CAR_Public/040824.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, August 24, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 167

                          Headlines

ANGELCITI ENTERTAINMENT: Named in CA Suit V. Online Gambling Ads
ARIBA INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
ARIBA INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ATMOS ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For Texas Natural Gas Lawsuit
BRAUN CONSULTING: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit

CALIFORNIA: Impact Founder Says He Fights For Justice Not Money
CANADA: CEZinc Refinery Recognizes Valleyfield Mishap Motion
CENTRAL FREIGHT: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in W.D. TX
CHEVRONTEXACO CORPORATION: MT Jury Awards Sunburst Victims $41M
DIGITAL IMPACT: Submits Suit Settlement To NY Court For Approval

DYNEGY INC.: TX Court Briefs Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
EL PASO: CA Energy Markets Master Agreement Effective June 2004
EL PASO: OK Court Junk Overriding Royalty Owners' Claims in Suit
ENRON CORPORATION: TX Judge Hears Plan To Dilute $65M Settlement
FLORIDA: South Carolina Resident Arrested For Contracting Fraud

FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Litigation For Market Timing, Fraud
GOINTERNET.NET: NC AG Cooper Commences Telemarketing Fraud Suit
HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
INFORTE CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
INTERMIX MEDIA: Suit Stayed To Accommodate Possible Settlement

INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors Launch Suits in N.D. CA
JAMES UPSHAW: SEC Halts $6M Affinity Fraud, Orders Asset Freeze
KENTUCKY: Employees Lodge Suit Questioning Reduced Pay Increases
LINES OVERSEAS: Judge Orders Demonstration For Failure To Comply
NETWORK ENGINES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit

NEW JERSEY: Municipalities Reach Settlement in Overcharging Suit
NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces $192M Suit in Canada, Another Suit in NY
PAYLESS HOTEL: Faces Suit Over Hurricane Charley Price-Gouging
TENNESSEE: Judge Dismisses KCDC As A Defendant in Hope VI Suit
TENNESSEE: Judge Limits Scope of New Sex-Offender Registry Law

TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: NY Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
TREVOR WATSON: CA Judge Enters Final Judgment, Orders No Payment
TRIPLE-S INC.: To Seek Dismissal of FL Physician Fraud Lawsuit
TRIPLE-S INC.: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Physicians Fraud Suit
TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Asks PR Court To Dismiss RICO Fraud Lawsuit

VIA NET.WORKS: Working To Settle Consolidated NY Stock Lawsuit
VIBO CORPORATION: To Join Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in NY
CROSS COUNTRY: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL
GOLDEN STATE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
GOLDEN STATE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges TX Securities Suit

INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges TX Securities Suit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Goddkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in CA
PETMED EXPRESS: Brauldi Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Suit in VA
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in MN

WIRELESS FACILITIES: Goodkind Labaton Lodges CA Securities Suit


                            *********


ANGELCITI ENTERTAINMENT: Named in CA Suit V. Online Gambling Ads
----------------------------------------------------------------
Online gaming company Angelciti Entertainment, Inc. was named as
a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the Superior Court of the
State of California, over advertising for online gambling
companies.  The suit also names as defendants Google, Yahoo,
Overture and numerous other online content companies for
accepting and placing advertising, seeking relief based upon the
fact that these companies aided and abetted illegal activities
under California law by accepting advertising promoting such
activities.

The action is brought as a Private Attorney General Action
seeking disgorgement of the advertising fees earned by such
companies for the advertising, plus penalties and the listed
plaintiffs include a gambler who claims to have lost in excess
of $100,000, Indian Tribes of California who claim they lost out
on gambling revenues they would have otherwise earned but for
the online gambling activities that took away from their
revenues and the State of California that lost out on taxation
and other revenues they would have earned had such gambling
activities occurred at the Indian Gambling locations in the
State of California.


ARIBA INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to approve the settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against the Company,
certain of its former officers and directors and three of the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO).

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock in the period from June 23, 1999, the date of its
IPO, to December 6, 2000.  The suit makes certain claims under
the federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
relating to its IPO.   The suit is styled "In re Ariba, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 2359."

On August 9, 2001, that consolidated action was further
consolidated before a single judge with cases brought against
additional issuers (who numbered in excess of 300) and their
underwriters that made similar allegations regarding the IPOs of
those issuers.  The latter consolidation was for purposes of
pretrial motions and discovery only.

On February 14, 2002, the parties signed and filed a stipulation
dismissing the consolidated action without prejudice against the
Company and certain Individual Defendants, which the Court
approved and entered as an order on March 1, 2002.  On April 19,
2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they
dropped their claims against the Company and the Individual
Defendants under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, but
elected to proceed with their claims against such defendants
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus pursuant to
which shares of common stock were sold in the Company's IPO,
which was incorporated in a registration statement filed with
the SEC, contained certain false and misleading statements or
omissions regarding the practices of the Company's underwriters
with respect to their allocation to their customers of shares of
common stock in the Company's IPO and their receipt of
commissions from those customers related to such allocations.

The complaint further alleges that the underwriters provided
positive analyst coverage of the Company after the IPO, which
had the effect of manipulating the market for its stock.
Plaintiffs contend that such statements and omissions from the
prospectus and the alleged market manipulation by the
underwriters through the use of analysts caused the Company's
post-IPO stock price to be artificially inflated.  The actions
seek compensatory damages in unspecified amounts as well as
other relief.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the Individual Defendants,
along with other issuers and their related officer and director
defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based on common
issues.  On November 18, 2002, during the pendency of the motion
to dismiss, the Court entered as an order a stipulation by which
all of the Individual Defendants were dismissed from the case
without prejudice in return for executing a tolling agreement.
On February 19, 2003, the Court rendered its decision on the
motion to dismiss, granting a dismissal of the remaining Section
10(b) claim against the Company without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
have indicated that they intend to file an amended complaint.

On June 24, 2003, a special litigation committee of the
Company's Board of Directors approved a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) reflecting a settlement in which the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case against the Company with
prejudice in return for the assignment by the Company of claims
that the Company might have against its underwriters.  No
payment to the plaintiffs by the Company was required under the
MOU.  After further negotiations, the essential terms of the MOU
were formalized in a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement,
which has been executed on behalf of the Company and the
Individual Defendants.

The settling parties filed formal motions seeking preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement on June 25, 2004.  The
underwriter defendants, who are not parties to the proposed
settlement, filed a brief objecting to the settlement's terms on
July 14, 2004.  There can be no assurance that the proposed
settlement will be approved by the Court.


ARIBA INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.

Beginning January 21, 2003, a number of purported shareholder
class action complaints were filed on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock in the period from
January 11, 2000 to January 15, 2003.  The complaints bring
claims under the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, relating to the Company's
announcement that it would restate certain of its consolidated
financial statements, and, in the case of two complaints,
relating to its acquisition activity and related accounting.

Specifically, these actions allege that certain of the Company's
prior consolidated financial statements contained false and
misleading statements or omissions relating to its failure to
properly recognize expenses and other financial items, as
reflected in the then proposed restatement.  Plaintiffs contend
that such statements or omissions caused the stock price to be
artificially inflated.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages as
well as other relief.

In a series of orders issued by the Court in February and March,
2003, these cases were deemed related to each other and assigned
to a single judge sitting in San Jose.  On July 11, 2003,
following briefing and a hearing on related motions, the Court
entered two orders that together consolidated the related cases
for all purposes into a single action captioned "In re Ariba,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-00277 JF," appointed a
lead plaintiff, and approved the lead plaintiff's selection of
counsel.

On September 15, 2003, the lead plaintiff filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which restated the allegations and claims
described above and added a claim pursuant to Section 14(a) of
the Exchange Act, based on the allegation that the Company
failed to disclose certain payments and executive compensation
items in its January 24, 2002 Proxy Statement.

