CAR_Public/040820.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, August 20, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 165

                          Headlines

3M CORPORATION: MO Court Authorizes Scotch Tape Antitrust Suit
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Removes Investor Fraud Suit to S.D. IL Court
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Market Timing Suits in MD Court For Pre-trial
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Investors Launch Stock Fraud Suits in S.D. NY

ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Working to Settle FL Mold Contamination Suits
BEMIS CO.: Feb. 2005 Deadline Set For Discovery, Certification
BET PHARM: KY Court Issues Warrant Over Illegal Drug Products
CARESCIENCE INC.: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 27, 2004
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces CA Gas Market Manipulation Lawsuits

CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues To Face Gas Prices Antitrust Suits
CMS ENERGY: CA Consumers File Natural Gas Prices Antitrust Suit
COLUMBIA NATURAL: Trial in Gas Royalties Suit Set July 15, 2005
CONSUMERS ENERGY: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
CONSUMERS ENERGY: MI Court Grants Suit Dismissal Motion in Part

EFUNDS CORPORATION: Seeks Summary Judgment in FL Privacy Lawsuit
EXO-BRAIN INC.: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint in N.D. GA
FIRST COMMUNITY: Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Suit in CA Court
FLORIDA: A.G. Crist Files Price-Gouging Lawsuit V. Two Hotels
JANUS CAPITAL: Pays $100M To Settle SEC Market Timing Charges

NEW YORK: Suit Accuses Banks, ATM Operators of Customer Gouging
NIKE USA: Recalls 9,000 Athletic Shoes Due To Choking Hazard
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Launch Stock Suits in N.D. TX
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Final Settlement Documents Filed With NY Court
RELIANT ENERGY: TX Court Nixes Review of Franchise Fee Ruling

RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Two ERISA Violations Lawsuits in TX Court
RELIANT RESOURCES: Certification Sought For TX Securities Suit
ST. JUDE: Faces Numerous Litigation Over Silzone Coated Valves
ST. JUDE: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits Over Symmetry Connector
TENNESSEE: Court Denies Certification To ADA Lawsuit V. State

UNIPRIME CAPITAL: Alfred J. Flores Receives $110,000 Penalty
UTAH MEDICAL: FDA Trying To Halt Medical Devices' Distribution


                         Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aearo Increases Liability Estimate For 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alfa Laval Named In 143 Asbestos Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACKHQ Updated Insurance Recovery Assessment
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Intl. Plaintiffs Increase To 1,483
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FWLRF U.S. Encumbered By Asbestos Claims

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Subsidiary Served With Summons
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPL's Pending Lawsuits Reduced To 88 Suits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KACC Accrues $610.1M For Costs Through 2011
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Inc. Named In Illinois Asbestos Suit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Subsidiary Facing 713 Lawsuits

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Subsidiaries Battle 5,913 Active Cases
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Industries Named In 33 Actions
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: TriMas' Corp. Pending Cases Jump To 1,041
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Liability Cases Climb Back Up To 14T
ASBESTOS ALERT: Katy Industries Named in Two Alabama Lawsuits

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges IL Securities Suit
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in CA
CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CNL HOTELS & RESORTS: Chimicles & Tikellis Lodges FL Stock Suit
CP SHIPS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL

DRUGSTORE.COM: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
GEXA CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
KVH INDUSTRIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Lawsuit in RI
NETFLIX INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
PETMED EXPRESS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL

PETMED EXPRESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in FL
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNCATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in VA
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNCATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges VA Stock Suit
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in VA
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges MN Stock Suit

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in MN


                            *********


3M CORPORATION: MO Court Authorizes Scotch Tape Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Clarence C. Newcomer gave the Bradburn
Parent/Teacher Store Inc. of St. Louis, Missouri, a family-owned
school supplies store the go-ahead to pursue a class-action
lawsuit against St. Paul, Minnesota-based 3M Corporation on
behalf of businesses that bought Scotch tape after 1998, CBS 3 /
KYW-TV Philadelphia reports.

An offspring of a lawsuit brought by a Pittsburgh tape-maker
that won a judgment of nearly $70 million over allegations that
3M had violated antitrust laws by implementing rebate programs
and exclusive dealing arrangements that penalized stores for
buying tape from competitors, the family-owned business was
emboldened by the outcome of the case and thus sued 3M. The
store's perseverance eventually resulted in making them serve as
the lead plaintiff after Judge Newcomer gave the go-ahead in a
class that will include all companies that purchased Scotch tape
from 3M after 1998.

However, the court stated that chain stores big enough to sell
their own brand of tape are to be exempted from the class and
must sue 3M separately, since they have a slightly different set
of concerns than stores that did not compete with 3M at all.

According to 3M, back in 1999 their attorneys argued in the
initial case brought by Pittsburgh-based tape-maker, LePage's
Inc., that its rebate programs were a legal way to offer
discounts to customers that bought a large volume of 3M
products. They also argued that consumers and retailers paid
lower prices due to the arrangements, and nothing in them
prevented stores from selling competing brands.


ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamosa Holdings, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and:

     (1) David E. Sharbutt, chairman and chief executive
         officer,

     (2) Kendall W. Cowan, chief financial officer, and

     (3) Michael Roberts and

     (4) Steven Roberts

In November and December 2003 and January 2004, multiple
lawsuits were filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
and/or entities that purchased the Company's securities between
January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive, and seeks recovery
of compensatory damages, fees and costs.  Each lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, in either the Lubbock Division or the Dallas Division.

On February 27, 2004, the lawsuits were consolidated into one
action pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division.  On March 4, 2004,
the Court appointed the Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity
Fund to serve as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of
lead counsel for the consolidated action.  On May 18, 2004, the
lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.  The consolidated
complaint names three of the original defendants (the Company,
David Sharbutt and Kendall Cowan), drops one of the original
defendants (Steven Richardson) and names two new defendants who
are outside directors (Michael Roberts and Steven Roberts).  The
putative class period remains the same.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.  The
consolidated complaint seeks recovery of compensatory damages,
fees, costs, recission or rescissory damages in connection with
the Sections 11 and 15 claims, and injunctive relief and/or
disgorgement in connection with defendants' insider trading
proceeds.

At the end of the putative class period on June 13, 2002, the
Company announced that its projection of net subscriber
additions for the second quarter of 2002 would be less than
previously projected.  The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company made false and misleading
statements about subscriber additions during the putative class
period.  The consolidated complaint also alleges that the
Company's financial statements were false and misleading because
the Company improperly recognized revenue and failed to record
adequate allowances for uncollectible receivables.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Removes Investor Fraud Suit to S.D. IL Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management L.P. removed the class action filed
against it, styled "Erb, et al. v. Alliance Capital Management
L.P," from the Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois, to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois.

The plaintiff, purportedly a shareholder in Premier Growth Fund,
alleges that the Company breached unidentified provisions of
Premier Growth Fund's prospectus and subscription and
confirmation agreements that allegedly required that every
security bought for Premier Growth Fund's portfolio must be a
"1-rated" stock, the highest rating that the Company's research
analysts could assign.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company
impermissibly purchased shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.

On November 25, 2003, the Company removed the Erb action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on the basis that plaintiffs' alleged breach of
contract claims are preempted under the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act.  On December 29, 2003, plaintiff filed a
motion for remand.  On February 25, 2004, the court remanded the
action to state court.

On June 24, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the
Circuit Court of St. Clair County, Illinois.  The Amended Erb
Complaint allegations are substantially similar to those
contained in the previous complaint, however, the Amended Erb
Complaint adds a new plaintiff and seeks to allege claims on
behalf of a purported class of persons or entities holding an
interest in any portfolio managed by the Company's Large Cap
Growth Team.

The Amended Erb Complaint alleges that Alliance Capital breached
its contracts with these persons or entities by impermissibly
purchasing shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.  Plaintiffs
seek rescission of all purchases of any non-1-rated stocks the
Company made for Premier Growth Fund and other Large Cap Growth
Team clients' portfolios over the past eight years, as well as
an unspecified amount of damages.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Market Timing Suits in MD Court For Pre-trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) removed
all market timing lawsuits filed against Alliance Capital
Management L.P. to the United States District Court in Maryland.

On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled
"Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et
al.," was filed against the Company and:

     (1) Alliance Capital Management Holding, L.P.,

     (2) Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC),

     (3) AXA Financial Corporation,

     (4) the AllianceBernstein family of mutual funds,

     (5) the registrants and issuers of those funds, certain
         officers of Alliance Capital,

     (6) certain other defendants not affiliated with Alliance
         Capital, and

     (7) unnamed Doe defendants

The Hindo Complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York by alleged
shareholders of two of the AllianceBernstein Funds.  The Hindo
Complaint alleges that certain of the Alliance defendants failed
to disclose that they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and
other unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and
"market timing" of AllianceBernstein Fund securities, violating
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 206
and 215 of the Advisers Act.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of compensatory damages and rescission of their contracts
with Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to
Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts.

Between October 3, 2003 and August 4, 2004, forty-three
additional lawsuits making factual allegations generally similar
to those in the Hindo Complaint were filed against the Company
and certain other defendants, and others may be filed.

Twenty-seven of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed
in federal court (twenty-three in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, two in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey, one in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California and one in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut).  Certain of these additional lawsuits
allege claims under the Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the
Advisers Act, the Investment Company Act and common law.  All of
these lawsuits are brought on behalf of shareholders of
AllianceBernstein Funds, except four.  Of these four, one was
brought on behalf of a Unitholder of Alliance Holding, and three
were brought on behalf of participants in the Profit Sharing
Plan for Employees of Alliance Capital (Plan).

The latter three lawsuits allege claims under Sections 404, 405
and 406 of The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
(ERISA), on the grounds that defendants violated fiduciary
obligations to the Plan by failing to disclose the alleged
market timing and late trading activities in AllianceBernstein
Funds, and by permitting the Plan to invest in funds subject to
those activities.  One of these ERISA actions has been
voluntarily dismissed.

Eight of the lawsuits were brought as derivative actions in
federal court (one in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, five in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York and two in
the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey).  These lawsuits allege claims under the Exchange Act,
Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act and/or common law.
Six of the lawsuits were brought derivatively on behalf of
certain AllianceBernstein Funds, with the broadest lawsuits
being brought derivatively on behalf of all AllianceBernstein
Funds, generally alleging that defendants violated fiduciary
obligations to the AllianceBernstein Funds and/or fund
shareholders by permitting select investors to engage in market
timing activities and failing to disclose those activities.  Two
of the lawsuits were brought derivatively on behalf of Alliance
Holding, generally alleging that defendants breached fiduciary
obligations to Alliance Holding and its Unitholders by failing
to prevent the alleged undisclosed market timing and late
trading activities from occurring.

Two lawsuits were brought as class actions in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, County of New York, by alleged
shareholders of an AllianceBernstein Fund on behalf of
shareholders of the AllianceBernstein Funds.  The lawsuits
allege that defendants allowed certain parties to engage in late
trading and market timing transactions in the AllianceBernstein
Funds and that such arrangements breached defendants’
fiduciary duty to investors and purport to state a claim for
breach of fiduciary duty.  One of the complaints also purports
to state claims for breach of contract and tortious interference
with contract.

A lawsuit was filed in Superior Court for the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, alleging that defendants
violated fiduciary responsibilities and disclosure obligations
by permitting certain favored customers to engage in market
timing and late trading activities in the AllianceBernstein
Funds and purports to state claims of unfair business practices
under Sections 17200 and 17303 of the California Business &
Professional Code.  Pursuant to these statutes, the action was
brought on behalf of members of the general public of the state
of California.

Four lawsuits were brought as derivative actions in state court
(one in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of
New York, and three in the Superior Court of the State of
Massachusetts, County of Suffolk).  The New York action was
brought derivatively on behalf of Alliance Holding and alleges
that, in connection with alleged market timing and late trading
transactions, defendants breached their fiduciary duties to
Alliance Holding and its Unitholders by failing to maintain
adequate controls and employing improper practices in managing
unspecified AllianceBernstein Funds.  The Massachusetts actions
were brought derivatively on behalf of certain AllianceBernstein
Funds and allege state common law claims for breach of fiduciary
duty, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste and unjust
enrichment.

A lawsuit was filed in the District Court of Johnson County,
Kansas, Civil Court Department, alleging that defendants were
negligent and breached their fiduciary duties by knowingly
entering into a number of illegal and improper arrangements with
institutional investors for the purpose of engaging in late
trading and market timing in AllianceBernstein Funds to the
detriment of plaintiff and failing to disclose such arrangements
in the AllianceBernstein Fund prospectuses, and purports to
state claims under Sections 624 and 626 of the Kansas Consumer
Protection Act and Section 1268 of the Kansas Securities Act.
The lawsuit also purports to state claims of negligent
misrepresentation, professional negligence and breach of
fiduciary duty under common law.

All of these lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of damages.
All of the federal actions discussed above (i.e., federal court
class actions and federal court derivative actions) were the
subject of a petition of tag-along notices filed by Alliance
Capital before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
seeking to have all of the actions centralized in a single forum
for pre-trial proceedings.  On February 20, 2004, the MDL Panel
transferred all of the actions to the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland.  On May 24, 2004, the Court
appointed lead counsel and lead plaintiffs for each of the
various claim types asserted against the Alliance defendants.
The Court has ordered plaintiffs to file consolidated complaints
by September 29, 2004.

Defendants have removed each of the state court representative
actions and the state court individual action discussed above
under "Market Timing-Related Matters" and thereafter submitted
the actions to the MDL Panel through notices of tag-along
action.  On March 3, 2004 and April 6, 2004, the MDL Panel
issued orders conditionally transferring these cases and
numerous others to the Mutual Fund MDL.  Transfer of all of
these actions subsequently became final.  Plaintiffs in three of
these four actions moved to remand the actions back to state
court.  On June 18, 2004, the Court issued an interim opinion
deferring decision on plaintiffs' motions to remand until a
later stage in the proceedings.  Subsequently, the plaintiff in
the state court individual action moved the Court for
reconsideration of that interim opinion and for immediate remand
of her case to state court, and that motion is pending.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Investors Launch Stock Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management, L.P. faces several class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Alliance Capital Management Holding, L.P.,

     (2) Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC),

     (3) AXA Financial Corporation,

     (4) AllianceBernstein Investment and Research Management
         (ABIRM),

     (5) certain current and former directors of the
         AllianceBernstein Funds, and

     (6) unnamed Doe defendants

The first suit, styled "Aucoin, et al. v. Alliance Capital
Management L.P., et al., names the AllianceBernstein Funds as
nominal defendants.  The suit was filed by an alleged
shareholder of the AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund.  The
Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that certain of the defendants improperly authorized
         the payment of excessive commissions and other fees
         from AllianceBernstein Fund assets to broker-dealers in
         exchange for preferential marketing services,

    (ii) that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
         omitted from registration statements and other reports
         material facts concerning such payments, and

   (iii) that certain defendants caused such conduct as control
         persons of other defendants.

The Aucoin Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections
34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections
206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary
duties, and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary
duties.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with
Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to
Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of
all AllianceBernstein Fund-related fees, commissions and soft
dollar payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or
discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses.

Between June 22, 2004 and August 4, 2004, nine additional
lawsuits making factual allegations substantially similar to
those in the Aucoin Complaint were filed against Alliance
Capital and certain other defendants, and others may be filed.
All nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin
Complaint, and are brought on behalf of shareholders of
AllianceBernstein Funds.


ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Working to Settle FL Mold Contamination Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Archstone-Smith Operating Trust is working towards the
settlement of several class actions filed against it in the
Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-
Dade County, Florida.

"Henriques, et al. v. Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, et al.,"
filed on August 27, 2002 on behalf of a class of residents at
Harbour House. The case alleged that water infiltration and
resulting mold contamination at the property had been caused by
faulty air-conditioning and had resulted in both personal
injuries to the plaintiffs and damage to their property.

The Company has reached a settlement with plaintiffs in
Henriques.  Not all plaintiffs have accepted the court-approved
settlement, and some of these individuals have filed separate
lawsuits.  The Company is in the process of determining the
merits of their claims.

"Santos, et al. v. Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, et al., was
filed in the same court on February 13, 2003, on behalf of a
class of residents at Harbour House.  The plaintiffs in this
case make substantially the same allegations as those made in
the Henriques claim and seek both injunctive relief and
unspecified monetary and punitive damages.  The Company is
currently in settlement discussions with the individuals who
have retained counsel.

"Michel, et al., v. Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, et al.,"
was filed on May 9, 2003 on behalf of the class of residents at
the property.  The plaintiffs in this case make substantially
the same allegations as those made in the Henriques claim and
seek both injunctive relief and unspecified monetary and
punitive damages.  The suit is pending.

"Semidey, et al., v. Archstone-Smith Operating Trust, et al.,"
was filed on June 9, 2003, on behalf of the class of residents
at the property.  The plaintiffs in this case made substantially
the same allegations as those made in the Henriques claim and
sought both injuctive relief and unspecified monetary and
punitive damages.   Although the Company was never served with
this complaint, it has reached a settlement with a majority of
the represented residents and therefore this complaint was
dismissed without prejudice.

Although the Company is in continued discussions with the
remaining represented residents in the Semidey case, plaintiffs'
counsel elected to re-file a class action suit on behalf of
these individuals, styled "Sullivan, et al., v. Archstone-Smith
Operating Trust, et al." on July 6, 2004 in the Circuit Court of
the Eleventh Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County,
Florida.   This is based upon the same allegation as the Semidey
action and seeks the same relief, with the exception of damages
for bodily injury, which are excluded.  Plaintiffs' counsel
has advised the Company that they intend to seek recovery for
any bodily injury claims through individual lawsuits.


BEMIS CO.: Feb. 2005 Deadline Set For Discovery, Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania set February 2005 as the deadline for discovery
taken on class certification and the completion of briefing on
motion for class certification of the consolidated lawsuit filed
against Bemis Co., Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Morgan
Adhesives Company.

Nine civil lawsuits were initially filed against the Company and
Morgan Adhesives, purporting to represent a nationwide class of
labelstock purchasers, and each alleges a conspiracy to fix
prices within the self-adhesive labelstock industry.

On November 5, 2003, the Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict
Litigation issued a decision consolidating all of the federal
class actions for pretrial purposes in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, before
the Honorable Chief Judge Vanaskie.  The Order does not set, at
this time, a discovery cut-off or a trial date.


BET PHARM: KY Court Issues Warrant Over Illegal Drug Products
-------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky issued
a seizure warrant on August 11, 2004, for various illegally
compounded drug products for use in horses found at BET Pharm,
LLC, Lexington, KY. The U.S. Marshals Service executed the
seizure warrant on August 12, 2004.

FDA inspections of BET Pharm, LLC, revealed the firm is
illegally manufacturing and distributing unapproved animal drugs
intended for various uses in horses. These drug products and
their components were subject to seizure by the federal
government because the drug products were not approved by FDA as
new animal drugs and thus are adulterated under the Federal
Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

BET Pharm, LLC, was previously issued a Warning Letter outlining
unacceptable practices. The Warning Letter cited violations
including manufacturing drug products from bulk drugs without
approval from FDA; compounding of drug products that are copies
of approved drugs, and selling compounded drugs in the absence
of a valid relationship between a veterinarian and horse owner.
The company was given an opportunity to correct the violations,
but failed to take appropriate actions.

These violations could pose a health risk to horses because the
safety and efficacy of these drugs are not known. The FDA
advises horse owners not to purchase or use these products.
Horse owners may wish to consult their veterinarians for advice
on which products are appropriate to treat their animals.

The FDA has initiated this action as part of its responsibility
to promote and protect the health of animals by enforcing the
animal drug, device, and feed provisions of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act. FDA's mission includes ensuring the
safety or safety and effectiveness of a broad spectrum of
regulated animal products, including feed, drugs, and veterinary
devices.


CARESCIENCE INC.: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 27, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
$3,300,000 settlement of the matter In re CareScience, Inc.
Securities Litigation Master File No. 01-5266 on behalf of all
persons of the common stock of CareScience, Inc. ("CARESCIENCE")
from June 28, 2000 to November 1, 2000, inclusive.

The Court has scheduled the hearing on October 27, 2004, at 9:00
a.m., before the Honorable Petrese B. Tucker in the United
States Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19106.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett of Berger &
Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA
19103 by Phone: or (215) 875-3000 by Fax: (215) 875-5715 OR Kay
E. Sickles, Esq. or Marc I. Willner, 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 OR In re CareScience, Inc.
Securities Litigation - The Garden City Group, Inc. by Mail: c/o
Claims Administrator - P.O. Box 9000 #6234, Merrick, NY 11566-
9000 or by Phone: 1-866-808-3618


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Faces CA Gas Market Manipulation Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centerpoint Energy, Inc., Centerpoint Houston and predecessor
Reliant Energy continues to face several lawsuits filed in both
federal and state courts in California and Nevada in connection
with the operation of the electricity and natural gas markets in
California and certain other western states in 2000-2001, a time
of power shortages and significant increases in prices.
Numerous other market participants are also named in the
litigation.

These lawsuits, many of which have been filed as class actions,
are based on a number of legal theories, including violation of
state and federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and
unlawful business practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), false claims statutes and
similar theories and breaches of contracts to supply power to
governmental entities.  Plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which
include state officials and governmental entities as well as
private litigants, are seeking a variety of forms of relief,
including recovery of compensatory damages (in some cases in
excess of $1 billion), a trebling of compensatory damages and
punitive damages, injunctive relief, restitution, interest due,
disgorgement, civil penalties and fines, costs of suit,
attorneys' fees and divestiture of assets.

To date, some of these complaints have been dismissed by the
trial court and are on appeal, but most of the lawsuits remain
in early procedural stages.  The Company's former subsidiary,
Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI), was a participant in the
California markets, owning generating plants in the state and
participating in both electricity and natural gas trading in
that state and in western power markets generally.  RRI, some of
its subsidiaries and in some cases, corporate officers of some
of those companies, have been named as defendants in these
suits.

The Company, CenterPoint Houston or their predecessor, Reliant
Energy, were named in approximately 25 of these lawsuits, which
were instituted between 2001 and 2004 and are pending in state
courts in Los Angeles County and San Diego County, in federal
district courts in San Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles and
Nevada and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  However,
neither the Company nor Reliant Energy was a participant in the
electricity or natural gas markets in California. The Company
and Reliant Energy have been dismissed from certain of the
lawsuits, either voluntarily by the plaintiffs or by order of
the court and the Company believes it is not a proper defendant
in the remaining cases and will continue to seek dismissal from
such remaining cases.  On July 6, 2004, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the Company's removal to federal court of an electric
case brought by the California Attorney General and affirmed the
court's dismissal of that case based upon the filed rate
doctrine and federal preemption.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues To Face Gas Prices Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy, Inc., CenterPoint Energy Resources
Corporation (CERC), Entex Gas Marketing Company and others face
several class actions filed in various courts over natural gas
prices.

In October 2002, a suit was filed in state district court in
Wharton County, Texas, alleging fraud, violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, violations of the Texas Utilities
Code, civil conspiracy and violations of the Texas Free
Enterprise and Antitrust Act.  The plaintiffs seek class
certification, but no class has been certified.  The plaintiffs
allege that defendants inflated the prices charged to certain
consumers of natural gas.

In February 2003, a similar suit was filed against CERC in state
court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana purportedly on behalf of a
class of residential or business customers in Louisiana who
allegedly have been overcharged for gas or gas service provided
by CERC.  In February 2004, another suit was filed against CERC
in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, seeking to recover alleged
overcharges for gas or gas services allegedly provided by Entex
without advance approval by the Louisiana Public Service
Commission.

The plaintiffs in these cases seek injunctive and declaratory
relief, restitution for the alleged overcharges, exemplary
damages or trebling of actual damages and civil penalties.  In
these cases, the Company, CERC and Entex Gas Marketing Company
deny that they have overcharged any of their customers for
natural gas and believe that the amounts recovered for purchased
gas have been in accordance with what is permitted by state
regulatory authorities.


CMS ENERGY: CA Consumers File Natural Gas Prices Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CMS Energy, Inc. faces a putative class action filed by Texas-
Ohio Energy, Inc. against it and a number of energy companies
engaged in the sale of natural gas in the United States.

The Texas Ohio complaint, initially filed in the United States
District Court in California, alleges defendants entered into a
price-fixing conspiracy by engaging in activities to manipulate
the price of natural gas in California.  The complaint contains
counts alleging violations of the Sherman Act, Cartwright Act (a
California statute), and the California Business and Profession
Code relating to unlawful, unfair and deceptive business
practices.

There is currently pending in the Nevada federal district court
a multi-district court litigation (MDL) matter involving seven
complaints originally filed in various state courts in
California.  These complaints make allegations similar to those
in the Texas-Ohio case regarding price reporting, although none
contain a Sherman Act claim and some of the defendants in the
MDL matter are also defendants in the Texas-Ohio case.

Those defendants successfully argued to have the Texas-Ohio case
transferred to the MDL proceeding.  The plaintiff in the Texas-
Ohio case agreed to extend the time for all defendants to answer
or otherwise respond until May 28, 2004 and on that date a
number of defendants filed motions to dismiss.  In order to
negotiate possible dismissal and/or substitution of defendants,
CMS Energy and two other parent holding company defendants were
given further extensions to answer or otherwise respond to the
complaint until August 16, 2004.


COLUMBIA NATURAL: Trial in Gas Royalties Suit Set July 15, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Columbia Natural
Resources, Inc., styled "TAWNEY, ET AL. V. COLUMBIA NATURAL
RESOURCES, INC.," is set for July 15,2005 in Roane County, West
Virginia Circuit Court.

The Plaintiffs, who are royalty owners, filed a lawsuit in early
2003 against the Company alleging that it underpaid royalties by
improperly deducting post-production costs and not paying a fair
value for the gas produced from their leases.  Plaintiffs seek
the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive damages claiming
that the Company fraudulently concealed the deduction of post-
production charges.

In February 2004, the court certified the case as a class action
that includes any person who, after January 1, 1980, received or
is due royalties from Columbia Natural Resources (and its
predecessors or successors) on lands lying within the boundary
of the State of West Virginia.  All individuals, corporations,
agencies, departments or instrumentalities of the United States
of America are excepted from the class.  The Company appealed
the decision certifying the class and the Supreme Court of West
Virginia denied the appeal.


CONSUMERS ENERGY: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Consumers Energy Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, CMS
Energy, Inc. and certain officers and directors of CMS Energy
and its affiliates.

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of CMS Energy's
securities beginning on May 1, 2000 and running through March
31, 2003, generally seeks unspecified damages based on
allegations that the defendants violated United States
securities laws and regulations by making allegedly false and
misleading statements about CMS Energy's business and financial
condition, particularly with respect to revenues and expenses
recorded in connection with round-trip trading by CMS MST.

The judge issued an opinion and order dated March 31, 2004 in
connection with various pending motions, including plaintiffs'
motion to amend the complaint and the motions to dismiss the
complaint filed by the Company, CMS Energy and other defendants.
The judge directed plaintiffs to file an amended complaint under
seal and ordered an expedited hearing on the motion to amend,
which was held on May 12, 2004.

At the hearing, the judge ordered plaintiffs to file a Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action complaint deleting Counts III
and IV relating to purchasers of CMS PEPS, which the judge
ordered dismissed with prejudice.  Plaintiffs filed this
complaint on May 26, 2004.

The Company, CMS Energy, and the individual defendants filed new
motions to dismiss on June 21, 2004.  A hearing on those motions
occurred on August 2, 2004 and the judge has taken the matter
under advisement.


CONSUMERS ENERGY: MI Court Grants Suit Dismissal Motion in Part
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan granted in part Consumers Energy Corporation's motion
to dismiss the consolidated class action filed against it and:

     (1) CMS Energy, Inc.,

     (2) CMS Marketing Services and Trading Company (CMS MST),
         and

     (3) certain named and unnamed officers and directors

The suit was filed on behalf of participants and beneficiaries
of the CMS Employees' Savings and Incentive Plan (the Plan).
Plaintiffs allege breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA and
seek restitution on behalf of the Plan with respect to a decline
in value of the shares of CMS Energy Common Stock held in the
Plan.  Plaintiffs also seek other equitable relief and legal
fees.

The judge issued an opinion and order dated March 31, 2004 in
connection with the motions to dismiss filed by the Company, CMS
Energy, and the individuals.  The judge dismissed certain of the
amended counts in the plaintiffs' complaint and denied CMS
Energy's motion to dismiss the other claims in the complaint.
CMS Energy, Consumers and the individual defendants filed
answers to the amended complaint on May 14, 2004.  A trial date
has not been set, but is expected to be no earlier than late in
2005.


EFUNDS CORPORATION: Seeks Summary Judgment in FL Privacy Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
eFunds Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment in the
class action filed against it and numerous other defendants in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The complaint in this action alleges that the Company purchased
motor vehicle records from the State of Florida and used that
data for marketing and other purposes that are not permitted
under the Federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act.  The
plaintiffs are seeking liquidated damages of not less than
$2,500 for each affected member of a purported class, plus costs
and attorney's fees.  The plaintiffs are also asking for
injunctive relief to prevent further alleged violations of the
Federal Act.

On March 11, 2004, the Company joined in a motion to dismiss
this case filed by a co-defendant and the Company filed its own
further motion to dismiss a portion of this case on June 23,
2004.  All these motions are pending before the court.


EXO-BRAIN INC.: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against
Peter Warren and Exo-Brain, Inc. (Exo-Brain), which was formerly
known as E-Brain Solutions, LLC (E-Brain LLC).  The complaint
alleges that in 2000 and 2001, the defendants raised up to $12.4
million from investors in a series of fraudulent, unregistered
offerings of securities. At the time of the conduct alleged in
the complaint, Warren was a part time resident of, and Exo-Brain
was located in, Chattanooga, Tennessee. Warren controlled E-
Brain LLC and Exo-Brain.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants
fraudulently offered and sold securities to investors at a time
when no registration statement was filed with the Commission in
connection with the offers and sales, and no exemption from
registration existed. The complaint alleges that in offering
documents, the defendants falsely claimed to have developed a
working prototype that could be used to make computers user-
friendlier, by enabling a person to operate a computer with
voice command, and in numerous foreign languages. The defendants
also falsely represented that the company had built a launch
product or commercially available product when no such product
existed, and also misrepresented, among other things, the
company's financial situation.

The complaint alleges that the offerings of E-Brain LLC should
be integrated into a single unregistered offering because, in
part, the offerings did not cease for more than a six month
period of time, the sales of securities by E-Brain LLC all
shared the same purpose-to fund the software development
business controlled by Warren, and E-Brain LLC was involved in a
single plan of financing. The complaint further alleges, for
several reasons, that the offerings of the successor company,
Exo-Brain, should be integrated with the earlier offerings of E-
Brain LLC, which were not exempt from the registration
requirements of the Securities Act.

The complaint alleges that by their conduct, the defendants
violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The Commission seeks, with respect to
each defendant, permanent injunctions, accountings,
disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil penalties. The
Commission also seeks an officer and director bar against
defendant Warren. The action is titled, SEC v. Peter Warren and
Exo-Brain, Inc. (formerly E-Brain Solutions, LLC), Civil Action
File No. 1:04-CV-2403, N.D. Ga. (LR-18835).


FIRST COMMUNITY: Consumers Launch Unfair Trade Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Community Bancorp and Pacific Western face an amended
class action filed initially filed in the Los Angeles Superior
Court, and now pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Central Division of California.  The suit is styled "Western
Division (Gilbert et al. v. Cohn et al., Case No. CV-04-4989 WMB
(AJWx))."

The Company is named as defendants in its capacity as alleged
successors to First Charter Bank, N.A., which the Company
acquired in October 2001.  The lawsuit alleges that a former
officer of First Charter Bank and later principal of Four Star
Financial Services, LLC (Four Star), an affiliate of 900 Capital
Services, Inc. (900 Capital), improperly induced several First
Charter customers to invest in 900 Capital or affiliates of 900
Capital, and further alleges that Four Star, 900 Capital and
some of their affiliated entities perpetuated their fraud upon
investors through various First Charter accounts with First
Charter's purported participation in and/or willful ignorance of
the scheme.

The actions alleged in the complaint date back to the mid-1990s,
and the complaint alleges several counts for relief including
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, relief pursuant to the
California Business and Professions Code, negligence and relief
under the California Securities Act stemming from an alleged
ponzi scheme and sale of securities issued by Four Star.  The
investment losses to the individually named plaintiffs are
specified in the amended complaint to be approximately $5
million.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified level of
compensatory and punitive damages on behalf of the individual
plaintiffs.  While the plaintiffs intend to establish a class
for purposes of pursuing a class action, a class has not yet
been certified.

On July 26, 2004, the Company filed proofs of claim in the
federal bankruptcy proceedings of Four Star and 900 Capital for
contribution and indemnity.  Plaintiffs are attempting to have
the suit remanded to state court.


FLORIDA: A.G. Crist Files Price-Gouging Lawsuit V. Two Hotels
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist has filed the first round
of civil complaints over price gouging and deceptive and unfair
trade practices of consumers as they fled the fury of Hurricane
Charley.

In two separate civil complaints, the Attorney General's Office
alleges that a Days Inn in West Palm Beach and the Crossroads
Motor Lodge in Lakeland charged "unconscionable" rates,
substantially higher than their regular rates, to consumers
seeking shelter from the storm.

The civil complaints, filed this morning in West Palm Beach and
Lakeland, are the first to be filed as a result of Hurricane
Charley under Florida's price gouging statute. Provisions of the
statute took effect when Governor Jeb Bush declared a state of
emergency on August 10, 2004.

Investigators in the Attorney General's Office are looking into
more than approximately 1,200 complaints already filed by
consumers, and additional complaints are being received
continuously at the Attorney General's price gouging hotline,
1-800-646-0444.

"Hurricane Charley is the worst natural disaster to befall our
state in a dozen years, and it is unthinkable that anyone would
try to take advantage of neighbors at a time like this.  We are
taking a two-pronged approach to fight this egregious behavior,"
said AG Crist.  "Families putting their lives back together
should not have to worry about price gouging."

According to the West Palm Beach complaint, a billboard in close
proximity to the Days Inn Airport at 2300 45th Street in West
Palm Beach advertised rooms for less than $50 per night.
Instead, the hotel charged more than double that amount to three
consumers who filed affidavits.  Two of the consumers were
forced to pay $109 per night, while the third was charged $119.
Each of the consumers indicated that the hotel told them it
had "only two rooms left," creating an increased sense urgency
to pay the inflated price.

The Polk County complaint alleges that Crossroads Motor Lodge,
at 3223 U.S. Highway 98 North in Lakeland, advertised rooms
available for the night of August 13 at a rate of $44.79,
including taxes and fees. According to three affidavits taken by
Attorney General's investigators in support of the complaint,
one consumer, who is 85 years old, made a reservation only to
have it dishonored; she eventually was able to obtain a room for
$61.27 - 37 percent more than the original rate.  A second
consumer, a woman with five children, made reservations and paid
cash but the hotel later told her all rooms were taken. Her
request for a refund was then refused. The third consumer also
made reservations, paid cash and was later told there were no
available rooms. This consumer did receive a refund.

AG Crist last week created the Attorney General's Hurricane Task
Force, designed to stop the potential onslaught of price gougers
emerging in the wake of Hurricane Charley. Criminal and civil
investigators from the Attorney General's Office have been
mobilized statewide for a crackdown on price gouging on items
that are in high demand following a hurricane such as food,
water, hotels, ice, gasoline, generators and lumber.

Florida's price gouging statute requires that the cost of
necessities like food and water must remain at the price that
was average during the 30 days immediately preceding a major
storm like Hurricane Charley.  Otherwise, violators of the price
gouging statute are subject to civil penalties of $1,000 per
violation up to a total of $25,000 for multiple violations
committed in a single 24-hour period.  Florida's Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act provides for civil penalties of
$10,000 per violation or $15,000 for violations that victimize a
senior citizen or handicapped person.


JANUS CAPITAL: Pays $100M To Settle SEC Market Timing Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
On August 18, the Commission filed settled administrative and
cease-and-desist proceedings against Janus Capital Management
LLC (JCM), a registered investment adviser based in Denver,
Colorado, for entering into undisclosed market timing agreements
with certain investors. The Commission ordered JCM to pay
disgorgement of $50 million and civil penalties of $50 million,
for a total payment of $100 million. JCM also consented to a
cease-and-desist order and a censure, and agreed to undertake
certain compliance and mutual-fund governance reforms.

In the Order, the Commission found that:

     (1) JCM negotiated market timing agreements with 12
         entities pursuant to which these entities were
         permitted to market time certain Janus mutual funds. At
         the same time JCM entered into these agreements, the
         prospectuses for the funds being timed stated, or at
         least strongly implied, that JCM did not permit
         frequent trading or market timing in these funds.

     (2) Some of JCM's market timing agreements were entered
         into with the understanding that the market timer would
         make long-term investments, so-called "sticky assets,"
         in certain Janus mutual funds. In addition, JCM waived
         all redemption fees that would have otherwise been
         assessed against the market timers for their frequent
         trading activity.

     (3) While the timing activity by the market timers caused
         dilution to the affected mutual funds, the market
         timing agreements financially benefited JCM in that JCM
         realized additional advisory fees from the timed funds
         and sticky assets under its management. Because of
         JCM's financial interest in the increased assets under
         management, JCM had a conflict of interest with the
         Janus mutual funds subject to the market timing
         agreements. JCM failed to disclose the conflict of
         interest to the Board of Trustees and the shareholders
         of the affected mutual funds, thereby breaching JCM's
         fiduciary duty to the mutual funds.

The Commission's Order further finds that JCM willfully violated
Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act and
Sections 17(d) and 34(b) of the Investment Company Act and Rule
17d-1 thereunder. JCM consented to the entry of the Commission's
Order without admitting or denying the findings.

This enforcement action has been coordinated with The Office of
the New York Attorney General, The Office of the Colorado
Attorney General and the Colorado Division of Securities.


NEW YORK: Suit Accuses Banks, ATM Operators of Customer Gouging
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal class action suit charging ATM operators and banks of
colluding to gouge customers every time they used ATM cash
machines was filed in a Manhattan court, which named as
defendants Concord EFS, parent company of the Star ATM network,
Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Sun Trust Banks,
Wachovia Corp., and Wells Fargo & Co., the New York Post
reports.

The suit alleges that customers pay twice for the same
transaction - an ATM fee ranging from $1.50 to $2 per cash
withdrawal to the bank and a surcharge to the ATM owner for the
same, which the banks justify as a fee to recoup an "interchange
fee" they pay to ATM owners for the service.

However the suit further alleges that the banks conspire with
the ATM operators to charge the "unnecessary" and "fixed"
interchange fee to justify the "artificially inflated" customer
fees, which is claimed by the suit to be in violation of United
States antitrust laws.

Attempts by the state to prohibit certain ATM fees have been
unsuccessful though, since a federal court in Iowa ruled in 2002
that the state had little to no authority to regulate ATMs
operated by national banks.


NIKE USA: Recalls 9,000 Athletic Shoes Due To Choking Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Nike USA, Inc., of Beaverton, Oregon is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 9,000 NikeT Get-Go and Little Get-Go Children's
Athletic Shoes.

The 1.5-inch to 1.75-inch rubber tab at the top of the heel can
detach from the shoe, posing a choking hazard to young children.
Nike has received three reports of heel tabs separating from
shoes. No injuries have been reported.

The "GET-GO" and "LITTLE GET-GO" children's athletic shoes come
in various color combinations and were sold in toddler and pre-
school sizes 2C through 3Y. The Nike Swoosh symbol is on the
outside and sole of the shoe. All shoes close with a strap. The
style name "GET-GO" or "LITTLE GET-GO" is written on the shoe
box. The recalled shoes have one of the following six-digit
numbers on a label inside the shoe just above the UPC code:
308638, 308639, 308642 and 308647. Only these style numbers are
included in this recall.

Manufactured in Indonesia, the athletic shoes were sold at Nike
stores, major athletic shoe stores, independent shoe stores and
children's stores nationwide from June 2004 through August 2004
for between $35 and $45.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled shoes away from
young children and contact Nike to receive a refund voucher.

For more details, contact Nike by Phone: (800) 344-6453 anytime
or visit the Nike Web site: http://www.nikebiz.com


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Launch Stock Suits in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., its current and former Chief Executive
Officers and its Chief Financial Officer face several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division.

Plaintiff Francis Layher, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, filed the first suit purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's publicly traded securities between May 5, 2003 and
February 23, 2004.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiff seeks an order
determining that the action may proceed as a class action,
awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the
other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel
fees and expert fees.

Six similar lawsuits were also filed in May and June of 2004 in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division, by plaintiffs Kenneth L. Friedman, Trudy
J. Nomm, Eva S. Caldarola, Michael Schaufuss, Duane Liffrig and
G.A. Allsmiller on behalf of the same plaintiff class and making
substantially similar allegations and seeking substantially
similar damages.

Six of these seven lawsuits have been transferred to a single
judge and the Company expects that all the cases will be
consolidated into a single action, with a consolidated complaint
filed shortly thereafter.  Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel have
not yet been appointed.


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Final Settlement Documents Filed With NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against On Semiconductor Corporation, certain of its current and
former officers and directors and the underwriters of its
initial public offering drafted formal settlement documents to
be submitted to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

During the period July 5, 2001 through July 27, 2001, the
Company was named as a defendant in three shareholder class
action lawsuits, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws and have been docketed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York as: "Abrams v. ON Semiconductor
Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6114;" "Breuer v. ON Semiconductor
Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6287;" and "Cohen v. ON
Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6942."  On April 19,
2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended
complaint that supersedes the individual complaints originally
filed.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering improperly
required their customers to pay the underwriters' excessive
commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of the
Company's common stock in the aftermarket as conditions of
receiving shares in its initial public offering.  The amended
complaint further alleges that these supposed practices of the
underwriters should have been disclosed in the Company's initial
public offering prospectus and registration statement.  The
amended complaint alleges violations of both the registration
and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws and
seeks unspecified damages.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which have all been transferred,
along with the case against the Company, to a single federal
district judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.  In addition, the parties have stipulated to the
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Company's
individual former officers and current and former directors who
were named as defendants in the litigation, and they are no
longer parties to the litigation.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants.  In
that ruling the Court granted in part and denied in part those
motions.  As to the claims brought against the Company under the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed
all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow
plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead these claims.  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 the Company 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, upon the determination of a special independent
committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company
elected to participate in a proposed settlement 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 the
Company 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 the participating
issuer defendants.  If recoveries totaling less than $1 billion
are obtained by the class members from the underwriter
defendants, the class members will be entitled to recover the
difference between $1 billion and the aggregate amount of those
recoveries from 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, the Company 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 its initial public offerings.

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.  The Company expects that its insurance
proceeds will be sufficient for these purposes and that the
Company 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
in 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.


RELIANT ENERGY: TX Court Nixes Review of Franchise Fee Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court refused a review of its decision
upholding a lower court ruling in favor of Reliant Energy, Inc.
in the municipal franchise fee suit filed against it by the
cities of Wharton, Galveston and Pasadena in Texas.

The suit, filed in February 1996 for the cities and a proposed
class of all similarly situated cities in the Company's electric
service area, also names as defendant Houston Industries
Finance, Inc. (formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of the Reliant
Energy).  The suit alleges underpayment of municipal franchise
fees.  The plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to 4% of
all receipts of any kind for business conducted within these
cities over the previous four decades.

After a jury trial involving the Three Cities claims (but not
the class of cities), the trial court decertified the class and
entered a judgment for $1.7 million, including interest, plus an
award of $13.7 million in legal fees.  Despite other jury
findings for the plaintiffs, the trial court's judgment was
based on the jury's finding in favor of the Company on the
affirmative defense of laches, a defense similar to a statute of
limitations defense, due to the original claimant cities having
unreasonably delayed bringing their claims during the 43 years
since the alleged wrongs began.  Following this ruling, 45
cities filed individual suits against the Company in the
District Court of Harris County.

On February 27, 2003, a state court of appeals in Houston
rendered an opinion reversing the judgment against the Company
and rendering judgment that the Three Cities take nothing by
their claims.  The court of appeals found that the jury's
finding of laches barred all of the Three Cities' claims and
that the Three Cities were not entitled to recovery of any
attorneys' fees.  The Three Cities filed a petition for review
at the Texas Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.
The Three Cities filed a motion for rehearing, which was denied
by the Supreme Court in April 2004.

Now that the Three Cities case has been favorably resolved, the
Company intends to seek dismissal of the claims of the other
cities, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Two ERISA Violations Lawsuits in TX Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the United
States District Court in Houston, Texas, alleging violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In May 2002, three class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of
participants in various employee benefits plans sponsored by the
Company.  Two of the lawsuits have been dismissed without
prejudice.  The Company and certain current and former members
of its benefits committee are the remaining defendants in the
third lawsuit.

That lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties to various employee benefits plans, directly or
indirectly sponsored by Reliant Energy, in violation of ERISA.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants permitted the plans to
purchase or hold securities issued by Reliant Energy when it was
imprudent to do so, including after the prices for such
securities became artificially inflated because of alleged
securities fraud engaged in by the defendants.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages for losses suffered on behalf of the
plans and a putative class of plan participants whose accounts
held Reliant Energy or Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI) securities,
as well as equitable relief in the form of restitution.

In July 2004, another class action suit was filed in federal
court on behalf of the Reliant Energy Savings Plan and a class
consisting of participants in that plan against Reliant Energy
and the Reliant Energy Benefits Committee.  The allegations and
the relief sought in the new suit are substantially similar to
those in the previously pending suit; however, the new suit also
alleges that Reliant Energy and its Benefits Committee breached
their fiduciary duties to the Savings Plan and its participants
by investing plan funds in Reliant Energy stock when Reliant
Energy or its subsidiaries were allegedly manipulating the
California energy market.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Certification Sought For TX Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification of the
consolidated lawsuit filed against Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI)
in the United States District Court in Houston, Texas on behalf
of purchasers of securities of RRI and/or Reliant
Energy, Inc.  The suit also names certain of RRI's former and
current executive officers, Reliant Energy, the two companies'
independent auditors and the underwriters of the initial public
offering of RRI common stock in May 2001 (RRI Offering) as
defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Reliant
Energy or RRI during certain time periods ranging from February
2000 to May 2002, and purchasers of common stock that can be
traced to the RRI Offering.  The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants misrepresented their revenues and
trading volumes by engaging in round-trip trades and improperly
accounted for certain structured transactions as cash-flow
hedges, which resulted in earnings from these transactions being
accounted for as future earnings rather than being accounted for
as earnings in fiscal year 2001.

In January 2004 the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs'
allegations that the defendants had engaged in fraud, but claims
based on alleged misrepresentations in the registration
statement issued in the RRI Offering remain.


ST. JUDE: Faces Numerous Litigation Over Silzone Coated Valves
--------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces numerous class actions related to
its products which incorporated a Silzone(reg) coating.

In July 1997, the Company began marketing mechanical heart
valves which incorporated a Silzone coating.  The Company later
began marketing heart valve repair products incorporating a
Silzone coating.  The Silzone coating was intended to reduce the
risk of endocarditis, a bacterial infection affecting heart
tissue, which is associated with replacement heart valves.

In January 2000, the Company voluntarily recalled all field
inventories of Silzone devices after receiving information from
a clinical study that patients with a Silzone valve had a small,
but statistically significant, increased incidence of explant
due to paravalvular leak compared to patients in that clinical
study with non-Silzone heart valves.

Subsequent to the Company's voluntary recall, the Company has
been sued in various jurisdictions and now has cases pending in
the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom by some patients
who received a Silzone device.  Some of these claims allege
bodily injuries as a result of an explant or other
complications, which they attribute to the Silzone devices.
Others, who have not had their device explanted, seek
compensation for past and future costs of special monitoring
they allege they need over and above the medical monitoring all
replacement heart valve patients receive.

Some of the lawsuits seeking the cost of monitoring have been
initiated by patients who are asymptomatic and who have no
apparent clinical injury to date.  Some of these cases have been
settled, some have been dismissed and others are ongoing.  Some
of these cases, both in the United States and Canada, are
seeking class-action status.

Eight original class-action complaints have been consolidated
into one case seeking certification of two separate classes, in
the United States District Court in Minnesota.  The first
complaint seeking class-action status was served upon the
Company on April 27, 2000 and all eight original complaints
seeking class-action status were consolidated into one case on
October 22, 2001.  One proposed class in the consolidated
complaint seeks injunctive relief in the form of medical
monitoring.  A second class in the consolidated complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of money damages.

28 individual cases are presently filed.  The first individual
complaint that was transferred to the MDL court was served upon
the Company on November 28, 2000, and the most recent individual
complaint that was transferred to the MDL court was served upon
the Company on April 13, 2004.  The complaints in these cases
each request damages ranging from $9.5 thousand to $120.5
million and, in some cases, seek an unspecified amount.

20 individual state court suits involving 28 patients are
presently filed.  Cases are venued in the following states:
California, Florida, Illinois, Minnesota, Nevada, New York,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.  The first individual state
court complaint was served upon the Company on March 1, 2000 and
the most recent individual state court complaint was served upon
the Company on June 22, 2004.  The complaints in these cases
each request damages ranging from $50 thousand to $100 thousand
and, in some cases, seek an unspecified amount.

A lawsuit seeking a class action for all persons residing in the
European Economic Union member jurisdictions who have had a
heart valve replacement and/or repair procedure using a product
with Silzone coating was filed in Minnesota state court and
served upon the Company on February 11, 2004.  The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the class, and in
excess of $50 thousand for the representative plaintiff
individually.  The complaint also seeks injunctive relief in the
form of medical monitoring.  The Company removed this matter to
the federal court in Minnesota, but the plaintiffs are
challenging this removal and are seeking to have the case
returned to Minnesota state court.  A hearing on this issue
occurred on June 22, 2004.  In any event, the Company has
indicated that it seeks to have the case transferred, consistent
with applicable principles, from the United States to Europe for
disposition, given that that is where the plaintiffs reside.

Two cases involving 70 patients were dismissed in Texas by the
trial court on April 25, 2002 and February 14, 2003,
respectively; the plaintiffs in these two cases have appealed.
The first of these cases was served upon the Company on October
29, 2001, and the second case was served upon the Company on
November 8, 2002.  The complaints in these cases request damages
in an unspecified amount.

Four class-action cases involving five named plaintiffs and one
individual case involving two named plaintiffs are pending
(cases are venued in the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario
and Quebec); in one case, class-action status has been granted
by the court.  The first complaint in Canada was served upon the
Company on August 18, 2000, and the most recent Canadian
complaint was served upon the Company on March 14, 2004.  The
complaints in these cases each request damages ranging from 1.5
million to 500 million Canadian dollars.

Two cases involving two separate plaintiffs have been filed. The
first complaint in the UK was filed on August 28, 2003, and the
most recent complaint was filed on February 10, 2004. One of
these two complaints has been served upon the Company.  The
complaints in these cases request damages of unspecified
amounts.

In 2001, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation
ruled that certain lawsuits filed in U.S. federal district court
involving products with Silzone coating should be part of Multi-
District Litigation proceedings under the supervision of U.S.
District Court Judge John Tunheim in Minnesota.  As a result,
actions in federal court involving products with Silzone coating
have been and will likely continue to be transferred to Judge
Tunheim for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

Certain plaintiffs requested Judge Tunheim to allow some cases
to proceed as class actions.  Judge Tunheim issued a ruling on
plaintiffs’ motions for class certification on March 27,
2003. In his ruling, Judge Tunheim certified one class of
plaintiffs under the Minnesota Consumer Protection Statutes and
conditionally certified two additional classes.  On January 5,
2004, Judge Tunheim issued further rulings concerning the
classes that he had conditionally certified.  More specifically,
the judge declined to grant class-action status to personal
injury claims; however, he granted class-action status for
patients from a limited group of states to proceed with medical
monitoring claims, so long as they do not have a clinical
injury.

Judge Tunheim also ruled against the Company in a separate order
on the issue of preemption and held that the plaintiff's causes
of action were not preempted by the U.S. Food and Drug Act.  In
a July 15, 2004 order, Judge Tunheim added three additional
states to the limited group of states from which he determined
residents with Silzone valves could proceed with a class action
involving medical monitoring claims so long as they did not have
a clinical injury.  In this order, the Court also indicated that
the class action he certified under Minnesota's Consumer
Protection Statutes should proceed.  The Company intends to
attempt to appeal the class certification orders as well as the
Court's preemption decision.

In the meantime, the cases involving Silzone products not
seeking class-action status which are consolidated before Judge
Tunheim are proceeding in accordance with the scheduling orders
he has rendered.  There are also other actions involving
products with Silzone coating in various state courts in the
United States that may or may not be coordinated with the
matters presently before Judge Tunheim.

On January 16, 2004, the court in Ontario, Canada issued further
rulings certifying a class of Silzone patients in a class action
suit against the Company.  The Company has sought leave to
appeal the Court's decision in this regard.  Proceedings to
certify a class in the Province of Quebec are also underway.


ST. JUDE: Faces Personal Injury Lawsuits Over Symmetry Connector
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces thirteen cases alleging that its
Symmetry Bypass System Aortic Connector (Symmetry device) caused
bodily injury or might cause bodily injury.

The first such suit as filed against the Company on August 5,
2003, in federal district court for the Western District of
Tennessee, and the most recently initiated case was served upon
the Company on June 17, 2004.  The thirteen cases are venued in
state court in Minnesota, federal court for the District of
Minnesota, federal court in the Western District of Tennessee,
federal court for the Northern District of Illinois and federal
court in the Eastern District of Arkansas.

Each of the complaints in these cases request damages ranging
from $50 thousand to $100 thousand and, in some cases, seek an
unspecified amount.  Four of the seven cases are seeking class
action status.  One of the cases seeking class action status has
been dismissed, but the dismissal is being appealed by the
plaintiff.  The Company believes that those cases seeking class
action status will request damages for injuries and monitoring
costs.


TENNESSEE: Court Denies Certification To ADA Lawsuit V. State
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Todd Campbell denied class-action status in
Lane vs. Tennessee, a suit brought by a paraplegic man who
refused either to crawl or be carried up the Polk County
Courthouse steps to answer to a criminal traffic complaint, The
Tennessean reports.

Citing violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA),
the 1998 lawsuit was filed after the paraplegic man was charged
with failure to appear in court and is currently pending in the
U.S. District Court in Nashville. The plaintiffs had argued that
the case be certified as class action, since the state's overall
program for ensuring ADA-compliant access to the state's courts
has been insufficient and make eligible for potential awards any
adult Tennessean who had difficulty walking or climbing stairs
in one of 25 county courthouses since Jan. 26, 1993. The 25 old,
historic courthouses named in the suit includes: Polk, Bledsoe,
Cannon, Chester, Claiborne, Clay, Cocke, Decatur, Fayette,
Grainger, Hancock, Hawkins, Hickman, Houston, Jackson,
Jefferson, Johnson, Lake, Lewis, Meigs, Moore, Perry, Pickett,
Trousdale and Van Buren.

In his ruling, Judge Campbell wrote that the plaintiffs had not
proved the proposed group met the class-action criteria required
by law, criteria that require a high degree of commonality among
the class. He further wrote, "The courthouses in the individual
defendant counties are not the same, they have unique designs
and unique features - or lack thereof. The individual
courthouses were built at different times, are in different
states of repair, and are maintained and operated by different
entities. Liability for one courthouse does not necessarily mean
liability for another courthouse."

Thus the judge ruled that determining liability would be
different in each instance and there would be no common question
of damages.

Though disappointed by the decision, Martha Lafferty, an
attorney with Tennessee Protection and Advocacy Inc., which is
pursuing the case on behalf of Mr. Lane and five other
plaintiffs told The Tennessean that plaintiffs are considering
whether an appeal of Campbell's ruling is warranted.


UNIPRIME CAPITAL: Alfred J. Flores Receives $110,000 Penalty
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Public Administrative Proceedings and Notice of
Hearing Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Exchange Act) against Alfred J. Flores (Flores). In the
Order, the Division of Enforcement (Division) alleges that a
district court in the Southern District of New York granted the
Commission's motion for summary judgment and default judgment
against Flores, and in so doing, permanently enjoined Flores. In
the injunctive action, the Commission alleged that Flores
engaged in a scheme to manipulate the stock of Uniprime Capital
Acceptance, Inc.

The Court provided the Commission with full relief against
Flores on the grounds that Flores violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act,
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. As a result of its findings, the
Court permanently enjoined Flores from future violations of the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws, ordered Flores to
disgorge to the Commission, within ten business days, ill-gotten
gains totaling $11,000 plus pre-judgment interest from June 16,
1999 through March 4, 2004, ordered Flores to immediately
disgorge 200,000 shares of restricted stock that he received in
the offering, ordered Flores to pay the maximum allowable civil
penalty of $110,000, and permanently barred Flores from serving
as an officer or director of any public company. The action is
titled, SEC v. Uniprime Capital Acceptance, Inc. and Alfred J.
Flores, 99 Civ. 8885, SDNY, SWK.


UTAH MEDICAL: FDA Trying To Halt Medical Devices' Distribution
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked to
permanently enjoin Utah Medical Products, Inc. (Utah Medical),
of Midvale, Utah, from manufacturing and distributing medical
devices until the firm has demonstrated that it has corrected
deviations from Current Good Manufacturing Practice, as set
forth in the Quality System regulation.

The Quality System regulation establishes requirements for the
methods, facilities, and controls used in the production of
medical devices. Utah Medical manufactures a variety of medical
devices used in obstetrics, gynecology, neonatal intensive care,
urology, electro-surgery, and blood pressure monitoring.
Failure to comply with the Quality System regulation does not
necessarily mean that a particular device will be defective, but
a firm's failure to comply with the regulation decreases the
level of assurance that its products are safe and effective.

"FDA will not tolerate manufacturing practices that can
potentially put patients at risk," said FDA Acting Commissioner
Dr. Lester M. Crawford. "Patients have a right to expect that
the medical devices used to treat them are safe and effective."

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

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

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


                         Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Aearo Increases Liability Estimate For 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
At June 30, 2004 and September 30, 2003, Aearo Co. has recorded
liabilities of about $4,800,000 and $4,500,000, respectively,
which represent reasonable estimates of its probable product
liabilities related to asbestos and silica-related claims as
determined by the Company in consultation with an independent
consultant.  This reserve is re-evaluated periodically and
additional charges or credits to results of operations may
result as additional information becomes available.

Consistent with the current environment being experienced by
companies involved in asbestos and silica-related litigation,
there has been an increase in the number of asserted claims that
could potentially involve company parent Aearo Corp. and its
subsidiaries, including the Company.  Additionally, the
bankruptcy filings of other companies with asbestos and silica-
related litigation could increase the Company's cost over time.
In light of these and other uncertainties inherent in making
long-term projections, the Company has determined that the five-
year period through fiscal 2008 is the most reasonable time
period for projecting asbestos and silica-related claims and
defense costs.  Taking into account currently available
information, historical experience, and the 1995 Asset Transfer
Agreement, it is management's opinion that these suits or claims
should not result in final judgments or settlements in excess of
the Company's reserve that would have a material effect on the
Company's financial condition, liquidity or results of
operations.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Alfa Laval Named In 143 Asbestos Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004 Alfa Laval Inc. was named as co-defendant in
a total of 143 asbestos-related lawsuits with a total of around
21,200 plaintiffs, with lawsuits filed in Mississippi accounting
for around 99 percent of all plaintiffs.  The Class Action
Reporter newsletter mentioned on March 12, 2004 that there were
123 such lawsuits (19,900 plaintiffs) around that time.

During the second quarter 2004 Alfa Laval Inc. has been named as
co-defendant in an additional 22 lawsuits with a total of around
1,300 plaintiffs.  During the second quarter 10 lawsuits
involving around 60 plaintiffs have been resolved.  This gives a
grand total of 88 lawsuits that have been resolved.  Alfa Laval
has furthermore been dismissed from the proceedings in respect
of around 20 plaintiffs in ongoing multiple plaintiffs lawsuits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: ACKHQ Updated Insurance Recovery Assessment
----------------------------------------------------------------
On July 29, 2004 Armstrong Holdings Inc. (OTCBB: ACKHQ)
announced second quarter 2004 operating income of $3,600,000
compared to an operating loss of $33,400,000 in the second
quarter of 2003.  In the second quarter of 2003, a non-cash
charge of $73,000,000 was recorded related to management's
updated assessment of probable asbestos-related insurance asset
recoveries.  Excluding these non-cash charges results in an
adjusted operating income of $63,600,000 in 2004 compared to an
adjusted operating income of $39,600,000 in 2003, an increase of
60.6%.

Armstrong Holdings Inc. is the parent company of Armstrong World
Industries Inc., which designs and manufactures flooring,
ceilings and cabinets.  Based in Lancaster, PA, Armstrong has 44
plants in 12 countries and around 15,300 employees worldwide.
More information about Armstrong is available on the Internet at
http://www.armstrong.com


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Intl. Plaintiffs Increase To 1,483
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bucyrus International Inc. is named as a co-defendant in around
295 personal injury liability cases alleging damages due to
exposure to asbestos and other substances, involving around
1,483 plaintiffs, whereas the Class Action Reporter noted 290
cases (1,478 plaintiffs) on May 28, 2004.  The cases are pending
in courts in nine states.  In all these cases, insurance
carriers have accepted or are expected to accept defense.  These
cases are in various pre-trial stages.  The Company does not
believe that costs associated with these matters will have a
material effect on its financial position, results of operations
or cash flows, although no assurance to that effect can be
given.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: FWLRF U.S. Encumbered By Asbestos Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Foster Wheeler Ltd. (OTCBB: FWLRF) U.S. operations, which
include its corporate center, are cash-flow negative and are
expected to continue to incur negative cash flow due to factors
including costs related to litigation and settlement of asbestos
related claims.  As of June 25, 2004, Foster Wheeler Ltd. and
Foster Wheeler LLC had aggregate indebtedness of about
$1,000,000,000, all of which must be funded from distributions
from subsidiaries of Foster Wheeler LLC.

As of June 25, 2004, the Company had cash, cash equivalents,
short-term investments and restricted cash of about
$405,000,000, of which about $327,000,000 was held by its non-
U.S. subsidiaries.  The Company will require cash distributions
from its non-U.S. subsidiaries to meet an anticipated
$76,000,000 of its U.S. operations' minimum working capital
needs in 2004.  There are significant legal and contractual
restrictions on the Company's ability to repatriate funds from
its non-U.S. subsidiaries.  These subsidiaries need to keep
certain amounts available for working capital purposes, to pay
known liabilities and for other general corporate purposes.  In
addition, certain of the Company's non-U.S. subsidiaries are
parties to loan and other agreements with covenants, and are
subject to statutory requirements in their jurisdictions of
organization that restrict the amount of funds that the
subsidiary may distribute.  Distributions in excess of these
specified amounts would cause us to violate the terms of the
agreements or applicable law, which could result in civil or
criminal penalties.  The repatriation of funds may also subject
those funds to taxation.  As a result of these factors, Foster
Wheeler may not be able to utilize funds held by its non-U.S.
subsidiaries or future earnings of those subsidiaries to fund
its working capital requirements, to repay debt or to satisfy
other obligations of the Company's U.S. operations, which could
limit its ability to continue as a going concern.

Foster Wheeler's balance sheet as of June 25, 2004 includes as
an asset an aggregate of about $515,400,000 in probable
insurance recoveries relating to liability for pending and
expected future asbestos claims through year-end 2018.  Due to
the termination of its interim funding agreement with a number
of its insurers from 1993 through June 12, 2001, the Company had
to cover a substantial portion of its settlement payments and
defense costs out of working capital.  However, it recently
entered into several settlement agreements calling for insurers
to make lump sum payments, as well as payments over time, for
use by the Company to fund asbestos related indemnity and
defense costs.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Huntsman Subsidiary Served With Summons
------------------------------------------------------------
HMP Equity Holdings Corp. reports that on August 2, 2004,
following an investigation by the U.K. Health and Safety
Executive, a summons was served on its subsidiary Huntsman
Advanced Materials (UK) Ltd to appear in Magistrates Court on
September 15, 2004, to answer five charges.  The charges cite
violations of the Health and Safety at Work Act arising from
what is alleged to have been asbestos contamination caused by
construction activity at the Duxford, U.K., Advanced Materials
facility between November 2002 and January 2003.  Although the
Company does not believe this matter will result in the
imposition of fines and other costs material to the financial
condition of the Company, it is too early to predict the outcome
of the case.

The Company has been named as a "premises defendant" in a number
of asbestos exposure lawsuits.  These suits often involve
multiple plaintiffs and multiple defendants, and, generally, the
complaint in the action does not indicate which plaintiffs are
making claims against a specific defendant, where the alleged
injuries were incurred or what injuries each plaintiff claims.
There are 39 asbestos exposure cases pending against the
Company.  Among the cases currently pending, management is aware
of three claims of mesothelioma.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: IPL's Pending Lawsuits Reduced To 88 Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004, Indianapolis Power & Light Co. (or IPL, the
regulated utility subsidiary of IPALCO Enterprises Inc.) is a
defendant in around 88 pending lawsuits alleging personal injury
or wrongful death stemming from exposure to asbestos formerly
located in IPL power plants.  IPL has been named as a "premises
defendant" in that IPL did not mine, manufacture, distribute or
install asbestos or asbestos containing products.  These suits
have been brought on behalf of persons who worked for
contractors or subcontractors hired by IPL.  IPL has insurance
coverage for many of these claims; these cases are being
defended by counsel retained by various insurers who wrote
policies applicable to the period of time during which much of
the exposure has been alleged.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: KACC Accrues $610.1M For Costs Through 2011
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corp. (KACC) accrued a liability for
estimated asbestos-related costs for claims filed and an
estimate of claims to be filed through 2011.  At June 30, 2004,
the balance of such accrual was $610,100,000, all of which was
included in Liabilities subject to compromise.  The estimate is
based on the Company's view, at June 30, 2004, of the current
and anticipated number of asbestos-related claims, the timing
and amounts of asbestos-related payments, the status of ongoing
litigation and settlement initiatives, and the advice of Wharton
Levin Ehrmantraut & Klein, P.A., with respect to the current
state of the law related to asbestos claims.  While the Company
does not presently believe there is a reasonable basis for
estimating asbestos-related costs beyond 2011, the Company
expects that the plan of reorganization process may require an
estimation of the Company's entire asbestos-related liability,
which may go beyond 2011, and that such costs could be
substantial.

At June 30, 2004, the Company had recorded a receivable for
about $463,100,000 in respect of expected insurance recoveries
related to existing claims and the estimate future claims
through 2011.  Depending on the amount of asbestos-related
claims ultimately determined to exist (including those in the
periods after 2011), it is possible that the amount of such
claims could exceed the amount of additional insurance
recoveries available.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Mestek Inc. Named In Illinois Asbestos Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mestek Inc. is a party to around 200 asbestos-related lawsuits,
and in the past six months has been named in around 10 to 15 new
such lawsuits each month, primarily in one county in Illinois
where numerous asbestos-related actions have been filed against
numerous defendants. On December 5, 2003 the Class Action
Reporter observed 60 outstanding products cases.

Almost all of these suits seek to establish liability against
the Company as successor to companies that may have
manufactured, sold or distributed asbestos-related products, and
who are currently in existence and defending thousands of
asbestos related cases, or because the Company currently sells
and distributes boilers, an industry that has been historically
associated with asbestos-related products.  The Company contests
that it is a successor to companies that may have manufactured,
sold or distributed any product containing asbestos materials.
The total requested damages of these cases are over
$3,000,000,000.  However, the Company has had over 40 asbestos-
related cases dismissed without any payment and it settled
around 23 asbestos-related cases for a de minimis value.

In addition to the Lisle, IL site, the Company has been named or
contacted by state authorities and/or the EPA regarding the
Company's asserted liability or has otherwise determined it may
be required to expend funds for the remediation of certain other
sites in North Carolina, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Norcross Subsidiary Facing 713 Lawsuits
------------------------------------------------------------
Norcross Safety Products LLC says that its subsidiary North
Safety Products, NSP's predecessors and/or the former owners of
such business are presently named as a defendant in around 713
lawsuits involving respirators manufactured and sold by it or
its predecessors.  On June 4, 2004, the Class Action Reporter
noted 711 such lawsuits.  The Company is also monitoring an
additional 13 lawsuits in which it feels that North Safety
Products, its predecessors and/or the former owners of such
businesses may be named as defendants.  Collectively, these 726
lawsuits represent a total of around 25,000 (excluding spousal
claims) plaintiffs.  Around 90% of these lawsuits involve
plaintiffs alleging they suffer from silicosis, with the
remainder alleging they suffer from other or combined injuries,
including asbestosis.  These lawsuits typically allege that
these conditions resulted in part from respirators that were
negligently designed or manufactured.

Invensys plc (formerly BTR plc, which was merged with Siebe plc)
is contractually obligated to indemnify the Company for any
losses, including costs of defending claims, resulting from
respiratory products manufactured prior to the acquisition of
the North Safety Products subsidiary on October 2, 1998 from
Siebe.  Norcross Safety Products LLC is not a party to any
lawsuits involving asbestosis or silicosis relating exclusively
to product usage in the period after October 1998.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: RPM Subsidiaries Battle 5,913 Active Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of May 31, 2004, RPM International Inc. subsidiaries had a
total of 5,913 active asbestos cases compared to a total of
2,002 cases as of May 31, 2003.  The vast majority of the
increase in cases involved non-malignant claimants.  The
Company's Subsidiaries are vigorously defending these non-
malignant cases.  Based on past experience, these non-malignant
claims are typically dismissed without payment.  For the fiscal
year ended May 31, 2004, the Company's Subsidiaries secured
dismissals and/or settlements of 670 claims and made total
payments of $63,400,000 that included $9,400,000 covered by then
available third party insurance.  For the comparable period
ended May 31, 2003, dismissals and/or settlements covered 1,846
claims and total payments were $54,400,000.  For the fourth
quarter ended May 31, 2004, the Company's Subsidiaries secured
dismissals and/or settlements of 177 claims and made total
payments of $15,300,000.  The Company's Subsidiaries secured
dismissals and/or settlements of 503 claims and made payments of
$19,100,000 for the prior year fourth quarter ended May 31,
2003.  In some jurisdictions, cases may involve more than one
individual claimant.  As a result, settlement or dismissal
statistics on a per case basis are not necessarily reflective of
the payment amounts on a per claimant basis and will vary widely
depending on a variety of factors including the mix of
malignancy and non-malignancy claims and defense costs involved.

The rate at which plaintiffs filed asbestos-related suits
against subsidiary Bondex International Inc. increased in the
fourth quarter of 2002 and the first two quarters of 2003 due to
bankruptcy filings of other defendants in asbestos-related
litigation.  Based on the increase in asbestos claims activity
that disproportionately increased Bondex's exposure in joint and
several liability law states, the Company's third-party
insurance was depleted within the first fiscal quarter of 2004.
The Company's third-party insurers had been responsible, under
various cost-sharing arrangements, for the payment of around 90%
of the indemnity and defense costs associated with its asbestos
litigation.  Prior to this sudden increase in loss rates, the
combination of book loss reserves and insurance coverage was
expected to adequately cover asbestos liabilities for the
foreseeable future.  The Company has reserved its rights with
respect to various of its third-party insurers' claims of
exhaustion, and in late calendar 2002 started reviewing its
known insurance policies to determine whether other insurance
limits may be available to cover asbestos liabilities.  As a
result of this examination, certain of the Company's
Subsidiaries filed a complaint for declaratory judgment, breach
of contract and bad faith against various third party insurers
challenging their assertion that their policies covering
asbestos-related claims have been exhausted.  Since the July 3,
2003 filing in Ohio, this action was combined with a related
case and, pursuant to a December 9, 2003 case management order,
the parties are to complete discovery by April 30, 2005.  The
court order provides other deadlines for various stages of the
case, including dispositive motions, and the court has
established a trial date of March 6, 2006.  It is possible that
these dates may be modified as the case progresses.  The Company
has not included any potential benefits from this litigation
either in its financial statements or in calculating the
$140,000,000 reserve, which was established in the fourth
quarter of fiscal year 2003.  The Company's wholly owned captive
insurance companies have not provided any insurance or re-
insurance coverage of any asbestos-related claims.

During the last seven months of 2003, new state liability laws
were enacted in Ohio, Mississippi and Texas, where more than 80%
of the claims against Bondex were pending.  Effective dates for
the last two of the law changes were April 8, 2003 and July 1,
2003.  The changes generally provided for liability to be
determined on a "proportional cause" basis, thereby limiting
Bondex's responsibility to only its share of the alleged
asbestos exposure.  The full influence of these initial state
law changes on legal settlement values was not expected to be
significantly visible until the latter part of fiscal 2004.
Claims in the three subject states at year-end 2004 comprise
around 70% of aggregate claims.  During the third and fourth
quarters of 2004, two of the three previously mentioned states
that adopted "proportional cause" liability in 2003, passed
additional legislation impacting asbestos liability lawsuits.
Among the recent changes are enhanced medical criteria and
product identification to be presented by plaintiffs in
litigation.  While there have been some changes in the type of
claims filed in certain of these states, the ultimate influence
these law changes may have on future claims activity and
settlement values remains uncertain.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Reunion Industries Named In 33 Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------
During 2003, Reunion Industries was named as defendant in 32
actions in the state of Georgia and one action in the state of
Alabama.  Such actions claim that cylinders manufactured by the
Hanna division of Reunion Industries contained asbestos that
caused severe illness.  Since most of the plaintiffs' exposure
occurred prior to the purchase of the assets of this business by
Reunion's predecessor in 1980, and since there is no evidence
that asbestos was used in Hanna products after 1980, the
Company's position is that it has no liability in these suits.
Upon motion made by plaintiff's attorney, in May 2004, the Court
dismissed the Alabama suit against the Company with no
liability.  The plaintiffs' attorney has tentatively agreed to
dismiss Reunion from the Georgia suits, subject to his review of
certain information the Company provided to him about its
predecessor and if Reunion will assist the plaintiffs in their
case against the pre-1980 owner of the business.  Reunion has
agreed to and is currently providing the requested assistance to
plaintiffs' attorney.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION:  TriMas' Corp. Pending Cases Jump To 1,041
---------------------------------------------------------------
As of August 11, 2004, TriMas Corp. is party to around 1,041
pending cases involving around 33,426 claimants alleging
personal injury from exposure to asbestos containing materials
formerly used in gaskets (both encapsulated and otherwise)
manufactured or distributed by certain of its subsidiaries for
use in the petrochemical refining and exploration industries.
The Class Action Reporter previously noted 890 of these cases on
May 28, 2004.  The Company believes that many of the pending
cases relate to locations at which none of its gaskets were
distributed or used.  In addition, TriMas acquired various
companies to distribute its products that distributed gaskets of
other manufacturers prior to acquisition.  Total settlement
costs (exclusive of defense costs) for all such cases, some of
which were filed over 12 years ago, have been about $2,100,000.

Based on the Company's experience and other available
information (including the availability of excess insurance),
the Company does not believe that these cases will have a
material adverse effect on its financial condition or future
results of operations.  However, it may be subjected to further
claims with respect to the former activities of its acquired
gasket distributors, and the cost of settling cases in which
product identification can be made may increase.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Tyco Liability Cases Climb Back Up To 14T
--------------------------------------------------------------
As of June 30, 2004, there were around 14,000 asbestos liability
cases pending against Tyco International Ltd. and its
subsidiaries.  The Class Action Reporter previously noted 13,500
such cases on May 21, 2004 and 14,000 on January 2, 2004.

Tyco International is working to move beyond the controversy
associated with former CEO Dennis Kozlowski, who in 2002 was
charged with taking millions of dollars from the company.
Tyco's Fire and Security Services unit is the leader in security
and fire-protection systems.  The company's Electronics unit
makes electrical connectors, conduits, and printed circuit
boards; it also includes Tyco's Telecommunications unit, a
leading maker of undersea fiber-optic cable.  Other Tyco
companies make bandages, crutches, and respiratory care
equipment, as well as industrial flow control products and
sprinkler systems.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Katy Industries Named in Two Alabama Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Katy Industries Inc. (NYSE: KT) was recently named as a
defendant in two lawsuits filed in state court in Alabama by a
total of around 20 individual plaintiffs.  There are over 100
defendants named in each case.  The Plaintiffs claim that they
were exposed to asbestos in the course of their employment at a
former U.S. Steel plant in Alabama and, as a result, contracted
mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung cancer or other illness.  They
claim that they were exposed to asbestos in products that were
manufactured by each Defendant.

Sterling Fluid Systems (USA) has tendered more than 500 cases
pending in Michigan, New Jersey, Illinois, Nevada, Mississippi
and California to the Company for defense and indemnification.
Sterling bases its tender of the complaints on the provisions
contained in a 1993 Purchase Agreement between the parties
whereby Sterling purchased the LaBour Pump business and other
assets from the Company.  Sterling has not filed a lawsuit
against Katy in connection with these matters.

The tendered complaints all purport to state claims against
Sterling and its subsidiaries.  The Company and its current
subsidiaries are not named as defendants.  The plaintiffs in the
cases also allege that they were exposed to asbestos and
products containing asbestos in the course of their employment.
Each complaint names as defendants many manufacturers of
products containing asbestos, apparently because plaintiffs came
into contact with a variety of different products in the course
of their employment.  Plaintiffs claim that LaBour Pump and/or
Sterling may have manufactured some of those products.

With respect to many of the tendered complaints, the Company has
taken the position that Sterling has waived its right to
indemnity by failing to timely request it as required under the
1993 Purchase Agreement.  With respect to the balance of the
tendered complaints, the Company has elected not to assume the
defense of Sterling in these matters.


COMPANY PROFILE

Katy Industries Inc. (NYSE: KT)
765 Straits Turnpike, Suite 2000
Middlebury, CT 06762
Phone: 203-598-0397
Fax: 203-598-0712
http://www.katyindustries.com

Employees                  :           1,808
Revenue                    : $   436,400,000.00
Net Income                 : $     9,400,000.00
Assets                     : $   241,700,000.00
Liabilities                : $   139,400,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description: Nearly two-thirds of Katy Industries' sales come
from its maintenance products (cleaning supplies, abrasives,
stains).  Its brands include Brillo, Kleenfast, and Yellow
Jacket.  Katy also makes electric-corded products (extension
cords, surge protectors, garden lighting), through its Wood
Industries business.  The firm has sold most of its electric
component subsidiaries (which made tools, metal strip, and foil,
among others) to better focus on its core maintenance
businesses.  It is considering a sale of the Wood subsidiary as
well.  Katy Industries has sold everything from shrimp to shoes
since its 1967 founding.  The Carroll family owns about 35% of
the company.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges IL Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Baxter
International, Inc. ("Baxter" or the "Company") (NYSE:BAX) and
certain of its officers, on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased the securities of Baxter during the period between
April 19, 2001 through July 21, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that Baxter violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing
materially false and misleading statements throughout the Class
Period that had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

As alleged in the Complaint, throughout the Class Period,
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (888) 476-6529
((888) 4-POMLAW) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Pomerantz Haudek Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California against Biolase
Technology, Inc. ("Biolase" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BLTI) and
two of the Company's senior officers, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the securities of Biolase during the
period between October 29, 2003 through July 16, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Biolase, a medical technology company
that designs, manufactures and markets proprietary dental laser
systems, and the Company's President Jeffrey W. Jones, and Chief
Financial Officer Edson J. Rood, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making material
omissions and misrepresentations concerning Biolase's financial
performance, causing Biolase's financial results to be inflated.
As a result of this inflation, the Company was able to complete
a secondary stock offering of 2.8 million shares in February
2004 at $18.80 per share. Thereafter, on July 16, 2004, after
the close of the market, Biolase reported preliminary results
for the second quarter of 2004, which were below analysts'
expectations. As a result of this news, the Company's stock
declined to $8.78.

According to the Complaint, defendants knew that Biolase was not
performing nearly as well as represented. It is alleged that
defendants concealed from investors that,

     (1) Waterlase was not gaining market share and demand for
         the product was not increasing at the rates represented
         by defendants;

     (2) Biolase had introduced a lower priced entry level laser
         which was cannibalizing sales such that Biolase's
         reported earnings were false and misleading;

     (3) defendants were concealing this decreasing demand by
         granting extended payment terms and price breaks; and

     (4) Biolase would not achieve the earnings growth
         forecasted.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (888) 476-6529
((888) 4-POMLAW) by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.pomerantzlaw.com/


CALLIDUS SOFTWARE: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Callidus Software, Inc. ("Callidus" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:CALD) between November 19, 2003 and June
23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Callidus, Michael A. Braun, Ronald J.
Fior, Reed D. Taussig, John R. Eickhoff, R. David Spreng, Terry
L. Opnendyk and George B. James with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) the Company's financials were suffering at the time of
         the IPO due to competition from established enterprise
         software vendors, including Siebel, and established ERP
         vendors, such as SAP, who could bundle their EIM
         offerings with other software products and therefore
         compete more aggressively on prices;

     (2) in the Company's license revenues, the Company was,
         prior to the Company's IPO, experiencing a material
         adverse trend in this business segment;

     (3) as a result of the Company experiencing a severe
         adverse trend in "license" revenue, the Company's
         future "service" revenue would be materially and
         adversely impacted for future quarters;

     (4) the Company used as a barometer for its sales forecasts
         its 18 quota-carrying sales representatives who were
         severely behind on hitting their unrealistic quotas;
         and

     (5) prior to the IPO, the Company had planned on bringing
         its Cezanne software team "in-house," which would
         dramatically impact the Company's earnings per share in
         future quarters.

On June 24, 2004, before the market opened, the Company issued a
press release announcing that the Company's "chairman and chief
executive resigned, and it warned that second-quarter and full-
year results would not meet . . . financial targets." On this
news the Company's shares fell to $5.01 per share, well below
the Class Period high and even the IPO price.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr. of Shareholder
Relations Department - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400
vsoler@whesq.com or visit their Web site: http://www.whesq.com


CNL HOTELS & RESORTS: Chimicles & Tikellis Lodges FL Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chimicles & Tikellis LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida against CNL Hotels & Resorts Inc.
(f/k/a CNL Hospitality Properties, Inc.) ("CNL"), CNL Hotel
Development Company, CNL Hospitality Corp. ("Advisor"), CNL
Financial Group, Inc., CNL Real Estate Group, Inc., Five Arrows
Realty Securities II, LLC, CNL Hospitality Partners, L.P., RFS
Partnership, L.P., James M. Seneff, Jr., Robert A. Bourne,
Thomas J. Hutchison III, John A. Griswold, Charles E. Adams,
Lawrence A. Dustin, Craig M. McAllaster, and Robert E. Parsons,
Jr., on behalf of: a class of all persons who were entitled to
vote on the proxy statement filed with the SEC by CNL dated May
7, 2004, as amended or supplemented ("Proxy"), (the "Proxy
Class"); and a class of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired CNL securities pursuant to the CNL's Prospectuses and
Registration Statements, between August 16, 2001 and August 16,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), who suffered damages as a
result of the actions complained of. ("Purchaser Class") (Proxy
Class and Purchaser Class collectively referred to as the
"Class.") Defendants are involved in the ownership and operation
of hotel and resort properties. In addition to the Chimicles
Firm, the plaintiff in this action is represented by Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP and Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman
& Herz LLP, both of New York, NY.

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 14(a) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder. In addition, by virtue of the defendants' conduct,
the Complaint alleges that defendants have also breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the proposed Class.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that:

     (1) Defendants utilized improper accounting practices and
         other manipulative devices to carry out a systematic
         scheme of materially inflating CNL's reported income
         and, thereby, created and maintained the appearance
         that CNL generated sufficient cash flow from operations
         to consistently pay dividends to shareholders at the
         levels promised in CNL's Prospectuses;

     (2) Since at least 2001, cash from CNL's operations has
         represented a decreasing percentage of the funds used
         to pay dividends to its shareholders. These financial
         realities have been masked by accounting chicanery
         carried out by defendants, which conduct violates
         generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP") and
         applicable federal law governing the sale of
         securities.

     (3) The success of this artifice has enabled CNL to
         continually attract additional investor capital through
         the sale of CNL stock at an inflated price of $10 per
         share. CNL has sold more than 300 million shares of
         stock at the same $10 per share price and that price
         has never been market-tested.

     (4) The Underwritten Offering that CNL had planned in
         conjunction with certain transactions proposed in the
         Proxy, including the listing of CNL's stock on a
         national securities exchange, was uniformly criticized
         as overpriced and unsupportable by analysts and
         institutional investors. The Underwritten Offering was
         preceded by CNL management's road show, and after
         putting "its best foot forward," industry experts
         placed a value on CNL's stock in the range of 50-60% of
         the $10 per share that members of the Purchaser Class
         had paid for their CNL stock. CNL Management
         immediately dropped the Underwritten Offering,
         announcing disingenuously on August 3, 2004, that the
         action was taken because of "market conditions."

     (5) Raising investor capital has enabled CNL to have its
         poorly performing Advisor (which is virtually wholly
         owned by the Individual Defendants) to continue to
         garner excessive fees and commissions. When it became
         apparent that the Advisor's incompetence could no
         longer be concealed and the Advisor would likely not
         receive payment under a contractually provided
         incentive fee formula to be applied upon the listing of
         CNL securities on a national exchange, by virtue of the
         Proxy, defendants sought and received the approval of a
         transaction whereby CNL would pay approximately $300
         million for the poorly performing Advisor.

Defendants seek to justify the Merger and the consideration to
be paid on the basis of an inflated and speculative income
stream that could only be achieved if CNL continued to sell
stock at inflated prices based on false and misleading financial
data.

The suit seeks to recover damages on behalf of the Purchaser
Class, which has purchased approximately 90% of all the CNL
stock ever sold. It also seeks injunctive relief and damages on
behalf of the Proxy Class seeking to render null and void all
approvals given by shareholders to CNL and its management in
response to the materially false and misleading Proxy.

For more details, contact Nicholas E. Chimicles or Kimberly M.
Donaldson of CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP by Mail: 361 West
Lancaster Ave., Haverford, PA 19041 by Phone: 610-642-8500 or
888-805-7848 by Fax: 610-649-3633 by E-mail: mail@chimicles.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.chimicles.comOR Lawrence A.
Sucharow or Beth Hoffman of GOODKIND LABATON RUDOFF & SUCHAROW
LLP by Mail: 100 Park Ave., New York, NY 10017 by Phone: 212-
907-0700 by Fax: 212-818-0477 by E-mail: info@glrslaw.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.glrslaw.comOR Lawrence P.
Kolker, Brian S. Cohen or Aya Bouchedid of WOLF HALDENSTEIN
ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Ave., New York, NY
10016 by Phone: 212-545-4600 by Fax: 212-686-0114 by E-Mail:
newyork@whafh.com or visit their Web site: http://www.whafh.com


CP SHIPS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of CP Ships Ltd. (NYSE: TEU) between January 29, 2003 and August
9, 2004 inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida against defendants CP Ships; Ray
Miles (the Company's CEO); Frank Halliwell (the Company's Chief
Operating Officer), Ian Webber (the Company's Chief Financial
Officer) and Pricewaterhousecoopers (the Company's independent
auditors).

The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts:

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

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

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

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

On August 9, 2004, CP shocked the market by announcing that its
previously issued financial results would have to be restated.
The Company revealed that it had insufficiently accrued certain
costs, which caused the Company's net income to be materially
overstated. In fact, the nine quarter restatement of the
Company's financial results had such a substantial impact on CP
Ships reported results that, according to August 9, 2004
release, CP Ships would be forced to reduce its 2003 reported
profits by as much as 36%.

These belated and shocking disclosures had a devastating impact
on the price of CP Ship shares and, immediately following the
publication of defendants' corrective disclosure, on August 9,
2004, shares of the Company plummeted - - falling over $3.70 per
share, or 22.4%, to $12.85 per share on the New York Stock
Exchange, and also falling approximately 21.5 % on the Toronto
Stock Exchange, where Company shares are also traded. More than
5 million shares changed hands by the close of trading, well
above the 90-day average trading volume of around 320,000
shares.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & 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 of
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman 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


DRUGSTORE.COM: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of drugstore.com, inc. ("drugstore.com")
(Nasdaq:DSCM) between January 20, 2004 and June 10, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period") against drugstore.com, Kal Raman,
Roberta A. Barton, and Peter M. Neupert.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market about the Company's financial
condition between January 20, 2004 and June 10, 2004, thereby
artificially inflating the price of drugstore.com common stock.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the defendants knew ore recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company's gross margins were being
         negatively impacted due to its implementation of a free
         three-day shipping offer, which was enacted in April
         2004;

     (2) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the integration of International Vision
         Direct was a disaster;

     (3) that the Company's sales growth was being negatively
         impacted by cancellations resulting from expired
         prescriptions;

     (4) that EBITDA was swinging $5 million to negative
         territory; and

     (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive and aggressive
         statements about the Company and their earnings
         projections.

On June 11, 2004, the Company announced that second quarter
results would be hurt by a "dip" in profit margins. Additionally
on June 11, 2004, the Company announced that defendant Raman had
decided to leave the Company and that defendant Barton would
assume defendant Raman's responsibilities during the Company's
search for a replacement. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of drugstore.com fell $1.85 per share, or 38 percent, to
close at $3.06 per share on unusually high volume on June 14,
2004.

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


GEXA CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action complaint in the Southern District of Texas against Gexa
Corporation ("Gexa" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:GEXA) for alleged
acts in violation of U.S. securities fraud laws.

The complaint alleges that, from August 14, 2003 and March 30,
2004 (the "Class Period"), Gexa, a Texas retail electricity
provider, Neil Liebman (CEO), Marcie Zlotnik (Director) and
Sarah Veach (Chief Accounting Officer) violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants materially overstated Gexa's financial results in
connection with its power delivery business. On March 30, 2004,
after the market closed, the Company issued a press release
which admitted that its previously reported revenues had been
overstated estimates, not measurable earned revenues based upon
power delivered to customers or proceeds from energy sales as
previously reported. Defendants also revealed that in connection
with the completion of the audit for fiscal year 2003, the
Company's independent auditors identified certain material
weaknesses in the Company's systems of internal controls.

Based upon this press release, the price of the Company's stock
dropped more than 25% falling from a closing price of 6.64 per
share on March 30, 2004 to a closing price of 4.90 per share on
March 31, 2004.

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


KVH INDUSTRIES: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Lawsuit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Rhode Island against KVH Industries, Inc. ("KVH" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:KVHI), claiming the company and two top
officers misled the investing public by overstating the
purported success and market demand for one of its products. The
lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities laws
on behalf of all investors who bought KVH common stock from
October 1, 2003 through and including July 2, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

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

The complaint names as defendants: KVH; Martin A. Kits van
Heyningen, who at all relevant times served as the company's
president, chief executive officer and as a director; and
Patrick J. Spratt, who at all relevant times served as the chief
financial officer.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, KVH,
which makes mobile satellite communications products, touted the
purported success and strong market demand for the TracVision A5
Antenna. KVH announced that the TracVision A5 would drive the
Company's future growth and profitability. All along, however,
there was little or no retail demand for the TracVision A5, the
lawsuit claims.

On July 6, 2004, before the markets opened, KVH stunned the
investing public by announcing that it was slashing the retail
price of the TracVision A5 from $3495 to $2295 - or 34% - and
establishing a huge $2.5 million "inventory valuation" reserve
based on vendor purchase commitments and on-hand inventory to
reflect the true value of the TracVision A5. Analysts noted that
the dramatic decrease in the retail price would result in lower
margins, which would ultimately preclude profitability.

As a result of these revelations, KVH's stock price plummeted
approximately 19% from a closing price of $12.50 on July 2, 2004
to close at $10.15 on July 6, 2004.

The complaint states that the Company overstated the purported
demand for the TracVision A5 and artificially inflated the value
of KVH common stock in order to successfully complete a
secondary offering in February 2004 of 2.7 million shares of its
stock for proceeds of approximately $51.5 million.

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


NETFLIX INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Netflix Inc. ("Netflix" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:NFLX) between October 1, 2003 and July 15, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Netflix and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Netflix' operations and
performance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. Netflix is the largest online
movie rental subscription service in the United States. The
complaint alleges that defendants deliberately understated the
Company's "churn" rate (the percentage of its subscribers that
cancelled per month) by utilizing a novel definition of churn
that artificially decreased the Company's reported churn rate
during quarters when the Company was adding large numbers of new
subscribers. Additionally, defendants repeatedly touted the
Company's impressive subscriber growth without any direct
disclosure in Netflix' earnings releases or SEC filings
concerning the large percentage of subscriber cancellations
during the respective quarters.

On July 15, 2004, after the close of trading, the Company for
the first time disclosed that while the Company had added
537,000 new subscribers during the second quarter, in the same
period it had suffered 422,000 subscriber cancellations, and
though the Company added 1,343,000 new subscribers during the
first half of 2004, in the same period it had suffered 737,000
subscriber cancellations. In response to this news, Netflix
shares plummeted 38% over the next two days.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr. of Shareholder
Relations Department - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400
vsoler@whesq.com or visit their Web site: http://www.whesq.com


PETMED EXPRESS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of PetMed Express,
Inc. (Nasdaq: PETS) ("PetMed") between June 18, 2003, and July
26, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, PetMed -
- an Internet pet pharmacy -- misrepresented or failed to
disclose serious flaws in the company's business model and its
ability to guarantee the quality, safety or efficacy of the
drugs it sells. At the same time, company insiders sold almost
$65 million of their privately held PetMed stock.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton 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: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all securities
purchasers of PetMed Express, Inc. (Nasdaq: PETS) ("PetMed" or
the "Company") from June 18, 2003 through July 26, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges PetMed, Menderes Akdag, Marc Puleo, and
Bruce S. Rosenbloom with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

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

     (3) that 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) that 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.

On July 26, 2004, defendants shocked the market when they
belatedly disclosed that the Company was operating well below
defendants' previous guidance and that PetMed revenues and
earnings were well below plan. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of PetMed fell $2.07 per share or 29.70 percent, on July
26, 2004, to close at $4.90 per share.

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


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNCATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock and other securities of Primus
Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("Primus" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:PRTL), between November 11, 2003 and July 29, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNCATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges VA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Primus
Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("Primus") (Nasdaq:PRTL) between
November 11, 2003 and July 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against defendant Primus and/or one
or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact the law offices of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Virginia on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Primus
Telecommunications Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRTL) ("Primus") between
November 11, 2003, and July 29, 2004 (the "Class Period"),
including all those who purchased securities in Primus' January
13, 2004 debt offering.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Primus -
- a global telecommunications provider -- misrepresented the
company's business prospects in regard to

     (1) pricing pressures on its standalone international long
         distance business,

     (2) revenue projections for the second half of 2004,

     (3) and Primus' ability to raise money for necessary
         capital expenditures.

On July 29, 2004, Primus posted a second quarter loss of $14.9
million, a $0.17 loss per share, falling short of Wall Street
expectations. Primus had forecast earnings of $.10 per share on
revenue of $348 million. On this news, Primus dropped $1.70 to
$1.52 per share -- a 50% decline.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton 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


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges MN Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of all Travelers Property Casualty Corp.
("Travelers") Class A and Class B shareholders whose shares of
Travelers were automatically exchanged for shares of The St.
Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. on or about April 1, 2004 (NYSE:
STA - News; "St. Paul Travelers") pursuant to a merger between
Travelers and The St. Paul Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul")(the
"Class"). The lawsuit was filed against Travelers, St. Paul, St.
Paul Travelers and its top executives, CEO Jay Fishman and CFO
Jay Benet; St. Paul's former CFO Thomas Bradley; and Travelers'
former CEO, Robert Lipp.

The action arises out of the merger ("the Merger") between
Travelers and St. Paul pursuant to which Travelers shareholders
received shares of St. Paul Travelers stock at a predetermined
exchange ratio. The merger was approved based on representations
contained in a joint Proxy Statement and Registration Statement
issued on February 13, 2004. The Complaint alleges that both
Travelers and St. Paul negligently failed to disclose in that
document that St. Paul utilized a markedly different method for
calculating insurance reserves than that utilized by Travelers
and that applying Travelers' methodology, as was required, would
result in the necessity of having to increase reserves on St.
Paul's insurance policies by over $1 billion - approximately 12
percent of the value of St. Paul as determined by the merger
consideration. On June 17, 2004, news regarding this issue began
to trickle out to shareholders, and St. Paul Travelers stock
began to decline, falling from $41.10 on that date to $35.66 on
July 23, 2004, the date the exact size of the needed reserve
adjustment--$1.6 billion--was first announced. Thus, in a matter
of weeks, St. Paul Travelers shares declined in market value by
an astounding $3.66 billion.

Defendants St. Paul and St. Paul Travelers (its successor in
interest due to the Merger) are alleged to have violated
Sections 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which provides for
liability without fault for any material misrepresentations in
or omissions from the Registration Statement that harmed
shareholders. The Complaint asserts that defendants Fishman and
Bradley likewise violated Section 11 by failing to conduct a
reasonable investigation into the adequacy of the disclosures in
the Registration Statement concerning St. Paul's reserves. All
defendants are also charged with violations of Section 14 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits the
solicitation of proxies for a shareholder vote by means of a
materially false or misleading proxy statement containing
misrepresentations or omissions.

For more details, contact Paskowitz & Associates by Phone:
800-705-9529 or by E-mail: classattorney@aol.com


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

The Merger was billed as a "merger-of equals" between Travelers'
and St. Paul. The complaint alleges that the registration
statement issued in connection with the Merger was materially
false or misleading because it failed to disclose that

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr. of Shareholder
Relations Department - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400
vsoler@whesq.com or visit their Web site: http://www.whesq.com


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *