CAR_Public/040816.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 16, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 161

                          Headlines

APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Lodge Lawsuit Over Mail-In Rebates
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Launch Suit Over iPod Battery Life
APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Drops Class Claims in Consumer Lawsuit
APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Suits
APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Fraud Suit

APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
APPONLINE.COM: Administrative Proceedings Initiated V. Officers
ARMOR HOLDINGS: Settles SSPBA Suit, Wants Dismissal of NAPO Suit
BRADLEY SMITH: SEC Gets TRO To Halt Bank Stock Investment Scheme

CARDINAL HEALTH: Keller Rohrback Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in S.D. OH
CARDINAL HEALTH: Stull Stull Lodges 401(k) Fiduciary Suit in OH
CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in Various Courts
CONAGRA FOODS: NE Court Refuses Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
EI DUPONT: WV Residents Commence Lawsuit Over Exposure To PFOA

GENERAL BEARING: Stockholders Lodge DE Suit V. Cash Tender Offer
GOODYEAR TIRE: Reaches New Settlement For Entran II Litigation
HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: HI High Court Retains Jurisdiction in Lawsuit
INDIANA: Appeals Court Allows Diminished Value Case to Proceed
KENTUCKY: Residents Reach $3.75M Settlement V. Chemical Plant

MISSISSIPPI: Agencies' Analysis Stresses Viability Of Settlement
MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST: Faces Suit On Behalf of Uninsured Patients
NORTH COVE: SEC Lodges CT Civil Fraud Suit V. William A. DiBella
PHILIP MORRIS: MA Court Repeals `Lights' Ruling in Aspinall Case
RED HAT: Lawsuit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 13, 2004

SPORTSLINE.COM: FL Court Grants Motion To File Amended Complaint
THAYER CAPITAL: Settles SEC Charges, Pays $250,000 in Penalties
UNITED PARCEL: Lamberton Law Lodges Discrimination Suit in PA
WORLDCOM INC.: Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 5, 2004

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Stock Suit in NY
CP SHIPS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
CP SHIPS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
CP SHIPS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
CP SHIPS: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in MO
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO
FERRO CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files OH Securities Suit
FERRO CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files CA Securities Suit

LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Stock Suit in CA
SALOMON SMITH: Goodkind Labaton Lodges MD Securities Fraud Suit
US UNWIRED: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in LA
VISTACARE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in AZ
VISTACARE INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in AZ

                         *********

APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Lodge Lawsuit Over Mail-In Rebates
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces a class action filed in Los Angeles
County Superior Court in California, styled "Cagney v. Apple
Computer, Inc."

The suit alleges improper collection of sales tax in
transactions involving mail-in rebates.  The complaint alleges
violations of California Civil Code Section 17200 (unfair
competition) and seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company was served on January 21, 2004, and filed an answer
February 20, 2004, denying all allegations and asserting
numerous affirmative defenses.  The Company is beginning its
investigation of these allegations.


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Consumers Launch Suit Over iPod Battery Life
---------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. faces eight consumer class actions filed in
various California courts, alleging misrepresentations by the
Company in relation to its popular iPod's battery life.  The
suits are:

     (1) Craft v. Apple Computer, Inc., (filed December 23,
         2003, Santa Clara County Superior Court);

     (2) Chin v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 23, 2003
         in San Mateo County Superior Court);

     (3) Hughes v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 23, 2003
         in Santa Clara County Superior Court)

     (4) Westley v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 26,
         2003 in San Francisco County Superior Court);

     (5) Keegan v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed December 30, 2003
         in Alameda County Superior Court);

     (6) Wagya v Apple Computer Inc. (filed February 19, 2004 in
         Alameda County Superior Court);

     (7) Yamin v Apple Computer, Inc. (filed February 24, 2004
         in Los Angeles County Superior Court);

     (8) Kieta v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed July 8, 2004,
         Alameda County Superior Court)

Eight separate plaintiffs filed purported class action cases in
various California courts alleging misrepresentations by the
Company relative to iPod battery life.  The complaints include
causes of action for violation of California Civil Code Section
17200 (Unfair Competition), the Consumer Legal Remedies Action
(CLRA) and claims for false advertising, fraudulent concealment
and breach of warranty.  The complaints seek unspecified damages
and other relief.

The Company is beginning its investigation of these claims.  The
cases have been consolidated in San Mateo County and Plaintiffs
filed a consolidated complaint.

In addition, a similar complaint relative to iPod battery life,
styled "Mosley v. Apple Computer, Inc., was filed in
Westchester, New York on June 23, 2004 alleging violations of
New York General Business Law Sections 349 (unfair competition)
and 350, competition (false advertising).


APPLE COMPUTER: CA Court Drops Class Claims in Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco County Superior Court in California dismissed
class action claims in the lawsuit filed against Apple Computer,
Inc., styled "Davis v. Apple Computer, Inc."

The suit alleges the Company engaged in unfair and deceptive
business practices relating to its AppleCare Extended Service
and Warranty Plan.  Plaintiff asserts causes of action for
violation of the California Business and Professions Code 17200
and 17500, breach of the Song-Beverly Warranty Act, intentional
misrepresentation and concealment.  Plaintiff requests
unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company filed a demurrer and motion to strike which were
granted, in part, and Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.  The
Company filed an answer on April 17, 2003 denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.
Plaintiffs subsequently amended their complaint and the Company
expects that they will make further amendments.

On October 29, 2003, the Company filed a motion to disqualify
Plaintiff's counsel in his role as counsel to the purported
class and to the general public.  The Court granted the motion,
but allowed Plaintiff to retain substitute counsel.  Plaintiff
did engage new counsel for the general public, but not for the
class.  The Company moved to disqualify Plaintiff's new counsel
and to have the Court dismiss the general public claims for
equitable relief.  The Court declined to disqualify Plaintiff's
new counsel or to dismiss the equitable claims, but did confirm
that the class action claims are dismissed.  The case is stayed
pending an appeal.


APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. reached a settlement for two class actions
filed in California courts, alleging problems with the iBook
logic board.  The suits are:

     (1) Dunlap v. Apple Computer, Inc. (filed January 26, 2004,
         Santa Clara County Superior Court); and

     (2) Chiaco v. Apple Computer, Inc. filed February 26, 2004,
         San Diego County Superior Court)


The complaints include causes of action for violation of
California Civil Code Section 17200 (Unfair Competition), the
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and claims for breach of
warranty, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and unjust
enrichment.  The complaints seek unspecified damages and other
relief.

The Company filed answers to the Dunlap and Chiaco complaints on
March 16, 2004 and April 16, 2004, respectively, denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  Both
the Chiaco and Dunlap cases have been settled and the complaints
dismissed.  Settlement of this matter did not have a material
effect on the Company's financial position or results of
operation.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs File Amended CA Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Apple Computer,
Inc. and other members of the industry in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California, styled "Goldberg, et al. v. Apple
Computer, Inc. et al." (f.k.a. "Dan v. Apple Computer, Inc.")

The suit was filed on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers
of certain computer hard drives.  The case alleges violations of
Civil Code Section 17200 (Unfair Competition), the Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA) and false advertising related to the
size of the drives.

Plaintiffs allege that calculation of hard drive size using the
decimal method misrepresents the actual size of the drive.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.  The
Company is beginning its investigation of these allegations.


APPLE COMPUTER: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California's dismissal of the consolidated
shareholder class action filed against Apple Computer, Inc. and
its chief executive officer Steven P. Jobs.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's publicly traded common stock between July 19, 2000,
and September 28, 2000.  The complaints allege violations of the
1934 Securities Exchange Act and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on June 4, 2002, which was
heard by the Court on September 13, 2002.  On December 11, 2002,
the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to
state a cause of action, with leave to Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint within thirty days.  Plaintiffs filed their amended
complaint on January 31, 2003, and on March 17, 2003, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  The
Court heard the Company's motion on July 11, 2003 and dismissed
Plaintiff's claims with prejudice.


APPLE COMPUTER: Reaches Settlement For CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in
California, styled "Palmieri v. Apple Computer, Inc."

The suit was filed on behalf of a nationwide class of purchasers
of certain PowerBooks.  The case alleges violations of Civil
Code Section 17200 (Unfair Competition) and the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA) arising from an alleged design defect in the
PowerBooks which purportedly causes marks and dead pixels in the
LCD screens.

Plaintiffs amended their complaint to allege an additional
defect in the new 15 PowerBook, introduced in September 2003,
which purportedly causes "white spots" on the screen.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and other relief.

The Company filed an answer on January 8, 2004 denying all
allegations and asserting numerous affirmative defenses.  The
case has been settled and the complaint dismissed.  Settlement
of this matter did not have a material effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operation.


APPONLINE.COM: Administrative Proceedings Initiated V. Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings and Notice of Hearing
Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act) against Ashley Nemiroff, Rocco Siclari, George A.
Carhart, Carl D'Elia, Howard C. Zelin, Craig A. Brandwein, and
Donald R. Catapano (Respondents).

In the Order, the Division of Enforcement alleges that the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York has entered partial consent judgments against the
Respondents enjoining them from future violations of Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder (antifraud provisions).
SEC v. Paul Skulsky, et al., 02 Civ. 1524 (DRH) (E.D.N.Y.). In
the underlying injunctive action, the Commission's complaint
alleged that Paul Skulsky, an undisclosed control person of
AppOnline.com (AppOnline), a now defunct Melville, New York
mortgage banking firm, sought to manipulate the public market
for AppOnline securities. As part of the scheme, during 1997 and
1998, Skulsky paid kickbacks in the form of AppOnline stock and
cash to the Respondents so that the Respondents would sell, or
direct other registered representatives to sell, AppOnline stock
to their retail customers.

In a separate proceeding, the Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e)
of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions against Joseph Casuccio. (102(e)
Order). The 102(e) Order finds that Casuccio, a certified public
accountant licensed in New York, served as the engagement
partner for AppOnline's 1997 and 1998 audits.   On May 21, 2002,
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York entered a partial final judgment permanently enjoining
Casuccio from violating the antifraud provisions, and Section
13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and
aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13 thereunder.
Based on the entry of the injunction, the 102(e) Order suspends
Casuccio from appearing or practicing before the Commission as
an accountant. Casuccio consented to the issuance of the 102(e)
Order without admitting or denying any of the allegations in the
civil injunctive action.


ARMOR HOLDINGS: Settles SSPBA Suit, Wants Dismissal of NAPO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armor Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AH), a leading manufacturer and
distributor of security products and vehicle armor systems
reached a settlement agreement with respect to a class action
lawsuit filed against it by the Southern States Police
Benevolent Association (Southern States PBA) in April 2004
because of concerns regarding the performance of Zylon(R) vests.
All of the potential class members in the only other Zylon(R)-
related class action lawsuit filed against the Company by
National Association of Police Organizations, Inc. (NAPO), in
Lee County, Florida, are also among the class members in the
Southern States PBA case and are therefore covered by the terms
of the settlement. Accordingly, the Company believes that the
NAPO lawsuit should be dismissed and will take action to seek
dismissal of that action.

The Company currently believes its share of the total costs
associated with the above settlement and product exchange
program will be non-recurring and not meaningful in the context
of the Company's balance sheet or its business operations as a
whole. Further, the Company continues to be comfortable with its
guidance for full-year earnings per share of $2.05 to $2.15, now
inclusive of these costs.


BRADLEY SMITH: SEC Gets TRO To Halt Bank Stock Investment Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a temporary
restraining order against Bradley T. Smith and four companies he
controls to stop them from fraudulently raising funds and
misusing investor funds. The Commission charged Smith,
Continental Midwest Financial, Inc., Bankstock Investment
Partners Series #1, LP, Scioto National, Inc. and
Bancshareholders of America, Inc., all of Dublin, Ohio, with
securities fraud in connection with their offer of interests in
entities designed to invest in small bank stocks. The Court's
order temporarily bars Smith and the other defendants from
fraudulently engaging in their offerings and freezes their
assets.

The Commission's complaint alleges that between 2002 and the
present, Smith and his affiliated companies, through the private
offer and sale of securities, raised approximately $3.3 million
from investors in Ohio and six other states. In each of those
offerings, Smith and the respective entity represented that the
funds raised would be used primarily for investments in small
banks. Instead, according to the Commission's allegations, Smith
diverted a significant amount of the proceeds to his own use and
to keep his other companies afloat. According to the complaint,
Smith misused approximately $1.5 million in investor funds,
using the money to pay such expenditures as rent, unrelated
business expenses, clothing, skin care products and a dating
service.

The Commission has charged all the defendants with violations of
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The Commission has also charged Bancshareholders of America,
Inc. with violations of Sections 206(1) and (2) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The Commission seeks a
preliminary and permanent injunction, an accounting,
disgorgement of investor funds unjustly received and civil money
penalties.

The Commission wishes to thank the Ohio Department of Commerce,
Division of Securities for its assistance in this matter. The
action is titled, SEC v. Bradley T. Smith, Continental Midwest
Financial, Inc., Bankstock Investment Partners Series #1, LP,
Scioto National, Inc., and Bankshareholders of America, Inc.,
Civil Action No. C2-04-739, S.D. Ohio.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Keller Rohrback Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. initiated a 401(k) Breach
of Fiduciary Duty class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of
participants and beneficiaries of the Cardinal Health Profit
Sharing, Retirement and Savings Plan and the Syncor
International Employees' Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (the
"Plans"), who were invested in Cardinal Health Shares through
the Plans between October 24, 2000 and the present (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that Defendants Cardinal Health, Inc.
(NYSE:CAH), its Employee Benefits Policy Committee, and certain
of its officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties of
loyalty and prudence by

     (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plans'
         assets by imprudently investing a significant amount of
         the Plans' assets in Cardinal Health stock;

     (2) failing to monitor and provide fiduciary appointees
         with information that the appointing fiduciaries knew
         or should have known that the monitored fiduciaries
         must have in order to prudently manage the Plans'
         assets;

     (3) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         participants and beneficiaries; and

    (4) breaching their duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

Specifically, plaintiffs allege that, during the Class Period,
Cardinal Health stock was an imprudent retirement investment
because

     (i) Cardinal Health was misreporting its financial results
         so as to continuously over-represent the Company's
         profitability;

    (ii) Cardinal Health's pharmaceutical distribution business
         improperly classified revenue by reporting revenue as
         either operating revenues or revenues from bulk
         deliveries to consumer warehouses, when revenues were
         not derived from such operations;

   (iii) Cardinal Health improperly accounted for $22 million
         recovered from vitamin antitrust litigation;

    (iv) Cardinal Health's financial statements were not
         prepared in compliance with generally accepted
         accounting principles, the Company lacked adequate
         internal controls and the Company's earnings per share
         were materially inflated throughout the Class Period;
         and

     (v) the price of Cardinal Health common stock was therefore
         artificially inflated during the Class Period.

Recently, Cardinal Health's Chief Financial Officer, Richard J.
Miller, and Treasurer, Donna Brandin, have resigned. Cardinal
Health, Inc. has announced its intent to delay release of its
2004 results and an inquiry by its Audit Committee and
independent counsel. The Company is also under investigation by
the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States
Attorney's Office. The stock closed at $43.81 per share on
August 9, 2004. In early May, the stock traded as high as $76
per share.

For more details, contact paralegal Jennifer Tuato'o or
attorneys Lynn Sarko or Elizabeth Leland of Keller Rohrback by
Phone: 800/776-6044 or by E-mail: investor@kellerrohrback.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.erisafraud.com


CARDINAL HEALTH: Stull Stull Lodges 401(k) Fiduciary Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody has filed a 401(k) breach
of fiduciary duty class action in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio on behalf of a class
consisting of all participants and beneficiaries of the Cardinal
Health Profit Sharing Retirement and Savings Plan (the "Cardinal
Plan") and the Syncor International Corporation Employees'
Savings and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Syncor Plan" and,
collectively, the "Plans") for whose individual accounts the
Plans purchased and/or held shares of common stock of Cardinal
Health, Inc. (NYSE: CAH) ("Cardinal Health") at any time from
October 24, 2000 to the present.

The complaint in Stull, Stull & Brody's 401(k) breach of
fiduciary duty class action alleges that Cardinal Health, the
Plan Committee, Richard J. Miller, Robert D. Walter, Putnam
Fiduciary Trust Company and additional, as-yet unidentified
individual fiduciaries of the Plans violated the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended ("ERISA") by
permitting the Plans to invest a substantial portion of the
assets of the Plans in Cardinal Health common stock when
Cardinal Health common stock was an imprudent investment. The
complaint alleges that Cardinal Health common stock was an
imprudent investment because, among other things, Cardinal
Health was allegedly misreporting its financial results by
improperly accounting for $22 million recovered from vitamin
makers which were accused of overcharging Cardinal Health by
booking such recoveries as revenue when the related antitrust
cases had not been resolved, and by improperly classifying
revenues in Cardinal Health's pharmaceutical distribution
business. The complaint further alleges that Cardinal Health and
the other defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
negligently making representations and negligently failing to
disclose material information necessary for participants and
beneficiaries of the Plans to make informed decisions concerning
the appropriateness of Cardinal Health common stock as a Plan
investment.

Cardinal Health announced that on June 21, 2004, as part of the
SEC formal investigation disclosed by Cardinal Health on May 14,
2004, it had received an SEC subpoena. Cardinal Health is also
under investigation by the United States Attorney's Office for
the Southern District of New York.

For more details, contact Edwin J. Mills, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983, x112 by Fax: 1-212-490-2022 by E-mail:
ssbny@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com


CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: Faces Antitrust Lawsuits in Various Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Checkpoint Systems, Inc. faces several lawsuits related to a
lawsuit filed by ID Security Systems Canada, Inc. against it in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, styled "ID Security Systems Canada Inc. versus
Checkpoint Systems, Inc."

On May 24, 2002, the jury in the suit (Civil Action No. 99-CV-
577) held in favor of the Company on the plaintiff's claim for
Monopolization of Commerce, but against the Company on claims of
Attempted Monopolization and Conspiracy to Monopolize.  In
addition, the jury held against the Company on two tort claims
related to tortious interference and unfair competition.
Judgment was entered on the verdict in favor of the plaintiff,
after trebling, in the amount of $79.2 million plus attorneys'
fees and costs to be determined by the Court.

On March 28, 2003, the Court issued an order vacating the jury
verdict on the antitrust claims and reduced the damages award
related to tortuous interference and unfair competition from $19
million to $13 million.  On May 20, 2003, the Court further
reduced the judgment from $13 million to $10.9 million. On the
same date, the Court stayed execution of the judgment upon the
posting of a bond in the amount of $11.3 million by the Company.

Both ID Security Systems Canada Inc. and the Company filed
appeals to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals related to the
various decisions of the Court.  Oral arguments for these
appeals were heard on March 30, 2004.  On August 1, 2004, the
Company and ID Security Systems Canada Inc. entered into a
settlement agreement effective July 30, 2004, pursuant to which
the Company agreed to pay $19.95 million, in full and final
settlement of the claims covered by the litigation.  Payment in
full was made on August 5, 2004.

A certain number of follow-on purported class action suits have
arisen in connection with the jury decision in the ID Security
Systems Canada Inc. litigation.  The purported class action
complaints generally allege a claim of monopolization and are
substantially based upon the same allegations as contained in
the ID Security Systems Canada Inc. case.

On August 1, 2002, a civil action was filed in United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
designated as Civil Action No. 02-6379(ER) by plaintiff Diane
Furs, Inc. t/a Diane Furs against Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and
served on August 21, 2002.  On August 21, 2002, a Notice of
Substitution of Plaintiff and Filing of Amended Complaint was
filed by the plaintiff, and the named plaintiff was changed to
Medi-Care Pharmacy, Inc.

On August 2, 2002, a civil action was filed in the United States
District Court, District of New Jersey (Camden) designated as
Docket No. 02-CV-3730(JEI) by plaintiff Club Sports
International, Inc., d/b/a Soccer CSI against Checkpoint
Systems, Inc. and served on August 26, 2002.

On October 2, 2002, a civil action was filed in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey (Camden)
designated as Docket No. 02-CV-4777(JBS) by plaintiff Baby Mika,
Inc. against Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and served on October 7,
2002.

On October 23, 2002, a civil action was filed in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey (Camden)
designated as Docket No. 02-CV-5001(JEI) by plaintiff Washington
Square Pharmacy, Inc. against Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and
served on November 1, 2002.

On October 18, 2002, The United States District, District of New
Jersey (Camden) entered an Order staying the proceedings in the
Club Sports International, Inc. and Baby Mika, Inc. cases
referred to above.  In accordance with the Order, the Stay will
also apply to the Washington Square Pharmacy, Inc. case referred
to above.  In addition, the Medi-Care Pharmacy, Inc. case,
referred to above, will be voluntarily dismissed, and it has
been re-filed in New Jersey and is included in the Stay Order.
As a result of the settlement of the litigation with ID Security
Systems Canada Inc. described above, an application can be made
to the Court to dissolve the Stay Order at this time.

