CAR_Public/040813.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 13, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 160

                           Headlines

AEGON N.V.: NY Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Period To Appeal Lapses
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Energy Suits
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AMERICA ONLINE: Volunteers Launch Several FLSA Violations Suits

BRINKER RESTAURANT: Settles Salmonella Suits, Terms Not Divulged
COCA-COLA CO.: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Lodges Stock Fraud Lawsuit in CT
CONSOL ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in PA
FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Sides Reach Agreement, $1.275B Fund Created

FLORIDA: A.G. Crist Sets Up Toll-Free Hotline to Aid Residents
HALLIBURTON CO.: AMS Fund Opposes Securities Fraud Settlement
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For Distributor Suit
HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit V. Telemarketing in WV Court
KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit

LINKNET INC.: Administrative Proceedings Started V. Ex-Employee
MASTERCARD INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Antitrust Settlement Approval
MEDICAL STAFFING: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits
MURRAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Flowers Due To Undeclared Sulfites
NEOFORMA INC.: Suit Settlement Submitted To Court For Approval

PALMONE INC.: Reaches Settlement For DE Securities Fraud Suits
PALMONE INC.: CA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set September 2004
PALMONE INC.: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Amended Consumer Lawsuit
PALMONE INC.: CA Court Approves Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
PFGI CAPITAL: Ohio Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Securities Fraud

PJ SLEEP SHOP: Recalls 337 Wooden Bunk Beds Due To Injury Hazard
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: SEC Suspends Partner For Anicom Auditing
STAN LEE: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Suit V. Ex-Officials in CA
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs To File Amended Securities Lawsuit in NY
TIME WARNER: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended NV PurchasePro Stock Suit
TIME WARNER: Faces Consolidated Suit Over AOL Sosa Program in CA
TIME WARNER: NY Court Yet To Rule on ERISA Suit Dismissal Motion
TIME WARNER: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in Consumer Lawsuit

TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Ask For NY Consumer Suit Certification
TREX CO.: NJ Court Grants Certification To Consumer Fraud Suit
WASHINGTON: Settles Foster Care Suit, Costs Could Reach $50M
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Faces Linerboard Antitrust Suit in Canada Court
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plaintiffs File Motion For Summary Judgment

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Asks OK Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suits

                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Asbestos Claimants Decrease Since March
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Intl Still Fighting Claims In MS
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CG&E, PSI Pending Lawsuits Increase To 85
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collins & Aikman Pact Costs Show Increase
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CMCO Liability Through 2013 May Reach $4 M

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEG Subsidiary BGE Resolves 299 Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CCK Asbestos Payments Show $7M Decrease
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Says New Claims Filings Decreased
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entergy Companies Battle Over 10,000 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Group Posts Reserve Adjustments

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FWLRF Has $1.7M 2Q04 Settlement Gain
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Expends $8.9M In Claims Charges
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HIG Evaluation Indicates No Gross Changes
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Ace Property Agree To Resolve Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IR-NJ Continues To Pay Off Asbestos Costs

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation to Repay ConEd, Exelon
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noland Lawsuits in VA Increase To 2,100
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Posts $2M Fibreboard Reserve
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Posts $864 Mil Of Insurance Receivables
ASBESTOS ALERT: SDG&E Co. Expected To Pay $750,000 Settlement

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIED WASTE: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
ALLIED WASTE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges AZ Securities Fraud Suit
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Brain M. Felgoise Files MN Securities Suit
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges MN Securities Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO

GEXA CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
GEXA CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Fraud Suit in TX
GEXA CORPORATION: Vianale & Vianale Files Stock Fraud Suit in TX
INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges CA Securities Suit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Brian M. Felgoise Files Stock Suit in CA

LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lasky & Rifkind Files CA Securities Suit
SYNOVIS LIFE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
WHITE ELECTRONIC: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Suit in CA

                           *********


AEGON N.V.: NY Court Dismisses Lawsuit, Period To Appeal Lapses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York dismissed the class action lawsuit that was filed
against AEGON NV and several of its current and former Executive
Board members.  The period for appeal has lapsed and therefore
the class action has definitively been dismissed, the Company
said in a statement.

The suit, filed on January 24, 2003 against Aegon, Don Shepard,
Kees Storm and Jos B.M. Streppel, charges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market between August 9, 2001 to July 22, 2002. Aegon, through
its member companies, is an international insurer.

During the years preceding the Class Period, and during the
Class Period, as stock markets suffered substantial declines,
increasing numbers of investors gravitated from variable
products to fixed products. Aegon distinguished itself from its
competitors with the claim that its purportedly broad product
mix better enabled it to take advantage of this market shift
while it simultaneously assured investors that it had sufficient
reserves to fund the sharply increasing guaranteed payout
obligations required by its fixed products.

The complaint further alleges that Aegon also assured investors
that it was less vulnerable to the vicissitudes of the equity
and credit markets than competitors because the Company matched
"high quality investment assets . . . in an optimal way to the
corresponding insurance liability, taking into account currency,
yield and maturity characteristics," The Company claimed that,
for the foregoing reasons, "consistency and reliability in
earnings forecasting is a particular source of pride" and that,
while not immune to equity and real estate market shifts, the
Company was not subject to sharp downward variations in annual
net income. Accordingly, the Company reduced its earnings
guidance for 2002 but at all relevant times maintained its
forecast that 2002 net income would at least equal 2001 net
income.

The complaint also alleges that, on that date, the Company
shocked the market, announcing that 2002 net income would not
equal 2001 net income but, on the contrary, would be 30% to 35%
lower than 2001 net income. On this news, Aegon shares declined
from a closing price of $16.99 on Friday, July 19, 2002 to a
closing price of $13.25 on Monday, July 22, 2002, when trading
resumed.

For more details, contact AEGON N.V. - Baltimore, MD, by Phone:
+1-877-548-9668 (Analysts & investors) or +1-410-576-4577 or
+1 410-576-4526 (Media) or by E-mail: ir@aegonusa.com


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Energy Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California's dismissal of eight class
actions filed against Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC and
more than two dozen other named defendant power suppliers.

Nine suits were initially filed in various California superior
courts during 2002.  These class actions were removed from state
court and transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California.  Eight of the suits were
commenced by wholesale electricity consumers in California. The
ninth, "Millar v. Allegheny Energy Supply Co., et al.," was
filed on behalf of California consumers and taxpayers.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the Company and
the other defendant power suppliers violated California's
antitrust statute and the California unfair business practices
statute by manipulating the California electricity market.  The
suits also challenge the validity of various long-term power
contracts with the State of California, including the CDWR
contract.

On August 25, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss seven of the eight consumer class actions with
prejudice.  The plaintiffs have appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Company was never served in the eighth consumer class
action, "Kurtz v. Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC."  The
allegations in this complaint were substantively identical to
those in the dismissed actions.  On February 18, 2004,
plaintiffs in Kurtz voluntarily dismissed the action without
prejudice.

The District Court separately granted plaintiffs' motion to
remand in the ninth action, Millar, on July 9, 2003.  On
December 18, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
solely on behalf of consumers, naming certain additional
defendants, including The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (Goldman
Sachs) in California Superior Court, San Francisco County.  The
case was transferred back to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California in early 2004.  In May 2004,
plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state court.  The
defendants have opposed the motion and it remains outstanding.

Under the terms of the agreement relating to the sale of the
CDWR contract, AE Supply and one of its affiliates have agreed
to indemnify Goldman Sachs and its affiliate J. Aron & Company,
under certain conditions, for any losses arising out of the
class action litigation up to the amount of the purchase price.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Maryland to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
several of its former senior managers on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's stock.

From October 2002 through December 2002, several suits were
filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New
York and the District of Maryland.  The complaints alleged that
the Company and senior management violated federal securities
laws when the Company purchased Merrill Lynch's energy marketing
and trading business with the knowledge that the business was
built on illegal wash or round-trip trades with Enron, which the
complaints alleged artificially inflated trading revenue, volume
and growth.  The complaints asserted that the Company's fortunes
fell when Enron's collapse exposed what plaintiffs claim were
illegal trades in the energy markets.  All of the securities
cases were transferred to the District of Maryland and
consolidated.

The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on May 3, 2004 that
alleged that the defendants violated federal securities laws by
failing to disclose weaknesses in Merrill Lynch's energy
marketing and trading business, as well as other internal
control and accounting deficiencies.  The amended complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages and equitable relief.

The plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss is due on
August 16, 2004.


ALLEGHENY ENERGY: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Allegheny Energy, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland to dismiss the consolidated class
action filed against it, alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The suit alleges that the Company and a senior manager violated
ERISA by:

     (1) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         plan beneficiaries regarding the energy trading
         business, among other things;

     (2) failing to diversify plan assets;

     (3) failing to monitor investment alternatives;

     (4) failing to avoid conflicts of interest and

     (5) violating fiduciary duties

On April 26, 2004, the plaintiffs in the ERISA cases filed an
amended complaint, adding a number of individuals as defendants
and clarifying the nature of their claims.  On June 25, 2004,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.


AMERICA ONLINE: Volunteers Launch Several FLSA Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
America Online faces three lawsuits alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) in various federal courts.

On May 24, 1999, two former AOL Community Leader volunteers
filed a suit, styled "Hallissey et al. v. America Online, Inc.,"
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  This lawsuit was brought as a collective action under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and as a class action under New
York state law against America Online and AOL Community, Inc.
The plaintiffs allege that, in serving as Community Leader
volunteers, they were acting as employees rather than volunteers
for purposes of the FLSA and New York state law and are entitled
to minimum wages.

On December 8, 2000, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on the
ground that the plaintiffs were volunteers and not employees
covered by the FLSA.  The motion to dismiss is pending.

A related case was filed by several of the Hallissey plaintiffs
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
alleging violations of the retaliation provisions of the FLSA.
This case has been stayed pending the outcome of the Hallissey
motion to dismiss.

Three related class actions have been filed in state courts in
New Jersey, California and Ohio, alleging violations of the
FLSA and/or the respective state laws.  The New Jersey and Ohio
cases were removed to federal court and subsequently transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
for consolidated pretrial proceedings with Hallissey.

The California action was remanded to California state court and
on January 6, 2004, the court denied plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  Plaintiffs in that case have filed an
appeal of the order denying class certification, and the trial
court has stayed proceedings pending that appeal.


BRINKER RESTAURANT: Settles Salmonella Suits, Terms Not Divulged
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Marler Clark, LLP, PS and the Brinker Restaurant
Corporation agreed to settle the claims of 49 individuals who
were infected with Salmonella after eating at the Vernon Hills
Chili's Grill & Bar in late June and early July of 2003.
Attorneys Denis Stearns and William Marler negotiated the
settlements for all of Marler Clark's clients, including Bill
and Jennifer Lussow, Kimberly Fields, Angela Bond, Matt and Anna
Miller, Elizabeth Pusch, and Claude McDermott, each of whom had
previously filed suit against Brinker, the owner and operator of
the Chili's restaurant.

These lawsuits, along with a class action lawsuit that sought
punitive damages on behalf of all outbreak victims, will be
dismissed as part of the settlement. The amount of the
settlement is confidential.

"We were far along in the process of preparing these cases for
trial when settlement discussions finally seemed to turn
serious," said Marler Clark partner Denis Stearns. "We believed
strongly in our case, and the importance of the point we were
trying to make about food safety and corporate responsibility.
This was a case my partners and I really wanted to take to
trial. But when finally faced with the chance to not only fully
compensate our clients, but to do so in a way that showed the
clients that, `We really did send a message with this one'-that
was something we had to recommend accepting."

The Lake County Health Department's outbreak investigation
revealed that the Vernon Hills Chili's had been under operation
despite having a broken dish-machine and a lack of hot water for
at least one day, and a lack of any water at all during most of
the lunch-rush one day when infected food workers were preparing
and serving food to patrons. The Lake County Health Department
reported that 305 Chili's patrons reported having symptoms of
Salmonella infection that could be traced to Chili's.

Among other things, the lawsuits filed had alleged that Chili's
"acted in a grossly negligent manner" and that "wanton and
willful acts were committed with a conscious and reckless
indifference to existing circumstances and conditions, and to
the rights and safety of others, with such acts including, but
not limited to, preparing and serving food to the public despite
having a broken dish-washing machine without sanitizer in it,
having no hot water available for employees to wash their hands
on one day, and no water at all for part of a second day. Such
acts were also violations of the law."

"In a way it is too bad that the amount of the settlement is
confidential," added Bill Marler. "I think that more than most
settlements we have achieved in the past, this one would really
have made the restaurant industry sit up and take notice."

For more details, contact Denis Stearns or Bill Marler of MARLER
CLARK, LLP, PS by Phone: 206-346-1888 or 1-800-884-9840 by Fax:
1-206-346-1898 or by E-mail: dstearns@marlerclark.com or
bmarler@marlerclark.com


COCA-COLA CO.: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Coca-Cola Co. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging violations
of federal securities laws.

On October 27, 2000, a class action lawsuit, styled "Carpenter's
Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia & Vicinity v. The Coca-
Cola Company, et al.," was filed, alleging that the Company, M.
Douglas Ivester, Jack L. Stahl and James E. Chestnut violated
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws by making
misrepresentations or material omissions relating to the
Company's financial condition and prospects in late 1999 and
early 2000.  A second, largely identical lawsuit, styled "Gaetan
LaValla v. The Coca-Cola Company, et al.," was filed in the same
court on November 9, 2000.

The Complaints allege that the Company and the individual named
officers:

     (1) forced certain Coca-Cola system bottlers to accept
         "excessive, unwanted and unneeded" sales of concentrate
         during the third and fourth quarters of 1999, thus
         creating a misleading sense of improvement in the
         Company's performance in those quarters;

     (2) failed to write down the value of impaired assets in
         Russia, Japan and elsewhere on a timely basis, again
         resulting in presentation of misleading interim
         financial results in the third and fourth quarters of
         1999; and

     (3) misrepresented the reasons for Mr. Ivester's departure
         from the Company and then misleadingly reassured the
         financial community that there would be no changes in
         the Company's core business strategy or financial
         outlook following that departure.

Damages in an unspecified amount are sought in both Complaints.

On January 8, 2001, an order was entered by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
consolidating the two cases for all purposes.  The Court also
ordered the plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Amended Complaint.
On July 25, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint, which largely repeated the allegations made in the
original Complaints and added Douglas N. Daft as an additional
defendant.

On September 25, 2001, the defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
all counts of the Consolidated Amended Complaint.  On August 20,
2002, the Court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The Court also granted the
plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint.

On September 4, 2002, the defendants filed a Motion for Partial
Reconsideration of the Court's August 20, 2002 ruling, which
motion was denied by the Court on April 15, 2003.  On June 2,
2003, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint.
The Company moved to dismiss that Complaint on June 30, 2003.

On March 31, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint.  In its
order, the Court dismissed a number of the plaintiffs'
allegations, including the claim that the Company made knowingly
false statements to financial analysts.  The Court permitted the
remainder of the allegations to proceed to discovery.  The Court
denied the plaintiffs' request for leave to further amend and
replead their Complaint.


COMPETITIVE TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Lodges Stock Fraud Lawsuit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated a lawsuit
against Competitive Technologies, Inc. (CTT), a Connecticut
technology company, its former CEO, and six brokers, alleging
that they engaged in a fraudulent scheme to inflate CTT's stock
price in United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut. Defendant Chauncey Steele allegedly orchestrated
the scheme as a broker at Prudential Securities in
Massachusetts, acting with Richard Kwak in California, John
Glushko in Nevada, Stephen Wilson in Massachusetts, Thomas
Kocherhans in Utah and Sheldon Strauss in Ohio. Frank McPike,
while acting as CTT's CEO, allegedly made purchases in the
company's stock repurchase plan as part of the manipulative
scheme.

According to the Commission's complaint, from at least 1998
through 2001, the defendants "painted the tape," that is,
created a misleading market appearance. Most commonly they
"marked the close," by placing numerous orders at or near the
close of the market to inflate the reported closing price. They
also pre-arranged purchases to match sales, offsetting any
impact sales would otherwise have on CTT's price. Employing
these devices, defendants placed hundreds of purchase orders,
and made the closing trade in CTT stock on almost 300 trading
days during the period. On more than 90% of those days, they
succeeded in raising the reported closing price of the stock.
Because of defendants' fraud, CTT traded at far above its true
value.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 9(a) and 10(b) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibit
fraudulent conduct. The Commission is seeking injunctive relief,
disgorgement, and civil penalties, and a permanent officer and
director bar against McPike. The action is titled, SEC v.
Competitive Technologies, Inc., Chauncey Steele, John Glushko,
Thomas Kocherhans, Richard Kwak, Sheldon Strauss, Stephen
Wilson, and Frank McPike in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut, Civil Action No. 304 CV 1331 JCH.


CONSOL ENERGY: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
CONSOL Energy, Inc., J. Brett Harvey and William J. Lyons in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act and that
during the period between January 24, 2002, and July 18, 2002,
the defendants issued false and misleading statements to the
public that failed to disclose or misrepresented the following,
among other things that:

     (1) CONSOL Energy utilized an aggressive approach regarding
         its spot market sales by reserving 20% of its
         production to that market, and that by increasing its
         exposure to the spot market, CONSOL Energy was
         subjecting itself to increased risk and uncertainty as
         the price and demand for coal could be volatile;

     (2) CONSOL Energy was experiencing difficulty selling the
         production that it had allocated to the spot market,
         and, nonetheless, CONSOL Energy maintained its
         production levels which caused its coal inventory to
         increase;

     (3) CONSOL Energy's increasing coal inventory was causing
         its expenses to rise dramatically, thereby weakening
         the company's financial condition; and

     (4) based on the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
         regarding CONSOL Energy's earnings and prospects were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all times and
         therefore were materially false and misleading.

The amended complaint asks the court to award unspecified
damages to plaintiff and the purported class members and award
reasonable costs and expenses incurred in connection with this
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

One other purported class action complaint has been filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania against CONSOL Energy and certain officers and
directors.  This complaint was filed on December 12, 2003 by
William A. McMahen and the allegations are essentially the same
as the Moorhead/Karozos complaint.  None of the named defendants
have been served with the McMahen complaint.


FEN-PHEN LITIGATION: Sides Reach Agreement, $1.275B Fund Created
----------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Counsel, a coalition of more than 45 firms and 150
attorneys representing the rights of over 45,000 victims who
have been damaged by Fen-Phen drugs, announced that the
amendment to the Fen-Phen Trust, labeled the 7th Amendment, has
been approved by both sides and is filed before US District
Judge Harvey Bartle III in Philadelphia. The 7th Amendment will
allow Wyeth to pay reduced settlements to more than 40,000 Fen-
Phen victims.

The 7th Amendment creates a $1.275 billion fund for a new class
of Trust members who opt to receive reduced settlements upon
final Court approval of the Amendment, leaving what remains of
the original $3.75 billion Trust to help the victims who have
ongoing health problems in years to come.

"The 7th Amendment is a real and meaningful solution to the Fen-
Phen Trust where payments are essentially nonexistent for the
vast majority of claimants. This solution preserves funding in
the event claimants injured by diet drugs progress to heart
valve surgery or similarly serious conditions and allows Wyeth
to pay reduced settlements to more than 40,000 Fen-Phen victims
with non-surgical conditions," said Jerry Alexander, a victim
representative and member of the 7th Amendment Liaison
Committee.

Representatives from Wyeth and the 7th Amendment Liaison
Committee have been working with Michael Fishbein, one of the
attorneys representing the victim class action, for more than
one year on this agreement which is designed to resolve up to
90% of the pending matrix-level claims currently filed with the
Wyeth Fen-Phen Trust.

"Thousands and thousands of Fen-Phen victims have been locked in
a system where they can't get the help they were promised. Now,
some of those victims have a way out -- a choice to settle
immediately and know that there will be funds available if their
health declines," said Wayne Spivey, Chairman of the 7th
Amendment Liaison Committee. "If this passes, it's a start.
Unfortunately this isn't a cure-all for everyone and we still
have a long way to go toward curing the problems of the Wyeth
Fen-Phen Trust."

This agreement now requires judicial approval, and the stay on
Trust claims processing will continue during this process.

For more details, visit: http://www.majoritycounsel.com


FLORIDA: A.G. Crist Sets Up Toll-Free Hotline to Aid Residents
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist activated a toll-free
hotline and urged Florida consumers to report suspected price
gouging associated with Tropical Storms Bonnie and Charley.  The
Attorney General's action follows Governor Bush's official
declaration of an emergency for the State of Florida.

"It is important for Floridians to know that they will be
protected from any potential price gouger during either of these
storms, Bonnie or Charley," said AG Crist.  "Safety is the first
priority, then we need to take care of our property and
possessions."

Those who suspect price gouging should call the hotline at
1-800-646-0444.  Investigators will then look into the
complaint.  Florida law prohibits extreme increases in the price
of such commodities as food, water, hotels, ice, gasoline,
lumber and equipment necessary for use as a direct result of an
officially declared emergency.

"We know that our fellow citizens can be devastated by what is
happening and they will need our help," said AG Crist.
"Unfortunately, there are those who would seek to profit from
the misery of others.  Anyone who seeks to charge unconscionable
prices for vital goods should be warned that they will face the
full force of Florida law.  We encourage Floridians to report
suspicious price increases to the hotline.  Price gouging will
not be tolerated."

Florida law states that a commodity price is unconscionable if
it represents a "gross disparity" from the average price of that
commodity during the 30 days immediately prior to the emergency.
This applies unless the increase is attributable to additional
costs incurred by the seller or to national or international
market trends.  Violators of the price gouging statute are
subject to civil penalties of $1,000 per violation up to a total
of $25,000 for multiple violations committed in a single 24-hour
period.

The Attorney General also cautioned consumers to be wary of
business scams that might arise in the wake of Tropical Storms
Bonnie and Charley, including itinerant building repair and tree
removal services.  AG Crist said residents should deal whenever
possible with local established companies for repairs or for
financing to pay for any repairs that might not be covered by
insurance.

Consumers should be wary about a "contractor" who knocks on the
door with an offer to fix a roof or windows.  Before signing any
contracts, they should check the contractor's license, payment
terms and other provisions.


HALLIBURTON CO.: AMS Fund Opposes Securities Fraud Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff AMS Fund, Inc., a non-profit
charitable organization represented by Scott + Scott, LLC,
voiced its opposition to the present proposed/preliminarily
approved Halliburton (NYSE: HAL) securities fraud settlement.
The AMS Fund and Scott + Scott LLC also reminds interested
parties that August 18, 2004 is the final date to object to the
proposed settlement.

Lead Plaintiff AMS Fund opposes both this proposed settlement
and the manner in which it was reached for the following
reasons, among others:

Lead Plaintiff, AMS Fund, contends the proposed settlement was
negotiated on an uninformed basis by class counsel as to the
strength of the Class's claims against defendants and without
input from all Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs. It has been
claimed in Court papers that the actual damages suffered by
Halliburton shareholders amounted to hundreds of millions to
billions of dollars, significantly more than the de minimis
proposed settlement.

The AMS Fund and its counsel were not consulted prior to Lead
Counsel's agreement to the settlement. After being presented
with the proposed settlement as a fait accompli, the AMS Fund
took it upon itself to undertake its own further investigation.
The result of this further investigation was that significant
facts exist -- facts undeveloped by Lead Counsel and the other
two Executive Committee firms -- which corroborate the Class's
claims and illustrate the inadequacy of the proposed settlement
to remedy defendants' alleged wrongs.

The proposed settlement does not fairly compensate the Class for
the claims against defendants. After deduction of class and
derivative counsel's requested fees and realistically expected
settlement administration and other expenses of approximately
$3,000,000, Class members might receive something between $0.005
or $0.006 per share.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott by
Phone: 800/404-7770 or 860/537-3818 (EDT) or or 800/332-2259 or
619/233-4565 (PDT) or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Reaches Settlement For Distributor Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. reached a settlement for the class
action lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court of California,
styled "Jacobs v. Herbalife International, Inc., et al."  The
suit challenges marketing practices of several distributors and
the Company under various state and federal laws.

Without in any way admitting liability or wrongdoing, the
Company has reached a binding settlement with the plaintiffs,
subject to final court approval.  Under the terms of the
settlement, the Company will:

     (1) pay $3 million into a fund to be distributed to former
         Supervisor-level distributors who had purchased Newest
         Way to Wealth materials from the other defendants in
         this matter,

     (2) up to a maximum aggregate amount of $1 million, refund
         to former Supervisor-level distributors the amounts
         they had paid to purchase such Newest Way to Wealth
         materials from the other defendants in this matter, and

     (3) up to a maximum aggregate amount of $2 million, offer
         rebates on certain new purchases of Herbalife products
         to those current Supervisor-level distributors who had
         purchased Newest Way to Wealth materials from the other
         defendants in this matter.


HERBALIFE INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit V. Telemarketing in WV Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife International, Inc. and certain of its distributors
have been named as defendants in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in West
Virginia, styled "Mey v. Herbalife International, Inc., et al."

The complaint alleges that certain telemarketing practices of
certain Herbalife distributors violate the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and seek to hold Herbalife liable for the
practices of its distributors, the Company revealed in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


KEYSPAN CORPORATION: Reaches Agreement To Settle Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
KeySpan Corporation reached an agreement to settle a
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York against it
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, in connection with disclosures relating to or following
the acquisition of the Roy Kay companies.

The proposed settlement provides for the Company to make certain
payments to plaintiffs, all of which is to be funded by the
insurance carrier providing liability coverage for KeySpan's
directors and officers.


LINKNET INC.: Administrative Proceedings Started V. Ex-Employee
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings against Joseph W. Isaac pursuant to Section 15(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). The Division
of Enforcement (Division) alleges that on July 19, 2004 Isaac
was enjoined from future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and
17(a) of the Securities of 1933 Act and Sections 10(b) and 15(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Order alleges that the Complaint in the underlying
injunctive action alleged that LinkNet, Inc. (LinkNet) and
LinkNet de America Latina, Ltd. (Latina), companies that
employed Isaac, had conducted a fraudulent offering scheme,
collectively raising over $17 million and defrauding more than
1,900 investors located throughout the United States. The
Complaint alleged that LinkNet and Latina hired Isaac and others
to organize and operate a boiler room to solicit investors to
purchase securities in LinkNet and Latina. It further alleged
that Isaac directed the activities of the boiler room and that
Isaac and others made numerous misrepresentations to investors,
including: that a public offering of LinkNet stock was imminent;
that LinkNet's stock would shortly be listed on Nasdaq; and that
LinkNet and Latina had contracts for the sale of hundreds of
millions of minutes of long distance service that would generate
millions of dollars in revenue to the companies. It also alleged
that Isaac and others also failed to disclose that at least
thirty percent of the offering proceeds were paid as commissions
to the boiler room operations.  Finally, the Complaint alleged
that Isaac acted as an unregistered broker in connection with
sales of the stock of LinkNet and Latina and through the boiler
room operations of those issuers.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, to provide Isaac an opportunity to dispute these
allegations, and to determine what sanctions, if any, are
appropriate and in the public interest.

The Commission directed that an initial decision shall be issued
by the administrative law judge within 210 days from service of
the Order Instituting Proceedings upon Isaac.


MASTERCARD INC.: Plaintiffs Appeal Antitrust Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York's approval of the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed a number of U.S. merchants
against MasterCard International and Visa U.S.A., Inc.
challenging certain aspects of the payment card industry under
U.S. federal antitrust law.

The plaintiffs challenged MasterCard's "Honor All Cards" rule
(and a similar Visa rule), which requires merchants who accept
MasterCard cards to accept for payment every validly presented
MasterCard card.  Plaintiffs claimed that MasterCard and Visa
unlawfully tied acceptance of debit cards to acceptance of
credit cards.

In essence, the merchants desired the ability to reject off-
line, signature-based debit transactions (for example,
MasterCard card transactions) in favor of other payment forms
including on-line, PIN-based debit transactions (for example,
Maestro or regional ATM network transactions), which generally
impose lower transaction costs for merchants.

The plaintiffs also claimed that MasterCard and Visa conspired
to monopolize what they characterized as the point-of-sale debit
card market, thereby suppressing the growth of regional networks
such as ATM payment systems.  Plaintiffs alleged that the
plaintiff class had been forced to pay unlawfully high prices
for debit and credit card transactions as a result of the
alleged tying arrangement and monopolization practices.

On June4, 2003, MasterCard International signed the Settlement
Agreement to settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this
matter, which the Court approved on December 19, 2003.  A number
of class members have appealed the district court's approval of
the settlement to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.  These
appeals are largely focused on the court's attorneys' fees award
as well on the court's ruling on the scope of the release.  The
Second Circuit has scheduled oral argument on these appeals for
August 25, 2004.

Several lawsuits have been commenced by merchants who have opted
not to participate in the plaintiff class in the U.S. merchant
lawsuit, including Best Buy Stores, CVS, Giant Eagle, Home
Depot, Toys `R' Us and Darden Restaurants.  The majority of
these cases were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York and the Company expects that all of
these cases will be tried in that Court for, at minimum,
pretrial issues.  On December 31, 2003, MasterCard entered into
an agreement to settle claims brought by an "opt out" merchant.
On March 19, 2004, the opt out merchants amended their
complaints to include allegations, among other things, that
MasterCard's (and Visa's) interchange fees contravene the
Sherman Act and that the opt out merchants were harmed by
MasterCard's CPP.

MasterCard filed its response to the amended complaints on April
21, 2004.  On July 1, 2004, MasterCard and CVS entered into a
settlement and release resolving CVS's claims against
MasterCard.  On July 9, 2004, the District Court entered an
order dismissing with prejudice CVS's complaint against
MasterCard.  MasterCard continues to be involved in court-
ordered mediation with the remaining opt out merchant plaintiffs
while discovery continues to proceed.

In addition, there are currently related actions against
MasterCard International in 19 different state courts and the
District of Columbia.  In a number of state courts there are
multiple complaints against MasterCard International brought
under state unfair competition statutes on behalf of putative
classes of consumers. The claims in these actions mirror the
allegations made in the U.S. merchant lawsuit and assert that
merchants, faced with excessive merchant discount fees, have
passed these overcharges to consumers in the form of higher
prices on goods and services sold.  While these actions are in
their early stages, MasterCard has filed motions to dismiss the
complaints in a number of state courts for failure to state a
cause of action.

The Supreme Court in the State of New York and the Circuit Court
for the State of Michigan have granted MasterCard's motion to
dismiss with prejudice.  On June 21, 2004, the plaintiffs in the
New York case filed a notice of appeal.  The plaintiffs' time in
which to file an appeal of the Michigan court's ruling is
currently running.  MasterCard is awaiting decisions on its
motions to dismiss in the other state courts.

In July 2002, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California against MasterCard International, Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corp. and several member banks
in California alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's
and Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act.  The
suit seeks treble damages in an unspecified amount, attorney's
fees and injunctive relief, including the divestiture of bank
ownership of MasterCard and Visa, and the elimination of
MasterCard and Visa marketing activities.

On March 4, 2004, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice
in reliance upon the approval of the Settlement Agreement in the
U.S. merchant lawsuit by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, which held that the settlement and release
in that case extinguished the claims brought by the merchant
group in the present case.  The plaintiffs have appealed the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York’s
approval of the U.S. merchant settlement and release to the
Second Circuit Court of Appeals and have also appealed the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California's
dismissal of the present lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.


MEDICAL STAFFING: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medical Staffing Network Holdings, Inc. faces several securities
class actions filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock pursuant to or traceable to the Company's initial
public offering in April 2002.

On February 20, 2004, Joseph and Patricia Marrari, and on April
16, 2004, Tommie Williams, filed class action lawsuits in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.  These lawsuits also named as defendants certain of the
Company's directors and executive officers.

The complaints allege that certain disclosures in the
Registration Statement/Prospectus filed in connection with the
Company's initial public offering on April 17, 2002 were
materially false and misleading in violation of the Securities
Act of 1933.  The complaints seek compensatory damages as well
as costs and attorney fees.

On March 29, 2004, a third class action lawsuit brought on
behalf of the same class of the Company's stockholders making
claims similar to those in the lawsuits filed by Plaintiffs
Joseph and Patricia Marrari and Tommie Williams was commenced by
Plaintiff Haddon Zia in the Florida Circuit Court of the
Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida.  Defendants have removed this case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida and Plaintiff has moved to remand the case back to the
Florida Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, which
motion Defendants have opposed.  The Zia complaint seeks
rescission or damages as well as certain equitable relief and
costs and attorney fees.

On March 2, 2004, another class action complaint was filed
against Medical Staffing Network and certain of the Company's
directors and executive officers in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida by Jerome Gould,
individually and on behalf of a class of Medical Staffing
Network's stockholders who purchased stock during the period
from April 18, 2002 through June 16, 2003.

The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's public
disclosures during the class period were materially false and
misleading in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The complaint seeks compensatory damages, costs and
attorney fees.

Subsequent to quarter end, on July 2, 2004, the Marrari, Gould,
Williams and Zia actions were consolidated, Plaintiff Thomas
Greene was appointed Lead Plaintiff of the consolidated action
and the law firm of Cauley Geller Bowman & Rudman LLP was
appointed Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs.


MURRAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Flowers Due To Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray International Trading, Inc., 908 Dean Street, Brooklyn,
N.Y. 11238 is recalling Wing Shing Dried Lily Flower because it
may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have severe
sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Wing Shing Dried Lily Flower was sold in a clear,
uncoded, 6oz plastic package and is a product of China. The
product was sold throughout New York State.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors
revealed the presence of undeclared sulfites in Wing Shing Dried
Lily Flower in packages which did not declare sulfites on the
labels. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving
has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Wing Shing Dried Lily Flower should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 718-230-7888.


NEOFORMA INC.: Suit Settlement Submitted To Court For Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Neoforma, Inc. has been submitted to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York for
preliminary approval.

In July 2001, the Company, along with Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Bear Stearns and FleetBoston Robertson Stephens
(certain of the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering (IPO)), as well as its Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, Robert Zollars, and its former Chief Financial Officer,
Frederick Ruegsegger, were named as defendants in two securities
class action lawsuits filed in federal court in the Southern
District of New York (No. 01 CV 6689 and No. 01 CV 6712) on
behalf of those who purchased shares of the Company's common
stock from January 24, 2000 to December 6, 2000.

These actions have since been consolidated, and a consolidated
amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2002.  The amended
complaint alleges that the underwriters solicited and received
"undisclosed compensation" from investors in exchange for
allocations of stock in the Company's IPO, and that some
investors in the IPO allegedly agreed with the underwriters to
buy additional shares in the aftermarket to artificially inflate
the price of the Company's stock.

The Company, Mr. Zollars and Mr. Ruegsegger are named in the
suits pursuant to Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, for allegedly failing to disclose
in the Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus that
the underwriters had entered into the arrangements described
above.  The complaints seek unspecified damages.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.  On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants moved to
dismiss all of the IPO allocation litigation complaints against
them, including the action involving the Company.  On July 15,
2002, the Company, along with the other non-underwriter
defendants in the coordinated cases, also moved to dismiss the
litigation.  Those motions were fully briefed on September 13
and September 27, 2002, respectively, and in February 2003, the
Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

On October 9, 2002, all of the individual defendants, including
Mr. Zollars and Mr. Ruegsegger, were dismissed from the action
without prejudice.  On June 30, 2003, the Company's board of
directors approved a proposed settlement for this matter, which
is part of a larger global settlement between the issuers and
plaintiffs.  The acceptance of the settlement by the plaintiffs
is contingent on a number of factors, including the percentage
of issuers who approve the proposed settlement.  The Company has
agreed to undertake other responsibilities under the proposed
settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or
release certain potential claims the Company may have against
its underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is likely to be borne by the Company's insurers.


PALMONE INC.: Reaches Settlement For DE Securities Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
palmOne, Inc. reached a tentative settlement for the two
putative class actions filed in the Court of Chancery in the
State of Delaware in and for the County of New Castle against
it, Handspring, Inc. and various officers and directors of
Handspring, captioned "Goldhirsch v. Handspring, Inc., et. al,"
and "Majarian v. Handspring, Inc., et. al."

The Majarian complaint was amended on June 23, 2003 to, among
other things, delete certain previously named officer
defendants.  Both complaints allege that the officers and
directors of Handspring breached their fiduciary duties to
Handspring stockholders by, among other things, failing to
undertake an appropriate evaluation of Handspring's net worth as
a merger or acquisition candidate and failing to maximize
Handspring stockholder value by not engaging in a meaningful
auction of Handspring.

The Majarian complaint also alleges, among other things, that
the officers and directors of Handspring breached their
fiduciary duties by failing to act independently so that the
interests of Handspring's public stockholders would be protected
and enhanced.  Both complaints allege that Palm aided and
abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty of Handspring's
officers and directors.

Both complaints seek, among other things, a preliminary and
permanent injunction against the transaction, a rescission of
the transaction if it is consummated and unspecified damages.
The Goldhirsch complaint also requests, among other things, that
the Court order Handspring's officers and directors to take all
necessary steps to maximize stockholder value, including open
bidding and/or a market check.

The cases were consolidated and a tentative settlement was
reached in October 2003 subject to appropriate documentation,
confirmatory discovery and Court approval.  All preliminary
steps to obtain Court approval have been completed and the
parties are anticipating a hearing date.


PALMONE INC.: CA Settlement Fairness Hearing Set September 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the consumer class
action filed against palmOne, Inc. and 3Com, styled "Connelly v.
Palm and 3Com," is set for September 30,2004 in California
Superior Court for San Francisco County.

The suit alleges breach of warranty and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law.  The amended complaint,
filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm III, IIIc, V and Vx
handhelds, alleges that certain Palm handhelds may cause damage
to PC motherboards by permitting an electrical charge, or
"floating voltage," from either the handheld or the cradle to be
introduced into the PC via the serial and/or USB port on the PC
due to a design defect in the Palm products.  The complaint
seeks restitution, rescission, damages, an injunction mandating
corrective measures to protect against future damage as well as
notifying users of potential harm.

The parties engaged in mediation and reached settlement, which
received preliminary Court approval in December 2003.  The terms
of the settlement will result in a resolution that is not
material to palmOne's financial position, the company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


PALMONE INC.: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Amended Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
palmOne, Inc. asked the Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County to
dismiss in part a second amended consumer class action filed
against it, styled "Goldstein v. Palm."

The case alleges consumer fraud regarding Palm's representations
that its m100, III, V, and VII handheld personal digital
assistant, as sold, would provide wireless access to the
Internet and email accounts, and would perform common business
functions including data base management, custom form creation
and viewing Microsoft Word and Excel documents, among other
tasks.  The case seeks unspecified actual damages and
indemnification of certain costs.


PALMONE INC.: CA Court Approves Consumer Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, Santa Clara County granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of a purported consumer
class action lawsuit was filed against Palm, Inc., styled
"Hemmingsen et al v. Palm, Inc."

The unverified complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm
m515 handhelds, alleges that such handhelds fail at unacceptably
high rates, and in particular that instant updating and
synchronization of data with PCs often will not occur.  The
complaint further alleges that, upon learning of the problem,
Palm did not perform proper corrective measures for individual
customers as set forth in the product warranty, among other
things.

The complaint alleges that the Company's actions violate
California's Unfair Competition Law and constitute a breach of
warranty.  The complaint seeks restitution, disgorgement,
damages, an injunction mandating corrective measures including a
full replacement program for all allegedly defective m515s or,
alternatively mandating a refund to all purported class members
of the full purchase price for their m515s and attorneys' fees.

A hearing seeking final approval of the settlement is scheduled
for October 5, 2004.  The terms of the settlement will result in
a resolution that is not material to palmOne's financial
position, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.


PFGI CAPITAL: Ohio Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio dismissed several claims in the class action filed against
PFGI Capital Corporation, and:

     (1) Provident Financial Group,

     (2) former President Robert L. Hoverson and

     (3) former Chief Financial Officer Christopher J. Carey

The suit, filed on behalf of all purchasers of PRIDES in or
traceable to a June 6, 2002 offering of those securities
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission and
extending to March 5, 2003, is based upon circumstances involved
in a restatement of earnings announced by Provident on March 5,
2003.  It alleges violations of securities laws by the
defendants in Provident's financial disclosures during the
period from March 30, 1998 through March 5, 2003 and in the June
2002 offering.  It seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages.

The consolidated suit was filed before Judge S. Arthur Spiegel
of the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio under the caption, "Merzin v. Provident Financial Group,
Inc., consolidated Civil Action Master File No. C-1-03-165."

PFGI Capital and other Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
Complaint on November 5, 2003.  The motion was granted on March
9, 2004 and the Court dismissed all claims except those relating
to the June 6, 2002 offering of 6,600,000 PRIDE securities.
However, the Court's order confined any later finding of damages
to $0.70 per PRIDE security.

PJ SLEEP SHOP: Recalls 337 Wooden Bunk Beds Due To Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
PJ Sleep Shop of Portland, Oregon is cooperating with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) by voluntarily
recalling about 337 units of Wooden bunk beds: Twin/Twin,
Twin/Double, and Loft Bunk.

These bunk beds have gaps between parts of the upper bunk end
structure that violate the federal safety standard because they
pose entrapment or strangulation hazards to children. The spaces
exceed that allowed by the federal bunk bed safety standard,
which is designed to protect children from entrapment and
strangulation.

The recalled models of wooden bunk beds are Twin/Twin #1000;
Twin/Double #2000; and Loft Bunk #3000. There are no model
numbers on the bunk beds, but the manufacturer's label is
located on the inside of the upper bunk's end structure. The
Twin/Twin #1000 has top and bottom bunks of equal size. The
Twin/Double #2000 has a twin top bunk and a double bottom bunk
that is 15 inches wider. The Loft Bunk #3000 has the bottom bunk
perpendicular to the top bunk, making an "L" shape.

Manufactured in the USA, the bunk beds were sold at the PJ Sleep
Shop in Portland, Oregon, and Banner Furniture stores in
Portland and Hillsboro, Oregon, between June 1, 2000, and
February 29, 2004. Model #1000 sold for about $199, Model #2000
sold for about $325, and Model #3000 sold for about $349.

Stop using the recalled bunk beds and get a free repair kit from
the manufacturer to cover up the entrapment hazards. Consumers
can install the repair kit easily at home.

For more details, contact PJ Sleep Shop by Phone: (888) 232-5225
between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. PT Monday through Friday, and from 10
a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturday OR Media Contact - Mike Finerty by
Phone: (888) 232-5225


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: SEC Suspends Partner For Anicom Auditing
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a cease-and-desist
order and instituted administrative proceedings against Gary A.
Seidelman, a certified public accountant and former audit
engagement partner in the Chicago office of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLC (PwC). The Commission ordered
Seidelman, age 52 of Batavia, Illinois, to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violations and any future violations
of Section 10A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which
requires auditors to investigate and report detected illegal
acts) and from causing violations of Section 13(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 promulgated
thereunder (which require timely and accurate financial
reporting to the Commission). The Commission also denied
Seidelman the privilege of appearing or practicing before the
Commission as an accountant with the right to apply for
reinstatement after three years.

The Commission found that Seidelman engaged in improper
professional conduct while conducting the 1999 year-end audit
and first quarter 2000 interim review of the financial
statements for Anicom, Inc. (Anicom). In 2002, the Commission
sued several officers and employees of Anicom in federal
district court for engaging in a fraudulent scheme to overstate
Anicom's revenue by over $38 million and net income by over $20
million from 1998 to the first quarter of 2000. That case is
pending. The action is titled, SEC v. Putnam, et al., No. 02 C
3235 (N.D. IL) (LR-17504).

According to the Commission, Seidelman did not comply with
generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) because he failed
to:

     (1) adequately  plan  the audit and exercise due care after
         learning  of several red flags, including allegations
         made by former Anicom employees of fraudulent billing
         practices and improper sales activity perpetrated  by
         Anicom management;

     (2) obtain sufficient competent evidence for several areas
         of the audit, including Anicom's accounts receivable
         and a $6.1 million restructuring charge incurred by
         Anicom;

     (3) properly supervise the audit by failing to, among other
         things, adequately reviewing the engagement team's
         audit work; and

     (4) document in PwC's first quarter 2000 interim review
         audit working papers significant communications
         regarding a problematic $9.5 million bill-and-hold sale
         booked by Anicom.

The Commission also found that, during the first quarter 2000
interim review and the beginning of the 2000 Anicom audit,
Seidelman learned that Anicom may have committed two illegal
acts that he failed to appropriately investigate.

The Commission issued its order pursuant to Section 21C of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 102(e) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice. Seidelman consented to the order
without admitting or denying the findings.


STAN LEE: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Suit V. Ex-Officials in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in
federal district court in Los Angeles against three defendants
for manipulating the stock of Stan Lee Media, Inc. The
defendants are Peter F. Paul, the co-founder of Stan Lee Media;
Stephen M. Gordon, its former executive vice president of
operations, and Jeffrey L. Pittsburg, formerly an officer and
part-owner of Pittsburg Institutional, Inc., a Commission-
registered broker-dealer. The Commission alleges that, between
October 2, 2000 and November 24, 2000, Paul, Gordon, and
Pittsburg engaged in a scheme to maintain and control the price
of Stan Lee Media's stock at artificially inflated levels by,
among other things, concealing their trading in Stan Lee Media
stock to create a false and misleading appearance of active
trading.

The complaint charges that Paul, Gordon, and Pittsburg violated
the antifraud provisions of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The complaint also charges Paul and
Gordon with violating the credit provisions of Section 7(f) of
the Exchange Act and Regulation X thereunder, and the securities
reporting requirements of Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 16a-3 thereunder. Additionally, the complaint charges Paul
with violations of the stock ownership reporting requirements of
Section 13(d) of the Exchange Act and Rules 13d-1 and 13d-2
thereunder.

The complaint seeks an order enjoining Paul, Gordon, and
Pittsburg from future violations of the securities laws,
prohibiting Paul and Gordon from serving as an officer and
director of a public company, directing Pittsburg to disgorge
all amounts he received as a result of his violations plus
prejudgment interest, and ordering each defendant to pay a civil
penalty.

Gordon, without admitting or denying the Commission's
allegations, consented to the entry of a judgment permanently
enjoining him from future violations of the antifraud provisions
of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, the credit provisions of
Section 7(f) of the Exchange Act and Regulation X thereunder,
and the securities reporting requirements of Section 16(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 16a-3 thereunder, prohibiting him from
serving as an officer or director of any reporting company, and
not ordering civil penalties based on his sworn representations
in his statement of financial condition.

The United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of
New York has previously charged Paul, Gordon, and Pittsburg with
conspiracy to commit securities fraud and securities fraud,
related to their manipulative conduct involving Stan Lee Media
stock. The action is titled, SEC v. Peter F. Paul, Stephen M.
Gordon and Jeffrey L. Pittsburg, Civil Action No. CV 04-6613 SVW
(SSx) (C.D. Cal.) (LR-18828).


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs To File Amended Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Minnesota State Board of Investments (MSBI), lead plaintiff
in the consolidated securities class action filed against Time
Warner, Inc., filed a motion seeking permission to file an
amended suit.

As of August 4, 2004, 30 shareholder class action lawsuits have
been filed naming as defendants the Company, certain current and
former executives of the Company and, in several instances,
America Online, Inc. (America Online).  These lawsuits were
filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New
York, the Eastern District of Virginia and the Eastern District
of Texas.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain
shareholders of the Company and allege that the Company made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the Company failed to disclose America
Online's declining advertising revenues and that the Company and
America Online inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in
a series of transactions.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege
that certain of the individual defendants and other insiders at
the Company improperly sold their personal holdings of Time
Warner stock, that the Company failed to disclose that the
Merger was not generating the synergies anticipated at the time
of the announcement of the Merger and, further, that the Company
inappropriately delayed writing down more than $50 billion of
goodwill.  The lawsuits seek an unspecified amount in
compensatory damages.

As of August 4, 2004, three putative class action lawsuits have
been filed alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of current and former
participants in the AOL Time Warner Savings Plan, the AOL Time
Warner Thrift Plan and/or the TWC Savings Plan.  Collectively,
these lawsuits name as defendants the Company, certain current
and former directors and officers of the Company and members of
the Administrative Committees of the Plans.

The lawsuits allege that the Company and other defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties to plan participants by, inter
alia, continuing to offer Time Warner stock as an investment
under the Plans, and by failing to disclose, among other things,
that the Company was experiencing declining advertising revenues
and that the Company was inappropriately inflating advertising
revenues through various transactions.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages and unspecified equitable relief.

All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings, under the caption "In re AOL
Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA Litigation."  Additional
lawsuits filed by individual shareholders have also been
consolidated for pretrial proceedings.

The Minnesota State Board of Investment (MSBI) has been
designated lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities
actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 15,
2003, adding additional defendants including additional officers
and directors of the Company, Morgan Stanley & Co., Salomon
Smith Barney Inc., Citigroup Inc., Banc of America Securities
LLC and JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the
Company made material misrepresentations in its Registration
Statements and Joint Proxy Statement-Prospectus related to the
Merger and in its registration statements pursuant to which debt
securities were issued in April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly
in violation of Section 11 and Section 12 of the Securities Act
of 1933.  On July 14, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.

On May 5, 2004, the district court granted in part the
defendants' motion, dismissing all claims with respect to the
registration statements pursuant to which debt securities were
issued in April 2001 and April 2002 and certain other claims
against other defendants, but otherwise allowing the remaining
claims against the Company and certain other defendants to
proceed.  On June 3, 2004, MSBI filed a motion in which it
proposed to file a second amended complaint, and defendants
filed a response opposing such motion on July 2, 2004.

On July 30, 2004, defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
on the basis that plaintiffs cannot establish loss causation for
any of their claims, and thus plaintiffs do not have any
recoverable damages.


TIME WARNER: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc. asked the District Court of Cass County, Texas
to dismiss the securities class action filed against it, styled
"McClure et al. v. AOL Time Warner Inc. et al."  The suit also
names as defendants certain of the Company's current and former
officers, directors and employees.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements in violation
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs
also allege breach of fiduciary duty and common law fraud.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages.

On May 8, 2004, the Company filed a general denial and a motion
to dismiss for improper venue.  Also on May 8, 2004, all named
individual defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of
personal jurisdiction.


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of the securities
class action filed against Time Warner, Inc. by the California
State Teachers' Retirement System on behalf of a putative class
of purchasers of stock in Homestore.com, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that Homestore engaged in a scheme to defraud
its shareholders in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act.  The Company and two former employees of its America Online
division were named as defendants in the amended consolidated
complaint because of their alleged participation in the scheme
through certain advertising transactions entered into with
Homestore.

Motions to dismiss filed by the Company and the two former
employees were granted on March 7, 2003, and a final judgment of
dismissal was entered on March 8, 2004.


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Lodge Amended NV PurchasePro Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended securities class action
against Time Warner, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of stock in PurchasePro.com, Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that PurchasePro engaged in a scheme to
defraud its shareholders in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act.  The Company and four former officers and
employees were added as defendants in the second amended
complaint and are alleged to have participated in the scheme
through certain advertising transactions entered into with
PurchasePro.

Three similar putative class actions had previously been filed
against the Company, America Online and certain former officers
and employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  On June 9, 2004, defendants filed a
motion to transfer these three actions to Nevada for
consolidation, and on June 16, 2004 this motion was granted.


TIME WARNER: Faces Consolidated Suit Over AOL Sosa Program in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc. faces a consolidated class action pending in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, relating to America Online's Spin-off a Second
Account (SOSA) program.

Sixteen putative consumer class action suits were initially
filed in various state and federal courts naming as defendants
the Company or America Online and ICT Group, Inc.  All of these
suits allege that America Online's SOSA program violated
consumer protection acts by charging members for "spun-off"; or
secondary e-mail accounts they purportedly did not agree to
create.

America Online removed several of the actions filed in state
court to federal court.  On February 27, 2004, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered the federal court
cases centralized in the Central District of California for
consolidated or coordinated pretrial proceedings.

On January 5, 2004, the class action pending in the Superior
Court of Washington, Spokane County, titled "Dix v. ICT Group
and America Online," was dismissed without prejudice based on
the forum selection clause set forth in SOSA's terms of service.
America Online has filed or will file motions to dismiss on this
and other grounds in the remaining cases.


TIME WARNER: NY Court Yet To Rule on ERISA Suit Dismissal Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on Time Warner, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss the class action filed against it, America Online and
AOL Community, Inc. by Community Leader volunteers, alleging
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

Plaintiffs allege that they are entitled to pension and/or
welfare benefits and/or other employee benefits subject to
ERISA.  In March 2003, plaintiffs filed and served a second
amended complaint, adding as defendants the Company's
Administrative Committee and the AOL Administrative Committee.

On May 19, 2003, the Company, America Online and AOL Community,
Inc. filed a motion to dismiss and the Administrative Committees
filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  Both of these
motions are pending.


TIME WARNER: Appeals Denial of Arbitration in Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc. appealed the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York's ruling denying arbitration
for the nationwide consumer class action filed against it and
Time Warner Cable, Inc.

On October 7, 2003, "Kim Sevier and Eric M. Payne vs. Time
Warner Inc. and Time Warner Cable Inc.," a putative nationwide
consumer class action, was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York, and on October 23, 2003,
"Heidi D. Knight v. Time Warner Inc. and Time Warner Cable
Inc.," also a putative nationwide consumer class action, was
filed in the same court.

In each case, the plaintiffs allege that defendants unlawfully
tie the provision of high-speed cable Internet service to leases
of cable modem equipment, because they do not provide a discount
to customers who provide their own cable modems, in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and the New York Donnelly Act, and,
further, that defendants' conduct resulted in unjust enrichment.

On November 19, 2003, the court ordered plaintiffs' complaints
to be consolidated.  Plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated
class action complaint on December 17, 2003, seeking
compensatory damages, disgorgement, attorneys' fees and
injunctive and declaratory relief.  On February 6, 2004, the
Company moved to compel arbitration and to stay the matter
pending arbitration or, alternatively, to dismiss the case; the
court denied this motion on April 19, 2004, and the Company has
filed a notice to appeal the decision on arbitration to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Ask For NY Consumer Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York to grant class certification to a
lawsuit filed against Time Warner Entertainment Company, L.P.,
styled "Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time Warner
Entertainment Company, L.P. and Time Warner Cable."

The suit alleges that TWE sold its subscribers' personally
identifiable information and failed to inform subscribers of
their privacy rights in violation of the Cable Communications
Policy Act of 1984 and common law.  The plaintiffs are seeking
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On August 6, 1998, TWE filed a motion to dismiss, which was
denied on September 7, 1999.  On December 8, 1999, TWE filed a
motion to deny class certification, which was granted on January
9, 2001 with respect to monetary damages, but denied with
respect to injunctive relief.  On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the District Court's
decision denying class certification as a matter of law and
remanded the case for further proceedings on class certification
and other matters.


TREX CO.: NJ Court Grants Certification To Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County granted class
certification for the lawsuit filed against Trex Co., Inc. by
Michael Kanefsky generally alleging that the Company has
violated state and common law by negligently misrepresenting the
characteristics of its products, by breaching contracts, by
breaching implied or express warranties and/or by defrauding
consumers in the sale and promotion of these products.  The
plaintiffs seek reformation of the Company's warranty, as well
as compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

The court certified the following three class action cases
against the Company:

     (1) a nationwide class for reformation of warranty;

     (2) a New Jersey class for alleged violation of the New
         Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and

     (3) a New Jersey class for alleged breach of express and
         implied warranties


WASHINGTON: Settles Foster Care Suit, Costs Could Reach $50M
------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Department of Social and Health Services reached
a settlement in a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of 13
foster children who accused the state of violating foster
children's constitutional rights to safe and stable homes, the
Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports.

In the settlement, DSHS agreed to an independent five-member
panel to oversee the changes. Estimated to cost the state up to
$50 million, the changes include; improvements in mental health
treatment; better support and training of foster parents;
placing siblings together in foster care; better services for
teenagers and more in-person visits from caseworkers. The
ultimate goal being the reduction of the number of placements
and providing foster kids stable homes.

Filed by plaintiffs' attorney Tim Farris of Bellingham in 1998,
the suit sought systemic changes not monetary damages.

Another plaintiffs' attorney, Bill Grimm told the Seattle Post-
Intelligencer, "The suit began with the belief that children
deserve better than a pinball-type existence and today the state
of Washington steps forward and, with this agreement, promises
children we will do better."

According to the lawyers the settlement reaches beyond the
status quo by forcing the state to keep its promises to foster
children and if the system doesn't improve, all parties involved
go back to court.

For more details, contact Timothy C. Farris of Brett & Daugert,
PLLC by Mail: 300 North Commercial, P.O. Box 5008, Bellingham,
WA 98227 (Whatcom Co.) by Phone: 360-733-0212 or by Fax: 360-
647-1902


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Faces Linerboard Antitrust Suit in Canada Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Co. and other linerboard manufacturers face a class
action filed in the Superior Court of Justice in Ontario, Canada
by La Cie McCormick Canada Company on behalf of all Canadians
who purchased corrugated products, including sheets and
containers and/or linerboard, during the period of time from
1993 and continuing until at least the end of 1995.

The suit alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the price
of linerboard and that the alleged conspiracy had the effect of
increasing the price of corrugated containers.  Relief is sought
under various theories for $25 million in general damages and
$10 million in punitive damages.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Plaintiffs File Motion For Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a partial motion for summary judgment in the
consolidated securities class actions filed against Williams
Companines, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the Company
and co-defendants, WilTel Communications (WilTel), previously an
owned subsidiary known as Williams Communications, and certain
corporate officers, have acted jointly and separately to inflate
the stock price of both companies.  Other suits alleged similar
causes of action related to a public offering in early January
2002, known as the FELINE PACS offering.  These cases were filed
against the Company, certain corporate officers, all members of
its Board of Directors and all of the offerings' underwriters.


These cases have all been consolidated and an order has been
issued requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by our
equity holders and WilTel equity holders.  The underwriters of
this offering have requested indemnification from these cases.
If granted, costs incurred as a result of these indemnifications
will not be covered by the Company's insurance policies.

The amended complaint of the WilTel securities holders was filed
on September 27, 2002, and the amended complaint of the
Company's securities holders was filed on October 7, 2002.  This
amendment added numerous claims related to Power.  The partial
motion for summary judgment was filed with respect to certain
disclosures made in connection with the Company's public
offerings during the class period.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Asks OK Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Williams Companies filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action filed against it, the members of its Board of
Directors and members of our Benefits and Investment Committees
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.  The suit makes claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) on behalf of participants in the
Company's 401(k) plan.

On July 14, 2003, the Court dismissed the Company and its Board
from the ERISA suits, but not the members of the Benefits and
Investment Committees to whom the Company might have an
indemnity obligation.  If it is determined that the Company has
an indemnity obligation, it expects that any costs incurred will
be covered by its insurance policies.   The Department of Labor
is also independently investigating the Company's employee
benefit plans.

On May 3, 2004, plaintiffs requested permission to amend their
complaint to add additional Investment Committee members and to
again name the Board of Directors.  That permission was granted
June 7, 2004, and a motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the
Board on July 15, 2004.

Derivative shareholder suits have been filed in state court in
Oklahoma, all based on similar allegations.  On August 1, 2002,
a motion to consolidate and a motion to stay was approved for
the Oklahoma suits, pending action by the federal court in the
shareholder suits.


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: 3M Asbestos Claimants Decrease Since March
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004, 3M Co. is a named defendant, typically with
multiple co-defendants, in numerous lawsuits in various courts
that purport to assert claims by around 89,610 individual
claimants and has accrued liabilities of $245,000,000 and
receivables for the probable amount of insurance recoveries of
$448,000,000 related to this asbestos litigation.  On July 15,
2004, the Class Action Reporter noted that there were 89,800
such claimants, $267,000,000 in accrued liabilities, and
$448,000,000 in probable receivables for insurance recoveries
related to this litigation as of the end of March 2004.

3M is a diversified technology company with international
presence in the following markets: health care, industrial,
display and graphics, consumer and office, safety, security and
protection services, electronics, telecommunications and
electrical, and transportation.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Albany Intl Still Fighting Claims In MS
------------------------------------------------------------
Around 24,865 of the claims pending against Albany International
Corp. are filed in various counties in Mississippi.  The Company
expects the percentage of claimants with paper mill exposure in
the Mississippi proceedings to be considerably lower than the
total number of claims asserted.  It is the position of Albany
and the other paper machine clothing defendants that there was
insufficient exposure to asbestos from any paper machine
clothing products to cause asbestos-related injury to any
plaintiff.  While the Company believes it has meritorious
defenses to these claims, it has settled certain of these cases
for amounts it considers reasonable given the facts and
circumstances of each case.  The Company's insurer, Liberty
Mutual, has defended each case under a standard reservation of
rights.  As of July 23, 2004, the Company had resolved by
settlement or dismissal, 6,500 claims, and had reached tentative
agreement to resolve an additional 4,563 claims reported above
as pending.  The total cost of resolving all 11,063 such claims
was $5,234,000.  Of this amount, $5,199,000, or 99%, was paid by
the Company's insurance carrier.

Brandon Drying Fabrics Inc. (a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Geschmay Corp., which the Company acquired in 1999.) is also a
separate defendant in most of these cases.  Brandon was
defending against 9,984 claims as of July 23, 2004.  This
compares with 10,035 such claims as of April 23, 2004, and
10,242 claims as of December 31, 2003.  In 1978, Brandon
acquired certain assets from South Carolina textile manufacturer
Abney Mills, including assets of Abney's wholly-owned
subsidiary, Brandon Sales Inc. which, among other things, had
sold dryer fabrics containing asbestos made by its parent,
Abney.  It is believed that Abney ceased production of asbestos-
containing fabrics prior to the 1978 transaction.  Because
Brandon did not manufacture asbestos-containing products, and
because it does not believe that it was responsible for
obligations of Abney with respect to Abney products, it believes
it has strong defenses to the claims that have been asserted
against it.  As of July 23, 2004, Brandon has resolved by
settlement or dismissal, 6,529 claims for a total of $152,499.
Brandon's insurance carriers initially agreed to pay 88.2% of
the total indemnification and defense costs related to these
proceedings, subject to the standard reservation of rights.  The
remaining 11.8% of the costs has been borne directly by Brandon.
During July 2004, Brandon's insurance carriers agreed to cover
100% of indemnification and defense costs, subject to policy
limits and the standard reservation of rights.  Brandon will
also be reimbursed during the third quarter of 2004 for all
indemnity and defense costs paid directly by Brandon related to
these proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CG&E, PSI Pending Lawsuits Increase To 85
--------------------------------------------------------------
Union Light, Heat & Power Co. recently made mention in a
regulatory filing that its fellow subsidiaries under Cinergy
Corp., namely Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co. (CG&E) and PSI
Energy Inc. (PSI), are named as defendants or co-defendants in
lawsuits related to asbestos at their electric generating
stations.  There are around 85 pending lawsuits, compared to 80
cases as noted in the Class Action Reporter edition for June 18,
2004.  A majority of the lawsuits to date have been brought
against PSI.  The impact on CG&E's and PSI's financial position
or results of operations of these cases has not been material.

Of these lawsuits, one case filed against PSI has been tried to
verdict.  The jury returned a verdict against PSI in the amount
of about $500,000 on a negligence claim and a verdict for PSI on
punitive damages.  PSI received an adverse ruling in an initial
appeal of that verdict, but the Indiana Supreme Court accepted
the transfer of the case, and heard oral argument in June 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Collins & Aikman Pact Costs Show Increase
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004, Collins & Aikman Corp. (NYSE: CKC) was a
party to around 916 pending cases alleging personal injury from
exposure to asbestos containing materials used in boilers
manufactured before 1966 by former operations of the Company.
There were 997 cases as of March 31, 2004, as noted in the June
18, 2004 edition of the Class Action Reporter.  Asbestos-
containing refractory bricks lined the boilers and, in some
instances, the Company's former operations installed asbestos-
containing insulation around the boilers.  Total settlement
costs for these cases have been less than $1,200,000 or an
average of less than $5,800 per settled case.  Previously the
costs were observed to be less than $1,100,000 or an average of
less than $5,600 per settled case, as the Class Action Reporter
noted on June 18, 2004.

The Company's primary insurance carriers, under a claims
handling agreement that expires in August 2006, have
substantially covered the defense and settlement costs.  They
have agreed to cover around 80% of certain defense and
settlement costs up to a limit of about $70,500,000 for all
claims made, subject to reservations of rights.  The excess
insurance coverage, which varies in availability from year to
year, is about $600,000,000 in aggregate for all claims made.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CMCO Liability Through 2013 May Reach $4 M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Columbus McKinnon Corp. (NasdaqNM: CMCO) actuaries estimated its
asbestos-related liability to range from $2,800,000 to
$12,300,000 through around March 31, 2034.  The Company's
estimation of its probable asbestos-related liability through
2013 ranges from $2,800,000 to $4,000,000 as of July 4, 2004.
The Company has concluded that no amount within that range is
more likely than any other, and therefore has reflected
$3,000,000 as a liability in its consolidated financial
statements.  Of this amount, management expects to incur
asbestos liability payments of about $200,000 over the next 12
months.  Because payment of the liability is likely to extend
over many years, management believes that the potential
additional costs for claims will not have a material after-tax
effect on the financial condition of the Company or its
liquidity, although the net after-tax effect of any future
liabilities recorded could be material to earnings in a future
period.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CEG Subsidiary BGE Resolves 299 Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Energy Group Inc. (NYSE: CEG) reports in a recent
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission that 299
asbestos cases, involving direct claims against its regulated
business Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (BGE), have been dismissed
or resolved for amounts that were not significant.  Around 30
such cases are currently scheduled for trial through the end of
2006.

BGE is involved in these claims with around 70 other defendants.
Around 545 individuals who were never employees of BGE each
claim $6,000,000 in damages ($2,000,000 compensatory and
$4,000,000 punitive).  These claims are currently pending in
state courts in Maryland and Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CCK Asbestos Payments Show $7M Decrease
------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004, Crown Holdings Inc. (NYSE: CCK) claims
accrual for pending and future asbestos-related claims was
$232,000,000, a decrease of $7,000,000 since December 31, 2003
due to payments made during the first six months of 2004.  The
2004 payments included $1,000,000 for claims that were settled
in prior years.  The Company estimates that its probable
asbestos liability for pending and future asbestos-related
claims would range between $232,000,000 and $399,000,000.  The
accrual balance of $232,000,000 includes $129,000,000 for
unasserted claims and $21,000,000 for committed settlements that
will be paid over time.

Asbestos-related payments were $118,000,000 in 2001,
$114,000,000 in 2002, $68,000,000 in 2003 and $7,000,000 for the
first six months of 2004.  The Company expects to pay about
$50,000,000 for the full year of 2004.  While the level of
payments has declined, the Company's asbestos-related
liabilities remain significant and the amount of future payments
and liabilities is inherently difficult to estimate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Says New Claims Filings Decreased
------------------------------------------------------------
New asbestos claims filings against EnPro Industries Inc.
subsidiaries in the second quarter of 2004 declined
significantly from the second quarter of 2003 as well as from
the first quarter of 2004.  New claims totaled about 3,500, the
lowest number received in any quarter since before 1990.  On a
trailing twelve-month basis, new claims filings were around
23,000, about half the pace of the last several years.

"The continuing reduction in claims filings is encouraging,"
said Mr. Ernie Schaub, president and CEO of EnPro.  "We are
increasingly optimistic that serious cases are in decline, but
we continue to see filings of cases that don't involve a
recognizable disease.  We believe the issue would be best
resolved through asbestos reform at the national level and are
encouraged by the bipartisan interest in reform.  The ongoing
discussions by the leadership in the U.S. Senate appear to
improve the prospects for compromise. At the same time, asbestos
reform continues in various states, most recently in Ohio where
legislation was enacted to establish appropriate medical
criteria for filing a claim in that state."

Mr. Schaub also said that as a result of recent developments,
the company has revised its accounting for asbestos claims.
Previously, the company only recorded a liability for settled
claims and actions in advanced stages of processing.  However,
beginning in its financial statements for the second quarter,
the company will also include an estimate of claims in early
procedural stages, as well as claims that may be asserted for
some period in the future.  This estimate is not expected to
exceed the insurance available for asbestos claims.  As a
result, the company will record a liability for these potential
claims and a corresponding receivable from its insurance
carriers.

The company will periodically review its estimate and adjust the
liability if necessary.  If in the future, the amount of the
estimated liability exceeds the amount of insurance available
for asbestos claims, the excess would be accounted for as a non-
cash charge to earnings.

Mr. Schaub emphasized that the decision to revise the company's
accounting for asbestos claims does not alter the company's
strategy for managing potential asbestos liabilities and
insurance assets and will have no impact on the ultimate amount
paid for asbestos-related claims against its subsidiaries.
Payments for asbestos related claims, net of insurance proceeds,
increased to $39,100,000 in the first half of 2004, reflecting
delays in reimbursements from certain insurers.  This compares
to $18,100,000 a year ago.  The company will collect about
$30,000,000 in delayed reimbursements in the third quarter of
2004, and it continues to pursue other delayed reimbursements.
Assuming the company is successful in collecting these
reimbursements, net cash outflows for asbestos claims in 2004
should decrease from the levels of 2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Entergy Companies Battle Over 10,000 Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Numerous lawsuits have been filed in federal and state courts in
Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi primarily by contractor
employees in the 1950-1980 timeframe against Entergy Gulf States
Inc., Entergy Louisiana, Entergy New Orleans, and Entergy
Mississippi, as premises owners of power plants, for damages
caused by alleged exposure to asbestos or other hazardous
material.  Generally, many other defendants are named in these
lawsuits as well.  There are around 480 lawsuits involving just
over 10,000 claims.

Reserves have been established that should be adequate to cover
any exposure.  Additionally, negotiations continue with insurers
to recover more reimbursement, while new coverage is being
secured to minimize anticipated future potential exposures.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Everest Group Posts Reserve Adjustments
------------------------------------------------------------
Everest Reinsurance Group Ltd. (NYSE: RE) reports that the
increase in its incurred losses, and loss adjustment expenses
(LAE) relating to prior period reserve strengthening was
$62,700,000 and $31,800,000 for the three months ended June 30,
2004 and 2003, respectively, and $108,600,000 and $70,600,000
for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively,
principally related to the Company's asbestos exposures.  The
reserve adjustments for the three months ended June 30, 2004
included asbestos and environmental (A&E) adjustments of
$48,200,000.  For the three months ended June 30, 2003, there
were no reserve adjustments related to A&E.

The U.S. Reinsurance segment accounted for $25,000,000 and
$26,800,000 of the net prior period reserve adjustments for the
three months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.
Asbestos exposures accounted for $3,000,000 for the three months
ended June 30, 2004, but otherwise the development in both
periods was principally attributable to professional liability
and casualty business classes.

The U.S. Reinsurance segment accounted for $38,000,000 and
$47,700,000 of the net prior period reserve adjustments for the
six months ended June 30, 2004 and 2003, respectively.  Asbestos
exposures accounted for $7,200,000 and $8,500,000 for the six
months ended June 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, with the
remainder principally attributable to professional liability and
casualty business classes.

The Bermuda segment reflected $42,200,000 of net prior period
reserve adjustments for the three months ended June 30, 2004 and
had no net prior period reserve adjustments for the three months
ended June 30, 2003.  The development for the second quarter of
2004 is primarily the result of $45,200,000 of asbestos reserve
development, with most of this development related to exposures
assumed through the September 19, 2000 loss portfolio transfer
from Mt. McKinley Insurance Co.

The Bermuda segment reflected $63,500,000 of net prior period
reserve adjustments for the six months ended June 30, 2004 and
$2,900,000 of net prior reserve adjustments for the six months
ended June 30, 2003.  The development in the six months ended
June 30, 2004 is the result of $104,200,000 of asbestos reserve
development partially offset by $40,700,000 of net favorable
development on other pre-1995 exposures.  The $2,900,000
development for 2003 was also related to the asbestos exposures.
All of the development related to asbestos exposures were
assumed through the September 19, 2000 loss portfolio transfer
from Mt. McKinley.

With respect to Mt. McKinley, where the Company has a direct
relationship with policyholders, the Company's aggressive
litigation posture and the uncertainties inherent in the
asbestos coverage and bankruptcy litigation have provided an
opportunity to actively engage in settlement negotiations with
those policyholders who have potentially significant asbestos
liabilities.  Those discussions are oriented towards achieving
reasonable negotiated settlements that limit Mt. McKinley's
liability to a given policyholder to a sum certain.  Thus far in
2004, the Company has concluded such settlements or reached
agreement in principle with several of its high profile
policyholders.  The Company has currently identified 21
policyholders based on their past or potential future
liabilities and its settlement efforts are generally directed at
such policyholders, in part because their exposures have
developed to the point where both the policyholder and the
Company have sufficient information to be motivated to settle.
The Company believes that this active approach will ultimately
result in a more cost-effective liquidation of Mt. McKinley's
liabilities than a passive approach, although it may also
introduce additional variability in Mt. McKinley's losses and
cash flows as reserves are adjusted to reflect the development
of negotiations and, ultimately, potentially accelerated cash
settlements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FWLRF Has $1.7M 2Q04 Settlement Gain
---------------------------------------------------------
On August 4, 2004 Foster Wheeler Ltd. (OTCBB: FWLRF) announced
for the second quarter of 2004 a net pre-tax asbestos gain of
$1,700,000 on settlement and release agreements that resolve
asbestos coverage litigation.  The company settled with
additional asbestos insurance carriers during the second quarter
of 2004, reversing an additional $1,700,000 of a $68,100,000
non-cash charge recorded in the fourth quarter of 2003.  This
brings, as anticipated, the total amount of the 2003 charge
reversed to $13,400,000.

The company plans to continue its strategy of settling with
insurance carriers by monetizing policies or arranging coverage
in place agreements.  This strategy is designed to reduce future
cash payments from the company to cover asbestos liabilities.
The company continues to project that it will not be required to
fund any asbestos liabilities from its cash flow before 2010.
Asbestos-related insurance recovery receivable as of June 25,
2004 is $455,394,000 and asbestos-related liability is
$472,891,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Goodyear Expends $8.9M In Claims Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. general product liability -
discontinued products ($12,100,000 of expense recorded in the
second quarter of 2004) includes $8,900,000 worth of charges for
claims related to asbestos personal injury, net of probable
insurance recoveries.  Of the $19,800,000 of expense recorded in
the first six months of 2004, $9,900,000 relates to asbestos
claims, net of probable insurance recoveries.  During the second
quarter of 2003, net probable insurance recoveries of
$61,800,000 related to asbestos were recorded, the effects of
which were partially offset by expenses of $52,700,000 related
to Entran II claims.  During the first six months of 2003,
expense of $55,600,000 related to Entran II claims were
partially offset by $45,600,000 in net probable insurance
recoveries related to asbestos.

Goodyear is a defendant in numerous lawsuits alleging various
asbestos related personal injuries purported to result from
alleged exposure to asbestos in certain rubber encapsulated
products or aircraft braking systems manufactured by Goodyear in
the past or to asbestos in certain Goodyear facilities.
Typically, these lawsuits have been brought against multiple
defendants in state and Federal courts.  Goodyear has disposed
of around 26,900 cases by defending and obtaining the dismissal
thereof or by entering into a settlement.  The sum of the
Company's accrued asbestos related liability and gross payments
to date, including legal costs, totaled about $222,000,000
through June 30, 2004 and around $208,000,000 through December
31, 2003.

Based upon the model employed by the valuation expert, the
Company's receivable related to asbestos claims is $106,000,000
at June 30, 2004.  Based on the Company's asbestos claim
profile, it expects that around 83% of asbestos claim related
losses will be recoverable up to its accessible policy limits.
The receivable recorded consists of an amount the Company
expects to collect under coverage-in-place agreements with
certain primary carriers as well as an amount it believes is
probable of recovery from certain of its excess coverage
insurance carriers.  Of this amount, $20,700,000 was included in
Current Assets as part of Accounts and notes receivable at June
30, 2004.

The Company believes that at June 30, 2004, it had around
$410,000,000 in aggregate limits of excess level policies
potentially applicable to indemnity payments for asbestos
products claims in addition to limits of available primary
insurance policies.  Some of these excess policies provide for
payment of defense costs in addition to indemnity limits.  A
portion of the availability of the excess level policies is
included in the $106,000,000 insurance receivable recorded at
June 30, 2004.  The Company also had about $23,000,000 in
aggregate limits for products claims as well as coverage for
premise claims on a per occurrence basis and defense costs
available with its primary insurance carriers through coverage-
in-place agreements at June 30, 2004.

Goodyear was one of numerous defendants in legal proceedings in
certain state and Federal courts involving around 120,100
claimants relating to their alleged exposure to materials
containing asbestos in products allegedly manufactured by
Goodyear or asbestos materials present in Goodyear's facilities.
During the second quarter of 2004, around 3,800 new claims were
filed against Goodyear and around 600 were settled or dismissed.
The amounts expended on asbestos defense and claim resolution
during the second quarter and first six months of 2004 were
$12,700,000 and $16,900,000, respectively (before recovery of
insurance proceeds).  At June 30, 2004, there were around
123,300 claims pending against Goodyear relating to alleged
asbestos-related diseases allegedly resulting from exposure to
asbestos in products manufactured by Goodyear or in materials
containing asbestos present in Goodyear facilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: HIG Evaluation Indicates No Gross Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the second quarter of 2004, Hartford Financial Services
Group Inc. (NYSE: HIG) completed an evaluation of the
reinsurance recoverable asset associated with older, long-term
casualty liabilities reported in its Other Operations segment,
including asbestos liabilities.  The evaluation indicated no
change in the overall required gross asbestos reserves.  As a
result of this evaluation, the Company reduced its net
reinsurance recoverable by $181,000,000.  The after-tax income
effect of this action was $118,000,000.  The $181,000,000
primarily relates to a reduction of the amount of liabilities,
principally asbestos, that it expects to cede to reinsurers and,
to a lesser extent, an increase in the allowance for
uncollectible reinsurance recoverables.

Other Operations underwriting result amounting to $214,000,000,
includes $2,604 for the six months ended June 30, 2003 of
before-tax impact of asbestos reserve addition.  Net income for
the six months ended June 30, 2004 increased $1,900,000,000, due
primarily to $1,700,000,000, after-tax, in reserve strengthening
resulting from the completion of the Company's asbestos reserve
study in the first quarter of 2003.

The Hartford's Chairman and CEO, Mr. Ramani Ayer said in a
release, "Even as we continue to profitably grow and expand our
product lines, we have remained attentive to our exposure to
legacy issues. In the first quarter, we confirmed that our gross
asbestos reserves were appropriate.  In the second quarter, we
reviewed our casualty reinsurance arrangements, and made a
change in the amounts that we expect to recover from our
reinsurers."


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ITT, Ace Property Agree To Resolve Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2004, ITT Industries Inc. and Ace Property & Casualty
Co. entered into an agreement resolving both Cannon Electric,
Inc. et al. v. Ace Property & Casualty Company et al. Superior
Court, County of Los Angeles, CA., Case No. BC 290354, and
Pacific Employers Insurance Company et al., v. ITT Industries,
Inc., et al., Supreme Court, County of New York, N.Y., Case No.
03600463 as they relate to Ace Property & Casualty Co.  ITT will
pursue similar agreements with several of its other insurers.
In addition, Utica National, historic insurer of ITT subsidiary
Goulds Pumps Inc., filed an action in Oneida County, New York,
Utica Mutual Insurance Co. Goulds Pumps, Inc., Case No.
00272103, to allocate the Goulds asbestos liabilities between
insurance policies issued by Utica and those issued by others.
The parties are currently considering a settlement agreement
similar to the Ace agreement.  The Company is continuing to
receive the benefit of insurance payments during the pendency of
these proceedings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IR-NJ Continues To Pay Off Asbestos Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
For the six months ended June 30, 2004, total costs for
Ingersoll-Rand Co. (IR-New Jersey) settlement and defense of
asbestos claims, after insurance recoveries and net of tax, were
about $7,900,000.  The Company believes that its reserves and
insurance are adequate to cover its asbestos liabilities and the
costs of defending against them.  All claims resolved to date
have been dismissed or settled, and IR-New Jersey's average
settlement amount per claim has been nominal.

Discontinued operations, net of tax, for the second quarter of
2004 amounted to $35,800,000 of income.  This includes the
retained costs of Ingersoll-Dresser Pump Co. (IDP) of
$4,900,000.  The retained costs of IDP, which was sold in 2000,
include product liability costs, primarily related to asbestos
claims of about $12,000,000.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Midwest Generation to Repay ConEd, Exelon
--------------------------------------------------------------
Midwest Generation LLC entered into a supplemental agreement
with Commonwealth Edison and Exelon Generation Co. LLC on
February 20, 2003 to resolve a dispute regarding interpretation
of its reimbursement obligation for asbestos claims under the
environmental indemnities set forth in the Asset Sale Agreement
dated March 22, 1999.  Under this supplemental agreement,
Midwest Generation agreed to reimburse Commonwealth Edison and
Exelon Generation for 50% of specific existing asbestos claims
and expenses less recovery of insurance costs, and agreed to a
sharing arrangement for liabilities and expenses associated with
future asbestos related claims as specified in the agreement.
The obligations under this agreement are not subject to a
maximum liability. The supplemental agreement has a five-year
term with an automatic renewal provision (subject to the right
to terminate).  Payments are made under this indemnity upon
tender by Commonwealth Edison of appropriate proof of liability
for an asbestos-related settlement, judgment, verdict, or
expense.  At June 30, 2004, Midwest Generation had $13,500,000
recorded as a liability related to this matter and had made
$1,200,000 in payments through June 2004.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Noland Lawsuits in VA Increase To 2,100
------------------------------------------------------------
Noland Co. is named as one of the defendants in around 2,100
asbestos-related suits filed by one law firm in the Circuit
Court for Newport News, Virginia or in the Circuit Court for
Portsmouth, Virginia.  The CAR newsletter mentioned on May 7,
2004 that there were 1,900 lawsuits.  The Company is not aware
of any relationship between it and any of the plaintiffs; nor
does it have information as to the extent of any injury that may
have been suffered by any of them.

The Company is also named as a defendant in various asbestos-
related suits within its operating footprint in which a
connection to the Company was alleged.  Some of these suits have
been dismissed with prejudice and several have been settled
through the Company's insurance carrier and some are still
pending and are being defended.  Management does not consider
these suits, individually or in the aggregate, to be material to
the Company.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Posts $2M Fibreboard Reserve
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning estimates a reserve for Fibreboard Corp. in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles to
reflect asbestos-related liabilities.   As of June 30, 2004, a
reserve of $2,309,000,000 in respect of asbestos litigation
claims was reflected in Owens Corning's consolidated balance
sheet under the category "Liabilities Subject to Compromise."
The estimated balances of the components of the Fibreboard
asbestos-related reserve were:

                                                 Balance
                                             ---------------
Unpaid Final Settlements (NSP and other)     $   400,000,000
Other Pending and Future Claims                1,900,000,000

Owens Corning believes that Fibreboard's reserve for asbestos
claims represents at least a minimum in a range of possible
outcomes of the plan negotiation process as to the amount of
Fibreboard's total liability for asbestos-related claims against
it as determined through the Chapter 11 process.  Owens Corning
notes that it expects an ongoing high level of negotiations and
information exchanges with the various creditor constituencies
and other parties for the duration of the Chapter 11
proceedings.  Owens Corning will continue to review Fibreboard's
asbestos reserve on a periodic basis and make such adjustments
as may be appropriate.  However, it is possible that Owens
Corning will not be in a position to conclude that a further
revision to the reserve is appropriate until significant
additional developments occur during the course of the Chapter
11 Cases, including resolution by negotiation or the Bankruptcy
Court of Fibreboard's total liability for asbestos claims.

As of June 30, 2004, the remaining Insurance Settlement funds
were held in and invested by the Fibreboard Settlement Trust.
On an ongoing basis, the funds held in the Trust will be subject
to investment earnings/losses and will be reduced if and as
applied to satisfy Fibreboard asbestos-related liabilities.
Under the terms of the Trust, any Trust assets that ultimately
are not used to fund Fibreboard's asbestos-related liabilities
must be distributed to charity.   Owens Corning does not believe
that any such assets will remain for distribution at the
conclusion of the Chapter 11 Cases.

As of June 30, 2004, Owens Corning's consolidated financial
statements reflect $4,000,000 in unexhausted insurance coverage
(net of deductibles and self-insured retentions) under its
liability insurance policies applicable to asbestos personal
injury claims.  This amount represented unconfirmed potential
non-products coverage with excess level insurance carriers, as
to which Owens Corning had estimated its probable recoveries.
Owens Corning also has other unconfirmed potential non-products
coverage with excess level carriers. Owens Corning is pursuing
non-products insurance recoveries under these policies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: UCC Posts $864 Mil Of Insurance Receivables
----------------------------------------------------------------
Union Carbide Corp. (UCC) reports to the Securities and Exchange
Commission that the receivable for insurance recoveries related
to asbestos liability was $864,000,000 at June 30, 2004 and
$1,000,000,000 at December 31, 2003.  At June 30, 2004
$50,000,000 of the receivable was due from insurers that are not
signatories to the 1985 Wellington Agreement and/or do not
otherwise have agreements in place regarding their asbestos-
related insurance coverage.

The Corporation's asbestos-related liability for pending and
future claims was $1,800,000,000 at June 30, 2004 and
$1,900,000,000 at December 31, 2003.  In addition, the
Corporation had receivables of $447,000,000 at June 30, 2004 and
$349,000,000 at December 31, 2003 for insurance recoveries for
defense and resolution costs.

The Corporation is involved in a large number of asbestos-
related suits filed primarily in state courts during the past
three decades.  These suits mainly allege personal injury
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products and
frequently seek both actual and punitive damages.  The alleged
claims primarily relate to products that UCC sold in the past,
alleged exposure to asbestos-containing products located on
UCC's premises, and UCC's responsibility for asbestos suits
filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products Inc.  In many
cases, plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
Corporation's products.  There are no personal injury cases in
which only the Corporation and/or Amchem are the sole named
defendants.


ASBESTOS ALERT: SDG&E Co. Expected To Pay $750,000 Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (SDG&E) and the County of San Diego
are negotiating the remaining terms of a settlement relating to
alleged environmental law violations by SDG&E and its
contractors in connection with the abatement of asbestos-
containing materials during the demolition of a natural gas
storage facility that was completed in 2001.  The expected
settlement would involve payments by SDG&E of less than
$750,000.


COMPANY PROFILE

San Diego Gas & Electric Co.
8326 Century Park Ct.
San Diego, CA 92123
Phone: 619-696-2000
Fax: 858-654-1515
http://www.sdge.com

Employees                  :           4,441
Revenue                    : $           ---
Net Income                 : $   340,000,000.00
Assets                     : $ 6,643,000,000.00
Liabilities                : $ 5,120,000,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: San Diego Gas & Electric is a regulated utility
that serves 1,300,000 electricity customers and 800,000 natural
gas customers in San Diego County and a portion of southern
Orange County.  The utility owns more than 21,000 miles of
distribution lines, which serve about 25 communities; the
California Independent System Operator manages SDG&E's 2,000
miles of transmission lines.  SDG&E also has limited power
generation operations.  The company is a subsidiary of Sempra
Energy (NYSE: SRE).


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLIED WASTE: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Allied Waste
Industries, Inc. (NYSE:AW) between February 10, 2004 and July
27, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona against defendants Allied Waste, Thomas H.
Van Weelden, Peter S. Hathaway, Thomas W. Ryan and James E.
Gray. 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 by
Mail: P.A. at 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


ALLIED WASTE: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges AZ Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Allied Waste Industries, Inc. (NYSE: AW) securities between
February 10, 2004 and July 27, 2004, inclusive (the Class
Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Brain M. Felgoise Files MN Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Ceridian Corp. (NYSE: CEN) securities between April 17, 2003 and
July 19, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges MN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Ceridian Corp. ("Ceridian" or the
"Company") (NYSE:CEN) between April 17, 2003 and July 19, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Ceridian and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1924 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants caused Ceridian's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
financial statements, including the improper capitalization of
assets and certain costs that should have been expensed.

On July 19, 2004, the Company announced the post-ponement of its
second quarter 2004 earnings release. Specifically, the Company
cited that the release would be delayed to complete an internal
review focusing on the capitalization and expensing of certain
costs in it U.S. Human Resource Solutions business. On this news
Ceridian shares dropped significantly, falling 11% to $18.20 per
share on heavy volume.

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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded 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 lawsuit was filed against Express Scripts and
certain officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that Defendants
caused Express Scripts' shares to trade at inflated prices
through the issuance of false and misleading statements and
other illegal practices. Express Scripts disclosed numerous
investigations of these improper practices and was sued by New
York State Attorney General, Elliott Spitzer. Mr. Spitzer's
lawsuit alleged that the Company conducted an intricate and
elaborate scheme that inflated millions of dollars of costs of
prescription drugs to New York state's employee health plan. In
essence the lawsuit details how Express Scripts engaged in
switching a patient's prescription from one prescribed drug to
another for which Express Scripts received money from the drug
manufacturer. On news of these investigations, Express Scripts
stock fell to $62.48 from a class period high of $79.81.

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


GEXA CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Gexa Corporation (NASDAQ: GEXA) securities between August 14,
2003 and March 30, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


GEXA CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Fraud Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Gexa Corporation. ("Gexa"
or the "Company') (Nasdaq:GEXA), between August 14, 2003 and
March 30, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas.

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 Gexa 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


GEXA CORPORATION: Vianale & Vianale Files Stock Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP commenced a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in Houston, Texas federal court on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Gexa Corp. ("Gexa")
(NASDAQ: GEXA) between August 14, 2003 and March 30, 2004,
inclusive.

According to the complaint, defendants committed securities
fraud when they materially overstated Gexa's financial results
for its power delivery business. On March 30, 2004, after the
market closed, the Company issued a press release admitting that
the revenues it had previously reported were actually only
overstated estimates, not earned revenues from power delivered
to customers or energy sales. Gexa also revealed that the
Company's outside auditors, during their fiscal 2003 audit, had
identified material weaknesses in Gexa's systems of internal
controls. Gexa's stock price dropped more than 25% on the news.

For more details, contact Vianale & Vianale LLP by Phone:
888-657-9960 or visit their Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.com


INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Brodsky & Smith Lodges 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 InVision Technologies, Inc.
("InVision Technologies" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:INVN),
between March 15, 2004 and July 30, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern 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 InVision
Technologies 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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Brian M. Felgoise Files Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: LGND) securities between
March 3, 2004 and August 2, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

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

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lasky & Rifkind Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a class action
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 Ligand
Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Ligand" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:LGND)
between March 3, 2004 and August 2, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Ligand and David E.
Robinson and Paul V. Maier ("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
Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that inventory de-
stocking at the wholesale level was occurring because the
Company was unloading Avinza inventory which was about to
expire, that the overall demand of the Company's products was
down due to inventory de-stocking, and that Medicaid
prescriptions were increasing, causing the Company to pay large
rebates to Medicaid and that in fact the increase in rebates was
not a one-time occurrence.

On August 3, 2004, Ligand announced that its second-quarter loss
increased, missing analyst expectations and that its independent
auditor had resigned. Shares of Ligand fell dramatically in
response to the news, falling almost 40% or $5.40 per share to
close at $8.18 per share.

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


SYNOVIS LIFE: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud
lawsuit against Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. ("Synovis")
(Nasdaq: SYNO) and certain of its officers and directors, on
behalf of all persons who purchased Synovis securities on the
open market from October 16, 2003 through May 18, 2004. The
action was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota. The complaint can be viewed on Wolf
Popper's website or obtained from the Court.

The deadline for class members to file a motion to become a lead
plaintiff in the case is Tuesday, August 17, 2004.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
concealed the following materially adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company's surgical business was not on track
         for year-to-year growth and was actually declining;

     (2) that the performance of the Company's surgical business
         lagged because of disappointing sales of its Peri-
         Strips product;

     (3) that the performance of the Company's interventional
         business had little to zero growth prospects and was
         suffering because Synovis' largest customers were not
         placing orders due to inventory build-up; and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's projections of fiscal
         2004 EPS of $0.56-$0.60 and revenue of $75-$79 million
         had no reasonable basis and were false and misleading.

Defendants' misrepresentations were revealed on May 19, 2004,
when Synovis issued a press release reporting its revenue and
earnings for fiscal 2004 which were drastically below its
previously touted 2004 guidance.

As a result of the news, shares of Synovis plummeted in trading
on May 19, 2004, closing at $9.25 per share on trading volume of
2,121,700 shares, compared to a closing price of $14.65 on
volume of 79,000 shares just the previous day.

For more details, contact Michael A. Schwartz, Esq. or Renee L.
Karalian, Esq. of Wolf Popper LLP by Mail: 845 Third Ave., New
York, NY 10022 by Phone: 212-451-9668 or 877-370-7703 by Fax:
212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 or by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the common stock of White Electronic Designs
Corporation ("White Electronic Designs" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: WEDC) between January 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants White
Electronic Designs and certain officers of the Company.

The case name is Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corporation,
et al.

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 that the statements made by
Defendants during the class period were materially false and
misleading when made as they failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
then known to Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's first quarter financial results were
         materially overstated due to Defendants' improper
         recognition of revenues in violation of the Company's
         publicly stated accounting policies and GAAP.
         Defendants have now admitted that White Electronic
         Designs' revenues were actually $23.356 million and not
         $23.604 million, as reported, that its gross profit was
         actually $8.295 million and not $8.433 million, and
         that the Company's net earnings were actually $2.136
         and not $2.230 as originally reported;

     (2) that the Company improperly accelerated revenue
         recognition for products shipped to resellers prior to
         resale of the product to the end customer, thereby
         failing to give effect to White Electronic Designs'
         contractual obligation to accept returns of any unsold
         product;

     (3) that first quarter sales of the Company's
         microelectronic products for use in military weapon and
         procurement programs had received an extraordinary
         boost due to purchases by the U.S. military in the
         months immediately preceding the Iraq conflict, which
         could not be sustained; and

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, Defendants'
         statements and opinions concerning the Company's
         current and future revenues, gross profits and net
         earnings were lacking in a reasonable basis at all
         relevant times.

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 or by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.whafh.com


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Wireless Facilities, Inc.
(NASDAQ:WFII) in the period from April 26, 2000 to August 4,
2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning
the company's business performance during the relevant time
period. According to the complaint, throughout the relevant time
period, defendants misrepresented the financial condition of the
company by materially underreporting its foreign tax burden,
thereby purposefully overstating the company's net income by at
least $10-12 million.

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


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *