CAR_Public/040818.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 18, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 163

                          Headlines

ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS: NY Court Grants Class Certification To Suit
AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
BANK OF HAWAII: Reaches Settlement With 30T Mortgage Customers
BOSTON BEER: Faces Ohio Suit Over Marketing of Liquor To Minors
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuit in CA

CAPITAL ONE: VA Court Hears Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal
CNET NETWORKS: Faces Suit Over "Illegal Gambling" Search Results
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Drops Several Claims in Lawsuits
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Mulls Certification For Bias Suit
CONSTELLATION POWER: CA Court Issues Show Cause Order in Suit

CONSTELLATION POWER: Remand of Power Suit To State Court Sought
COX RADIO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TCPA Violations Suit
DANIEL HARRIS: SEC Sanctions Representative For Insider Trading
DIVERSA CORPORATION: Executes Settlement Pact For NY Stock Suit
ELECTRONIC DATA: Several Plaintiffs Seek Amended Investor Suit

FLORIDA: SEC Obtains Final Judgment, Settles Charges V. Traders
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Grants Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
GENERAL MOTORS: PA Court Notifies Public of Consumer Fraud Suit
GLIATECH INC.: SEC Lodges Complaint V. Ex-VP Derrick S. McKinley
HALLIBURTON: Scott + Scott Provide Securities Litigation Updates

IMPATH INC.: Investors Must File Claims in NY Bankruptcy Action
INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuits
KVH INDUSTRIES: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in RI
MACATAWA BANK: MI Modifies Stay of Fraud Suit To Allow Discovery
NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Asks Court To Grant Suit Summary Judgment

NATIONWIDE LIFE: Consumer Suit Remand To IL State Court Sought
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal AZ Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of LA Consumer Suit
NEIGHBORS COFFEE: Recalls More Flavors Due To Undeclared Peanuts
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits in MO Court

OHIO: Female Juveniles Lodge Suit V. Facility, Youth Services
PACIFIC PREMIER: Limited Discovery Completed For Securities Suit
PANTRY INC.: Current, Former Employees Launch Wage Lawsuit in NC
PRIME GROUP: Faces Possible Inclusion in Winstar's Damage Suit
REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Upholds Stay of Consumer Fraud Suit

STILLWATER MINING: MT Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
STIMSON LUMBER: WA Forestex Settlement Notification Initiated
UNITED STATES: New FLSA Rules To Take Effect August 23, 2004
UTAH MEDICAL: Enjoined By FDA From Distributing Medical Devices
VITALWORKS INC.: CT Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit

WELLS CAPITAL: GA State Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Suit
WILD OATS: Court To Hear Hepatitis A Suit Certification Appeal
WORLDCOM INC.: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set October 15, 2004


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Stock Suit in IL
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Berman DeValerio Lodges Stock Suit in NY
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges MN Stock Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges MO Securities Suit
KVH INDUSTRIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in RI

LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lovell Stewart Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Berger & Montague Lodges NY Securities Suit
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Wechsler Harwood Files NY Stock Fraud Suit
US UNWIRED: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA

VISTACARE INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ

                          *********

ASHANTI GOLDFIELDS: NY Court Grants Class Certification To Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York has issued a summary notice of pendency of class action
in the matter of In Re Ashanti Goldfields Securities Litigation
on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the global
depository receipts of Ashanti Goldfields Limited in
transactions on stock exchanges in the United States during the
period between April 21, 1997 and October 5, 1999.

According to the court the notice serves to advise all involved
the action has been certified by the court to proceed as a class
action, on behalf of the aforementioned class.

For more details, contact Ashanti Goldfield Securities
Litigation by Mail: c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. - P.O. Box
9000 #6244, Merrick, NY 11566-9000 or by Phone: 1-800-331-4487


AVISTA CORPORATION: WA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Washington refused to dismiss the class action filed against
Avista Corporation and:

     (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,

     (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
         and

     (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer of the Company

The suit, styled "In re Avista Corp. Securities Litigation,"
asserts violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with alleged misstatements and omissions of material fact
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs alleged that the Company did not
have adequate risk management processes, procedures and
controls. The plaintiffs further alleged that the Company
engaged in unlawful energy trading practices and allegedly
manipulated western power markets.

The plaintiffs assert that alleged misstatements and omissions
regarding these matters were made in the Company's filings with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and other information
made publicly available by the Company, including press
releases.  The class action complaint asserts claims on behalf
of all persons who purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock during the period between
November 23, 1999 and August 13, 2002.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in October
2003 and the plaintiffs filed an answer to this motion in
January 2004.  Arguments before the Court on the motion were
held on March 19, 2004.  On April 15, 2004, the Court called for
additional briefing on what effect, if any, the FERC proceedings
have on this case.

On July 30, 2004, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss this complaint, holding, among other things, that the
FERC proceedings may ultimately have some evidentiary value
relevant to the disclosure issues raised in this case, but they
do not preclude the resolution of those issues by the Court.
Because the resolution of this lawsuit remains uncertain, legal
counsel cannot express an opinion on the extent, if any, of the
Company's liability.


BANK OF HAWAII: Reaches Settlement With 30T Mortgage Customers
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to attorneys involved in the ongoing litigation, the
Bank of Hawaii is set to refund 30,000 of its mortgage customers
between $1.7 million and $2.45 million, as part of a proposed
class-action suit settlement, The Honolulu Advertiser reports.

Though pending final court approval, the state's second-largest
bank stated that the final amount would depend on the number of
refunds requested.

The suit filed by Michael J. McPherson, Danielle C. McPherson,
Jacqueline Lee Kaohi, Brent White, Cheryl Lenart and Dee Ann
Koanui involves the bank's practice of charging customer's fees
of $35, $50 or $100 after first residential mortgages were paid
off and released, s practice which was discontinued by the bank
in April 2003.

The attorneys told The Honolulu Advertiser that the customers
who paid the fee between January 1988 and April 2003 would be
entitled to a refund and that the court will set the refund
amount, which could be as much as double what consumers paid.

The bank will then inform eligible customers in early 2005 how
to apply for the refund.


BOSTON BEER: Faces Ohio Suit Over Marketing of Liquor To Minors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Beer Co., Inc., along with other alcoholic beverage
producers, faces two complaints filed in Ohio State court
relating to advertising practices and underage consumption.

The suits allege that each defendant intentionally marketed its
products to children and underage consumers and seeks an
injunction and unspecified money damages on behalf of an
undefined class of parents and guardians.


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Callidus Software, Inc. and certain of its present and former
executives and directors face several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The suits allege that the Company and these executives and
directors made false or misleading statements or omissions in
violation of federal securities laws.  The suits seek damages on
behalf of a purported class of individuals who purchased Company
stock during the period from November 19, 2003 through June 23,
2004.

In July 2004, a derivative lawsuit was also filed against the
Company and certain of its present and former directors and
officers.  The derivative complaint alleges state law claims
relating to the matters alleged in the purported class action
complaint referenced above.


CAPITAL ONE: VA Court Hears Arguments on Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia heard oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Capital One Financial Corporation (COFC) and several of
its executive officers.

The suit alleges that COFC and the Individual Defendants
violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.
The amended complaint asserted a class period of January 16,
2001, through July 16, 2002, inclusive.

The amended complaint alleged generally that, during the
asserted class period, COFC misrepresented the adequacy of its
capital levels and loan loss allowance relating to higher risk
assets.  In addition, the amended complaint alleged generally
that COFC failed to disclose that it was experiencing serious
infrastructure deficiencies and systemic computer problems as a
result of its growth.

On December 4, 2002, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint with leave to amend.
Pursuant to that order, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on December 23, 2002, which asserted the same class
period and alleged violations of the same statutes and rule.
The second amended complaint also added a new Individual
Defendant and asserted violations of GAAP.

Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
January 8, 2003, and plaintiffs filed a motion on March 6, 2003,
seeking leave to amend their complaint.  On April 10, 2003, the
Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint, denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend,
and dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.
Plaintiffs appealed the Court's order, opinion, and judgment
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on
May 8, 2003, and briefing on the appeal concluded in September
2003.


CNET NETWORKS: Faces Suit Over "Illegal Gambling" Search Results
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNET Networks, Inc. and other defendants face a class action
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of San Francisco by Mario Cisneros and Michael Voigt on behalf
of themselves, all others similarly situated and the general
public.  The complaint alleges that certain search results
displayed by the defendants facilitate illegal Internet gambling
in violation of California state law.

The proceeding is in its early stages, and accordingly, CNET
cannot predict the impact of this litigation on its business,
financial condition or results of operations, the Company said
in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Drops Several Claims in Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland dismissed with
prejudice all claims in all but several cases against
Constellation Energy, Inc., Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (BGE)
and several other defendants, alleging mercury poisoning from
several sources, including coal plants formerly owned by BGE.

The suits were filed in September 2002.  The BGE plants are now
owned by a subsidiary of the Company.  In addition to BGE and
Constellation Energy, approximately 11 other defendants,
consisting of pharmaceutical companies, manufacturers of
vaccines and manufacturers of Thimerosal have been sued.
Approximately 50 cases have been filed to date, with each case
seeking $90 million in damages from the group of defendants.

In a ruling applicable to all but several of the cases, the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed with prejudice all
claims against BGE and Constellation Energy and entered into a
stay of the proceedings as they relate to other defendants. The
several cases that were not dismissed were filed subsequent to
the ruling by the Circuit Court.  Plaintiffs may attempt to
pursue appeals of the rulings in favor of BGE and Constellation
Energy once the cases are finally concluded as to all
defendants.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Mulls Certification For Bias Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
heard oral arguments for class certification of the lawsuit
filed against Constellation Energy Group and Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company, styled "Miller, et. al., v. Baltimore Gas and
Electric Company, et al."  The suit also names as defendants
Constellation Nuclear, and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.

The action seeks class certification for approximately 150 past
and present employees and alleges racial discrimination at
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.  The amount of damages is
unspecified, however the plaintiffs seek back and front pay,
along with compensatory and punitive damages.

The Court scheduled a briefing process for the motion to certify
the case as a class action suit.  The briefing process concluded
and oral argument on the class certification motion was held on
April 16, 2004, and the parties are awaiting the court's
decision.


CONSTELLATION POWER: CA Court Issues Show Cause Order in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
ordered plaintiff to show cause why none of the defendants in
the class action filed against Constellation Power Development,
Inc., a subsidiary of Constellation Power, Inc. and 22 other
defendants.

The suit, styled "Baldwin Associates, Inc. v. Gray Davis,
Governor of California and 22 other defendants (including
Constellation Power Development, Inc., a subsidiary of
Constellation Power, Inc.)," seeks damages of $43billion,
recession and reformation of approximately 38 long-term power
purchase contracts, and an injunction against improper spending
by the state of California.

The Company is named as a defendant but has never been served
with process in this case and does not have a power purchase
agreement with the State of California.  However, the Company's
High Desert Power Project does have a power purchase agreement
with the California Department of Water Resources.  A hearing is
scheduled on August 23, 2004 on the court's show cause order.


CONSTELLATION POWER: Remand of Power Suit To State Court Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
A motion to remand the suit filed against Constellation Power
Source, Inc. (CPS), styled "James M. Millar v. Allegheny Energy
Supply, Constellation Power Source, Inc., High Desert Power
Project, LLC, et al.," to California state court is pending
before the federal court.

On December 19, 2003, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, naming
for the first time, the Company and High Desert Power Project,
LLC (High Desert) as additional defendants.  The complaint is a
putative class action on behalf of California electricity
consumers and alleges that the defendant power suppliers,
including CPS and High Desert, violated California's Unfair
Competition Law in connection with certain long-term power
contracts that the defendants negotiated with the California
Department of Water Resources in 2001 and 2002.

Notwithstanding the amended long-term power contracts and the
releases and settlement agreements negotiated at the time of
such amendments, the plaintiff seeks to have the Court certify
the case as a class action and to order the repayment of any
monies that were acquired by the defendants under the long-term
contracts or the amended long-term contracts by means of unfair
competition in violation of California law.  The amended
complaint was removed to federal court by one of the defendants
and a motion to remand the case back to the state court is
pending before the federal court.


COX RADIO: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of TCPA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the state court of Fulton
County, Georgia's dismissal of their claims in the class action
filed against Cox Radio, Inc., alleging violations of the
Federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The original complaint sought statutory damages in the amount of
$1,500, plus attorneys' fees, on behalf of each person
"throughout the State of Georgia" who received an unsolicited
pre-recorded telephone message delivering an "unsolicited
advertisement" from a Cox Radio station.

Thereafter, proceedings in this case were stayed pending rulings
by the Georgia Court of Appeals in a similar action pending
against a third-party radio broadcast company.  This stay was
lifted on August 13, 2003 following rulings by the Court of
Appeals in the third-party case directing the trial court to
consider certain constitutional defenses raised by the
defendant.

On July 3, 2003, the FCC issued a Report and Order holding,
among other things, that pre-recorded telephone messages by
broadcasters made for the purpose of inviting consumers to
listen to a free broadcast are not "unsolicited advertisements"
prohibited by the TCPA.  On July 28, 2003, the Company requested
that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their claims in light of
the FCC's Report and Order.  Plaintiffs subsequently refused
this request, and on October 24, 2003, the Company filed a
motion for judgment on the pleadings seeking the dismissal of
plaintiffs' claims on grounds that the calls in question were
permissible under the TCPA and the FCC's implementing rules and,
alternatively, that the application of the TCPA to the facts of
this case would violate Cox Radio's constitutional rights to
free speech, equal protection and due process.

On February 3, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
in support of their contention that the messages at issue were
not exempted by the terms of the FCC Report and Order.  On March
25, 2004, the court entered an order ruling that the calls at
issue were not prohibited by the TCPA and its implementing
regulations, granting Cox Radio's motion for judgment on the
pleadings, and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.


DANIEL HARRIS: SEC Sanctions Representative For Insider Trading
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Daniel Harris.

The Order finds that on August 3 the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia entered a final judgment by consent against
Harris for insider trading in securities of Dean Foods Company
(Dean Foods) in 2001. Specifically, Harris was permanently
enjoined from future violations of Section 10(b) and of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
According to the Order, the SEC alleged in its complaint that
Harris was a registered representative who purchased 100 shares
of Dean Foods common stock on April 4, 2001, the day before the
public announcement that Suiza Foods Corporation would merge
with Dean Foods. The complaint detailed that Harris purchased
the stock while in possession of material nonpublic information
that he received from one of his clients and that was obtained
in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information. In
addition to his own trading, Harris tipped one of his other
clients, recommending that he sell short 100 shares of Suiza
Foods common stock on April 4th. The Order also found that
Harris realized illegal profits of $541.00 on the sale of Dean
Foods stock on April 5th after the merger was announced.
Harris' client also realized $82.00 in illegal profits on April
5th when he closed his short position in Suiza Foods stock.

Based on the above, the Order bars Daniel Harris from
association with any broker or dealer with the right to reapply
for association after two years. Harris consented to the
issuance of the Order without admitting or denying any of the
findings.


DIVERSA CORPORATION: Executes Settlement Pact For NY Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diversa Corporation executed a settlement agreement with
plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its officers and in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned
Muller v. Diversa Corp., et al., Case No. 02-CV-9699.

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering, or IPO, violated Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on
allegations that our registration statement and prospectus
prepared in connection with our IPO failed to disclose material
facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the
stock allocation practices of, the Underwriters.

The complaint also contains claims for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and other
relief.

This action is related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92, in which similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that conducted IPOs of their common stock in
the late 1990s.  On January 7, 2003, the IPO Case against the
Company was assigned to United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of
the Southern District of New York, before whom the IPO Cases
have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

In February 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Sections 11 and 15 claims against the Company and
its officers and directors and almost all of the other Issuers,
and granting the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim
against the Company without leave to amend. The Court similarly
dismissed the Sections 10(b) and 20 claims against two of its
officers and directors without leave to amend, but denied the
motion to dismiss these claims against one officer/director.

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement and entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for, among other things, a dismissal
with prejudice and full release of the Issuers and their
officers and directors from all further liability resulting from
Plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to Plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the Issuers may have against the
Underwriters.  The tentative settlement also provides that, in
the event that Plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a
guaranteed sum of $1 billion from the IPO underwriters,
Plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by each participating
Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any shortfall in the
Plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.

In June 2004, the Company executed a settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the memorandum of
understanding.  The settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including action by the Court certifying a class
action for settlement purposes and formally approving the
settlement.  The Underwriters have opposed both the
certification of the class and the judicial approval of the
settlement.


ELECTRONIC DATA: Several Plaintiffs Seek Amended Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Certain plaintiffs in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Electronic Data Systems Corporation asked for
leave to file an amended class action covering the abandoned
class period from September 7, 1999 though February 6, 2001.

The Company and certain of its former officers are defendants in
numerous purported shareholder class action suits filed from
September through December 2002 in response to its September 18,
2002 earnings pre-announcement, publicity about certain equity
hedging transactions that it had entered into, and the drop in
the price of EDS common stock.  The cases allege violations of
various federal securities laws and common law fraud based upon
purported misstatements and/or omissions of material facts
regarding the Company's financial condition.

In addition, five purported class action suits were filed on
behalf of participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and, in some
cases, its directors, alleging the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and made misrepresentations to the class regarding
the value of EDS shares.  The Company's motions to centralize
all of the foregoing cases in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas have been granted.

Representatives of two committees responsible for administering
the EDS 401(k) Plan notified the Company of their demand for
payment of amounts they believe are owing to plan participants
under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result
of an alleged failure to register certain shares of EDS common
stock sold pursuant to the plan during a period of approximately
one year ending on November 18, 2002.  The committee
representatives have asserted that plan participants to whom
shares were sold during the applicable period are entitled to
receive a return of the amounts paid for the shares, plus
interest and less any income received, upon tender of the shares
to EDS.

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities action described above and the lead plaintiffs in the
consolidated ERISA action described above each filed a
consolidated class action complaint.  The amended consolidated
complaint in the securities action alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b5
thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and certain of its former
officers made false and misleading statements about the
financial condition of EDS, particularly with respect to the
NMCI contract and the accounting for that contract.  The class
period is alleged to be from February 7, 2001 to September 18,
2002.

The consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation
of fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act by
selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.  The named
defendants are EDS, certain former officers of EDS and, with
respect to the ERISA claims, certain current and former officers
of EDS, members of the Compensation and Benefits Committee of
its Board of Directors, and certain current and former members
of the two committees responsible for administering the plan.

The Company's motions to dismiss the consolidated securities
action and the consolidated ERISA action were denied by the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on January 13,
2004 and February 3, 2004, respectively.  A trial commencement
date of September 26, 2005 has been established for the
consolidated securities action and the consolidated ERISA
action.

On July 1, 2004 certain plaintiffs other than the lead plaintiff
filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint covering
the abandoned class period from September 7, 1999 though
February 6, 2001 and seeking recovery for alleged violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act that allegedly
occurred during that time.

Essentially, these plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain of its former officers made false and misleading
statements about the Company's financial condition prior to the
time it entered into the NMCI contract and are asking the court
for leave to file an additional complaint encompassing claims
that lead counsel and the lead plaintiff determined not to
include in the amended consolidated complaint.


FLORIDA: SEC Obtains Final Judgment, Settles Charges V. Traders
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange through the Honorable Joan A. Lenard
of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
obtained final judgments against Larry Grabarnick (Grabarnick),
Marc David Shiner (Shiner) and Donald LaBarre (LaBarre),
requiring them to collectively pay over $7 million in
disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties.
Grabarnick, Shiner and LaBarre, without admitting or denying the
allegations, settled the action by consenting to entry of court
orders that:

     (1) permanently enjoin them from violating Sections 5(a),
         5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
         Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder;

     (2) require Shiner to pay $5,000,000 in disgorgement, plus
         $1,615,760 prejudgment interest, and $480,000 in civil
         penalties;

     (3) require Grabarnick to pay $543,170  in  disgorgement,
         with a waiver of all but $100,000 of disgorgement,
         prejudgment interest, and civil penalties, based upon a
         demonstrated inability to pay; and

     (4) requires LaBarre to pay $337,109 in disgorgement plus
         post-judgment interest, with a waiver of all but
         $100,000 of disgorgement, prejudgment interest and
         civil penalties, based upon a demonstrated inability to
         pay.

The case against the fourth defendant, Sara Jane Peck (Peck),
remains pending.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Grabarnick and Shiner
promoted investments in unregistered LLP units to the public
through bulk e-mails and Internet websites. Interested investors
responded over the Internet by providing contact information,
which Grabarnick and Shiner then sold as "leads" to LaBarre and
Peck.  The complaint alleged that LaBarre and Peck used boiler
room sales tactics to offer and sell the LLP units. Investors
were told they would benefit from the deregulation of the
electric service provider market in California. According to the
complaint, more than 580 people nationwide invested over $10
million by purchasing units, or fractions thereof, in eight
LLPs. Each LLP consisted of 80 partnership units, each valued at
$19,675, for a total of  $1,547,000 per fully funded
partnership. Many investors were elderly; many rolled over money
from IRA and 401(k) accounts. According to the complaint, after
all 80 units were sold, or as many as could be, investors were
told that the partnerships would not be viable and they were
offered Over-the-Counter penny stock in exchange for their
escrowed funds. None of the partnerships ever became operational
electric companies. The complaint alleges that investors are
left with worthless partnership units and delisted penny stock.

The action is titled, SEC v. Larry Grabarnick, Marc David
Shiner, Donald LaBarre and Sara Jane Peck, Case No. 02 Civ.
20875 (Lenard, J.) S.D. Fla.] (LR-18833).


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Grants Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted preliminary court approval to the settlement
of the securities class action filed against Gemstar-TV Guide
International, Inc. and certain of its executive officers and
directors.

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the 1934 Act) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933
Act).  The alleged claims were brought under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act, Section 11 of the 1933 Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 and seek unspecified monetary damages, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (May 11,2004) states.

The suit alleges violations of the securities laws in connection
with the Company's accounting for certain transactions which
were subsequently restated between November 2002 and March 2003.
The amended complaint seeks money damages on behalf of a
purported class of holders of the Company's securities

A final approval hearing is scheduled for September 13, 2004.
Under the agreement, the claims against the Company will be
dismissed with prejudice in exchange for $67.5 million in cash
and stock, of which $42.5 million will be funded, either
directly by the Company or through the SEC, from the restricted
cash account it set up during the three months ended March
31, 2004.  The remaining $25.0 million will consist of 4,105,090
shares of the Company's common stock, valued at $6.09 per share
on the date the agreement was reached.  The number of shares
required to satisfy the settlement will increase if the price
per share at the time of distribution is less than $6.09 per
share.  The Company has the option to substitute cash for up
to one half of the shares prior to the final settlement hearing.
If the Company elects to do so, this $12.5 million payment would
come from our unrestricted cash.


GENERAL MOTORS: PA Court Notifies Public of Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County has authorized
that notices be issued to those people who bought certain new GM
vehicles from Pennsylvania GM Dealers.

The notices are a result of the Court establishing or
"certifying," in October 2001, a class action lawsuit against
General Motors Corporation involving Pennsylvania car buyers and
GM's "Marketing Initiative" programs. The lawsuit is entitled
Soders v. General Motors Corp., No. CI-00-04255 (C.P. Lancaster
County). The case will proceed to a trial.

The lawsuit includes people, called a "Plaintiff Class," who
purchased at retail from a Pennsylvania GM dealer, a new vehicle
that was made or distributed by the Chevrolet, GMC Truck,
Cadillac, Oldsmobile, Buick, or Pontiac divisions of GM. For a
person to be included in the Plaintiff Class, the dealer from
whom the new vehicle was bought must have purchased the new
vehicle from GM or any of its divisions on or before March 31,
1999, but after September 1, 1998 for Chevrolet or GMC Truck
vehicles; July 1, 1989 for Cadillac or Oldsmobile vehicles; July
1, 1990 for Pontiac vehicles; and August 1, 1990 for Buick
vehicles. The Plaintiff Class does not include GM employees who
purchased vehicles under the GM Employee Purchase Plan, GM
qualified fleet purchasers, government entities, or attorneys of
record in this case.

The representative Plaintiff in the lawsuit alleges that GM
violated the Pennsylvania Board of Vehicles Act by adding 1% of
the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price ("MSRP") to the
invoice of certain new vehicles that it sold to dealers, and
requiring that the additional 1% be used for advertising. The
Plaintiff alleges that the 1% charge was passed on to customers
when they purchased their vehicles, and is asking for this
amount to be paid back to all Class members.

General Motors denies any wrongdoing, and contends that it only
increased the wholesale price of its vehicles in the amount of
1% of the MSRP. General Motors further contends that the dealers
did not necessarily pass on the charge to each purchaser.

A date has not yet been set for the trial.

The Plaintiff Class will be represented by attorneys Joseph F.
Roda and Michele Stawinski of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, serving
as Class Counsel.

For more details, contact Joseph F. Roda and Michele Stawinski
of Roda Nast, PC by Mail: 801 Estelle Drive, Lancaster, PA 17601
by Phone: (717) 892-3000 by Fax: (717) 892-1200 or
1-888-245-0200 or visit the firm's Web site:
http://www.rodanast.com/or the litigation Web site:
http://www.onepercentcase.com


GLIATECH INC.: SEC Lodges Complaint V. Ex-VP Derrick S. McKinley
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint for
insider trading violations against Derrick S. McKinley
(McKinley), a former vice president and medical director of
Gliatech, Inc. (Gliatech), a pharmaceutical company.

The complaint alleges McKinley sold Gliatech stock while in
possession of material, non-public information concerning
problems with Gliatech's primary product, Adcon-L, a gel used to
reduce scarring in patients following back surgery. During 1999
and 2000, McKinley sold short 221,000 shares of Gliatech stock
in a series of transactions, reaping profits of approximately
$1.6 million.

From the outset of his trading, McKinley was aware of three
major problems involving Adcon-L.  By August 1999, McKinley knew
that a study of Adcon-L clinical trials (Adcon-L Study)
submitted by Gliatech to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
(FDA) suffered from defects that undermined its reliability;
knew of sterility problems resulting from defective packaging by
the overseas contractor Gliatech hired to manufacture Adcon-L;
and knew of complaints of cerebral spinal fluid leaks (CSF
leaks) in patients following surgeries in which Adcon-L had been
used. When each of these three adverse developments became
publicly known, the price of Gliatech stock dropped. McKinley
profited from each of these three declines in the price of
Gliatech stock.

McKinley violated the antifraud provisions 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
is seeking an injunction, disgorgement and a civil penalty
against McKinley. The action is titled, SEC v. Derrick S.
McKinley, USDC, N.D. Ohio, Civil Action No. 1: 04CV 1643] (LR-
18832).


HALLIBURTON: Scott + Scott Provide Securities Litigation Updates
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, a member of the Executive
Committee in the Halliburton Securities Litigation (NYSE: HAL),
represents one of four Lead Plaintiffs, the non-profit AMS Fund,
Inc. provides updates on the ongoing litigation.

This update is to inform Class Members of their right to object
to the proposed settlement and /or support the position of Lead
Plaintiff, AMS Fund, Inc. Objections to the settlement may be
made, at no cost to the Class Member, by filling out the form on
the firm's web site (to be posted by 10:00 AM ET) and sending it
to Scott + Scott, LLC, either via facsimile or the e-mail
provided below. Class Members may also, but are not obligated
to, appear at the hearing on August 26, 2004, to voice their
objection.

Lead Counsel and the two other Executive Committee firms and
their Lead Plaintiffs have received preliminary approval per
Judge David Godbey on a settlement of this securities class
action with Halliburton for $6 million on behalf of a class of
purchasers from May 18, 1998 through and including May 28, 2002.
These lawyers have also requested fees of up to 1/3 of the $6
million ($2 million). Lead Plaintiff AMS Fund, Inc., objects to
this settlement as it confers no benefit upon the class and
because the diminimus amount of the settlement is far below the
hundreds of millions of dollars allegedly lost by class members.
Its attorneys, Scott + Scott, LLC, stated on the record that
should this settlement be approved, Scott + Scott, LLC, will not
request or accept a fee should it be approved and withstand all
further remedies available. Scott + Scott, LLC, was the only
firm to relinquish any fees involved in this settlement. AMS
Fund, Inc. its attorneys Scott + Scott, LLC and others believe
the settlement to be inadequate and unfair to the Class Members.
Lead Plaintiff, AMS Fund, Inc. is pursuing this case vigorously
and will take all necessary measures to protect the class's due
process rights.

Lead Plaintiff AMS Fund, Scott + Scott's client, reported its
concerns to the Court by appearance and affidavit last August.
It has made its position regarding the inadequacy of the
litigation by Lead Counsel known since at least May 2003. Its
desire to litigate this case is proven by its continued
investigation and filing of updated complaints that specifically
set out in great detail the fraud that Halliburton committed.
Lead Counsel and the other two Executive Committee firms have
requested up to 33 1/3 percent of this settlement for fees and
costs. Therefore, after costs and other fees are deducted, class
members, if they qualify, might receive about a half of one cent
per share for their losses. As an example, one Lead Plaintiff,
Private Asset Management of San Diego, has claimed its loss to
be as much as $800,000. Under the proposed settlement, Private
Asset Management will receive about $40.00 (forty dollars). By
contrast, its attorneys, Schiffrin and Barroway, have requested
about $2 million in fees and costs. The four Court-Appointed
Lead Plaintiffs have a fiduciary duty to protect the class
members. This objecting Lead Plaintiff has done this by advising
the Court of serious problems and by refusing to sign any
document that would deny any class member of his/her or its
rights.

The firm is calling upon Class Members who wish to support the
objection to the settlement to be made by AMS Fund, Inc., and
its counsel Scott + Scott, LLC, that they must lodge their
objection to the proposed settlement and express their support
for opposition by August 18, 2004.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC by Phone: 800/404-
7770 by Fax: (619) 233-0508 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-
scott.com or HalliburtonSecuritiesLitigationObjection@scott-
scott.com


IMPATH INC.: Investors Must File Claims in NY Bankruptcy Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") is the court appointed lead counsel in
the securities fraud class action In re Impath Securities
Litigation, Case No. 03 Civ. 5667 (DAB), which is currently
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Lerach Coughlin wishes to inform all persons who purchased the
common stock of Impath, Inc. ("Impath") (NASDAQ:IMPH) between
February 21, 2001 and July 29, 2003, inclusive (the "Class
Period") that Impath is currently liquidating its assets
pursuant to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In order to receive
proceeds of that liquidation to which they may be entitled,
Lerach Coughlin encourages all purchasers of Impath stock during
the Class Period to file proof of claim forms in the bankruptcy
action, In re Impath, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-16113(PCB),
pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 or by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com


INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CA Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Invision Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated shareholder fraud class action fileda gainst it and
each of its directors in the California Superior Court for the
County of Alameda.

On March 19, 2004, two alleged holders of InVision common stock
filed purported class actions.  The complaints name as
defendants each of the Company's directors as well as the
Company.  The complaints allege that, in pursuing the
transaction with General Electric Company (GE) and approving the
merger agreement, the directors violated their fiduciary duties
to the holders of InVision common stock by, among other things,
failing to obtain the highest price reasonably available,
tailoring the terms of the transaction to meet GE's needs,
engaging in self-dealing and obtaining personal financial
benefits not shared equally by the plaintiffs and other
stockholders.  The complaints also allege that the merger
agreement resulted from a flawed process designed to ensure a
sale to one buyer.

The lawsuits have been consolidated by stipulation of the
parties under one lead case, Waltman, et al. v. InVision
Technologies, Inc., et al., Lead Case No. RG04146722.  On May 3,
2004, InVision and three directors filed a demurrer to the
consolidated complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed
to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action.  The
remaining five directors filed a motion to quash the service of
summons because they are not California residents, and,
therefore, the court lacks jurisdiction over them.

On May 25, 2004, in response to the demurrer, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting
similar causes of action, thereby rendering the demurrer moot.
The plaintiffs served initial written discovery requests and
following the May 26, 2004 Initial Complex Case Management
Conference, the plaintiffs were permitted limited expedited
discovery for the purpose of a bringing a motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On June 17, 2004, prior to the filing of any motion for a
preliminary injunction, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the consolidated class action suit.
Under the terms of the memorandum, InVision and the plaintiffs
to the consolidated action have agreed, subject to approval by
the court, to enter into a settlement with respect to all claims
raised by the plaintiffs to the consolidated action.  The terms
of the settlement contemplated by the memorandum require that
additional disclosures be made concerning the merger.  The
disclosures were made available in the June 18, 2004 joint press
release issued by GE Infrastructure and InVision.

The parties also agreed that the plaintiffs may seek attorneys'
fees and costs in the amount of $450,000 that InVision will pay,
if the attorney's fees and costs are granted by the court.
There will be no other settlement payment by InVision, GE or any
of the members of InVision's board of directors, who were also
named as defendants in the lawsuits.  The court's preliminary
hearing to approve the settlement is currently scheduled for
August 24, 2004, at which time the court is expected to set a
date for a final approval hearing.


KVH INDUSTRIES: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
KVH Industries, Inc. and certain of its officers face securities
class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Rhode Island alleging violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities.

Sekuk Global Enterprises filed the first suit, asserting claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's securities between January 6, 2004,
and July 2, 2004.

Similar complaints were filed on July 27, 2004 and July 30,
2004.  The civil action brought on July 27, 2004 identifies a
class period from October 1, 2003 through July 2, 2004 and the
civil action brought on July 30, 2004 identifies a class period
from January 6, 2004 through July 2, 2004.


MACATAWA BANK: MI Modifies Stay of Fraud Suit To Allow Discovery
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Western
Michigan modified the stay of the class action filed against
Macatawa Bank Corporation, to allow plaintiffs to engage in
limited discovery.

In May 2003, a purported class action complaint was filed by
Forrest W. Jenkins and Russell S. Vail against the Company and
against LaSalle Bank Corporation on behalf of investors who
invested in limited liability companies formed by Trade
Partners.

On November 6, 2003, the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend
their complaint to expand the purported class to include all
individuals who invested in Trade Partners viatical investments.
The class has not been certified.  The court stayed this action
to avoid interference with the process of the receivership
proceedings, though the stay was modified on July 19, 2004 to
permit the Company and plaintiffs to engage in certain limited
discovery directed to each other.

The plaintiffs allege that Grand Bank breached certain escrow
agreements, breached its fiduciary duties, acted negligently or
grossly negligently with respect to the plaintiff's investments
and violated the Michigan Uniform Securities Act.  The amended
complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action,
unspecified damages and other relief.


NATIONWIDE FINANCIAL: Asks Court To Grant Suit Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut to grant summary
judgment in their favor in the class action filed against it and
Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLIC), entitled "Lou Haddock,
as trustee of the Flyte Tool & Die, Incorporated Deferred
Compensation Plan, et al v. Nationwide Financial Services, Inc.
and Nationwide Life Insurance Company."

The plaintiffs first amended their complaint on September 5,
2001 to include class action allegations and have subsequently
amended their complaint three times.  As amended, in the current
complaint the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) qualified retirement
plans that purchased variable annuities from NLIC.

The plaintiffs allege they invested ERISA plan assets in their
variable annuity contracts and that the Company breached ERISA
fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments from
certain mutual funds.  The complaint seeks disgorgement of some
or all of the payments allegedly received by the Company, other
unspecified relief for restitution, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.

On December 13, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The plaintiffs filed a supplement to that motion
on September 19, 2003.  The Company opposed that motion on
December 24, 2003.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Consumer Suit Remand To IL State Court Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved to remand the class action filed against
Nationwide Life Insurance Company (NLIC), styled "Woodbury v.
National Life Insurance Company," to the Circuit Court, Third
Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, where it was
initially filed.

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons in the
United States who, through their ownership of a Nationwide
annuity or insurance product, held units of any Nationwide sub-
account invested in mutual funds which included foreign
securities in their portfolios and which allegedly experienced
market timing trading activity.  The complaint contains
allegations of negligence, reckless indifference and breach of
fiduciary duty.  The plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and
punitive damages in an amount not to exceed $75,000 per
plaintiff or class member.  The Company removed this case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on June 1, 2004.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal AZ Consumer Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consumer class action
filed against Nationwide Life Insurance Company, styled "Robert
Helman et al v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company, et al," to
the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit, pending in the United States District Court in
Arizona, challenges the sale of deferred annuity products for
use as investments in tax-deferred contributory retirement
plans.  On April 8, 2004, the plaintiff filed an amended class
action complaint on behalf of all persons who purchased an
individual variable deferred annuity contract or a certificate
to a group variable annuity contract issued by NLIC or
Nationwide Life and Annuity Insurance Company (NLAIC) which were
allegedly used to fund certain tax-deferred retirement plans.
The amended class action complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages.

NLIC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 24, 2004.
On July 27, 2004, the court granted NLIC's motion to dismiss.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of LA Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Louisiana's dismissal of the class action
filed against Nationwide Life Insurance Company, styled "Edward
Miller, Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company."

The complaint alleges that in 2001, plaintiff Edward Miller
purchased three group modified single premium variable annuities
issued by NLIC.  The plaintiff alleges that NLIC represented in
its prospectus and promised in its annuity contracts that
contract holders could transfer assets without charge among the
various funds available through the contracts, that the transfer
rights of contract holders could not be modified and that NLIC's
expense charges under the contracts were fixed.

The plaintiff claims that NLIC has breached the contracts and
violated federal securities laws by imposing trading fees on
transfers that were supposed to have been without charge.  The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and rescission on behalf of
himself and a class of persons who purchased this type of
annuity or similar contracts issued by NLIC between May 1, 2001
and April 30, 2002 inclusive and were allegedly damaged by
paying transfer fees.

The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted by the
Court on October 28, 2003.  The plaintiff has appealed that
dismissal to the United Stated Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit.


NEIGHBORS COFFEE: Recalls More Flavors Due To Undeclared Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neighbors Coffee of Oklahoma City, OK, announced a recall of 25
flavors of whole bean, nut flavored coffees that contain
undeclared peanuts, hazelnuts, almonds, and/or pecans. Recalled
coffee includes Caffeinated, European Decaffeinated, and Swiss
Water Decaffeinated whole bean, nut flavored coffees in 8 oz, 12
oz, 1 lb., and 5 lb. packaging. Neighbors Coffee announces today
the expansion of this recall to include 2 lb. bulk packages of
caffeinated and decaffeinated Amaretto Tea and Cherry Almond Tea
because the teas contain undeclared almonds. People who have
allergies to peanuts and/or tree nuts run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these coffee
and tea products.

Recalled teas were sold nationwide in bulk bins at retail
stores. Recalled teas were also sold by mail order, Internet,
and telephone orders. The Amaretto Tea and Cherry Almond Tea
were produced from 2-12-04 through 8-12-04. Both teas, packaged
in 2 pound bags, are marked with lot numbers 0434 through 2254
on the front, bottom center of the package.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
almond-containing teas were distributed in packaging that did
not declare almonds as an ingredient. No illnesses have been
reported to date as a result of this labeling error.

Neighbors Coffee has corrected the problem by voluntarily
eliminating any and all tree nut additives in their flavored
teas.

Consumers with allergies to almonds who have purchased Amaretto
or Cherry Almond bulk tea are urged to return them to the place
of purchase for an exchange or full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-299-9016.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits in MO Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Novastar Financial, Inc. and several of its executive officers
and/or directors face a number of substantially similar class
action lawsuits and three derivative lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court in Kansas City and in Missouri
state court.

The complaints generally claim that the defendants are liable
for making or failing to prevent alleged misstatements or
omissions in the Company's public disclosures.  The complaints
charge defendants with issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period in
violation of sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
Rule 10b-5.  The complaints further allege that NovaStar issued
press releases, and false financial reports with the SEC,
reporting alleged record growth, supposedly on the strength of
its core business.

The Company believes these claims are without merit, the Company
said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


OHIO: Female Juveniles Lodges Suit V. Facility, Youth Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several female juveniles initiated a class action lawsuit
against officers at the Scioto Juvenile Correctional Facility
and the Ohio Department of Youth Services claiming they suffered
physical abuse while in state custody, NBC 4 reports.

According to one of four girls involved in the suit, they were
being physically assaulted by correction officers, she herself
broke had her arm broken in a scuffle with one of the officers.
The girl, hiding under the name Dezarea spoke to NBC 4 on the
condition of anonymity is serving a sentence for arson and
burglary. An investigation however concluded that the incident
described by the girl was unsubstantiated.

The lawsuit also claims that another girl was sexually assaulted
with the correction officer involved in the allegation already
convicted of sexual battery and is now serving time.

According to state officials since the accusations surfaced
earlier this year they have wasted no time investigating and
making changes as a result of the allegations. The officials
also stated that LeRoy Payton, a career corrections
administrator was appointed to take control of the worsening
situation at the juvenile facility and since his appointment
fired about 12 employees.

Female juveniles interviewed by NBC 4 at the facility feel that
the new superintendent has already made improvements. According
to Dezarea, "Ever since Mr. Payton has arrived, he's changed a
lot, whenever he hears of an incident, he gets involved, and it
usually helps."


PACIFIC PREMIER: Limited Discovery Completed For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Very limited discovery was completed for the class action filed
against Pacific Premier Bancorp, Inc., certain former officers
and current and former directors and certain other third
parties, styled "Funke v. Life Financial, et al.," in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit asserts claims against the defendants under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended in connection with the sale of the
Company's common stock in its 1997 public offering.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages in their complaint.

Following a motion to dismiss, the court dismissed plaintiff's
claim for violation of Section 10b of the Exchange Act.
Plaintiff's sole remaining cause of action is based on an
alleged violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act.  The
court has not certified the class nor has the court set a trial
date.


PANTRY INC.: Current, Former Employees Launch Wage Lawsuit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
Automobile retailer The Pantry, Inc. faces a summons and
complaint styled "Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley
Clark, Tracie Hunt, Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert
Breeden, LaCentia Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, on behalf of
themselves and on behalf of classes of those similarly situated
vs. The Pantry, Inc.," filed in the Superior Court for Forsyth
County, State of North Carolina.

The suit seeks class action status and asserts claims on behalf
of The Pantry's North Carolina present and former employees for
unpaid wages under the North Carolina Wage and Hour laws.  The
suit also seeks an injunction against any unlawful practices,
damages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company believes its employment policies and procedures
comply with applicable law, it stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The Company is presently in
the preliminary stages of its investigation into this matter.


PRIME GROUP: Faces Possible Inclusion in Winstar's Damage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Group Realty Trust might be named as a defendant in the
lawsuit filed against a number of commercial real estate
companies and the Building Owners and Managers Association of
New York (BOMA) by Winstar Communications, LLC and Winstar of
New York LLC.  The suit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The suit asserts claims for certain alleged violations of
federal and state antitrust laws and a declaratory judgment that
the defendants are precluded from terminating Winstar's building
access or interfering with Winstar's communications operations
until Winstar is permitted to lawfully discontinue service.  The
suit seeks damages, attorney's fees, and a declaratory judgment.

The claims are premised upon allegations that the real estate
firms, through and with BOMA, colluded and agreed to charge
Winstar disadvantageous and discriminatory fees that were higher
than those charged to the incumbent local telephone companies.
As a result of this alleged collusive conduct, Winstar claims
that it has been damaged in its ability to provide competitive
telecommunications services to customers leasing office space in
the defendants' commercial real estate properties.

The Company is not a named defendant in this litigation, but
Winstar is attempting to have certified a class action of
defendants consisting of all companies having agreements with
Winstar for access to buildings and Winstar has identified the
Company as a member of that defendant class.  In separate
correspondence to the Company, Winstar has alleged potential
damages in excess of $2 billion against the defendant class.


REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Upholds Stay of Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Washington Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling
granting a stay in the consumer class action filed against
RealNetworks, Inc., pending arbitration on an individual,
non-class basis.

In March 2003, William Cirignani filed the suit against the
Company in Washington state court, alleging causes of action
based on the Washington Consumer Protection Act and unjust
enrichment.  The plaintiff alleges that consumers who attempted
to download or purchase certain of the Company's products and
services were fraudulently and deceptively enrolled in, and
prevented from canceling, the Company's subscription services.
The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages, equitable relief in
the form of an order prohibiting the alleged false and deceptive
practices, treble damages and other relief.


STILLWATER MINING: MT Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Montana
continues to hear Stillwater Mining Co.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its senior behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired common stock of the company from
April 20, 2001 through and including April 1, 2002.

The suit, initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, asserts claims against
the company and certain of its officers under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Plaintiffs
challenge the accuracy of certain public disclosures made by the
company regarding its financial performance and, in particular,
its accounting for probable ore reserves.

In October 2002, defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and
to transfer the case to federal district court in Montana.  The
motion to transfer the case was granted on May 9, 2003, and the
case is now pending in the federal district court in Montana.
On January 30, 2004, the court held a status conference at which
time the plaintiffs were given until March 30, 2004 to file a
second amended complaint, which the plaintiffs subsequently
filed.  Pursuant to a briefing schedule set by the court,
defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
complaint on May 14, 2004, and plaintiffs filed their opposition
on June 14, 2004.  Defendants filed their reply on June 28,
2004.  The hearing on the motion to dismiss has been continued
from July 22, 2004 to August 27, 2004.

On June 20, 2002, a stockholder derivative lawsuit was filed
against the company (as a nominal defendant) and its directors
in state court in Delaware.  It arises out of allegations
similar to the class actions and seeks damages allegedly on
behalf of the stockholders of Stillwater for breach of fiduciary
duties by the directors.  No relief is sought against the
company which is named as a nominal defendant.  The parties have
agreed to suspend activity in this matter pending the outcome of
the motion to dismiss in the above referenced class action suit.


STIMSON LUMBER: WA Forestex Settlement Notification Initiated
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Court-ordered notification has been initiated in order to
inform property owners in the western United States about a
proposed settlement of a class action lawsuit about Forestex
hardboard siding manufactured by Stimson Lumber Company (titled
Gardner v. Stimson Lumber Company, No. 00-2-17633-3SEA). The
settlement is being overseen by Judge Mary I. Yu of the Superior
Court of Washington, in and for King County.

The settlement includes all those who have owned or own property
on which Forestex siding has been incorporated or installed in
the states of Washington, Oregon, California, Idaho, Utah,
Colorado, and Hawaii since January 1, 1985. The settlement will
pay all qualified claims for specific kinds of siding damage,
including certain thickness swelling, edge checking, buckling,
warping, softness, wax bleed, delamination, and welting.

Notices are scheduled to appear in newspaper supplements and
regional editions of magazines, as well as mailed to those with
known addresses, leading up to a court hearing on November 12,
2004, when the Court will consider whether to approve the
settlement. Those affected by the settlement can object to any
part of it by November 5, 2004. Later, more notices will appear
on TV telling those included how they may get claim forms.

Forestex hardboard siding - made to look like conventional wood
siding - was made until 1997 from wood fiber, wax, and resins,
in both lap (board) and panel (sheet) styles. Forestex siding
has a stamp on the back with the number AHA 05.

After the settlement is approved, a claims process will begin
and claim forms will be issued to those who request them now.
Payment amounts will be determined by a formula that takes into
account siding damage in relation to wall size, siding square
footage, the age of the siding, and whether it was properly
installed. Payments will vary but could provide money to replace
some or all of the siding on a wall or an entire home.

For more details, contact Forestex Claims by Mail: P.O. Box
1371, Minneapolis, MN 55440-1371 by Phone: 1-800-427-2763 or
visit the litigation Web site: http://www.forestexclaims.com


UNITED STATES: New FLSA Rules To Take Effect August 23, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
New federal rules affecting employee overtime take effect August
23, forcing employers across the country to review employees'
status to determine whether they fall within the exempt or
nonexempt categories to receive overtime. The revision to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is estimated by the Department
of Labor to make overtime available for 1.3 million low-wage
workers, while removing overtime eligibility for some workers
making $100,000 or more annually and are executive,
administrative, professional and outside sales employees.

"In recent years, FLSA collective action lawsuits have been the
most common type of class action lawsuit," said Michael A.
Alaimo, an attorney at Miller, Canfield, Paddock and Stone,
P.L.C. and a 15-year veteran in wage and hour investigations and
litigation. "The Department of Labor has promised to vigorously
enforce the new rules starting August 23. It is therefore
critical for business owners, managers and key personnel to
ensure that their companies are complying with the law when the
deadline arrives."

Last year, when the new regulations were first proposed and made
available for public comment, the Michigan-based law firm of
Miller Canfield offered suggestions to the Department of Labor
regarding the proposed revisions; some of which were
subsequently incorporated in the final rules. Since the
Department promulgated the final regulations on April 23, 2004,
the firm has been helping clients comply with the new
requirements.

Federal law requires employers to pay employees time and a half
for all hours worked in excess of the 40-hour work week, unless
those employees are "exempt." According to Alaimo, even
conscientious employers can sometimes be tripped up by
requirements that are buried in the 500 or so pages of
regulations that govern compliance under the FLSA. For example,
employers sometimes rely heavily on an employee's job
description in deciding whether they perform exempt duties.
However, it is an employee's actual duties that are paramount.
Where the actual job duties are found to be non-exempt the
employer may be liable for unpaid overtime for up to three
years.

"Such mistakes can be costly. The statute allows for recovery of
back wages and an equal amount in liquidated damages as well as
attorney fees," said Alaimo. "Employers should take a proactive
approach to make sure their company is in compliance in order to
avoid expensive litigation or a Department of Labor audit."

Ensuring appropriate pay policies are established and followed,
conducting periodic FLSA training, auditing job descriptions,
carefully reviewing duties performed by exempt employees,
ensuring that all hours worked by non-exempt employees are
recorded accurately, and periodically consulting with a labor
attorney are among the key elements to avoiding FLSA liability.

The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes minimum wage, overtime
pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-
time and part-time workers in the private sector and federal,
state, and local governments.


UTAH MEDICAL: Enjoined By FDA From Distributing Medical Devices
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeks to permanently
enjoin Utah Medical Products, Inc. (Utah Medical), of Midvale,
Utah, from manufacturing and distributing medical devices until
the firm has demonstrated that it has corrected deviations from
Current Good Manufacturing Practice, as set forth in the Quality
System regulation.

The Quality System regulation establishes requirements for the
methods, facilities, and controls used in the production of
medical devices.  Utah Medical manufactures a variety of medical
devices used in obstetrics, gynecology, neonatal intensive care,
urology, electro-surgery, and blood pressure monitoring.

Failure to comply with the Quality System regulation does not
necessarily mean that a particular device will be defective, but
a firm's failure to comply with the regulation decreases the
level of assurance that its products are safe and effective.
"FDA will not tolerate manufacturing practices that can
potentially put patients at risk," said FDA Acting Commissioner
Dr. Lester M. Crawford. "Patients have a right to expect that
the medical devices used to treat them are safe and effective."

The government's complaint was filed by the United States
Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Utah. In addition to Utah Medical, the complaint
names as defendants Kevin L. Cornwell, the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, and Ben D. Shirley, the Quality Manager and
Vice President of Engineering.

The government took this action after a series of FDA
inspections over the past three years revealed a pattern of
significant deviations from the Quality System regulation at
Utah Medical's Midvale facility. During the most recent
inspection, conducted between February 3 and March 3, 2004 , FDA
investigators found a variety of problems, including the failure
to establish that manufacturing processes were adequately
controlled, and the failure to have an effective system to
identify and correct manufacturing problems.

Despite repeated warnings from the FDA, including a Warning
Letter following one of the inspections, Utah Medical has
consistently failed to ensure that its products are manufactured
in accordance with the Quality System regulation.


VITALWORKS INC.: CT Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
has fully briefed, but not yet released a decision on
VitalWorks, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against it and three of its officers and
directors, on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during
the class period of January 24, 2002 to October 23, 2002.

Plaintiffs have asserted claims against the defendants under
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and against
the individual defendants under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act.  According to the Consolidated Complaint, the defendants
are alleged to have made materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period concerning the Company's
products and financial forecasts.

In addition, the Consolidated Complaint alleges the individual
defendants acted as controlling persons in connection with the
Company's alleged securities law violations. Compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys'
fees and experts' fees and other costs, as well as other relief
the Court may deem just and proper are sought.

On November 14, 2003, the defendants filed with the Court a
motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and (9)(b).  At this time,
discovery is automatically stayed under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act and no class has been certified.


WELLS CAPITAL: GA State Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Gwinnett County Superior Court in Georgia dismissed the
class action filed against Wells Capital, Inc. relating to Wells
Real Estate Fund I, a public limited partnership that offered
units from September 6, 1984 through September 5, 1986.  The
suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Leo F. Wells, III,

     (2) Wells Investment Services, Inc. (WIS),

     (3) Wells Management Company, Inc., and

     (4) Wells Fund I

The suit, styled "Hendry et al. v. Leo F. Wells, III et al.,
Superior Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia, Civil Action No. 04-
A-2791 2," was filed on behalf of all limited partners holding B
Units of Wells Fund I as of January 15, 2003, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (May 13,2004) states.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that:

     (i) during the offering period (September 6, 1984 through
         September 5, 1986), Mr. Wells, Wells Capital, Wells
         Investment Securities and Wells Fund I negligently or
         fraudulently made false statements and made material
         omissions in connection with the initial sale of the B
         Units to investors of Wells Fund I by making false
         statements and omissions in the Wells Fund I sales
         literature relating to the distribution of net sale
         proceeds to holders of B Units;

    (ii) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital and Wells Fund I negligently
         or fraudulently misrepresented and concealed disclosure
         of, among other things, alleged discrepancies between
         such statements and the provisions in the partnership
         agreement for a period of time in order to delay such
         investors from taking any legal, equitable or other
         action to protect their investments in Wells Fund I,
         among other reasons; and

   (iii) Mr. Wells, Wells Capital and Wells Fund I breached
         their fiduciary duties to the limited partners.


WILD OATS: Court To Hear Hepatitis A Suit Certification Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court, British Columbia, Canada will hear in
September 2004 Wild Oats Markets Canada, Inc.'s appeal of the
certification filed against it, as successor to Alfalfa's
Canada, Inc., styled "Helen Fakhri and Ady Aylon, as
Representative Plaintiffs v. Alfalfa's Canada, Inc."

The suit was filed on behalf of two classes of plaintiffs and
those who contracted Hepatitis A allegedly through the
consumption of food purchased at a Capers Community Market in
the spring of 2002, and those who were inoculated against
Hepatitis A as a result of news alerts by Capers and the
Vancouver Health Authority.  In the fourth quarter of 2003, the
case was certified as a class action by the court.


WORLDCOM INC.: ERISA Settlement Hearing Set October 15, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement on the matter In Re WorldCom, Inc. ERISA Litigation
on behalf of all Persons who were participants in the Plan
(including predecessors to the Plan) at any time from September
14, 1998 to July 21, 2002 ("Class Period"), and, as to each such
Person his, her or its beneficiaries, or alternate payees
(including spouses of deceased Persons who were Plan
participants).

The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing that will occur on
October 15, 2004 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

For more details, contact Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq. or Garry A.
Gotto, Esq. of Keller Rohrback, LLP by Mail: 1201 Third Avenue,
Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101-3052 by Phone: (800) 892-6230 by
Fax: (206) 623-3384 by E-mail: wcom@kellerrohrback.com


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Stock Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against Baxter International, Inc. ("Baxter" or the
"Company") (NYSE:BAX) and certain of its officers, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of all persons or entities who purchased Baxter
securities from April 19, 2001 through July 21, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges the 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 securities.

More specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed
to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

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

     (2) that the overstatement occurred because the Company
         improperly and "incorrectly" recognized $40 million in
         revenues and maintained inadequate and "incorrect"
         provisions for bad debts relating to its Brazilian
         operations;

     (3) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
         results were in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

     (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results, including its net income figures, were
         materially and artificially inflated at all relevant
         times.

On July 22, 2004, Baxter announced that it planned to restate
its financial results for the years 2001 through 2003, and for
the first quarter of 2004. The restatement was primarily the
result of incorrect revenue recognition and inadequate
provisions for bad debts in Brazil during that period, which
would result in a decrease in net income over the restatement
period by an amount expected to be no more than $40 million, or
$0.07 per diluted share. News of this shocked the market. Shares
of Baxter fell $1.48 per share, or 4.59 percent, to close at
$30.79 per share on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas M.
Risen, 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 by Fax: (215) 875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit their Web site:
http://www.bergermontague.com


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Berman DeValerio Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Bennett Environmental,
Inc. ("Bennett" or the "Company") (AMEX:BEL) claiming that the
company and some of its top officers misled the investing public
by failing to disclose that a material contract was in jeopardy
and, as a result, the Company's contract backlog was
artificially inflated. The lawsuit seeks damages for violations
of federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
Bennett common stock from June 2, 2003 through and including
July 21, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

The complaint names as defendants: the Company; John Bennett,
who at all relevant times served as Bennett's Chairman; Allan
Bulckaert, who at all relevant times served as the Company's
President and Chief Executive Officer; Danny Ponn, who was at
all relevant times the Chief Operating Officer and Vice
President of Engineering; Richard Stern, who served as the Chief
Financial Officer, Secretary, and Treasurer; and Robert
Griffiths, who was at all relevant times Bennett's Vice
President for U.S. Sales and Marketing.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the U.S. Army
Corps had withdrawn its consent of a material contract and that
the contractor planned to rebid the contract. The complaint
alleges that despite defendants' knowledge or reckless disregard
that the contract was in jeopardy, defendants failed to disclose
the information to investors and continued to tout the contract
to the investing public.

On June 2, 2003, Bennett announced that it was awarded a
contract to treat 300,000 tons of soil contaminated with wood
treatment chemicals from Phase III of the Federal Creosote
Superfund Site in New Jersey (the "Phase III Contract"). The
Company reported that the Phase III Contract was valued at $200
million Canadian ("Cdn"), the largest contract in the Company's
history. Throughout the Class Period, Bennett issued positive
statements regarding the Phase III Contract and the Company's
financial growth and progress. In reality, however, defendants
knew or recklessly disregarded that the Phase III Contract was
in jeopardy and, as a result, that the Company's contract
backlog was artificially inflated, the lawsuits says.

On July 22, 2004, Bennett stunned the public when the Company
issued a press release announcing that it accepted a new,
reduced contract that was less favorable than the Phase III
Contract, providing for a maximum of only 100,000 tons of soil,
as compared to the 300,000 tons provided for in the Phase III
Contract. In response to the Company's announcement, the value
of Bennett's stock fell $2.13 (21%) from $9.93 on July 21, 2004
to close at $7.80 the following day.

For more details, contact Nicole R. Starr, Esq. of Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo by Mail: One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail:
law@bermanesq.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/BennettEnvironmental-Cplt.pdf


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges MN Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Ceridian Corporation (NYSE: CEN) ("Ceridian" or the "Company")
from April 17, 2003 through July 19, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Ceridian, Ronald L. Turner, and John R.
Eickhoff with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Ceridian is an information services company principally in the
human resource, transportation and retail markets. 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 improperly recognized $37 million in
         revenues in its SVS unit;

     (2) that the Company improperly accounted for the
         capitalization of upfront costs its US Human Resource
         Solutions business by capitalizing such costs rather
         than expensing them;

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

     (3) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

On July 19, 2004, Ceridian announced that it had postponed its
second quarter earnings release and related investors
teleconference and Webcast. The delay was prompted by the
Company's recent initiation of a review focusing on the
capitalization and expensing of certain costs in its U.S. Human
Resource Solutions business. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of fell $2.13 per share or 10.47 percent, on July 20,
2004, to close at $18.21 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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges MO Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Express Scripts, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESRX) ("Express
Scripts" or the "Company") from October 29, 2003 through August
3, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Express Scripts, Barrett Toan, George Paz,
and Edward Stiften with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Express Scripts is an independent pharmacy benefit
manager ("PBM") that provides integrated pharmacy benefit
management services, including network pharmacy claims
processing, mail pharmacy services, benefit design consultation,
drug utilization review and formulary management. 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 artificially inflated the cost of
         generic drugs;

     (2) that the Company diverted to itself millions of dollars
         worth of rebates that belonged to its participating
         customers;

     (3) that the Company induced, through fraud and deception,
         physicians to switch patients from one prescribed drug
         to another for which the Company received money from
         the drug's manufacturer;

     (4) that the aforementioned deceitful practices were in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
         ("GAAP");

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

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

On July 28, 2004, Express Scripts announced second quarter net
income of $65.4 million. In addition to discussing its fourth
quarter financial results, the Company announced that the
Company received a Notice of Proposed Litigation from the Office
of the Attorney General of the State of New York. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of Express Scripts fell $6.49 per
share or 9.03 percent, on July 29, 2004, to close at $65.36 per
share. On August 4, 2004, New York Attorney General's office
announced that it filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts for
conducting elaborate schemes that inflated by millions of
dollars the costs of prescription drugs to New York State's
largest employee health plan, the Empire Plan. On this news,
shares of Express Scripts fell an additional $1.37 per share or
2.15 percent, on August 4, 2004, to close at $62.48 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


KVH INDUSTRIES: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of KVH
Industries, Inc. ("KVH" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: KVHI) between
October 1, 2003 and July 2, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") against defendants KHV and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

The case name is Horner v. KVH Industries, Inc., et al. The
complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint further alleges that the statements defendants
made during the Class Period were materially false and
misleading when made because they failed to disclose or indicate
the following:

     (1) the Company had artificially inflated its third and
         fourth quarter earnings by stuffing distribution and
         inventory channels with overpriced TracVision A5
         systems. Consequently, the Company was forced to reduce
         the TracVision A5's retail price and, effectively,
         refund millions of dollars in purported sales revenues
         to its retail dealers in the form of "vendor purchase
         commitment charges" in order to promote sell-through of
         TracVision retail channel inventory;

     (2) the Company had not achieved any material cost
         reduction in the manufacturing of the TracVision A5 and
         would be forced to write-down its inventory of
         manufactured goods by millions of dollars;

     (3) KVH's retail marketing and sales programs purportedly
         aimed at the sell-through market for the TracVision A5
         were ineffective because the A5 was overpriced, causing
         the company to incur extra expenses and increased
         losses as inventories of unsold TracVision systems
         continued to grow through the Class Period which would
         have to be written down;

     (4) at the suggested retail price of $3,495, the TracVision
         A5 was priced too high for its intended market and,
         therefore, there was no reasonable basis for
         defendants' projected annual sales of 9,000 to 10,000
         units;

     (5) TracVision production and other related costs were so
         high that any price reduction would reduce margins to
         the extent that the product could not be sold
         profitably;

     (6) the cost reduction program was flawed and defendants
         were not able to control production and marketing
         costs;

     (7) as a result of the above, the defendants' opinions,
         projections, and forecasts concerning the Company and
         its ability to successfully market the TracVision A5
         lacked any reasonable basis when made.

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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Lovell Stewart Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP 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
and 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. If you purchased Ligand securities during the Class
Period, you may, no later than October 8, 2004, move to be
appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action. A Lead
Plaintiff is a representative, chosen by the Court, that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 directs Courts
to assume that the class member(s) with the "largest financial
interest" in the outcome of the case will best serve the class
in this capacity. Courts have discretion in determining which
class member(s) have the "largest financial interest," and have
appointed Lead Plaintiffs with substantial losses in both
absolute terms and as a percentage of their net worth.

For more details, contact David Leifer of Lovell Stewart
Halebian LLP - Shareholder Relations by Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue,
New York, NY 10110 by Phone: 212-608-1900 or by E-mail:
dleifer@lshllp.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Minnesota against The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. (NYSE:
STA) ("St. Paul Travelers") (formerly known as The St. Paul
Companies, Inc. or "St. Paul") and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, on behalf of former shareholders
of Travelers Property Casualty Corp.'s ("Travelers") Class A and
Class B common stock who acquired St. Paul's common stock
pursuant to a St. Paul registration statement filed with the SEC
in connection with St. Paul's stock-for stock merger with
Travelers on April 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that St. Paul's registration statement was
materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose
that

     (1) there were significant disparities between the
         accounting and actuarial methods of St. Paul and
         Travelers, requiring St. Paul Travelers to increase its
         claims reserves by $1.171 billion to conform St. Paul's
         less conservative accounting and actuarial methods to
         that of Travelers;

     (2) St. Paul's then existing exposure to certain adverse
         financial condition of a construction contractor, a
         reduction in reinsurance recoverables, and other
         similar conditions, required St. Paul Travelers to
         increase its claims reserves by an additional $466
         million; and

     (3) the aggregate $1.637 billion of required increase in
         claims reserves due to these existing but undisclosed
         facts relating to St. Paul would require St. Paul
         Travelers to record a significant charge to its income
         statement, adversely impacting earnings.

The true facts were disclosed to the market on July 23, 2004,
when St. Paul Travelers revealed that certain conditions
relating to St. Paul required the Company to increase its claims
reserves by $1.6 billion. On August 5, 2004, St. Paul Travelers
further announced that the required $1.6 billion increase in
claims reserves would result in an operating loss of $310
million or $0.47 per basic and diluted share for the quarter.

The per share closing price of St. Paul common stock was $40.77
on April 1, 2004, the date on which each share of Travelers'
Class A and Class B common stock was exchanged for 0.4334 share
of St. Paul common stock pursuant to the materially false or
misleading registration statement. By the time the true extent
of required reserve increase and its adverse impacts against St.
Paul Travelers were fully disclosed to the market on August 5,
2004, the per share price of St. Paul common stock had declined
by $6.02 or 14.77% to close at $34.75 on August 5, 2004 --
causing massive losses to former Travelers shareholders.

For more details, contact Robert C. Finkel Esq. of Wolf Popper
LLP by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone:
212-451-9620 or 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or
877-370-7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.wolfpopper.com


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Berger & Montague Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against Taro Pharmaceutical Industries ("Taro" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: TARO) 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 Taro
securities from February 20, 2003 through July 29, 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 securities.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented:

     (1) that many of the Company's largest generic drug
         wholesale customers were engaging in wholesale-to-
         wholesale trading activities in excess inventory of
         generic drug products, including Taro generic drug
         products, thus artificially inflating demand for and
         the price of the Company's products;

     (2) that the Company's reserves for product returns,
         rebates, charge-backs and other sales allowances were
         not adequate and failed to reflect the true operating
         risks associated with Taro's sales of generic drugs to
         its wholesale customers far in excess of the actual
         retail demand for such products;

     (3) that the Company was experiencing increased competitive
         pressures in its generic drugs business;

     (4) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its continued efforts to develop new
         proprietary drugs were exceedingly costly and were
         severely undermining the profitability of its generic
         drugs business, which could not support the demanding
         development efforts; and

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

According to the complaint, on July 29, 2004, prior to the
market opening, Taro issued a press release announcing that its
sales had declined to $49.1 million during the second quarter
ended June 30, 2004, a drop of more than 41% compared to Taro's
first quarter 2004 sales. The Company also reported a net loss
for the quarter of $8.9 million, or $0.31 per share, compared
with net income of $14.8 million, or $0.50 per diluted share,
for the year-ago quarter. On this news, Taro common shares fell
to a low of $18.05 per share before recovering to close at
$24.14 per share.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas M.
Risen, 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 by
Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit
their Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Wechsler Harwood Files NY Stock Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Taro Pharmaceuticals Industries (Nasdaq:TARO)
("Taro" and the "Company") from February 20, 2003 through July
29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Taro, Barrie Levitt, Aaron Levitt, Daniel
Moros, Samuel Rubinstein, and Kevin Connelly with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was unloading inventory onto
         wholesalers in order to make sales because it was
         experiencing increased competitive pressures in its
         generic drugs business thereby artificially inflating
         demand and, hence, the Company's overall financial
         results;

     (2) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its continued efforts to develop new
         proprietary drugs were exceedingly costly and were
         severely undermining the profitability of its generic
         drugs business, which could not support the demanding
         development efforts; and

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

On April 29, 2004, Taro reported financial results for the
Company's first quarter, ended March 31, 2004. Taro's first
quarter 2004 sales increased 22% to $84.1 million, compared with
sales of $69.0 million for the first quarter of 2003. Gross
profit in the first quarter of 2004 increased 27% to $56.4
million, or 67% of sales, compared with $44.4 million, or 64% of
sales, for the year-ago quarter. This news shocked the market.
Shares of Taro fell $16.88 per share or 27.16 percent, on April
29, 2004, to close at $45.26 per share. Then on July 29, 2004,
reported results for the Company's second quarter and six months
ended June 30, 2004. Taro's second quarter sales were $49.1
million, compared with $74.8 million in the second quarter of
2003. Gross profit for the quarter was $23.5 million, compared
with $50.0 million for the second quarter of 2003. On this news,
shares of Taro again fell $5.94 per share or 19.75 percent, on
July 29, 2004, to close at $24.14 per share.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 (ext. 286) by E-mail:
jmn@whesq.com or visit their Web site: http://www.whesq.com


US UNWIRED: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of
US Unwired, Inc. ("US Unwired" or the "Company") (OTC BB:
UNWR.OB) publicly traded securities during the period between
May 23, 2000 and August 13, 2002 (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 Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP by Phone:
800-449-4900 by E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/usunwired/


VISTACARE INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona 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").

The Complaint alleges that defendant violated the Securities
Exchange Act by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Vistacare securities. Throughout the Class Period, Vistacare
reported increased sales and overall growth and profitability in
publicly disseminated press releases and SEC filings, and
forecasted positive earnings and revenue targets.

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 Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. or Christine
A. Giovannelli, Esq. of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 18 East,
41st Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone: (212) 213-6222 by Fax:
(212) 213-9405 or by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *