CAR_Public/040819.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, August 19, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 164

                           Headlines

ARCH CHEMICALS: Inks Settlement For CCA-Treated Wood Litigation
AVICI SYSTEMS: Presents Formal Settlement Documents To NY Court
CARDINAL HEALTH: Murray Frank Files 401(K) ERISA Suit in S.D. OH
CENTRA SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve NY Lawsuit Settlement
COMMERCE BANCORP: Abraham Fruchter To File Amended Stock Lawsuit

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Wage Suit Settlement
COSTCO WHOLESALE: Impact Fund Lodges CA Sex Discrimination Suit
DIGITAL RIVER: Executes Final Settlement Of NY Securities Suit
DRUGSTORE.COM: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in W.D. WA
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Investors File Mutual Fund Fraud Lawsuits

FINDWHAT.COM: Faces CA Consumer Lawsuit Over Online Gambling Ads
FORD MOTOR: Canadian Law Firm Lodges Product Liability Lawsuit
GOLD FIELDS: OK Court Dismisses Several Claims in Property Suit
NORTHSTAR SECURITIES: Judge Dismisses All Charges V. Respondents
NORVERGENCE INC.: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Consumer Suit in NJ

PENNSYLVANIA: Lawyer Lodges Suit V. Treasury Department's Policy
PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Signs Agreement For Litigation Dismissal
PROGRESS ENERGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
REGISTER.COM: Reached Settlement For NY Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
REGISTER.COM: Distributes Coupons To Class Members in NY Lawsuit

REGISTER.COM: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
RETEK INC.: Presents Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
RETEK INC.: To Ask MN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SMITH BARNEY: Firm Says Class B Purchasers Can Recover Damages
VASO ACTIVE: SEC Lodges Settled Action in DC V. Firm, John Masiz

VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders File PA Securities Suits


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in NY
FLIGHT SAFETY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
NETOPIA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
PETMED EXPRESS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL

PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges VA Stock Suit
ST. PAUL TRAVELLERS: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in MN
ST. PAUL TRAVELLERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in MN
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
US UNWIRED: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA

VISTACARE INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in AZ


                         *********


ARCH CHEMICALS: Inks Settlement For CCA-Treated Wood Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arch Chemicals, Inc. and its chromated copper arsenate (CCA) -
formulating subsidiary Arch Wood Protection, Inc. reached a
settlement of individual lawsuits filed against them and several
other CCA manufacturers, over CCA-treated wood products.

Several CCA customers and various retailers filed five putative
class actions in various state and federal courts regarding the
marketing and use of CCA-treated wood.  Three of these cases
have been dismissed without prejudice.

In the fourth case (Jacobs v. Osmose, Inc. et. al.), the federal
district court has ruled that the requirements for a class
action have not been met and has denied class action status in
this case.  Subsequently, the court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal of their claims
against the Company, its subsidiaries and several other
defendants.  In March 2004, in the fifth putative class action
lawsuit (Ardoin v. Stine Lumber Company et. al.), the federal
district court has ruled that the requirements for a class
action have not been met and has denied class action status to
this case.

In July 2004, the parties reached agreement to settle the claims
of the individual plaintiffs for a nominal amount, and the case
was dismissed without prejudice pending the finalization of the
settlement.   In addition, there are fewer than ten other CCA-
related lawsuits in which the Company and/or one or more of the
Company's subsidiaries is involved.  These additional cases are
not putative class actions.  They are actions by individual
claimants alleging various personal injuries allegedly due to
exposure to CCA-treated wood.


AVICI SYSTEMS: Presents Formal Settlement Documents To NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avici Systems, Inc. has presented to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York formal settlement
documents for the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, one or more of its underwriters in its initial
public offering, and certain of its officers and directors.

The consolidated securities suit, captioned "In re Avici
Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (21
MC 92, 01 Civ. 3363 (SAS)," seeks unspecified damages and
alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including
among other things, that the underwriters of the company's IPO
improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters
excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of
Avici's stock in the aftermarket as conditions of receiving
shares in Avici's IPO.  The Complaint further claims that these
supposed practices of the underwriters should have been
disclosed in Avici's IPO prospectus and registration statement.

In addition to the Complaint against Avici, various other
plaintiffs have filed other substantially similar class action
cases against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies
and their IPO underwriters in New York City, which along with
the case against Avici have all been transferred to a single
federal district judge for purposes of case management.

On July 15, 2002, Avici, together with the other issuers named
as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a
collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints
against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of
the issuer defendants.  On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed
without prejudice all claims against the individual current and
former officers and directors who were named as defendants in
the Company's litigation, and they are no longer parties to the
lawsuit.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants.  In that ruling,
the Court granted in part and denied in part those motions.  As
to the claims brought against Avici under the antifraud
provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of
these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs
an opportunity to re-plead these claims against Avici.  As to
the claims brought under the registration provisions of the
securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be
pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as
to Avici and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants as well.  The Court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, Avici elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against Avici and against any of the other issuer
defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement,
together with the current or former officers and directors of
participating issuers who were named as individual defendants.
The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation against those defendants is continuing.

The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the
class action cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by
insurers of the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries
totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members
from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary
obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement
will be satisfied.  In addition, Avici and any other
participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to
the class members certain claims that they may have against the
underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.  Avici expects that its insurance proceeds
will be sufficient for these purposes and that it will not
otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed settlement.

The parties to the proposed settlement have drafted formal
settlement documents and requested preliminary approval by the
Court of the proposed settlement, including the form of the
notice of the proposed settlement that will be sent to members
of the proposed classes in each settling case.  Certain
underwriters who were named as defendants in the settling cases,
and who are not parties to the proposed settlement, have filed
an opposition to preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
of those cases.  If preliminary Court approval is obtained,
notice of the proposed settlement will be sent to the class
members, and a motion will then be made for final Court approval
of the proposed settlement.  Consummation of the proposed
settlement remains conditioned on, among other things, receipt
of both preliminary and final Court approval.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Murray Frank Files 401(K) ERISA Suit in S.D. OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank and Sailer LLP initiated a class
action a lawsuit against Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal" or
the "Company") (NYSE:CAH) in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio, for violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") in
relation to its handling of investments in the Company's
employee retirement benefit plan (the "Plan").

In particular, the investigation focuses on whether the Company
and certain Plan administrators breached their fiduciary duties
by:

     (1) negligently misrepresenting and negligently failing to
         disclose material facts to the Plan and the Plan
         participants in connection with the management of the
         Plan's assets and

     (2) negligently permitting the Plan to purchase and hold
         Cardinal stock when it was imprudent to do so.

The material facts being investigated include, but are not
limited to the allegations that, Cardinal failed to record, on a
timely basis, litigation claims it owed, causing its earnings
and assets to be artificially inflated. The Company also
allegedly misclassified non-operating revenues as operating,
giving a misleading picture of the Company to investors, and
improperly accounted for the $22 million recovered from vitamin
makers accused of overcharging Cardinal by booking such
recoveries as revenue when the antitrust cases had not been
resolved. Finally, it is alleged that defendants made
misleading, materially incomplete statements about its
transition to a fee-for-service model of drug distribution. On
June 21, 2004, Cardinal announced that it received a subpoena
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with a formal investigation announced on May 14, 2004. Cardinal
is also under investigation by the Department of Justice.

Cardinal's Chief Financial Officer, Richard J. Miller, abruptly
resigned his post yesterday after certain financial reporting
practices and judgments that occurred during his tenure had come
under increasing scrutiny in ongoing investigations. The Company
named J. Michael Losh in his place. It was also confirmed that
Cardinal Treasurer Donna Brandin left the Company. Following
this announcement, the stock closed at $44 per share after
trading as high as $76 per share in May.

In June, a number of class actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio against
the Company as well as Robert Walter and Richard Miller alleging
violations Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

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


CENTRA SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve NY Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centra Software, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
to the settlement of the securities class action filed against
it, Centra, certain of its officers and directors and the
managing underwriters of Centra's initial public offering.