On November 13, 2002, a civil action was filed in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey (Camden)
designated as Docket No. 02-CV-5319(JEI) by plaintiff 1700
Pharmacy, Inc. against Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and served on
November 15, 2002.

On December 30, 2002, a civil action was filed in the United
States District Court, District of New Jersey (Camden)
designated as Docket No. 02-CV-6131(JEI) by plaintiff Medi-Care
Pharmacy, Inc. against Checkpoint Systems, Inc. and served on
January 3, 2003.

Both the 1700 Pharmacy, Inc. case and the Medi-Care Pharmacy,
Inc. case were consolidated with the previously mentioned cases
and are included in the October 18, 2002 Stay Order referred to
above.


CONAGRA FOODS: NE Court Refuses Dismissal of Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for Nebraska refused to dismiss
the securities class action filed against ConAgra Foods, Inc.,
styled "Gebhardt v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., et. al. Case No.
810CV427."  The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's executive officers.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the events resulting in the company's
restatement of its financial statements.  The complaint seeks a
declaration that the action is maintainable as a class action
and that the plaintiff is a proper class representative,
unspecified compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
any other relief deemed proper by the court.

On July 23, 2002, the federal district court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the lawsuit and entered judgment
in favor of the company and the executive officers.  On June 30,
2003, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal.  The defendants thereafter renewed their motion
to dismiss in the district court on the issues not previously
addressed by the district court in its prior dismissal of the
lawsuit.


EI DUPONT: WV Residents Commence Lawsuit Over Exposure To PFOA
--------------------------------------------------------------
E.I du Pont De Nemours and the Lubeck Public Service District
face a class action filed West Virginia state court, alleging
that the class has or may suffer deleterious health effects from
exposure to perflourooctanic acid (PFOA) in drinking water and
seeks medical monitoring.

In addition, the class seeks diminution of property values, and
punitive damages plus injunctive relief to stop releases of
PFOA.  The class, which could be as large as fifty thousand
individuals, has been defined as anyone who has consumed
drinking water containing quantifiable levels (0.05 parts per
billion) of PFOA.

The Lubeck Public Service District and plaintiffs reached a
settlement agreement that has been approved by the court.  The
Company does not believe that consumption of drinking water with
low levels of PFOA has caused or will cause deleterious health
effects, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  September 20, 2004 has been set as the
trial date for this action.


GENERAL BEARING: Stockholders Lodge DE Suit V. Cash Tender Offer
----------------------------------------------------------------
The General Bearing Corporation (NASDAQSC: GNRL) ("General
Bearing"), GBC Acquisition Corporation and all members of
General Bearing's Board of Directors were named defendants in a
purported stockholder class action lawsuit. The complaint was
filed in the Delaware Chancery Court and seeks, among other
things, to preliminarily and permanently enjoin GBC Acquisition
Corporation's cash tender offer to acquire all of the
outstanding common stock of General Bearing.

GBC Acquisition Corporation and the other defendants believe
that the complaint is without merit and intends to vigorously
defend against it.

The offer and rights to withdraw tendered shares will expire at
12:00 Midnight, Eastern Standard Time, on Friday, August 13,
2004, unless extended by the GBC Acquisition Corporation.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Reaches New Settlement For Entran II Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. reached an amended settlement in the
litigation pending against in 22 class actions or potential
class actions and a number of other civil actions in various
Federal, state and Canadian courts asserting non-asbestos
property damage claims relating to Entran II, a rubber hose
product that it supplied from 1989-1993 to Chiles Power Supply,
Inc. (d/b/a Heatway Systems), a designer and seller of hydronic
radiant heating systems in the United States.

The plaintiffs in these actions are generally seeking recovery
under various tort, contract and statutory causes of action,
including breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty
of merchantability, breach of implied warranty of fitness for
a particular purpose, negligence, strict liability and violation
of state consumer protection statutes.

In one of the above mentioned class actions, on October 9, 2003,
the United States District Court in New Jersey preliminarily
approved a proposed national settlement agreement (the "Original
Settlement") for pending Entran II claims in the U.S. and
Canada, except for claims related to property in six New England
states, two judgments in Colorado state court, two judgments in
Colorado Federal court and any future judgments involving
claimants that opt out of the Original Settlement.

The Company has the right to withdraw from the Original
Settlement if it determines in good faith and in its sole
discretion that an excessive number of persons have opted out of
the class and the Original Settlement.  Potential claimants had
until May 7, 2004 to exercise their right to opt out of the
Original Settlement.  Approximately 528 potential sites were
timely opted out of the Original Settlement.

Under the Original Settlement, Goodyear was to make annual cash
contributions to a settlement fund of $40 million, $6 million,
$6 million, $8 million and $16 million in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007
and 2008, respectively.  Goodyear was also to make an additional
contingent payment of $10 million in each of 2005, 2006, 2007
and 2008 if Goodyear met the following EBITDA target for such
year: $1.2 billion in 2004 and $1.4 billion in each of 2005,
2006 and 2007.

For purposes of the Original Settlement, EBITDA is defined by
reference to the definition of "Consolidated EBITDA" in
Goodyear's $645 million U.S. term loan agreement. In the event
the EBITDA target is not met in any given year, the contingent
payment will remain payable in the second subsequent year in
which the following cumulative EBITDA targets are met: $2.6
billion in 2005, $4.0 billion in 2006 and $5.4 billion in 2007.

In addition to the required contributions of Goodyear, 80% of
Goodyear's insurance recoveries from Entran II claims will be
paid into the settlement fund.  Because the insurance recoveries
were less than $120 million at February 27, 2004, the terms of
the Original Settlement gave the plaintiffs the right to
withdraw from the settlement through May 7, 2004.

On June 4, 2004, an amended settlement agreement was filed with
the United States District Court in New Jersey.  The Amended
Settlement includes all claims involved in the Original
Settlement, as well as claimants in the six New England states
not in the Original Settlement.  Under the Amended Settlement,
Goodyear is to make annual cash contributions to a settlement
fund of $60 million, $40 million, $15 million, $15 million and
$20 million in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008, respectively.
Unlike the Original Settlement, no contingent payments are to be
made under the Amended Settlement.

In addition to the funds Goodyear will contribute, the Amended
Settlement requires Goodyear to contribute $150 million of
insurance proceeds to the settlement fund.  Goodyear has
received a total of $75 million in insurance recoveries, all of
which have been deposited into the settlement fund.  In the
event that Goodyear has not obtained an additional $75 million
of insurance proceeds by the date of the fairness hearing (which
is currently scheduled for October 19, 2004), Goodyear will have
the right, but not the obligation, to fund the amount of the
shortfall.

In the event that Goodyear elects to fund any shortfall,
Goodyear retains the right to pursue recovery of such amount
from its insurers.  In the event the Company elects not to fund
the shortfall, the Amended Settlement will terminate and the
terms of the Original Settlement will again become effective.
In the event the Original Settlement becomes effective, all
funds in the settlement fund, except 80% of the insurance
proceeds, will be returned to the Company.  The insurance
proceeds remaining in the fund will be used to fund the
settlement fund created by the Original Settlement.  No
assurance can be given as to the Company's ability to recover
insurance proceeds sufficient to adequately fund the settlement.
The settlement fund would be used to pay for damage awards to
class members, class counsel's attorney fees, the cost of notice
to the class and the cost to administer the claims process.

Under the Amended Settlement, beginning July 1, 2004, notice of
the settlement is being given to potential class members
pursuant to a court approved notice plan.  Class members will
have until September 10, 2004 to opt out of the Amended
Settlement.  Claimants that opted out of the Original Settlement
must affirmatively withdraw their prior opt out notice by
submitting a Request to Re-join in order to participate in the
Amended Settlement.  The Amended Settlement will not eliminate
the liability associated with those claimants who opt out of the
Amended Settlement or those claimants who do not submit a
Request to Re-join this Amended Settlement, however, Goodyear
will be entitled to assert a proxy claim against the settlement
fund for the payment such claimant would have been entitled to
under the Amended Settlement.

Goodyear reserves the right to withdraw from the Amended
Settlement if it determines in its sole discretion that an
excessive number of persons have excluded themselves from the
settlement. In the event that Goodyear withdraws from the
Amended Settlement or fails to meet the funding contingencies in
the Amended Settlement, the parties will retain their rights and
obligations under the Original Settlement. In that event,
Goodyear retains its right to withdraw from the Original
Settlement if it determines that too many claimants have opted
out. In addition, because certain funding contingencies were not
met, the plaintiffs also have the right to withdraw from the
Original Settlement.

Assuming that the funding contingencies in the Amended
Settlement are satisfied by October 19, 2004, and Goodyear does
not exercise its right to withdraw due to an excessive number of
opt outs, the United States District Court in New Jersey is
expected to conduct a fairness hearing on October 19, 2004 to
resolve any objections and to determine final approval of the
Amended Settlement.

In 2002, two state courts in Colorado entered judgments against
the Company in Entran II cases of $22.7 million and $1.3
million, respectively.  These cases are excluded from both the
Original and the Amended Settlements, and the Company will
continue to pursue appeals of these judgments.

On June 19, 2003, a jury in Colorado Federal court awarded a
judgment in an Entran II case against the Company of $4.1
million.  An additional $5.7 million in prejudgment interest was
awarded on September 8, 2003.  The Company has obtained a stay
of proceedings pending appeal of this matter.  On May 13, 2004,
in another Entran II case, a federal jury in Colorado awarded a
judgment against the Company of $3.2 million.  The court
subsequently awarded plaintiffs $4.8 million in prejudgment
interest, all of which was allocated to the Company.

On June 21, 2004, a jury in another Entran II case in a Colorado
state court awarded the plaintiff $0.6 million in damages, 20%
of which was allocated to the Company.  These cases are also
excluded from both the Original and Amended Settlements.


HAWAIIAN ELECTRIC: HI High Court Retains Jurisdiction in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hawaii Supreme Court retained jurisdiction over plaintiffs'
appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed against
Hawaiian Electric Industries, Inc., styled "State of Hawaii, ex
rel., Bruce R. Knapp, Qui Tam Plaintiff, and Beverly Perry, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Class
Plaintiff, vs. The AES Corporation, AES Hawaii, Inc., HECO and
HEI."

In April 2002, the Company and the Hawaiian Electric Company
(HECO) were served with an amended complaint filed in the
Circuit Court for the First Circuit of Hawaii alleging the State
of Hawaii and HECO's other customers have been overcharged for
electricity as a result of alleged excessive prices in the
amended PPA between defendants HECO and AES Hawaii, Inc. (AES
Hawaii).  AES Hawaii is a subsidiary of The AES Corporation
(AES), which guarantees certain obligations of AES Hawaii under
the amended PPA.

The amended PPA, which has a 30-year term, was approved by the
PUC in December 1989, following contested case hearings in
October 1988 and November 1989.  The PUC proceedings addressed a
number of issues, including whether the terms and conditions of
the amended PPA were reasonable.

The amended complaint alleged HECO's payments to AES Hawaii for
power, based on the prices, terms and conditions in the PUC-
approved amended PPA, have been "excessive" by over $1 billion
since September 1992, and that approval of the amended PPA was
wrongfully obtained from the PUC as a result of alleged
misrepresentations and/or material omissions by the defendants,
individually and/or in conspiracy, with respect to the estimated
future costs of the amended PPA versus the costs of hypothetical
HECO-owned units.  The amended complaint included four claims
for relief or causes of action:

     (1) violations of Hawaii's Unfair and Deceptive Practices
         Act,

     (2) unjust enrichment/restitution,

     (3) fraud and

     (4) violation of Hawaii's False Claim Act

The claims are otherwise known as "qui tam" claims (asserting
that the State declined to take over the action).  The amended
complaint sought treble damages, attorneys' fees, rescission of
the amended PPA and punitive damages against HECO, HEI, AES
Hawaii and AES.

In December 2002, HECO and HEI filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs' claims
either arose prior to enactment of the Hawaii False Claims Act,
which does not have retroactive application, or are barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.  At a hearing on the
motion in early 2003, the First Circuit Court ordered dismissal
of the "qui tam" claims relating to actions prior to May 26,
2000, the effective date of the Hawaii False Claims Act, on the
ground that the Act did not have retroactive application.
Subsequently, the First Circuit Court issued a minute order
dismissing Plaintiffs' claims for violations of Hawaii's Unfair
and Deceptive Practices Act, unjust enrichment/restitution and
fraud, which claims were purportedly brought as a class action,
on the ground that all of these claims were barred by the
applicable statutes of limitations.

As a result of these rulings by the First Circuit Court, the
only remaining claim was under the Hawaii False Claims Act based
on allegations that false bills or claims were submitted to the
State after May 26, 2000.  Under the False Claims Act, a
defendant may be liable for treble damages, plus civil penalties
of a minimum of $5,000 for each false claim, plus attorneys'
fees and costs incurred in the action.

In March 2003, HECO and HEI filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings, asking for dismissal of the remaining claims pursuant
to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction or, in the alternative,
exhaustion of administrative remedies. On April 21, 2003, the
court granted in part and denied in part HECO/HEI's motion for
judgment on the pleadings, on the ground that under the doctrine
of primary jurisdiction any claims should first be brought
before the PUC.  The court stayed the action until August 21,
2003, and ruled that the case would be dismissed if plaintiffs
failed to provide proof of having initiated an appropriate PUC
proceeding by then. No such PUC proceeding was initiated.

On August 25, 2003, the First Circuit Court issued an order
dismissing with prejudice the amended complaint, including all
of the Plaintiffs' remaining claims against the defendants for
violations under the Hawaii False Claims Act after May 26, 2000.
The final judgment was entered on September 17, 2003.  On
October 15, 2003, plaintiff Beverly J. Perry filed a notice of
appeal to the Hawaii Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court of
Appeals, on the grounds that the Circuit Court erred in its
reliance on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction and the statute
of limitations.  AES subsequently filed a cross-appeal of the
order denying its motion to dismiss the action, which it had
filed on February 24, 2003.  Final briefing of the issues on the
appeal and cross-appeal was completed in May 2004.  By order
filed on July 16, 2004, the Supreme Court retained jurisdiction
of the appeal (rather than assign it to the Intermediate Court
of Appeals for disposition).


INDIANA: Appeals Court Allows Diminished Value Case to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action suit concerning the concept of diminished value
in an auto repair case has been given the green light to be
heard in trial court by the appeals court of Indiana Court of
Appeals, the Insurance journal reports.

The appellate court's decision in the case of Allgood v.
Meridian Security Insurance Co. reversed a lower court ruling
dismissing the plaintiff's suit. The appellate court stated that
the lower court erred in granting Meridian's motion to dismiss
Allgood's claim for damages for failure to pay for diminished
value.

According to Robert Hurns, a lawyer for the Property Casualty
Insurers Association of America (PCI), told the Insurance
Journal, "The Court of Appeals is going against the national
trend which has rejected the diminished value argument, the
language of the contract clearly does not require payment for
diminished value when a vehicle has been fully repaired. In
addition, there is no objective way to determine diminished
value. The role of auto insurance is to repair or replace a
damaged vehicle to pre-accident condition, it was never intended
to guarantee the value of a vehicle before or after a repair is
made."

The Court of Appeals though did note that as a consequence of
its decision, insurers might include exclusions in their
policies that specifically state the insurer will not pay for
diminished value.


KENTUCKY: Residents Reach $3.75M Settlement V. Chemical Plant
-------------------------------------------------------------
The residents of western Latonia in the state of Kentucky agreed
to a $3.75 million settlement for a class action lawsuit against
a nearby chemical manufacturing plant, now owned by Interplastic
claiming that they slowly poisoned them for the last 30 years,
The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

Along with the $1 million settlement reached earlier with the
former owners, energy giant BP, who sold it in October 1993 the
total settlement amounts to $4.75 million. Aside from the
monetary compensation the settlement also calls for the plant to
take steps to prevent any further pollution from being emitted
from its incinerator.

According to former Latonia resident Cindy Wilson, 40, who filed
the initial suit claiming she and other residents were exposed
to carcinogenic, toxic, and hazardous chemicals as well as foul
odors, "I'm very pleased the settlement calls for continued
scrutiny of the plant. This settlement is for all the residents
who still live there. They deserve better."

Plaintiff's attorney Paul Dickman told The Cincinnati Enquirer
the families who lived within a 2,000-foot radius of the plant
between May 1993 and May 1998 will be eligible to receive part
of the settlement. However he pointed out that Kenton Circuit
Judge Steve Jaeger must still approve an undecided plan to
distribute the money among the plaintiffs and their attorneys.

The class action lawsuit was filed in Kenton Circuit Court in
1997 after a chemical release the previous December caused the
evacuation of everyone living near the plant in Fort Wright on
the border of the Covington neighborhood of Latonia.


MISSISSIPPI: Agencies' Analysis Stresses Viability Of Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Scruggs Law Firm P.A., "The comments by Fitch
Ratings and Standard & Poor on North Mississippi Health
Services' settlement with uninsured patients speak to the
financial viability of this settlement. We urge all nonprofit
hospitals to review the comments by these two rating services.
Their comments contrast sharply with the self-interested
statement of the American Hospital Association (AHA), which is a
defendant in the nonprofit hospital lawsuits. It is our strong
conviction that the North Mississippi Health Services settlement
is a win-win for both the uninsured patients and the hospital
without impairing the hospital's financial viability," said
Richard Scruggs, lead attorney in national litigation that is
being brought against nonprofit hospitals for failing to fulfill
their obligation to provide charity to uninsured patients.

Mr. Scruggs stated, "As Fitch writes in its report, it
'considers the potential financial impact relatively immaterial
as most hospitals collect only a very small portion of uninsured
patients' bills ... Fitch believes the lawsuits will ultimately
result in more comprehensive reporting of charity care by
hospitals and will also compel non-profit hospitals to review
charge and collection policies to uninsured patients.'"

He also pointed out that S&P has affirmed its 'AA' long-term
rating on the Mississippi Hospital Equipment and Facilities
Authority's bonds, issued for North Mississippi Health Services
after taking into consideration, among other things, the
settlement.

Mr. Scruggs furthers adds, "We strongly believe that the public
has the right to expect, and indeed demand, that the nonprofit
hospitals meet their obligations to provide charitable care to
uninsured patients for which they receive substantial tax
benefits. The rating agencies' comments affirm that the North
Mississippi settlement, while not necessarily a one-size, fits-
all solution, can certainly be used by nonprofit hospitals
around the country as a template to fashion a formula to provide
charity care to uninsured patients."

For more details, contact Richard Scruggs of the Scruggs Law
Firm P.A. by Phone: 662-281-1212 or by E-mail:
http://www.nfplitigation.com


MISSISSIPPI BAPTIST: Faces Suit On Behalf of Uninsured Patients
---------------------------------------------------------------
The nonprofit Mississippi Baptist Health Systems, which includes
Mississippi Baptist Medical Center of Jackson, Mississippi, has
been named as a co-defendant along with the American Hospital
Association ("AHA") in a class action lawsuit brought by
uninsured patients. The lawsuit charges defendants Mississippi
Baptist and the AHA with failing to fulfill Mississippi
Baptist's obligation to provide government-required charity care
in return for substantial tax exemptions. Mississippi Baptist
includes a 619-bed hospital in Mississippi and is one of the
most financially successful healthcare systems in the state of
Mississippi with net assets exceeding $250 million.

In addition to the lawsuit filed against Mississippi Baptist,
four other lawsuits have been filed recently by uninsured
patient plaintiffs against nonprofit hospital systems and
hospitals and the AHA. The lawsuits all charge the defendants
with requiring their uninsured patients to pay unfair and
unreasonable healthcare prices that are far in excess of the
discounted amounts accepted by these same defendants from their
insured patients.

With the filing of these lawsuits, 44 uninsured patient class
action lawsuits have been brought against nonprofit hospital
systems across the country since June 17, 2004. These defendant
nonprofit hospital systems advised by defendant AHA control in
excess of 350 hospitals in aggregate.

The most recent class action lawsuits are:

     (1) In Arkansas: Defendants: Baptist Health and American
         Hospital Association; The United States District Court
         for the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division;
         litigation filed by Thrash Law Firm, and Barrett Law
         Office, P.A.

     (2) In Louisiana: Defendants: Christus Health; Christus
         Health Southwestern Louisiana; Christus St. Patrick
         Hospital; American Hospital Association; United States
         District Court Middle District Court of Louisiana;
         litigation filed by Ranier, Gayle & Elliot LLC; Barrett
         Law Office, P.A., and Weisman, Kennedy, Berris, Co.,
         L.P.A.

     (3) In Massachusetts: Defendants: Baystate Medical Center,
         Baystate Health System, Inc., American Hospital
         Association; United States District Court for the
         District of Massachusetts; litigation filed by Ranier,
         Gayle & Elliot LLC; Barrett Law Office, P.A., and
         Weisman, Kennedy, Berris, Co., L.P.A.

     (4) In Mississippi: Defendants: Mississippi Baptist Medical
         Center, Inc., Mississippi Baptist Health Systems, Inc.,
         American Hospital Association; United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Mississippi Jackson
         Division; litigation filed by David L. Merideth, M.D.,
         J.D., and Sonny Merideth, Esq.

     (5) In Virginia: Defendants: Inova Health Care Services;
         Inova Health Systems Foundation; American Hospital
         Association; United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of Virginia; litigation filed by
         Barrett Law Office and Vroon & Crongeyer, LLP.

Richard Scruggs, a lead attorney for the nonprofit hospital
litigation, stated, "It is unfortunate, but clear that the
abuses and wrongdoings are widespread throughout the nonprofit
hospital industry. These lawsuits are not about creating policy,
legislation or changing the law. They are about adhering to the
law and providing government-required charity healthcare to
uninsured patients. We are becoming painfully aware that many
nonprofit hospitals, benefiting from the cross-pollination of
information from the AHA, are not meeting the needs of the
communities they serve but rather are catering to special
interest groups. To cover up their actions, they often engage in
manipulative accounting, less than full disclosure, and public
misinformation campaigns. They are reaping hundreds of millions
of dollars in tax benefits but not living up to their end of the
obligation in return for these tax benefits, which is charitable
healthcare to the uninsured. In effect, the wrongdoers are
having the U.S. taxpayers underwrite their actions."

In addition, among other things, the Mississippi Baptist class
action lawsuit describes Defendant Baptist as counterfeit; it
charges that Defendant Baptist functions as "for-profit"
business. It makes clear that while Defendant Baptist garnishes
the wages of its uninsured patients it compensates and/or
contributes excess "six figure" incomes to many of its
executives including $763,000 to its President and CEO for the
fiscal year ending August 31, 2002 and at least $672,000 in
compensation for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2003.

Mr. Scruggs stated, "The class action lawsuits allow uninsured
patients to seek remedies through our legal system to end these
misdeeds by defendant nonprofit hospitals. We will continue to
vigorously pursue through all appropriate legal means nonprofit
hospitals that are not fulfilling their government obligations
with respect to uninsured patients, including seeking to work
with nonprofit hospitals in achieving settlements with uninsured
patients similar to that reached earlier this month with North
Mississippi Medical Services."

For more details, contact Richard Scruggs of the Scruggs Law
Firm, P.A. by Phone: (662) 281-1212 or visit their Web site:
http://www.nfplitigation.com


NORTH COVE: SEC Lodges CT Civil Fraud Suit V. William A. DiBella
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud
action against William A. DiBella, the former Majority Leader of
the Connecticut State Senate, and his consulting firm, North
Cove Ventures, L.L.C., in Connecticut federal district court.
The Commission's complaint alleges that, beginning in November
1998, DiBella and North Cove participated in a fraudulent scheme
with the-then Treasurer of the State of Connecticut, Paul J.
Silvester, concerning Silvester's investment of $75 million of
the state pension funds with Thayer Capital Partners, a
Washington, DC-based private equity firm. According to the
complaint, Silvester used the investment to reward DiBella, his
friend and political supporter, for past and anticipated future
services. In connection with the investment, Silvester requested
that Thayer, through its chairman, Frederic V. Malek, hire
DiBella. Thayer agreed to retain DiBella and to pay him a
percentage of the state pension fund's total investment with
Thayer, even though DiBella had no prior involvement with the
transaction and ultimately performed no meaningful work related
to the investment. DiBella understood from Silvester that there
was no work to be done on the deal. The Complaint also alleges
that Silvester increased the amount of the pension fund's
investment with Thayer by at least $25 million (to a total of
$75 million) solely to secure a larger fee for DiBella. DiBella
was ultimately paid a total of $374,500. The Complaint alleges
that DiBella and North Cove aided and abetted Silvester's
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and the violations by Thayer and
its two affiliates of Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers
Act of 1940. The Commission is seeking injunctive relief,
disgorgement, and civil penalties, and an order permanently
barring defendant DiBella from serving as an officer or director
of a public company. In October 2000, Silvester settled related
Commission charges concerning his investment of state pension
fund money with two other private equity funds.

The Commission also instituted separate, but related, settled
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Thayer,
Malek, and two Thayer affiliates, TC Equity Partners IV, L.L.C.
and TC Management Partners IV, L.L.C. concerning their failure
to disclose to the state pension fund that, at the request of
Silvester, they retained and paid DiBella nearly $375,000 in
connection with the state pension fund's investment with a
Thayer private equity fund, Thayer Equity Investors IV,
L.P. Without admitting or denying the Commissions findings,
Thayer, Malek, and the two Thayer affiliates consented to the
issuance of an order censuring them and requiring them to cease
and desist from violating certain provisions of the Securities
Act of 1933 and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The
Commission also ordered Thayer to pay a civil penalty of
$150,000 and Malek to pay a civil penalty of $100,000.


PHILIP MORRIS: MA Court Repeals `Lights' Ruling in Aspinall Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reinstated a "lights"
class action, ruling that Massachusetts' Consumer Protection
laws require the trial court to allow the case to proceed as a
class action but noting that the class certification "may be
revisited" at a later time. The ruling is limited to
Massachusetts.

The decision came in the Aspinall case, which was initially
certified as a class action by a Massachusetts trial court on
October 11, 2001 but decertified by a judge of the state's
intermediate appellate court. In Aspinall, plaintiffs seek only
to recover for economic loss, and not personal injuries.

In 4-3 decision, the state's highest court reversed a decision
last year by the intermediate appellate court, which ruled that
the case should not have been certified as a class action by the
trial court because there are too many individual issues for a
single trial.

"Even if the court's certification decision were to stand,
Philip Morris USA believes that plaintiffs will not be able to
prove at trial that there was any deceptive conduct, as required
by the Massachusetts statute, or that consumers were actually
damaged as a result of the purchases," said William S.
Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate
general counsel.

"All of the class members bought Marlboro Light cigarettes that
were sold with the same health warnings that are placed on every
other brand of cigarettes, whether full flavor, 'light,' or
'ultra-light;' they paid the same price for Marlboro Lights as
they would have paid for full-flavored Marlboros. Many continue
to smoke Marlboro Lights despite knowing they may not be getting
lowered 'tar' because of the way they smoke," he said.

Ohlemeyer also noted that, because the Massachusetts court based
its decision primarily on the particular record and decisions
interpreting the state's Consumer Protection law, the decision
should have no bearing on the company's appeal of the Price
class action verdict in Illinois. In contrast to the
Massachusetts court's interpretation of the Massachusetts
statute, the deception, causation and injury requirements of the
Illinois Consumer Protection statute have been interpreted
differently by the Illinois courts.

In another case involving "light" cigarettes, last year in the
Hines case in Florida, an appellate court refused to allow the
case to proceed as a class action. Plaintiffs have moved for
reconsideration of that ruling.


RED HAT: Lawsuit Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set September 13, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Chicago law firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament &
Rubenstein, P.C. reminds the purchasers of Red Hat "Red Hat" or
(the "Company") (Nasdaq:RHAT) securities between December 18,
2003 and July 12, 2004, inclusive ("Class Period") that the
deadline to move for lead plaintiff in the securities fraud
class action brought by the law firm against Red Hat and certain
of its officers and directors is on September 13, 2004.
Interested parties must move to serve as lead plaintiff by
filing a motion in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina.

The Complaint alleges that defendants (Red Hat, Matthew Szulik,
Kevin B. Thompson, Mark Webbink, Timothy Buckley and Paul
Cormier) violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Throughout the Class Period, in each Form 10-Q and Form 10-K
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"),
defendants falsely reported that they properly recognized
revenue from subscriptions. In fact, as the market learned on
July 13, they did not. Instead, defendants recognized
subscription revenue on a monthly, rather than a daily, basis.
For example, if a subscription agreement was signed on the last
day of a month, a full month's revenue would be recognized on
that day, rather than one day's worth of revenue. After the
PriceWaterhouseCooper's auditor was rotated, the new auditor
required recognition from subscriptions on a daily basis as
required by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").
This change in accounting practice resulted in the restatement
of Red Hat's financial results for fiscal years 2002, 2003 and
the first quarter of 2004. Defendants admitted that the
restatement "is expected to result in significant percentage
differences in certain items such as quarterly operating profit
and net income."

During the short seven-month class period, defendants Buckley
and Szulik sold over $34 million and $37 million respectively of
Red Hat securities, while the other defendants collectively sold
an additional $8 million. As a result of defendants' allegedly
fraudulent scheme, the price of Red Hat's securities was
artificially inflated, allowing insiders to sell Red Hat
securities for millions of dollars in proceeds and causing
plaintiff and other class members to suffer damages.

The Company also announced the SEC made an inquiry into the
Company's results as filed in their Form 10-K. On Monday, June
14, 2004, Red Hat unexpectedly announced that its Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO") was resigning "to pursue other
interests." The Company claims that its restatement is unrelated
to its former CFO's resignation. The price of Red Hat stock
plummeted $4.62 or 22.7% per share, losing $600 million in
market capitalization to close at $15.73 per share.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden or Conor R. Crowley of
Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. by Phone:
1-800-470-6824 or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com


SPORTSLINE.COM: FL Court Grants Motion To File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Federman & Sherwood and Emerson Poynter LLP, on
behalf of shareholders who are suing derivatively on behalf of
Sportsline.com (Nasdaq: SPLN), were granted leave to file an
Amended Complaint by Order dated August 9, 2004, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District Court of
Florida. Plaintiffs argued that:

     (1) the facts leading up to the proposed purchase of
         Sportsline.com by its majority shareholder, Viacom,
         Inc. (NYSE: VIA), shed light on the futility of the
         shareholder demands;

     (2) that the pending sale creates additional class claims
         for the Sportsline.com shareholders; and

     (3) that if the pending buyout was completed as proposed,
         the shareholders would be irreparably harmed and the
         derivative claims of the action may be extinguished.

Stating that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide leave
to amend the pleading "shall be freely given when justice so
requires" and that justice would not be served by assuming the
futility of amendment as defendants had proposed, the court
granted Plaintiffs right to file a Second Amended Complaint
since filed on August 12, 2004, as well as denying the
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Shareholder
Derivative Complaint.

The derivative action names as defendants Sportsline's Board of
Directors and certain of executive officers for breaches of
fiduciary duties, violations of common and for remedies pursuant
to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Additionally, the
shareholders make class action allegations against Sportsline's
Board for breach of fiduciary duty in favoring the interests of
the Company's largest shareholder, Viacom, Inc., in the
buyout/merger of the Company to the detriment of Sportline's
other public shareholders and for failing to take reasonable
steps designed to maximize shareholder value in such a deal.

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



THAYER CAPITAL: Settles SEC Charges, Pays $250,000 in Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Change Commission instituted settled
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against Thayer
Capital Partners (Thayer), a Washington, DC-based private equity
firm; its chairman, Frederic V. Malek (Malek); and two Thayer
affiliates, TC Equity Partners IV, L.L.C. and TC Management
Partners IV, L.L.C. concerning their failure to disclose
material information to an advisory client, the State of
Connecticut pension funds, in connection with a $75 million
investment by the pension funds  in November 1998. According to
the Commission's Order, the Respondents failed to disclose that,
at the request of Paul Silvester (Silvester), the then-
Connecticut State Treasurer, they paid a consultant nearly
$375,000 in connection with an investment of Connecticut pension
fund money with a Thayer private equity fund, Thayer Equity
Investors IV, L.P. (Thayer IV). Without admitting or denying the
Commission's findings, Thayer, Malek, and the two Thayer
affiliates consented to the issuance of an order censuring them
and requiring them to cease and desist from violating certain
provision of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and the
Investment Advisers Act (Advisers Act). The Commission also
ordered Thayer to pay a civil penalty of $150,000 and Malek to
pay a civil penalty of $100,000.

According to the Commission's Order, in connection with the
investment of state pension fund money with Thayer IV, Thayer,
through Malek, agreed to hire William A. DiBella (DiBella), the
former Senate Majority Leader of the Connecticut State Senate,
as a consultant at the Treasurer's request. The Treasurer made
this request after due diligence on the proposed investment was
already completed and the investment was nearly finalized.
DiBella had no previous involvement with the proposed investment
and ultimately performed no meaningful work on the deal.
Thayer, Malek and the Thayer affiliates failed to disclose this
arrangement to the Connecticut pension funds. The Order found
that the conduct of Thayer, Malek, and the two Thayer affiliates
willfully violated Section 17(a)(2) of the Securities Act and
Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act.

On the same date, the Commission also filed a separate, but
related, civil injunctive action against DiBella and his
consulting firm, North Cove Ventures, L.L.C. (North Cove) in
Connecticut federal district court. The Commission's complaint
alleges that, beginning in November 1998, DiBella and North Cove
participated in a fraudulent scheme with Treasurer Silvester
whereby Silvester invested $75 million of the state pension
funds with Thayer IV. Silvester used the investment to reward
DiBella, his friend and political supporter. In addition,
DiBella requested, and Silvester agreed to increase the amount
of the pension funds investment with Thayer IV by at least $25
million (to a total of $75 million) to secure a larger fee for
DiBella. Thayer contracted to pay DiBella $525,000 in fees
through North Cove. DiBella was ultimately paid a total of
$374,500. The Complaint alleges that DiBella and North Cove
aided and abetted Silvester's violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and
the violations by Thayer and its two affiliates of Section
206(2) of the Advisers Act. In October 2000, Silvester settled
related Commission charges concerning his investment of state
pension fund money with two other private equity funds.


UNITED PARCEL: Lamberton Law Lodges Discrimination Suit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Lamberton Law Firm, LLC initiated a nationwide class action
lawsuit was against United Parcel Service in a Pittsburgh
federal court.

The lawsuit charges UPS with systemic violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act, the federal law that protects
persons with disabilities from employment discrimination. UPS is
alleged to have illegally terminated hundreds of employees
because it disapproved of their prescription medications. If
proven, the claims could expose UPS to tens of millions of
dollars in damages.

"Our first concern is that the company stop practicing
medicine," said Charles Lamberton, lead attorney for the
plaintiffs. "These employees are using legal prescriptions under
their doctors' supervision. They still do their jobs perfectly
well. UPS is telling them they either have to quit their
medicine or be fired."

According to court papers, UPS singles out employees with a
history of addiction to alcohol or drugs, and forces them to
disclose their prescriptions. The company then prohibits these
employees from using any medications it believes are
"inappropriate" for someone in recovery. UPS tests the
employee's urine to make sure she has stopped using her
prescription. If the employee has not quit her medicine, she is
fired. "It's outrageous," Lamberton said.

Andrew Imparato, President and CEO of the American Association
of People with Disabilities, agrees. With more than 90,000
members, the Washington, DC based non-profit is the largest
cross-disability organization in the United States. "When an
employer interferes with an employee's medical care, it crosses
a line," Imparato said. "Addiction is a disease. Many of these
employees also suffer from psychological illnesses that are best
treated with prescription medications. There's just no
legitimate reason for UPS to be second-guessing licensed
physicians. That's why we joined as a co-plaintiff."

The lawsuit is Darlene E. Veltri and the American Association of
People with Disabilities vs. United Parcel Service, Inc., Civil
Action No. 04-1177 (W.D. Pa.).

For more details, contact Charles Lamberton by Phone:
412-258-2250 or by E-mail: cal@lambertonlaw.com


WORLDCOM INC.: Suit Settlement Hearing Set November 5, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $2.65
million settlement in the matter of IN RE WORLDCOM, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION on behalf of all individuals or entities
who purchased or acquired publicly traded securities of
WorldCom, Inc. ("WorldCom") during the period from April 29,
1999 through and including June 25, 2002, and who were injured
thereby.

The hearing will be held on November 5, 2004, at 2:00 p.m.,
before the Hon. Denise Cote in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, Courtroom 11-B, New
York, New York 10007.

For more details, contact WorldCom, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. - Claims Administrator by Mail:
P.O. Box 9000 #6184, Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone:
1-866-808-3556 by Fax: 1-631-940-6549 or by E-mail:
worldcominfo@gardencitygroup.com OR Max W. Berger, Esq. or John
P. Coffey, Esq. of BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP by
Mail: 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 by Phone:
212-554-1400 or by E-mail: info@worldcomlitigation.com OR
Leonard Barrack, Esq. or Jeffrey W. Golan, Esq. of BARRACK,
RODOS & BACINE by Mail: 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 215-963-0600 by E-mail:
info@worldcomlitigation.com


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Stock Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against Bennett Environmental Inc. ("Bennett" or the
"Company") (Amex: BEL) (TSE: BEL) and certain of its officers,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Bennett common stock from June 2, 2003 through July 21, 2004
(the "Class Period").

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 by the SEC 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 common stock. Some of Bennett's officers sold their
personal holdings of Bennett stock at the inflated prices.

Bennett is in the hazardous waste remediation business. The
Complaint alleges that beginning in June 2003, Bennett misled
investors about a purported $200 million (CDN) contract it had
been awarded by the United States government. In July 2004, the
Company revealed that the contract would be worth significantly
less than $200 million, and had been in dispute shortly after it
had been awarded. This revelation caused Bennett stock to lose
40% of its value in one week.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Arthur Stock,
Esq. or Diane Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager of Berger &
Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 or by Fax:
215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit their
Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


CP SHIPS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of CP Ships Limited ("CP Ships") (NYSE:TEU)
publicly traded securities during the period between January 29,
2003 and August 9, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges CP Ships and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. CP Ships is a container shipping company offering its
customers door-to-door, as well as port-to-port, containerized
services for the international transportation of a range of
industrial and consumer goods, including raw materials, semi-
manufactured and finished goods.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused CP Ships' shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, CP Ships was able to
complete a convertible note offering, raising net proceeds of
$200 million and obtain a new $525 million credit facility.

On August 9, 2004, just months after this offering and credit
facility was completed, CP Ships revealed that its results for
2002-2003, and possibly other quarters, were false when issued.
The Company's August 9, 2004 announcement stated "in May, CP
Ships began implementing a new SAP financial accounting system
in January. The implementation has revealed some deficiencies in
former systems and related business and accounting processes,
for which corrective action has been taken and continues. These
deficiencies resulted in insufficient accruals for certain costs
and also a number of balances from 31st December 2003 that needs
to be written off. The estimated negative restatement of 2003
net income is between $22 million and $27 million, which will be
in addition to the $8 million restatement of 2003 net income
announced on 11th May 2004 in the first quarter 2004 report. Net
income for 2003, which after the $8 million restatement was
reported at $74 million, would become between $47 million and
$52 million. To a lesser extent, 2002 will be affected with an
estimated downward revision of net income of about $7 million.
Net income for 2002 had been reported at $52 million.
Furthermore, first quarter 2004 net income will be revised
downward by about $6 million from the $8 million originally
reported." The stock dropped below $13 per share on this news.

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


CP SHIPS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of CP Ships Limited (NYSE: TEU) ("CP Ships" or the
"Company") from April 23, 2003 through August 6, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges CP Ships, Raymond Miles, Frank Halliwell,
and Ian Webber with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. CP Ships is a container shipping company offering its
customers door-to-door, as well as port-to-port containerized
services for the international transportation of a range of
industrial and consumer goods, including raw materials, semi-
manufactured and finished goods. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company overstated its net income figures by
         $22 to $27 million;

     (2) that the Company insufficiently accrued certain costs
         which caused the Company's net income figures to be
         materially inflated;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
         and the Company's own accounting interpretations; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On August 9, 2004, CP Ships announced that in conjunction with
the release of second quarter 2004 results it would restate
previously reported financial results, the Company
insufficiently accrued certain costs which caused the Company's
net income figures to be materially inflated. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of CP Ships fell $3.70 per share or
22.36 percent, on August 9, 2004, to close at $12.85 per share.

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


CP SHIPS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
CP Ships Limited (NYSE: TEU) securities between January 29, 2003
and August 9, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central 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 morew 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


CP SHIPS: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased
securities of CP Ships Limited ("CP Ships" or the "Company")
(NYSE:TEU), between April 23, 2003 and August 6, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

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 CP Ships securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 by
Phone: (866)-759-2275 or by E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Express Scripts, Inc. ("Express Scripts" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: ESRX) between October 29, 2003 and
August 3, 2004 inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri against defendants Express
Scripts; Barrett A. Toan (Express Scripts' Chairman of the Board
of Directors, Chief Executive Officer and Director); Edward J.
Tenholder (Express Scripts' Senior Vice President, Chief
Administrative Officer and Chief Information Officer); David A.
Lowenberg (Express Scripts' Chief Operating Officer); Darryl E.
Weinrich (Express Scripts' Vice President and Chief Accounting
Officer and Controller); Edward Stiften (Express Scripts' Senior
Vice President and Chief Financial Officer) and George Paz
(Express Scripts' President and Director).

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Express
Scripts reported record revenue and overall growth and
profitability in publicly disseminated press releases and SEC
filings, and forecasted positive earnings and revenue targets.
The complaint further alleges that Defendants reported quarter
after quarter of record financial growth because, unbeknownst to
investors, Defendants had improperly withheld rebates that
should have been paid to its clients and manipulated its pricing
schemes to its clients' detriment in breach of its duties. The
truth began to emerge on July 28, 2004, when Express Scripts
issued a press release discussing its receipt of notice from the
Attorney General of the State of New York regarding proposed
litigation, as well as a civil investigative demand from the
State of Vermont warning Express Scripts of pending subpoenas or
investigative demands from the Attorneys General of eighteen
other states. The next day, July 29, 2004, Express Scripts'
stock fell 9 percent. On August 4, the stock continued to
decline further; resulting in a loss of $9.37 per share or $727
million in market capitalization since its pre-partial
disclosure close on July 28, 2004.

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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Express Scripts, Inc.
("Express Scripts" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: ESRX) between
October 29, 2003 through August 3, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period. The Complaint alleges that
Defendants failed to disclose numerous illegal practices and
inflated the Company's revenues. It was disclosed that New York
State Attorney General Elliott Spitzer alleged in a lawsuit 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. 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 Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff by Phone: 888-844-5862 by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com


FERRO CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files OH Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio on behalf of all securities purchasers
of Ferro Corp. (NYSE:FOE) ("Ferro" or the "Company") from
October 28, 2003 through July 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Ferro, Hector R. Ortino, and Thomas M.
Gannon with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. According to the complaint, defendants issued a
series of material misrepresentations to the market between
October 28, 2003 and July 22, 2004, about the Company's
financial condition thereby artificially inflating the price of
Ferro's shares. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's financial results were materially
         overstated;

     (2) that the Company's Polymer Additives business unit
         overstated the business unit's performance because of
         its inability to raise selling prices to keep pace with
         raw material costs;

     (3) that the Company's Polymer Additives business unit also
         understated its operating costs by failing to report
         the increasing losses that were plaguing the Company
         thereby affecting the reliability of the Company's
         forecasting process;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (5) that as result of the above, the Company's financial
         statements were not in conformity with Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On July 23, 2004, defendants revealed that the Company was
slashing earnings expectations for the second quarter of fiscal
2004 by more than 70% based upon an internal review, purportedly
conducted in conjunction with Ferro's closing its books for the
quarter, which unearthed a multi-million dollar overstatement of
earnings resulting from certain unspecified accounting
manipulations. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Ferro
plunged $4.00 per share, or 16.21 percent, to close at $20.68
per share on unusually high trading volume.

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


FERRO CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Ferro Corporation ("Ferro" or the
"Company") (NYSE: FOE) between October 28, 2003 through July 22,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action is pending against defendants Ferro, Hector Ortino
(CEO, President and Chairman) and Thomas M. Gannon (CFO and Vice
President). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements contained in press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class
Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that:

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff by Phone: 888-844-5862 by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Ligand")
(Nasdaq:LGND) common stock during the period between July 28,
2003 and August 2, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Ligand and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Ligand discovers, develops and markets drugs that are
intended to address patients' medical needs in the areas of
cancer, pain, men's and women's health or hormone-related health
issues, skin diseases, osteoporosis and metabolic,
cardiovascular and inflammatory diseases. AVINZA, approved by
the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") in March 2002, is the
Company's lead product, for the relief of chronic moderate to
severe pain. The Company also has research and development
collaborations with various pharmaceutical companies, including
Eli Lilly & Company ("Lilly") and GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK").

According to the complaint, in April of 2003, based on an
inability to mount an aggressive sales campaign of its own for
AVINZA, the Company revealed its plans to co-promote AVINZA with
Organon, a business unit of Akzo Nobel. Ligand was also
developing peroxisome proliferation activated receptors ("PPAR")
to target other medical problems. In May of 2003, Ligand
received a renewed commitment from Lilly for continuation of
Phase I and Phase II studies for three novel compounds that act
on PPAR, targeting diabetes and cardiovascular disorders. In
June of 2003, Ligand received a $1 million milestone payment as
a result of GSK's decision to continue Phase I development of a
novel PPAR modulator for the treatment of dyslipidemias.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants continually represented that AVINZA was highly
successful. As late as March 31, 2004, defendants boasted that
AVINZA had performed well in 2003 in both prescription market
share growth and net sales as a result of rapid adoption by the
medical community. Defendants then prominently positioned AVINZA
as their key vehicle for the growth of the Company, by revising
its five year goal for market penetration and total marketshare
upward by 50%, from 10% to 15%. These positive but false
statements concerning AVINZA artificially inflated the price of
Ligand stock. However, defendants had concealed critical
material information regarding the details concerning the
safety, efficacy and viability of Ligand's PPAR modulator
programs with Lilly and GSK, their inability to achieve
projected growth for AVINZA and issues impacting revenue
recognition and profitability, including chargeoffs and product
returns related to AVINZA.

On August 3, 2004, the Company posted a second-quarter loss of
$14.2 million, or $0.19 a share, far from the projected loss of
$0.06 a share. It was also revealed that Ligand faced serious
undisclosed issues impacting future profitability, while the
Company concealed the substantive issues causing the resignation
of its auditors, all of which sent the Company's shares into a
free fall, tumbling $5.38, or 39%, to $8.17, on volume of over
29 million shares.

The complaint alleges that defendants knew but concealed from
the investing public during the Class Period the following
material adverse facts, among others:

     (1) distributors were returning large lots of unsold short-
         dated product for replacement, as a way to moderate
         channel stuffing by defendants, intended to meet sales
         targets for AVINZA;

     (2) despite continued claims for advancing sales of AVINZA,
         excess wholesaler inventories had built up, further
         diminishing even the possibility of achieving AVINZA
         sales and earnings for Ligand;

     (3) revelations of the cancer-causing effects of PPAR
         modulators would have a direct, adverse effect on the
         viability of the Company's PPAR compound programs;

     (4) the Company's revenue, accounts receivable and
         inventory valuation associated with AVINZA was grossly
         overstated as defendants had inappropriately sold and
         booked as revenue product lots that were "short-dated"
         and were rapidly approaching or had exceeded their
         expiration date; and

     (5) remaining in-house inventory could not be used for
         direct sale since it was required to replace AVINZA
         "short-dated" lots already sold, thus rendering the
         true value of this component of the Company's AVINZA
         inventory at nearly zero.

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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Ligand" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: LGND) between March 3, 2004
through August 2, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Ligand and David E. Robinson and Paul
V. Maier ("Defendants") violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements during the
Class Period. In violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented 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, and that its outside auditor had resigned. Shares of
Ligand fell almost 40% or $5.40 per share to close at $8.18 per
share.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman of Spector, Roseman
& Kodroff by Phone: 888-844-5862 by E-mail:
classaction@srk-law.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.srk-law.com


SALOMON SMITH: Goodkind Labaton Lodges MD Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired or hold shares of several Salomon Smith
Barney mutual funds ("SSB Funds") between January 1, 1999 and
July 1, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed against certain Salomon Smith Barney entities, certain
Canary Capital entities, and John Does 1-100 ("Defendants"). The
Complaint alleges that Defendants violated the federal
securities laws and engaged in a course of business, which
operated as a fraud and deceit on members of the class, as
defined above, in the following SSB Funds:

     (1) Salomon Brothers All Cap Value Fund (Sym: SUBAX, SUBBX,
         SUBZX)

     (2) Salomon Brothers Balanced Fund (Sym: STRAX, STRBX,
         STRCX)

     (3) Salomon Brothers California Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CCAIX, SCUBX, SCULX)

     (4) Salomon Brothers Capital Fund (Sym: SCCAX, SPABX,
         SACPX, SCCCX)

     (5) Salomon Brothers High Yield Bond (Sym: SAHYX, SBHYX,
         SHYOX, SHYCX)

     (6) Salomon Brothers International Equity Fund (Sym: SAIEX,
         SAIBX, SAICX)

     (7) Salomon Brothers Investors Value Fund (Sym: SINAX,
         SBINX, SAIFX, SINOX)

     (8) Salomon Brothers Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SLCAX,
         SALBX, SALCX)

     (9) Salomon Brothers Mid Cap Fund (Sym: SMDAX, SMDBX,
         SMDZX)

    (10) Salomon Brothers National Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CFNIX, SNABX, SNALX)

    (11) Salomon Brothers New York Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CFTNX, SNFBX, SNFLX)

    (12) Salomon Brothers SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
         SJRAX, SJRBX, SJRZX)

    (13) Salomon Brothers SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym:
         SOLAX, SOLBX, SOLZX)

    (14) Salomon Brothers SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SVEAX,
         SVEBX, SCEZX)

    (15) Salomon Brothers SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: SSWAX,
         SSWBX, SSWZX)

    (16) Salomon Brothers Short/Intermediate U.S. Government
         Fund (Sym: SUSAX, SUSBX, SUSCX)

    (17) Salomon Brothers Small Cap Growth (Sym: SASMX, SBSMX,
         SCSMX)

    (18) Salomon Brothers Strategic Bond Fund (Sym: SSTAX,
         SBSBX, SSTCX)

    (19) Smith Barney Aggressive Growth Fund (Sym: SHRAX, SAGBX,
         SAGCX)

    (20) Smith Barney All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym: SPAAX,
         SPBBX, SPBLX)

    (21) Smith Barney Appreciation Fund (Sym: SHAPX, SAPBX,
         SAPCX, SAPYX)

    (22) Smith Barney Arizona Municipals Fund (Sym: SLAZX,
         SAZBX, SAZLX)

    (23) Smith Barney Balanced Portfolio (Sym: SBBAX, SCBBX,
         SCBCX)

    (24) Smith Barney California Municipals Fund (Sym: SHRCX,
         SCABX, SCACX)

    (25) Smith Barney Classic Values Fund (Sym: SCLAX, SCLBX,
         SCLLX)

    (26) Smith Barney Conservative Portfolio (Sym: SBCPX, SBCBX,
         SBCLX)

    (27) Smith Barney Diversified Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym:
         CFLGX, CLCBX, SMDLX)

    (28) Smith Barney Diversified Strategic Income Fund (Sym:
         SDSAX, SLDSX, SDSIX)

    (29) Smith Barney Dividend and Income Fund (Sym: SUTAX,
         SLSUX, SBBLX)

    (30) Smith Barney Financial Services Fund (Sym: SBFAX,
         SBFBX, SFSLX)

    (31) Smith Barney Florida Portfolio (Sym: SBFLX, FLABX,
         SFLLX)

    (32) Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund (Sym: SHFVX, SFVBX,
         SFVCX)

    (33) Smith Barney Georgia Portfolio (Sym: SBGAX, SBRBX,
         SGALX)

    (34) Smith Barney Global All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
         SPGAX, SPGGX, SPGLX)

    (35) Smith Barney Global Government Bond Portfolio (Sym:
         SBGLX, SBGBX, SGGLX)

    (36) Smith Barney Global Portfolio (Sym: CAGAX, CAGBX,
         SGPLX)

    (37) Smith Barney Government Securities Fund (Sym: SGVAX,
         HGVSX, SGSLX)

    (38) Smith Barney Group Spectrum Fund (Sym: SGSAX, SGSBX,
         SFTLX)

    (39) Smith Barney Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCGRX, SGRBX,
         SCGCX)

    (40) Smith Barney Hansberger Global Value Fund (Sym: SGLAX,
         SGLBX, SGLCX)

    (41) Smith Barney Health Sciences Fund (Sym: SBIAX, SBHBX,
         SBHLX)

    (42) Smith Barney High Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCHAX, SCHBX,
         SCHCX)

    (43) Smith Barney High Income Fund (Sym: SHIAX, SHIBX,
         SHICX)

    (44) Smith Barney Income Portfolio (Sym: SCAAX, SCIAX,
         SCILX)

    (45) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity CA Municipals Fund
         (Sym: ITCAX, STDBX, SIMLX)

    (46) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity NY Municipals Fund
         (Sym: IMNYX, SNMBX, SINLX)

    (47) Smith Barney International All Cap Growth Portfolio
         (Sym: SBIEX, SBIBX, SBICX)

    (48) Smith Barney International Large Cap Fund (Sym: CFIPX,
         SILCX, SILLX)

    (49) Smith Barney Investment Grade Bond Fund (Sym: SIGAX,
         HBDIX, SBILX)

    (50) Smith Barney Large Cap Core Fund (Sym: GROAX, GROBX,
         SCPLX)

    (51) Smith Barney Large Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
         SPSAX, SPSBX, SPSLX)

    (52) Smith Barney Large Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBCIX, SBCCX,
         SBGCX)

    (53) Smith Barney Large Capitalization Growth Fund (Sym:
         SBLGX, SBLBX, SLCCX, SBLYX)

    (54) Smith Barney Limited Term Portfolio (Sym: SBLTX, STMBX,
         SMLLX)

    (55) Smith Barney Managed Governments Fund (Sym: SHMGX,
         MGVBX, SMGLX)

    (56) Smith Barney Managed Municipals Fund (Sym: SHMMX,
         SMMBX, SMMCX)

    (57) Smith Barney Massachusetts Municipals Fund (Sym: SLMMX,
         SMABX, SMALX)

    (58) Smith Barney Mid Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBMAX, SBMDX,
         SBMLX, SMBYX)

    (59) Smith Barney Municipal High Income Fund (Sym: STXAX,
         SXMT, SMHLX)

    (60) Smith Barney National Portfolio (Sym: SBBNX, SBNBX,
         SBNLX)

    (61) Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund (Sym: SHNJX,
         SNJBX, SNJLX)

    (62) Smith Barney New York Portfolio (Sym: SBNYX, SMNBX,
         SBYLX)

    (63) Smith Barney Oregon Municipals Fund (Sym: SHORX, SORBX,
         SORLX)

    (64) Smith Barney Pennsylvania Portfolio (Sym: SBPAX, SBPBX,
         SPALX)

    (64) Smith Barney S & P 500 Index Fund (Sym: SBSPX)

    (65) Smith Barney SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
         ARMZX, ARMBX, ARMGX)

    (66) Smith Barney SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym: SOPAX,
         SOPTX, SBPLX)

    (67) Smith Barney SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SCRAX, SCVSX,
         SMCLX, SCVYX)

    (68) Smith Barney SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: GRIAX,
         GRIBX, SGAIX)

    (69) Smith Barney Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
         SHDAX, SHDBX, SHDLX)

    (70) Smith Barney Short-Term Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Sym: SBSTX, SHBBX, SSTLX)

    (71) Smith Barney Small Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBDSX, SBDBX,
         SBDLX)

    (72) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SBSGX, SBYBX,
         SBSLX)

    (73) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         CFSGX, SMOBX, SGOLX)

    (74) Smith Barney Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBVAX, SBVBX,
         SBVLX)

    (75) Smith Barney Social Awareness Fund (Sym: SSIAX, SESIX,
         SESLX)

    (76) Smith Barney Technology Fund (Sym: SBTAX, SBTBX, SBQLX)

    (77) Smith Barney Total Return Bond Fund (Sym: TRBAX, TRBBX,
         SBTLX)

    (78) Smith Barney U.S. Government Securities Fund (Sym:
         SBCGX, SBUBX, SBULX)


The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, Sections 206 of the Investment Advisors Act, Sections
34(b), 36(a) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act and several
common law causes of action. Specifically, the complaint charges
Defendants with engaging in an unlawful and deceitful course of
conduct designed to improperly financially advantage Defendants.
The Defendants, in clear contravention of their fiduciary
responsibilities, and disclosure obligations, failed to properly
disclose that select favored customers were improperly allowed
to "time" their mutual fund trades. Such timing improperly
allowed favored investors to trade in and out of a mutual fund
to exploit short-term moves and inefficiencies in the manner in
which mutual funds price their shares. Defendants improper acts
caused damage to the Funds themselves and persons who purchased
shares of the funds during the Class Period.

This matter is related to In re Mutual Fund Timing Litigation,
MDL-1586, now pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland before the Honorable J. Frederick Motz,
the Honorable Frederick P. Stamp, the Honorable Catherine C.
Blake and the Honorable Andre Davis. In re Mutual Fund Timing
Litigation is a consolidated and coordinated group of cases
brought against eighteen separate mutual fund families, all
involving allegations of "late trading" and "market timing" in
the mutual fund industry.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: 800-321-0476 or visit
their Web site:
http://www.glrs.com/index.cfm/hurl/SectionID=96/getGlobalID=2372
8


US UNWIRED: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Louisiana on behalf of all securities purchasers of
US Unwired, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: UNWR) ("US Unwired" or the
"Company") from May 23, 2000 through August 13, 2002, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges US Unwired, William L. Henning Jr., Robert
W. Piper, and Jerry E. Vaughn with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. US Unwired holds direct or indirect
ownership interests in five Sprint PCS affiliates: Louisiana
Unwired, Texas Unwired, Georgia PCS, IWO Holdings and Gulf Coast
Wireless. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) the Company was increasing its subscriber base by
         signing up high-credit-risk customers;

     (2) that accounting changes implemented by the Company were
         done in order to conceal the Company's declining
         revenues;

     (3) that the Company had been experiencing high involuntary
         disconnections related to its high-credit- risk
         customers;

     (4) that the Company experienced lower subscription growth
         as a result of its policy that required credit-
         challenged customers to pay substantial deposits upon
         the initiation of services; and

     (5) that the Company was engaged in a dispute with Sprint
         PCS regarding its business relationship with Sprint PCS
         and Sprint PCS was pressuring the Company.

On August 13, 2002, US Unwired announced in a press release the
financial results for the second quarter period ended June 30,
2002. The Company revealed that it experienced lower
subscription growth as a result of its policy that required
credit-challenged customers to pay substantial deposits upon the
initiation of services. In response to this string of negative
announcements, on August 13, 2002, the price of US Unwired
common stock closed at $.90 per share, down 94.8% from its Class
Period high of $17.25 per share.

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


VISTACARE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all securities purchasers of
VistaCare, Inc. (Nasdaq: VSTA) ("VistaCare" or the "Company")
from April 28, 2004 through August 5, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges VistaCare, Richard Slager, and Mark
Liebner with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
VistaCare provides hospice services in the United States through
interdisciplinary teams of physicians, nurses, home healthcare
aides, social workers, spiritual and other counselors and
volunteers. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was facing significant Medicare Cap
         exposures, which grew from $1 million per annum to
         almost $6.2 million per quarter;

     (2) that the defendants improperly accrued the Company's
         Medicare Cap reserves in violation of the Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company was experiencing an increase in
         competitive pressures from large hospice providers,
         such as Odyssey Healthcare, Vitas, and Nursing Homes,
         in its key markets;

     (4) that the Company was suffering a slowdown in organic
         growth;

     (5) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company was
         forced to redirect its efforts toward stop gap
         measures, which negatively impacted its net income;

     (6) that defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
         positive statements about the Company's growth and
         progress; and

     (7) that the Company's financial results were materially
         inflated at all relevant times.

On May 6, 2004, VistaCare announced financial results for the
quarter ended March 31, 2004. The results fell well below
expectations. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
VistaCare fell $9.65 per share or 32.66 percent, on May 7, 2004,
to close at $19.90 per share. On August 5, 2004, Vista Care
reported results for the second quarter ended June 30, 2004.
VistaCare announced that results for the quarter were impacted
by the Company's decision to accrue $6.2 million in the quarter
for its Medicare cap reserve (Cap) as well as increased SG&A
expenses associated with growth of the company's sales
organization. On news of this, shares of VistaCare again plunged
$3.44 per share or 18.38 to close, on August 6, 2004, at $15.28
per share.

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


VISTACARE INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Vistacare, Inc. ("Vistacare" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: VSTA)
between November 6, 2003 and August 5, 2004 inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona against defendants Vistacare; Richard
Slager (Vistacare's Chairman, President and Chief Executive
Officer) and Mark Liebner (Vistacare's Chief Financial Officer).
The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Vistacare reported record revenue and overall growth and
profitability in publicly disseminated press releases and SEC
filings, and forecasted positive earnings and revenue targets.
The complaint further alleges that, defendants managed to report
quarter after quarter of record financial growth because,
unbeknownst to investors, Defendants failed to properly reserve
its Medicare reimbursements. The truth began to emerge on August
5, 2004. On that date, after the close of trading, the Company
issued a press release announcing second quarter financial
results for the quarter ending June 30, 2004. The press release
stated that results for the quarter were impacted by the
Company's decision to accrue $6.2 million in the quarter for its
Medicare cap reserve (Cap). This news caused a dramatic decline
in Vistacare's share price from a closing price of $18.72 on
August 5, 2004 to $15.28 on August 6, 2004, for a total one day
decline of over 18%.

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


                            *********


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 Seorin, 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  * * *