CAR_Public/040810.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, August 10, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 157

                          Headlines

ACTIVISION INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in CA
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Court Hears Motion To Appeal Certification
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Faces Several "Diminished Value" Lawsuits
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches $2M Securities Suit Settlement
ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Asks OH Court For Summary Judgment in Suit

AUTOCORP EQUITIES: Judge Grants SEC Motion For Summary Judgment
AXIS IMEX: Recalls Cocktail Plates Due To Leachable Lead Content
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Pre-trial Discovery Continues in OK Suit
CAPITAL REALTY: Appeals Court Nixes Stock Fraud, Derivative Suit
CKE RESTAURANTS: Subsidiary Settles CA Wage Lawsuits, To Pay $9M

CORE LABORATORIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
DETERMINED PRODUCTIONS: Recalls 90T Toys Due To Choking Hazard
GLOBAL EXPRESS: NV Court Sets November 15, 2004 Claims Deadline
HALLIBURTON CO.: TX Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Over 70 Mutual Fund Market-Timing Suits

MEDIBO N.V.: Recalls MINERVA Patient Lifts Due To Injury Hazard
MERCK KGaA.: Fees & Reimbursement Hearing Set September 17, 2004
PACIFICORP: UT Consumers Asks PSC To Reconsider Dismissal Ruling
PEROT SYSTEMS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
POKEMON CENTER: Recalls 7.4T Pokémon Toys Due To Puncture Hazard

PYRAMAX BANK: WI Customers Lodge Suit V. Unpaid Escrow Interest
QUADRAMED CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: VA Court Okays Right-of-Way Suit Settlement
WAL-MART: Attorneys Appeal Class Status For NC Overtime Lawsuit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Lowey Dannenberg Lodges Stock Suit in NY
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in NY
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in CA
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges MN Securities Suit

CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges MN Securities Suit
CROSS COUNTRY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
CROSS COUNTRY: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
CROSS COUNTRY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in MO

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Brodksy & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO
HARVEST AIRPRIME: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
KVH INDUSTRIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in RI
NETFLIX INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
RED HAT: Hoffman & Edelson Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC

TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in WA
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in CA
YUKOS OIL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY


                          *********


ACTIVISION INC.: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Activision, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
and directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The complaints assert claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on allegations that
the Company's revenues and assets were overstated during the
period between February 1, 2001 and December 17, 2002.  The
Construction Industry and Carpenters Joint Pension Trust for
Southern Nevada filed the first suit on behalf of a class of
purchasers of Activision stock.  The five additional suits have
subsequently been filed by Gianni Angeloni, Christopher Hinton,
Stephen Anish, the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, and Joseph A.
Romans asserting similar claims.  Five of the six actions have
been transferred to the same court where the first-filed
complaint was pending.

In addition, on March 12, 2004, a shareholder derivative lawsuit
was filed, purportedly on behalf of Activision, which in large
measure asserts the identical claims set forth in the federal
class action lawsuit.  That complaint was filed in Superior
Court for the County of Los Angeles.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Court Hears Motion To Appeal Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments on Allstate Corporation's request for appeal of the
class certification granted to two active nationwide class
actions filed against it regarding its specification of after-
market (non-original equipment manufacturer) replacement parts
in the repair of insured vehicles.

One of these suits alleges that the specification of such parts
constitutes breach of contract and fraud, and this suit mirrors
to a large degree lawsuits filed against other carriers in the
industry.  These plaintiffs allege that after-market parts are
not "of like kind and quality" as required by the insurance
policy, and they are seeking actual and punitive damages.

In the second lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Allstate and three
co-defendants have violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring
to manipulate the price of auto physical damage coverages in
such a way that not all savings realized by the use of
aftermarket parts are passed on to the policyholders. The
plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages.

In November 2002, a nationwide class was certified in this case.
The defendants filed a petition to appeal the certification.
The parties are now awaiting a decision on the appeal.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Faces Several "Diminished Value" Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Corporation faces several statewide and nationwide
class action lawsuits pending against Allstate alleging that its
failure to pay "inherent diminished value" to insureds under the
collision, comprehensive, uninsured motorist property damage, or
auto property damage liability provisions of auto policies
constitutes breach of contract and fraud.

Plaintiffs define "inherent diminished value" as the difference
between the market value of the insured automobile before an
accident and the market value after repair.  Plaintiffs allege
that they are entitled to the payment of inherent diminished
value under the terms of the policy.

To a large degree, these lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed
against other carriers in the industry.  These lawsuits are
pending in various state and federal courts, and they are in
various stages of development.  Classes have been certified in
two cases. Both are multi-state class actions.

A trial in one of these multi-state class action cases involving
collision and comprehensive coverage concluded on April 29,
2004, with a jury verdict in favor of the Company.  The Company
is awaiting a ruling on plaintiffs' motion for a new trial.  In
the other certified class action lawsuit, which involves
uninsured motorist property damage coverage, the appellate court
has granted the Company's petition for review of the order of
certification.

The Company has been vigorously defending all of these lawsuits
and, since 1998, has been implementing policy language in more
than 40 states reaffirming that its collision and comprehensive
coverages do not include diminished value claims.  The outcome
of these disputes is currently uncertain, the Company stated in
a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange.


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches $2M Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego drug developer, Amylin Pharmaceuticals settled a 2001
securities class-action lawsuit over allegations that it made
false and misleading statements about its lead diabetes therapy,
Symlin, the San Diego Union Tribune reports.

Pending court approval, the settlement calls for the drug
developer's insurer to set aside $2 million in an account to
settle any class members' claims.

The lawsuit, which was filed in 2001 at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California by the
law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach on behalf of
shareholders who purchased Amylin stock between Feb. 8, 2000,
and July 25, 2001 alleged that the drud developer made false
statements about Symlin and concealed information that would
have put it in a negative light. It also alleged the company
falsely portrayed itself as a growing, successful, well-managed,
law-abiding, well-controlled company.

According to Amylin chief executive Ginger Graham, the company
decided to settle to avoid additional legal expense and the
ongoing distraction of litigation.


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: Asks OH Court For Summary Judgment in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Estates Realty Corporation asked the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas, Franklin County to grant summary judgment in the
class action filed against it by Melanie and Kyle Kopp, seeking
undetermined damages, injunctive relief and class action
certification.

This case arose out of the Company's Suredeposit program.  This
program allows cash short prospective residents to purchase a
bond in lieu of paying a security deposit.  The bond serves as a
fund to pay those resident obligations that would otherwise have
been funded by the security deposit.

Plaintiffs allege that the non-refundable premium paid for the
bond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwise
required to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-
Tenant Act.  Plaintiffs further allege that certain
nonrefundable pet deposits and other nonrefundable charges
required by the Company are similarly security deposits that
must be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant
Act.

On January 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Company subsequently filed a motion for
summary judgment.  Both motions are pending before the Court.


AUTOCORP EQUITIES: Judge Grants SEC Motion For Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The honorable Judge Paul Cassell granted in part the Securities
and Exchange Commission's Motion for Summary Judgment against
defendant Robert Cord Beatty (Beatty) in the matter of SEC v.
Autocorp Equities, Inc. The Court's order enjoined Beatty from
future violations of the antifraud and issuer books and records
provisions of the federal securities laws, but the Court
declined to enjoin Beatty from violations of the securities
registration provisions of the securities laws.

The Commission filed its complaint against Beatty and others on
Aug. 10, 1998, alleging that Beatty and others engaged in a
scheme to inflate the assets of Diamond Entertainment, Inc. by
acquiring $5 million in certificates of deposit ostensibly
issued by a Russian bank but actually created at a Kinko's copy
center in Hollywood, Florida. The complaint alleged that in
order to finance the acquisition of the certificates of deposit
Beatty and others arranged to have Chariot Entertainment, Inc.
issue stock, ostensibly in reliance on Regulation S, to a
California corporation; those shares were then sold after forty
days with $1.5 million of the proceeds used to pay for the
certificates of deposit.

The Order against Beatty prohibits Beatty from further
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and aiding and abetting violations
of Section 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-2
promulgated thereunder.


AXIS IMEX: Recalls Cocktail Plates Due To Leachable Lead Content
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axis Imex Inc., is recalling Outta Hand Ceramic Porcelain
Cocktail Plates because they may contain high levels of
leachable lead.

Consumption of leachable lead from the ceramicware can cause
severe health problems; especially infants, young children and
pregnant women. High lead exposures can cause a baby to have low
birth weight or be born prematurely, or can result in
miscarriage or stillbirth. Lead can cause damage to the central
nervous system, resulting in learning disabilities and
behavioral disorders that could last a lifetime. Children with
lead poisoning may not look or act sick.

Product was distributed to retail stores in the following
States: FL, DE, CA, MI, PA, NY, GA, CO, AL and IA.

Each package of the Outta Hand Ceramics Porcelain Cocktail
Plates distributed by Axis Imex, Inc. consists of a round box
containing four cocktail plates and has a UPC numbers of 17433
98001 or 17433 98003, item numbers: 09-8002A or 09-8003A.

No illnesses relating to this product have been reported to
date.

Axis Imex Inc. discovered the problem during a routine FDA
product sampling of the Outta Hand Ceramics product line.
Testing revealed that only the Outta Hand Ceramics Porcelain
Cocktail Plates contained high levels of leachable lead.

Consumers who have purchased the product should not handle these
Cocktail Plates and are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund or you may call 1-800-877-5447 for
additional information.


BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Pre-trial Discovery Continues in OK Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class
action filed against Burlington Resources, Inc. and its former
affiliate, El Paso Natural Gas Company in the District Court of
Washita County, State of Oklahoma.

Two suits, styled "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural
Gas Company, et al., Case No. CJ-97-68," and "Deane W. Moore, et
al. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., et. al., Case No.
CJ-97-132.," were initially filed and subsequently consolidated
by the court.  Plaintiffs contend that defendants underpaid
royalties from 1982 to the present on natural gas produced from
specified wells in Oklahoma through the use of below-market
prices, improper deductions and transactions with affiliated
companies and in other instances failed to pay or delayed in the
payment of royalties on certain gas sold from these wells.  The
plaintiffs seek an accounting and damages for alleged royalty
underpayments, plus interest from the time such amounts were
allegedly due.  Plaintiffs additionally seek the recovery of
punitive damages.

The plaintiffs have not specified in their pleadings the amount
of damages they seek from the Company.  However, through pre-
trial discovery, plaintiffs have provided defendants with
alternative theories of recovery claiming monetary damages of up
to $263.6 million in principal, plus interest, punitive damages
and attorney's fees.

The Company and El Paso Natural Gas Company have asserted
contractual claims for indemnity against each other.  The court
has certified the plaintiff classes of royalty and overriding
royalty interest owners.  It is anticipated that the trial of
this matter will be scheduled during the fourth quarter of 2004
or in 2005.


CAPITAL REALTY: Appeals Court Nixes Stock Fraud, Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals granted
Capital Realty Investors-85 Limited Partnership's motion to
dismiss the class action and derivative suits filed against
three of its general partners:

     (1) C.R.I., Inc.,

     (2) William B. Dockser and

     (3) H. William Willoughby

The suit was filed in connection with a proxy seeking the
liquidation of the Partnership, alleging certain deficiencies in
the Definitive Proxy Statement.

After various motions, cross motions, and appeals, the appeals
court granted the Partnership's motion to dismiss, and the case
has been closed.  The Partnership's Partnership Agreement
contains provisions pursuant to which the General Partners may
seek indemnification for their costs, including the requirement
that they obtain an opinion of independent counsel that the
matter is subject to indemnification.


CKE RESTAURANTS: Subsidiary Settles CA Wage Lawsuits, To Pay $9M
----------------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc. (NYSE: CKR) subsidiary, Carl Karcher
Enterprises, Inc., the owner, operator and franchiser of Carl's
Jr. restaurants ("CKE"), reached a preliminary agreement to
settle three purported class action lawsuits. As previously
discussed in the Company's Form 10-K's, beginning with the Form
10-K for fiscal year ended January 28, 2002, and most recently
in the Form 10-K for fiscal year ended January 27, 2004, the
actions relate to a disputed claim for overtime compensation for
certain of CKE's former restaurant managers and former and
current general managers in the State of California.

The lawsuits alleged that CKE improperly classified such
employees as exempt under California's wage and hour laws. The
recent settlement, which addresses claims dating back to 1997
and is still subject to court approval, fully resolves all
claims brought by the plaintiffs in these California lawsuits.
Many other restaurant industry companies doing business in
California have similarly settled such claims in recent years
rather than risk the exposure and expense of continued
litigation. Under the terms of the preliminary agreement, CKE
will make a cash settlement payment of up to $9 million to cover
claims by eligible class members, plaintiff attorneys' fees and
costs, payments to the named plaintiffs, and costs of a third-
party administrator. While the matter is still subject to court
approval, the Company is estimating that the settlement will
lead to a charge of $7 million, or approximately 10 cents per
diluted share, in the second quarter of fiscal 2005, to increase
its reserve for this matter up to the estimated settlement
amount.

Commenting on the settlement, Robert A. Wilson, CKE's Senior
Vice President and General Counsel, stated, "While the Company
denies all liability in these cases, it has agreed to the
settlement in order to resolve all of the Plaintiffs' claims
without engaging in expensive, distracting and protracted
litigation. CKE is one of numerous companies that have faced
this type of class action lawsuit in California in recent years.
Given the unique aspects of California wage and hour laws, which
differ significantly from federal law and the law in other
states, we determined that it was in the Company's best interest
to put this charge behind us and move on."

As of the end of the first quarter on May 17, 2004, CKE
Restaurants, Inc., through its subsidiaries, had a total of
3,222 franchised or company-owned restaurants in 44 states and
in 14 countries, including 1,016 Carl's Jr.(R) restaurants,
2,081 Hardee's(R) restaurants and 106 La Salsa Fresh Mexican
Grill(R) restaurants.


CORE LABORATORIES: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Core Laboratories NV asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidated
amended class action filed against it and certain of its
officers.

The suit generally alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
about the Company's financial results for 2001 and 2002 and by
employing inadequate internal controls.  The amended complaint
seeks unspecified monetary damages.

Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, all
discovery in the case is stayed until the defendants' motion to
dismiss is resolved.  Defendants filed their motion to dismiss
on May 21, 2004; plaintiffs filed their opposition on July 20,
2004; and defendants are expected to file their reply in August
2004.


DETERMINED PRODUCTIONS: Recalls 90T Toys Due To Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Determined Productions Inc., of Larkspur, California is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 90,000 Plush Frog
Stuffed Animal Toys.

The seams in the toy can tear open and expose small plastic
pellets, posing a choking or aspiration hazard to young children
who mouth the pellets. Determined Productions has received one
report of seam breakage on the toy, resulting in a child choking
on the plastic pellets. The child was taken to the hospital and
released without any injury after a procedure to look for
aspirated beads.

The recalled toy is an 11 ź inch purple stuffed frog with a
green chin, belly, hands and feet. The stuffed frog has the word
"BRAVE" sewn in purple letters onto the underside of its right
foot.

Manufactured in China, the toys were exclusively sold at Kohl's
Department Stores throughout July 2004 for about $5.

Consumers are advised to stop using the toy immediately and
contact Determined Productions or stop at a local Kohl's
Department Stores to receive a refund or store credit.

For more details, contact Determined Productions by Phone:
(877) 925-0660 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday by E-mail: Normamail@dpisf.com or visit Kohl's Web site:
http://www.kohls.com


GLOBAL EXPRESS: NV Court Sets November 15, 2004 Claims Deadline
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada in
the matter entitled SEC v. Global Express Real Estate Investment
Fund I, LLC, et al., Case No. CV-S-03-1514-KJD-LRL notifies all
parties that a claims procedure has been established on behalf
of all persons having claims against Global Express Capital Real
Estate Investment Fund I, LLC; Global Express Securities, Inc.;
Global Express Capital Corporation; Conrex International and/or
their subsidiaries or affiliates.

The Court has ordered that Plaintiffs must make and present
their claims to the Receiver on or before November 15, 2004 or
be forever barred from participation in the distribution of the
assets of the Global Express Receivership Estate.

In order to receive a Court approved claim form, please write
to: James H. Donell, Receiver, 12121 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite
200, Los Angeles, CA 90025 or visit:
http://www.fedreceiver.com/core.php?page=38&subid=9


HALLIBURTON CO.: TX Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Texas granted preliminary
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against Halliburton Co., and certain of its present
and former officers and directors.

On June 3, 2002, a class action was filed against the Company in
federal court on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  After
that date, approximately twenty similar class actions were filed
against us.  Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants
Arthur Andersen, LLP, the Company's independent accountants for
the period covered by the lawsuits, and several of its present
or former officers and directors.

The lawsuits alleged that the Company violated federal
securities laws during the period from approximately May 1998
until approximately May 22, 2002, in failing to disclose a
change in the manner in which the Company accounted for revenue
associated with unapproved claims on long-term engineering and
construction contracts, and that the Company overstated revenue
by accruing the unapproved claims in amounts allegedly in excess
of those that were probable of recovery and could be reliably
estimated (the "contract claims").

On October 11, 2002, a shareholder derivative action arising out
of the same facts and circumstances was filed in the District
Court of Harris County, Texas against a number of the Company's
present and former officers and directors.  That action was
subsequently dismissed upon the Company's motion.

On March 12, 2003, another shareholder derivative action arising
out of the same events and circumstances was filed in federal
court against some of the Company's present and former officers
and directors.  The class action cases were later consolidated
and the amended consolidated class action complaint, styled
"Richard Moore v. Halliburton," was filed and served upon the
Company on April 11, 2003.

In early May 2003, the Company announced that it had entered
into a written memorandum of understanding setting forth the
terms upon which both the consolidated cases and the federal
court derivative action would be settled, and in June 2003, the
lead plaintiffs' lawyer in the "Moore action" filed a motion for
leave to file a second amended consolidated complaint.  The
court granted that motion on January 28, 2004.

In addition to restating the contract claims, the second amended
consolidated complaint includes nondisclosure claims arising out
of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser Industries, Inc. by
Halliburton that were included in the settlement discussions
leading up to the signing of the memorandum of understanding and
are among the claims to be resolved by the terms of the proposed
settlement of the consolidated class actions.

The memorandum of understanding called for Halliburton to pay $6
million, which is to be funded by insurance proceeds.  After the
May 2003 announcement regarding the memorandum of understanding,
one of the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class actions
announced that it was dissatisfied with the lead plaintiffs'
counsel's handling of settlement negotiations and what the
dissident plaintiff regarded as inadequate communications by the
lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The dissident lead plaintiff further
asserted that it believes the lead plaintiffs' counsel failed in
connection with the settlement negotiations to take into account
the alleged value of certain Dresser claims and that the $46
million proposed settlement figure is therefore inadequate.  It
is unclear whether this dispute within the ranks of the lead
plaintiffs will have any impact upon the process of approval of
the settlement and whether the dissident plaintiff will object
to the settlement at the time of the fairness hearing or opt out
of the class action for settlement purposes.  The process by
which the parties will seek approval of the settlement is
ongoing.

The attorneys representing the dissident plaintiff filed yet
another class action case in August 2003, raising allegations
similar to those raised in the second amended consolidated
complaint regarding the contract and Dresser claims.  The
Company believes that the allegations in that action, styled
"Kimble v. Halliburton Company, et al.," are without merit and
intends to vigorously defend against them.  The company also
believes that those new allegations fall within the scope of the
memorandum of understanding and that the settlement, if approved
and consummated, will dispose of those claims in their entirety
with respect to all members of the class who do not validly and
timely elect not to participate in the settlement, the Company
said in a regulatory filing.  That action was recently
consolidated within the "Richard Moore v. Halliburton," case.

On June 7, 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and scheduling the final hearing to
determine fairness of the proposed settlement for August 26,
2004 and directing that notice be sent to class members.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Over 70 Mutual Fund Market-Timing Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) and Putnam Investments
face complaints in over 70 civil actions based on allegations of
"market-timing" activities.  These actions have been filed in
courts in New York, Massachusetts, California, Illinois,
Connecticut, Delaware, Vermont, Kansas, and North Carolina.
Most of the actions have been transferred, along with others
against other mutual fund complexes, to the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

In most of the federal cases, either by agreement of the parties
or order of the court, the Company and Putnam are not required
to respond to the complaints until after plaintiffs have filed
amended complaints in the consolidated actions.

Purported securities class actions (the "MMC Class Action
Complaints") have been filed in United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of a class of
purchasers of MMC stock during the period from January 2000 to
November 2003.  The MMC Class Action Complaints allege, among
other things, that MMC failed to disclose certain market-timing
activities at Putnam which, when disclosed, resulted in a drop
in the market price of MMC's shares.  The MMC Complaints also
name as defendants certain current or former officers and
directors of MMC.  The MMC Complaints assert claims under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Purported shareholder derivative actions have been filed against
members of MMC's Board of Directors, and MMC as a nominal
defendant in courts in state and federal courts in New York
City.  In these actions, the plaintiffs purport to state common
law claims based on, among other things, the Board's alleged
failure to prevent the alleged market timing from occurring.

MMC and/or Putnam have been named in over fifty additional
actions brought by investors in Putnam funds claiming damages to
themselves or the Putnam funds as a result of various market-
timing activities.  These actions have been brought either
individually (the "Individual Complaints"), derivatively (the
"Putnam Derivative Complaints"), or on behalf of a putative
class (the "Putnam Class Action Complaints").   The Individual
Complaints, the Putnam Class Action Complaints (which also name
as defendants certain Putnam funds and certain Putnam employees)
and the Putnam Derivative Action Complaints (which also name as
defendants certain Putnam officers and employees and certain
trustees of the Putnam funds), allege violations of the federal
securities and investment advisory laws and state law. At this
time, several of these cases are pending in various state
courts.  Putnam has also been named as a defendant in one suit
in its capacity as a sub-advisor to a non-Putnam fund.

MMC, Putnam, and various of their officers, directors and
employees have been named as defendants in three purported class
actions asserting claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).  The ERISA Actions, which have been
brought by participants in MMC's Stock Investment Plan and
Putnam's Profit Sharing Retirement Plan (collectively, the
"Plans"), allege, among other things, that, in view of the
market-timing trading activity that was allegedly allowed to
occur at Putnam, the defendants knew or should have known that
the investment of the Plans' funds in MMC's stock and Putnam's
mutual fund shares was imprudent and that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to the Plans' participants in
making these investments.  The three ERISA Actions were filed in
federal court for the Southern District of New York.


MEDIBO N.V.: Recalls MINERVA Patient Lifts Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medibo N.V. is voluntarily conducting a Class I recall for 64
units of its MINERVA Patient Lifts (model numbers ML20 and
ML30), because of mechanical problems that could result in
serious patient injury. The FDA defines a Class I recall as a
situation in which there is reasonable probability that the use
of the product will cause serious adverse health consequences or
death.

Medibo N.V. is aware of reports of the hanger bar falling off a
similar product called the MINSTREL Lift, which caused the
patient to fall and be injured. One of these incidents resulted
in death. Since the MINERVA Patient Lift is similar to the
MINSTREL lift in design and construction, Medibo N.V. deem it
necessary to carry out the same field correction/recall
procedure as for the Minstrel Lift.

This recall involves 64 MINERVA Patient Lifts that could
possibly result in hanger bar detachment due to pin migration or
pin breakage in the hanger bar assembly. No other Medibo N.V.
devices are involved in this action.

All affected customers will be formally notified via certified
mail of the MINERVA Field Correction/Recall by August 6, 2004.
Affected customers will have the option of inspecting their
MINERVA Patient Lift and completing an Inspection Record or
removing their MINERVA Patient Lift from use pending repair from
an authorized Service Technician. All affected customers will be
required to complete a Customer Response Form and return it to
the Minerva Recall Department.

Medibo N.V. is voluntarily cooperating with the Food and Drug
Administration to ensure that all affected customers are
notified of this issue. Medibo N.V. formally notified the Food
and Drug Administration on July 23, 2004.

For more details, contact the Minerva Recall Department by
Phone: 1-888-402-6448.


MERCK KGaA.: Fees & Reimbursement Hearing Set September 17, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia in
the matter entitled LIVENGOOD FEEDS, INC., v. MERCK KGaA., et
al., and ANIMAL SCIENCE PRODUCTS, INC., v. CHINOOK GROUP, LTD.,
et al., Misc. No. 99-197 (TFH) MDL No. 1285 notifies all persons
or entities who directly purchased vitamin products for delivery
in the United States from any of the defendants or their co-
conspirators from January 1, 1990 through September 30, 1998
and/or directly purchased choline chloride for delivery in the
United States from any of the defendants or their co-
conspirators from January 1, 1998 through September 30, 1998
that a hearing on Class Plaintiffs' Petition for Attorneys' fees
and Reimbursement of expenses has been scheduled.

The hearing will be held on September 17, 2004 at 11:00am,
before the Honorable Thomas F. Hogan, United States District
Chief Judge, in Courtroom No. 8, United States Courthouse,
located at 333 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20001.

For more details, contact Michael D. Hausfeld, Esq. Cohen,
Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: West Tower, Suite
500, 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-3964
By Phone: Phone: (202) 408-4600 by Fax: (202) 408-4699 or by E-
mail: lawinfo@cmht.com OR David Boies, Esq.or Jonathan D.
Schiller, Esq. of Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP by Mail: 5301
Wisconsin Avenue, N.W., 8th Floor, Washington, D.C. 20015 OR
Stephen D. Susman, Esq. of Susman Godfrey LLP by Mail: 1000
Louisiana, Suite 5100, Houston, TX 77002 by Phone: 713-653-7801
by Fax: 713-654-6670 or by E-mail: ssusman@susmangodfrey.com


PACIFICORP: UT Consumers Asks PSC To Reconsider Dismissal Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers who demanded compensation from PacifiCorp owned Utah
Power over a late December 2003 power outage are asking the Utah
Public Service Commission to reconsider its recent decision
rejecting their proposed class action petition,, the Salt Lake
Tribune reports.