The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on December 6, 2001
and purported to serve the Centra defendants on March 18, 2002.
The original complaint has been superseded by an amended
complaint (complaint) filed in April 2002.  The action,
captioned in re Centra Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 10988, which is being
coordinated with an action captioned in re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92, is purportedly
brought on behalf of the class of persons who purchased Centra's
common stock between February 3, 2000 and December
6, 2000.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, in
connection with Centra's initial public offering in February
2000, the underwriters received undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for allocating shares to them and
also agreed to allocate shares to certain customers in exchange
for the agreement of those customers to purchase additional
shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

The complaint asserts that Centra's registration statement and
prospectus for the offering were materially false and misleading
due to their failure to disclose these alleged arrangements.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount against
Centra and the named individuals.

The underwriter defendants and the Centra defendants joined in
motions to dismiss the above-reference action on July 3 and July
15, 2002, respectively.  On October 9, 2002, the plaintiffs
dismissed, without prejudice, the claims against the named
Centra officers and directors in the above-referenced action.
On February 19, 2003, the court issued an order denying the
motion to dismiss as to Centra and other defendants.  On June 7,
2003, the plaintiffs announced a proposed settlement with all
issuers, including Centra.

The court has not yet ruled on this motion. Centra plans to
participate in this settlement, which will be fully funded by
Centra's insurers.  The settlement is subject to finalization
and court approval.


COMMERCE BANCORP: Abraham Fruchter To File Amended Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP will include
additional information about possible improper actions by
Commerce Bancorp, Inc. ("Commerce Bancorp" or the "Company")
(NYSE: CBH), which is being investigated and may be included in
an amended complaint to be filed against Commerce Bancorp and
other defendants. Previously a securities fraud class action
complaint was filed on July 22, 2004 on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Commerce Bancorp
on the open market during the period from June 1, 2002 to June
28, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint, entitled Goldgrab v. Commerce Bancorp, et al.,
case no. 04-cv-3576 is pending before the Honorable Robert B.
Kugler in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, and names as defendants, in addition to Commerce
Bancorp, Vernon W. Hill, II, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer and Chairman of the Board; Ronald A. White, who was a
director of Commerce Bank of Pennsylvania ("Commerce PA") from
June 2002 until October 2003; Douglas J. Pauls, Chief Financial
Officer of Commerce Bancorp throughout the Class Period; Glenn
K. Holck, President of Commerce PA during the Class Period; and
Stephen M. Umbrell, a regional Vice President of Commerce PA
during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading representations and omissions in
Company press releases and public filings with the Securities
and Exchange Commission, primarily in connection with activities
that led to a criminal indictment that was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against
a number of individuals, including defendants White, Holck and
Umbrell.

Since the time the complaint was filed, additional information
has been discovered, which may be included in an amended
complaint against the defendants. The amended complaint may
include allegations that the Company has been improperly
capitalizing expenses, which caused its reported earnings to be
artificially increased. Commerce Bancorp seems to have reported
unusually high costs in connection with its opening of new
branches. These costs may have improperly included ordinary
expenses.

An amended complaint may also contain allegations that Commerce
Bancorp has an unusually large portfolio of mortgage-backed
securities, which may make the Company particularly vulnerable
to rising interest rates. Commerce Bancorp has been shifting
into collateralized mortgage obligations in recent years, which
may also increase the Company's potential exposure as interest
rates rise.

In addition, an amended complaint may include allegations about
the Company's numerous interconnections with insiders,
particularly Chief Executive Officer Hill and his family. For
example, since the year 2000, Commerce Bancorp has paid more
than $26 million to an architectural and interior design firm
owned by Hill's wife. Also since the year 2000, real estate
partnerships in which Hill is an investor have received almost
$7 million in rent payments from Commerce Bancorp. Additionally,
Hill's son earns brokerage commissions as an executive of a
company that helps find new branch locations, and Commerce
Bancorp pays for use of a golf club that is owned by Hill.
Besides Hill and his family, Commerce Bancorp and its
subsidiaries have made loans of more than $145 million to
executives and directors of the Company.

When the truth of the indictment first began to be publicly
revealed on or about June 29, 2004, Commerce Bancorp's stock
decreased from a closing price of $64.46 per share on June 28,
2004 to a closing price of $55.01 per share on June 30, 2004.
Although the Company has maintained that neither it nor its
officers are continuing subjects of the probe, on July 19, 2004,
the U.S. Attorney in a filing stated that Commerce Bancorp
"remains a subject of on-going criminal and civil
investigations." After some of the above additional information
was revealed, the Company's stock price decreased further and
closed at $48.25 per share on August 5, 2004.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Lawrence D.
Levit, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by Mail: One
Penn Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY 10119 by Phone: (212) 279-
5050 or (212) 714-2444 or (800) 440-8986 by Fax: (212) 279-3655
or by E-mail: Jfruchter@FruchterTwersky.com or
Larryl@abrahamlaw.com


CORRECTIONS CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Wage Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego
granted approval to the settlement of the class action filed
against Corrections Corporation of America, styled "Sanchez v.
Corrections Corporation of America."

The lawsuit was brought by a former employee on his own behalf
and on behalf of other former and currently similarly-situated
employees.  Plaintiff alleged that the Company did not comply
with certain wage and hour laws and regulations primarily
concerning meal periods and other specified breaks, which laws
and regulations are imposed by the State of California pursuant
to the California Labor Code and Business and Professions Code.
Plaintiff was seeking damages on his behalf and the alleged
class for such violations as well as certain penalties allegedly
due and owing as a consequence of such alleged violations.

Following service of the complaint and during the third quarter
of 2003, the Company undertook certain investigations in
response to the allegations and an answer to the complaint was
filed.  The Company has entered into a settlement agreement with
the plaintiff, and during the second quarter of 2004, the court
approved the settlement agreement and certified the class.  The
Company has funded the settlement, which did not have a material
impact on the financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows of the Company.


COSTCO WHOLESALE: Impact Fund Lodges CA Sex Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Impact Fund, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and
Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP on behalf of a Costco assistant
warehouse manager initiated a national sex discrimination class
action lawsuit in San Francisco federal court. The suit charges
that Costco imposes a "glass ceiling" that denies women
promotions to high paying assistant and general store manager
positions. The class action suit is entitled Ellis v. Costco
Wholesale Corporation, Case No. C-04 3341 MHP.

Costco operates approximately 324 warehouses in the United
States employing over 78,000 workers. The proposed class
consists of current and former female Costco workers across
America who have been subjected to gender discrimination. Less
than 1 in 6 of Costco's senior store managers are women, yet its
workforce is nearly 50% female. The suit seeks lost pay and
benefits, damages and injunctive relief for the class.

"There is no clearer example of a glass ceiling than how Costco
promotes workers into assistant manager and general manager
positions," said Brad Seligman, executive director of the The
Impact Fund, lead counsel for Ms. Ellis. "There is no promotion
system at Costco - women must rely on the subjective and
arbitrary decisions of Costco's all male senior management. Not
surprisingly, the men at Costco get a better deal when it comes
to promotions." Mr. Seligman is also lead counsel in the
landmark case of Dukes v. Wal-Mart, which a federal judge
recently certified as a national class action.

The complaint charges that Costco has no job posting or
application procedure for assistant manager and general manager
positions, nor any written promotion standards or criteria for
these jobs, in contrast to lower level jobs. The suit alleges
that under this "non-system," discriminatory conduct is allowed
to flourish. Higher-level management at Costco is virtually all
male - all of Costco's operations vice presidents are male, and
only 2 of its 33 executive and senior officers are female. It is
believed that over 650 current and former Costco female
employees were eligible for promotion to the assistant and
general manager positions over the preceding three years.

"The best paying jobs at Costco are for general managers, who
are typically paid $100,000 or more in salary and bonuses and
are eligible for stock options worth many times this amount,"
explained Bill Lann Lee, a Lieff Cabraser partner and the former
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, U.S. Department of
Justice. "Even though women hold nearly half of the lower level
jobs at Costco, women hold less than one in six of the senior
store manager positions."

"Costco generates $42 billion in annual revenues," stated Steven
Stemerman of Davis, Cowell & Bowe, LLP. "Much of these revenues
are attributable to the hard work performed by its female
warehouse employees. These workers deserve the same opportunity
as their male counterparts for promotion into management
positions at Costco."

The suit was filed by Shirley "Rae" Ellis, an assistant manager
in Costco's Douglas County, Colorado warehouse. Ms. Ellis, a
former general manager at a Sam's Club, was promised rapid
promotion at Costco when she joined it in 1998. Despite these
assurances and a record of excellent performance reviews, Ms.
Ellis was repeatedly denied promotion to warehouse manager
positions, including many openings in California that she only
learned about after they were filled.

After Ms. Ellis filed her charge of discrimination with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the complaint
alleges that Costco retaliated against her by transferring to
new warehouse far from her residence, requiring a multi-hour
commute.

For more details, contact an attorney in Costco gender
discrimination case by Phone: 1-866-501-2300 or visit the
litigation Web site:
http://www.genderclassactionagainstcostco.com


DIGITAL RIVER: Executes Final Settlement Of NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Digital River, Inc. executed a final settlement agreement with
parties in the securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
styled "In re Digital River, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-7355."

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

The complaint also contains a claim for violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 based on
allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

In July 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to dismiss
the IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the Issuers (among others).  In
October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to certain of the named officers and
directors until September 30, 2003 and on the basis of this
agreement, the Company's officers and directors were dismissed
from the lawsuit without prejudice.  In February 2003, the court
issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11
claims against the Company and almost all of the other Issuers
and denying the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims
against the Company and many of the Issuers.

During the summer of 2003, the Company, along with a substantial
majority of Issuers, indirectly participated in discussions with
the plaintiffs and the Issuers' respective insurers regarding a
tentative settlement of the IPO Lawsuits.  The terms of the
tentative settlement would provide for, among other things, a
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 their IPO 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 2003, pursuant to the authorization of a special
litigation committee of the Company's board of directors, the
Company entered into a non-binding memorandum of understanding
reflecting the settlement terms described above.  In September
2003, in connection with the possible settlement, the Company's
officers and directors who had entered tolling agreements
with plaintiffs (described above) agreed to extend those
agreements so that they would not expire prior to any settlement
being finalized.

In June 2004, the Company executed a final settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs consistent with the terms of the memorandum
of understanding.  The settlement is still 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.


DRUGSTORE.COM: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in W.D. WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
drugstore.com and certain of its present and former officers
face several putative class actions were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The suits purport to have been filed on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's common stock between January 14, 2004 and June 10,
2004.  The complaints generally allege that the Company made
false and misleading statements about its prospects for fiscal
year 2004 and failed to disclose, among other things, a negative
impact on the Company's gross margins from the integration of
its acquisition of Vision Direct and from its free 3-day
shipping promotion, and a negative impact on its sales growth
arising from cancellations of certain expired prescriptions.


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Investors File Mutual Fund Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federated Investors, Inc. faces 21 class actions or derivative
lawsuit filed from October 2003 to June 2004 on behalf of
certain alleged shareholders in various Federated-sponsored
mutual funds.

Fourteen of these actions have been transferred to a multi-
district litigation (MDL) panel of judges sitting in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Maryland for consolidated
pre-trial proceedings.  The cases generally involve claims
arising from allegations that the Company permitted improper
trading practices including market timing and late trading in
concert with certain institutional traders, which allegedly
caused injury to mutual funds and/or their shareholders.

Four additional cases, alleging excessive advisory, Rule 12b-1
and other fees on behalf of certain Federated mutual funds, have
been filed in or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Western Pennsylvania.  One additional case alleging
improper and excessive fees has been filed in the Western
District of Tennessee.  Two cases have been dismissed
voluntarily.

All of these lawsuits seek unquantified damages, attorneys' fees
and expenses.  The Company intends to defend this litigation, it
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


FINDWHAT.COM: Faces CA Consumer Lawsuit Over Online Gambling Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Findwhat.com, Inc. faces a purported class action lawsuit filed
in the Superior Court of the State of California by plaintiffs
"on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated, and/or
the general public," alleging certain causes of action relating
to internet gambling advertising.

The Company will undertake a complete review of these
allegations as further details become available, it stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The suit
also names other websites as defendants.


FORD MOTOR: Canadian Law Firm Lodges Product Liability Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Will Barristers: Morin & Miller (on behalf of
Maurice Poulin), commenced a class action in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against the Ford Motor Company (in
Canada and the U.S.), Magna International, as well as Magna
Donnelly, Dortec Industries, Intier Automotive Inc., and Atoma
Latching Systems Group. Gary R. Will and Paul S. Miller are co-
counsel on the case. They are working with the law firm of
Motley Rice LLC of Mount Pleasant, South Carolina in bringing
this alleged defect to the courts of North America.

The claim alleges that defective door latches have been
installed on the following vehicles:

     (1) 1997 - 2000 Ford F-150s;

     (2) 1997 - 2000 Ford F-250 -Super Light Duty;

     (3) 1997 - 2000 Ford Expeditions;

     (4) 1997 - 2000 Lincoln Navigator and Blackwood.

The claim alleges that the defective door latches can open in a
side impact crash or rollover accident. Deaths and serious
personal injuries have been reported and are the subject of a
number of lawsuits in the United States.

The claim seeks the cost to replace all defective door latches
throughout the country. It is estimated that the cost would be
approximately $1,300.00 for a four-door vehicle. In the U.S.,
there may be as many as four million vehicles with defective
door latches. It is estimated that there may be 300,000 to
400,000 Ford vehicles in Canada with the defective door latch.
On behalf of the class, a claim for punitive damages in the sum
of $527 million is being advanced.

Ford had knowledge of the defect that can be traced back to
October 1995 when Ford was conducting fuel line integrity tests
on the Lincoln Navigator prototype. During the testing, it was
observed that the impacted side door would open during crash
testing.

In August 1997, Transport Canada conducted side impact crash
testing of a Ford F-150. A Transport Canada video, which was
given to Ford, shows the non-impacted side door opening on
impact at a speed of 32 kph.

Subsequently, Ford established the Critical Concern Review Group
to investigate the door opening issue. On January 25, 1998, an
internal E-mail at Ford set out the purpose of its own internal
testing, as follows: "...to conduct a 20 mph side impact test of
a PN-96 (F-150) cab with production fuel system removed and the
non-impacted door removed so as not to create any embarrassing
information."

In March 2000, internal Ford documents reveal that tested sub-
components, specifically the outside door handles, revealed
outside handle operating forces that were below values specified
on the outside handle torsion spring drawing. Investigation at
the handle supplier facility, Donnelly Corporation, showed that
the installed spring torque was consistently below the required
standards.

Ford's engineers believed that the F-150 door latches and
handles did not comply with Federal safety standards. In mid-
March 2000, Ford engineers recommended that a safety-related
NHTSA recall campaign be instituted to fix the defective door
latches. However, seven days later, the recall was cancelled.

The claim details the level of knowledge that Ford and the sub-
contractors had over the years leading up to the commencement of
this lawsuit.

For more details, contact Paul S. Miller (Canada) by Phone:
(416) 360-1194 OR Gary R. Will (Canada) by Phone: (905) 337-9568
OR Fritz Jekel of Motley Rice LLC by Phone: (843) 216-9188 or
visit the litigation Web site: http://www.defectivedoor.com


GOLD FIELDS: OK Court Dismisses Several Claims in Property Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United State District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma dismissed several claims in the class action filed
against Gold Fields Mining Corporation and five other companies.

