and, on May 3,
2004, the Court invited the U.S. Solicitor General to express
its views on the pending Petition.  A decision from the U.S.
Supreme Court is expected sometime after the Solicitor
files its briefing.

"Chavez" was initially pursued as an opt-in, collective action
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), but the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington granted plaintiff's motion
seeking certification of a class of opt-out, state law
plaintiffs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and notice
was sent to potential state law claim class members.  The state-
law class is closed and contains approximately 3,900 class
members, including approximately 1,200 on the federal claim.


TYSON FOODS: TN Court To Rule on Summary Judgment in Worker Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee has yet to rule on Tyson Foods, Inc.'s motion for
summary judgment in the class in the lawsuit filed against it
and Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (TFM) in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, styled "Emily D.
Jordan, et al. v. IBP, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc."

Ten current and former hourly employees of TFM's case-ready
facility in Goodlettsville, Tennessee filed a complaint on
behalf of themselves and other unspecified, allegedly "similarly
situated" employees, claiming that the defendants have violated
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
The suit alleges that the Company has failed to pay employees
for all hours worked from the plant's commencement of operations
under TFM's control in April 2001.

The Company acquired the plant as part of its acquisition of
TFM.  In particular, the suit alleges that employees should be
paid for the time it takes to collect, assemble, and put on,
take off and wash their health, safety, and production gear at
the beginning and end of their shifts and during their meal
period.  The suit also alleges that the Company deducts 30
minutes per day from employees' paychecks regardless of whether
employees obtain a full 30-minute period for their meal.
Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the defendants did not
comply with the FLSA, and an award for an unspecified amount of
back pay compensation and benefits, unpaid entitlements,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorney fees and costs.

On January 10, 2003, another 31 employees from Tennessee filed
consents to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs.  On January 15,
2003, the Company filed an answer to the complaint denying any
liability.  On January 14, 2003, the named plaintiffs filed a
motion for expedited court-supervised notice to prospective
class members.  The motion sought to conditionally certify a
class of similarly situated employees at all of TFM's non-union
facilities that have not been the subject of FLSA litigation.
Plaintiffs then withdrew a request for conditional certification
of similarly situated employees at all of TFM's non-union
facilities and rather sought to include all non-exempt employees
that have worked at the Goodlettsville facility since its
opening on April 1, 2001.

On June 9, 2003, the Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
seeking the applicability of the injunction entered by the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas and affirmed by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, (Metzler v.
IBP, inc. 127 F. 3rd 959, 10th Cir. 1997), which the Company
contends has a preclusive effect as to plaintiff's claims based
on pre- and post-shift activities.

The Plaintiffs conducted discovery limited to that issue and
responded to said Motion on June 18, 2004.  The Company filed
its reply on July 2, 2004, and the Motion is now pending a
decision from the District Court.

On November 17, 2003, the district court conditionally certified
a collective action composed of similarly situated current and
former employees at the Goodlettsville facility based upon
clothes changing and washing activities and unpaid production
work during meal periods, since the plant operations began in
April 2001.  Class Notices to approximately 4,500 prospective
class members were mailed on January 21, 2004.  Presently,
approximately 500 current and former employees have opted into
the class.


TYSON FOODS: Files Petition in OK High Court V. Certification
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. challenged the certification of a putative
class action filed against it in the District Court for Mayes
County, Oklahoma by R. Lynn Thompson and Deborah S. Thompson on
behalf of all owners of Grand Lake O' the Cherokee's littoral
(lakefront) property.

The suit alleges the Company "or entities over which it has
operational control" conduct operations in such a way as to
interfere with the putative class action plaintiffs' use and
enjoyment of their property, allegedly caused by diminished
water quality in the lake.  Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive
relief and an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.

Simmons Foods, Inc. ("Simmons") and Peterson Farms, Inc.
("Peterson") have been joined as defendants.  The Company and
Simmons are seeking leave to file a third party complaint
against entities that contribute wastes and wastewater into
Grand Lake.  The class certification hearing was held in October
2003.  On December 11, 2003, the trial court entered an order
which granted class certification.

The Company, Simmons and Peterson then filed a Petition in Error
(the "Petition") in the Oklahoma Supreme Court which challenges
and seeks appellate level review of the trial court's
certification order.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court has not yet
scheduled proceedings on the Petition.


TYSON FOODS: DE Court Modifies Summary Judgment Ruling in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware
agreed to modify its order of summary judgment in favor of Tyson
Foods, Inc., to include judgment in defendants' favor against
the class, in the lawsuit filed against the Company, Don Tyson,
John Tyson and Les Baledge, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

Several suits were initially filed between June 22 and July 20,
2001, seeking monetary damages on behalf of a purported class of
those who sold IBP, Inc. (IBP) stock from March 29, 2001, when
the Company announced its intention to terminate its merger
agreement with IBP, through June 15, 2001, when a Delaware state
court rendered its Post-Trial Opinion ordering the merger to
proceed.

Plaintiffs in the various actions alleged that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making, causing or allowing
to be made, certain allegedly false and misleading statements in
a March 29, 2001, press release issued in connection with the
Company's attempted termination of the Merger Agreement.  The
plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants' alleged
conduct, purported class members were harmed by an alleged
artificial deflation in the price of IBP's stock during the
proposed class period.  The various actions were subsequently
consolidated under the caption "In re Tyson Foods, Inc.
Securities Litigation."

On December 4, 2001, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Class Action.  On January 22, 2002, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.
By memorandum order dated October 23, 2002, the court granted in
part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss.  On
October 6, 2003, the court certified a class consisting of those
who purchased IBP securities on or before March 29, 2001, and
subsequently sold such securities from March 30 through June 15,
2001, inclusive, and sustained damages as a result of such
transaction.

Following the conclusion of discovery in the case, plaintiffs
and defendants each filed motions for summary judgment.  On June
17, 2004, the court rendered an opinion in favor of defendants
and against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs' claims, and entered
an order to that effect.


TYSON FRESH: AL Court Grants JMOL Motion in Cattle Growers' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Alabama granted Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.'s (TFM, formerly IBP,
Inc.)  motion for a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) in the
class action filed against it by certain cattle producers.

The suit, styled "Henry Lee Pickett, et al. vs. IBP, inc.,"
seeks certification of a class of all cattle producers.  The
complaint alleged that the Company used its market power and
alleged "captive supply" agreements to reduce the prices paid by
TFM on purchases of cattle in the cash market in alleged
violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act (PSA).  Plaintiffs
sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as actual and
punitive damages.

Plaintiffs submitted an amended expert report on November 19,
2003, showing alleged damages on all cash market purchases by
TFM of approximately $2.1 billion.  Trial of this matter began
on January 12, 2004, and concluded on February 10, 2004.  On
February 17, 2004, a jury returned a verdict against TFM on
liability and gave an "advisory" verdict on damages that
estimated the impact on the cash market (i.e., a group larger
than the class) to be $1.28 billion.

On February 25, 2004, TFM filed a renewed motion requesting the
Court to enter a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for TFM.  On
March 1, 2004, the plaintiffs filed motions asking the Court to
enter the $1.28 billion advisory verdict as an award of damages
to the plaintiffs and requesting prejudgment interest.  On March
22, 2004, the Court denied the plaintiff's motions for entry of
a damages award.  On April 23, 2004, the Court granted TFM's
JMOL motion, and held:

     (1) TFM had legitimate business reasons for using "captive
         supplies,"

     (2) there was "no evidence before the Court to suggest that
         (TFM's) conduct is illegal," and

     (3) "plaintiffs failed to present evidence at trial to
         sustain their burden with respect to liability and
         damages."

The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's entry of judgment in
favor of TFM to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.  Management
believes, consistent with the Court's opinion, that TFM's use of
marketing agreements and other contracts for the purchase of
cattle do not violate the PSA and that TFM has acted properly
and lawfully in its dealings with cattle producers, the Company
asserted in a regulatory filing.


UNITED STATES: SCAS Identifies More Than $5.55B in Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Class Action Services (SCAS), a wholly-owned
subsidiary of the Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), the
world leader proxy voting and corporate governance services,
identified more than $5.55 billion in total dollar amounts of
pending and tentative settlements in securities class actions
for which investors' claim deadline has not passed. ISS'
Settlement Pipeline, which will be updated regularly and
available publicly, was designed to help institutional investors
manage the settlement awards they or their clients are due.

"Many investors, including many institutions, are unaware of the
magnitude of the recoveries that are now coming due through
securities class action settlements," said Bruce Carton,
executive director of SCAS. "Drawing upon our database, the
Settlement Pipeline permits us to quantify the settlement
dollars that investors can and should be taking action to
recover."

ISS' Securities Class Action Services maintains the industry's
most comprehensive database on securities class action
litigation and provides professional monitoring and claims
filing services to investment managers whose clients have a
stake in class action suits. As of July 31, 2004, the Settlement
Pipeline shows that settlement dollars totaling more than $5.55
billion are now, or will soon be, available for investors to
file claims on to recover investment losses. The largest pending
settlements in which shareholders may currently file claims
include WorldCom/Citigroup ($2.65 billion), Global Crossing
($245 million), Symbol Technologies ($102 million) and Honeywell
International ($100 million). The largest tentative settlements
that have been announced but in which claims cannot yet be filed
include the IPO Securities Litigation ($1 billion), Raytheon
Company ($410 million) and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ($300
million).


UNITED STATES: Study Uncovers Less Securities Suits, Added Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently conducted study by PricewaterhouseCoopers, the No.
1 issue that is fueling securities lawsuits is corporate
accounting it also stated that costs have reached record levels
thanks to blockbuster "mega-settlements," the Dow Jones
Newswires reports.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers study found out that accounting
matters fueled more than 60% of securities litigation cases
filed in 2003 and 57% of those filed through July 2004 with No.
1 allegation in such cases involving revenue recognition,
continuing a trend seen in prior years. An annual study
according to the annual study by the Big Four accounting firms
also confirmed that allegations based on corporate accounting
estimates and internal controls also are being lodged in nearly
half the cases.

The study also noted that the average settlements jumped 20% in
2003, with an average price tag of $23.2 million with some of
those settlements topping the $100 million mark while three
exceeded $300 million and one by Lucent Technologies Inc. (LU)
settled for more than $500 million.

Although a total of 175 securities lawsuits were filed in 2003,
down from 218 in 2002, the report pointed out that the
securities litigation plaintiffs' bar is as energetic and
tenacious as ever.

However the study also reiterated that even though the filing of
securities lawsuits have gone down the costs are escalating,
thanks to multimillion-dollar settlements by DaimlerChrylser AG
(DCX), Oxford Health Plans Inc. (OXM), and others.

Excluding a recent $2.65 billion partial settlement by WorldCom
Inc., now MCI Inc. (MCIP), and other partial settlements,
PricewaterhouseCoopers calculates the average settlement in the
first six months of 2004 surged to more than $32 million. The
average for settled accounting cases was more than $38 million.
The median price for accounting case settlements exceeded $7
million, compared with a $6.3 million median for other settled
cases.

Companies now face the prospect of "triple jeopardy" from
private, class-action lawsuits, civil lawsuits by the Securities
and Exchange Commission, and criminal probes by the U.S.
Department of Justice. In 2003, PricewaterhouseCoopers found
eight such cases, down sharply from more than 40 seen in 2002,
perhaps as cases take longer to work their way through the
pipeline. Preliminary research indicates at least 13 companies
are facing "triple jeopardy" this year, according to the report.

In a prepared statement, PricewaterhouseCoopers partner for
investigations and forensic services, Charles Hacker stated
that; "The fines and penalties meted out in recent SEC and DOJ
settlements with companies also facing securities litigation
have risen dramatically, and criminal prosecutions and
convictions for corporate fraud offenses are ratcheting up."

According to the study, labor unions and public pension plans
are the leaders in filing securities suits, which more likely
targets pharmaceutical companies and financial firms. Technology
firms though accounted for 26% of all securities litigation
cases brought in 2003, down from 55% just two years earlier.

The study also revealed that lawsuits targeting Fortune 500
companies are declining, with just 20 brought in 2003, down from
60 the prior year.

For more details, visit: http://www.10b5.com



                         Asbestos Alerts


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Ace Ltd. Survival Ratios Adversely Affected
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ace Ltd. says in a recent filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission that its survival ratios are adversely
affected by the timing of certain previously agreed upon
settlements.  These payments were anticipated in the Company's
2002 asbestos study.  As of December 31, 2003 the Company's
gross 3-year survival ratio is 10.3x while gross 1-year survival
ratio is 9.9x.

Through subsidiaries, ACE Ltd. (based in tax-friendly Bermuda)
sells property/casualty insurance and reinsurance in the U.S.
and about 50 other countries.  ACE International (which is
subdivided into Asia Pacific, Europe, Far East, and Latin
America) sells property/casualty lines to personal and
commercial clients.  ACE Global Reinsurance, primarily through
its Tempest Re unit, provides catastrophe reinsurance to
personal and commercial clients.  Through ACE Global Markets,
the firm owns four Lloyd's of London managing agencies. ACE USA
provides US commercial and casualty insurance.  The company has
also moved into health insurance.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany International Claims Show Increase
--------------------------------------------------------------
Around 23,569 of the claims pending against Albany International
Corp. are filed in various counties in Mississippi.  The
Registrant expects that only a portion of these claimants will
be able to demonstrate time spent in a paper mill to which
Albany supplied asbestos-containing products during a period in
which Albany's asbestos-containing products were in use.  Based
on past experience, communications from certain plaintiffs'
counsel and the advice of the Registrant's Mississippi counsel,
the Registrant expects the percentage of claimants with paper
mill exposure in the Mississippi proceedings to be considerably
lower than the total number of claims asserted.

It is the position of Albany and the other paper machine
clothing defendants that there was insufficient exposure to
asbestos from any paper machine clothing products to cause
asbestos-related injury to any plaintiff.  Furthermore, asbestos
contained in Albany's synthetic products was encapsulated in a
resin-coated yarn woven into the interior of the fabric, further
reducing the likelihood of fiber release.  While the Company
believes it has meritorious defenses to these claims, it has
settled certain of these cases for amounts it considers
reasonable given the facts and circumstances of each case. The
Company's insurer, Liberty Mutual, has defended each case under
a standard reservation of rights.  As of February 13, 2004, the
Registrant had resolved, by means of settlement or dismissal,
6,168 claims, and had reached tentative agreement to resolve an
additional 4,563 claims reported above as pending. The total
cost of resolving all 10,731 such claims was $5,201,500. Of this
amount, $5,166,500, or 99%, was paid by the Company's insurance
carrier.  The Company has more than $130,000,000 in confirmed
insurance coverage that should be available with respect to
current and future asbestos claims, as well as additional
insurance coverage that it should be able to access.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Has 120T Claims Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Through June 30, 2004, there have been 145,181 claims filed
against American Standard Companies Inc.  At June 30, 2004,
there were 120,896 pending claims, compared with 116,020 at the
end of 2003, and 96,463 and 52,171 at the end of 2002 and 2001,
respectively, reflecting updated information for all prior
periods.  Since receipt of its first asbestos claim more than 15
years ago, through June 30, 2004, the Company has resolved
24,285 claims, and settlements of $47,300,000 have been made,
for an average payment per claim of $1,948.  These settlement
payments have substantially been paid or reimbursed or are
expected to be substantially reimbursed by insurance.

The Company has recorded an obligation of $70,000,000 as of June
30, 2004, that represents the Company's estimated payments to
claimants associated with pending asbestos claims. It also has
recorded a related asset of $47,000,000 that represents the
probable recoveries from insurance companies for such payments
to claimants.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Has $1.741M Expense Reserves
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, CNA Financial Corp.
carried about $1,741,000,000 and $1,767,000,000 of claim and
claim adjustment expense reserves, net of reinsurance
recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-related
claims.  The Company recorded $40,000,000 of unfavorable
asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve
development for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and no
asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense
development for the same period in 2003.  The unfavorable net
prior year development was primarily related to a commutation
loss related to The Trenwick Group Ltd.  The Company paid
asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance recoveries, of
$66,000,000 and $70,000,000 for the six months ended June 30,
2004 and 2003.

Some asbestos-related defendants have asserted that their
policies issued by CNA are not subject to aggregate limits on
coverage.  CNA has such claims from a number of insureds.  Some
of these claims involve insureds facing exhaustion of products
liability aggregate limits in their policies, who have asserted
that their asbestos-related claims fall within so-called
"non-products" liability coverage contained within their
policies rather than products liability coverage, and that the
claimed "non-products" coverage is not subject to any aggregate
limit.  It is difficult to predict the ultimate size of any of
the claims for coverage purportedly not subject to aggregate
limits or predict to what extent, if any, the attempts to assert
"non-products" claims outside the products liability aggregate
will succeed.  The Company has attempted to manage its asbestos
exposure by aggressively seeking to settle claims on acceptable
terms.  Where CNA cannot settle a claim on acceptable terms, the
Company aggressively litigates the claim.

On February 13, 2003, CNA announced it had resolved asbestos
related coverage litigation and claims involving A.P. Green
Industries, A.P. Green Services and Bigelow - Liptak Corp.
Under the agreement, CNA is required to pay $74,000,000, net of
reinsurance recoveries, over a ten-year period.  The settlement
resolves CNA's liabilities for all pending and future asbestos
claims involving A.P. Green Industries, Bigelow - Liptak Corp.
and related subsidiaries, including alleged "non-products"
exposures.  The settlement has received initial bankruptcy court
approval and CNA expects to procure confirmation of a bankruptcy
plan containing an injunction to protect CNA from any future
claims.

CNA is engaged in insurance coverage litigation with underlying
plaintiffs who have asbestos bodily injury claims against the
former Robert A. Keasbey Co. in New York state court
(Continental Casualty Co. v. Nationwide Indemnity Co. et al.,
No. 601037/03 (N.Y. County)).  Keasbey, a currently dissolved
corporation, was a seller and installer of asbestos-containing
insulation products in New York and New Jersey.  Thousands of
plaintiffs have filed bodily injury claims against Keasbey;
however, Keasbey's involvement at a number of work sites is a
highly contested issue.  Therefore, the defense disputes the
percentage of valid claims against Keasbey.  CNA issued Keasbey
primary policies for 1970-1987 and excess policies for 1972-
1978. CNA has paid an amount substantially equal to the
policies' aggregate limits for products and completed operations
claims. Claimants against Keasbey allege, among other things,
that CNA owes coverage under sections of the policies not
subject to the aggregate limits, an allegation CNA vigorously
contests in the lawsuit.

CNA has insurance coverage disputes related to asbestos bodily
injury claims against Burns & Roe Enterprises Inc.  Originally
raised in litigation, now stayed, these disputes are currently
part of In re: Burns & Roe Enterprises, Inc., pending in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey, No. 00-
41610. Burns & Roe provided engineering and related services in
connection with construction projects. At the time of its
bankruptcy filing, Burns & Roe faced around 11,000 claims
alleging bodily injury resulting from exposure to asbestos as a
result of construction projects in which Burns & Roe was
involved. CNA allegedly provided primary liability coverage to
Burns & Roe from 1956-1969 and 1971-1974, along with certain
project-specific policies from 1964-1970.

CIC issued certain primary and excess policies to Bendix Corp.,
now part of Honeywell International Inc.  Honeywell faces around
76,800 pending asbestos bodily injury claims resulting from
alleged exposure to Bendix friction products.  CIC's primary
policies allegedly covered the period from at least 1939 (when
Bendix began to use asbestos in its friction products) to 1983,
although the parties disagree about whether CIC's policies
provided product liability coverage before 1940 and from 1945 to
1956.

CIC asserts that it owes no further material obligations to
Bendix under any primary policy. Honeywell alleges that two
primary policies issued by CIC covering 1969-1975 contain
occurrence limits but not product liability aggregate limits for
asbestos bodily injury claims.  CIC has asserted, among other
things, which even if Honeywell's allegation is correct, which
CNA denies, its liability is limited to a single occurrence
limit per policy or per year, and in the alternative, a proper
allocation of losses would substantially limit its exposure
under the 1969-1975 policies to asbestos claims.  These and
other issues are being litigated in Continental Insurance Co.,
et al. v. Honeywell International Inc., No. MRS-L-1523-00
(Morris County, New Jersey).

Policyholders have also initiated litigation directly against
CNA and other insurers in four jurisdictions: Ohio, Texas, West
Virginia and Montana.  In the two Ohio actions, plaintiffs
allege the defendants negligently performed duties undertaken to
protect workers and the public from the effects of asbestos
(Varner v. Ford Motor Co., et al. (Cuyahoga County, Ohio) and
Peplowski v. Ace American Ins. Co., et al. (U.S.D.C. N.D.
Ohio)).  The state trial court recently granted insurers,
including CNA, summary judgment against a representative group
of plaintiffs, ruling that insurers had no duty to warn
plaintiffs about asbestos. Similar lawsuits have also been filed
in Texas against CNA, and other insurers and non-insurer
corporate defendants asserting liability for failing to warn of
the dangers of asbestos (Boson v. Union Carbide Corp., et al.
(District Court of Nueces County, Texas)).  Many of the Texas
claims have been dismissed as time-barred by the applicable
statute of limitations.  In other claims, the Texas court
recently ruled that the carriers did not owe any duty to the
plaintiffs or the general public to advise on the effects of
asbestos thereby dismissing these claims.  The time period for
filing an appeal of this ruling has not expired and it remains
uncertain whether the plaintiffs' will continue to pursue their
causes of action.

CNA has been named in Adams v. Aetna, Inc., et al. (Circuit
Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia), a purported class
action against CNA and other insurers, alleging that the
defendants violated West Virginia's Unfair Trade Practices Act
in handling and resolving asbestos claims against their policy
holders.  A direct action has also been filed in Montana
(Pennock, et al. v. Maryland Casualty, et al. First Judicial
District Court of Lewis & Clark County, Montana) by eight
individual plaintiffs (all employees of W.R. Grace Co.) and
their spouses against CNA, Maryland Casualty and the State of
Montana.  This action alleges that the carriers failed to warn
of or otherwise protect W.R. Grace employees from the dangers of
asbestos at a W.R. Grace vermiculite mining facility in Libby,
Montana.  The Montana direct action is currently stayed as to
CNA because of W.R. Grace's pending bankruptcy.

The Company has resolved a number of its large asbestos accounts
by negotiating settlement agreements.  Structured settlement
agreements provide for payments over multiple years as set forth
in each individual agreement.  At June 30, 2004, CNA had eleven
structured settlement agreements with a reserve net of
reinsurance of $180,000,000.  As to the eleven structured
settlement agreements existing at June 30, 2004, payment
obligations under those settlement agreements are projected to
terminate by 2016.  At December 31, 2003, CNA had structured
settlement agreements with nine of its policyholders for which
it has future payment obligations with a reserve, net of
reinsurance, of $188,000,000.

In 1985, 47 asbestos producers and their insurers, including
CIC, executed the Wellington Agreement.  The agreement intended
to resolve all issues and litigation related to coverage for
asbestos exposures.  Under this agreement, signatory insurers
committed scheduled policy limits and made the limits available
to pay asbestos claims based upon coverage blocks designated by
the policyholders in 1985, subject to extension by
policyholders.  CIC was a signatory insurer to the Wellington
Agreement. At June 30, 2004, CNA had remaining payment
obligations for four accounts. With respect to these four
remaining unpaid Wellington obligations, CNA has evaluated its
exposure and the expected reinsurance recoveries under these
agreements and has a recorded reserve of $19,000,000, net of
reinsurance.  At December 31, 2003, CNA had fulfilled its
Wellington Agreement obligations as to all but five accounts and
had a recorded reserve of $23,000,000, net of reinsurance.

CNA has also used coverage in place agreements to resolve large
asbestos exposures.  Coverage in place agreements are typically
agreements between CAN and its policyholders identifying the
policies and the terms for payment of asbestos related
liabilities.  Claims payments are contingent on presentation of
adequate documentation showing exposure during the policy
periods and other documentation supporting the demand for claims
payment.  Coverage in place agreements may have annual payment
caps.  As of June 30, 2004, CNA had negotiated 31 coverage in
place agreements.  The Company has evaluated these commitments
and the expected reinsurance recoveries under these agreements
and has recorded a reserve of $90,000,000, net of reinsurance as
of June 30, 2004.  As of December 31, 2003, CAN had negotiated
32 such agreements and had established a reserve of
$109,000,000, net of reinsurance.

The Company categorizes active asbestos accounts as large or
small accounts.  CNA defines a large account as an active
account with more than $100,000 of cumulative paid losses.  The
Company has made closing large accounts a significant management
priority.  At June 30, 2004, the Company had 174 large accounts
and had established reserves of $393,000,000, net of
reinsurance.  At December 31, 2003, CNA had 160 large accounts
with reserves of $405,000,000, net of reinsurance.  Large
accounts are typically accounts that have been long identified
as significant asbestos exposures.

Small accounts are defined as active accounts with $100,000 or
less cumulative paid losses.  At June 30, 2004, the Company had
1,117 small accounts, around 83% of its total active asbestos
accounts, with reserves of $162,000,000, net of reinsurance.  At
December 31, 2003, CNA had 1,065 small accounts and established
reserves of $147,000,000, net of reinsurance. Small accounts are
typically representative of policyholders with limited
connection to asbestos.

The Company also evaluates its asbestos liabilities arising from
its assumed reinsurance business and its participation in
various pools.  At June 30, 2004, CNA's reserve was
$156,000,000, net of reinsurance, related to these liabilities,
and unassigned IBNR reserve for asbestos was $687,000,000, net
of reinsurance.  At December 31, 2003, CNA's unassigned IBNR
reserve was $684,000,000, net of reinsurance.  This IBNR reserve
relates to potential development on accounts that have not
settled and potential future claims from unidentified
policyholders.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSX Corp. Sea-Land Claims Increased In 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
Around 5,600 of the open claims against CSX Corp. at June 25,
2004 are asbestos claims against the Company's previously owned
international container-shipping business, Sea-Land.  There were
5,500 open claims against Sea-Land at December 26, 2003.  The
Company had about $13,000,000 reserved for the Sea-Land claims
at June 25, 2004 and December 26, 2003.  The remaining open
claims have been asserted against CSX Transportation Inc.

In the third quarter of 2003, CSX changed its estimate of
casualty reserves to include an estimate of incurred but not
reported claims for asbestos and other occupational injuries.
In conjunction with the change in estimate, the Company recorded
a charge of $232,000,000 ($145,000,000 after tax, 68 cents per
share) in the third quarter of 2003 to increase its provision
for casualty claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CSXT Inc. Reserve For Asbestos Decreased
-------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Transportation Inc.'s reserve for asbestos and other
occupational claims on an undiscounted basis amounted to
$313,000,000 at June 25, 2004, compared to $331,000,000 at
December 26, 2003.

CSX Transportation operates the largest rail network in the
eastern United States and also provides intermodal, container
shipping and international terminal management services.  The
Fortune 200 corporation was officially formed in 1980 by the
merger of two major eastern railroads, the Chessie System and
Seaboard Coast Line.  The merged railroads began operating as
CSX Transportation in 1986.  In July 1998, the federal Surface
Transportation Board approved the joint acquisition of Conrail
by CSX and Norfolk Southern Corp., and CSXT began operating over
newly acquired rail lines in 1999.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Corning Inc. Discloses Settlement Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
For the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, Corning Inc.
recorded charges of $47,000,000 and $66,000,000, respectively,
related to the quarterly mark-to-market of its common stock
associated with the asbestos settlement agreement.  For the
three and six months ended June 30, 2003, the Company recorded
charges of $39,000,000 and $337,000,000, respectively, as part
of its asbestos settlement, the latter of which included
$298,000,000 associated with the initial settlement.

Corning and PPG Industries Inc. each own 50% of the capital
stock of Pittsburgh Corning Co. (PCC).  Over a period of more
than two decades, PCC and several other defendants have been
named in numerous lawsuits involving claims alleging personal
injury from exposure to asbestos.  On April 16, 2000, PCC filed
for Chapter 11 reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.  As of the bankruptcy
filing, PCC had in excess of 140,000 open claims and had
insufficient remaining insurance and assets to deal with its
alleged current and future liabilities.  More than 100,000
additional claims have been filed with PCC after its bankruptcy
filing.  At the time PCC filed for bankruptcy protection, there
were around 12,400 claims pending against Corning in state court
lawsuits alleging various theories of liability based on
exposure to PCC's asbestos products and typically requesting
monetary damages in excess of $1,000,000 per claim.  Corning has
defended those claims on the basis of the separate corporate
status of PCC and the absence of any facts supporting claims of
direct liability arising from PCC's asbestos products.  Corning
is also named in around 11,300 other cases (around 42,300
claims) alleging injuries from asbestos and similar amounts of
monetary damages per claim.  Those cases have been covered by
insurance without material impact to Corning.

Corning's settlement will require the contribution, when the
Plan becomes effective, of its equity interest in PCC, its one-
half equity interest in Pittsburgh Corning Europe N.V., and
25,000,000 shares of Corning common stock.  Corning also will be
making cash payments of $140,000,000 (net value as of June 30,
2004) in six installments beginning one year after the Plan is
effective.  In addition, Corning will assign policy rights or
proceeds under primary insurance from 1962 through 1984, as well
as rights to proceeds under certain excess insurance, most of
which falls within the period from 1962 through 1973.  In return
for these contributions, Corning expects to receive a release
and an injunction channeling asbestos claims against it into a
settlement trust under the PCC Plan.


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


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Crum & Forster's Rating Outlook Negative
-------------------------------------------------------------
Crum & Forster Holdings Corporation's insurance operating
subsidiaries have an "A-" financial strength rating, with a
negative outlook, from A.M. Best and a "BBB" financial strength
rating from Standard & Poor's.  A.M. Best has advised the
Company that although it is encouraged by improved underlying
trends exhibited in the Company's recent underwriting
performance, the ratings outlook is negative, and contingent
upon management's ability to ultimately achieve overall earnings
stability, specifically with regard to adequacy of asbestos
reserves, and improved financial flexibility of the Company's
ultimate parent, Fairfax Financial.

Crum & Forster Holdings Corp. is a Delaware holding company 100%
owned by Fairfax Inc., a Wyoming holding company.  Fairfax is
wholly owned by FFHL Group Ltd., a Canadian holding company,
which is owned by Fairfax Financial Holdings Ltd., a Canadian
financial services holding company publicly traded on the
Toronto Stock Exchange and the New York Stock Exchange.  The
Company, through its subsidiaries, provides commercial property
and casualty insurance distributed through an independent
producer force located across the United States.  Crum & Forster
was established for the purpose of holding the capital stock of
Crum & Forster Holding Inc., another wholly owned subsidiary of
Fairfax, and had no operations prior to becoming the parent of
Holding.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Asbestos Liability At $70M As Of June
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc. says that as of June 30, 2004 and December
31, 2003, the aggregate self-insured and insured contingent
liability was $70,300,000 and $72,500,000, respectively.  The
asbestos liability included in the amounts at June 30, 2004 and
December 31, 2003 were $53,400,000 and $54,000,000,
respectively, and the related insurance receivable was
$28,100,000 at June 30, 2004 and $29,100,000 at December 31,
2003.  The Company anticipates receiving a net tax benefit for
payment of those claims to which full insurance recovery is not
realized.  The following table presents information about the
asbestos claims against the Company:

                                  Six Months Ended   Year Ended
                                       June 30,     December 31,
                                         2004           2003
                                    ------------    ------------
Claims closed in period                  2,452         7,601
Claims filed in period                   3,188         7,648
Claims open at end of period            27,691        26,955


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Dow Chemical Insurance Receivables Lowered
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dow Chemical Co. and subsidiaries recently said in a
regulatory filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission
that its unaudited non-current asbestos-related insurance
receivables were $1,086,000,000 at June 30, 2004 and
$1,176,000,000 at December 31, 2003.  Unaudited non-current
asbestos-related liabilities were $1,696,000,000 at June 30,
2004 and $1,791,000,000 at December 31, 2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FDMLQ Injury Trust To Own 50.1% Of Stock
-------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-Mogul Corp. (OTC BB: FDMLQ) said in a filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission that its proposed joint
reorganization plan for itself and its respective debtor
subsidiaries provides that a trust for the benefit of the
holders of Asbestos Claims shall receive 50.1% of the shares of
Common Stock to be issued by the Applicant, and the remaining
shares shall be distributed pro rata to the holders of Allowed
Noteholder Claims.  Based solely on documents filed with the
Bankruptcy Court, the Federal-Mogul Personal Injury Trust is
expected to own 10% or more (50.1%) of Federal-Mogul's voting
securities (50,100,000 units Class B Common Stock) from and
after the effective date of the plan.

On June 4, 2004, the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
for the Company and other U.S. and U.K. Debtors was filed with
the Bankruptcy Court.  The Plan was jointly proposed by the
Company, the Unsecured Creditors Committee, the Asbestos
Claimants Committee, the Future Asbestos Claimants
Representative, the Agent for the Prepetition Bank Lenders and
the Equity Security Holders Committee (collectively referred to
as the "Plan Proponents").  Also on June 4, 2004, a Disclosure
Statement to be used in soliciting votes to accept or reject the
Plan was approved by the Bankruptcy Court and a hearing to
determine whether the Bankruptcy Court should approve the Plan
was set for December 9, 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hanson Charges Include GBP19.2M Exposure
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hanson plc's pre-tax exceptional items totaled a net charge of
GBP18,800,000 (GBP66,100,000), which includes a charge of
GBP19,200,000 (GBP65,200,000) in respect of the group's exposure
to asbestos liabilities.  An exceptional net tax credit of
GBP6,800,000 (GBP76,000,000) includes a GBP7,500,000 credit
(GBP25,400,000) in relation to taxation recoverable in respect
of this asbestos related charge.

New asbestos claimants in the period totaled around 11,700
compared to 7,900 in the second half of last year and 21,000 in
the first half of last year.  Claims representing around 3,500
claimants were resolved (of which around 70% were dismissed).
At the end of June 2004, outstanding claimants totaled around
132,400 (124,200 at December 2003).  Over 90,000 of these
claimants, as well as the majority of new claimants filed in the
period, are in Mississippi and Ohio.  The gross cost of
resolving asbestos claims during the period was $32,000,000,
$8,200,000 higher than the second half of last year.  This has
been driven largely by plaintiff lawyers in reaction to the
deliberations that have taken place in the U.S. Senate aimed,
currently unsuccessfully, at achieving a Federal asbestos reform
bill.  The net first half cost for 2004 (after insurance
recoveries and before tax) was $2,600,000.

Included in the loss on disposal and termination of operations
is a charge of GBP19,200,000 in respect of the group's exposure
to asbestos liabilities.  A credit of GBP7,500,000, representing
the taxation recoverable in respect of this charge, is included
within the exceptional taxation items.

Included in the loss on disposal and termination of operations
of GBP18,800,000 (June 2003 GBP62,600,000) within exceptional
items, is a charge of GBP19,200,000 (June 2003 GBP65,200,000) in
respect of the group's exposure to asbestos liabilities arising
from former business activities.  The exceptional tax credit of
GBP6,800,000 (June 2003 GBP76,000,000) includes a credit of
GBP7,500,000 (June 2003 GBP25,400,000) which represents the
taxation recoverable in respect of the asbestos related charge
and a release of GBP nil (June 2003 GBP50,000,000) relating to
prior years.  The net asbestos charge of GBP11,700,000 maintains
a gross cost provision for asbestos of GBP175,600,000
($319,800,000).  This level of provision will be reassessed at
the year-end based on underlying gross cost trends.

Expectations for the second half of 2004, based on current court
schedules, are that the gross cost should return to a level more
in line with last year's second half.  Consequently, Hanson has
maintained a balance sheet provision for gross asbestos costs of
about $320,000,000 ($316,800,000 at December 2003) by taking a
pre-tax, non-operating exceptional charge of $35,000,000 (around
GBP12,000,000 post tax) at the half year.  Any requirement for
an increase in the level of gross provision will be assessed at
the year end based on underlying gross cost trends.  Assumed
available insurance, which offsets the gross cost provision,
reduced from $73,000,000 at December 31, 2003 to $43,000,000 at
June 30, 2004 through first half utilization.  Hanson continues
to seek to improve its available insurance cover through a
combination of negotiation and litigation, although this remains
a complicated process.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HPC Litigation Creates More Liabilities
------------------------------------------------------------
For the three months ended June 30, 2004, Hercules Inc. (NYSE:
HPC) states that its asbestos litigation (insurance carriers)
incurred $2,000,000 net income, $20,000 basic and diluted
earnings per share, and $3,000,000 EBITDA.  All amounts are
unaudited.

Hercules Inc. supplies water-treatment chemicals and services to
the pulp and paper industry.  Its Aqualon subsidiary makes
thickeners.  In a move to raise cash, Hercules sold its
BetzDearborn water treatment business to GE Specialty Materials
for about $1,800,000,000.  Hercules also has sold most of its
resins operations and formed a food gums joint venture with
Lehman Brothers Holdings called CP Kelco.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Honeywell Paid $9M Charge For Bendix Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International Inc. recognized a charge of $9,000,000
for asbestos claims filed, which were related to its Bendix
Friction Materials business, and defense costs incurred during
the second quarter of 2004 including an update of expected
resolution values with respect to claims pending as of June 30,
2004.  The charge is net of probable Bendix related insurance
recoveries and an additional $47,000,000 of North American
Refractories Co. insurance deemed probable of recovery.
Honeywell owned NARCO from 1979 to 1986.

From 1981 through June 30, 2004, Honeywell resolved around
69,000 Bendix related asbestos claims including trials covering
120 plaintiffs, which resulted in 115 favorable verdicts.
Beginning with claim payments made in the third quarter of
2002, Honeywell began advancing indemnity and defense claim
costs.  During the first six months of 2004, those indemnity and
defense costs were about $72,000,000.

Honeywell has about $1,900,000,000 of insurance coverage
remaining with respect to pending and future Bendix related
asbestos claims.  Based on the Company's analysis, at June 30,
2004 it had amounts receivable from its insurers of about
$300,000,000 representing probable reimbursements associated
with its liability for pending claims as well as amounts due to
it for previously settled and paid claims related to the
estimated liabilities for pending claims.

During the first six months of 2004, Honeywell paid $323,000,000
in indemnity and defense costs related to NARCO and Bendix
claims, and expects to make additional asbestos related payments
of about $370,000,000 during the remainder of 2004.  The Company
had $48,000,000 of asbestos related insurance recoveries during
the first six months of 2004.  Honeywell expects to receive
about $80,000,000 in asbestos related insurance recoveries
during the remainder of 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ISG Expects $5M Asbestos Removal in 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
International Steel Group Inc. (NYSE: ISG) anticipates spending
about $57,000,000 over the next 40 years, including $5,000,000
in 2004, to address the removal and disposal of PCB equipment
and asbestos material utilized in operations applications at its
facilities.

International Steel Group is an integrated United States-based
steel manufacturing company that owns and operates 11 major
steel producing and finishing facilities in six states.  The
Company was formed by WL Ross & Co. LLC (WLR) to acquire and
operate globally competitive steel facilities.  Since its
formation, ISG has grown to become an integrated steel producer
in North America by acquiring, out of bankruptcy, the steel
making assets of LTV, Acme Steel Corp. and Bethlehem Steel Corp.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: LECO Facing 37,552 Asbestos Plaintiffs
-----------------------------------------------------------
At June 30, 2004, Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc. (NasdaqNM:
LECO) was a co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced
illness involving claims by around 37,552 plaintiffs, which is a
net increase of 1,079 claims from those previously reported.  In
each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants.  The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and
punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.  Since
January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in other
similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 12,995 of
those claims were dismissed, 9 were tried to defense verdicts, 3
were tried to plaintiff verdicts and 252 were decided in favor
of the Company following summary judgment motions.

On May 12, 2004, a Pennsylvania state court jury in Philadelphia
County in an asbestos trial involving a single claimant returned
a verdict against the Company and another co-defendant.  The
verdict amount was a total of $525,000, which would be shared
between the two defendants and a substantial portion of which
would be covered by insurance.  The Company has appealed or will
appeal judgments based on verdicts against the Company and
believes it will prevail on the merits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: SEE Posts $512.5M Settlement Liability
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sealed Air Corp. (NYSE: SEE) said in a regulatory filing with
the Securities and Exchange Commission that its unaudited
asbestos settlement liability amounted to $512,500,000 at both
June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2004.  In calculations for
diluted earnings per common share, the weighted average number
of common shares for the quarters and six months ended June 30,
2004 and 2003 assumes the issuance of 9,000,000 shares of common
stock reserved for the Company's asbestos settlement discussed
in its annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December
31, 2003, and the exercise of dilutive stock options, net of
assumed treasury stock repurchases.  In addition, for the
quarter and six months ended June 30, 2003, the weighted average
number of common shares assumes the effect of the weighted
average conversion of repurchased shares of preferred stock.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Steel Says Active Cases To Be Reduced
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States Steel Corp. says that a recent agreement, which
will result in the dismissal of a significant number of cases
and claims in one jurisdiction, will reduce its number of active
cases alleging injury from asbestos exposure.  After taking into
account this agreement, U.S. Steel is a defendant in around
1,000 active cases, involving around 12,500 plaintiffs. Almost
all of these cases involve multiple defendants (typically from
fifty to more than one hundred defendants).  More than 11,000,
or around 90 percent, of these claims are pending in
jurisdictions which permit filings with massive numbers of
plaintiffs.  Based on U.S. Steel's experience in such cases, it
believes that the actual number of plaintiffs who ultimately
assert claims against U.S. Steel will likely be a small fraction
of the total number of plaintiffs.

U.S. Steel is a defendant in cases in which a total of around
215 plaintiffs allege that they are suffering from mesothelioma.
The Class Action Reporter previously noted 200 such plaintiffs
on March 12, 2004.  The potential for damages against defendants
may be greater in cases in which the plaintiffs can prove
mesothelioma.  In many such cases in which claims have been
asserted against U.S. Steel, the plaintiffs have been unable to
establish any causal relationship to U.S. Steel or its products
or premises.  In addition, in many asbestos cases, the
plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any identifiable injury or compensable loss at all;
that any injuries that they have incurred did in fact result
from alleged exposure to asbestos; or that such alleged exposure
was in any way related to U.S. Steel or its products or
premises.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Potomac Insurance Noted Asbestos-Related Loss
-------------------------------------------------------------
Specialty Underwriters Alliance Inc. said in an regulatory
filing that OneBeacon (Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois'
predecessor) reported a $1,200,000 pre-tax loss for the five
months ended May 31, 2001.  These results include the impact of
two reinsurance covers that provide Potomac with reinsurance
protection against unanticipated increases in recorded reserves
for insurance losses and LAE with respect to asbestos and
certain other latent exposures.  As described in the Notes to
Potomac's Audited Financial Statements, effective June 1, 2001
OneBeacon entered into reinsurance agreements with National
Indemnity Co., or NICO Cover, and General Reinsurance Corp., or
GRC Cover, which provide reinsurance protection against
unanticipated increases in recorded reserves for insurance
losses and LAE.  Under the NICO Cover, an affiliate of OneBeacon
is entitled to recover up to $2,500,000 for asbestos claims
arising from business written by the Pool and ceded to the
affiliate pertaining to years prior to 1992, environmental
claims arising from business written by the Pool and ceded to
the affiliate pertaining to years prior to 1987 and certain
other exposures, all net of third party reinsurance recoveries.
The GRC Cover provides up to $570,000,000 in excess of loss
reinsurance protection against adverse development on accident
year 2000 and prior losses.

Effective June 1, 2001, the Pool entered into a reinsurance
agreement with an affiliate of OneBeacon which provides Potomac
with reinsurance protection against unanticipated increases in
recorded reserves for insurance losses and LAE with respect to
asbestos, environmental and certain other latent exposures and
excess of loss reinsurance protection against adverse
development on accident year 2000 and prior losses.

Effective June 1, 2001 and concurrent with the Agreement, the
Affiliate entered into reinsurance agreements with National
Indemnity Co. (NICO) and General Reinsurance Corp. (GRC) which
provide reinsurance protection against unanticipated increases
in recorded reserves for insurance losses and LAE.  Under the
NICO Cover, the Affiliate paid a premium of $1,250,000,000 and
is entitled to recover up to $2,500,000,000 for asbestos claims
arising from business written by the Pool and ceded to the
Affiliate pertaining to years prior to 1992, environmental
claims arising from business written by the Pool and ceded to
the Affiliate pertaining to years prior to 1987 and certain
other exposures, all net of third party reinsurance recoveries.
The GRC Cover, for which the Affiliate paid $275,000,000,
provides up to $570,000,000 in excess of loss reinsurance
protection against adverse development on accident year 2000 and
prior losses.  The NICO Cover and the GRC Cover, which were
contingent on, and occurred contemporaneously with White
Mountains' acquisition of OneBeacon, qualify for prospective
reinsurance accounting treatment under the Emerging Issues Task
Force Topic D-54 which characterizes the protections as an
indemnification by the seller for increases in the liabilities
for losses and loss adjustment expenses that existed at the
acquisition date.


COMPANY PROFILE

Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois
8585 Stemmons Fwy., Ste. 200, South Tower
Dallas, TX 75247
Phone: 469-547-3035
http://www.onebeacon.com

Employees                  :              10
Revenue                    : $             0.00
Net Income                 : $       600,000.00
Assets                     : $     4,900,000.00
Liabilities                : $     5,500,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Potomac Insurance Company of Illinois (which
Specialty Underwriters' Alliance is acquiring from OneBeacon
Insurance Group, and though which it plans to conduct business)
is licensed to do business in some 40 U.S. states.


ASBESTOS ALERT: USG Subsidiaries Reorganize To Resolve Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004, USG Corporation's liabilities subject to
compromise in its consolidated and debtor-in-possession balance
sheets include asbestos reserve amounting to $1,061,000,000
(unchanged from the amount as of December 31, 2004).  For the
six months ended June 30, 2004, USG's change in asbestos
receivable amounted to $11,000,000, compared to $19,000,000 at
June 30 last year.  USG Corp. and ten of its United States
subsidiaries (collectively, the "Debtors") are operating under
chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code to resolve asbestos
claims.  As a result of the bankruptcy filing, all pending
asbestos lawsuits against the Debtors are stayed, and no party
may take any action to pursue or collect on such asbestos claims
absent specific authorization of the Bankruptcy Court.  In the
second quarter of 2004, Judge Judith K. Fitzgerald, the
bankruptcy judge presiding over the Debtors' Chapter 11 Cases,
entered an order directing the parties to enter into non-binding
mediation relating to the Debtors' asbestos personal injury
liability and the potential terms of a plan of reorganization.
Judge Fitzgerald appointed David Geronemus as mediator.  It is
expected that the mediation will begin in the third quarter of
2004.

The legal representative for future asbestos claimants raised
the issue of whether USG and its subsidiaries may be liable for
asbestos personal injury claims arising from the asbestos-
containing products of A.P. Green Industries Inc. before 1967,
when A.P. Green was acquired by merger into U.S. Gypsum Co.  In
1985 A.P. Green became a wholly owned subsidiary of USG Corp.,
and in 1988 it became publicly traded when its shares were
distributed to the USG Corp. shareholders.  In February 2002,
A.P. Green, its parent company, and other affiliates filed
voluntary petitions for reorganization to resolve asbestos-
related liabilities.  The A.P. Green reorganization proceeding
is pending in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District
of Pennsylvania and is captioned In re: Global Industrial
Technologies, Inc. (Case No. 02-21626).  The Corporation cannot
predict whether any plan of reorganization in the Debtors'
Chapter 11 Cases might address any asbestos-related liability
based on sales of asbestos-containing products by A.P. Green.

The legal representative for future asbestos claimants and the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants also
raised the issue of whether the assets and liabilities of all
Debtors should be temporarily consolidated for purposes of the
treatment of claims under a plan of reorganization.  Under this
theory, the liabilities based on sales of asbestos-containing
products by USG subsidiary United States Gypsum Co. would be
paid from the pooled assets of U.S. Gypsum and all other Debtors
subject to consolidation.  If applied, substantive consolidation
could materially and adversely affect the recovery rights of
creditors of Debtors other than U.S. Gypsum and the holders of
the Corporation's equity.  U.S. Gypsum is among many defendants
in more than 100,000 asbestos lawsuits alleging personal injury
or property damage liability.

In addition to Personal Injury Cases pending against U.S.
Gypsum, one of the Corporation's subsidiaries and a Debtor in
the bankruptcy proceeding, L&W Supply Corp., is a named
defendant in around 21 pending Personal Injury Cases. L&W
Supply, a distributor of building products manufactured by U.S.
Gypsum and other building products manufacturers, has not made
any payments in the past to resolve Personal Injury Cases.

One of U.S. Gypsum's subsidiaries and a Debtor in the bankruptcy
proceeding, Beadex Manufacturing LLC, is a named defendant in
around 40 Personal Injury Cases pending primarily in Washington
and Oregon.  Beadex has about $11,000,000 in primary or umbrella
insurance coverage available to pay asbestos-related costs, as
well as $15,000,000 in available excess coverage.  The
Corporation expects that any asbestos-related liability of
Beadex will be addressed in the plan of reorganization.
However, because of, among other things, the small number of
Personal Injury Cases pending against Beadex and L&W, and the
lack of development of the cases against L&W Supply, the
Corporation does not have sufficient information to predict how
any plan of reorganization will address any asbestos-related
liability of Beadex and L&W Supply.


COMPANY PROFILE

Beadex Manufacturing LLC
401 C St NW
Auburn, WA 98001-3908
Phone: 253-931-6600
Fax: 253-931-0601

Description: Beadex Manufacturing manufactured and sold joint
compound containing asbestos from 1963 through 1978.
Distribution of products that contained asbestos is believed to
have been limited to Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Alaska, and
possibly Colorado.


COMPANY PROFILE

L&W Supply Corp.
125 S. Franklin St.
Chicago, IL 60606
Phone: 312-606-5400
Fax: 312-606-5323
http://www.lwsupply.com

Description: L&W Supply Corp. is the distribution subsidiary of
USG Corp., which manufactures such building products as gypsum
wallboard, joint compound, and acoustical ceilings.  L&W Supply
also distributes building products made by other manufacturers
through about 190 locations in more than 35 states.  Besides
wallboard, L&W Supply's products include metal framing and
insulation.  Customers are primarily builders and contractors.
It distributes 28% of USG's gypsum wallboard production.  L&W
Supply also provides such services as delivery of less-than-
truckload quantities and stocking.  USG organized L&W Supply in
1971.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


GEXA CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that a class action lawsuit was filed on July 15, 2004, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Gexa Corporation Gexa
Corp. ("Gexa" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GEXA) between August
14, 2003 and March 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, against defendants Gexa
Corporation, a Texas retail electricity provider, Neil Liebman
(CEO), Marcie Zlotnik (Director) and Sarah Veach (Chief
Accounting Officer). According to the complaint, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants materially overstated Gexa's financial results in
connection with its power delivery business. On March 30, 2004,
after the market closed, the Company issued a press release
which admitted that its previously reported revenues had been
overstated estimates, not measurable earned revenues based upon
power delivered to customers or proceeds from energy sales as
previously reported. Defendants also revealed that in connection
with the completion of the audit for fiscal year 2003, the
Company's independent auditors identified certain material
weaknesses in the Company's systems of internal controls.

Based upon this press release, the price of the Company's stock
dropped more than 25% falling from a closing price of 6.64 per
share on March 30, 2004 to a closing price of 4.90 per share on
March 31, 2004.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl.,
New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com OR Maya Saxena or Joseph E. White by
Mail: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL 33486 by
Phone: (561) 361-5000 by E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com


INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: 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 InVision Technologies Inc. (Nasdaq: INVN)
("InVision" or the "Company") from March 15, 2004 through July
30, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges InVision, Giovanni Lanzara, Sergio
Magistri, and Ross Mulholland with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's foreign distributors were engaging
         in questionable and potentially illegal activities;

     (2) that its foreign distributors made improper payments in
         connection with foreign sales activities, which were in
         violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;

     (3) that InVision improperly accounted for the funds used
         in these payments; and

     (4) that as a result, InVision's improper accounting for
         such payments allowed InVision to enter into a
         definitive merger agreement with General Electric
         Company.

On July 30, 2004, InVision announced that it had met with the
Department of Justice and the SEC concerning its voluntary
disclosure of an internal investigation of certain possible
offers of improper payments by distributors in connection with
foreign sales activities. The news shocked the market. Shares of
InVision fell $6.39 or 12.87 percent per share, on August 2,
2004, to close at $6.39 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Taro
Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (Nasdaq:TARO) between February
17, 2004 and July 28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant Taro and one or
more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Murray Frank Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer 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").

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


THORATEC CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Thoratec
Corporation (Nasdaq:THOR) between April 28, 2004 and June 29,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant Thoratec and
one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

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


THORATEC CORPORATION: Federman & Sherwood Files Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit against Thoratec Corporation (Nasdaq: THOR) ("Thoratec")
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly
traded securities during the period between April 28, 2004 and
June 29, 2004 (the "Class Period").

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

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


                            *********


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  * * *