In late April of this year, Utah residents Georgia Peterson,
Janet Ward, William Van Cleaf and David Hiller filed a proposed
class-action petition asking the PSC to impose penalties of $40
million to $60 million on the power company, which was
eventually rejected by the commission. According to the PSC the
four failed to present enough evidence for them to conclude
their views and those of other consumers were not adequately
represented by others already participating in the PSC's review
of the power outage.

In a recently filed motion for reconsideration, Salt Lake
attorney David Irvine argues that no one else involved in the
probe of the power outage appears to be arguing for penalties
against the power company and that that PacifiCorp, which does
business in Utah as Utah Power failed to adequately maintain its
distribution system. He further stated that; "We are going to
continue to pursue this matter, even if the PSC again rules
against us." He further added that if the commissioners again
turn down their motion, they might file a lawsuit.

On May 2004, Utah Power released its report detailing the
factors it believed were behind the widespread December outage,
which indicated that it would ask the PSC to declare the storm
and resultant outage a "force majeure" or major event beyond its
control. Such a ruling by the PSC will absolve the utility from
paying any reimbursement under its customer-guarantee program
established in 1999.


PEROT SYSTEMS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perot Systems Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it, Ross
Perot and Ross Perot, Jr.

The suit alleges violations of Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
Exchange Act, and common law fraud.  The suit alleges that the
Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission
contained material misstatements or omissions of material facts
with respect to its activities related to the California energy
market.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified monetary
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs have filed an opposition to the Company's motion
to dismiss the suit.


POKEMON CENTER: Recalls 7.4T Pokémon Toys Due To Puncture Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pokémon Center NY, of New York, N.Y. is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 7,400 Pokémon plush dolls, beanbags, and key
chains.

Tips of sewing needles have been found in the stuffing posing a
puncture hazard.

The recall involves 13 plush Pokémon characters. They are
described below with their photo. All recalled toys have a sewn-
in label reading "TOMY." There also is a production code on the
toy's label that begins with a letter and is followed by two
numbers. The following production codes are included in the
recall: A04, B04, C04, D04, E03, E04, F03, F04, G03, G04, H03,
I03, J03, K03, and L03. Any production code containing an "S" is
not part of this recall.

Manufactured in Chain, the toys were sold at the Pokémon Center
NY, 10 Rockefeller Plaza, New York City and on the firm's Web
site at www.pokemoncenter.com nationwide from January 2004
through August 2004 for between $2 and $11. A limited number
were given away as a promotional item.

Parents should take these toys away from children immediately
and contact TOMY Company for information on receiving a refund
or free replacement toy.

For more details, contact the TOMY Company by Phone:
(800) 691-8055 between 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday.


PYRAMAX BANK: WI Customers Lodge Suit V. Unpaid Escrow Interest
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three Wisconsin mortgage customers filed a class action lawsuit
against PyraMax Bank claiming that the bank unfairly quit paying
interest on their escrow accounts after switching to a federal
charter, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

In their suit, Rene and Irma Hernandez of Kenosha and Lorena
Gueny of Milwaukee, contend that when they took out mortgages
with the Greenfield-based bank in spring of 2003, they believed
the bank would pay interest on their escrow funds - the money
set aside with a bank for homeowner expenses such as taxes or
insurance. However, PyraMax in a December 2003 letter revealed
that it had unilaterally stopped paying interest on escrow
accounts seven months earlier.

The lawsuit, filed in Milwaukee County Circuit Court by Timothy
M. Whiting of a Chicago law firm, accuses PyraMax of breach of
contract and negligent misrepresentation. It seeks the
restoration and reimbursement of interest, the awarding of
punitive damages.

However, PyraMax chief executive Oliver R. DeGroot referred to
letters written by a lawyer for the company to the Hernandezes
and Gueny, which asserted that both the contract language and
PyraMax's relatively new status as a federally chartered bank
entitled it not to pay interest on escrow accounts.


QUADRAMED CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval for the settlement of the
securities class actions and the shareholder derivative suit
filed against QuadraMed Corporation and certain of its officers
and directors.

In October 2002, a series of securities law class action
complaints was filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, by certain of the Company's
shareholders.  The plaintiffs in these actions allege, among
other things, violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
due to issuing a series of allegedly false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's business and financial
condition between May 11, 2000 and August 11, 2002.

Also in October 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filed
on the Company's behalf in Marin County Superior Court of
California against QuadraMed as a nominal defendant and certain
of its current and former officers and directors.  The
derivative action plaintiffs allege that certain of the
Company's current and former officers and directors breached
their fiduciary duties to QuadraMed based on assertions similar
to those in the federal securities class action litigation.
Both actions seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

On May 3, 2004, the final settlement agreement related to the
securities class action litigation was filed with the court.  On
April 21, 2004, the Court approved the final settlement of the
shareholder derivative case.


VIRGINIA ELECTRIC: VA Court Okays Right-of-Way Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Richmond, Virginia approved
the settlement of the class action filed against Virginia
Electric & Power Company by Wiley Fisher, Jr. and John Fisher.

The plaintiffs claimed that the Company and Dominion Telecom
strung fiber-optic cable across their land, along the Company's
electric transmission corridor, without paying compensation. The
Complaint sought damages for trespass and "unjust enrichment,"
as well as punitive damages from the defendants. The named
plaintiffs "represent a class . consisting of all owners of land
in North Carolina and Virginia, other than public streets or
highways, that underlies the Company's electric transmission
lines and on or in which fiber optic cable has been installed."

The federal district court granted a motion to add additional
plaintiffs, Harmon T. Tomlinson, Jr. and Linda D. Tomlinson.  In
August 2003, the federal district court issued an order granting
the plaintiff's motion for class certification.  The U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied the Company's petitions
for interlocutory appeal on the class certification issue.

In April 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that was subsequently approved by the court in July 2004.  Under
the terms of the settlement, a fund of $20 million has been
established by the Company to pay claims of current and former
landowners as well as fees of lawyers for the class.  Costs of
notice to the class and administration of claims will be borne
separately by the Company.


WAL-MART: Attorneys Appeal Class Status For NC Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing three former Wal-Mart workers who claim
that the retailing giant has created a workplace culture that
fosters off-the-clock work are persistently pushing for class
action status to include thousands of current and former North
Carolina employees in the case, the News & Observer reports.

Denied class-action status by Forsyth County Superior Court
Judge W. Douglas Albright, the attorneys took the case, Harrison
v. Wal-Mart to the N.C. Court of Appeals. In their filing, they
argued the lower court's assessment that a class-action case
would, as put the judge put it, "degenerate into a massive,
interminable and unmanageable morass involving tens of thousands
of witnesses."

The judge also wrote in his ruling that Wal-Mart employees since
2001 have not been required to officially record their breaks,
by clocking in and out. The judge further wrote that the absence
of the detailed time cards would require, "this Court and the
jury to sit through thousands of examinations and mini-trials to
make those determinations."

However, the lawyer for the workers argued that they wanted to
rely on statistical analysis of Wal-Mart records, expert
opinions and a telephone survey of Wal-Mart employees to prove
their case an approach, which the judge said would rely too much
on hearsay.

According to legal experts, if the appellate court favors the
plaintiffs, the case could encompass up to 181,000 North
Carolinians who have had hourly paid jobs at Wal-Mart since
1997.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Lowey Dannenberg Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Lowey Dannenberg Bemporad & Selinger, P.C.
initiated filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Bennett Environmental, Inc. ("Bennett" or the "Company") (AMEX:
BEL), and certain of the Company's former and present officers
and directors for violations of the federal securities laws. The
lawsuit is brought on behalf of purchasers of the common stock
of Bennett during the period from June 2, 2003 through July 21,
2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bennett, John A. Bennett, Chairman of the
Board and former Chief Executive Officer, Allan Bulckaert,
President and current Chief Executive Officer, and certain other
former and present Company executives, with violations of the
Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 for making allegedly false
and misleading statements which caused Bennett common stock to
trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants repeatedly
touted that Bennett had been awarded a "record" contract - the
"largest in the Company's history" - to treat "300,000 tons" of
contaminated soil from a large hazardous waste site in New
Jersey - that was expected to generate more than $200 million
(CDN) in revenues for the Company (the "New Jersey Contract").

On July 22, 2004, Bennett revealed that:

     (1) the Company would not be receiving the 300,000 tons of
         soil or $200 million (CDN) in revenues for soil
         treatment under the New Jersey Contract;

     (2) shortly after the New Jersey Contract was awarded to
         Bennett in May 2003, Bennett's consent to perform under
         the contract had been withdrawn by the United States
         Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") which supervises
         the contractors responsible for the remediation process
         at the New Jersey site;

     (3) the Corps agreed to ship only up to 10,000 tons of soil
         from the clean-up site to Bennett;

     (4) only "about 7,000 tons" of contaminated soil had been
         treated by Bennett under the New Jersey Contract and
         "future deliveries under it are highly unlikely to
         resume";

     (5) on June 3, 2004, Bennett had entered into a new
         subcontract for soil treatment on economic terms "far
         less" favorable than those in the New Jersey Contract
         and with a guaranteed minimum of only 1,000 tons of
         soil; and

     (6) operations at the Company's highly publicized new
         treatment facility in Belledune, New Brunswick would
         not start until it was clear that sufficient volumes of
         soil shipments would be received by Bennett.

Plaintiff further alleges that Bennett shares declined sharply
on these adverse disclosures.

For more details, contact Vincent Briganti of Lowey Dannenberg
Bemporad & Selinger, P.C. by Mail: The Gateway, 11th Floor, One
North Lexington Avenue, White Plains, NY 10601-1714 by Phone:
877-777-3581 or by E-mail: ldbs@westnet.com


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

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

More specifically, the complaint alleges that on June 2, 2003,
the Company announced that it had received the largest contract
in the Company's history. The press release stated that Bennett
had been awarded a contract to treat approximately 300,000 tons
of soil at the Federal Creosote Superfund Site in New Jersey.
The company reported that it valued the contract, slated to be
completed in 2005, at $200 million (Canadian). John Bennett,
Bennett's Chairman and CEO, said, "This (contract), together
with previously announced contracts, ensures that we will have a
very successful year in 2003 and beyond in terms of meeting our
financial and operation goals." In the seven months after the
announcement, Bennett shares doubled in value.

On July 22, 2004, Bennett announced that the contract
performance by Army Corps of Engineering, the entity who awarded
Bennett the contract, had been in question since August of 2003,
despite the eleven months of releases and announcements by the
company to the contrary. An unsuccessful bidder on the soil
treatment contract had disputed the award, and, in the
aftermath, the Company was clueless about the contract's status
and the Army's future performance. In fact, the Company had to
resort to Freedom of Information Act inquiries, among other
things, to ascertain the contract's status. On this news, the
stock price fell from $10.50 to $7.80, a 25% one-day drop and
64% off its Class Period high of $21.89.

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


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated that a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Biolase Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:BLTI) between October 29, 2003
and July 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
Southern Division, on behalf of purchasers of Biolase
Technology, Inc. ("Biolase") (NASDAQ:BLTI) publicly traded
securities during the period between October 29, 2003 and July
16, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Biolase and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities Act of 1933. Biolase is a medical technology
company that designs, manufacturers and markets proprietary
dental laser systems that allow dentists, oral surgeons and
other specialists to perform a broad range of common dental
procedures, including cosmetic applications.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Biolase's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. The Company recognized revenue in advance of earning
it and failed to record adequate reserves for returns, causing
the Company's financial results to be inflated. This inflation
was important to the Company as it was able to complete a
secondary stock offering of 2.8 million shares in February 2004
at $18.80 per share.

On July 16, 2004, after the markets closed, Biolase reported
preliminary results for the second quarter of 2004. On this
news, the Company's stock declined to $8.78 on volume of 4.8
million shares. Within two weeks the Company's CFO resigned.
According to the complaint, defendants knew that Biolase was not
performing nearly as well as represented. The true facts, which
defendants knew but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) Waterlase was not gaining market share and demand for
         the product was not increasing at the rates represented
         by defendants;

     (2) Biolase had introduced a lower priced entry level laser
         which was cannibalizing sales such that Biolase's
         reported earnings were false and misleading;

     (3) defendants were concealing this decreasing demand by
         granting extended payment terms and price breaks; and

     (4) the Company would not achieve the earnings growth
         forecasted.

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


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges MN 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 Ceridian
Corp. (NYSE:CEN) between April 17, 2003 and July 19, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges MN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of
purchasers of Ceridian Corp. ("Ceridian") (NYSE:CEN) publicly
traded securities during the period between April 17, 2003 and
July 19, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Ceridian and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Ceridian offers a broad range of managed human resource
solutions designed to help companies maximize the value of their
people by more effectively managing their work forces and the
information that is integral to human resource processes.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Ceridian's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements, which included the improper capitalization as assets
of certain costs which should have been expensed. Defendants
took advantage of the inflated share price by selling 216,298
shares of their individual Ceridian holdings for proceeds of
$3.9 million. On February 18, 2004, the Company announced it
would restate its 2000-2003 financials due to a revenue
recognition change within its Stored Value System business unit.
The Company's stock declined on this news. However, the stock
soon recovered due to defendants' assurances that the change was
limited in scope and would not materially impact futures
results.

On July 19, 2004, the Company announced the postponement of its
Q2 04 earnings release and investor call. According to the
complaint, the defendants were struggling to conceal that the
Company's capitalization and expensing of certain costs in its
U.S. Human Resource Solutions ("HR Solutions") business were
false. This false accounting will adversely impact the Company's
Q2 04 results as well as previously reported periods and
guidance. This was the second time in as many quarters that an
accounting issue had taken center stage for the Company. On this
news, Ceridian's stock price dropped to $18.20 per share, on
volume of 6.8 million shares.

The complaint alleges that defendants' revelations indicate that
the Company's comprehensive HR Solutions deals, which often
require upfront customization work during the implementation
process, were falsely accounted for. The Company had been
capitalizing these upfront costs rather than expensing them
immediately. As a result, the prior results need to be restated.
The Company capitalized approximately $30 million of internally
developed software expenses in its HR Solutions division in
2003. If expensed, this would reduce 2003 EPS by some $0.13.

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


CROSS COUNTRY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Cross
Country Healthcare, Inc. (Nasdaq:CCRN) between October 25, 2001
and August 6, 2002, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida against defendant Cross Country and
certain of the Company's executive officers. 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


CROSS COUNTRY: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. ("Cross Country" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:CCRN) between October 25, 2001 and August
6, 2002, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Cross Country and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Cross Country's business
operations and prospects artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Cross Country
provides healthcare staffing services to hospitals,
pharmaceutical companies and other healthcare providers across
all 50 states. The complaint alleges that defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that:

     (1) contrary to defendants' upbeat statements, hospitals
         actually were hiring fewer of the Company's nurses;

     (2) the nursing shortage, which the Company previously had
         touted as creating a favorable business environment,
         was no longer creating the demand for temporary nurses
         that Cross Country represented to the investing public;
         and

     (3) Cross Country had problems with staffing orders being
         received from hospitals and then abruptly canceled -- a
         problem which also hurt the Company's stock and spread
         to the rest of the industry, but which defendants never
         disclosed to the investing public.

On August 7, 2002, following news of the decline in demand and a
drop in the number of the Company's full-time nurses, Cross
Country shares fell below the Company's IPO price for the first
time in its history, closing 45% below the previous day's close.

For more details, contact Lionel Glancy, Esq. or Michael
Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Mail: 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067 by Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com


CROSS COUNTRY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on behalf of purchasers of
Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. ("Cross Country") (NASDAQ:CCRN)
publicly traded securities during the period between October 25,
2001 and August 6, 2002 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Cross Country and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Cross Country provides healthcare staffing services in the
United States with a client base of approximately 3,000
hospitals, pharmaceuticals companies and other healthcare
providers across all 50 states. Cross Country provides travel
nurse staffing services and per diem nurse staffing services.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
knew but concealed from the investing public that:

     (1) the demand for the Company's short-term, temporary
         nursing contracts, Cross Country's core business was
         not as great as represented by defendants, and

     (2) the Company was experiencing problems with staffing
         orders for temporary nurses being received and then
         abruptly cancelled by hospitals, a problem which, if
         disclosed to the market, would have a materially
         negative impact on the Company's stock price.

On the news of the decline in demand and drop in the number of
its full-time nurses, Cross Country shares fell to a then all-
time low of $13.06 in intra-day trading, a decline of more than
50% from the previous day's closing price of $26.19. Cross
Country's share price closed below the IPO price for the first
time in its history, and it did so definitively at $14.34, or
15% below the IPO price and 45% below the previous day's close.

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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Lawsuit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Express
Scripts, Inc. (Nasdaq:ESRX) between October 29, 2003 and August
3, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri against defendant Express Scripts
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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Brodksy & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Express Scripts, Inc.
("Express Scripts" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ESRX), between
October 29, 2003 and August 3, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

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

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


HARVEST AIRPRIME: Rosen Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Rosen Law Firm initiated a class action in the United States
District Court, Central District of California on behalf of
purchasers of membership interests in Harvest AirPrime LLC,
Harvest Storage Technology Group LLC and Woodcarvers Limited LLC
(the "Companies") during the period from November 20, 1998
through December 31, 2003, inclusive (the "Period"). The
Companies were conduits for investments in Chaparral Network
Storage, Inc. and AirPrime, Inc.

The complaint charges Robert T. Harvey, Timothy Smoot, the
Companies, Sierra Wireless America, Inc. (formerly AirPrime,
Inc.), Chaparral Network Storage Inc., as well as certain former
officers and directors and related companies and affiliates with
violating Section 10b of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
breach of fiduciary duty, and other state law causes of action
for allegedly failing to disclose material information
concerning investments in the Companies, including the fact that
Robert Harvey, the broker for the securities and manager of the
Companies had prior fraud related convictions and was to receive
undisclosed compensation for his role in the offerings. As a
result of this conduct, according to the complaint, investors in
the Companies suffered damages during the Period.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. sec. 78u-4(a)(B)(iii), not later than 60
days after today, any purchaser of the Companies' securities
during the Period may move the court to serve as lead plaintiff
in the action.

For more details, contact Laurence Rosen, Esq. of The Rosen Law
Firm by Phone: 866-767-3653 or by E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


KVH INDUSTRIES: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
purchasers of KVH Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq:KVHI) ("KVH" or the
"Company") securities between January 6, 2004 and July 2, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint seeks to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against KVH
and certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island.

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

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

     (2) that the Company's revenues were not growing by
         millions of dollars per quarter and the purported
         growth trends in the Company's revenues could not be
         sustained; and

     (3) that KVH had not realized any material cost reduction
         in the manufacture of its TracVision systems and would
         be forced to write-down its inventory of manufactured
         goods by millions of dollars.

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

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

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Mary Ann Fink
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by Fax:
(202) 408-4699 or by E-mail: stoll@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com


NETFLIX INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:NFLX) between October 1, 2003 and July 15,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Netflix and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Netflix' operations and
performance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. Netflix is the largest online
movie rental subscription service in the United States. The
complaint alleges that defendants deliberately understated the
Company's "churn" rate (the percentage of its subscribers that
cancelled per month) by utilizing a novel definition of churn
that artificially decreased the Company's reported churn rate
during quarters when the Company was adding large numbers of new
subscribers. Additionally, Defendants repeatedly touted the
Company's impressive subscriber growth without any direct
disclosure in Netflix' earnings releases or SEC filings
concerning the large percentage of subscriber cancellations
during the respective quarters.

On July 15, 2004, after the close of trading, the Company for
the first time disclosed that while the Company had added
537,000 new subscribers during the second quarter, in the same
period it had suffered 422,000 subscriber cancellations, and
though the Company added 1,343,000 new subscribers during the
first half of 2004, in the same period it had suffered 737,000
subscriber cancellations. In response to this news, Netflix
shares plummeted 38% over the next two days.

For more details, contact Lionel Glancy, Esq. or Michael
Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Mail: 1801
Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067 by Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 or by E-mail:
info@glancylaw.com


RED HAT: Hoffman & Edelson Lodges Securities Lawsuit in E.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Hoffman & Edelson, LLC has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina against Red Hat, Inc. ("Red
Hat" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:RHAT), Matthew Szulik, Kevin B.
Thompson and Timothy J. Buckley, on behalf of common stock
purchasers during the period between June 19, 2001 and July 13,
2004 (the "Class Period"), inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
More specifically, on July 13, 2004, defendants revealed that
they would be restating financial results for fiscal years ended
February 2004, 2003 and 2002 as well as its unaudited financial
statement for its fiscal first quarter ended May 31, 2004 as a
result of the change in the way they recognized revenue from
subscription contracts, noting that they would now be
recognizing revenue from subscriptions on a daily basis rather
than on a monthly basis. The Company further announced that the
Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting a review of one
of its annual reports. On this news, Red Hat's stock price fell
precipitiously from a closing price of $20.35 per share on July
12, 2004 to an intra-day low of $15.62 per share on July 13,
2004.

For more details, contact Jerold B. Hoffman at Hoffman &
Edelson, LLC, by Mail: 45 W. Court Street, Doylestown, PA 18901
by Phone: 877-537-6532 by Fax: 215-230-8735 or by E-mail:
jhoffman@hofedlaw.com


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld, & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
purchasers of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. (Nasdaq:TARO)
("Taro" or the "Company") securities between February 20, 2003,
and July 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Complaint
seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against Taro and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington at Seattle against
Washington Mutual, Inc. ("Washington Mutual" or the "Company")
(NYSE: WM), Kerry K. Killinger, Thomas W. Casey, Deanna W.
Oppenheimer, William W. Longbrake, Craig J. Chapman, James G.
Vanasek, and Michelle McCarthy on behalf of purchasers of WM
securities, during the period between April 15, 2003 and June
28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Washington Mutual, Inc., Kerry K.
Killinger, Thomas W. Casey, Deanna W. Oppenheimer, William W.
Longbrake, Craig J. Chapman, James G. Vanasek, and Michelle
McCarthy with violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants issued false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's ability to grow in the face of any
expected interest rate increases, as well as the Company's
purported financial hedging strategies.

On June 29, 2004, Washington Mutual announced that expectations
for a sustained increase in long-term interest rates would
significantly impact the Company's Mortgage Banking business
resulting in 2004 earnings below previous guidance. Higher
interest rates lowered the Company's mortgage production
expectations at a time when cost reduction plans have not yet
fully taken effect. This news shocked the market. Following the
publication of this surprising news, the Company's common shares
fell to $38.47 per share, from a closing price of $41.31 per
share on June 28, 2004.

For more details, contact Nichole Browning Adams, Esq. of
Chitwood & Harley by Phone: 1-888-873-3999, ext. 4873 by E-mail:
nba@classlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.classlaw.com


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Wireless Facilities, Inc. ("Wireless
Facilities") (NASDAQ:WFII) common stock during the period
between April 26, 2000 and August 4, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Wireless Facilities and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Wireless Facilities is an independent
provider of outsourced communications and security systems
engineering and integration services and other technical
services for the wireless communications industry, the United
States government and enterprise customers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Wireless Facilities' shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
financial statements. As a result of this inflation, defendant
Masood K. Tayebi was able to complete a forward sale of his
holdings which would conceal his actual sales of his shares from
the public and the Company was able to complete a $45 million
private placement and obtain a $100 million credit facility.

On August 4, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
that "it intends to restate its financial statements filed on
Form 10-K for the years 2000 through 2003 to accrue for certain
foreign tax contingencies. The restatement is the result of an
extensive analysis by the Company that identified adjustments,
which are required to properly state prior period financial
statements." On August 5, 2004, shares in Wireless Facilities
plunged 28%, or $1.96, to close at $5.02, as one of the most
active stocks and among the biggest percentage losers of the
day.

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


YUKOS OIL: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Yukos Oil Company ("Yukos" or the "Company")(Pink
Sheets:YUKOF) (Pink Sheets:YUKOY) (Russia:YUKO) between February
13, 2003 and October 25, 2003, inclusive (the "Class Period").
Also included are all those who acquired Yukos shares through
its acquisitions of Sibneft, Geoilbent, and Vostochnaya.

The Complaint charges Yukos and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Yukos' operations and financial
performance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. Yukos is a leading Russian
vertically-integrated oil company. The complaint alleges that
defendants created a complex network of shell companies to evade
taxes on the production, refining and sale of oil and oil
products. These shell companies were registered in territories
with preferential tax treatment in order to receive special tax
exemptions and minimize tax liability. Because these shell
companies were not separate legal entities, Yukos was required
to recognize the full amount of the receipts associated with
these transactions for its own tax purposes and was not entitled
to the preferential tax treatment these shell companies were
granted. Accordingly, Yukos' tax liability was materially
understated and its earnings were materially overstated.

In October 2003, it was revealed that Russian authorities had
arrested Yukos' CEO, on fraud, embezzlement and tax evasion
charges. Authorities also announced that they would pursue
criminal prosecutions against other senior Yukos officials.
Ultimately, Yukos will be required to pay approximately $3.3
billion for 2000 alone due to its understatement of tax
liability. The Tax Ministry intends to audit Yukos for 2001-2003
based upon the same charges, and Yukos could ultimately be
expected to pay upwards of $10 billion to the Tax Ministry for
this illegal tax evasion scheme.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, CA 90067 by Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.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 SeĄorin, 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  * * *