CAR_Public/040811.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, August 11, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 158

                          Headlines

3M CORPORATION: Continues To Fight Various Tape Antitrust Suits
3M CORPORATION: IL Consumers Sue Over Air-conditioning Filter
ADOLOR CORPORATION: PA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
ALASKA: Unidentified Persons File Suit V. Sex Offender Registry
ALFA LIFE: Faces Various Breach of Contract, Fraud Litigation

AMERICAN SPECTRUM: CA Court Approves Investor Lawsuit Settlement
ANICOM INC.: SEC Lodges Amended Fraud Suit V. Ex-Board Chairman
AT&T CORPORATION: NJ Court Grants Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
AVATAR HOLDINGS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss 7% Noteholders' Suit
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Will Defend Itself Against Shareholder Suits

BRISTOL-MYERS: Judge Enters Final Judgment, Orders $150M Payment
CARFAX INC.: Consumers Launch Unfair Practices Suit in OH Court
CLECO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal
CLECO CORPORATION: LPSC Approves Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
CONSECO INC.: Forges $20M SEC Settlement in Market Timing Suit

DUN & BRADSTREET: CT Court Hears Motion To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
FLORIDA: GA Appeals Court Dismisses Death Row Conditions Suit
GREAT LAKES: $1 Million in Suit Settlement Vouchers Claimed
HOMESTORE INC.: CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement Appealed
INTERCEPT INC.: GA Holds Stock Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing

MICROTUNE INC.: TX Court Dismisses Several Claims in Stock Suit
OWENS CORNING: MA Court Partially Certifies Securities Lawsuit
OWENS CORNING: OH Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
PAYPAL: CA Court Preliminarily Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
PIPER JAFFRAY: NY Court Hears Certification For Securities Suit

PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Stock Antitrust Lawsuit
QUANTUM CORPORATION: Franz Inc. Launches DLT Tape Antitrust Suit
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Insurance Claimants Launch MD Fraud Lawsuit
SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Dealerships Fight Antitrust Suit Certification

SUMMIT METALS: DE Court Enters $32 Million Judgment V. Gray
UNCOMMON MEDIA: SEC Imposes Sanctions V. Frederick Hornick, Jr.
UNITED PARCEL: Former Worker Files Suit V. Addict Discrimination
WESTAR ENERGY: KS Court To Rule on Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
WESTAR ENERGY: KS Court To Rule on Motion To Dismiss ERISA Suit

XCEL ENERGY: MN Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIED WASTE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges NY Securities Suit
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in CA
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges CA Stock Fraud Suit
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Reinhardt Wendorf Files MN Securities Suit

CROSS COUNTRY: Brain M. Felgoise Files FL Securities Fraud Suit
GEXA CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in MO
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Stock Suit
SALESFORCE.COM: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA

TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in NY
THORATEC CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Stock Suit


                            *********


3M CORPORATION: Continues To Fight Various Tape Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Corporation continues to face seven class actions filed
against it by certain direct and indirect tape purchasers in
various state and federal courts in California, Florida,
Tennessee, New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

These cases allege the Company competed unfairly and unlawfully
monopolized alleged markets for transparent tape, and they seek
to recover on behalf of variously defined classes of direct and
indirect purchasers damages in the form of price overcharges the
Company allegedly charged for these products.

The Company is awaiting rulings on the Company's motions to
dismiss in two of these cases and the Company's motion has been
denied in a third case.  The two California cases that had been
stayed pending the outcome of the Supreme Court proceedings in a
similar suit are scheduled for a status conference in August
2004; the case pending in the federal court in Philadelphia is
in active pre-trial proceedings.  That court denied the
Company's dismissal motion and also rejected the plaintiff's
motion for class certification on behalf of all 3M's direct tape
customers.  The plaintiff's motions for reconsideration, for
certification of a modified class, and for determination of the
extent to which the verdict in LePage's precludes relitigation
of certain issues in this case, all of which the Company has
opposed, are currently under consideration by that court. In the
case in federal court in California in which the lower court had
previously granted the Company's motion for summary judgment,
the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the parties' joint
request to hold the plaintiffs' appeal of the summary judgment
ruling in abeyance for ninety days pending settlement
discussions.


3M CORPORATION: IL Consumers Sue Over Air-conditioning Filter
-------------------------------------------------------------
3M Corporation faces a purported class action filed in St. Clair
County Court, Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities in
the United States that purchased a 3M Filtrete Ultra Allergen
furnace/air-conditioning filter directly or indirectly from the
Company since 1998.

The complaint alleges that the filters are defective and that
the Company misrepresented filter performance and seeks damages
in an amount of less than $75,000 per claimant (the amount that
could permit jurisdiction in federal court) under claims of
breach of express and implied warranties, breach of covenant of
good faith & fair dealing, unjust enrichment, Illinois' unfair
and deceptive trade practices statute, and common law fraud.


ADOLOR CORPORATION: PA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Adolor Corporation, one of its directors and
certain of its officers seeking unspecified damages on behalf of
a putative class of persons who purchased Company common stock
between September 23, 2003 and January 14, 2004.

The suits allege violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act in connection with the
announcement of the results of certain studies in the Company's
Phase III clinical trials for Entereg, which allegedly had the
effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's
common stock.

These actions have been consolidated for filing purposes under
the caption: "In re Adolor Corporation Securities Litigation,
No. 2:04-cv-01728."  Two parties have separately moved to be
appointed as Lead Plaintiff and to consolidate the actions for
purposes of trial.  Following the district court's ruling on
those motions, the Company anticipates that the appointed Lead
Plaintiff will file a consolidated amended complaint to which
the Company must respond sixty days later.

On August 2, 2004, two shareholder derivative lawsuits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, purportedly on behalf of the Company,
against its directors and certain of its officers seeking
unspecified damages for various alleged breaches of fiduciary
duty and waste.  The allegations are similar to those set forth
in the class action complaints, involving the announcement of
the results of certain studies in the Company's Phase III
clinical trials for Entereg.


ALASKA: Unidentified Persons File Suit V. Sex Offender Registry
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Alaska faces a class action over its sex offender
registry faces a class action, alleging that the registry
unfairly gives some people a bad name, KTVA.COM reports.

The suit, filed by attorney Darryll Thompson on behalf of
anonymous plaintiffs, against the state alleges that people who
have been convicted of a sex offense but whose convictions were
later set aside, are still forced to register as an offender and
that requiring such registration under those conditions is not
only unconstitutional, but also, "inflicts irreparable injury"

The lawsuit further alleges the practice openly infringes on an
earlier ruling by the Alaska Supreme Court, which found that the
registry cannot be applied to people whose convictions were set
aside.


ALFA LIFE: Faces Various Breach of Contract, Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Alfa Life Insurance Corporation faces approximately 20 legal
proceedings, as of June 30,2004.  These proceedings involve
alleged breaches of contract, torts, including bad faith and
fraud claims, and miscellaneous other causes of action.  These
lawsuits involve claims for unspecified amounts of compensatory
damages, mental anguish damages, and punitive damages.

Of the 20 proceedings, seven were filed in 2004, eight were
filed in 2003, one was filed in 2002, three were filed in 1999,
and one was filed in 1996.  One of the 20 pending cases was
filed as a purported class action, but no class has been
certified.

In a case tried in January 2001, in Barbour County, Alabama, the
jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff against Life for
$500,000 in compensatory damages and $5,000,000 in punitive
damages.  After the Company filed post-trial motions, the trial
court reduced the punitive damage award to $1,500,000.  On
appeal, the Alabama Supreme Court further reduced the total
judgment to $400,000.  The company has filed an Application for
Rehearing with the Court seeking a further reduction of the
award.

In addition, one purported class action lawsuit is pending
against both Alfa Builders, Inc. and Alfa Mutual Fire Insurance
Company.  Additionally, three purported class action lawsuits
are pending against the property and casualty companies
involving a number of issues and allegations which could affect
the Company because of a pooling agreement between the
companies.  No class has been certified in any of these four
purported class action cases.


AMERICAN SPECTRUM: CA Court Approves Investor Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County Superior Court approved the settlement of the
class action filed against American Spectrum Realty, Inc., by
Robert L. Lewis, Madison Liquidity Investors 103 LLC and Madison
Liquidity Investors 112 LLC.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) CGS Real Estate Company,

     (2) William J. Carden,

     (3) John N. Galardi and

     (4) S-P Properties, Inc.

Plaintiffs' complaint in this action alleged claims against the
Company and others for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
contract.  Plaintiffs' complaint challenged the Company's 2001
Consolidation transaction, although the Consolidation was
disclosed in a Prospectus/Consent Solicitation filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and was approved by a
majority vote of the limited partners of the partnerships.

Plaintiffs alleged that the approval was invalid and that the
Consolidation constituted a breach of fiduciary duty by each of
the defendants.  Plaintiffs further alleged that the
Consolidation constituted breach of the partnership agreements
governing the partnerships.  Plaintiffs' prayer for relief
sought:

     (1) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
         commingling;

     (2) imposition of a constructive trust providing for
         liquidation of the assets of the partnerships and a
         distribution of the assets to the former limited
         partners therein;

     (3) a judicial declaration that the action may be
         maintained as a class action;

     (4) monetary/compensatory damages;

     (5) plaintiffs' costs of suit, including attorneys',
         accountants' and expert fees; and

     (6) a judicial order of dissolution of the partnerships and
         appointment of a liquidating trustee

On March 15, 2002, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer to
plaintiffs' complaint and held that the complaint failed to
state a cause of action for either breach of fiduciary duty or
breach of contract against the Company.  The Court gave the
plaintiffs twenty days leave to amend.

Subsequently, plaintiffs filed and served a Second Amended
Complaint alleging claims against the Company for breach of
fiduciary duty, breach of contract, intentional interference
with prospective economic advantage, and intentional
interference with contractual relations.  On June 14, 2002, the
Court sustained the Company's s demurrer on the grounds that
Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint failed to state a cause of
action against the Company for interference with contract or
interference with prospective economic advantage.  The Court
gave Plaintiffs twenty days leave to amend.

Subsequently, the plaintiffs filed and served a Third Amended
Complaint on the Company alleging claims against the Company for
breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, intentional
interference with prospective economic advantage, and
intentional interference with contractual relations.  On
September 6, 2002, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer on
the grounds that the Plaintiffs' Third Amended Compliant failed
to state a cause of action for either interference with contract
or interference with prospective economic advantage against the
Company.  The Court gave the Plaintiffs twenty days to amend.

On September 25, 2002, the plaintiffs filed and served a Fourth
Amended Complaint on the Company alleging claims against the
Company for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract,
intentional interference with prospective economic advantage,
and intentional interference with contractual relations.  The
plaintiffs prayer for relief on its Fourth Amended Compliant
seeks:

     (i) an injunction prohibiting the defendants from
         commingling;

    (ii) imposition of a constructive trust providing for
         liquidation of the assets of the partnerships and a
         distribution of the assets to the former limited
         partners therein;

   (iii) a judicial declaration that the action may be
         maintained as a class action;

    (iv) monetary/compensatory damages;

     (v) plaintiffs' costs of suit, including attorneys'
         accountants' and expert fees; and

    (vi) a judicial order of dissolution of the partnerships and
         appointment of a liquidating trustee.

On October 29, 2002, the Company responded by answer and
asserted general and specific affirmative defenses to the
allegations in the Fourth Amended Complaint.  On January 10,
2003, plaintiffs filed and served a Notice of Motion and Motion
for Class Certification.  On January 31, 2003, the Company filed
an Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification.  On
March 7, 2003, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification but expressly reserved the right to visit the
issue of certification should rescission be chosen as a remedy
to determine whether it is still a viable procedure in the class
setting.

On October 16, 2003, counsel for the plaintiffs and counsel for
the defendants executed a Memorandum of Understanding regarding
the settlement in this matter.  By the terms of that Memorandum,
the defendants agreed to pay a total of $6,500,000 to settle
this action and all other claims known and unknown relating to
the facts set forth in the Fourth Amended Complaint.

Plaintiffs have agreed to release such claims, pursuant to the
Memorandum.  As this matter is a class action, the parties need
to obtain court approval to complete the settlement and to
administer the payment of the settlement amounts to the class
members.  The settlement is funded, in its entirety, by
insurance coverage.

On January 14, 2004, the Court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement, directed notice to the Class, and set a fairness
hearing for March 23, 2004.  On February 26, 2004, the
defendants' insurers deposited $6,500,000 into an escrow account
for the purposes of settlement.  On April 12, 2004, the Court
ruled that the settlement is fair, adequate and reasonable.  On
April 15, 2004, $1,640,000 was disbursed from the escrow account
for attorney fees and expenses, reducing the escrow balance to
$4,860,000.  The remaining balance will be distributed to the
plaintiffs following a final accounting in the matter.


ANICOM INC.: SEC Lodges Amended Fraud Suit V. Ex-Board Chairman
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an amended
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Illinois that added Scott C. Anixter, the former Chairman of
the Board of Anicom, Inc., as a defendant to its lawsuit against
six top executives and other employees of the now-defunct
company.  Anixter, age 55, is a resident of Glencoe, Illinois.

The Commission's amended complaint alleges that from Jan. 1,
1998 through March 30, 2000, Anixter and the other defendants
carried out a massive financial fraud at Anicom in which they
falsely reported millions of dollars of non-existent sales,
including sales to a fictitious customer, and used other
fraudulent techniques to inflate Anicom's net income by more
than $20 million. To conceal the fraud, certain of the
defendants lied to Anicom's outside auditors, lied to the Audit
Committee of Anicom's Board of Directors in an internal
investigation, and withheld information from the Commission's
staff. When aspects of the fraud were eventually revealed to the
public, Anicom's shareholders lost more than $80 million.

The Commission's amended complaint alleges that the fraud had
two distinct aspects. First, Anixter and his co-defendants,
President and Chief Executive Officer Carl E. Putnam, Vice
President of Sales Daryl T. Spinell, Chief Operating Officer
John P. Figurelli, and Billing Manager Renee L. LeVault,
improperly recognized numerous sales that inflated reported
revenues and net profits. Additionally, Chief Financial Officer
Donald C. Welchko, Figurelli, LeVault, and defendant Vice
President of Accounting Ronald M. Bandyk, C.P.A., with Anixter
and Putnam's knowledge, caused Anicom in 1999 to, among other
things, improperly recognize more than $11.7 million in sales to
a fictitious customer called SCL Integration Corp. to minimize
the effect on income of writing off earlier improper sales.

Second, Anixter and Welchko improperly manipulated Anicom's
expenses to bring the company's financial results in line with,
or at least closer to, analysts' expectations.  To that end,
Welchko and Bandyk engaged in fraud by improperly charging
certain expenses to a reserve account and a restructuring
charge, unjustifiably inflating purchase rebates accrued, and
accelerating the recognition of sales between reporting periods.
As a result of the defendants' misconduct, Anicom filed with the
Commission at least nine materially false and misleading
periodic reports on Forms 10-Q and 10-K reports between Jan. 1,
1998, and March 30, 2000, that, among other things, overstated
the company's revenues by more than $38 million.

The Commission's amended complaint alleges that the defendants'
conduct violated the antifraud, periodic reporting, record
keeping, internal controls, and lying to the auditors provisions
of the federal securities laws. The Commission requests that the
court issue a final judgment of permanent injunction and other
relief, enjoining certain of the defendants from violating
Sections 17(a)(1) and (3) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Sections 10(b), and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2 promulgated thereunder,
and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)
(A), and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 promulgated thereunder. The
Commission seeks civil monetary penalties from each of the
defendants, and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains from Anixter,
Putnam, Welchko, Figurelli, Bandyk, and Spinell. The Commission
also seeks an order permanently barring Anixter, Putnam,
Welchko, Figurelli, Spinell, and Bandyk from acting as
officers and directors of any public company.

The Commission filed its lawsuit on May 6, 2002. Additional
information regarding the Commission's lawsuit can be found in
Litigation Release No. 17504, May 6, 2002. The action is titled,
SEC v. Scott C. Anixter, et al., No. 02-C-3235 (N.D. Ill.)
(Marovich, J.) (LR-18823; 2077).


AT&T CORPORATION: NJ Court Grants Summary Judgment in Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted AT&T Corporation's motion for summary judgment for a
consolidated securities class action filed against it, on behalf
of persons who purchased shares of AT&T common stock from
October 25, 1999 through May 1, 2000.

These lawsuits allege, among other things, that during the
period referenced above, the Company made materially false and
misleading statements and omitted to state material facts
concerning the Company's future business prospects.  The
consolidated complaint seeks unspecified damages.

Similar claims have been asserted by plaintiffs against the
Company in two derivative actions, which were dismissed by the
New Jersey federal court on January 7, 2004.  In early June
2004, the court granted AT&T's motion for summary judgment (in
part) in these cases and dismissed a substantial portion of this
case by narrowing the class period and rejecting a number of the
allegations upon which plaintiffs complaint was based.


AVATAR HOLDINGS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss 7% Noteholders' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avatar Holdings, Inc. asked the United States District Court of
Delaware to dismiss a class action filed against it and certain
of its officers by a holder of the 7% Notes.

The suit alleges that Avatar violated Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 with respect to its announcement of a
partial redemption of $60,000 of the 7% Notes.  The complaint
does not allege a specific damage amount.

On June 21, 2004, the Company moved for an order dismissing the
action in its entirety, on the grounds of failure to state a
claim, failure to plead with the requisite particularity and
lack of standing.  The Company is awaiting plaintiff's response
to its motion to dismiss the action.  No motion has been filed
seeking class certification.


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Will Defend Itself Against Shareholder Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
BIOLASE Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: BLTI) and certain of its
officers face several securities class actions filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, alleging
that they failed to disclose material information about demand
for the company's products and the fact that the company would
not achieve the financial growth forecasted.

The suit seeks damages on behalf of an alleged class of
investors who purchased BIOLASE shares during the period from
October 29, 2003 to July 16, 2004. The complaint does not
specify any amount of claimed damages.

BIOLASE said in a statement that it believes the lawsuit is
without merit and appears to have been filed in response to a
recent decrease in the market price of BIOLASE's stock. The
company is confident that it has complied with applicable laws
and properly disclosed its business and financial information to
stockholders. The company intends to defend the action
vigorously and to request the court to dismiss the cases at the
earliest opportunity.

"We have reviewed the complaint and believe the claims are
unfounded and the lawsuit is without merit. We believe this
lawsuit represents the very type of baseless suits instigated by
class action plaintiff's lawyers that Congress has recognized as
abusive. BIOLASE will vigorously defend itself against this
litigation," said Jeffrey W. Jones, BIOLASE's President and CEO.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Judge Enters Final Judgment, Orders $150M Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission through the Honorable
Faith S. Hochberg, U.S. District Court Judge for the District of
New Jersey has obtained a Final Judgment order (Order) against
defendant Bristol-Myers Squibb Company in a civil action that
the Commission filed on Aug. 4, 2004, against the New York-based
pharmaceutical company. The Order requires Bristol-Myers to pay
$150 million 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 sales associated with the channel-stuffing in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles.

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. Bristol-Myers consented to the entry of the Order
without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
Complaint and agreed to the following relief:

     (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 Commission's investigation is continuing. The action is
titled, SEC v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Civil Action No.
04-3680 (D.N.J.) (Hochberg, J.) (LR-18822).


CARFAX INC.: Consumers Launch Unfair Practices Suit in OH Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in The Court of Common Pleas Trumbull County, Ohio
against Carfax, Inc. ("Carfax"). The complaint alleges
violations of the Ohio Sales Practices Act and Common Law. The
complaint further alleges that Carfax engages in unfair,
misleading and/or deceptive sales practices in connection with
the automobile database services that it offers to the public.
The class period is from October 1998 to the present.

This class action involves a nationwide scheme devised and
implemented by Defendants to market Carfax's Vehicle History
Reports concerning used automobiles in a manner which is unfair,
false, deceptive and materially misleading. Carfax purports to
conduct accident report searches for used vehicles on a
nationwide basis in order to determine for consumers whether a
specific used car has been involved in a collision. CarFax,
however, fails to disclose to consumers that it does not have
the ability to access and search public accident records in over
twenty-three (23) states in the United States of America.

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


CLECO CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana's dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Cleco Corporation, on behalf of a
class of persons or entities who purchased the Company's common
stock during a specified period of time.

The suit was initially filed in the Ninth Judicial District
Court, Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana.  The suit alleges
that the Company issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period, among other
purposes, in order to cause the price of Cleco Corporation's
stock to rise artificially.  The plaintiff alleges that, during
the Class Period, the Company failed to disclose the existence
of the round-trip trades that it disclosed in its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended September 30,
2002.

The plaintiff also alleges that the Company's financial
information was not prepared in conformity with generally
accepted accounting principles during the Class Period.  The
defendants removed the lawsuit to the United States District
Court for the Western District of Louisiana.

In May 2003, the lawsuit was dismissed without prejudice,
allowing the plaintiff to re-file the lawsuit subject to certain
stipulations and restrictions.  On November 12, 2003, the
plaintiff again filed suit in the Ninth Judicial District Court,
Parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana.  The Company again
removed the suit to the United States District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana and moved that the suit be
dismissed pursuant to federal law.

On March 19, 2004, the U.S. District Court heard oral arguments
on the Motion to Dismiss and the plaintiff's Motion to Remand.
On April 9, 2004, the court denied the plaintiff's Motion to
Remand and granted the Company's Motion to Dismiss, dismissing
this matter with prejudice. The plaintiff filed an appeal with
the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on May 14, 2004.  The
company is opposing this appeal and it is unknown when the
appellate court will render a decision.


CLECO CORPORATION: LPSC Approves Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Public Service Commission (LPSC) approved the
settlement of a petition filed in the 27th Judicial District
Court, Parish of St. Landry, State of Louisiana, by several
Cleco Power customers against:

     (1) Cleco Corporation,

     (2) Cleco Power,

     (3) Midstream,

     (4) Marketing & Trading,

     (5) Evangeline,

     (6) Acadia, and

     (7) Westar

The plaintiffs are seeking class action status on behalf of all
Cleco Power's retail customers, and their petition centers
around Cleco's trading activities first disclosed by Cleco in
November 2002.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that
the defendants' conduct was in violation of Louisiana antitrust
law.

On July 6, 2004, Cleco Corporation announced that it had reached
a preliminary settlement regarding these issues as well as the
issues raised in the pending fuel audit by the LPSC.  On July
14, 2004, Cleco, the LPSC Staff and these plaintiffs entered
into a settlement in connection with the LPSC settlement of the
fuel audit and related trading issues.  To become effective, the
settlement and dismissal still needs approval by the 27th
Judicial District Court, Parish of St. Landry, State of
Louisiana.


CONSECO INC.: Forges $20M SEC Settlement in Market Timing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted the first
enforcement action charging insurance companies with securities
fraud for facilitating market timing of mutual funds through the
sale of variable annuities. The insurance companies are
subsidiaries of Conseco, Inc. (CIHC, Inc., Conseco Services,
LLC, and Conseco Equity Sales, Inc.), and the company to which
Conseco sold its variable annuity business in 2002, Inviva,
Inc., and its subsidiary Jefferson National Life Insurance
Company.

The insurance companies have agreed to settlements that include
payment of $20 million in disgorgement and penalties and
undertakings of compliance reforms. The Commission's Orders find
that the prospectuses through which the insurance companies sold
the variable annuities misleadingly represented, among other
things, that the annuities were "not designed for professional
market timing organizations." In fact, the insurance companies
affirmatively marketed and sold the annuities to professional
market timers. Eventually, market-timing assets constituted the
majority of assets invested in the variable annuity products.
The insurance companies profited by the fees earned from the
sales of the annuities to the market timers.

Variable annuities are combined securities and insurance
products designed primarily for individual retirement and tax
purposes. Nevertheless, from late 1999 through October 2002,
Conseco Variable Insurance Company (CVIC) (CIHC was the
corporate parent of CVIC), Conseco Services, and Conseco Equity
Sales, Inc. (CES) sold the Monument and Advantage Plus variable
annuity products to hedge funds and other individuals and
entities to market time the mutual fund portfolios offered
through the variable annuities. Conseco Services employees were
aware that these market timers, in contrast to the typical
variable annuity customer, had no interest in the tax deferral
or retirement features of variable annuities.

The Monument and Advantage Plus prospectuses falsely stated that
these products were "not designed for professional market timing
organizations" and indicated that CVIC in its "sole discretion"
could restrict exchanges "that we consider disadvantageous" to
other annuity contract holders. Further, the prospectuses failed
to disclose that CVIC was marketing and selling the products to
market timers. In addition, the prospectuses failed to disclose
the risk that market timing might have a negative impact on
other variable annuity purchasers' investment returns.

In October 2002, Inviva purchased CVIC and later renamed it
Jefferson National. Inviva and Jefferson National continued to
allow a group of hedge funds and other select customers to
engage in market timing through the Monument and Advantage Plus
variable annuity products.

The Jefferson National prospectuses repeated the above language
from the CVIC prospectuses. Further, the Jefferson National
prospectus reserved the right to limit any "substantive"
transfers that it determined "in its sole discretion, could
adversely affect the management of the investment portfolio."
However, as at CVIC, Inviva and Jefferson National failed to
disclose that Jefferson National was selling the products to
market timing customers, and was facilitating the market timers
in carrying out a market timing strategy.

In some cases, mutual fund advisers were aware of and permitted
the market timing of the mutual funds. In other cases,
Respondents did not inform the underlying fund complexes that
Conseco Services and Inviva employees tolerated and actively
solicited market timers. Many of these complexes prohibited
market timing or did not tolerate timers.

Ultimately, hedge funds and other market timers invested
approximately $120 million in Monument and Advantage Plus
variable annuities. In the Monument product, the market timing
assets dwarfed the assets of other variable annuity purchasers.
Through their frequent trading, the market timers diluted the
value of the underlying mutual funds that were timed, and caused
the funds to incur additional costs.

The Commission's Orders find that CIHC, Conseco Services, CES,
Inviva, and Jefferson National violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Section 34(b) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940. The Orders require Conseco
Services, CES, Inviva, and Jefferson National to cease and
desist from violating these provisions. CIHC, Conseco Services,
CES, Inviva, and Jefferson National consented to entry of the
respective Orders without admitting or denying the findings.

Under the settlements, CIHC, Conseco Services, and CES have
agreed to pay $15 million, including disgorgement of $7.5
million and civil penalties of $7.5 million. Inviva and
Jefferson National will pay $5 million, including disgorgement
of $3.5 million and a civil penalty of $1.5 million. These
amounts will be distributed to shareholders of mutual funds
affected by the market timing.

Inviva and Jefferson National will also undertake compliance
measures to protect against future violations. These measures
include retaining an independent consultant to review compliance
procedures designed to prevent and detect market timing.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the New York
Attorney General in connection with this matter.


DUN & BRADSTREET: CT Court Hears Motion To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Connecticut heard Dun &
Bradstreet Corporation's motion to dismiss the class action
filed against it on behalf of 46 specified former employees.
The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth the
putative class:

     (1) current D&B employees who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (2) current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (3) former employees of D&B or D&B's Receivable Management
         Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred
         vested retirement benefit under either The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account or The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and

     (4) former employees of D&B's RMS operations whose
         employment with D&B terminated after the sale of the
         RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and
         who, during their employment with D&B, were "Eligible
         Employees" for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career
         Transition Plan

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint: Count 1 claims that the Company violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by not paying severance
benefits to plaintiffs under the Company's Career Transition
Plan.  Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that our sale of
the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting termination of our
employees constituted a prohibited discharge of the plaintiffs
and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs for the
"intentional purpose of interfering with their employment
and/or attainment of employee benefit rights which they might
otherwise have attained."

Count 3 claims that the plaintiffs were materially harmed by the
Company's alleged violation of ERISA's requirements that a
summary plan description reasonably apprise participants and
beneficiaries of their rights and obligations under the plans
and that, therefore, undisclosed plan provisions (in this case,
the actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave D&B
before age 55 and elect to retire early) cannot be enforced
against them. Count 4 claims that the 6 3/5% interest rate (the
rate is actually 6 3/4%) used to actuarially reduce early
retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a
prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

The plaintiffs purport to seek payment of severance benefits;
equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of
employment with D&B or restoration of employee benefits
(including stock options); invalidation of the actuarial
reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement benefits,
including invalidation of the plan rate of 6 3/5% (the actual
rate is 6 3/4%) used to actuarially reduce former employees'
early retirement benefits; attorneys' fees and such other relief
as the court may deem just.

In September 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Counts
1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint on the ground that
plaintiffs cannot prevail on those claims under any set of
facts.  The Company expects a written decision on Counts 1 and 3
shortly, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  With respect to Count 4, the Court
requested that the parties conduct limited expert discovery,
which is ongoing and anticipated to be completed by October
2004.  At that time, the Company will renew its motion to
dismiss Count 4 as well.  The Company's motion to dismiss did
not address the claim asserted in Count 2 challenging the sale
of the RMS business as an intentional interference with employee
benefit rights and the Parties have agreed to stay all
deposition discovery on Count 2 until the Court fully addresses
the issues presented by the Company's pending motion to dismiss.
At the appropriate time, the Company expects to move for summary
judgment on this claim as well.

The Court indicated that the challenge to the interest rate
should be addressed by further motion, following the receipt of
expert submissions, and took the balance of the motion under
advisement.


FLORIDA: GA Appeals Court Dismisses Death Row Conditions Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a class action
lawsuit, which claims that the heat on death row forced inmates
at Union Correctional Institution in Raiford, Florida to stand
in toilets, drape themselves in wet towels and sleep naked on
concrete floors and that this condition were tantamount to the
violation of a prisoner's constitutional rights, the AP Online
reports.

However, in it's ruling the Atlanta-based appellate court stated
that the Constitution "does not mandate comfortable prisons."
The Court further stated that the heat is not excessive since
the prison is equipped with a ventilation system that manages
air circulation and humidity.

According to Peter Siegel, an attorney for the Miami-based
Florida Justice Institute, which originally filed the suit in
2000, told AP that his organization has not yet decided whether
to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Upon hearing of the appeals court decision, the director of the
Florida Death Row Advocacy Group, Hannah Floyd, condemned the
ruling as inhumane, stating "people in this nation have to
realize that prisoners, including the ones on death row, are
humans and should be treated as such."

The Department of Corrections on the other hand stated through
its spokesman, Sterling Ivey, that the agency was "extremely
pleased" with the court's decision.


GREAT LAKES: $1 Million in Suit Settlement Vouchers Claimed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Approximately $1.0 million of the settlement of the consolidated
class action field against Great Lakes Chemical Corporation has
been redeemed through vouchers.

There were ten federal purported class action lawsuits and five
California purported class action lawsuits naming the Company,
each claiming treble damages arising out of an alleged
conspiracy concerning the pricing of bromine and brominated
products.  The federal lawsuits were consolidated in the
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, which, over
the Company's opposition, certified a class of direct purchasers
of certain brominated products.

On September 10, 2002, the Company agreed to settle all of the
federal class action lawsuits.  The settlement agreement affects
direct purchasers from the Company of brominated diphenyl oxides
(decabromodiphenyl oxide, octabromodiphenyl oxide and
pentabromodiphenyl oxide) and their blends, tetrabromobisphenol-
A and its derivatives and all methyl bromide products and their
derivatives in the United States between January 1, 1995 and
April 30, 1998.

The Company agreed to a $4.1 million cash payment and $2.6
million in vouchers for the future purchase of decabromodiphenyl
oxide and/or tetrabromobisphenol-A, to be distributed to
class members.  Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the
Company remitted the cash portion to an escrow account on
November 8, 2002, subject to final approval of the settlement
agreement by the federal court.  After notice to class members,
the federal court gave final approval to the settlement in
January 2003.

In addition, the plaintiffs submitted a plan of distribution for
court approval.  The plan included a form of voucher agreed to
by the Company.  As of the second quarter of 2004, the vouchers
have been issued and approximately $1.0 million have been
redeemed.


HOMESTORE INC.: CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
An objector to the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Homestore, Inc. (formerly
Homestore.com, Inc.) and certain of its current and former
officers and directors filed an appeal with the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.

Beginning in December 2001, numerous separate complaints
purporting to be class actions were filed in various
jurisdictions alleging that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors violated certain
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
complaints contain varying allegations, including that the
Company made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to the Company's 2000 and 2001 financial results
included in the Company's filings with the SEC, analysts
reports, press releases and media reports.  The complaints
sought an unspecified amount of damages.

In March 2002, the California State Teachers' Retirement System
was named lead plaintiff, and the complaints were consolidated
in the United States District Court, Central District of
California.  In July 2002, the Plaintiff filed a consolidated
amended class action complaint naming the Company, certain of
the Company's former officers, directors and employees, along
with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as defendants.

In November 2002, the Plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated class action complaint naming the Company, certain
of its current officers and employees, certain of the Company's
former officers, directors and employees, and various other
parties, including, among others, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as
defendants.   The amended complaint made various allegations,
including that the Company violated federal securities laws, and
sought an unspecified amount of damages.

On March 7, 2003, the court dismissed, with prejudice, the
Plaintiff's claims against a number of corporate and individual
defendants whom the Plaintiff alleged either assisted in the
planning and execution of the purportedly fraudulent
transactions at issue, or who were parties to those
transactions.  The court also dismissed without prejudice the
Plaintiff's claims against a number of the Company's current and
former officers and employees.

The court likewise denied PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP's and the
Company's former chief executive officer's motions to dismiss.
The Company did not file a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's
claims against the Company, but answered the complaint.
Accordingly, the March 7, 2003 decision did not make any ruling
with respect to the claims asserted against the Company.

On August 12, 2003, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the Plaintiff to resolve all outstanding claims
related to the Securities Class Action Lawsuit.  On October 8,
2003, the District Court preliminarily approved the settlement.
A final hearing on the settlement was held on January 16, 2004,
after delivery of notice to class members.  On February 5, 2004,
the Court issued an interim order generally approving the terms
of the settlement as fair, adequate and reasonable, but
directing additional briefing on two issues:

     (1) whether certain objectors' proposal to "carve out"
         certain claims from the settlement is feasible; and

     (2) whether notice to class members was potentially
         inadequate because of the short time period given to
         file their claims.

The Court suggested that the parties consider allowing
additional time for class members to file claims, which would
not affect the total settlement fund.  On March 16, 2004, the
Court issued its "Order Granting Motion for Final Approval of
Partial Class Settlement and Directing Renotice of the Class."
The Order directed that an abbreviated class notice be published
and extended the deadline for class members to opt out or submit
claims until May 31, 2004. On May 14, 2004, the District Court
entered final judgment and an order of dismissal with prejudice
as to the Company.  The final judgment includes a bar order
providing for the maximum protection to which the Company is
entitled under the law with respect to all future claims for
contribution or indemnity by other persons, whether under
federal, state or common law.

As a part of the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $13.0
million in cash and issue 20.0 million new shares of the
Company's common stock valued at $50.6 million as of August 12,
2003.  The Company placed $10.0 million in escrow in October
2003 and an additional $3.0 million in escrow in April 2004.  In
May 2004, in accordance with an order entered by the District
Court, the Company issued the 20.0 million shares to counsel to
the Plaintiff as trustee.  The shares must be voted in
proportion to the votes of all the other holders of the
Company's common stock who exercise their voting rights at a
stockholder meeting or by written consent in lieu of a meeting
until such time as they are distributed to the class.  The
issuance of the shares was exempt from registration under
Section 3(a)(10) of the Securities Act of 1933.

Assuming the District Court's final judgment is upheld on
appeal, the $13.0 million and the 20.0 million shares will be
distributed to the class and Plaintiff's counsel in accordance
with the judgment.  The 20.0 million shares currently held in
trust have been reflected as issued and outstanding in the
Company's financial statements beginning in May 2004.


INTERCEPT INC.: GA Holds Stock Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia held the final fairness hearing for the settlement of
the consolidated securities class action filed against
InterCept, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers:

     (1) John W. Collins,

     (2) G. Lynn Boggs,

     (3) Scott R. Meyerhoff and

     (4) Garrett M. Bender

The suit, Civil Action No. 03-CV0567, was filed on behalf of
individuals who purchased InterCept common stock between
September 16, 2002 and January 9, 2003.  The plaintiff alleged
that InterCept and the individual defendants made material
misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material disclosures
throughout the class period due to their false assurances that
the adult entertainment portion of the company's merchant
services business was insignificant and their failure to
disclose the impact of the implementation of new Visa
regulations in November 2002.

The plaintiff alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
Section 10(b), and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  Other
plaintiffs filed similar actions, and on May 2, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a motion to consolidate their claims.  On June
23, 2003, the court denied the plaintiffs' motions to
consolidate.  On July 11, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a new
motion for consolidation.

On April 29, 2004, InterCept and the plaintiffs entered into a
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement.  Under the terms of the
settlement agreement, InterCept and its insurance carrier will
pay $5.3 million to the plaintiffs and their counsel.  InterCept
will fund $3.95 million and its insurance carrier will fund
$1.35 million of the proposed settlement.  These amounts have
been placed into escrow pending settlement of the case.  On
April 29, 2004, the court entered an order that consolidated all
of the cases, certified the class for settlement purposes and
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement.

Settlement materials have been distributed to potential members
of the class and a final settlement hearing was held on August
6, 2004.  Upon final approval of the settlement, the pending
claims against InterCept and the individual defendants will be
dismissed without any admission of liability or wrongdoing.


MICROTUNE INC.: TX Court Dismisses Several Claims in Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas dismissed all but the Transilica-related claims in the
securities class action filed against Microtune, Inc. and:

     (1) former Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
         Officer Douglas J. Bartek,

     (2) former Chief Financial Officer and Vice-President of
         Finance and Administration Everett Rogers,

     (3) former President and Chief Operating Officer William L.
         Housley, and

     (4) former Chief Financial Officer and former General
         Counsel Nancy A. Richardson.

Several class actions were initially filed, alleging violations
of federal securities laws and regulations.  The claims of the
plaintiffs in the various lawsuits include that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as well as SEC Rule 10b-5, resulting in damages to
persons who purchased, converted, exchanged, or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock between July 23, 2001 and
February 20, 2003, inclusive.

The plaintiffs' specific allegations include that the defendants
engaged in fraudulent accounting and financial practices and
misrepresented material facts and omitted to state material
facts necessary to make other statements made not misleading,
and that these misrepresentations or omissions had the effect of
artificially inflating Microtune's stock price.  At this time,
the alleged misrepresentations and omissions include, among
others, allegations that:

     (i) Microtune materially overstated revenue by recognizing
         certain sales immediately as revenue when deferred
         revenue recognition would have been more appropriate;

    (ii) Microtune failed to establish reserves when
         appropriate;

   (iii) Microtune lacked adequate internal controls to assure
         its financial statements were fairly presented in
         conformity with generally accepted accounting
         principles;

    (iv) Microtune lacked sufficient controls and procedures for
         the timely and accurate issuance of periodic press
         releases;

     (v) Microtune lacked sufficient means to monitor prior
         public statements to detect whether an update was
         required; and

    (vi) Microtune failed to record impairment charges relating
         to the assets acquired with the Transilica acquisition
         at the appropriate time (Transilica-related claims).

The relief sought by the plaintiffs in the various lawsuits,
both individually and on behalf of shareholders, includes
damages, interest, costs, fees, and expenses.  The actions have
all been consolidated into one case, lead plaintiffs have been
appointed, and a consolidated amended complaint has been filed.
The defendants filed motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims.

On April 12, 2004, the District Court entered an order
dismissing all claims against Defendants Rogers and Housley with
prejudice and dismissing all claims against the remaining
Defendants with prejudice except the Transilica-related claims.


OWENS CORNING: MA Court Partially Certifies Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts partially granted class certification to the
securities class action filed against certain of Owens Corning's
current and former directors and officers, as well as certain
underwriters, captioned "John Hancock Life Insurance Company, et
al. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., et al.:

Owens Corning is not named in the lawsuit.  The suit purports to
be a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of certain
unsecured debt securities of Owens Corning in offerings
occurring on or about April 30, 1998 and July 23, 1998.  The
complaint alleges that the registration statements pursuant to
which the offerings were made contained untrue and misleading
statements of material fact and omitted to state material facts
which were required to be stated therein and which were
necessary to make the statements therein not misleading, in
violation of sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933. The amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages or, where appropriate, rescission of the plaintiffs'
purchases.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action on November
20, 2001.  A hearing was held on this motion on April 11, 2002,
and the Court issued a decision denying the motion on August 26,
2002.  On March 9, 2004, the Court granted class certification
as to those claims relating to written representations but
denied certification as to claims relating to alleged oral
representations.


OWENS CORNING: OH Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United State District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, Western Division fully briefed Owen Corning's motion to
dismiss the class action filed against its current and former
officers and directors, styled "Robert Greenburg, et al. v.
Glen Hiner, et al."

JKF Investment Co., Icarus Trading, Inc. and HGK Asset
Management have been appointed lead plaintiffs and an amended
complaint was filed on September 8, 2003.  Owens Corning is not
named in the lawsuit.

The suit purports to be a class action for securities fraud
under sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on behalf of a class comprised of persons who purchased
stock of Owens Corning during the period from September 20,
1999, through October 4, 2000. The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages and/or, where appropriate,
rescission.


PAYPAL: CA Court Preliminarily Approves Consumer Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
class action filed against PayPal over its restriction of
customer accounts.

The first suit was filed in California state court alleging that
its restriction of customer accounts and failure to promptly un-
restrict legitimate accounts violates California state consumer
protection laws and is an unfair business practice and a breach
of PayPal's User Agreement. This action was re-filed with a
different named plaintiff in June 2002 (No.CV-808441), and a
related action was also filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California in June 2002 (No.C-02-2777).

In March 2002, PayPal was sued in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California (No.C-02-1227) in a
purported class action alleging that its restrictions of
customer accounts and failure to promptly un-restrict legitimate
accounts violates federal and state consumer protection and
unfair business practice laws.  The two federal court actions
have been consolidated into a single case, and the state court
action has been stayed pending developments in the federal case.

On June 14, 2004, the parties announced that they had reached a
proposed settlement. Under the terms of the proposed settlement,
certain PayPal account holders will be eligible to receive
payment from a settlement fund in accordance with the
preliminary settlement's plan of allocation.  The settlement
fund, which will be funded by PayPal, will total $9.25 million,
less administrative costs and any amount awarded to plaintiffs'
counsel by the court.


PIPER JAFFRAY: NY Court Hears Certification For Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York heard motions for class certification for the
consolidated securities class action filed against Piper Jaffray
Companies and other leading securities firms, involving the
allocation of securities in certain initial public offerings.

The suit, styled "In re Initial Public Offering Allocation
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," assert
claims pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The claims are based, in part, upon allegations that between
1998 and 2000, in connection with acting as an underwriter of
certain initial public offerings of technology and Internet-
related companies, the Company obtained excessive compensation
by allocating shares in these initial public offerings to
preferred customers who, in return, purportedly agreed to pay
additional compensation to the Company in the form of excess
commissions that the Company failed to disclose.  The complaints
also allege that the Company's customers who received favorable
allocations of shares in initial public offerings agreed to
purchase additional shares of the same issuer in the secondary
market at pre-determined prices.   The suit seeks unspecified
damages.

The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints were filed on
July 1, 2002, and oral argument on the motions to dismiss was
heard on November 14, 2002.  The court entered its order largely
denying the motions to dismiss on February 19, 2003.  A status
conference was held with the court on July 11, 2003 for purposes
of establishing a case management plan setting forth discovery
deadlines, selecting focus cases and briefing class
certification.  Discovery with respect to seven focus cases is
proceeding at this time.  On June 17, 2004, the court heard oral
arguments on plaintiffs' motions for class certification and a
ruling is expected in the next several months.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Stock Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Piper Jaffray Companies and other leading
securities firms in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "In re Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 98 CV 7890 (LMM)."

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief.  The
consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers
of shares issued in certain initial public offerings for U.S.
companies and alleges that defendants conspired in offerings of
an amount between $20 and $80 million to fix the underwriters'
discount at 7.0 percent of the offering amount in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The court dismissed this
consolidated action with prejudice and denied plaintiffs' motion
to amend the complaint and include an issuer plaintiff.  The
court stated that its decision did not affect any class actions
filed on behalf of issuer plaintiffs.

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision on December 13, 2002 and remanded the action to
the district court.  A motion to dismiss was filed with the
district court on March 26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this
action and the issuer plaintiff action described below in their
entirety, based upon the argument that the determination of
underwriting fees is implicitly immune from the antitrust laws
because of the extensive federal regulation of the securities
markets.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
April 25, 2003.  The underwriter defendants filed a motion for
leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in further
support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003.  The court
denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied immunity in its
memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003.  A supplemental
memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss, applicable only
to this action because the purported class consists of indirect
purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and seeks dismissal based
upon the argument that the proposed class members cannot state
claims upon which relief can be granted.

Plaintiffs filed a supplemental memorandum in opposition to
defendants' motion to dismiss on July 9, 2003.  Defendants filed
a reply in further support of the motion to dismiss on July 25,
2003.  The court entered its memorandum and order granting in
part and denying in part the motion to dismiss on February 24,
2004.  Plaintiffs' damage claims were dismissed because they
were indirect purchasers.  The motion to dismiss was denied with
respect to plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief.  The
Company filed its answer to the consolidated amended complaint
on April 22, 2004.

Similar purported class actions have also been filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of issuer plaintiffs asserting substantially
similar antitrust claims based upon allegations that 7.0 percent
underwriters' discounts violate the Sherman Act.  These
purported class actions were consolidated by the district court
as "In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust
Litigation, Case No. 00 CV 7804 (LMM)," on May 23, 2001.  These
complaints also seek unspecified compensatory damages, treble
damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July
6, 2001.  The district court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint on September 30, 2002.  Defendants filed a
motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal on October
15, 2002.  On March 26, 2003, the motion to dismiss based upon
implied immunity was also filed in connection with this action.
The court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26, 2003.
Discovery is proceeding at this time.


QUANTUM CORPORATION: Franz Inc. Launches DLT Tape Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quantum Corporation faces a class action lawsuit filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Francisco.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,

     (2) Maxell Corporation of America,

     (3) Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and

     (4) Fuji Photo Film U.S.A., Inc.

The plaintiff, Franz Inc., alleges violation of California
antitrust law, violation of California unfair competition law,
and unjust enrichment.  Franz Inc. charges, among other things,
that the defendants entered into agreements and conspired to
monopolize the market and fix prices for data storage tape
compatible with DLT tape drives.  Franz seeks an order that the
lawsuit be maintained as a class action and that defendants be
enjoined from continuing the violations alleged in the
complaint.  Franz also seeks compensatory damages, treble
damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and
interest.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Group, Inc. asked the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division - Camden County to dismiss the class action
field by several health care providers against it and:

     (1) its wholly owned subsidiaries,

     (2) Consumer Health Network Plus, LLC,

     (3) Alta Services, LLC (Alta) and

     (4) ten other unrelated defendants

The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of all New Jersey
health care providers, except hospitals, who had bills for their
services paid from personal injury protection benefits under New
Jersey automobile policies and whose payments were reduced
pursuant to a preferred provider organization discount schedule.
The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached participating
provider agreements and insurance policies and were unjustly
enriched.

The Company and the other defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss.
A hearing was held on the Motion and the Court ordered the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint by March 10, 2004.  On March
10, 2004 the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint, wherein Alta
was dropped as a defendant.  In May 2004, all defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.  In July 2004, all
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the class action
allegations of the Amended Complaint.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Insurance Claimants Launch MD Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast and six other
unrelated defendants face a purported class action styled
"Howell, et al v. State Farm, et al.," pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore
Division.

The lawsuit asserts a class consisting of claimants under
standard flood insurance policies who settled claims below
policy limits.  These claims were caused by Hurricane Isabel,
and the claimants were participants in the Federal Government's
"Write Your Own" flood insurance program.  The lawsuit alleges
that the defendants failed to honor contractual obligations
under these flood insurance policies, and that the claimants
were denied benefits to which they were entitled.  The lawsuit
asserts claims for breaches of contract, fiduciary duty and the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.


SONIC AUTOMOTIVE: Dealerships Fight Antitrust Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several of Sonic Automotive, Inc.'s defendants is fighting class
certification for three lawsuits filed against them, the Texas
Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) and new vehicle
dealerships in Texas that are members of the TADA.

Approximately 630 Texas dealerships are named as defendants in
two of the actions, and approximately 700 Texas dealerships are
named as defendants in the other action.  The three actions
allege that since January 1994, Texas automobile dealerships
have deceived customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax
and violated federal antitrust and other laws.

In two of the actions, the Texas state court certified two
classes of consumers on whose behalf the actions would proceed.
The Texas Court of Appeals has affirmed the trial court's order
of class certification in the state actions.  The Company's
dealership subsidiary defendants and the other Texas dealership
defendants are appealing that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court.
On March 26, 2004, the Texas Supreme Court issued an order
stating that it would not hear the merits of the defendants'
appeal.  On May 10, 2004, the Texas dealership defendants
petitioned the Texas Supreme Court to reconsider its denial of
review of the class certification, and the parties currently are
waiting for the Texas Supreme Court's decision on this motion
for rehearing.

The federal court has conditionally certified a class of
consumers in the federal antitrust case.  The Company's
dealership subsidiary defendants and the other Texas dealership
defendants are also appealing that ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals, Fifth Circuit.


SUMMIT METALS: DE Court Enters $32 Million Judgment V. Gray
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Federal District Court entered a $32 million
judgment against former majority shareholder Richard Gray
("Gray") and directed him to turn over the stock of two
corporations after finding that Gray's purchase of those two
companies represented a "corporate opportunity" that belonged to
Summit Metals ("Summit"), the PrimeZone Media Network reports.

The Court's ruling represents a massive stride towards closing
the books on litigation that lasted for nine years. In August of
1995, Gray, the majority shareholder of Summit, disclosed that
he had caused Summit to pay him over $7 million in bonuses and
consulting fees over the previous five years, that he had sold
Summit's operating subsidiary to himself and that he had "frozen
out" the public shareholders of Summit. Soon afterwards,
shareholders sued Gray in New York, and the New York State
Supreme Court entered a preliminary injunction barring Gray from
making further "extraordinary" payments to himself from
corporate assets.

The Court later determined that Gray had taken millions more out
of the company, which he used to purchase two other companies in
Summit's line of business. The court held Gray in contempt, and
directed him to return over $4.35 million to the company. Gray
refused to comply, claiming that he did not have the money.
After an eight (8) day trial, the New York Court found that Gray
did have the ability to repay the money, and ordered him
committed to jail until he did so. Gray still refused, and
remained in jail for almost two years.

Meanwhile, Gray had put Summit into bankruptcy in Delaware,
forcing the Pomerantz law firm, which was the lead counsel of
Summit to file a new case in Delaware, as part of the bankruptcy
proceeding. The Delaware court scheduled the trial on the merits
for just after Gray's scheduled release from prison, in January
of 2004.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (888) 476-6529 or by
E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com


UNCOMMON MEDIA: SEC Imposes Sanctions V. Frederick Hornick, Jr.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), Making
Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against
Frederick B. Hornick, Jr. (Hornick). The Order finds that since
at least 2003, Hornick fraudulently solicited investors.

The Commission sued Hornick and others in an action entitled SEC
v. Uncommon Media Group, Inc., 3rd Dimension, Inc., Lawrence
Gallo, Timothy Rafferty and Frederick Hornick, Jr., Case Number
04-80272-CIV-Hurley/Hopkins, in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida. The Commission's complaint
alleged that, in connection with the sale of securities, Hornick
made false statements to investors concerning the prospects of
the investment, and otherwise engaged in a variety of conduct,
which operated as a fraud and deceit on investors. The complaint
also alleged that Hornick sold unregistered securities.

On June 8, 2004, a final judgment was entered by consent against
Hornick, permanently enjoining him from future violations of
Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
and Sections 10(b), 15(a)(1), and 21(d)(2) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and imposing a penny stock bar.

Based on the above, the Order bars Hornick from association with
any broker or dealer. Hornick consented to the entry of the
Order without admitting or denying the findings of the
Commission.


UNITED PARCEL: Former Worker Files Suit V. Addict Discrimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Darlene E. Veltri, a former package sorter at the United Parcel
Service's (UPS) Laurel Mountain facility for 17 years, initiated
a lawsuit seeking class action status against the company
claiming that it discriminated her and other recovering addicts,
who take prescription drugs, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
reports.

In her suit Ms. Veltri alleges she was fired last January
because she is a recovering alcoholic who takes Xanax for
anxiety and depression. She further alleges UPS singles out
employees with a history of addiction and forces them to
disclose their prescriptions and then prohibits those employees
from using medications it deems inappropriate for someone in
recovery.  Ms. Veltri told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette the
Company determined her use of Xanax was not appropriate for her
and then fired her.


WESTAR ENERGY: KS Court To Rule on Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Topeka, Kansas has yet to
rule on Westar Energy, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
present and former officers, styled "In Re Westar Energy, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 5:03-CV-4003."

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock between March 29, 2000, the date the Company
announced the Company's intention to separate its electric
utility operations from its unregulated businesses, and November
8, 2002, the date the KCC issued an order prohibiting the
separation.

The lawsuit alleges the Company violated federal securities laws
by making material misrepresentations or omitting material facts
concerning the purpose and benefits of the previously proposed
separation of the Company's electric utility operations from the
Company's unregulated businesses, the compensation of the
Company's senior management and the independence and functioning
of the Company's board of directors and that as a result the
Company artificially inflated the price of the Company's common
stock.

On October 20, 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed
motions to dismiss the complaint.  These motions have been fully
briefed and are waiting the court's ruling.


WESTAR ENERGY: KS Court To Rule on Motion To Dismiss ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Topeka, Kansas has yet to
rule on Westar Energy, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the class action
filed against it and certain of the Company's present and former
officers and employees, styled "In Re Westar Energy ERISA
Litigation, Master File No. 03-4032-JAR."

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of participants in, and
beneficiaries of, the Company's Employees' 401(k) Savings Plan
between July 1, 1998 and January 1, 2003.  The lawsuit alleges
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) arising from the conduct of certain present and former
officers and employees who served or are serving as fiduciaries
for the plan.  The conduct is related to alleged securities law
violations related to the previously proposed separation of the
Company's electric utility operations from its unregulated
businesses, its rate cases filed with the KCC in 2000, the
compensation of and benefits provided to its senior management,
energy marketing transactions with Cleco Corporation (Cleco) and
the first and second quarter 2002 restatements of its
consolidated financial statements related to the revised
goodwill impairment charge and the mark-to-market charge on our
putable/callable notes.

On December 23, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  Other defendants filed motions to dismiss on or
before March 30, 2004.  These motions have been fully briefed
and are waiting the court's ruling.


XCEL ENERGY: MN Court Dismisses Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
granted Xcel Energy, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the shareholder
derivative action filed on its behalf against its directors and
certain of its present and former officers.

The suit cites allegedly false and misleading disclosures
concerning various issues and asserting breach of fiduciary
duty.  This action has been consolidated for pre-trial purposes
with other similar securities class actions and an amended
complaint was filed.

Two additional derivative actions were filed in the state trial
court in Hennepin County, Minnesota, against essentially the
same defendants, focusing on allegedly wrongful energy trading
activities and asserting breach of fiduciary duty for failure to
establish adequate accounting controls, abuse of control and
gross mismanagement.  Considered collectively, the complaints
seek compensatory damages, a return of compensation received,
and awards of fees and expenses.

In each of the cases, the defendants filed motions to dismiss
the complaint or amended complaint for failure to make a proper
pre-suit demand, or in the federal court case, to make any pre-
suit demand at all, upon Xcel Energy's board of directors.

In an order dated January 6, 2004, the Minnesota district court
judge granted the defendants' motion to dismiss both of the
state court actions.  In March 2004, plaintiffs filed notices of
appeal related to this decision.  In April 2004, plaintiffs
withdrew their appeals.  On July 12, 2004, the federal court
issued an order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the
shareholder derivative lawsuit.  Plaintiffs have 30 days from
the entry of judgment to appeal.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

August 16-17, 2004
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2004: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES
PLI New York Center
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 212-824-5865; sgreenblatt@pli.edu

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

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

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

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

September 23, 2004
MOLD LITIGATION & MANAGEMENT UPDATE
BridgeportCE
Millennium Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: (818) 505-1490; Fax:  (818) 505-1497

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

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

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

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

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

October 15, 2004
CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
ABA-CLE National Institute, New York, NY
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

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

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

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

October 15, 2004
CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
ABA-CLE National Institute, New Orleans
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 1-2, 2004
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2004: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
PLI New York Center -- New York, NY
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 212-824-5865; sgreenblatt@pli.edu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

December 6-7, 2004
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 6-7, 2004
MTBE CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

December 9-10, 2004
PERSONAL INJURY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 13-14, 2004
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin St. Francis, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 15-16, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
New Orleans
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

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

February 10-11, 2005
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

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

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

April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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



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

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

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



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

August 02-31, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION
DEFECT LIABILITY

August 02-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 02-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 02-31, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 02-30, 2004
AVOIDING MALPRACTICE CLAIMS: THINGS TO DO (AND NOT DO)
ON THE FIRST DAY YOU REPRESENT A CLIENT
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 13-31, 2004
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

August 16-17, 2004
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION 2004: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES
PLI California Ctr -- San Francisco, CA
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 212-824-5865; sgreenblatt@pli.edu

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLIED WASTE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Allied Waste Industries, Inc. (NYSE: AW) ("Allied Waste" or the
"Company") from February 10, 2004 through July 27, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Allied Waste, Thomas H. Van Weelden, Peter
S. Hathaway, Thomas W. Ryan, and James E. Gray with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allied Waste is a non-
hazardous solid waste management company in the United States
that provides collection, transfer, recycling and disposal
services for approximately 10 million residential, commercial
and industrial customers. 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 Company's internal growth, which the defendants
         touted as being strong, was lagging due to poor
         management execution and the loss of a large contract;

     (2) that defendants had failed to successfully implement
         the Company's "best practices" initiatives because the
         Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (3) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that much-anticipated cyclical volume pickup of trash
         was not materializing; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
         statements about the Company were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On July 27, 2004, Allied Waste posted earnings, excluding
special items, of 15 cents a share on revenue of $1.36 billion.
Wall Street, on average, had expected earnings of 18 cents a
share on sales of $1.39 billion. Including costs related to
early retirement of debt, Allied Waste posted a net loss of 7
cents a share. Following this announcement, J.P. Morgan cut the
stock to "neutral" vs. "overweight" on the news. "AW's big new
focus on its ``best practices' initiatives now makes the
investment story one primarily about management execution," said
analyst Amanda Tepper. News of this shocked the market. Shares
of Allied Waste fell $2.55 per share, or 20.83 percent, on
unusually high trading volume, to close at $9.69 per share. This
was Allied Waste's biggest drop in five years.

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


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") commences a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Bennett Environmental Inc. ("Bennett")
(AMEX:BEL) common stock during the period between June 2, 2003
and July 22, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bennett and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Bennett is engaged in the business of using thermal
oxidation technology to remediate contaminated soil,
contaminated construction debris and mercaptan contaminated gas
distribution equipment.

The complaint alleges that on June 2, 2003, Bennett announced a
contract to thermally treat an estimated 300,000 tons of
contaminated soil from Phase III of the Federal Creosote
Superfund site in Manville, N.J. The Company said the contract
was worth $200 million Cdn., the largest contract in its
history. But on July 22, 2004, Bennett stunned investors when it
said the contract had been replaced by a new deal that reduced
the maximum amount of soil to be treated to about 100,000 tons.
An exchange of letters between a former lawyer for Bennett and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("U.S. Army Corps") indicates
Bennett knew nearly a year before it told investors that
Sevenson Environmental Services Inc. ("Sevenson"), the prime
contractor on the site, planned to rebid the massive contract
that Bennett had won. The Ontario Securities Commission has
indicated it is investigating Bennett.

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

     (1) the Company would not receive the 300,000 tons of soil
         or $200 million Cdn. in revenues for soil treatment
         under the contract;

     (2) shortly after the contract was awarded to Bennett in
         May 2003, Bennett's consent to perform under the
         contract had been withdrawn by the U.S. Army Corps,
         which supervises the contractors responsible for the
         clean-up site;

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

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

     (5) 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.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Bennett's stock
price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $21.78 on January 5, 2004, whereby the
defendants consummated a private placement raising proceeds of
approximately $19.5 million.

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


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Biolase Technology, Inc.
("Biolase" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: BLTI) during the period
between October 29, 2003 and July 16, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, Southern Division, and
alleges that Biolase and certain of its officers and directors
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities
Act of 1933 by issuing materially false and misleading financial
statements, which caused Biolase's shares to trade at
artificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

Biolase is a medical technology company that designs,
manufactures 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 the Company recognized
revenue in advance of earning it and failed to record adequate
reserves for returns, causing Biolase's financial results to be
inflated. The complaint further alleges that because of this
inflation, the Company 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. After
release of this news, the Company's stock price declined to
$8.78 per share on volume of 4.8 million shares. The Company's
Chief Financial Officer resigned within two weeks of this
announcement. As alleged in the complaint, defendants knew that
Biolase was not performing as well as had been represented. The
truth, which was allegedly known to defendants, but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, was that:

     (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 Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Lawrence D.
Levit, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by Mail: One
Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, New York 10119 by Phone:
(212) 279-5050 or (212) 714-2444 or (800) 938-0015 by Fax:
(212) 279-3655 or by E-mail: Jfruchter@FruchterTwersky.com or
Larryl@abrahamlaw.com


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges CA Stock Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Biolase Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: BLTI) securities 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 the
company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. of the law
offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. by Mail: 261 Old York Road,
Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-
mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Reinhardt Wendorf Files MN Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on August 6, 2004, on behalf of purchasers
of Ceridian Corp. ("Ceridian" or "the Company") (NYSE:CEN)
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. Plaintiff
seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Ceridian
publicly traded securities during the Class Period (the
"Class").

For more details, contact Garrett D. Blanchfield of Reinhardt
Wendorf & Blanchfield by Phone: (800) 465-1592 or 651-287-2100
by Fax: 651-287-2103 or by E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


CROSS COUNTRY: Brain M. Felgoise Files FL Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action commenced on behalf of shareholders who
acquired Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (NASDAQ: CCRN)
securities 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 the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. of the law
offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. by Mail: 261 Old York Road,
Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-
mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


GEXA CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Gexa
Corporation (Nasdaq:GEXA) between August 14, 2003 and March 30,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. 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: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Express Scripts, Inc. (NASDAQ: ESRX) securities 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 the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. of the law
offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. by Mail: 261 Old York Road,
Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-
mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA 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 California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: LGND)
("Ligand" or the "Company") from March 3, 2004 through August 2,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Ligand, David E. Robinson, and Paul V.
Maier with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Ligand discovers, develops and markets drugs that address
patients' medical needs in the areas of cancer, pain, men's and
women's health or hormone-related health issues, skin diseases,
osteoporosis and metabolic, cardiovascular and inflammatory
diseases. The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that inventory de-stocking, at the wholesale level, was
         occurring because the Company was unloading Avinza
         inventory, which was set to expire, onto wholesalers in
         order to show strong demand for Avinza and to meet
         sales expectations that they had set;

     (2) that overall demand of the Company's products,
         including Avinza, was down because of inventory de-
         stocking by wholesalers;

     (3) that Medicaid prescriptions were increasing and thereby
         causing the Company to pay excessive amounts of rebates
         to Medicaid;

     (4) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that increases in Medicaid rebates were not a one-
         time occurrence but were a trend that was going to
         continue to have a negative effect on the overall sales
         of Avinza; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's positive
         statements concerning its financial outlook was lacking
         in any reasonable basis when made.

On August 3, 2004, Ligand made two separate and shocking
announcements:

     (i) that its second-quarter loss widened, missing analysts'
         expectations by a huge margin, and

    (ii) that its independent auditor resigned after a four-year
         relationship.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of Ligand plunged almost
40 percent, or $5.405 per share, to close at $8.175 per share on
unusually high trading volume on August 3, 2004.

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 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


SALESFORCE.COM: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. 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 salesforce.com, inc. ("Salesforce" or the
"Company") (NYSE:CRM) between June 21, 2004 and July 21, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Salesforce and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Salesforce's financial performance
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting
damages on investors. The complaint alleges that defendants
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented:

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. or Lionel Z.
Glancy 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


TARO PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Taro Pharmaceutical
Industries, Ltd. (Nasdaq: TARO) ("Taro") between February 20,
2003 and January 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Taro and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false statements concerning Taro's
business condition. Specifically, Taro failed to disclose the
following adverse facts:

     (1) defendants were unable to maintain profitability in
         Taro's generic drug division or generate free cash flow
         from the introduction of 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 misleading for defendants
         to state that the roll-out of Taro's new proprietary
         drugs was not and would not adversely affect Taro's
         near- or long-term profitability;

     (3) defendants understated the negative effects of
         increasing competition on Taro'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 when Taro 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 $18.68 per share.

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


THORATEC CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Thoratec Corporation (Nasdaq: THOR) ("Thoratec" and the
"Company") from April 28, 2004 through June 29, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Thoratec, D. Keith Grossman, and M. Wayne
Boylston 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 defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that the Company significantly underestimated the time
         and the resources necessary to develop a stable market
         for its much touted Destination Therapy;

     (2) that the Company exaggerated the ultimate size of the
         market for the Destination Therapy, while underplaying
         the risk presented by competitive products and
         alternative therapies;

     (3) that the Company ignored the reluctance of the medical
         community to treat non-critical patients with the
         product, in order to take advantage of the higher
         reimbursement levels available from Medicare beginning
         October 1, 2004; and

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

On June 29, 2004, Thoratec provided an update on its business
activities and outlook for the balance of 2004. The company said
that it expected total Destination Therapy implants for 2004
will be approximately 200. The company said that it expected
revenues for all of 2004 will be approximately $175-$180
million, with taxed cash earnings per share in the range of
$0.23-$0.26. These numbers were well below expectations. News of
this shocked the market. Share of Thoratec fell $3.69 per share
or 25.52 percent, on June 30, 2004, to close at $10.74 per
share.

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


                            *********


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  * * *