---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 23, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 166

                          Headlines

aaiPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated NC Securities Suit
aaiPHARMA INC.: Pension Plan Participants File ERISA Suit in NC
ALABAMA: A.G. King Lauded For Medicaid "Amicus Curiae" Petition
AMERADA HESS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in NJ
AON CORPORATION: IL Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement

APPLE COMPUTER: Recalls 28T Rechargeable Batteries For Fire Risk
CALIFORNIA: Minorities Lodge Lawsuit V. Berkeley School District
CAREMARK RX: Employees Commence ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in TN Court
CAREMARK RX: AL Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit V. 1999 Settlement
CAREMARK RX: AL Court Allows Filing of Amended Antitrust Lawsuit

CAREMARK RX: Asks AL Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuits
CAREMARKPCS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of AZ ERISA Fraud Suit
CAREMARKPCS: Moves For Arbitration in Antitrust Lawsuit in PA
CHARLES SCHWAB: Mutual Fund Lawsuits Consolidated, Moved to MD
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For MO Investor Suits

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: DE Stockholder Fraud Lawsuits Dismissed
CHEVRONTEXACO: Jury Orders $16M Compensation in MT Pipeline Leak
COMBINED INSURANCE: Reaches Settlement For IL Employee Lawsuits
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Appeals Lost Premium Claim Ruling in Suit
DUPONT CO.: Faces Lawsuits in WV V. PFOA, Trial Set For Oct. 25

EXXON MOBIL: Appeals Damages Reinstatement in Exxon Valdez Suit
EXXON MOBIL: Moves For Writ of Certiorari in Dealer Fraud Suit
FIFTH THIRD: OH Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
FORD MOTOR: OH Judge OKs Class Status For Mercury Villager Suit
HUMANA INC.: Trial in Managed Care Litigation Set March 2005

IMPSAT FIBER: Asks NY Court To Grant Approval To Suit Settlement
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Berman DeValerio Files Amended Fraud Suit in IN
IVILLAGE.COM: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
L&L SERVICES: Judge Orders Owners To Surrender Business Records
LIQUID AUDIO: Submits Stock Suit Settlement Papers To NY Court

MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces More Lawsuits Over Zicam Cold Remedy
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in AZ
MECO CORPORATION: Recalls 3.8T Furniture Sets For Lead Content
NEW JERSEY: Attorney Lodges Suit V. Owners Rancocas Creek Dams
NRG ENERGY: Remand of CA Energy Suit To State Court Considered

PCS HEALTH: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Lawsuit in NJ
PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Settlement Hearing Set September 24, 2004
PTI SPORTS: Recalls 9T Bicycle Helmets Due To CPSA Noncompliance
REMEDYTEMP INC.: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set September 2004
TEXAS: SEC Lodges Lawsuit V. Gary M. Kornman For Insider Trading

TORCHMARK CORPORATION: AL Court Mulls Consumer Suit Settlement
USF CORPORATION: O'Brien Belland Lodges PA ULP Suit V. Firm, IBT
WASHINGTON INVESTMENT: SEC Settles Fraud Charges V. Bolla Couple
WEST COAST: Consumers Lodge Antitrust Violations Suit in E.D. CA

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
FLIGHT SAFETY: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Fraud Lawsuit in CT
KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges NY Securities Suit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in CA
PETMED EXPRESS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Klafter & Olsen Lodges Securities Suit in MN
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in NY
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA

                            *********


aaiPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated NC Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
aaiPharma, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers
face a consolidated class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 there under on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from January 31, 2002 through and including
March 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges generally that the defendants knowingly or
recklessly made false or misleading statements during the Class
Period concerning the Company's financial condition and that its
financial statements did not present its true financial
condition and were not prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

The Company expects that the plaintiffs will file a
consolidated, amended complaint later in 2004, to which it will
respond in lieu of responding to the individual complaints, it
stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


aaiPHARMA INC.: Pension Plan Participants File ERISA Suit in NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
aaiPharma, Inc., one of its former officers, certain of its
employees and others face a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina.

The suit asserts claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) on behalf of a class of
all persons who are or were participants or beneficiaries of the
aaiPharma Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan during the period
from April 24, 2002 to March 31, 2004.  The complaint alleges
generally that the defendants breached fiduciary duties owed
under ERISA with respect to the investment of Plan assets in
aaiPharma stock by misleading participants and beneficiaries of
the Plan regarding the Company's earnings, prospects, and
business condition.  The complaint seeks certification as a
class action, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and other relief.

ALABAMA: A.G. King Lauded For Medicaid "Amicus Curiae" Petition
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Consejo de Latinos Unidos, a national advocacy group that
educates and assists uninsured Latinos and others, applauded
efforts by Alabama Attorney General Troy King to defend
uninsured Alabamans from price-gouging hospitals. Attorney
General King quietly filed a petition to appear amicus curiae
(friend of the court) in a class action lawsuit against Baptist
Health System, in U.S. Federal Court in Birmingham, Alabama. He
is the first AG to intervene on behalf of taxpayers.

"We are pleased that Attorney General King has taken a bold step
forward to defend the taxpayers and residents of Alabama from
the egregious and immoral behavior by Baptist Health System and
other so-called 'non-profit' hospital chains," said K.B. Forbes,
Executive Director of the Consejo. "Baptist and other non-
profits receive millions of dollars in tax exemptions, yet
engage in deceptive and aggressive billing and collection
practices."

Mr. Forbes noted, "Attorney General King has joined the Bush
Administration in fighting to end the unfairness of overcharging
uninsured working-class Americans who are not poor enough to
qualify for charity care or Medicaid, yet not healthy enough or
wealthy enough to own private insurance." On February 19, Bush's
Secretary for Health and Human Services, Tommy Thompson, wrote a
harsh and stinging letter to the American Hospital Association
calling on them to offer discounts to the uninsured and strongly
refuting the notion that federal regulations prevented hospitals
from offering discounts.

Typically, hospitals charge the uninsured three or four times
more than what a hospital would accept as payment in full from
an insurance company.

A year ago, Consejo was credited by The Wall Street Journal with
"a big win" after forcing the nation's second largest hospital
chain, Tenet Healthcare, to change its aggressive billing
practices against the uninsured by charging the uninsured the
same prices insurance companies pay for the exact same care.


AMERADA HESS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Amerada Hess
Corporation and certain of its executive officers and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, styled "In re Amerada Hess Securities
Litigation."

The suit alleges that these individuals sold shares of the
Company's common stock in advance of the its acquisition of
Triton Energy Limited (Triton) in 2001 in violation of federal
securities laws, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May
14,2004) story states.

In April 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and failure to
plead fraud with particularity.  On March 31, 2004, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
plaintiffs were granted leave to file an amended complaint.


AON CORPORATION: IL Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Aon
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
such Act, and sought, among other things, compensatory damages
and an award of costs and expenses.

On September 13, 2002, a purported derivative action against the
Company and each of Aon's directors was filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The derivative complaint made
allegations substantially similar to the original class action
lawsuits.

In third quarter 2003, the Company and attorneys representing
plaintiffs in the purported shareholder and derivative actions
agreed to settle all of these actions.  Under the settlement,
Aon will pay a total of $7.25 million and take certain steps
relating to Aon's corporate governance, some of which had
already been undertaken by Aon.  The court granted final
approval of the settlement on July 27, 2004, and thus the
settlement is final, subject to any appeals that may be filed.


APPLE COMPUTER: Recalls 28T Rechargeable Batteries For Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Apple Computer Inc., of Cupertino, California and LG Chem Ltd.,
of South Korea is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 28,000
Rechargeable batteries used in 15-inch PowerBook G4 computers.

An internal short can cause the battery cells to overheat,
posing a fire hazard to consumers. Apple has received four
reports of batteries overheating, though no injuries have been
reported.

The recalled batteries are used with the 15-inch PowerBook G4
(Aluminum) laptop computer. The batteries, which contain cells
manufactured during the last week of December 2003 only, have
the model number A1045 and serial numbers that begin with HQ404,
HQ405, HQ406, HQ407, or HQ408. The model and serial numbers can
be found on a label on the bottom of the battery. The battery is
approximately 4 _ inches long, 3 ¬ inches wide, and _ inches
tall. No other PowerBook or iBook batteries are involved in this
recall.

Assembled in Taiwan, the rechargeable batteries were sold at
National and regional resellers, catalogers, and Apple's online
and retail stores sold the computers with the batteries from
January 2004 through August 2004 for between $2000 and $2600.
The batteries also were sold separately for about $130.

Consumers should stop using the recalled batteries immediately
and contact Apple to arrange for a replacement battery, free of
charge.

For more details, contact Apple Computers by Phone:
(800) 275-2273 between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. CT Monday through
Sunday or visit Apple's Web site:
http://www.apple.com/support/powerbook/batteryexchange


CALIFORNIA: Minorities Lodge Lawsuit V. Berkeley School District
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys from the Legal Services for Children in San Francisco
and the Youth and Education Law Clinic at Stanford University
filed a federal class-action lawsuit on behalf of a group of
minority students that claims the Berkeley school district
violated their civil rights by failing to give them hearings
before barring them from campus for bad behavior, the San
Francisco Chronicle reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Oakland, the suit states that
the district had "wrongfully and arbitrarily" reassigned
minority students specifically African Americans and Latinos to
alternative schools during the past several years without
providing sufficient notice, thereby discriminating against them
on the basis of their race. The suit named as defendants the
Berkeley school board members, Superintendent Michele Lawrence
and Gerald Herrick, director of student services for the
district.

The suit cited experiences of some the plaintiffs as a basis for
its filing which includes one experience by Juan Munoz, a
freshman two years ago at Berkeley High School, who according to
the suit was suspended for five days and later told he couldn't
return to campus "because he wore red clothing to school." It
also stated, "At no time was Juan provided with any hearing, any
opportunity to present evidence or a chance to tell his side of
the story prior to being indefinitely excluded from
comprehensive school."

Another plaintiff the suit cites is the case of Summer McNeil, a
junior at Berkeley High last year, who was also in limbo after a
disciplinary incident in class. Now, according to the suit, she
has "become anxious about graduating in time in spring 2005."

Speaking in behalf of his clients, attorney Bill Koskirney
stated that whether or not students have disciplinary issues,
"they are entitled to their due-process rights and a fair
hearing before they are excluded from school."

Attorney Koski also stated that he did not know how long the
district had allegedly been failing to give students adequate
notice before suspending them. However attorney Koski pointed
out that the lawsuit did estimate that during the 2002-03
academic year, about 55 students who were recommended for
expulsion did not receive an expulsion hearing beforehand. He
further stated that he wanted the lawsuit certified as a class
action to represent all African American and Latino students who
have been -- or could be -- involuntarily excluded from
mainstream classrooms and reassigned to continuation schools,
county community schools and independent study programs.


CAREMARK RX: Employees Commence ERISA Fraud Lawsuit in TN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark Rx, Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary Caremark, Inc.
face a purported private class action lawsuit that was filed by
Robert Moeckel, on behalf of the John Morrell Employee Benefits
Plan, in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee.

The suit alleges that the defendants each act as a fiduciary as
that term is defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and that they have breached
certain purported fiduciary duties under ERISA.  The suit seeks
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.


CAREMARK RX: AL Court Refuses To Dismiss Suit V. 1999 Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama refused to
dismiss the class action filed against Caremark Rx, Inc. by John
Lauriello on behalf of a purported class of persons who were
participants in the 1999 settlement of then pending securities
class action and derivative lawsuits against the Company and
others.  Also named as defendants are several insurance
companies that had provided coverage to the Company up to the
time of the settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.  Alternatively, the
lawsuit seeks to re-open the judgment approving the 1999
settlement.  Appropriate discovery will proceed.

In November 2003, a second class action lawsuit was filed by
Frank McArthur in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama
arising out of the same 1999 settlement of then pending
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against the
Company and others.  This lawsuit also was filed on behalf of a
purported class of persons who were participants in the 1999
settlement, and named as defendants Caremark Rx, several
insurance companies that had provided coverage to Caremark Rx up
to the time of the settlement, and a number of lawyers and law
firms involved in negotiating and securing the approval of the
1999 settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.

On December 18, 2003, John Lauriello, the plaintiff in the
lawsuit filed in October 2003, filed a motion to intervene and a
motion to dismiss, abate or stay this lawsuit on the grounds
that it was a duplicative, later-filed, class action complaint.
On January 15, 2004, Caremark Rx and the other defendants filed
their own motion to abate, dismiss or stay the lawsuit as a
later-filed class action that is substantially similar to the
previous class action lawsuit filed by Mr. Lauriello.  The
defendants' motion to stay was granted by the court, and the
lawsuit was transferred to an Administrative Docket where it
will be reviewed every ninety (90) days.


CAREMARK RX: AL Court Allows Filing of Amended Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama granted plaintiffs leave to file an amended class action
against Caremark Rx, Inc., Caremark, Inc. and AdvancePCS (now
doing business as CaremarkPCS).  The court also granted the
Company's motion to transfer the suit to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C& C, Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount
Drugs, Inc., two independent pharmacies, filed the initial
complaint, alleging purported violations of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act in three counts.

In December 2003, Caremark Rx, Caremark and AdvancePCS filed
motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state any claim
upon which relief can be granted.  In February 2004, the
plaintiffs amended and restated their class action complaint,
dropping two counts under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and
adding a count under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

Count I claims that the defendants committed with third parties,
including client payors and other PBM companies, numerous
violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act "by price fixing
schemes" flowing from "parallel behavior" that have resulted in
"low levels" of prescription service reimbursement rates for the
plaintiffs and the diversion of prescription service business
from the plaintiffs to mail service.

Count II claims that the defendants have engaged in a conspiracy
to monopolize or attempt to monopolize the United States market
for dispensing and retail sale of prescription drugs that are
reimbursed by insurance in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended class action
complaint.  The plaintiffs are seeking three times actual money
damages and injunctive relief enjoining the alleged antitrust
violations.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
class action complaint to restate their purported antitrust
claims against the defendants.  The court granted the motion to
transfer venue pursuant to the terms of the pharmacy services
agreements between the Company and the plaintiffs.  The court
also granted a motion filed by AdvancePCS to compel arbitration
of any claims between it and the plaintiffs pursuant to the
pharmacy services agreements it has with the plaintiffs.  The
defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss the second amended
class action complaint if and when it is served by the
plaintiffs.


CAREMARK RX: Asks AL Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caremark RX, Inc. asked the United States District Court,
Northern District of Alabama to dismiss the class actions filed
against it and Caremark, Inc. by Roland Bickley, on behalf of
the Georgia Pacific Corporation Life, Health and Accident Plan.

The suit, originally filed in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California, alleges that Caremark Rx
and Caremark each act as a fiduciary as that term is defined in
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and that
Caremark Rx and Caremark have breached certain purported
fiduciary duties under ERISA.

On August 29, 2002, this case was ordered transferred to the
United States District Court, Northern District of Alabama.
Caremark Rx was subsequently served on May 29, 2002 with a
virtually identical lawsuit, containing the same types of
allegations, which was filed by Mary Dolan, on behalf of Wells
Fargo Health Plan, and also filed in the United States District
Court, Central District of California.  On December 12, 2002,
this case was also ordered transferred to the United States
District Court, Northern District of Alabama.

Both of these lawsuits have been amended to name Caremark as a
defendant, and Caremark Rx has been dismissed from the second
case filed.  These lawsuits seek unspecified monetary damages
and injunctive relief.


CAREMARKPCS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of AZ ERISA Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court of
Arizona's dismissal of a consolidated class action filed against
AdvancePCS (now doing business as CaremarkPCS) on behalf of a
putative class of self-funded health plans.

Tommy Glanton filed the first suit in April 2002.  In March
2003, Tara Mackner filed a similar suit, in which the plaintiff,
a purported participant in a self-funded health plan customer of
AdvancePCS, sought to bring action on behalf of that plan.  Each
of the lawsuits sought unspecified monetary damages and
injunctive relief.

Because the previously filed Glanton case purported to be
brought as a class action on behalf of self-funded plans, the
court consolidated the Mackner case and the Glanton case.  In
November 2003, the court dismissed and terminated both the
Glanton and Mackner cases on the pleadings, finding that the
plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the actions under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  The plaintiffs and
AdvancePCS have filed their briefs in the appeal, and the United
States Department of Labor has filed an amicus brief.


CAREMARKPCS: Moves For Arbitration in Antitrust Lawsuit in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
AdvancePCS (now doing business as CaremarkPCS) moved to compel
arbitration in a class action filed against it in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Bellevue Drug Co., Robert Schreiber, Inc., d/b/a Burns Pharmacy
and Rehn-Huerbinger Drug Co., d/b/a Parkway Drugs filed the suit
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, and
the Pharmacy Freedom Fund and the National Community Pharmacists
Association.  The plaintiffs allege antitrust violations under
Section 1 of the Sherman Act arising from AdvancePCS's
establishment of network rates for retail pharmacies.

The plaintiffs are attempting to certify a class of all
pharmacies that, at any time during the period commencing four
years before the filing of the litigation through the present,
contracted with AdvancePCS to dispense and sell brand name and
generic prescription drugs for any prescription drug benefit
plan(s).  The plaintiffs seek three times actual money damages
and injunctive relief enjoining the alleged antitrust
violations.

The Company moved to compel arbitration of any claims between it
and the plaintiffs pursuant to the pharmacy services agreements
it has with the plaintiffs.  The motion to compel arbitration is
pending.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Mutual Fund Lawsuits Consolidated, Moved to MD
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against Charles Schwab
Corporation have been transferred to the United States District
Court in Maryland for consolidation.

Between November 2003 and January 2004, five class actions were
filed against the Company and:

     (1) US Trust Corporation (USTC),

     (2) U.S. Trust NY,

     (3) Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., and

     (4) the Excelsior(R) Funds

The suits were filed in connection with allegedly improper and
illegal mutual fund trading practices.  The lawsuits allege the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties and violated various
federal securities laws by permitting market-timing in the
Excelsior Funds and by failing to disclose such timing in the
fund prospectuses.

All five of the class action lawsuits have now been consolidated
for the purpose of pre-trial pleadings before a single judge.  A
lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been appointed for the
actions and the lead plaintiff has been given until September
29, 2004 to file a consolidated amended complaint.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Settlement For MO Investor Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. reached a settlement for the
federal securities class actions and shareholder derivative
suits in Missouri federal and state courts.

Fourteen putative federal class action lawsuits were initially
filed against the Company and certain of its former and present
officers and directors in various jurisdictions allegedly on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from either November 8 or November 9, 1999 through July
17 or July 18, 2002.  Unspecified damages are sought by the
plaintiffs.

In general, the lawsuits allege that the Company utilized
misleading accounting practices and failed to disclose these
accounting practices and/or issued false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning its
operations and prospects.  The suits were specifically and
individually identified in public filings made by the Company
prior to the date of this quarterly report.

In October 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to transfer the
federal class actions to the United States District Court
Eastern District of Missouri.  On March 12, 2003, the Panel
transferred the six federal suits filed in the Eastern District
of Missouri to that district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings with the eight suit already pending there.
The Panel's transfer order assigned the federal class actions to
Judge Charles A. Shaw.

By virtue of a prior court order, StoneRidge Investment Partners
LLC became lead plaintiff upon entry of the Panel's transfer
order.  StoneRidge subsequently filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint.  The Court subsequently consolidated the Federal
Class Actions into a single consolidated action for pretrial
purposes.  On June 19, 2003, following a status and scheduling
conference with the parties, the Court issued a Case Management
Order setting forth a schedule for the pretrial phase of the
Consolidated Federal Class Action.  Motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint were filed.

On February 10, 2004, in response to a joint motion made by
StoneRidge and the Company, officers Carl E. Vogel and Paul G.
Allen, the Court entered an order providing, among other things,
that:

     (1) the parties who filed such motion, engage in a
         mediation within ninety (90) days; and

     (2) all proceedings in the Consolidated Federal Class
         Actions were stayed until May 10, 2004.

On May 11, 2004, the Court extended the stay in the Consolidated
Federal Class Action for an additional sixty (60) days.  On July
12, 2004, the parties submitted a joint motion to again extend
the stay, this time until September 10, 2004.  The Court granted
that extension on July 20, 2004.

On September 12, 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filed
in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri
against the Company and its then current directors, as well as
its former auditors.  A substantively identical derivative
action was later filed and consolidated into the State
Derivative Action.  The plaintiffs allege that the individual
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by failing to
establish and maintain adequate internal controls and
procedures.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages allegedly
on the Company's behalf.

On March 12, 2004, an action substantively identical to the
State Derivative Action was filed in the Missouri State Court,
against the Company and certain of its current and former
directors, as well as its former auditors.  The plaintiffs
allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to establish and maintain adequate internal
controls and procedures.  On July 14, 2004, the Court
consolidated this case with the State Derivative Action.

Separately, on February 12, 2003, a shareholders derivative suit
was filed against the Company and its then current directors in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.  The plaintiff alleges that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and grossly mismanaged Charter
by failing to establish and maintain adequate internal controls
and procedures.

On August 5, 2004, Charter entered into Memoranda of
Understanding setting forth agreements in principle regarding
settlement of the consolidated Federal Class Action and the
Federal Derivative Actions.  In exchange for a release of all
claims by plaintiffs against Charter and its former and present
officers and directors named in the Actions, Charter will pay to
the plaintiffs a combination of cash and equity collectively
valued at $144.0 million, which will include the fees and
expenses of plaintiffs' counsel.

Of this amount, $64.0 million will be paid in cash (by Charter's
insurance carriers) and the balance will be paid in shares of
Charter Class A common stock having an aggregate value of $40.0
million and ten-year warrants to purchase shares of Charter
Class A common stock having an aggregate warrant value of $40.0
million.  The warrants would have an exercise price equal to
150% of the fair market value (as defined) of Charter Class A
common stock as of the date of the entry of the order of final
judgment approving the settlement.

In addition, Charter expects to issue additional shares of its
Class A common stock to its insurance carrier having an
aggregate value of $5.0 million.  Additionally, as part of the
settlements, Charter will also commit to a variety of corporate
governance changes, internal practices and public disclosures,
some of which have already been undertaken and none of which are
inconsistent with measures Charter is taking in connection with
the recent conclusion of the SEC investigation against it.  The
settlement of each of the lawsuits is conditioned upon, among
other things, the parties' approval and execution of definitive
settlement agreements with respect to the matters described
above, judicial approval of the settlements by the Court
following notice to the class, and dismissal of the consolidated
derivative actions now pending in Missouri State Court, which
are related to the Federal Derivative Action.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: DE Stockholder Fraud Lawsuits Dismissed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The six class actions filed against Charter Communications, Inc.
and certain of its then current directors and officers in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware have been dismissed
without prejudice.

The lawsuits were filed after the filing of a Schedule 13D
amendment by Mr. Paul Allen, the Company's principal
shareholder, indicating that he was exploring a number of
possible alternatives with respect to restructuring or expanding
his ownership interest in the Company.

The Company believes the plaintiffs speculated that Mr. Allen
might have been contemplating an unfair bid for shares of
Charter or some other sort of going private transaction on
unfair terms and generally alleged that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties by participating in or acquiescing to
such a transaction, the Company stated in a regulatory filing.
The lawsuits, which are substantively identical, were brought on
behalf of Charter's securities holders as of July 29, 2002, and
sought unspecified damages and possible injunctive relief.

However, no such transaction by Mr. Allen has been presented.
On April 30, 2004, orders of dismissal without prejudice were
entered in each of the Delaware Class Actions.


CHEVRONTEXACO: Jury Orders $16M Compensation in MT Pipeline Leak
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ChevronTexaco Corporation (CVX) will be required to pay
compensation of up to $16 million as for environmental damage
from a gasoline pipeline leak on the Sunburst Works Refinery
that occurred 50 years ago, Cascade County, Montana Superior
Court ruled, the Dow Jones Business News reports.

ChevronTexaco was held responsible by the jury for the
underground contamination in Sunburst, a small farming community
in the state of Montana. Aside from the $16 million
compensation, the jury is also deliberating on the amount for
punitive damages.

The case involves a class action lawsuit over damage from the
defunct Sunburst Works Refinery and includes the Sunburst School
District and 81 other plaintiffs.  There were efforts to pump
the ground clean in the two years after the leak was found, but
toxins remain in Sunburst's groundwater and soil.  However,
Texaco argues that natural processes will resolve the problem
over time, and there's no evidence anyone's health has been
compromised by the leak.


COMBINED INSURANCE:  Reaches Settlement For IL Employee Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Combined Insurance Company of America (CICA) reached a
settlement for two class actions filed against it in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The first suit, styled "Radmanovich v. Combined Insurance
Company of America (CICA)," seeks compensatory and punitive
damages from CICA on behalf of former and current employees of
CICA.  The action alleges discrimination against women in
hiring, training and promotion and in tolerating a hostile work
environment.  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for the
plaintiff and for all women who worked for CICA since April 1,
1999.  In March 2002, a second putative class action lawsuit,
styled "Palmer v. Combined," was filed against CICA in the same
court, making similar allegations but seeking injunctive and
punitive damages on behalf of a putative class of current CICA
employees.

On June 26, 2003, the Court in Radmanovich denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, after which a number of the
putative class members filed individual lawsuits in the same
court.  On September 2, 2003, the Court in Palmer granted
plaintiffs' motion for class certification for injunctive and
punitive damages.

In August 2004, the parties to these lawsuits agreed to a
settlement of these matters.  The settlement calls for the
Company to pay a total of $8.5 million and to put in place
certain agreed measures.  The settlement is subject to a process
that includes preliminary approval, notice to class members and
final court approval.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Appeals Lost Premium Claim Ruling in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consolidated Edison, Inc. appealed a lower court's ruling on the
lost premium claim in the class action filed against it by a
purported class of Northeast Utilities' shareholders, entitled
Rimkoski, et al. v. Consolidated Edison, Inc.

The suit was filed in New York County Supreme Court, alleging
breach of the merger agreement between the Company and
Northeast.  The complaint defined the putative class as holders
of Northeast Utilities' common stock on March 5, 2001, and
alleged that the class members were intended third party
beneficiaries of the merger agreement.  The complaint sought
damages believed to be substantially duplicative of those sought
by Northeast Utilities on behalf of its shareholders in the
lawsuit filed by the Company in March 2001, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, entitled
Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. Northeast Utilities (the First
Federal Proceeding).

The First Federal Proceeding sought a declaratory judgment that
Northeast Utilities has failed to meet certain conditions
precedent to the Company's obligation to complete its
acquisition of Northeast Utilities pursuant to their agreement
and plan of merger, dated as of October 13, 1999, as amended and
restated as of January 11, 2000 (the merger agreement).

In March 2003, the District Court ruled on certain motions filed
by the Company and Northeast Utilities in the First Federal
Proceeding.  The District Court ruled that the Company's claim
against Northeast Utilities for hundreds of millions of dollars
for breach of the merger agreement, as well as the Company's
claim that Northeast Utilities underwent a material adverse
change, will go to trial.  The District Court also dismissed the
Company's fraud and misrepresentation claims.  In addition, the
District Court ruled that Northeast Utilities' shareholders were
intended third-party beneficiaries of the merger agreement and
the alleged $1.2 billion lost premium claim against Con Edison
would go to trial.

In December 2003, the court granted Rimkoski's motion to
intervene in the First Federal Proceeding and, in February 2004,
the State Proceeding was dismissed without prejudice.  In
January 2004, Rimkoski filed a motion in the First Federal
Proceeding to certify his action as a class action on behalf of
all holders of Northeast Utilities' common stock on March 5,
2001 and to appoint Rimkoski as class representative.  The
motion is pending.

In May 2004, the District Court ruled that the Northeast
Utilities' shareholders who may pursue the lost premium claim
against Con Edison are the holders of Northeast Utilities'
common stock on March 5, 2001 and the District Court dismissed
Northeast Utilities' lost premium claim.  The District Court
certified its ruling regarding the lost premium claim for
interlocutory appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit (the Court of Appeals), and in June 2004
Northeast Utilities filed its motion for leave to appeal the
issue to the Court of Appeals.  The District Court further
certified for interlocutory appeal its March 2003 determination
that Northeast Utilities' shareholders are intended third-party
beneficiaries under the merger agreement, and in June 2004, the
Company filed its motion for leave to appeal the issue to the
Court of Appeals.  The motions are pending.


DUPONT CO.: Faces Lawsuits in WV V. PFOA, Trial Set For Oct. 25
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler, PLLC, is
involved in representing plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit
pending in the Circuit Court of Wood County, West Virginia
against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (Civil Action No.
01-C-608), which involves claims relating to ammonium
perfluorooctonoate (aka C8, C-8, PFOA, APFO, FC143, FC-143,
utilized in the manufacture of Teflon).

Ohio and West Virginia residents who live near the company plant
that is allegedly using PFOA filed the suit. The residents are
seeking for test that will conclude whether the chemical's
presence in their drinking water has caused or could cause
health problems.

Scheduled for September, the trial has been delayed by a month.
According to Edison Hill, a partner at West Virginia law firm of
Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee & Deitzler jury selection is
expected to start on October 12 with the trial beginning on
October 25 instead of September in West Virginia.


EXXON MOBIL: Appeals Damages Reinstatement in Exxon Valdez Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon Mobil Corporation appealed The United States District
Court of Alaska's reinstatement of $4.5 billion punitive damage
award against the company in the litigation over the 1989 Exxon
Valdez tanker accident.

A number of lawsuits, including class actions, were brought in
various courts against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries relating to the accidental release of crude oil
from the tanker Exxon Valdez in 1989.  The vast majority of the
compensatory claims have been resolved.  All of the punitive
damage claims were consolidated in the civil trial that began in
May 1994.

In that trial, on September 24, 1996, the United States District
Court for the District of Alaska entered a judgment in the
amount of $5 billion in punitive damages to a class composed of
all persons and entities who asserted claims for punitive
damages from the corporation as a result of the Exxon Valdez
grounding.  The Company appealed the judgment.

On November 7, 2001, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit vacated the punitive damage award as being
excessive under the Constitution and remanded the case to the
District Court for it to determine the amount of the punitive
damage award consistent with the Ninth Circuit's holding.  The
Ninth Circuit upheld the compensatory damage award, which has
been paid.

On December 6, 2002, the District Court reduced the punitive
damage award from $5 billion to $4 billion.  Both the plaintiffs
and ExxonMobil appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit.  The
Ninth Circuit panel vacated the District Court's $4 billion
punitive damage award without argument and sent the case back
for the District Court to reconsider in light of the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Campbell v. State Farm.

On January 28, 2004, the District Court reinstated the punitive
damage award at $4.5 billion plus interest.  The Company and the
plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the Ninth Circuit.  The
corporation has posted a $5.4 billion letter of credit.


EXXON MOBIL: Moves For Writ of Certiorari in Dealer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Exxon Mobil Corporation filed a petition for grant of writ of
certiorari of the $1.3 billion damage award in the class action
filed against it, styled "Allapattah v. Exxon."

In January 2001, a jury in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida determined that a class of all
Exxon dealers between March 1983 and August 1994 had been
overcharged between 1.03 and 1.4 cents per gallon for gasoline.
The Company sold a total of 39.8 billion gallons of gasoline to
its dealers during this period.  The estimated value of the
potential claims associated with the 39.8 billion gallons of
gasoline is $494 million.  Including related interest, the total
is approximately $1.3 billion.

On June 11, 2003, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
the judgment and on March 15, 2004, denied a petition for
Rehearing En Banc.  On July 14, 2004, ExxonMobil filed a
petition for grant of writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme
Court.  Pending the appeals process, members of the class may
file claims during the period from February 29, 2003 through
August 29, 2004.


FIFTH THIRD: OH Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio ordered consolidated the eights securities class actions
filed against Fifth Third Bancorp and certain of its officers,
alleging violations of federal securities laws related to
disclosures made by the Company regarding its integration of Old
Kent Financial Corporation and its effect on its infrastructure,
including internal controls, and prospects and related matters.

The complaints seek unquantified damages on behalf of putative
classes of persons who purchased the Company's common stock,
attorneys' fees and other expenses, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (May 15,2004) stated.  The Company believes there
are substantial defenses to these lawsuits and intends to defend
them vigorously.  The impact of the final disposition of these
lawsuits cannot be assessed at this time, the Company stated in
a regulatory filing.


FORD MOTOR: OH Judge OKs Class Status For Mercury Villager Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott of Cincinnati, Ohio granted
class action status to a lawsuit filed by a retiree against the
Ford Motor Company defective throttle-body assemblies in the
automaker's 1999 and 2000 model Mercury Villagers, the Fort
Wayne Journal Gazette reports.

According to the retiree, Pat Daffin, she felt unsafe pulling
into traffic, not knowing whether the car would move in time. In
her suit she claims that the automaker knowingly made defective
throttle-body assemblies on Mercury Villagers in 1999 and 2000,
causing the gas pedals to stick in the up position.

Denied national class-action certification in 2002 by Judge
Dlott, however just last month the judge changed her decision
and agreed that the estimated 7,000 to 8,000 Ohioans who bought
or leased the vehicles can join the case thus class action
status was granted though she reiterated that it's up to a jury
to decide what economic loss the class suffered.

In response to the news of class-action certification Ford,
through it's spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes called Daffin's claims
"absurd" and stated that the company will challenge the granting
of class-action status.

According to Ms. Vokes, the company has filed a motion for
reconsideration and if that is denied, Ford will appeal to the
Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.


HUMANA INC.: Trial in Managed Care Litigation Set March 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Humana, Inc. and other
health care management organizations, styled "In re Managed Care
Litigation," is set for March 15,2005.

The suit was filed against the Company and originally nine of
its competitors on behalf of physicians who have treated the
defendants' members in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

The plaintiffs assert that the defendants improperly paid
providers' claims and "downcoded" their claims by paying lesser
amounts than they submitted.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, multiple violations under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, (RICO), as well as various breaches
of contract and violations of regulations governing the
timeliness of claim payments.

The Company moved to dismiss the complaint on September 8, 2000,
and the other defendants filed similar motions thereafter.  The
complaint was subsequently amended to add as plaintiffs several
medical societies, including the Texas Medical Association, the
Medical Association of Georgia, the California Medical
Association, the Florida Medical Association, and the Louisiana
State Medical Society, each of which purports to bring its
action against specified defendants.

On September 26, 2002, the Court certified a global class
consisting of all medical doctors who provided services to any
person insured by any defendant from August 4, 1990, to
September 26, 2002.  The class includes two subclasses.  A
national subclass consists of medical doctors who provided
services to any person insured by a defendant when the doctor
has a claim against such defendant and is not required to
arbitrate that claim.  A California subclass consists of medical
doctors who provided services to any person insured in
California by any defendant when the doctor was not bound to
arbitrate the claim.

On October 10, 2002, the defendants asked the Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit to review the class certification
decision.  On November 20, 2002, the Court of Appeals agreed to
review the class issue.  The appellate court heard oral argument
on September 11, 2003, but no ruling has been issued.  Discovery
is ongoing.

On January 15, 2004, the Court filed a notice with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) that would have
permitted the JPML to decide whether the case should remain in
Miami, Florida for trial or be separately remanded for trial to
the courts in which the actions were filed prior to their
transfer to and consolidation in Miami, Florida.  In the case of
the Company, that would be the United States District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky.  On April 12, 2004, the JPML
ruled that the issue should only be decided after the Court of
Appeals rules on the class certification motion.  Thereafter, on
June 30, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a new complaint which is
substantially similar to the pending complaint in an effort to
create a new action that would not be subject to remand to the
courts in which the original complaints were filed.  The
plaintiffs have asked the Court to apply all of the previous
pleadings and rulings to the new action.  In the meantime, two
of the defendants, Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corporation, have
entered into settlement agreements, which have been approved by
the Court.


IMPSAT FIBER: Asks NY Court To Grant Approval To Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impsat Fiber Networks, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, certain individuals who were then
officers and directors of the Company, and the underwriters to
the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

This lawsuit alleges on behalf of a proposed class of all
shareholders that the Company and its underwriters violated
various provisions of the securities laws in connection with the
IPO in February 2000.  Pursuant to the Plan, the plaintiffs in
the IPO Class Action received in connection with their claims
the assignment of any insurance proceeds that the Company
receives in connection with the litigation, but otherwise the
claims of the plaintiffs against the Company or any of its other
assets, have been discharged as part of the Chapter 11
proceedings.

Pursuant to a Court order in August 2001, the IPO Class Action
was consolidated for all pre-trial purposes in "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92," an intra-
district proceeding involving approximately 900 lawsuits
relating to the initial public offerings of approximately 310
companies.

In July 2002, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss, which was denied as to the Company and one
individual officer in February 2003.  In April 2003, the Company
was advised that global settlement discussions between the
plaintiffs and the Company's insurer (on behalf of the Company
and the individual defendants) to resolve plaintiffs' claims
against all 310 companies had reached an advanced stage.

Among other things, the proposed settlement would result in a
broad release of claims against the Company, its officers and
directors, and other issuers, and their officers and directors
without a direct financial contribution by the Company.
Settlement papers seeking preliminary approval of the settlement
and certification of the investor class were submitted to the
court in June 2004.  The settlement is subject to court
approval.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Berman DeValerio Files Amended Fraud Suit in IN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
filed an amended class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Indiana against ITT Educational
Inc.'s (ESI) executives, who the suit claims to have
fraudulently and repeatedly manipulated enrollment data, grades
and other academic information in a purposeful scheme to
artificially improve the company's financial results, the Dow
Jones Newswires reports.

Based on interviews with more than a dozen current and former
ITT Educational employees, the suit alleges that officials from
the company, which provides post-secondary degree programs,
"failed to disclose to the investing public that ITT had been
regularly falsifying records used as indicators of its
operational success."

The 81-page suit, which was filed on behalf of lead plaintiff,
the City of Austin Police Retirement System also alleges that
certain executives, including Chief Executive Rene R. Champagne
and Chief Financial Officer Kevin M. Modany, among others,
reaped millions from insider stock sales during a period that
stretches from October 2003 to March.

According to observers some of the claims in the ITT suit are
similar to those included in an amended class action complaint
in June against Career Education CECO, which like ITT is a for-
profit provider of post-secondary education.


IVILLAGE.COM: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
iVillage.com, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, several of its present
and former executives and its underwriters in connection with
its March 1999 initial public offering.

The complaints generally assert claims under the Securities Act
of 1933, as amended, the Exchange Act and rules and regulations
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC.  The
complaints seek class action certification, unspecified damages
in an amount to be determined at trial, and costs associated
with the litigation, including attorneys' fees.

In February 2003, the defendants' motion to dismiss certain of
the plaintiffs' claims was granted in part, but, for the most
part, denied.  In June 2003, a proposed settlement of this
litigation was structured between the plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants, the issuer officers and directors named as
defendants, and the issuers' insurance companies.  The proposed
settlement generally provides that the issuer defendants and
related individual defendants will be released from the
litigation without any liability other than certain expenses
incurred to date in connection with the litigation, the issuer
defendants' insurers will guarantee $1.0 billion in recoveries
by plaintiff class members, the issuer defendants will assign
certain claims against the underwriter defendants to the
plaintiff class members, and the issuer defendants will have the
opportunity to recover certain litigation-related expenses if
the plaintiffs recover more than $5.0 billion from the
underwriter defendants.  The respective boards of directors of
iVillage and Women.com each approved the proposed settlement in
July 2003.

On June 25, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with the court, which was accompanied
by a brief filed by the issuer defendants in support of the
plaintiffs' motion.  The court requested that any objections to
preliminary approval of the settlement be submitted by July 14,
2004, and certain underwriter defendants formally objected to
the settlement.  The plaintiffs and issuer defendants separately
filed replies to the underwriter defendants' objections to the
settlement on August 4, 2004.


L&L SERVICES: Judge Orders Owners To Surrender Business Records
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck of the District of South
Carolina ordered the owners of L&L Services LLC and WLL LLC,
both temporary staffing agencies, who are accused of profiting
from illegal immigrant labor to turnover records in a civil
class action lawsuit, The Post and Courier reports.

The judge though refused a motion to freeze the assets of
company owners Lawton Limehouse and his son, Lawton Limehouse
Jr., saying it would cause them harm.

The Post and Courier obtained through the Freedom of Information
Act the investigative audit conducted this spring by the U.S.
Department of Labor that found the Limehouses failed to pay
$66,485.36 in overtime to 223 workers.

Owned and operated by father and son, the staffing agencies
provided as many as 500 workers a year, most of them Hispanic,
to golf courses, restaurants and construction sites. Both
companies though have shut down and are under scrutiny in a
federal criminal investigation and a class action lawsuit on
behalf of six former workers.

Limehouse's attorney, John Massalon, had asked the court to
stall the discovery phase of the civil suit, because federal
agents seized 10-12 boxes of business records from the elder
Limehouse's home and since then has been unable to get copies of
those records.

However, attorney Paul Hulsey, who represents the workers,
argued that despite a lack of business records, the case could
begin with depositions and obtaining copies of any documents
Limehouse may possess. Judge Houck agreed and thus ordered
discovery to proceed immediately with the understanding that
some documents might not be produced.


LIQUID AUDIO: Submits Stock Suit Settlement Papers To NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Liquid Audio, Inc. submitted settlement papers for the
securities class action filed against it, certain of former
officers and directors, and various of the underwriters in its
initial public offering (IPO) and secondary offering to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The suit, styled "In re Liquid Audio, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, CV-6611," generally alleges that
various investment bank underwriters engaged in improper and
undisclosed activities related to the allocation of shares in
the Company's IPO and secondary offering of securities.  The
plaintiffs brought claims for violation of several provisions of
the federal securities laws against those underwriters, and also
against the Company and certain of its former directors and
officers, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of Company common stock between July 8, 1999
and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs filed similar actions asserting virtually
identical allegations against more than 40 investment banks and
250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation" securities
class actions currently pending in the Southern District of New
York have been assigned to Judge Shira A. Scheindlin for
coordinated pretrial proceedings as "In re Liquid Audio, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

Defendants have filed omnibus motions to dismiss the actions on
common pleading issues.  In October 2002, the Company's former
directors and officers, named as defendants, were dismissed from
the litigation without prejudice.  In February 2003, the court
granted in part and denied in part the omnibus motions to
dismiss.  The court did not dismiss any claims against the
Company.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Faces More Lawsuits Over Zicam Cold Remedy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. faces several lawsuits filed from late
2003 through July 2004, generally alleging that the Company's
Zicam Cold Remedy product caused damage to the sense of smell
and/or taste.

Two of these lawsuits have been filed as class action lawsuits
covering named and unnamed plaintiffs.  The new cases are:

     (1) Benkwith vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., filed
         May 3, 2004 in the Circuit Court for Montgomery County,
         Alabama, Case No. CV04-1180 CNP;

     (2) Bryant vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., et al., filed
         June 14, 2004 in District Court, Boulder County,
         Colorado, Case No. 2004 CV808;

     (3) Wyatt vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., filed June
         17, 2004 in the US District Court, Northern District of
         Alabama, Case No. CV04-1230-S;

     (4) Hilton vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., filed June
         27, 2004 in the District Court, Tarrant County, Texas,
         Case No. 0482061620 (removed to the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort
         Worth Division, Case No. 4-04CV-519-Y);

     (5) Hunter vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al, filed June
         4, 2004 in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona
         (Maricopa County), Case No. CV2004-010830; and

     (6) Mayo vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al., filed June
         24, 2004 in the Superior Court of New Jersey (Essex
         County), Case No. ESX-L-3551-04.

The case Christensen et al. vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. et al.
filed October 13, 2003, has been dismissed without prejudice.

Various defendants in the lawsuits, including manufacturers and
retailers, have sought indemnification or other recovery from
the Company for damages related to the lawsuits.  All 17 of the
existing lawsuits have been submitted to the Company's insurance
carriers.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.  The suits also
name as defendants the Company's President and Chief Executive
Officer, Carl Johnson, and its Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, William J. Hemelt.  The suits are
styled:

     (1) Sved vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., Carl J. Johnson and
         William J. Hemelt, Case No. CV04-0886PHX and

     (2) Siracusano vs. Matrixx Initiatives, Inc, Carl J.
         Johnson and William J. Hemelt, Case No. CV041012PHX

Among other things, the lawsuits allege that between October
2003 and February 2004, the Company made materially false and
misleading statements regarding its Zicam Cold Remedy product,
including failing to adequately disclose to the public the
details of certain of the product liability lawsuits filed
against the product.

The Company believes the claims made in these lawsuits are
without merit and represent the actions of opportunistic
plaintiffs' law firms seeking to take advantage of existing
Zicam Cold Remedy litigation, the Company revealed in a filing
with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


MECO CORPORATION: Recalls 3.8T Furniture Sets For Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meco Corporation, of Greeneville, Tennessee is cooperating with
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 3,800 Kid's Essentials Five-Piece
Folding Furniture Sets.

The red paint on the chair contains excessive lead levels,
posing a lead poisoning hazard to young children. No incidents
or injuries have been reported.

The recalled product is a red folding chair with a metal frame
and vinyl padded seat back and base. The chair was sold as a
part of a five-piece juvenile table furniture set with a green
table, blue chair, yellow chair, green chair and red chair. Only
the red chairs with model numbers 11-88-3E1 and 11-88S3E1 and
date codes H3, B4, D4 or E4 printed underneath the seat bottom
are included in the recall. "Meco" or "Samsonite" brand names
are also printed on the seat label.

Manufactured in China, the furniture sets were sold at all
Furniture and wholesale club stores nationwide from July 2003
through June 2004 for between $25 and $40.

Consumers should stop using this red chair immediately and
contact the firm for instructions on returning the red chair and
receiving a free replacement chair.

For more details, contact Meco Corporation by Phone:
(800) 251-7558 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit their Web site: http://www.meco.net


NEW JERSEY: Attorney Lodges Suit V. Owners Rancocas Creek Dams
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Carlo Scaramella of the law firm Cureton Caplan, P.C.
initiated a second lawsuit seeking class action status against
private owners of 12 of the 18 dams that broke in the Rancocas
Creek Watershed when more than a foot of rain hit central
Burlington County, New Jersey on July 12 and 13, the
Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

Filed by a family in Lumberton in Burlington County Superior
Court, the suit contends that the dams should have been able to
withstand the rains had they been built to code and properly
maintained. The suit also contends that many of the dams
apparently failed in a domino effect, one dam bursting, sending
the lake contained behind it rushing at dams downstream.

The suit named as defendants the YMCA Camp Ockanickon Inc.,
which owns Stockwell Lake Dam, Squaw Lake Dam, and Papoose Lake
Dam in Medford; Birchwood Lakes Colony Club, which owns
Birchwood Lake Dam; Pine Acre Associates, which owns Kenilworth
No. 2 Dam in Medford; and Medford Lakes Colony Club, which
shares responsibility with Medford Lakes Borough for the dams at
Upper and Lower Aetna Lakes.

In addition, the Girl Scouts of Camden County N.J. Inc., which
owns the Upper and Lower Inawendiwin Dams in Tabernacle; Blue
Lake Association, which owns Blue Lake Dam in Medford; the
estate of Samuel Mutch, which owns Lower Stokes Dam in Medford;
and the Marlton Lakes Civic Association, which owns Crane Lake
Dam in Evesham were also named as defendants.

According to attorney Scaramella, if class status were granted
the suit could allow up to 2,000 flood victims to seek damages
of up to $100 million. He further stated, "We feel strongly that
what happened here should not have happened, the people living
downstream suffered flooding much worse than they should have."

The suit further contends that state records revealed several of
the dams had been cited by the state before the rains came,
mostly because of undersize spillways, the structures used to
carry overflow around or through a dam to prevent too much
pressure from building up, however despite state orders, some
problems went unaddressed for more than 20 years.

Earlier this month, a lawsuit filed by Roebling lawyer Edward
Petkevis named the engineers hired by dam owners to inspect the
dams, as well as state dam-safety regulators and the four
municipalities where the failed dams are concentrated: Medford,
Medford Lakes, Tabernacle and Evesham. About 100 people have
signed on to that complaint, which also seeks class-action
status.

For more details, contact Carlo Scaramella of Cureton Caplan,
P.C. by Mail: 950 B Chester Avenue, Delran, New Jersey 08075
(Burlington Co.) by Phone: 856-824-1001 or by Fax: 856-824-1008


NRG ENERGY: Remand of CA Energy Suit To State Court Considered
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard several
defendants' appeal of a lower court decision remanding the
lawsuit filed against NRG Energy, Inc. and other energy
companies, styled "In re: Wholesale Electricity Antitrust
Litigation, MDL 1405," to California State Court.

The suit was originally filed in the United States District
Court, Southern District of California, pending before Judge
Robert H. Whaley.  The cases included in this proceeding are:

     (1) Pamela R Gordon, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated v Reliant Energy, Inc. et al., Case
         No. 758487, Superior Court of the State of California,
         County of San Diego (filed on November 27, 2000);

     (2) Ruth Hendricks, On Behalf of Herself and All Others
         Similarly Situated and On Behalf of the General Public
         v. Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc. et al., Case No.
         758565, Superior Court of the State of California,
         County of San Diego (filed November 29, 2000);

     (3) The People of the State of California, by and through
         San Francisco City Attorney Louise H. Renne v. Dynegy
         Power Marketing, Inc. et al., Case No. 318189, Superior
         Court of California, San Francisco County (filed
         January 18, 2001);

     (4) Pier 23 Restaurant, A California Partnership, On Behalf
         of Itself and All Others Similarly Situated v PG&E
         Energy Trading et al., Case No. 318343, Superior Court
         of California, San Francisco County (filed January 24,
         2001);

     (5) Sweetwater Authority, et al. v. Dynegy, Inc. et al.,
         Case No. 760743, Superior Court of California, County
         of San Diego (filed January 16, 2001);

     (6) Cruz M Bustamante, individually, and Barbara Matthews,
         individually, and on behalf of the general public and
         as a representative taxpayer suit, v. Dynegy Inc. et
         al., inclusive., Case No. BC249705, Superior Court of
         California, Los Angeles County (filed May 2, 2001)

All of West Coast Power's operating subsidiaries are defendants
in at least one of these six coordinated cases, which were all
filed in late 2000 and 2001 in various state courts throughout
California.  The Company is also a defendant in all of them.
The cases allege unfair competition, market manipulation and
price fixing.

All the cases were removed to the appropriate United States
District Courts, and were thereafter made the subject of a
petition to the Multi-District Litigation Panel (Case No. MDL
1405).  The cases were ultimately assigned to Judge Whaley.
Judge Whaley entered an order in 2001 remanding the cases to
state court, and thereafter the cases were coordinated pursuant
to state court coordination proceedings before a single judge in
San Diego Superior Court.

Thereafter, Reliant Energy and Duke Energy filed cross-
complaints naming various Canadian, Mexican and United States
government entities.  Some of these defendants once again
removed the cases to federal court, where they were again
assigned to Judge Whaley.  The defendants filed motions to
dismiss and to strike under the filed-rate and federal
preemption theories, and the plaintiffs challenged the district
court's jurisdiction and sought to have the cases remanded to
state court.

In December 2002, Judge Whaley issued an opinion finding that
federal jurisdiction was absent in the district court, and
remanding the cases to state court.  Duke Energy and Reliant
Energy then filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and
also sought a stay of the remand pending appeal.  The stay
request was denied by Judge Whaley.

On February 20, 2003, however, the Ninth Circuit stayed the
remand order and accepted jurisdiction to hear the appeal of
Reliant Energy and Duke Energy on the remand order, and that
appeal was argued in June, 2004 and is pending.  The Company
anticipates that filed-rate/federal preemption pleading
challenges will be renewed once the remand appeal is decided.


PCS HEALTH: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against PCS
Health Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of PCS Holding Corporation,
in the United States District Court of the District of New
Jersey.

The lawsuit alleges that the Company acts as a fiduciary, as
that term is defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), and has breached certain purported fiduciary duties
under ERISA.  The plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief and
monetary damages in an unspecified amount.  The plaintiff
purported to represent a nation-wide class consisting of all
members of all ERISA plans for which PCS Health Systems, Inc.
provided PBM services during the class period.

The Company opposed certification of this class and in July
2003, the court entered an order certifying a more limited class
comprised only of members of those ERISA plans for which PCS
Health Systems, Inc. provided services under its contract with a
single HMO for a limited time period.


PROVIDIAN FINANCIAL: Settlement Hearing Set September 24, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California - San Francisco Division will hold a fairness hearing
for the proposed settlement in the matter In re Providian
Financial Corporation Securities Litigation on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of
the company during the period from June 6, 2001 through October
18, 2001.

The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing, which will be held
on September 24, 2004, at 10:00am, before the Honorable Charles
R. Breyer, United States District Judge, at the United States
Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA.

For more details, contact Martin D. Chitwood or Stuart J. Guber
of Chitwood & Harley, LLP by Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, NE
Promenade II, Suite 2300, Atlanta, GA 30309 OR Jordan Eth of
Morrison & Foerster, LLP by Mail: 425 Market Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-2482 OR Providian Securities Litigation by
Mail: c/o P.O. Box 990, Corte Madera, CA 94976-0990 by Phone:
1-800-447-7657 or visit their Web site: http://www.gilardi.com


PTI SPORTS: Recalls 9T Bicycle Helmets Due To CPSA Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------------
PTI Sports Inc., of Rancho Cucamonga, California is cooperating
with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 9,000 Schwinn-brand Toddler Bicycle
Helmets.

The helmets do not comply with impact testing requirements in
the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA). No incidents or injuries
have been reported.

These Schwinn-brand Toddler Bicycle Helmets have "SCHWINN"
written on the back of the helmets. A white label inside the
helmets reads, "Lot# 791913." This number is followed by a date
from "12-01-03" through "5-15-04." This label also contains the
model number SK103, SK107 or SK108.

Manufactured in China, the helmets were sold at all Wal-Mart,
Target, Academy and Mills Fleet & Farms stores nationwide from
January 2004 through July 2004 for between $17 and $20.

Return the recalled helmet to the store where purchased for a
replacement or refund. Consumers also can send the helmet back
to the manufacturer.

For more details, contact PTI Sports by Phone: (800) 515-0074
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


REMEDYTEMP INC.: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set September 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the class action
filed against RemedyTemp, Inc. is set for September 9,2004 in
the Superior Court of the State of California, county of Los
Agneles.

On October 16, 2001, GLF Holding Company, Inc. and Fredrick S.
Pallas filed the suit againt the Company, Remedy Intelligent
Staffing, Inc., Remedy Temporary Services, Inc., Karin Somogyi,
Paul W. Mikos, and Greg Palmer. The Complaint purports to be a
class action brought by the individual plaintiffs on behalf of
all of the Company's franchisees.  The Complaint alleges claims
for:

     (1) fraud and deceit,

     (2) negligent misrepresentation,

     (3) negligence,

     (4) breach of contract,

     (5) breach of warranty,

     (6) conversion,

     (7) an accounting,

     (8) unfair and deceptive practices,

     (9) restitution and

    (10) equitable relief

On December 3, 2002, plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint
alleging these same causes of action, but adding additional
facts to the Complaint particularly with respect to the
Company's workers' compensation program and adding claims
regarding unfair competition on behalf of the general public in
addition to their existing class action claim.  The plaintiffs
claim that Remedy wrongfully induced its franchisees into
signing franchise agreements and took other action that caused
the franchisees damage.

The Company believes that plaintiffs' claims fall within the
arbitration clause contained in the franchise agreements signed
by plaintiffs.  As a result, immediately after plaintiffs filed
suit, the Company filed arbitration demands against plaintiffs
with the American Arbitration Association. On or about April 1,
2003, the Company amended its arbitration demands to add claims
against plaintiffs relating to workers' compensation.

To avoid costly, disruptive, and time-consuming litigation, and
without admitting any wrongdoing or liability, the Company
negotiated and agreed to a settlement with plaintiffs and
stipulated to the certification of a settlement class comprised
of all individuals or entities that entered into a Franchise
Agreement (including renewals or amendments thereof) with
RemedyTemp, Inc. and/or Remedy Intelligent Staffing, Inc.
anytime prior to March 29, 2004.

On April 6, 2004, the Court preliminarily approved the parties'
settlement agreement and conditionally certified the Settlement
Class.  All discovery and other proceedings in this action are
stayed, except as may be necessary to implement the Settlement
Agreement.


TEXAS: SEC Lodges Lawsuit V. Gary M. Kornman For Insider Trading
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas
Division, alleging illegal insider trading against Alabama-
licensed attorney and registered securities salesman Gary M.
Kornman, 61, of Dallas, Texas. The complaint alleges that
Kornman operated a tax-planning firm, The Heritage Organization
LLC, which offered tax shelters and estate planning to wealthy
individuals. On two separate instances in 2001, Kornman obtained
material nonpublic information concerning acquisitions of public
companies in confidential discussions with prospective tax-
planning clients, each of whom faced significant capital-gains
taxes as a result of the planned sale of their respective
companies.

Specifically, the complaint alleges; In February 2001, Kornman
learned in a confidential meeting with an executive of MiniMed,
Inc., a Nasdaq-listed medical-equipment company, that there was
a "70% chance" that MiniMed would be acquired in approximately
four months by a Fortune 100 company.  Two days after learning
this information, Kornman purchased 6600 shares of MiniMed for
approximately $38 per share on behalf of a hedge fund he
controlled.  In May 2001, MiniMed announced it was being
acquired by Medtronic, Inc. for $48 per share, and Kornman's
hedge fund profited by approximately $67,000 when the merger
ultimately took place in August 2001.

In a November 2001 meeting with a board member of Hollywood
Casino Corporation, an Amex-listed company, Kornman learned that
Hollywood would "definitely" be sold to another company in the
near future within a certain price range per share. Upon
learning this information, Kornman began acquiring Hollywood
shares in the account of another hedge fund he controlled at an
average price below the price range he had learned in the
confidential meeting.  By the time Hollywood announced it was
being acquired by another publicly held casino firm in August
2002, Kornman's hedge fund had acquired 29,900 shares at an
average cost below the announced acquisition price. At Kornman's
direction, the hedge fund sold all of these shares for a profit
of approximately $75,000 shortly after the merger was announced.

The SEC's complaint seeks to permanently enjoin Kornman from
violating the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities
laws, specifically Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1034 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. It also seeks disgorgement of
$142,231 in illegal profits plus prejudgment interest and a
civil penalty. The action is titled, SEC v. Gary M. Kornman,
Civil Action No. 3:04CV1803-L, USDC, NDTX, Dallas Division] (LR-
18836).


TORCHMARK CORPORATION: AL Court Mulls Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama is currently
holding fairness hearing for the settlement of a class action
filed against Torchmark Corporation and Liberty National Life
Insurance Company, styled "Roberts v. Liberty National Life
Insurance Company, Case No. CV-2002-009-B."

The suit was initially filed in the Circuit Court of Choctaw
County, Alabama on behalf of all persons who currently or in the
past were insured under Liberty cancer policies which were no
longer being marketed, regardless of whether the policies
remained in force or lapsed.  The suit was based on allegations
of breach of contract in the implementation of premium rate
increases, misrepresentation regarding the premium rate
increases, fraud and suppression concerning the closed block of
business and unjust enrichment.

On December 30, 2003 the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion
granting Liberty's and Torchmark's petition for a writ of
mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction and ordering that Circuit Court to
dismiss the action.  The plaintiffs then filed their purported
class action litigation against Liberty and Torchmark in the
Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama on December 30, 2003,
styled "Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company,
Civil Action No. CV2003 0137."

On April 16, 2004 the parties filed a written Stipulation of
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Barbour County,
Alabama Circuit Court seeking potential settlement of the
Roberts case.  A fairness hearing on the potential settlement
was held by the Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004.
The Court continued that hearing until September 23, 2004,
pending receipt of briefs on certain issues and directed
submission of materials relating to objections to the proposed
settlement to the Court-appointed special master.


USF CORPORATION: O'Brien Belland Lodges PA ULP Suit V. Firm, IBT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of O'Brien, Belland & Bushinsky, of Cherry Hill,
New Jersey initiated a class action suit in Federal District
Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against USF Corporation
and its operating subsidiary, USF Red Star, on behalf of former
USF Red Star employees who are members of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT).  In addition, Unfair Labor
Practice (ULP) charges have been filed with the National Labor
Relations Board against USF, the IBT and Teamsters Local 107.

The suit and charges arose from actions taken by USF in May of
this year, when it abruptly shut down all of its East Coast
operations under the Red Star subsidiary.  The class action suit
alleges that USF Red Star violated the federal WARN Act, which
requires 60 days' notice of company closing, by shutting down
the Red Star operations with no notice whatsoever.

ULP charges against the IBT and Teamsters Local 107 allege that
they precipitated the illegal closing of the 32 East Coast Red
Star terminals and, therefore, violated their Duty of Fair
Representation of their members.

According to the ULP charges, the IBT orchestrated a walkout by
all Teamsters working at Red Star with no prior communication to
the members, no authorizing vote by the membership, and no
discussion about the consequences that could befall Red Star
employees for going out on strike.  The company used the strike
as an excuse for shutting down operations and dissolving the
Red Star division within a single business day after the walkout
began.

"We want an investigation into this illegal shutdown of USF Red
Star operations," said Edwin Taylor, one of the lead plaintiffs
in the class action suit. Mr. Taylor and the other lead
plaintiffs, Michael Nugent and Frank Evans, are represented by
attorney Robert O'Brien.

Mr. O'Brien said that it is "outrageous that this company should
shut down 32 terminals with no notice to the employees, and it
is disgraceful that the IBT and local union showed no regard for
their members in calling a strike without authorization from the
membership."

For more details, contact Robert F. O'Brien of O'Brien, Belland
& Bushinsky, LLC by Mail: The Executive Plaza, 2111 New Road,
Suite 101, Northfield, NJ 08225 (Atlantic Co.) by Phone:
609-677-7930 or 888-609-8300 by Fax: 609-677-7931 or by E-mail:
redstarteamsters@yahoo.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.obbblaw.com


WASHINGTON INVESTMENT: SEC Settles Fraud Charges V. Bolla Couple
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission through the Honorable
Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, U.S. District Court Judge for the
District of Columbia, obtained final judgments that permanently
enjoin Steven and Susan Bolla from violations of certain
provisions of the federal securities laws, and requiring Steven
Bolla to pay $175,000. Steven Bolla was formerly managing
director of Washington Investment Network, Inc. (WIN). Susan
Bolla was a nominal owner of the firm. Steven and Susan Bolla
consented to the entries of these judgments.

Filed on July 31, 2002, the SEC's complaint alleges that Steven
Bolla and WIN violated a June 2000 SEC order barring Steven
Bolla from associating with any investment adviser. The
complaint alleges that Steven Bolla managed WIN's finances and
dealt with WIN clients for ten months after he was barred. The
SEC charged Susan Bolla with aiding and abetting WIN's
violations of the SEC's bar order. The complaint alleges that
Susan Bolla, who had no previous investment advisory or other
securities experience, was set up as the nominal co-owner of WIN
to conceal her husband's association with the firm.

The complaint charges that Steven and Susan Bolla aided and
abetted WIN's investment adviser fraud by failing to disclose
Steven Bolla's bar, or any other aspect of his disciplinary
history, to WIN clients while Steven Bolla was associating with
the firm subsequent to his bar.

In addition, the complaint alleges that Steven Bolla committed
fraud by making material misrepresentations to one of his
advisory clients regarding a private placement investment he was
soliciting as an unregistered broker-dealer.

As part of the settlement, Steven Bolla agreed to the SEC's
imposition of an order barring him from associating with any
broker, dealer or investment adviser. Susan Bolla agreed to the
SEC's imposition of an order barring her from associating with
any investment adviser.

Steven Bolla is currently serving a 12-month prison term in a
federal penitentiary for making false statements to the SEC in
1999 and 2000.

The final judgment as to Steven Bolla enjoins him from violating
Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange
Act) and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940
("Advisers Act"), and orders him to pay $117,500 in disgorgement
and prejudgment interest and a  $57,500 penalty.  In a prior SEC
action, Steven Bolla was enjoined in June 2000 from violating
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act
in. The final judgment as to Susan Bolla enjoins her from
violating Sections 203(f), 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers
Act. The action is titled, SEC v. Steven M. Bolla, Washington
Investment Network, Susan Bolla and Ropbert Radano, Case No.
1:02CV1506, D.D.C., CKK (LR-18837).


WEST COAST: Consumers Lodge Antitrust Violations Suit in E.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
West Coast Power, LLC faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California,
styled "Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc., on behalf of Itself and all
others similarly situated v. Dynegy, Inc. Holding Co., West
Coast Power, LLC, et al., Case No. CIV.S-03-2346 DFL GGH."

The suit alleges violations of the federal Sherman and Clayton
Acts and California's Cartwright Act and Business and
Professions Code.  In addition to naming West Coast Power and
"Dynegy, Inc. Holding Co.," the complaint names numerous
industry participants, as well as "unnamed co-conspirators." The
complaint alleges that defendants conspired to manipulate the
spot price and basis differential of natural gas with respect to
the California market, allegedly enabling defendants to reap
exorbitant and illicit profits by gouging natural gas
purchasers.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants and their
co-conspirators employed a variety of false reporting techniques
to manipulate the published natural gas price indices.  The
complaint seeks unspecified amounts of damages, including a
trebling of plaintiff's and the putative class's actual damages.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the Central District of California on behalf
of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of Biolase Technology, Inc.
("Biolase" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BLTI) between October 29,
2003 and July 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Biolase and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Biolase's financial performance
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting
damages on investors. Biolase designs, manufactures and markets
proprietary dental laser systems to dentists, oral surgeons and
other specialists. On July 16, 2004, after the markets closed,
Biolase reported preliminary results, which were below analysts'
expectations for the second quarter of 2004, causing Biolase
shares to plummet 27 percent on July 19, 2004. Plaintiff alleges
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented material
adverse facts during the Class Period, which defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded, including that:

     (1) Waterlase, the Company's best-selling laser system and
         primary product, 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) the Company would not achieve the earnings growth
         forecasted.

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


FLIGHT SAFETY: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Fraud Lawsuit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Flight
Safety Technologies, Inc. ("Flight Safety" or the "Company")
(Amex: FLT) between January 14, 2003 and July 16, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Flight Safety
and certain officers and directors of the Company.

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

The statements made by the defendants during the class period
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts:

     (1) the technology behind the proprietary Socrates product
         had long been in the research and development stage and
         at no time during the Class Period was there an
         adequate basis for concluding that the technology was
         any closer to viability than it had been in the past;

     (2) prior tests of the Socrates technology, including the
         "proof of principle" test conducted by the Volpe
         Center, a research division of the U.S. Department of
         Transportation, at the JFK airport in 1998 found that
         the results of the Socrates were unsuccessful.  No
         subsequent advancement in Socrates technology or
         related study has demonstrated that the findings in the
         Volpe report still do not hold true today.  It is
         telling that Congress has funded the Socrates research
         against the advice of the FAA and NASA;

     (3) there is no clear demand or market that exists now, or
         that is foreseeable, for the Socrates technology.
         Whether there is such a need for such a sensor is still
         undetermined by the FAA;

    (4) even if Socrates had potential to be viable, the product
        and Company face significant competition from other,
        better understood sensors; and

    (5) Socrates is unlikely ever to be a viable commercial
        product given its unreliability, lack of development
        progress and competing technologies.

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


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
KongZhong Corporation ("KongZhong" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
KONG) American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period
between July 9, 2004 and August 17, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges KongZhong and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. KongZhong describes itself as "the
leading provider of advanced second generation, or 2.5G,
wireless interactive entertainment, media and community
services, in terms of revenue, to customers of China Mobile
Communications Corporation, or China Mobile, which has the
largest mobile subscriber base in the world."

The complaint alleges that the prospectus (the "Prospectus")
filed with the SEC in connection with the initial public
offering of KongZhong common stock, which took place on or about
July 9, 2004 (the "IPO"), was materially false and misleading.
The Prospectus, which forms part of the Registration Statement,
became effective on or about July 9, 2004, and 10,000,000 of
KongZhong's ADSs (with each ADS representing 40 ordinary shares)
were sold to the public, thereby raising approximately $100
million. Of the $100 million raised, approximately $ 20 million
went to certain selling shareholders. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Prospectus was materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that in early June 2004 the Company had carried
         inappropriate content on its interactive voice response
         (IVR) service, which was in violation of the Company's
         agreement with China Mobile;

     (2) that in response to the Company's violation of its
         agreements with China Mobile, the Company would be
         subject to sanctions that could materially impact or
         alter its business going forward; and

     (c) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         relationship with China Mobile would be negatively
         impacted.

On August 9, 2004, KongZhong issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the second quarter of 2004, the period
ending June 30, 2004. The Company reported earnings of $0.19 per
ADS. Then, on August 18, 2004, KongZhong issued a press release
announcing that it had been notified by China Mobile of a
sanction imposed on the Company. In addition to suspending the
Company's new applications for new products, according to the
press release, China Mobile also suspended the approval of the
Company's applications, if any, to operate in new platforms
until June 30, 2005. In response to this announcement, the price
of KongZhong ADSs declined to $5.59 per ADS.

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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Ligand" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: LGND) between October 31, 2003 and August 2, 2004
inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, filed on August 18, 2004, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California,
case number 04-CV-1682, against defendants Ligand
Pharmaceuticals Inc, David E. Robinson (President and CEO) and
Paul V. Maier (Senior VP and CFO).

The complaint alleges that 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) defendants had stuffed the wholesale channel with
         product in order to show strong demand for Avinza and
         to meet sales expectations that they had set, causing
         Avinza to be returned because it had expired in the
         wholesale channel;

     (2) that overall demand of the Company's products,
         including Avinza, was down;

     (3) that Medicaid prescriptions were increasing and thereby
         causing the Company to pay excessive amounts of rebates
         to Medicaid;

     (4) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that increases in Medicaid rebates were not a one-
         time occurrence but were a trend that was going to
         continue to have a negative effect on the overall sales
         of Avinza; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's positive
         statements concerning its financial outlook was lacking
         in any reasonable basis when made.

On August 3, 2004, Ligand shocked investors with two unexpected
announcements: First, the Company stated that it had missed
analysts' expectations by huge margins for the second quarter
due to widening losses; and second, that its independent
auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP ("D&T"), resigned after four
years with the Company. Immediately following the Company's
releases, Ligand's stock plummeted 40% from its closing price of
$13.58 on August 2, 2004, to a closing price of $8.18 on August
3.

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


PETMED EXPRESS: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of PetMed Express, Inc.
("PetMed" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PETS), between June 18, 2003
and July 26, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida.

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 PetMed 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, Two Bala Plaza, Suite 602,
Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Klafter & Olsen Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Klafter & Olsen LLP has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all Travelers Property Casualty Corp.
("Travelers") Class A or 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)("St. Paul Travelers") pursuant to a merger between
Travelers and The St. Paul Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul")(the
"Class").

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota and names as defendants 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 between Travelers and St.
Paul pursuant to which Travelers shareholders received shares of
St. Paul Travelers stock at a predetermined exchange ratio that
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.  Because the merged
companies were required to apply Travelers' reserve methodology,
it was necessary 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 the price of 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 necessary 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) 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.

For more details, contact Kurt B. Olsen of KLAFTER & OLSEN LLP
by Mail: 2121 K St., N.W., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20037 or by
Phone: 202/261-3553


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Weiss & Yourman Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Weiss & Yourman initiated a class action
lawsuit against Taro Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. ("Taro" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:TARO) and its officers in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of Taro securities between February 20, 2003 and
July 29, 2004.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants issued
false and misleading statements which artificially inflated
stock.

For more details, contact David C. Katz, Mark D. Smilow or James
E. Tullman of Weiss & Yourman by Mail: The French Building, 551
Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, New York 10176 by Phone:
(888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Wireless Facilities Inc. ("Wireless")
(Nasdaq:WFII) between April 26, 2000 and August 4, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period") against Wireless, Masood Tayebi,
Terry Ashwill, Daniel Stokely, Eric DeMarco, and Thomas Munro.

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 April 26, 2000 and August 4, 2004, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Wireless common stock. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially underreported its
         burgeoning foreign tax burden;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company
         materially inflated its net income or loss by 3-8
         percent or $10-12 million;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

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

On August 4, 2004, Wireless reported results for the second
quarter of fiscal year 2004. In addition, the Company announced
that it intends to restate its financial statements filed on
Form 10-K for the years 2001 through 2003 to accrue for certain
foreign tax contingencies. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Wireless fell as much as, 30% and reached at one point
on August 5, 2004, its 52 week low of $4.61 per share on
unusually heavy trading volume. At the end of the trading day,
shares of Wireless fell $1.96 per share or 28.08 percent to
close at $5.02 per share.

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 or by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.ssbny.com


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP has filed a securities fraud
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California against Wireless Facilities,
Inc. ("Wireless") (Nasdaq: WFIIE) and certain of its former and
present officers and directors, on behalf of all persons who
purchased Wireless securities on the open market from April 26,
2000, through August 4, 2004.

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

     (1) that Wireless had materially underreported its
         burgeoning foreign tax burden;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, Wireless
         materially inflated its net income by $10-12 million;
         and

     (3) that Wireless lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition.

On August 4, 2004, Wireless announced that it intends to restate
its financial statements filed on Form 10-K for the years 2001
through 2003 to accrue for certain foreign tax contingencies.
News of this shocked the market. By the end of the trading day,
shares of Wireless fell $1.96 per share or 28.08% to close at
$5.02 per share -- causing massive losses to Wireless
shareholders.

For more details, contact Ken Chang, Esq. of Wolf Popper LLP,
845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone: 212-451-9667
or 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 by E-mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.wolfpopper.com


                            *********


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  * * *