The plaintiffs have asserted nuisance and trespass claims
predicated on allegations of intentional lead exposure by the
defendants, including the Company, and are seeking compensatory
damages for diminution of property value, punitive damages and
the implementation of medical monitoring and relocation programs
for the affected individuals.

A predecessor of Gold Fields formerly operated two lead mills
near Picher, Oklahoma prior to the 1950's.  The plaintiff
classes include all persons who have resided or owned property
in the towns of Cardin and Picher within a specified time
period.  The Company has agreed to indemnify one of the other
defendants, which is its former subsidiary.

The Company is also a defendant, along with other companies, in
five individual lawsuits arising out of the same lead mill
operations involved in the class action.  Plaintiffs in
these actions are seeking compensatory and punitive damages for
alleged personal injuries from lead exposure.

In December 2003, the Quapaw Indian tribe and certain Quapaw
owners of interests in land filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company and five other companies in U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Oklahoma.  The plaintiffs are seeking
compensatory and punitive damages based on public and private
nuisance, trespass, unjust enrichment, Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA),
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), strict liability
and deceit claims.

The Company has denied liability to the plaintiffs, has filed
counterclaims against the plaintiffs seeking indemnification and
contribution and has filed a third-party complaint against the
United States, owners of interests in chat and real property in
the Picher area.  In June 2004 the Court dismissed the unjust
enrichment, deceit and one of the two RCRA claims.

In February 2004, the town of Quapaw filed a class action
lawsuit against Gold Fields and other mining companies asserting
claims similar to those asserted by the towns of Picher and
Cardin as well as natural resource damage claims.  In July 2004,
two lawsuits were filed, one in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma and one in state court, against
Gold Fields and three other companies in which 48 individuals
are seeking compensatory and punitive damages and injunctive
relief from alleged personal injuries resulting from lead
exposure.  The allegations relate to the same two lead mills
located near Picher, Oklahoma.


NORTHSTAR SECURITIES: Judge Dismisses All Charges V. Respondents
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Administrative Law Judge has issued an Initial Decision in
Douglas W. Powell, et al., Administrative Proceeding No. 3-
11086. The Initial Decision finds that Respondents Douglas W.
Powell (Powell) and Charles D. Elliott (Elliott) did not
willfully associate with Northstar Securities, Inc. (Northstar),
a registered broker-dealer, while a Commission order suspending
them from such conduct was in effect. As a result of this
finding, the Initial Decision concludes that Powell and Elliott
did not willfully violate Section 15(b)(6)(B)(i) of the Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), nor did Respondent Russell S.
Tarbett (Tarbett) willfully aid and abet or cause Powell's and
Elliott's violations of this provision of the Exchange Act. It
further concludes that Powell, Elliott, and Tarbett did not
willfully aid and abet or cause the alleged violations against
Northstar of Exchange Act Sections 15(b)(1), 15(b)(6)(B)(ii),
and l7(a)(1) and Rules l5b3-1, l5b7-1,  l7a-3(a)(12),  17a-
3(a)(12)(i)(d), and 17a-5 thereunder. Accordingly, the Initial
Decision dismisses all charges against Respondents Powell,
Elliott, and Tarbett.

The SEC Division of Enforcement's Administrative Proceeding No.
3-11086, which was filed on April 11, 2003 alleges that the
Respondents willfully aided and abetted and caused various
securities law violations arising from Powell and Elliott's
undisclosed ownership and control of Northstar Securities, Inc.
("Northstar"), a registered broker-dealer, between 1998 and
early 2001.

Among other things, the Division alleges that, without the
consent of the Commission, Powell and Elliott willfully
associated with Northstar in contravention of a Commission Order
entered on May 13, 1999 suspending them from association with
any broker or dealer for three months, and, thereafter, from
associating in a supervisory or proprietary capacity for an
additional six months. The Division further alleges that the
Respondents caused Northstar to make inaccurate filings that
failed to list Powell and Elliott as owners and executive
officers of Northstar; and falsely failed to disclose them as
persons who controlled Northstar's management or policies, or
wholly or partially financed its business. Moreover, the
Division alleges that the Respondents willfully aided and
abetted and caused Northstar's failure to register Powell and
Elliott as principals with the firm while they were managing
Northstar's securities business and effecting securities
transactions on the firm's behalf. Finally, the Division alleges
that Respondents aided and abetted Northstar's failure to
maintain adequate books and records regarding Powell and
Elliott, as well as its failure to file a mandatory annual
report for the 2000 fiscal year. According to the Order,
Tarbett, who became Northstar's nominal owner and titular chief
executive officer in 1999, permitted Powell and Elliott to
associate with Northstar in contravention of the Commission'
Order, and otherwise aided and abetted and caused the above
violations.

As a result, the Division alleges that Powell and Elliott
willfully violated Section 15(b)(6)(B)(i), and willfully aided
and abetted and caused Northstar's violations of Sections
15(b)(1), 15(b)(6)(B)(ii), and 17(a)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act") and Rules 15b3-1, 15b7-1,
17a-3 and 17a-5 thereunder, and that Tarbett aided and abetted
and caused violations of Sections 15(b)(1), 15(b)(6)(B)(i),
15(b)(6)(B)(ii), and 17(a)(1) of the Exchange Act and Rules
15b3-1, 15b7-1,17a-3 and 17a-5 thereunder.


NORVERGENCE INC.: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Files Consumer Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman initiated a
class action lawsuit against various telecommunications leasing
companies who were assignees of leases and equipment rental
agreements entered into between individuals and business and the
telecommunications company, Norvergence, Inc. ("Norvergence").
The suit seeks to certify a nationwide class of those persons
and entities who leased telecommunication and/or network
computer equipment from Norvergence, which leases were then
assigned to various leasing companies.

The lawsuit, entitled Exquisite Caterers, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Popular Leasing
Corp., et al, was filed on August 16, 2004, in Monmouth County,
New Jersey Superior Court. The lawsuit alleges that the leases
violated various state and federal statutes including the
Consumer Fraud Act, the FTC Holder Rule, the Truth-in-Consumer
Contracts, Warranty & Notice Act, and that the leases constitute
breaches of contract, and breaches of implied and express
warranty. The suit seeks cancellation of the leases,
disgorgement of lease payments and a declaratory judgment
concerning the unenforceability of the leases.

The suit names approximately fifteen (15) lease financing
companies and 40 Doe corporations as defendants.

For ore details, contact Gary S. Graifman of Kantrowitz
Goldhamer & Graifman by Mail: 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ
07645 by Phone: 1-800-660-7843 or by email: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
OR the Law Offices of Michael Scott Green by Mail: 14 Easton
Avenue, No. 340, New Brunswick, NJ 08901 by Phone: 732-390-0480
or by E-mail: msgreen@lawmsg.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.njclassaction.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Lawyer Lodges Suit V. Treasury Department's Policy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Ronald Smolow initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status in Commonwealth Court against the Pennsylvania Treasury
Department and its policy of not including interest when it pays
out money from the unclaimed property fund, WNEP-TV reports.

In his suit, Mr. Smolow stated that he sued on behalf of others
whose money wasn't working for them while in the hands of the
state. He alleges that while he received $586 for his drilling-
company stock last year the state treasury turned him down when
he sought $30 in interest.

The suit is seeking retroactive interest payments as well as a
court order to change the state's policy.

However, in response to the suit's allegations, a Treasury
Department spokesman stated that it collected about $430 million
in cash and securities in the last fiscal year and that it
returned about $33 million to the rightful owners.


PHILIPS INTERNATIONAL: Signs Agreement For Litigation Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philips International Realty Corp., a real estate investment
trust, signed with shareholders a stipulation and order
providing for the voluntary dismissal with prejudice of that
certain class action filed against the Company and its directors
in connection with the plan of liquidation on October 2, 2000 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on July 28, 2004.

Pursuant to the Company's plan of liquidation, its Board of
Directors has declared a ninth liquidating distribution of $0.25
per share which will be payable on August 27, 2004. The record
date is August 20, 2004. However, shareholders must continue to
own their shares up to and including August 27, 2004 in order to
be entitled to the liquidating distribution of $0.25 per share.
Effective August 18, 2004, the Company's shares will be traded
with due bills which will entitle the owner of the stock to
receipt of the distribution. The Company has approximately 7.4
million shares of common stock and common stock equivalents,
which will participate in this distribution.

On October 10, 2000, the stockholders approved the plan of
liquidation, which was then estimated to generate approximately
$18.25 in the aggregate in cash for each share of common stock
in two or more liquidating distributions. The ninth liquidating
distribution declared by the Board of Directors brings the total
payments to date to $18.00 per share. Prior distributions of
$13.00, $1.00, $0.75, $0.50, $0.50, $0.50, $1.00 and $0.50 per
share were paid on December 22, 2000, July 9, 2001, September
24, 2001, November 19, 2001, October 22, 2002, March 18, 2003,
September 16, 2003 and January 6, 2004, respectively.


PROGRESS ENERGY: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Progress Energy, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, styled "In re Progress
Energy, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 04-CV-636
(JES)."

On February 3, 2004, the Company was served with a class action
alleging violations of federal security laws in connection with
the Company's issuance of Contingent Value Obligations (CVOs).
The action was filed by Gerber Asset Management LLC in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York and names the Company and its former Chairman William
Cavanaugh III as defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Company failed to timely disclose
the impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax required under
Sections 55-59 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) on the value
of certain CVOs issued in connection with the Florida Progress
Corporation merger.  The suit seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, as well as, attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

On March 31, 2004, a second class action complaint was filed by
Stanley Fried, Raymond X. Talamantes and Jacquelin Talamantes
against William Cavanaugh III and the Company in the same court,
alleging violations of federal securities laws arising out of
the Company's issuance of CVOs nearly identical to those alleged
in the February 3, 2004 Gerber Asset Management complaint.

On April 29, 2004, the Honorable John E. Sprizzo ordered among
other things that the two class action cases be consolidated,
Peak6 Capital Management LLC shall serve as the lead plaintiff
in the consolidated action, and the lead plaintiff shall file a
consolidated amended complaint on or before June 14, 2004.

The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on
June 15, 2004.  In addition to the allegations asserted in the
Gerber Asset Management and Fried complaints, the consolidated
amended complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose
that excess fuel credits could not be carried over from one tax
year into later years.


REGISTER.COM: Reached Settlement For NY Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Register.com, Inc. reached a settlement for the purported class
action filed by Brian Wornow, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, alleging that the Company's SafeRenew program violates
New York law.

The Company's SafeRenew program was implemented in January 2001
on an "opt-out basis" to .com, .net and .org registrations
registered through the www.register.com website, and was
subsequently expanded to cover certain ccTLDs registered through
this website.

Under the terms of the Company's services agreement, at the time
a covered registration comes up for renewal, the Company attempt
to charge a registrant's on-file credit card a one year renewal
fee and, if the charge is successful, to renew the registration
for that additional one-year period.  The Company believes that
the SafeRenew program was properly adopted as an effort to
protect its customers' online identities.

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment that the SafeRenew
program violates New York General Obligations Law Section 5-903,
and also asserted claims for breach of contract, money had and
received, and unjust enrichment.  Plaintiff further sought to
enjoin Register.com from automatically renewing domain name
registrations, an award of compensatory damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits (plus interest), cost and expenses,
attorneys' fees, and punitive damages.

On September 6, 2002, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint in its entirety.  On April 17, 2003, the Company's
motion was granted as to two counts (declaratory judgment and
breach of contract), but denied as to two other counts (unjust
enrichment and money had and received).  On May 2, 2003,
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Appellate Division,
First Department of the two counts that were dismissed.

On May 15, 2003, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting
new causes of action against Register.com for:

     (1) deceptive trade practices in violation of New York
         General Business Law Section 349;

     (2) conversion; and

     (3) breach of the implied covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing.

On June 9, 2003, Register.com moved to dismiss Plaintiff's newly
asserted causes of action.  On February 19, 2004, Register.com's
motion to dismiss the first, fourth and a fifth causes of action
of Plaintiff's amended complaint was granted.  Plaintiff has
perfected an appeal from this ruling and on June 8, 2004 the
Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal
of all five counts.

On July 30, 2004, Register.com and the Plaintiff agreed upon a
settlement, the terms of which are at present confidential and
remain subject to approval by the Court.  The Company has
reserved $1.4 million for the settlement which it estimates to
be its probable exposure net of contributions to be made by its
insurance carrier.


REGISTER.COM: Distributes Coupons To Class Members in NY Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Register.com, Inc. provided each member of the putative class in
the class action filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, with a coupon for a five-dollar discount off of future
purchases of its fees for domain name registrations and
renewals, as part of the settlement of the suit.

The suit was filed in February 2001, alleging that by linking
new domain names registered through Register.com to a "Coming
Soon" web page that informs visitors the name was recently
registered through Register.com, and provides links to services
provided by Register.com and its business partners, as well as a
banner advertisement for such services, the Company:

     (1) breached an implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing;

     (2) engaged in deceptive trade practices in violation of
         New York General Business Law Section 349; and

     (3) was unjustly enriched

In August 2001, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss Plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted.  Plaintiff appealed the dismissal
and in April 2003 the Appellate Division, First Department
affirmed the dismissal of the unjust enrichment cause of action,
but reinstated the causes of action for breach of an implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing and deceptive trade
practices.

Thereafter, the Company and Plaintiff agreed upon a settlement
which, following notice to the proposed settlement class, was
approved by the Court on November 3, 2003.  In accordance with
the settlement, the Company has paid attorney's fees in the
amount awarded by the Court to class counsel.  The coupons
expire in October 2004, after which the settlement will be
finalized and the case will be dismissed.


REGISTER.COM: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Register.com asked the Court of Chancery of Delaware to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of the current and former individual members of its
board of directors on behalf of its shareholders.

On August 7, 2003 and August 8, 2003, purported stockholders of
the Company filed two separate complaints, styled "McBride v.
Register.com, Inc., et al (C.A. No. 20470) and "DeMatte v.
Register.com, Inc., et al (C.A. No. 20474)."  On November 3,
2003, the two cases were consolidated (C.A. No. 20470) and on
November 5, 2003, an amended complaint was filed.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the named
defendants breached their fiduciary duties in connection with
the self tender that the Company commenced in August 2003 and
completed in September 2003, and that the self tender is an
attempt by the individual defendants to entrench their positions
in the Company.  The complaint seeks, among other things, the
court's certification as a class action lawsuit, unspecified
damages and rescission of the self tender.

The Company filed the motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted and failure to comply
with the requirements of Rule 23.1.


RETEK INC.: Presents Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retek, Inc. and the plaintiffs in the consolidated securities
class action against it presented a proposed settlement for the
suit to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Between June 11 and June 26, 2001, three class action complaints
alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended were filed against the Company, certain
of its current and former officers and directors and certain
underwriters of its initial public offering.  On August 9, 2001,
these actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes before a
single judge along with similar actions involving IPOs of
numerous other issuers.

On February 14, 2002, the parties signed and filed a stipulation
dismissing the consolidated action without prejudice against the
Company and the Individual Defendants, which the Court approved
and entered as an order on March 1, 2002.  On April 20, 2002,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they elected
to proceed with their claims against the Company and the
Individual Defendants only under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus
filed in connection with the IPO was false or misleading in that
it failed to disclose:

     (1) that the underwriters allegedly were paid excessive
         commissions by certain of the underwriters' customers
         in return for receiving shares in the IPO and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters' customers allegedly
         agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
         common stock in the aftermarket in return for an
         allocation of shares in the IPO.

The complaint further alleges that the underwriters offered to
provide positive market analyst coverage for the Company after
the IPO, which had the effect of manipulating the market for the
Company's stock.  Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the
omissions from the prospectus and alleged market manipulation
through the use of analysts, the price of the Company's common
stock was artificially inflated between November 18, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, and that the defendants are liable for
unspecified damages to those persons who purchased the Company's
common stock during that period.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the Individual Defendants,
along with the rest of the issuers and related officer and
director defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based on
common issues.  Opposition and reply papers were filed.  The
Court rendered its decision on February 19, 2003, which granted
dismissal in part of a claim against one of the Individual
Defendants and denied dismissal in all other respects.

On June 30, 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Company approved a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) reflecting a tentative settlement in which the plaintiffs
agreed to dismiss the case against the Company with prejudice in
return for the assignment by the Company of claims that the
Company might have against its underwriters.  The same offer of
settlement was made to all issuer defendants involved in the
litigation.  No payment to the plaintiffs by the Company was
required under the MOU.  After further negotiations, the
essential terms of the MOU were formalized in a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, which has been executed on the
Company's behalf and on behalf of the Individual Defendants.

Plaintiffs filed a formal motion seeking preliminary approval on
June 25, 2004.  Others will be allowed to file objections to the
proposed settlement in the coming weeks.  There can be no
assurance that the Court will approve the proposed settlement.


RETEK INC.: To Ask MN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Retek, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court in
Minnesota to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against it, alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act, it stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The suit also names as
defendants certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

Specifically, the Consolidated Complaint alleges that, among
other things, between July 19, 2001 and July 8, 2002, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or concealed material
adverse facts from the market in press releases, presentations
and SEC disclosures.  The Consolidated Complaint alleges that
the Company and the individual defendants misled the market with
respect to, among other things the Company's alliance with IBM,
its ability to develop certain software, and its expectations
regarding certain customer sales.

Plaintiffs further allege that defendants manipulated financial
statements and failed to disclose problems with existing and
potential customer deals, which led to the Company's stock price
being artificially inflated during the Class Period.  The
plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and other unspecified
relief.

On May 30, 2003, the Company and the individual defendants
served a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  On
January 27, 2004, the Court heard arguments on the motion to
dismiss.  On March 30, 2004, the Court dismissed the
Consolidated Complaint, with leave to amend.  On May 21, 2004,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint.


SMITH BARNEY: Firm Says Class B Purchasers Can Recover Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, Court-
appointed lead counsel for the lead plaintiff and a proposed
class in a pending securities class action titled FitzGerald v.
Citigroup Inc., et al., No. 03 Civ. 4305 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y.),
informs certain purchasers of Class B shares of Smith Barney
mutual funds that they may be able to recover damages for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

The action was brought on behalf of those who, between June 12,
1998 and December 1, 2003, purchased Class B shares issued by
one or more of the Smith Barney mutual funds (listed below) in
the amount of $100,000 or more, such that they would have
otherwise qualified for the reduced front-end sales charge
(often called the "breakpoint discount") of more than 1.00% that
would apply to an investment of $100,000 in Class A shares, and
held the Class B shares for at least one year.

The lead plaintiff alleges in essence that Class B shares of the
Smith Barney mutual funds, when purchased under these
circumstances, are always economically disadvantageous compared
to similar investments in Class A shares, and that the
prospectuses for the Smith Barney mutual funds are false and
misleading with respect to this critical issue.

The defendants, in seeking to dismiss portions of this case,
have argued that the lead plaintiff cannot bring claims on
behalf of any investors who purchased Class B shares in Smith
Barney mutual funds in which she personally did not invest.
Although there is substantial legal authority supporting the
lead plaintiff's position, the lead plaintiff has a duty to
ensure that the proposed class has the best and broadest
possible representation. If the Court accepts the defendants'
arguments, investors in Class B shares of dozens of Smith Barney
mutual funds will not recover money in this action.

Smith Barney Mutual Funds; Nasdaq Symbol (Class B shares)

     (1) Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Smith Barney Shares);
         ARMBX

     (2) Aggressive Growth Fund; SAGBX

     (3) Allocation Series Balanced Portfolio; SCBBX

     (4) Allocation Series Conservative Portfolio; SBCBX

     (5) Allocation Series Global Portfolio; CAGBX

     (6) Allocation Series Growth Portfolio; SGRBX

     (7) Allocation Series High Growth Portfolio; SCHBX

     (8) Allocation Series Income Portfolio; SCIAX

     (9) Appreciation Fund; SAPBX

    (10) Arizona Municipals Fund; SAZBX

    (11) California Municipals Fund; SCABX

    (12) Classic Values Fund; SCLBX

    (13) Convertible Fund (Smith Barney Shares); SCVSX

    (14) Diversified Large Cap Growth Fund; CLCBX

    (15) Diversified Strategic Income Fund; SLDSX

    (16) Dividend and Income Fund; SLSUX

    (17) Financial Services Fund; SBFBX

    (18) Florida Portfolio; FLABX

    (19) Fundamental Value Fund; SFVBX

    (20) Georgia Portfolio; SBRBX

    (21) Global Government Bond Portfolio; SBGBX

    (22) Government Securities Fund; HGVSX

    (23) Group Spectrum Fund; SGSBX

    (24) Growth & Income Fund (Smith Barney Shares); GRIBX

    (25) Hansberger Global Value Fund; SGLBX

    (26) Health Sciences Fund; SBHBX

    (27) High Income Fund; SHIBX

    (28) Intermediate Maturity California Municipals Fund; STDBX

    (29) Intermediate Maturity New York Municipals Fund; SNMBX

    (30) International All Cap Growth Portfolio; SBIBX

    (31) International Large Cap Fund; SILCX

    (32) Investment Grade Bond Fund; HBDIX

    (33) Large Cap Core Fund; GROBX

    (34) Large Capitalization Growth Fund; SBLBX

    (35) Large Cap Value Fund; SBCCX

    (36) Limited Term Portfolio; STMBX

    (37) Managed Governments Fund; MGVBX

    (38) Managed Municipals Fund; SMMBX

    (39) Massachusetts Municipals Fund; SMABX

    (40) Mid Cap Core Fund; SBMDX

    (41) Municipal High Income Fund; SXMTX

    (42) National Portfolio; SBNBX

    (43) New Jersey Municipals Fund; SNJBX

    (44) New York Portfolio; SMNBX

    (45) Oregon Municipals Fund; SORBX

    (46) Pennsylvania Portfolio; SBPBX

    (47) Multiple Discipline Funds: All Cap Growth Fund; SPBBX

    (48) Multiple Discipline Funds: Global Growth Fund; SPGGX

    (49) Multiple Discipline Funds: Large Cap Fund; SPSBX

    (50) SB Capital and Income Fund (Smith Barney Shares); SOPTX

    (51) Short Duration Municipal Income Fund; SHDBX

    (52) Short-Term Investment Grade Bond Fund; SHBBX

    (53) Small Cap Core Fund; SBDBX

    (54) Small Cap Growth Fund; SBYBX

    (55) Small Cap Growth Opportunities Fund; SMOBX

    (56) Small Cap Value Fund; SBVBX

    (57) Social Awareness Fund; SESIX

    (58) Technology Fund; SBTBX

    (59) Total Return Bond Fund; TRBBX

    (60) U.S. Government Securities Fund; SBUBX

For more details, contact David Goldsmith Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: 800-321-0476 or by E-
mail: investorrelations@glrslaw.com


VASO ACTIVE: SEC Lodges Settled Action in DC V. Firm, John Masiz
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled civil
injunctive action in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia against Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals Inc.,
and John Masiz, its President, Chairman and CEO. The
Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions in both public statements and
filings with the Commission falsely claiming FDA approval for
three of the company's products which were not, in fact, FDA
approved.

Specifically, the Commission's complaint alleges that on July 3,
2003, Vaso Active filed a Form SB-2 registration statement with
the Commission for an initial public offering.  The filing was
signed by John Masiz and stated that Vaso Active's products
Athlete's Relief, Osteon, and Termin8 (then called deFEET) "have
received FDA approval." This statement was repeated in
amendments filed with the Commission. However, this statement
was false and misleading because none of these products had
received FDA approval.

The Commission's complaint also alleges that, in the company's
10-KSB, filed on March 26, 2004, Vaso Active made further false
and misleading statements regarding its products. The filing
states: "Athlete's Relief, Osteon, and Termin8 are qualified
under FDA OTC monographs and have been registered as such."
This statement was false and misleading because, to the extent
that these products utilize a transdermal drug delivery system,
the products did not satisfy FDA monograph requirements. Masiz
signed the attached certification, stating that based on his
knowledge, the filing contained no untrue statement of material
fact.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
the Defendants consented to the entry of final judgments
permanently enjoining each of them from violating Section 17(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 and 13a-1
thereunder; and for Masiz, violation of Rule 13a-14, the
certification provision. Masiz agreed to a final judgment
barring him from acting as an officer or director of a public
company for five years and requiring him to pay an $80,000 civil
penalty. Previously, the Commission had ordered a ten-day
trading suspension in Vaso securities arising from the facts
alleged in the Complaint. The action is titled, SEC v. Vaso
Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No. 04 CV 01395, RJL,
D.D.C. (LR-18834).


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders File PA Securities Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its senior officers
face six securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled:

     (1) Perry Paragamian vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
         al. (Case No. 04cv2627)

     (2) John H Taylor vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
         (Case No. 04cv2685)

     (3) Security Police-Fire Professionals of America vs.
         Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (Case No.
         04cv2708)

     (4) Fred Zucker vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al.
         (Case No. 04cv2745)

     (5) Brian B. Steketee vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et
         al. (Case No. 04cv3365) and

     (6) Brad Staton vs. Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Case No.
         04cv3422)

Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act arising from our May 24, 2004 press release
announcing the approvable letter from the FDA indicating
anidulafungin does not currently support a labeling for initial
treatment of esophageal candidiasis.  Each plaintiff seeks to
represent a class of Vicuron securities purchasers from January
6, 2003, through May 24, 2004, (except "Zucker," whose putative
class period begins March 17, 2003).  The complaints seek
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and injunctive
and equitable relief.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of Bennett Environmental, Inc. ("Bennett" or the "Company")
(Amex: BEL) between June 2, 2003 and July 22, 2004, inclusive
(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. The Complaint names as defendants
Bennett, John Bennett, Alan Bulckaert, Danny Ponn, Richard Stern
and Robert Griffiths. According to the complaint, throughout the
Class Period, defendants misrepresented the financial condition
of the company by stating that the largest contract in the
company's history, the Phase III Contract to treat soil, was in
full force and effect when, in fact, the contract had been
substantially withdrawn almost immediately after its execution.
The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its Phase III Contract had been repudiated by
         the U.S. Army;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         backlog was artificially inflated in the amount of $200
         million or the amount of the repudiated contract; and

     (3) therefore, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
         their positive statements about the Company's growth
         and progress.

On July 22, 2004, Bennett reported on the status of its contract
to treat soil contaminated with wood treatment chemicals from
Phase III of the Federal Creosote Superfund Site ("FC Site") in
Manville, New Jersey. The U.S. Army Engineering Corps purported
to withdraw its consent to the Phase III Contract but consented
to ship up to 10,000 tons for treatment under the Phase III
Contract. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Bennett
fell $2.13 on July 22, 2004, to close at $7.80 per share.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP by Mail: 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY
10016 by Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 or by E-mail:
slee@abbeygardy.com


FLIGHT SAFETY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action complaint in the District of Connecticut against Flight
Safety Technologies, Inc. ("Flight Safety") (AMEX:FLT) for
alleged acts in violation of U.S. securities fraud laws.

The complaint alleges that, from January 14, 2003 through July
16, 2004 (the Class Period), Flight Safety and its CEO and
Chairman Samuel A. Kovnant and its President William B. Cotton
issued a series of false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's wake vortex sensor technology. In particular,
defendants' false and misleading statements caused Class members
to believe incorrectly that the wake vortex sensor technology
worked, that a market existed for it, that the Company's
technology had the support and imprimatur of certain agencies of
the United States government and that the Company was "poised to
finalize development and enter the US and world marketplace." In
reality, the sensor had been severely criticized in an unbiased
agency evaluation as being incapable of commercial
implementation. Moreover, the evaluation made clear that the
Company was more than ten years away from finalizing development
of the sensor and much further away from actually marketing it
to its customers.

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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood 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 through August 2,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Ligand and David E. Robinson and Paul
V. Maier ("Defendants") violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements during the
Class Period. In violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented that inventory de-stocking at the
wholesale level was occurring because the Company was unloading
Avinza inventory which was about to expire, that the overall
demand of the Company's products was down due to inventory de-
stocking, and that Medicaid prescriptions were increasing,
causing the Company to pay large rebates to Medicaid and that in
fact the increase in rebates was not a one-time occurrence.

On August 3, 2004, Ligand announced that its second-quarter loss
increased, and that its outside auditor had resigned. Shares of
Ligand fell almost 40% or $5.40 per share to close at $8.18 per
share. 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 Wechsler Harwood Shareholder Relations
Department - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 ext. 257
by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.whesq.com


NETOPIA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California (Case No. 04-3364RMW,
before Judge Ronald M. Whyte) on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Netopia, Inc.
(Nasdaq: NTPA) ("Netopia") between November 6, 2003 and July 6,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Netopia and certain of its officers
and directors knowingly or recklessly made a series of material
misrepresentations concerning Netopia's earnings, product costs,
and sales to its largest customer. Moreover, Defendants and
employees of Netopia profited handsomely from those
misrepresentations, selling over $9 million of Netopia stock
during the Class Period. Netopia is a company that, among other
things, develops, markets and supports broadband and wireless
(Wi-Fi) products and services, as well as produces server
software products that enable remote support and centralized
management of installed broadband gateways.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Justin S. Kudler
of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


PETMED EXPRESS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of PetMed Express, Inc. ("PetMed" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:PETS) between June 18, 2003, and July 26, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida against the Company, Menderes
Akdag, Marc Puleo, and Bruce S. Rosenbloom ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint states
that Defendants issued a series of statements to the market
regarding the Company's financial results and operations, but
failing to disclose and/or misrepresenting that:

     (1) the Company's business model enabled the company to
         experience sustained financial growth since the model
         shifted costs to veterinarians (who are the Company's
         competitors),

     (2) the business model made the Company dependent on the
         cooperation of veterinarians to fill prescriptions,

     (3) the defendants could not guarantee the quality, safety
         or efficacy of PetMed drugs because, as an unauthorized
         reseller of many products, the Company had to obtain
         such products through unauthorized channels, prompting
         veterinarians to refuse refilling prescriptions through
         PetMed, and

     (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were not
         sustainable, causing the stock to trade at artificially
         high prices. During the class period while PetMed's
         stock price was inflated, Defendants and Company
         insiders sold almost $65 million in privately held
         PetMed's stock.

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


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges VA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of PRIMUS Telecommunications Group, Inc.
("PRIMUS") (NASDAQ:PRTL) publicly traded securities during the
period between November 11, 2003 and July 29, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges PRIMUS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. PRIMUS is a global facilities-based telecommunications
services provider offering an integrated portfolio of
international and domestic voice, Internet, voice-over-Internet
protocol, data and hosting services to business and residential
retail customers and other carriers located primarily in the
United States, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, PRIMUS's
shares traded at inflated levels due to materially false and
misleading statements issued by defendants to the investing
public regarding the Company's business and prospects. The true
facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:

     (1) the Company was experiencing massive pricing pressures
         on its standalone international long distance business
         and the Company's minutes of use were not growing, but
         actually declining;

     (2) contrary to its projections, the Company, on a
         consolidated basis, would actually lose money for the
         second half of 2004 and even the Company's second
         quarter projections were grossly overstated;

     (3) the Company's business model was incredibly weak and,
         as a result, combined with the Company's second quarter
         2004 revelations and the fact that the Company was
         already highly leveraged ($580 million), its ability to
         raise the necessary monies for capital expenditures to
         achieve even the newly projected results was severely
         hampered if not taken away altogether;

     (4) contrary to defendants' statements, the Company was
         drowning in competition; and

     (5) as a result, the value of the Company as an enterprise
         was actually less than the Company's debt.

As a result of these false statements, PRIMUS's shares traded at
inflated prices during the Class Period, increasing to as high
as $13.15 on January 26, 2004, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors completed a $240 million note offering.

On July 29, 2004, after the market closed, PRIMUS issued a press
release announcing its second quarter results, posting a loss of
$14.9 million, or $0.17 per share, which reversed the year-ago
profit of $18.7 million, or $0.21 per share. The numbers fell
far short of Wall Street's expectations. Defendants had forecast
earnings of $.10 per share on revenue of $348 million. The
Company blamed the industry-wide price war for its troubles and
said it would push to roll out more integrated services in an
effort to defend its turf. PRIMUS shares dropped $1.70 to $1.52
per share -- a 50% drop in a single day.

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


ST. PAUL TRAVELLERS: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of The St. Paul Travelers
Company ("St. Paul Travelers" or the "Company") (NYSE:STA)
pursuant to the merger registration statement on April 1, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
St. Paul Travelers and certain current and former officers and
directors.

The complaint alleges that St. Paul Travelers' registration
statement was materially false and misleading because it failed
to disclose that there were significant differences between the
accounting and actuarial methodologies employed at St. Paul and
Travelers, requiring the newly combined Company to increase its
claims reserves by $1.2 billion to conform to St. Paul's less
conservative accounting, and that St. Paul's exposure to a
failing construction contractor, a reduction in reinsurance
recoverables required the Company to increase its claims
reserves by an additional $466 million, and that the increase in
claims reserves would require the newly combined Company to
record a significant charge to its income statement.

On July 23, 2004 St. Paul Travelers revealed that certain
conditions relating to St. Paul required it to increase its
claims reserves by $1.6 billion. On August 5, 2004, St. Paul
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. On
April 1, 2004, shares of Travelers Class A and Class B were
exchanged for .4334 shares of St. Paul common stock pursuant to
the false and misleading registration statement. Between April
1, 2004, and August 5, 2004 shares of the combined Company have
fallen $6.02, representing a decline of 14.8% to close at $34.75
on August 5, 2004.

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


ST. PAUL TRAVELLERS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 former holders of shares of
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. ("Travelers") Class A and
Class B common stock (formerly NYSE: TAP.A, TAP.B) who acquired
shares of St. Paul Travelers' stock pursuant to joint proxy
statement/prospectus/registration statement
("Prospectus/Registration Statement") and on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of the St. Paul Travelers
Companies Inc. (NYSE: STA) ("St. Paul Travelers" and the
"Company") from April 2, 2004 through August 5, 2004 inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges St. Paul Travelers, Jay Fishman, Thomas A.
Bradley, John C. Treacy, and Robert I. Lipp with violations of
the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. On November 17, 2003, St. Paul Companies, Inc. ("St.
Paul") and Travelers announced that they had signed a definitive
merger agreement that would create the nation's second largest
commercial insurer, to be known as St. Paul Travelers. According
to the complaint, on February 13, 2004, St. Paul filed a joint
proxy statement/prospectus/registration statement
("Proxy/Registration Statement"). The materially false and
misleading Proxy/Registration Statement provided historical
balance sheets of both St. Paul and Travelers, individually as
of September 30, 2003. Moreover, the Proxy/Registration
Statement also included an unaudited pro forma condensed
combined balance sheet as of September 30, 2003, which combined
the historical consolidated balance sheets of St. Paul and
Travelers, giving effect to the Merger as if it had been
consummated on September 30, 2003. On April 1, 2004, the merger
was completed.

On July 23, 2004, the Company dropped a bombshell on the market.
The Company stated that the historic accounting and actuarial
methods of St. Paul were being conformed to those of Travelers
and all St. Paul assets and liabilities are being recorded at
fair value on the opening balance sheet and that as a result,
the Company would take a $1.625 billion reserve charge. On news
of this shares, shares fell $0.89 per share, or 2.44 percent, to
close at $35.66 per share on July 23, 2004. Then, on August 5,
2004, St. Paul Travelers reported a net loss for the second
quarter ended June 30, 2004 of $275 million, or $0.42 per basic
and diluted share. The net loss was, in part, attributable to
the unprecedented reserve charge. On news of this, shares of St.
Paul Travelers fell an additional $1.73 per share, or 4.74
percent, to close at $34.75 per share on August 5, 2004.

In consideration of the foregoing, the complaint alleges that
the Prospectus/Registration Statement and statements made by the
defendants were materially false and misleading and failed to
disclose, among other things, the following:

     (1) that the merger between St. Paul and Travelers was far
         from a "merger of equals" and was more representative
         of a "bailout" of St. Paul;

     (2) that defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded that
         fact that St. Paul's insurance methodologies and
         practices with respect to those used to calculate
         reserves were less conservative that those of Travelers
         and if revealed, would impair the success of the
         merger;

     (3) that as a consequence of the forgoing, the Company's
         reserve reduction was materially insufficient; and

     (4) as such, St. Paul Travelers' earnings and assets were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

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


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. ("Taro" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: TARO) between February 20, 2003 and July 29,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The Complaint names as defendants Taro,
Barrie Levitt, Aaron Levitt, Daniel Moros, Samuel Rubenstein and
Kevin Connelly. The complaint alleges that Taro presented itself
as a pharmaceutical company that develops, manufactures and
markets generic drugs, and that the Company claimed throughout
the Class Period that it had successfully expanded its product
line to include proprietary drugs and novel drug delivery
systems. Unbeknownst to investors, the Company suffered from
undisclosed adverse factors that were having a negative impact
on Taro's financial performance and condition including but not
limited to the following:

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

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

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

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

On July 29, 2004 the Company announced a second-quarter loss of
$0.31 per share, far below the Company-guided analyst consensus
estimate of $0.44 per share earnings, and that drug sales had
dropped to $49.1 million from $74.8 million in the prior second
quarter. On this news, 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 Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP by Mail: 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY
10016 by Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 or by E-mail:
slee@abbeygardy.com


US UNWIRED: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of US Unwired, Inc.
(OTC Bulletin Board: UNWR.OB) ("US Unwired") between May 23,
2000 and August 13, 2002 (the "Class Period").

During the Class Period, US Unwired held direct or indirect
ownership interests in five Sprint PCS affiliates: Louisiana
Unwired, Texas Unwired, Georgia PCS, IWO Holdings and Gulf Coast
Wireless. The Complaint alleges that US Unwired failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following:

     (1) that US Unwired was increasing its subscriber base by
         signing up high-credit-risk customers;

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

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

     (4) and that US Unwired experienced lower subscription
         growth as a result of changes in policy for high-
         credit-risk credit customers.

On August 13, 2002, US Unwired announced in a press release the
financial results for the second quarter period ended June 30,
2002, disclosing lower than expected subscription growth as a
result high-credit-risk credit customer policy changes. 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 Wayne T. Boulton or Justin S. Kudler
of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


VISTACARE INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of VistaCare, Inc.
(Nasdaq: VSTA) ("VistaCare") between April 28, 2003, and August
5, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
VistaCare -- a provider of hospice services -- was able to
report impressive financial growth by failing to properly
reserve its Medicare reimbursements. On August 5, 2004,
VistaCare issued a press release announcing second quarter
financial results for the quarter ending June 30, 2004, stating
that the results were impacted by the decision to accrue $6.2
million in the quarter for its Medicare cap reserve. 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, a one-day decline of over 18%.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Justin S. Kudler
of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. by Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *