CAR_Public/040812.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 12, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 159

                          Headlines

ADMINISTAFF INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
ADVANCED FIBER: Shareholders Launch DE Lawsuit V. Tellabs Merger
AUTOCORP EQUITIES: SEC Levies $718,283 in Defendant Penalties
AVERY DENNISON: PA Court Separates Proceedings in Suit V. Merger
AVERY DENNISON: CA Court Stays Sekuk Global Securities Lawsuit

AVERY DENNISON: Antitrust Suits Assigned To San Francisco Court
CALIFORNIA: Settles ACLU Schools Lawsuit, Earmarks $188M Budget
CITIGROUP GLOBAL: NY Court Refuses Dismissal of Investor Lawsuit
CITIGROUP INC.: Focal Communications Investors Lodge Stock Suit
CITIGROUP INC.: NY Court Consolidates Suits on Parmalat Collapse

DYNEGY INC.: TX Court Completes Briefing on Stock Suit Dismissal
DYNEGY INC.: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of CA Energy Suit
DYNEGY INC.: To File Motion To Dismiss CA Unfair Trade Lawsuit
FLEXSYS: Customers Launch Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suit in PA
FLEXSYS: Quebec Residents Launch Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suit

FOUNTAINHEAD FUND: SEC Enters Preliminary Injunction V. Owners
GEMSTAR-TV: Peter Boylan Settles SEC Federal Action For $600,000
HALLIBURTON CO.: Dallas Judge Steps Down As Presiding Officer
IDACORP INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in ID
INTERCEPT INC.: Court Gives Final Approval For $5.3M Settlement

JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
KENTUCKY: Judge Approves Suit Settlement, About 3,500 Regain Aid
LABORATORY CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
LORAL SPACE: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Lawsuit V. CEO
LORAL SPACE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

LORAL SPACE: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Violations Suit in NY
NORTHERN TRUST: Agrees To Settle CA Trust Accounts Suit For $21M
OLOFSON'S BAKING: Recalls Grain Bread Due To Injury Hazard
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Appeals FL Court's Arbitration Ruling in Suit
PACKAGING CORPORATION: Fact Discovery in PA Suits Ends September

SOLUTIA INC.: CA Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
SPRINT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge KS Consolidated Stock Suit
SPRINT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge KS Consolidated Stock Suit
TULARIK INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits V. Amgen Inc.
UNITED STATES: Study Says Suits V. Life Sciences Firms Rising

UTAH RETIREMENT: SEC Files Settled Proceedings V. Richard Cherry
WEST CORPORATION: Trial in CA Consumer Suit Set April 2005
WEST CORPORATION: Trial in OH Consumer Suit Set For January 2005

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIED WASTE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges MN Stock Fraud Suit
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in CA
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in E.D. MO
FERRO CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in OH
FERRO CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
GEXA CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Lawsuit in TX
INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges CA Securities Suit

LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in CA
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Files CA Securities Suit
NETFLIX INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
NETFLIX INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in NY

THORATEC CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in CA
WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges CA Securities Suit
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA


                           *********


ADMINISTAFF INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Administaff, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas to dismiss a consolidated securities
class action filed against it on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.  The suit also named as defendants certain of
the Company's officers and directors.

The suit generally alleges that the Company and certain of its
officers and directors made false and misleading statements or
failed to make adequate disclosures concerning, among other
things:

     (1) the Company's pricing and billing systems with respect
         to recalibrating pricing for clients that experienced a
         decline in average payroll cost per worksite employee;

     (2) the matching of price and cost for health insurance on
         new and renewing client contracts; and

     (3) the Company's former method of reporting worksite
         employee payroll costs as revenue.

The complaints requested unspecified damages, among other
remedies.  On March 31, 2004, the court entered an order
consolidating all of the cases and appointing Carpenters Pension
Trust for South California as "lead plaintiff" and Milberg Weiss
Barshad Hynes & Lerach LLP as "lead counsel."  The lead
plaintiff alleges its losses are $352,000, although the
purported class' alleged damages have not been specified.

In May 2004, the lead plaintiff filed its Consolidated
Complaint, which amended and consolidated the seven previously
filed cases.  In the Consolidated Complaint, the lead plaintiff
has essentially abandoned the allegations of fraud contained in
the initial seven lawsuits.  Through the Consolidated Complaint,
the lead plaintiff now generally asserts, among other things,
that the Company and certain of its officers and directors
fraudulently made false and misleading statements regarding the
cost of its health plan during 2001 and 2002.


ADVANCED FIBER: Shareholders Launch DE Lawsuit V. Tellabs Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Fiber Communications, Inc. faces a complaint filed on
behalf of a putative class of its stockholders in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.
The suit also names as defendants certain of its current
officers and directors, and Tellabs, Inc.

The complaint alleges the individual defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to AFC's public stockholders by acting to
cause or facilitate the merger of Tellabs and AFC for inadequate
consideration, and that each of the defendants, including AFC
and Tellabs, acted to aid and abet the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty.

In particular, plaintiff alleges that the merger consideration
for AFC's public stockholders is unfair and inadequate
because, according to the plaintiff:

     (1) the intrinsic value of the stock of AFC is materially
         in excess of the $21.24 per share being proposed,
         giving due consideration to the possibilities of growth
         and profitability of AFC in light of its business,
         earnings and earnings power, present and future;

     (2) the $21.24 per share price is inadequate and offers an
         inadequate premium to the public shareholders of AFC;
         and

     (3) the $21.24 per share price is not the result of any
         structured auction process by which AFC sought to
         obtain the best deal possible for its shareholders.

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger, and if the merger is
consummated, to rescind the transaction.  The plaintiff also
asserts claims for unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory
damages, and an award of costs, including attorneys' fees.


AUTOCORP EQUITIES: SEC Levies $718,283 in Defendant Penalties
-------------------------------------------------------------
Final judgments were entered against defendants Hillel Sher,
Nili Frenkel, Amotz Frenkel and Michael Carnicle in the matter
of SEC v. Autocorp Equities, Inc., Docket No. 2:98CV0562PGC,
USDC, D.UT. (LR-18825). The Court's order enjoined defendants
from future violations of the securities registration and
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, as well as
ordering the defendants to pay disgorgement and civil penalties.

The Commission's complaint alleged the defendants engaged in a
scheme to inflate the assets of Diamond Entertainment, Inc. by
acquiring $5 million in certificates of deposit ostensibly
issued by a Russian bank but actually created at a Kinko's copy
center in Hollywood, Florida. The complaint alleged that in
order to acquire the certificates of deposit, the defendants
arranged to issue stock, ostensibly in reliance on the exemption
from registration afforded by Regulation S, to a California
corporation; those shares were sold after forty days with $1.5
million of the proceeds used to pay for the certificates of
deposit.

Sher was enjoined from further violations of Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and ordered to pay a $25,000 civil
penalty.

Nili Frenkel was enjoined from further violations of Sections
5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act and ordered to disgorge
$111,372 and pay prejudgment interest in the amount of
$120,716.12.

Amotz Frenkel was enjoined from further violations of Sections
5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and ordered to pay a
$25,000 civil penalty.

Carnicle was enjoined from further violations of Sections 5(a),
5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and ordered
to disgorge $183,186, pay prejudgment interest of $203,008.94
and a $50,000 civil penalty.


AVERY DENNISON: PA Court Separates Proceedings in Suit V. Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania separated the proceedings as to class certification
and merits discovery in the class action filed against Avery
Dennison Corporation, UPM-Kymmene, Bemis Co., Inc. and certain
of their subsidiaries.

On April 24, 2003, Sentry Business Products, Inc. filed a
purported class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois seeking treble damages and
other relief for alleged unlawful competitive practices,
essentially repeating the underlying allegations of the
Department of Justice Complaint against the merger of UPM with
the Morgan Adhesives division of Bemis.  Ten similar complaints
were filed in various federal district courts.

In November 2003, the cases were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
and consolidated for pretrial purposes. On January 21, 2004,
plaintiff, Pamco Tape & Label, voluntarily dismissed its
complaint, leaving a total of ten named plaintiffs.  On April
14, 2004, the court separated the proceedings as to class
certification and merits discovery, and limited the initial
phase of discovery to the issue of the appropriateness of class
certification.


AVERY DENNISON: CA Court Stays Sekuk Global Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California agreed to stay the purported stockholder class action
filed against Avery Dennison Corporation, its chief executive
officer, chief financial officer and controller.

On May 6, 2003, Sekuk Global Enterprises filed the suit seeking
damages and other relief for alleged disclosure violations
pertaining to alleged unlawful competitive practices.
Subsequently, another similar action was filed in the same
court.  On September 24, 2003, the Court appointed a lead
plaintiff and approved lead and liaison counsel and ordered the
two actions consolidated as the "In Re Avery Dennison
Corporation Securities Litigation."

Pursuant to Court order and the parties' stipulation, plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint in mid-February 2004.  The court
approved a briefing schedule for defendants' motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint, with a contemplated hearing date in
June 2004.  In January 2004, the parties stipulated to stay the
consolidated action, including the proposed briefing schedule,
pending the outcome of the government investigation of alleged
anticompetitive conduct by the Company.  The Court approved the
parties' stipulation in July 2004 and continued the status
conference to December 2004.  There has been no discovery or
other activity in the case and no trial date has been set.


AVERY DENNISON: Antitrust Suits Assigned To San Francisco Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Four antitrust class actions filed against Avery Dennison
Corporation, UPM-Kymmene and UPM's subsidiary Raflatac have been
assigned to a coordination trial judge in the Superior Court for
San Francisco County, California.

On May 21, 2003, The Harman Press filed in the Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles, California, a purported class
action on behalf of indirect purchasers of label stock, seeking
treble damages and other relief for alleged unlawful competitive
practices, essentially repeating the underlying allegations of
the Department of Justice's complaint against the Merger of UPM-
Kymmene and the Morgan Adhesives division of Bemis Co., Inc.
Three similar complaints were filed in various California
courts.  In November 2003, on petition from the parties, the
California Judicial Council ordered the cases be coordinated for
pretrial purposes.

A further similar complaint has been filed in the Superior Court
for Maricopa County, Arizona.


CALIFORNIA: Settles ACLU Schools Lawsuit, Earmarks $188M Budget
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of California settled a long-running class action
lawsuit over inferior facilities, outdated textbooks and
untrained teachers in some of California's worst schools, AP
Online reports.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement with
the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the state would be
required improve conditions for students in the state's 2,400
lowest-performing schools.

The suit was filed four years ago in San Francisco Superior
Court on behalf of children in 18 different school districts,
alleging that the state was neglecting its poorest students.
The suit further alleged that textbooks are so scarce in some
schools that children have to share and that some pupils go
through entire school years without a permanent teacher.  The
suit even pointed out that some of the schools are plagued with
leaky roof and rodents.

California's Board of Education has already approved the deal.
Although they are neither defendants nor plaintiffs in the suit,
the school boards in Los Angeles and San Francisco, were
expected to vote on whether to endorse the deal.

The budget signed earlier this month by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger earmarked $188 million to handle expenses related
to the settlement, which include among others $138 million for
textbooks and $50 million to assess and make repairs.  The
settlement also called for the passing of an administration-
drafted legislation that would make test score results and
teacher qualifications easily available to the public thus
making it easier to file complaints against erring schools.

However, an ACLU attorney told AP Online that if the legislation
weren't passed, the class-action lawsuit would proceed.


CITIGROUP GLOBAL: NY Court Refuses Dismissal of Investor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the class action filed against
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (CGMI).

This putative class action asserted violations of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 and various common law claims in connection
with certain investors who maintained guided portfolio
management accounts at Smith Barney, Citigroup's investment
unit.


CITIGROUP INC.: Focal Communications Investors Lodge Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup, Inc. faces a securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The suit
also names as defendants Citigroup Global Markets, Inc. (CGMI)
and former star analyst Jack Grubman.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of Focal
Communications Corporation common stock, asserting claims under
Section 10 and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


CITIGROUP INC.: NY Court Consolidates Suits on Parmalat Collapse
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed
against Citigroup, Inc. in relation to the collapse of Parmalat
Finanziaria S.P.A.

On July 29, 2004, Enrico Bondi, as extraordinary commissioner of
Parmalat and other affiliated entities, also filed suit in New
Jersey Superior Court against the Company and Citibank, N.A.,
among others, alleging the defendants participated in the fraud
committed by the officers and directors of Parmalat and seeking
associated damages.

On May 21, 2004, the court issued an order consolidating the
class actions, appointing lead plaintiffs and requiring that a
consolidated amended complaint be filed by October 18, 2004.


DYNEGY INC.: TX Court Completes Briefing on Stock Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas completed briefing Dynegy, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a
securities class action filed against it on behalf of purchasers
of its publicly traded securities from January 2000 to July 2002
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The lawsuit principally asserts that the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors violated the
federal securities laws in connection with:

     (1) its disclosures, including accounting disclosures,
         regarding Project Alpha (a structured natural gas
         transaction entered into by the Company in April 2001),

     (2) round-trip trading,

     (3) the submission of false trade reports to publications
         that calculate natural gas index prices,

     (4) the alleged manipulation of the California power market
         and

     (5) the restatement of the Company's financial statements
         for 1999-2001

The Regents of the University of California are lead plaintiff
and Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP is class counsel.  The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January 2004 and, in
March 2004, the Company filed motions to dismiss.  The Company
is awaiting a ruling from the court.


DYNEGY INC.: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal of CA Energy Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
on one of the lawsuits filed against Dynegy, Inc. and numerous
other power generators and marketers, arising from their
participation in the western power markets during the California
energy crisis.

Eight of these lawsuits, which primarily allege manipulation of
the California wholesale power markets and seek unspecified
treble damages, were consolidated before a single federal judge.
That judge dismissed two of the cases in the first quarter 2003
on the grounds of FERC preemption and the filed rate doctrine.

In June 2004, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of one of these cases, and the Company is awaiting a
ruling on the other case.  Regarding the remaining six
consolidated cases, the Company is awaiting a ruling from the
Ninth Circuit, which it expects to occur prior to the end of
2004, on the Company's appeal of a prior decision to remand
those cases to state court.


DYNEGY INC.: To File Motion To Dismiss CA Unfair Trade Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc. intends to file a motion to dismiss a class action
filed against it, alleging violations of California's unfair
business practices law, after the state court decides on a
motion to remove the suit to federal court.

Nine putative class actions and/or representative actions were
originally filed in state and federal court on behalf of
business and residential electricity consumers against us and
numerous other power generators and marketers between April and
October 2002.  The complaints allege unfair, unlawful and
deceptive practices in violation of the California Unfair
Business Practices Act and seek an injunction, restitution and
unspecified damages.  These lawsuits include additional
allegations relating to, among other things, the validity of the
contracts between these power generators and the CDWR.

The court dismissed eight of these nine actions, although the
plaintiffs have appealed and we are awaiting a hearing on their
appeal.  The ninth case was remanded to state court, where a
newly added defendant filed a motion in February 2004 to remove
the case back to federal court. Once a decision is made on this
motion, the Company intends to file a motion to dismiss this
case.

In December 2002, two additional actions were filed with similar
allegations on behalf of residents of Washington and Oregon.  In
May 2003, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed these actions and
refiled them in California Superior Court as a class action
complaint.  The complaint, which was brought on behalf of
consumers and businesses in Oregon, Washington, Utah, Nevada,
Idaho, New Mexico, Arizona and Montana that purchased energy
from the California market, alleges violations of the Cartwright
Act and unfair business practices.  The Company removed the
action from state court and consolidated it with existing
actions pending before the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The hearing on plaintiffs'
appeal to remand to state court occurred in February 2004.
The judge stayed his ruling on the appeal pending the Ninth
Circuit's ruling on the six consolidated cases referenced above.

Most recently, the Montana Attorney General has filed a case
alleging similar antitrust and market manipulation claims,
although the Company has not been served with this lawsuit.


FLEXSYS: Customers Launch Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flexsys and other producers of rubber chemicals face a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, styled "RBX Industries, Inc. v. Bayer
Corp., Flexsys, et al."

Plaintiff alleges that during the period 1995 through 2001 the
defendants conspired through marketing and sales practices to
cause plaintiff to pay supra-competitive prices and seeks treble
damages from the defendants.


FLEXSYS: Quebec Residents Launch Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Flexsys and other rubber chemical producers face two purported
class actions filed in the Province of Quebec Canada, alleging
that collusive sales and marketing activities of the defendants
damaged all persons in Quebec during the period July 1995
through September 2001.

Statutory damages of (CAD) $14.6 along with exemplary damages of
(CAD) $.000025 per person are being sought.  A hearing is
tentatively scheduled to determine which case will be allowed to
go forward.


FOUNTAINHEAD FUND: SEC Enters Preliminary Injunction V. Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Commission announced that on August 9 the Honorable Legrome
D. Davis, U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, issued a preliminary injunction against Anthony
P. Postiglione, Jr. (Postiglione), of Malvern, PA, William J.
Lennon (Lennon), of Media, PA, and two companies they owned and
controlled, namely, Fountainhead Fund, LP (the Fund), a hedge
fund located in Wayne, PA, and its general partner Fountainhead
Asset Management, LLC (FAM).

The Court's Order, which was entered upon the defendants'
consent, preliminarily enjoins them from violating the antifraud
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940,
and continues an asset freeze, appointment of a receiver, and
other relief imposed by the Judge in the temporary restraining
order issued July 30, 2004.

In its complaint, originally filed July 30, 2004, the Commission
alleges that, from November 2001 through the present,
Postiglione and Lennon raised approximately $5 million for the
Fund from at least 18 private investors. Through a series of
fraudulent acts, defendants Postiglione and Lennon, acting
through FAM, obtained assets fraudulently, lulled investors into
keeping their assets in the Fund, and misused investor funds.
The complaint alleges that, from the inception of the Fund
through the present, Postiglione and Lennon have sent false
quarterly statements and newsletters to investors, consistently
overstating the Fund's value and performance. In addition, they
have overstated the amount of Postiglione's personal investment
in the Fund and the Fund's performance in order to lure new
investments. Further, in violation of their fiduciary duties to
their clients, Postiglione and Lennon excessively traded several
Fund securities accounts for the sole purpose of generating soft
dollar credits, which they then withdrew as cash and used for,
among other things, their own personal living expenses. The
complaint alleges that, during the course of this fraud,
Postiglione and Lennon also misappropriated several hundred
thousand dollars of Fund assets for their personal use. As of
the date of filing, investor funds in the Fund totaled
approximately $1.7 million.

The complaint alleges that defendants Postiglione, Lennon, FAM,
and the Fund have violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act,
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
and that Postiglione, Lennon, and FAM have violated Sections
206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act. The Complaint seeks
permanent injunctions, disgorgement together with prejudgment
interest, and civil penalties. The action is titled, SEC v.
Anthony P. Postiglione, Jr., et al., Civil Action No. 04-CV-3604
(E.D. Pa.)] (LR-18824).


GEMSTAR-TV: Peter Boylan Settles SEC Federal Action For $600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission and Peter C. Boylan, a
former senior executive of Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc.
and its wholly owned subsidiary, TV Guide, Inc., agreed to
settle the federal court action filed by the Commission. As part
of the settlement, Boylan will consent to a fraud injunction,
without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint, and will pay a total of $600,000 in disgorgement and
civil penalties. The settlement is subject to approval by the
court.

Gemstar is a Los Angeles-based media and technology company
that, among other things, publishes TV Guide magazine and
develops, licenses, and markets an interactive program guide
(IPG) for televisions that enables consumers to navigate through
and select television programs. During the relevant period,
Gemstar generated revenues from the IPG by licensing the
technology to third parties and selling advertising on the IPG.
In statements to securities analysts and the investing public,
Gemstar repeatedly touted the IPG technology and IPG advertising
revenues as the company's future and as the  "value driver" of
the company's stock, and downplayed expected declines in revenue
from TV Guide magazine.

Boylan, of Tulsa, Oklahoma, is the former co-president, co-chief
operating officer and a member of the board of directors of
Gemstar and the former co-chairman, chief executive officer, and
co-president of Gemstar's wholly owned subsidiary, TV Guide.
The Commission's complaint alleges that from June 1999 through
September 2002, Gemstar overstated its total revenues by at
least $248 million to meet its ambitious projections for revenue
growth from IPG licensing and advertising. The complaint further
alleges that Boylan participated in Gemstar's fraudulent
reporting of transactions relating to IPG advertising.

According to the complaint, Boylan structured two transactions
so that a portion of the amount to be paid to Gemstar was
nominally and artificially allocated to the sale of IPG
advertising. The complaint also alleges that in press releases,
conference calls with securities analysts, and annual reports
filed with the Commission, Boylan omitted to disclose material
information regarding the transactions. The complaint charges
Boylan with securities fraud, falsifying Gemstar's books and
records, and aiding and abetting Gemstar's reporting and record-
keeping violations, in violation of Sections 10(b), 13(a),
13(b)(2)(A), and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13b2-1 thereunder.

If approved by the court, Boylan will be enjoined from future
violations, or aiding and abetting violations, of the above
provisions of the federal securities laws. Boylan is also
agreeing to pay disgorgement of $300,000 and a civil penalty of
$300,000. The Commission will seek to have this money included
in a fund established for harmed shareholders of Gemstar
pursuant to Section 308 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The Commission's action is pending against four other former
executives of Gemstar: Henry C. Yuen, former chief executive
officer; Elsie M. Leung, former chief financial officer;
Jonathan B. Orlick, former general counsel; and Craig Waggy,
former CFO of TV Guide.  The court has scheduled the trial of
this matter to begin on January 18, 2005. On June 30, 2004, the
court entered a final judgment of permanent injunction against
Gemstar as part of a settlement in which the company
agreed to pay a $10 million civil penalty to be distributed to
harmed shareholders pursuant to Section 308 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act. The action is titled, SEC v. Peter C. Boylan, Civil
Action No. CV 04-6569 FMC (MANx) C.D. Cal. (LR-18826).


HALLIBURTON CO.: Dallas Judge Steps Down As Presiding Officer
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas, Texas court Judge David Godbey has stepped down from
overseeing an account fraud class action brought by shareholders
against Halliburton Co. (HAL), a court deputy told the Dow Jones
Newswires.

The suit alleges that the Company changed accounting methodology
for construction projects without informing shareholders and of
overbilling for services, overstating accounts receivable and
understating accounts payable between 1998 and 2002.


The Dallas district court refused to corroborate the reason
behind Judge Godbey's decision. However, it confirmed that Judge
Barbara Lynn would be assigned to the case. The judge herself
also stated that she didn't know if a final approval hearing for
a settlement with Halliburton would be postponed. Judge Godbey
was originally scheduled to review a settlement for $6 million
on August 26.

In a related development, Scott + Scott, one of four Plaintiffs
law firms in the case, filed an amended complaint in the Dallas
court with additional allegations, including that Halliburton
deliberately tried to cover up an adverse verdict in an asbestos
litigation lawsuit in 2001. The firm had appealed to Judge
Godbey asking him to delay approving the settlement until new
charges had been appraised.


IDACORP INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in ID
--------------------------------------------------------------
IDACORP, Inc. and certain of its directors and officers face two
shareholder lawsuits filed in the United States District Court
in Idaho, captioned "Powell, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al."
and "Shorthouse, et al. v. IDACORP, Inc., et al."

The lawsuits are putative class actions brought on behalf of
purchasers of IDACORP stock between February 1, 2002 and June 4,
2002, and were filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Idaho.  The named defendants in each suit, in
addition to IDACORP, are:

     (1) Jon H. Miller,

     (2) Jan B. Packwood,

     (3) J. LaMont Keen and

     (4) Darrel T. Anderson

The complaints allege that, during the purported class period,
IDACORP and/or certain of its officers and/or directors made
materially false and misleading statements or omissions about
the company's financial outlook in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5, thereby causing investors to purchase the
company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.

More specifically, the complaints allege that the company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (i) the company failed to appreciate the negative impact
         that lower volatility and reduced pricing spreads in
         the western wholesale energy market would have on its
         marketing subsidiary, IE;

    (ii) the company was forced to limit its origination
         activities to shorter-term transactions due to
         increasing regulatory uncertainty and continued
         deterioration of creditworthy counterparties;

   (iii) the company failed to discount for the fact that IPC
         may not recover from the lingering effects of the prior
         year's regional drought and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the company and their earnings projections.

The Powell complaint also alleges that the defendants' conduct
artificially inflated the price of the company's common stock.
The actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.


INTERCEPT INC.: Court Gives Final Approval For $5.3M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted final court approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against InterCept, Inc. (Nasdaq:
ICPT) and several of its current and former officers in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.

Under the terms of the settlement, the claims against InterCept
and the individual defendants were dismissed without any
admission of liability or wrongdoing. The shareholder class will
receive a payment of $5.3 million, from which plaintiff's
counsel will be awarded attorney's fees. As previously
announced, InterCept recorded a charge in the fourth quarter of
2003 to reflect its portion of the settlement and attorney's
fees.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California's ruling dismissing with
prejudice the consolidated securities class action filed against
Juniper Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers and former
officers purportedly on behalf of those stockholders who
purchased the Company's publicly traded securities between April
12, 2001 and June7, 2001.

In April 2002, the court granted the defendants' motion to
consolidate all of these actions into one; in May 2002, the
court appointed the lead plaintiffs and approved their selection
of lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was filed in August
2002.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made false and
misleading statements, assert claims for violations of the
federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  In March 2003, the court granted
defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in April 2003 and the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in May 2003.
The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held in
September 2003.  In March 2004, the court granted defendants
motion to dismiss, without leave to amend.  Plaintiffs' opening
appellate brief is due August 31, 2004.


KENTUCKY: Judge Approves Suit Settlement, About 3,500 Regain Aid
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Joseph M. Hood approved a settlement for a
lawsuit that accuses the state of Kentucky of unlawfully
terminating or denying long-term-Medicaid coverage to about
3,500 people when eligibility requirements were changed, the
Louisville Courier Journal reports.

The settlement calls for the Cabinet for Health and Family
Services to reinstate benefits or re-evaluate cases of people
affected by changes in Medicaid eligibility requirements,
changes that were ordered by then-Gov. Paul Patton in order to
control spiraling costs.

Dr. James W. Holsinger Jr., Secretary for Health and Family
Services, told the Louisville Courier Journal that the
administration is "pleased with this agreement and glad we could
fix the problems for this vulnerable population."

The settlement also calls for new regulations that would require
Medicaid recipients to meet two of 12 eligibility criteria. To
ensure compliance the cabinet was also required to adhere to a
monitoring system that would provide information about
recipients in a two-year span.

Filed by Legal Aid, the lawsuit was initiated on behalf of 10
elderly or disabled people it alleged were denied Medicaid
services between April 4, 2003, when the new rules took effect,
and January 30, when it was discontinued. The case was later
expanded to a class action on behalf of everyone adversely
affected by the new rules.


LABORATORY CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Laboratory Corporation of America asked the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina to
dismiss the securities class action filed against it and certain
of its executive officers.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants
violated the federal securities laws by making material
misstatements and/or omissions that caused the price of the
Company's stock to be artificially inflated between February 13
and October 3, 2002.  The plaintiffs seek certification of a
class of substantially all persons who purchased shares of the
Company's stock during that time period and unspecified monetary
damages.  These six cases have been consolidated and will
proceed as a single case.  The plaintiffs have recently filed a
consolidated amended complaint.


LORAL SPACE: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Lawsuit V. CEO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery commenced in the class action filed against Loral
Space & Communications, Ltd.'s Chief Executive Officer Bernard
Schwartz in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Plaintiffs Robert Beleson and Harvey Matcovsky filed the suit,
alleging Mr. Schwartz violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material
misstatements or failing to state material facts about the
Company's financial condition in relation to the sale of assets
to Intelsat and Loral's Chapter 11 filing.  The suit further
alleged that Mr. Schwartz is secondarily liable for these
alleged misstatements and omissions under Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling person" of Loral.  The
class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from June 30, 2003 through July 15, 2003, excluding the
defendant and certain persons related to or affiliated with him.

In November 2003, three other complaints against Mr. Schwartz
with substantially similar allegations were consolidated into
the Beleson case.  In February 2004, a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety was denied by the court. Defendant
filed an answer in March 2004.


LORAL SPACE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communication Ltd. officers Bernard Schwartz and
Richard J. Townsend asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to dismiss the securities
class action filed against them.

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich, filed the suit, alleging that
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making material misstatements
or failing to state material facts about Loral's financial
condition relating to the restatement in 2003 of the financial
statements for the second and third quarters of 2002 to correct
accounting for certain general and administrative expenses and
the alleged improper accounting for a satellite transaction with
APT Satellite Company Ltd.

The suit further alleges that each of the defendants is
secondarily liable for these alleged misstatements and omissions
under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged
"controlling person" of Loral.  The class of plaintiffs on whose
behalf the lawsuit has been asserted consists of all buyers of
Loral common stock during the period from July 31, 2002 through
June 29, 2003, excluding the defendants and certain persons
related to or affiliated with them.


LORAL SPACE: Plaintiffs File Amended ERISA Violations Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against the Loral Space
& Communications Ltd. Savings Plan Administrative Committee, all
Loral directors, Richard J. Townsend and certain other Loral
officers and employees in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges:

     (1) that defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by breaching
         their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage
         the assets of the Loral Savings Plan by including Loral
         common stock as an investment alternative and by
         providing matching contributions under the Plan in
         Loral stock;

     (2) that the director defendants violated Section 404 of
         ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor
         the committee defendants and

     (3) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA
         by failing to provide complete and accurate information
         to Plan participants and beneficiaries.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the present and
whose accounts included investments in Loral stock.  One other
similar complaint against the defendants with substantially
similar allegations has been filed, and the two cases have been
consolidated.


NORTHERN TRUST: Agrees To Settle CA Trust Accounts Suit For $21M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Bank of California N.A., a subsidiary of Northern
Trust Corporation, has entered into a settlement in principle to
resolve a putative class action presently pending in state court
in Los Angeles, California. The settlement remains subject to
negotiation of a final written agreement and court approval.
Upon final approval of the settlement, the California bank will
pay approximately $21 million. The settlement, including
estimated associated costs, is expected to result in a third
quarter 2004 after-tax charge of approximately $10.4 million, or
$.05 earnings per share.

This putative class action, captioned Banks v. Northern Trust
Bank of California, N.A., was filed in 2003 against the
California bank, seeking class-wide reimbursement, with interest
and punitive damages, for approximately 300 open and closed
trust accounts that were allegedly charged fees in excess of fee
provisions in the underlying trust documents. Virtually all of
the trust accounts in the putative class were purchased by the
California bank from Trust Services of America, Inc., which was
then a subsidiary of California Federal Bank. Prior to the
filing of this lawsuit, Northern Trust had begun to file
petitions seeking review and approval from the California
probate court of reimbursements to these accounts, and 79 such
petitions had already been approved by the court when the
settlement in principle was reached. Northern Trust does not
acknowledge any liability and maintains that it acted at all
times in good faith and in the best interest of the trusts and
their beneficiaries. Northern Trust agreed to the settlement in
order to avoid further protracted and expensive litigation.
Northern Trust expects that it will take some months for the
settlement agreement to be negotiated and finally approved by
the court. Upon final approval of the settlement, the trust
beneficiaries will be sent further information about their
participation in the settlement.


OLOFSON'S BAKING: Recalls Grain Bread Due To Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------
Based on reports from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warning
consumers that certain Healthy Way brand name sprouted grain
bread products may contain small pieces of stone that could
cause injuries. The products are manufactured by Olafson's
Baking Company of Annacis Island, British Columbia, Canada, and
are distributed through retail outlets in the states of
Washington and Oregon.

To date dozens of injuries have been reported throughout Canada
- mostly involving tooth or jaw damage.

The following Healthy Way brand Sprouted Grain bread products
are affected by this alert. The date code can be found on the
Quik Lock plastic closure on the package:

     (1) Grain and Seed, Net Wt. 21 oz., 065776800247, Date
         codes from 01 JN to 03 AU inclusive

     (2) Twenty Grain, Net Wt. 21 oz., 065776800216, Date codes
         from 01 JN to 03 AU inclusive

     (3) Twenty Grain, 2 Pack, 06577600414, Date codes from 01
         JN to 03 AU inclusive

     (4) Flax Loaf, Net Wt. 21 oz., 065776800223, Date codes
         from 01 JN to 03 AU inclusive

     (5) Sprouted 100% Whole Wheat, Net Wt. 21 oz.,
         065776800230, Date codes from 01 JN to 03 AU inclusive

     (6) Carb Conscious, Net Wt. 16 oz., 065776475247, Date
         codes from 01 JN to 03 AU inclusive

     (7) Alpine, Net Wt. 21 oz., 065776800209, Date codes from
         03 JN to 05 AU inclusive

Although the affected products may have been sold by now, some
consumers may have stored these products in their freezers. The
manufacturer, Olafson's Baking Company, is voluntarily recalling
the affected products throughout Canada and the States of Oregon
and Washington.

Consumers who have recalled product should not eat it, but
instead return it to the place of purchase for a refund.

For more information, consumers and industry can contact
Olafson's Baking Company at 1-800-465-5515.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Appeals FL Court's Arbitration Ruling in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals will hear
Pacificare Health Systems, Inc.'s appeal of its ruling
compelling arbitration in the multi-district litigation filed
against the Company and other managed care companies, styled "IN
re Managed Care litigation."

Several suits were initially filed and coordinated for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.  Thereafter, Dr. Dennis Breen, Dr. Leonard
Klay, Dr. Jeffrey Book and several other physicians, along with
several medical associations, including the California Medical
Association, joined the "In re Managed Care" proceeding as
plaintiffs.

These physicians sued several managed care companies, including
the Company, alleging, among other things, that the companies
have systematically underpaid providers for medical services to
members, have delayed payments, and that the companies impose
unfair contracting terms on providers and negotiate capitation
payments that are inadequate to cover the costs of health care
services provided.

The Company sought to compel arbitration of all of Dr. Breen's,
Dr. Book's and other physician claims against the Company. The
District Court granted the Company's motion to compel
arbitration against all of these claims except for claims for
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, or RICO (Direct RICO Claims), and for their RICO conspiracy
and aiding and abetting claims that stem from contractual
relationships with other managed care companies.

On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court held that the
District Court should have compelled arbitration of the Direct
RICO Claims filed by Dr. Breen and Dr. Book.  On September 15,
2003, the District Court entered another ruling on several of
the Company's motions to compel arbitration, ordering
arbitration of all claims arising out of the Company's contracts
with plaintiffs containing arbitration clauses.  The District
Court, however, also ruled that plaintiffs' RICO conspiracy and
aiding and abetting claims against the Company that stem from
contractual relationships with other managed care companies and
plaintiffs' claims based on services they provided to the
Company's members outside of any contractual relationship with
the Company or assignments from the Company's members do not
need to be arbitrated.

As a result, the order to compel arbitration does not cover part
of the conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims of all
plaintiffs or any of the direct claims by a subset of plaintiffs
(non-contracted plaintiffs who provide services to our members
but do not accept assignments from them).  The Company filed an
appeal from the District Court's ruling to the extent it did not
compel arbitration of all of plaintiffs' claims.

On September 26, 2002, the District Court certified a class
action of physicians in the "In re Managed Care Litigation."  On
November 20, 2002, the Court of Appeals granted the Company's
petition to appeal the class certification by the District
Court.  Oral argument for this appeal was held on September 11,
2003 and the Court of Appeals has not issued an opinion as of
the date of this report.  Discovery in this litigation is
currently ongoing. The Company denies all material allegations.

Several additional lawsuits have been filed against the Company
and the other defendants in the "In re Managed Care Litigation"
by non-physician providers of health care services, such as
chiropractors and podiatrists.  Those lawsuits have been
assigned to the District Court for pretrial proceedings, but are
currently stayed while discovery continues in the physician
class action.


PACKAGING CORPORATION: Fact Discovery in PA Suits Ends September
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fact discovery is proceeding in the opt-out linerboard antitrust
class actions filed against Packaging Corporation of America and
other linerboard and corrugated sheet manufacturers in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

On May 14, 1999, the Company was named as a defendant in two
consolidated class actions, which alleged a civil violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The suits, then captioned "Winoff
Industries, Inc. v. Stone Container Corporation. MDL No. 1261"
and "General Refractories Co. v. Gaylord Container Corporation,
MDL No. 1261," name the Company as a defendant based solely on
the allegation that PCA is successor to the interests of Tenneco
Packaging Inc. and Tenneco Inc., both of which were also named
as defendants in the suits.

The complaints allege that the defendants, during the period
October 1, 1993 through November 30, 1995, conspired to limit
the supply of linerboard, and that the purpose and effect of the
alleged conspiracy was to artificially increase prices of
corrugated containers and corrugated sheets, respectively.

On November 3, 2003, Pactiv (formerly known as Tenneco
Packaging), Tenneco and PCA entered into an agreement to settle
the class action lawsuits.  The settlement agreement provides
for a full release of all claims against PCA as a result of the
class action lawsuits and was approved by the court in an
opinion issued on April 21, 2004.

Approximately 160 plaintiffs opted out of the class and together
filed about ten direct action complaints in various federal
courts across the country.  All of the opt-out complaints make
allegations against the defendants, including PCA, substantially
similar to those made in the class actions.  The settlement
agreement does not cover these direct action cases.

These actions have almost all been consolidated as "In re
Linerboard, MDL 1261 (E.D. Pa.)" for pretrial purposes.  Fact
discovery is proceeding and is currently set to close September
30, 2004.


SOLUTIA INC.: CA Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in California granted
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the securities class
action filed against them and Solutia, Inc. on behalf of
individuals who allegedly purchased Solutia stock at inflated
prices as a result of the incorporation of Solutia's share of
Flexsys' financial results which were purportedly inflated as a
result of anticompetitive collusion between Flexsys and other
rubber chemical producers during the period December 1998
through October 2002.

The consolidated action has been automatically stayed with
respect to Solutia by virtue of Section 362(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code but has not been stayed with respect to the individual
defendants.  On July 28, 2004, the court granted the individual
defendants' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim but
also granting plaintiffs ten days to file an amended compliant.


SPRINT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge KS Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Sprint Corporation and its directors in the District Court of
Johnson County, Kansas on behalf of holders of PCS common stock.

In March 2004, eight purported class action lawsuits relating to
the recombination of the tracking stocks were filed, and later
consolidated.  The eighth, pending in New York, has been
voluntarily stayed.  The consolidated lawsuit alleges breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with allocations between the FON
Group and the PCS Group before the recombination of the tracking
stocks and breach of fiduciary duty in the recombination.  The
lawsuit seeks to rescind the recombination and monetary damages.


SPRINT CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Lodge KS Consolidated Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Sprint Corporation in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas.

In April and May 2003, three putative class action lawsuits were
filed by individual participants in the Sprint Retirement
Savings Plan, the Sprint Retirement Savings Plan for Bargaining
Unit Employees and the Centel Retirement Savings Plan for
Bargaining Unit Employees against Sprint Corporation, the
committees that administer the two plans, and various current
and former officers of Sprint.

In November 2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
naming additional officers and directors and Fidelity
Management, the plan trustee, as defendants.  In December
2003, two additional complaints, making identical allegations,
were filed.  These lawsuits have been consolidated before a
single judge.

The consolidated lawsuit alleges that defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to the plans and violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) statutes by making the
company contribution in FON and PCS stock and including FON and
PCS stock among the more than thirty investment options offered
to plan participants.  The lawsuit seeks to recover any decline
in the value of FON and PCS stock during the class period.


TULARIK INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits V. Amgen Inc.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tularik, Inc. faces three purported class action lawsuits filed
in connection with its proposed merger with Amgen, Inc.  The
suits, which also name as defendants the Company's Board of
Directors and Amgen, were filed on behalf of all Company
stockholders except the defendants and those related to or
affiliated with any of the defendants.

On March 29, 2004, a lawsuit was filed by Janis Zvokel in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County.  In addition, on April 7, 2004, Zvokel served a First
Request for Production of Documents on all defendants.  On March
30, 2004, a second lawsuit containing class action allegations
was filed by Fred Zucker in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County.  On April 7, 2004,
Mary Kahler filed a third lawsuit containing class action
allegations in the Superior Court of the State of California for
the County of San Mateo.  Kahler filed a first amended complaint
in the same court on July 2, 2004.

All of the complaints allege that the Company's Board of
Directors and Amgen breached fiduciary duties owed to Tularik
stockholders, or aided and abetted such breaches, and that the
consideration to be paid to the class members in the proposed
merger is unfair and inadequate because the intrinsic value of
our common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered
for those securities.  The complaints further allege that
conflicts exist between defendants' self-interests and their
fiduciary obligation to maximize stockholder value, and that
these conflicts have not been resolved in the best interests of
Tularik stockholders.

Mr. Kahler's first amended complaint also alleges that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to provide
Tularik's stockholders with material information necessary for
them to make a fully informed decision concerning the proposed
merger.  All of the lawsuits seek injunctive relief to prevent
the closing of the merger, as well as compensatory damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The time for the defendants to
respond to the complaints has not yet expired.

In connection with Kahler's first amended complaint, plaintiff
sought the Court's permission to take expedited discovery in
support of her claims and to schedule a preliminary injunction
hearing before the Tularik stockholders' meeting on August 12,
2004.  The Court heard the case July 8, 2004.  At the hearing,
the Court denied Kahler's motion to take expedited discovery and
set a preliminary injunction hearing date of August 6, 2004.


UNITED STATES: Study Says Suits V. Life Sciences Firms Rising
-------------------------------------------------------------
A study conducted by Dechert LLP, a law firm that defends life
sciences companies in class action suits, revealed that
securities fraud class action lawsuits against such companies
increased by 39 percent between 2002 to 2003, rising from 23 to
32, even as the total number of securities class action lawsuits
declined by 19 percent in the same time period, from 268 in 2002
to 216 in 2003.

Michael Kichline and David Kotler, Dechert lawyers with
extensive class action litigation experience, analyzed claims
against life science companies and said that the stringent FDA
approval process and drug development cycle appear to provide
the ammunition that is being used by plaintiffs' lawyers as the
stated basis of the majority of claims.

"The life sciences industry is driven by R&D and,
understandably, is characterized by many failures in the midst
of a few home runs," said Kotler, a partner in Dechert's
financial services and securities litigation group who advises
and represents pharmaceutical clients in class actions. He
noted, "the long lag time and extensive clinical trials and
testing of products create a treasure trove of data that is
being mined by plaintiffs' lawyers to claim, with 20/20
hindsight, that material information had been withheld."

Many of the suits contain more than one type of substantive
claim. The most typical cause of action in securities fraud
suits is related to fraudulent accounting and/or financial
revenues. However, the majority of claims against life sciences
companies in 2003 alleged withholding or misrepresenting
information obtained at various stages of the drug development
process of the product itself, such as:

     (1) product efficacy

     (2) product safety

     (3) the likelihood of FDA approval

     (4) the science behind a product candidate

     (5) quality of the manufacturing process

     (6) clinical trial results

     (7) strategic partnerships with other companies

"The unpredictable nature of the drug development cycle makes
companies, especially those dependent upon a small number of
products, prone to unforeseen and adverse occurrences, which can
result in a precipitous drop in share price. Because there is
such extensive data collection and analysis, information is
readily available after the fact for plaintiffs' lawyers who
will claim 'you had the data and should have told us,'" said Mr.
Kichline, a partner in the firm's financial services and
securities litigation group.

So far in 2004, fourteen more life sciences companies have been
sued for securities fraud, according to the filings reported by
Stanford's Securities Class Action Clearinghouse.

The Dechert survey notes that the number of securities fraud
lawsuits against life sciences companies may grow because of:

     (i) Plaintiffs' lawyers targeting this sector;

    (ii) The SEC and FDA pledging to work together to ferret out
         securities fraud; and

   (iii) Recent court decisions have lowered the bar regarding
         the types of claims that can be made in drug marketing
         campaigns.

The authors advise that life sciences companies take the
following steps to minimize the risks of securities class action
suits:

     (a) Recognize and report events that may negatively impact
         the drug development cycle, such as clinical trial
         failures, FDA rejection, manufacturing problems and the
         loss of strategic partners, among others.

     (b) Clearly explain to management how specific issues can
         become the basis for securities fraud claims, e.g., the
         way in which clinical trials are conducted may make a
         company more prone to securities fraud claims.

     (c) Ensure that all public disclosure statements contain
         appropriate "cautionary," and "risk factor" language
         explicitly covering the gamut of risks throughout the
         entire drug development cycle, from development to
         production to commercialization.

     (d) Recognize and maintain the distinction between positive
         promotional messages broadcast for marketing purposes,
         and statements of fact that plaintiffs could use as the
         basis for fraud claims.

     (e) Monitor stock sales by insiders to avoid allegations
         that insiders were aware of problems and
         misrepresentations and unloaded their shares.

For more details on the Dechert LLP Survey of Securities Fraud
Class Actions Brought Against Life Sciences Companies, visit:
http://www.dechert.com/eventspubs/eventspubs.jsp?pg=lawyer_publi
cations_detail&id=4477


UTAH RETIREMENT: SEC Files Settled Proceedings V. Richard Cherry
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled
administrative proceedings against Richard L. Cherry pursuant to
Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 and
Section 604 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act based on a final order
against him issued by the State of Utah Division of Securities.
The Commission's Order, which bars Cherry from association with
any investment adviser, was entered pursuant to Cherry's consent
and without admitting or denying the findings in the order.

The Commission's Order finds that from 1992 through 2003 Cherry
was the chief investment officer of Utah Retirement Systems, a
state agency responsible for administering retirement and
defined contribution benefits of state and local government
employees of the State of Utah, and that Cherry had been
employed by the Utah Retirement Systems since 1980. The
Commission's Order also finds that on Feb. 17, 2004, the Utah
Division of Securities issued a Stipulation and Consent Order
(State Order) against Cherry. In the State Order, the Utah
Division of Securities found that Cherry had violated Utah
securities laws by engaging in insider trading for his own
account and the account of a private advisory client, and by
acting as an unlicensed investment adviser. Cherry agreed to the
State Order, which, among other sanctions, barred him from
association with any state-licensed investment adviser and
imposed a fine, without admitting or denying the Utah Division
of Securities' findings.

The State Order found that Cherry had, among other things,
violated the Code of Ethics of the Utah Retirement Systems by
engaging in securities transactions that were in conflict with
his position as the chief investment officer of the Utah
Retirement Systems. The State Order also found that Cherry had
purchased securities in advance of funding Cherry knew the Utah
Retirement Systems would provide to its investment advisers for
investment in certain Utah Retirement Systems portfolios.
Cherry engaged in the transactions knowing that the investment
advisers who had received funds from the Utah Retirement Systems
would purchase the same securities Cherry had previously
purchased.


WEST CORPORATION: Trial in CA Consumer Suit Set April 2005
----------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consumer class action filed against West
Corporation, styled "Sanford v. West Corporation et al., No. GIC
805541," is tentatively set for April 8,2005 in the San Diego
County, California Superior Court.

The complaint alleges:

     (1) violations of the California Consumer Legal Remedies
         Act, Cal. Civ. Code 1750 et seq.,

     (2) unlawful, fraudulent and unfair business practices in
         violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200 et seq.,

     (3) untrue or misleading advertising in violation of Cal.
         Bus. & Prof. Code 17500 et seq., and

     (4) common law claims for conversion, unjust enrichment,
         fraud and deceit, and negligent misrepresentation

The suit seeks monetary damages, including punitive damages, as
well as restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys fees and
costs.  The complaint is brought on behalf of a purported class
of persons in California who were sent a Memberworks, Inc. (MWI)
membership kit in the mail, were charged for an MWI membership
program, and were allegedly either customers of what the
complaint contends was a joint venture between MWI and West
Corporation or West Telemarketing Corporation (WTC) or wholesale
customers of West or WTC.

The Company and WTC moved to dismiss the case on the grounds
that the California courts lacked personal jurisdiction over
them, but the court denied that motion and WTC and West appealed
the ruling to the California Court of Appeals.  On March 17,
2004, the Court of Appeals denied the appeal.

WTC and West petitioned the California Supreme Court for review
of that ruling, but the California Supreme Court recently denied
review of that ruling, and the case has been returned to the
trial court.  West filed a demurrer in the trial court on July
7, 2004, asserting that all of plaintiff's claims are barred by
"res judicata" on the basis of a 2001 settlement between the
California Attorney General and Memberworks, that most of
plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations, and
that most of plaintiff's causes of action fail to state a claim.

The Company also moved to strike plaintiff's request for
injunctive relief on the grounds of mootness, and moved to
strike plaintiff's request for monetary relief under two
California statutes on the grounds that those statutes could not
provide the relief plaintiff seeks.  Discovery is open, and
plaintiff has served West with document requests.

The Company will be filing a motion to stay discovery pending
the trial court's ruling on the demurrer.  Plaintiff has
indicated an intention to file a motion for class certification
shortly.  West will oppose that motion and will oppose treating
the case as a representative action under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
17200.


WEST CORPORATION: Trial in OH Consumer Suit Set For January 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the class action filed against West Corporation and
two of its clients, styled "Brandy L. Ritt, et al. v. Billy
Blanks Enterprises, et al.," is tentatively set for January
2005.

The suit, which seeks statutory, compensatory, and punitive
damages as well as injunctive and other relief, alleges:

     (1) violation of various provisions of Ohio's consumer
         protection laws,

     (2) negligent misrepresentation,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) breach of contract,

     (5) unjust enrichment and

     (6) civil conspiracy

The claims were made in connection with the marketing of certain
membership programs offered by West's clients.  On February 6,
2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  On July 21, 2003, the Ohio Court of Appeals
reversed and remanded the trial court's decision for further
proceedings.  The plaintiffs have filed a Fourth Amended
Complaint and a renewed motion for class certification.

The Company has filed a brief in opposition to the class
certification.  It is anticipated that the trial court will hold
a hearing on class certification prior to rendering a decision.
The trial court has also set additional case management
deadlines.  One of the defendants, NCP Marketing Group, has
entered bankruptcy, and the case has been stayed as to that
defendant only.


                New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIED WASTE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC today initiated a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock and other securities of Allied Waste
Industries, Inc. ("Allied Waste" or the "Company") (NYSE:AW),
between February 10, 2004 and July 27, 2004 inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

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

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


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Biolase Technology, Inc.
("Biolase" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BLTI), between October 29,
2003 and July 16, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

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

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


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges MN Stock Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Ceridian Corp.("Ceridian"
or the "Company") (NYSE:CEN), between April 17, 2003 and July
19, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

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

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


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Corinthian Colleges, Inc. ("Corinthian"
or the "Company")(Nasdaq:COCO) between August 27, 2003 and June
23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Corinthian and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Corinthian's operations
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting
damages on investors. Corinthian is a for-profit, post-secondary
education company, which operates schools, colleges and training
centers in the United States and Canada. Plaintiff alleges the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse
facts, which defendants knew or recklessly disregarded,
including that:

     (1) the Company manipulated financial aid documents to
         boost loan amounts available to students, thereby
         fraudulently receiving additional federal funds;

     (2) the Company used the fraudulently obtained funds to
         boost its revenues and stock price;

     (3) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (4) as result of the illegal practices, Corinthian's
         earnings and net income were materially inflated and in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

On June 24, 2004, Corinthian announced that a division of the
U.S. Department of Education ("USDE") had uncovered violations
in obtaining federal loans at Corinthian's Bryman College
campus, in San Jose, California. Consequently, USDE revoked the
school's ability to receive advance payments on its student
loans. This news shocked the market, sending Corinthian shares
plummeting $2.55 or 10.18 percent, to close that day at $22.51.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of Class members
and is represented by Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, a law firm
with significant experience in prosecuting class actions, and
substantial expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.

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


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

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

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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in E.D. MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Express Scripts,
Inc. (Nasdaq: ESRX) ("Express Scripts") between October 29, 2003
and August 3, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also
included are all those who acquired Express Script's shares
through its acquisition of CuraScript.

The Complaint alleges Express Scripts engaged in illegal
practices. Ultimately, Express Scripts disclosed a number of
investigations into improper practices, recorded additional
litigation reserves of $15 million and was sued by the New York
Attorney General. The Attorney General's lawsuit alleged that
Express Scripts conducted an elaborate scheme that inflated the
costs of prescription drugs to New York's largest employee
health plan, the Empire Plan. The lawsuit alleged that Express
Scripts:

     (1) "enriched itself at the expense of the Empire Plan and
         its members by inflating the cost of generic drugs;"

     (2) "diverted to itself millions of dollars in manufacturer
         rebates that belonged to the Empire Plan;"

     (3) "engaged in fraud and deception to induce physicians to
         switch a patient's prescription from one prescribed
         drug to another for which Express Scripts received
         money from the second drug's manufacturer;"

     (4) "sold and licensed data belonging to the Empire Plan to
         drug manufacturers, data collection services and others
         without the permission of the Empire Plan and in
         violation of the State's contract;" and

     (5) "induced the State to enter into the contract by
         misrepresenting the discounts the Empire Plan was
         receiving for drugs purchased at retail pharmacies."

On the news of these investigations, Express Scripts stock fell
to $62.48 compared to a Class Period high of $79.81.

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


FERRO CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Ferro Corporation ("Ferro" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FOE) between October 28, 2003 and July 22,
2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Ferro, Hector R. Ortino, Thomas M. Gannon and Dale G.
Kramer ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented that the
Company knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that Ferro's
polymer additives business was not profitable and was incurring
greater losses than had been reported, that Ferro's efforts to
raise the prices of its polymer additives to products to offset
increasing "raw materials" costs had been ineffective, further
eroding the Company's revenues and profits, that the Company's
purportedly improving cost controls, especially regarding the
Company's polymer additives business, was, in fact, the product
of accounting manipulations that deferred and/or materially
understated the true operating costs of the business from
Ferro's public investors the increasing losses the Company was
actually incurring from its polymer additive business and that
the Company's disclosure controls and procedures were wholly
ineffective contrary to Defendants' Ortino's and Gannon's
representations to investors.

On July 22, 2004, Defendants announced that the Company was
slashing earnings expectations for the second quarter of fiscal
2004 by more than 70% based upon an internal review, purportedly
conducted in conjunction with Ferro's closing its books for the
quarter, which unearthed a multi-million dollar overstatement of
earnings resulting from certain unspecified accounting
manipulations. Upon this news, the price of Ferro shares fell by
more than 16% to close at $20.68 per share.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
800-495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com


FERRO CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Ferro Corporation ("Ferro" or the "Company") (NYSE: FOE)
between October 28, 2003 and July 22, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, case no. 04-CV-1589, against
defendants Ferro, Hector Ortino (CEO, President and Chairman)
and Thomas M. Gannon (CFO and Vice President). According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Ferro, a
global producer of performance materials and coatings, including
polymer additives, claimed that as a result of its restructuring
in the 3Q:03, defendants were able to manage the Company's
operations and control expenses, continue an aggressive R&D
spending campaign, and reduce the Company's debt, while
strengthening the Company's balance sheet. Unbeknownst to
investors, however, during the Class Period, defendants failed
to disclose that

     (1) the Company materially understated costs and expenses
         and overstated its earnings and net income by failing
         to properly account for the activities within Ferro's
         polymer additives business;

     (2) they failed to control Company costs in order to
         sufficiently pay down its debt;

     (3) the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (4) the Company's financial statements were not in
         conformity with generally accepted accounting
         principles ("GAAP"); and

     (5) defendants' positive statements regarding the Company's
         financial condition lacked any reasonable basis in
         fact.

On July 23, 2004, defendants announced that the Company's
earnings for 2Q:04 would fall short of expectations by over 70%
based upon the Company's internal review of "inappropriate
accounting entries in its Polymer Additives business," which
revealed a multi-million-dollar overstatement of earnings. In
reaction to this news, shares of Ferro stock declined
precipitously, falling over $4.00 per share, or 16.21 percent,
to close at $20.68 on unusually high trading volume.

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


GEXA CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Gexa Corporation ("Gexa" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:GEXA) between August 14, 2003 and March 30,
2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Gexa and Neil Liebman, Marcie Zlotnik and Sarah Veach
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants materially overstated Gexa's financial results with
respect to its power generation business. On March 30, 2004,
Gexa issued a press release indicating that its previously
reported revenues had been overstated estimates based upon power
delivered to customers, or proceeds from energy transactions.
Defendants also revealed that in connection with the Company's
audit for the 2003 fiscal year, that its independent auditors
had identified certain material weaknesses in its systems and
internal controls.

In reaction to this press release, Gexa's share price dropped
more than 25%, falling from a closing price of $6.64 on March
30, 2004 to a closing price of $4.90 on March 31, 2004.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
800-495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com


INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status has been filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
InVision Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: INVN) ("InVision") between
March 15, 2004 and July 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that InVision, a manufacturer of computed
tomography ("CT") based detection products used by the aviation
industry to screen baggage, and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false statements concerning the
Company's business condition. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts:

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

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

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

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

On July 30, 2004, InVision announced that it had met with the
Department of Justice and the SEC concerning its voluntary
disclosure of an internal investigation of certain possible
offers of improper payments by distributors in connection with
foreign sales activities. On this news, shares of InVision fell
$6.39 or 12.87% per share to close at $43.27 on August 2, 2004.

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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Ligand
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq:LGND) between March 3, 2004 and
August 2, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The Law Offices
Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. is examining whether the Class Period
may be expanded back to October 31, 2003.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against defendants Ligand, David
E. Robinson and Paul V. Maier. 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 Phone: 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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Brodsky & Smith Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Ligand Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Ligand" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LGND), between March 3,
2004 and August 2, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California.

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

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


NETFLIX INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action complaint in the Northern District of California against
Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix") (Nasdaq:NFLX) for alleged acts in
violation of U.S. securities fraud laws.

The complaint alleges that, between October 1, 2003, and July
15, 2004 (the Class Period), Netflix and its CEO Reed Hastings,
CFO Barry McCarthy and Chief Marketing Officer Leslie Kilgore
failed to disclose the number of subscriber cancellations being
suffered by the Company, even as they repeatedly touted the
large number of new subscribers being added to the Company's
subscriber base.

The complaint further alleges that they also consistently
understated the Company's churn rate (the percentage of its
subscribers that cancelled per month). Netflix achieved this by
using an improper calculation of the rate that produced an
artificially low churn rate in quarters in which the Company was
adding substantial numbers of new subscribers.

The standard definition of churn rate (and the definition used
by other publicly-traded companies that report churn rate such
as Sprint and Nextel Partners) is "the percentage of
participants who discontinue their use of a service divided by
the average number of total participants during a given period
of time." Netflix instead divided canceling subscribers by
subscribers at the beginning of the period plus subscriber
additions.

Because beginning subscribers plus new subscribers were
consistently a larger number than average subscribers throughout
the Class Period, the Company reported an artificially low churn
rate throughout the Class Period by erasing the effect that
canceling subscribers had on average subscribers during each
period.

Moreover, it is alleged that the Company repeatedly made
statements throughout the Class Period that its churn rate was
declining to "record lows," when in fact in some of these
quarters its churn rate was markedly rising. For example, in the
third quarter of 2003, Netflix claimed that its churn rate had
reached a new record low of 5.2% when in fact its churn rate had
risen from 7% to 7.7% during the quarter.

Disclosure of actual subscriber cancellations and the actual
churn rate was critically important for investors analyzing the
Company's prospects and the potential of its business model. The
Company spends approximately $35 in marketing expense to acquire
each new subscriber. Had investors known that the Company was
being forced continuously to replenish its subscriber base
through additional marketing expenditures; it would have called
into question the potential long-term profitability of the
Company and the viability of its business model. In other words,
the Company's artificially low claimed churn rate obscured the
fact that it was not retaining many subscribers long enough to
break even on them.

The truth came to light when, after the market closed on July
15, 2004, the Company issued an earnings release which, for the
first time, disclosed the number of subscriber cancellations
during previous quarters. Specifically, the press release stated
that, while the Company had added 537,000 new subscribers during
the second quarter, it had suffered 422,000 subscriber
cancellations, meaning 72% of the Company's 583,000 new
subscribers in the second quarter of 2004 had merely replaced
subscribers who had cancelled. The release also showed that 41%
of the Company's 760,000 new subscribers in the second quarter
had merely replaced subscribers who had cancelled, and 71% of
the Company's 327,000 new subscribers in the second quarter of
2003 had merely replaced subscribers who had cancelled.

In response, Netflix shares declined from $32 per share to $20
per share over the next two days, a decline of 38%. During the
Class Period, the shares had traded as high as $39.77 per share,
during which period Hastings, McCarthy and Kilgore sold
approximately $13 million in Netflix shares.

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


NETFLIX INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock of Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: NFLX) between October 1, 2003 and July
15, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants
Netflix and certain officers of the Company.

The case name and index number are Crawford v. Netflix, Inc., et
al, and (04cv3233).

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint further alleges statements made by the Company
were each materially false and misleading, and were known by
defendants to be false or were recklessly disregarded as such
thereby, for these reasons:

     (1) that Netflix knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that the Company's growth was unfavorably affected by
         considerable customer attrition;

     (2) that defendants manipulated the Company's churn rate in
         order to conceal the high rate of customer attrition;
         and

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

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., George
Peters or Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.whafh.com


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. ("Taro" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:TARO) between February 20, 2003 and July
29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Taro and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Taro's operations artificially
inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on
investors. The Complaint alleges Taro presented itself as a
pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and markets
generic drugs, and that the Company claimed throughout the Class
Period that it had successfully expanded its product line to
include proprietary drugs and novel drug delivery systems.
Unbeknownst to investors, the Company suffered from undisclosed
adverse factors that were having a negative impact on Taro's
financial performance and condition including but not limited to
the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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


THORATEC CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Thoratec
Corporation (Nasdaq: THOR) ("Thoratec") between April 28, 2004
and June 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     (1) Thoratec significantly underestimated the time and the
         resources necessary to develop a stable market for its
         much touted Destination Therapy;

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

     (3) Thoratec 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 Thoratec'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. Thoratec 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. On this
news, shares of Thoratec fell $3.69 per share or 25.52%, on June
30, 2004, to close at $10.74 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


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Wireless Facilities, Inc.
("Wireless Facilities" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:WFII), between
April 26, 2000 and August 4, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

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

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


WIRELESS TECHNOLOGIES: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Wireless Facilities Inc.
("Wireless" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:WFII) between April 26,
2000 and August 4, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Wireless and Masood Tayebi, Terry
Ashwill, Daniel Stokely, Eric DeMarco and Thomas Munro
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented that the
Company materially underreported its large foreign tax burden
and that as a result had inflated its net income or loss by 3%
to 8% or $10 to $12 million and that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls and was unable to ascertain its true financial
condition.

On August 4, 2004, Wireless reported results for the second
quarter of fiscal 2004. It also announced that it intends to
restate its financial results filed on Form 10-K for the years
2001 through 2003 to accrue for certain foreign tax
contingencies. Shares of Wireless fell dramatically in response
to the news, falling as much as 30% on heavy trading volume.
Shares closed at $5.02 per share, representing a decline of
approximately 28%.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
800-495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 California behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Wireless
Facilities, Inc. (Nasdaq: WFII) ("Wireless") between April 26,
2000 and August 4, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also
included are all those who acquired Wireless' shares through its
acquisitions of Questus, Davis Bay, Defense Systems, High
Technology Solutions, Telia Academy and Telia Contracting.

The Complaint alleges that Wireless, an independent provider of
outsourced communications and security for the wireless
communications industry, and certain of its officers and
directors issued materially false statements concerning the
Company's financial condition. Specifically the Complaint
alleges that Wireless failed to disclose and misrepresented that
the Company materially underreported its large foreign tax
burden and that as a result had inflated its net income or loss
by 3% to 8% or $10 to $12 million and that the Company lacked
adequate internal controls and was unable to ascertain its true
financial condition.

On August 4, 2004, Wireless reported results for the second
quarter of fiscal 2004. It also announced that it intends to
restate its financial results filed on Form 10-K for the years
2001 through 2003 to accrue for certain foreign tax
contingencies. On this news, shares of Wireless plummeted to
$5.02 per share, representing a decline of approximately 28%.

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


                            *********


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  * * *