On November 17, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
action for failure to state a claim, which was fully briefed and
set for hearing on March 29, 2004.  Prior to the hearing, the
parties stipulated that, in lieu of proceeding to a hearing on
defendants' motion, plaintiff would withdraw its complaint and
file a further amended complaint by April 16, 2004 and plaintiff
did so on that date.  Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's
further amended complaint was filed on June 18, 2004.  A hearing
on Defendants' motion to dismiss is scheduled for October 29,
2004.  This case is still in its early stages.


ATMOS ENERGY: Reaches Settlement For Texas Natural Gas Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement for the class action filed
against Atmos Energy Corporation is set for August 24,2004 in
the 287th District Court of Parmer County, Texas.

Anderson Brothers, a Partnership, filed the suit, which arose
out of an alleged breach of contract by the Company and by a
number of its divisions and subsidiaries concerning the sale of
natural gas used in irrigation activities since 1998 and an
alleged violation of the Texas Agricultural Gas Users Act of
1985.

The Company reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs'
attorneys in this case.  The settlement agreement must be
approved by the court and then by the plaintiffs as a class,
which is expected by the end of October 2004.


BRAUN CONSULTING: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Braun Consulting, Inc. reached a settlement for the securities
class action filed against it and Steven Braun, Thomas Duvall,
and John Burke, as officers of Braun Consulting in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York

The suit, styled "Luciano Mor v. Braun Consulting, Inc.; Steven
Braun; Thomas Duvall; John Burke; Adams, Harkness & Hill, Inc.;
Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.; FleetBoston Robertson
Stephenson, Inc.; J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.; Lehman Brothers
Holdings, Inc.; Prudential Securities Incorporated; and Salomon
Smith Barney Holdings, Inc., Case No. 01 CV 10629," alleges
violations of federal securities laws in connection with the
Company's initial public offering occurring in August 1999 based
on alleged omissions in the Company's prospectus relating to
compensation payable to, and the manner of distribution of the
Company's initial public offering shares by, Braun Consulting's
underwriters.

The complaint does not allege any claims relating to any alleged
misrepresentations or omissions with respect to the Company's
business.  The Case is among approximately 300 putative class
actions against certain issuers, their officers and directors,
and underwriters with respect to such issuers' initial public
offerings, coordinated as In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS).

The Company has entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement, pursuant to a Memorandum of Understanding, along
with most of the other defendant issuers in the IPO Securities
Litigation, whereby such issuers and their officers and
directors (including Braun Consulting, Mr. Braun, Mr. Duvall and
Mr. Burke) will be dismissed with prejudice from the IPO
Securities Litigation, subject to the satisfaction of certain
conditions.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, neither Braun Consulting nor
any of its formerly named individual defendants admit any basis
for liability with respect to the claims in the Case.  The
Stipulation provides that insurers for Braun Consulting and the
other defendant issuers participating in the settlement will
guaranty that the plaintiffs will recover at least $1 billion to
settle the IPO Securities Litigation, except that no such
payment will occur until claims against the underwriters are
resolved and such payment will be paid only if the recovery
against the underwriters for such claims is less than $1 billion
and then only to the extent of any shortfall.

Under the terms of the Stipulation, neither Braun Consulting nor
any of its named directors will pay any amount of the
settlement.  The Stipulation further provides that participating
defendant issuers will assign certain claims they may have
against the defendant underwriters in connection with the IPO
Securities Litigation.  The Stipulation is subject to the
satisfaction of certain conditions, including, among others,
approval of the court.


CALIFORNIA: Impact Founder Says He Fights For Justice Not Money
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Seligman, one of the country's most recognized class-action
attorneys and founder of the Impact Fund, who filed a class-
action sex discrimination lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
and Costco Wholesale Corp. stated that his fighting for justice
and not for the money to be earned, the San Mateo Daily Journal
reports.

The cases, according to observers could generate millions of
dollars in legal fees, if it is ever proven or settled. However
the $73,000 salaried lawyer stated, "I won't personally make any
money from the case."

According to him any fees he generates in the cases, both of
which are being fought in California federal court, would go
back into the coffers of The Impact Fund, the Berkeley-based
nonprofit legal services agency he founded in 1992 with $1.25
million of his own money.

As the firm's founder it took attorney Seligman almost a decade
before he began drawing a salary and pursuing his own cases,
since most of his time was spent coaching lawyers and handing
out more than $3 million to other public-interest lawyers
representing the environment, the poor, minorities and women.

Attorney Seligman commenting on his several years of private
practice before founding the non-profit agency stated, "I made a
lot more money than I ever thought I would make, It made me feel
uncomfortable. It was more money than I needed and more money
than I ever wanted ... I wanted to get rid of it as fast as
possible."

In 1992, upon earning millions in legal fees when they settled a
lawsuit with insurance giant State Farm for $250 million as well
as being tired of the push to generate legal fees, attorney
Seligman opened The Impact Fund and immediately began fund-
raising, offering advice and doling out money to public-interest
causes.

In 2001, almost a decade after establishing the Impact Fund, he
took on retail-giant Wal-Mart. He filed a class action suit
representing as many as 1.6 million current and former workers
who Seligman says were paid less than their male counterparts
and were denied promotions on account of their gender, however
the case is currently stalled in a California federal appeals
court.  The Costco case, which accuses the warehouse chain of
passing over women for managerial roles, was filed earlier this
month in federal court and has not yet had a hearing.  Both
firms deny a pattern of gender discrimination.


CANADA: CEZinc Refinery Recognizes Valleyfield Mishap Motion
------------------------------------------------------------
CEZinc Refinery, the Quebec zinc refinery that is partly owned
by Noranda Inc. (Toronto:NRD.TO) has acknowledged the receipt of
a motion for authorization to take a class action against the
company following an incident that occurred at its Valleyfield
zinc processing facility on August 9th, 2004.

According to early reports, the CEZinc refinery located in
Salaberry-de-Valleyfield, Quebec shut one of its three sulfuric
acid plants on August 9, 2004 after a mechanical failure
released about 5 metric tons of sulfur trioxide into the
atmosphere. The refinery also refines concentrates from mines
located in Eastern Canada and the United States and along with
the Horne Smelter in Rouyn-Noranda and tha Gaspe Division in
Murdochville produces 1,000,000 metric tons of sulphuric acid
annually.

CEZinc has declined comment on this matter while the proceedings
are pending before the Court.


CENTRAL FREIGHT: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in W.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Central Freight Lines, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas,
issued in connection with or traceable to its December 12, 2003
Initial Public Offering.

The suit generally alleges that false and misleading statements
were made in the Company's initial public offering registration
statement and prospectus, during the period surrounding the
Company's initial pubic offering and up to the press release
dated June 16, 2004.

The class actions are in the initial phases.  The Company
maintains a directors' and officers' insurance policy with a
$350 deductible.  The Company has informed its insurance carrier
and retained outside counsel to assist in its defense, the
Company said in a regulatory filing.


CHEVRONTEXACO CORPORATION: MT Jury Awards Sunburst Victims $41M
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Cascade County jury held Texaco, which was acquired in 2001 by
Chevron and is now know as the ChevronTexaco Corporation (NYSE:
CVX), liable for roughly $41 million in damages in a class
action civil suit involving a 19-acre underground plume full of
contaminants leftover from a 1955 gasoline pipeline leak at the
now-defunct Sunburst Works Refinery, the Great Falls Tribune
reports.

Broken down, the $41 million payment will be divided into $15.1
million for compensatory damages, to be used for cleanup, and
$25 million for punitive damages, to be distributed to
plaintiffs.

The jury determined that Texaco must pay $15 million in cleanup
costs, plus $350,000 to cover money the plaintiffs have spent
and will spend investigating the problem. After a few more hours
spent deliberating, the jury also awarded the plaintiffs $25
million in punitive damages. Texaco was also required to pay
about $767,500 in damages for creating a public nuisance and
violating the plaintiffs' constitutional rights to a clean and
healthful environment.

Including the Sunburst School District, the punitive damages of
$25 million are being split among roughly 80 plaintiffs.

Filed in 2001, the class action lawsuit was initiated by the
Sunburst School District and residents who are unhappy with
Texaco's adopted passive cleanup method called monitored natural
attenuation, which could take anywhere from 20 to 100 years or
more to work. The plaintiffs preferred that the company should
use more active remediation techniques, including vapor
extraction and pump and treat, in which pumps are used to bring
groundwater to the surface, where it can be cleaned more easily.

An environmental cleanup expert hired by the Sunburst plaintiffs
estimated that such remediation could be done for $8.6 million
to $15 million, however Texaco rejected such techniques and
argued that the cost could go as high as $35 million.


DIGITAL IMPACT: Submits Suit Settlement To NY Court For Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties submitted to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York the stipulation of settlement for
the consolidated securities class action against Digital Impact,
Inc., certain investment bank underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering (IPO), and various of the Company's
officers and directors.

The complaints, which have been consolidated under the caption
"In re Digital Impact, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 01-CV-4942," allege undisclosed and
improper practices concerning the allocation of the Company's
IPO shares, in violation of the federal securities laws, and
seek unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock during the period from November 22, 1999 to
December 6, 2000.  The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff for
the consolidated cases.  On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations
regarding the IPOs of more than 300 other companies.  All of
these lawsuits have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 21-MC-92."  Defendants in these cases filed omnibus
motions to dismiss on common pleading issues.  Oral argument on
these omnibus motions to dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.
The Company's officers and directors have been dismissed without
prejudice in this litigation.  On February 19, 2003, the court
granted in part and denied in part the omnibus motion to
dismiss.  The court's order did not dismiss any claims against
the Company.

A stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer-
defendants, including the Company, has been submitted to the
court.  The settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including approval of the court.


DYNEGY INC.: TX Court Briefs Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas completed briefing Dynegy, Inc.'s and Dynegy Holdings,
Inc.'s motions to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against them on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's publicly traded securities from January 2000 to July
2002 seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The lawsuit principally asserts that the Company, Dynegy and
certain of the Company's current and former officers and
directors violated the federal securities laws in connection
with the Company's disclosures, including accounting
disclosures, regarding Project Alpha (a structured natural gas
transaction entered into by the Company in April 2001), round-
trip trading, the submission of false trade reports to
publications that calculate natural gas index prices, the
alleged manipulation of the California power market and the
restatement of the Company's financial statements for 1999-2001.

The Regents of the University of California are lead plaintiff
and Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP is class counsel.  The
plaintiff filed an amended complaint in January 2004 and, in
March 2004, the Company filed motions to dismiss.  The Company
is awaiting a ruling from the court.


EL PASO: CA Energy Markets Master Agreement Effective June 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Natural Gas Co.'s master settlement agreement (MSA)
resolving principal litigation relating to the sale or delivery
of natural gas and/or electricity to or in the Western United
States became effective in June 2004.

The MSA, along with additional separate settlement agreements,
settle California lawsuits in state court, the California Public
Utilities Commission (CPUC) proceeding at the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), and the California Attorney
General investigation.  Parties to the settlement agreements
include private class action litigants in California; the
governor and lieutenant governor of California; the attorneys
general of California, Washington, Oregon and Nevada; the CPUC;
the California Electricity Oversight Board; the California
Department of Water Resources; Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(PG&E), Southern California Edison Company, five California
municipalities and six non-class private plaintiffs.

As a party to the settlement agreements, the Company bears a
portion of the costs and obligations of the settlements.  In the
agreements, the Company agreed to:

     (1) admit no wrongdoing;

     (2) release approximately $344 million for the benefit of
         the parties to the definitive settlement agreements;
         and

     (3) pay amounts equal to the proceeds of $195 million from
         the issuance of approximately 26.4 million shares by El
         Paso of El Paso common stock on behalf of the settling
         parties.

In this transaction, El Paso sold its common stock and provided
the proceeds from the issuance to the Company through an equity
contribution to satisfy this obligation.

The MSA is in addition to a Joint Settlement Agreement, or JSA,
announced earlier in June 2003 where the Company agreed to
provide structural relief to the settling parties.  In the JSA,
the Company agreed to do the following, subject to the
conditions in the settlement:

     (i) make 3.29 Bcf/d of primary firm pipeline capacity on
         the Company's system available to California delivery
         points during a five year period from the date of
         settlement, but only if shippers sign firm contracts
         for 3.29 Bcf/d of capacity with California delivery
         points;

    (ii) maintain facilities sufficient to physically deliver
         3.29 Bcf/d to the California delivery points; and

   (iii) not add any firm incremental load to the Company's
         system that would prevent the Company from satisfying
         its obligation to provide this capacity;

    (iv) Construct a new 320 MMcf/d, Line 2000 Power-up
         expansion project, and forgo recovery of the cost of
         service of this expansion until the Company's next rate
         case before the FERC;

     (v) Clarify the rights of Northern California shippers to
         recall some of the Company's system capacity (Block II
         capacity) to serve markets in PG&E's service area; and

    (vi) With limited exceptions, bar any of the Company's
         affiliated companies from obtaining additional firm
         capacity on the Company's pipeline system during a five
         year period from the effective date of the settlement.

In June 2003, in anticipation of the execution of the MSA, El
Paso, the CPUC, PG&E, Southern California Edison Company, and
the City of Los Angeles filed the JSA with the FERC in
resolution of the CPUC complaint proceeding.  In November 2003,
the FERC approved the JSA with minor modifications.  The
Company's east of California shippers filed requests for
rehearing which were denied by the FERC in March 2004.  Certain
shippers have appealed the FERC's ruling to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia.

El Paso Merchant Energy, L.P. (EPME), the Company's affiliate,
and El Paso are also parties to the MSA and the separate
settlement agreements, and were obligated to pay a total of
$1,027 million (on an undiscounted basis) under these settlement
agreements.  In June 2004, El Paso made payments of
approximately $14 million, which were net of a $12 million
discount for prepayment of a portion of its 20 year cash
installment obligation, satisfying $26 million of its
obligation, and EPME released approximately $50 million.  The
remaining obligation consists of El Paso's $876 million
settlement obligation, which will be paid in installments
over the next 20 years, and EPME's $75 million in contractual
price discounts that will be realized over the remaining 18
month life of an existing power contract with one of the
settling parties.  The long-term payment obligation is a
direct obligation of El Paso and EPME and will be supported by
collateral posted by El Paso's affiliates in amounts specified
by the settlement agreements.  The Company has guaranteed the
payment of these obligations in the event El Paso and EPME fail
to pay these amounts.


EL PASO: OK Court Junk Overriding Royalty Owners' Claims in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Washita County, State of Oklahoma
dismissed claims of overriding gas royalty owners in the
consolidated class action filed against El Paso Natural Gas Co
and Burlington Resources, Inc.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants:

     (1) underpaid royalties from 1983 to the present on natural
         gas produced from specified wells in Oklahoma

     (2) took improper deductions and conducted improper
         transactions with affiliated companies and

     (3) failed to pay or delayed the payment of royalties on
         certain gas sold from these wells.

The plaintiffs seek an accounting and damages for alleged
royalty underpayments, plus interest from the time such amounts
were allegedly due, as well as punitive damages.  The plaintiffs
have filed expert reports alleging damages in excess of $1
billion.

While Burlington accepted the Company's tender of defense in
1997, and had been defending the matter since that time, it has
recently asserted contractual claims for indemnity against the
Company.   The court has certified the plaintiff classes of
royalty and overriding royalty interest owners, and the parties
are proceeding with discovery.

In March 2004, the court dismissed all claims brought on behalf
of the class of overriding royalty interest owners, but denied
defendant's other motions for summary judgment.  It is
anticipated that this matter will be scheduled for trial during
2004.

A third action, styled Bank of America, et al v. El Paso Natural
Gas and Burlington Resources Oil & Gas Company, was filed in
October 2003 in the District Court of Kiowa County, Oklahoma
asserting similar claims as to specified shallow wells in
Oklahoma, Texas and New Mexico.  Defendants succeeded in
transferring this action to Washita County where it is pending
before the same judge as the consolidated 1997 class action
lawsuits. A class has not been certified.


ENRON CORPORATION: TX Judge Hears Plan To Dilute $65M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ex-Enron employees would get about half of what was previously
predicted in a partial settlement of their would-be class action
lawsuit, observers familiar with the case told the Houston
Chronicle.

If U.S. District Judge Melinda Harmon gives final approval to
the plan, more of them would benefit. In the recently held
settlement hearing, lawyers for people who participated in Enron
retirement funds told Judge Harmon that the pot of about $65
million in insurance money would be split among 41,454
employees, not the original estimate of about 20,000
beneficiaries.

The employee lawsuit stems from allegations that Enron
executives and others breached their duty owed to employees
under pension laws.

Judge Harmon already has given preliminary approval to the
settlement for $85 million in insurance funds that would leave
about $65 million for the plan participants after expenses and
attorneys fees.

Though resolving a Labor Department lawsuit over the pension
fund losses, the settlement according to observers does not end
claims against the company, former Chairman Ken Lay, former
Chief Executive Jeff Skilling, Northern Trust Co. or accounting
firm Arthur Andersen, who all objected to the partial settlement
for various reasons.


FLORIDA: South Carolina Resident Arrested For Contracting Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist announced the arrest of a
South Carolina resident for wrongfully soliciting roofing repair
jobs in Punta Gorda following Hurricane Charley without a valid
Florida contractor's license.

Four homeowners living in Punta Gorda's residential zones
alerted the Attorney General's Fraud Prevention Team that Larry
Phillips had offered to patch their leaking roofs for between
$200 and $1,200.  The homeowners had agreed to employ Phillips
Roofing Company but had second thoughts after seeing news media
warnings about out-of-state contractors offering to do cleanup
work after the hurricane.  The residents, who all received
written estimates but paid no money to Phillips, contacted the
Fraud Prevention Team, which then alerted the Charlotte County
Sheriff's Office.

Sheriff's deputies this morning arrested Phillips, 33, of 2210
Andrews Circle in Aiken, South Carolina, on four counts of
contracting without a license during an emergency, a third-
degree felony.  Bond was set at $2,500 for each count.

"In this state, licenses are required as a way to protect
consumers," said AG Crist.  "We will work with sheriffs like
Charlotte County Sheriff William Cameron to ensure that our
citizens are protected against unscrupulous contractors."

During the investigation into Phillips Roofing Company, Larry
Phillips' assistant and brother, Gary, 25, was arrested for
possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, a first-degree
misdemeanor.  He was not charged for contracting without a
license.  His bond was set at $1,000 and he faces up to one year
in jail and a $1,000 fine.  If convicted of the third-degree
felony, Larry Phillips could be sentenced to 5 years in prison
and up to a $5,000 fine.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Litigation For Market Timing, Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries and
current and former officers, employees, and directors have been
named in multiple lawsuits in different federal courts in
Nevada, California, Illinois, New York, and Florida, alleging
violations of various federal securities laws and seeking, among
other things, monetary damages and costs.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and/or late trading
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by
Company subsidiaries, resulting in alleged market timing
activity.  The lawsuits are styled as class actions or
derivative actions on behalf of either the named Funds or the
Company.

To date, more than 240 similar lawsuits against 18 different
mutual fund companies have been filed in federal district courts
throughout the country.  Because these cases involve common
questions of fact, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPMDL) ordered the creation of a multidistrict
litigation, entitled "In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation."
The Judicial Panel then transferred similar cases from different
districts to the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
(the "MDL").

As of August 12, 2004, the following lawsuits are pending
against the Company and have been transferred to the MDL:

     (1) Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-770 GPM, filed on November 19, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois;

     (2) Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-859 MJR, filed on December 16, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois and transferred to the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29,
         2004;

     (3) Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ, filed on February 6, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;

     (4) Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04
         0583 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

     (5) Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

     (6) Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No.
         8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP, filed on February 11, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida;

     (7) Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ, filed on February 12, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;

     (8) Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ, filed on February 12, 2004, in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

     (9) McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         C 04 0628 PJH, filed on February 13, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

    (10) Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC, filed on February 17, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

    (11) Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330, filed on February 18, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York;

    (12) D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et
         al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC, filed on March 3, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

    (13) Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0901 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;

    (14) Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;

    (15) Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         C 04 0984 EMC, filed on March 10, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

    (16) Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489, filed on
         March 30, 2004 in the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York

Plaintiffs in the MDL proceeding have until September 29, 2004
to file their consolidated complaints.

Various subsidiaries of the Company have also been named in
multiple lawsuits filed in state courts in Illinois alleging
breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the portfolio
securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by such
subsidiaries as follows:

     (i) Bradfisch v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         2003 L 001361, filed on October 3, 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
         Illinois;

    (ii) Woodbury v. Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 2003 L 001362, filed on October
         3, 2003 in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
         Circuit, Madison County, Illinois;

   (iii) Kwiatkowski v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 03 L 785, filed on December 17, 2003 in the
         Circuit Court for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St.
         Clair County, Illinois;

    (iv) Parise v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 2003
         L 002049, filed on December 22, 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
         Illinois.

These lawsuits are state court actions and are not subject to
the MDL.

In addition, the Company and its subsidiaries, as well as
certain current and former officers, employees, and directors,
have been named in multiple lawsuits alleging violations of
various securities laws and pendent state law claims relating to
the disclosure of directed brokerage payments and/or payment of
allegedly excessive  commissions and advisory fees.  These
lawsuits are styled as class actions and derivative actions
brought on behalf of certain Funds, and are as follows:

     (a) Stephen Alexander IRA v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04-982 (JLL), filed on March 2, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the District of
         New Jersey;

     (b) Strigliabotti v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
         No. C 04 0883 SI, filed on March 4, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

     (c) Tricarico v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-04-1052 (JAP), filed on March 4, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey;

     (d) Miller v. Franklin Mutual Advisors, LLC, et al., Case
         No. 04-261 DRH, filed on April 16, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois;

     (e) Wilcox v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         04-2258 (WHW), filed on May 12, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey;

     (f) Bahe, Custodian CGM Roth Conversion IRA v.
         Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc. et al., Case No.
         04-11195 PBS, filed on June 3, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts.


GOINTERNET.NET: NC AG Cooper Commences Telemarketing Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
GoInternet.net can no longer use misleading telemarketing calls
to sign up customers and then place charges on their telephone
bills, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced in a
statement.

"Because of some tricky telemarketing, consumers wound up paying
for services they didn't want and hadn't agreed to," said AG
Cooper.  "That's wrong, and now we've put a stop to it."

Under terms of a consent judgment approved today by Wake County
Superior Court Judge Howard E. Manning, Jr., GoInternet must now
get written authorization from its customers before billing them
for Internet and telecommunications services rather than signing
consumers up during telemarketing calls.   The company must also
make it clear to consumers that they will be charged for
GoInternet's services if they sign up, and must disclose the
amount of the charges and how they will be billed.

In addition, the judgment requires GoInternet to cancel
contracts and provide refunds for every North Carolina consumer
who requests a refund and alleges that the charges were
unauthorized, including the more than 150 consumers who filed
complaints with the Attorney General's office.  Cooper's
Consumer Protection Division will send letters to all current
GoInternet customers in the state, offering them the opportunity
to get their money back if the company billed them without their
permission.  GoInternet must also pay $50,000 to the state.

GoInternet is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
Philadelphia that also operates under the names Mercury Internet
Services and Venus Voice Mail Services.  Neal D. Saferstein,
part-owner of GoInternet and its former president and chief
executive officer, is also named as a defendant in the judgment.

According to the lawsuit filed by Cooper in October 2002,
GoInternet telemarketers misled consumers about the costs of
services or enrolled them without their approval.  Many
consumers who were billed for GoInternet had declined the
telemarketer?s offer or agreed only to receive information.
Other consumers did not remember getting calls about the company
or were told by telemarketers that the services would be free of
charge.   In some cases, telemarketers spoke with a child or an
employee who was not authorized to order service, but the
company signed the household or business up anyway.    Many
consumers were not immediately aware that GoInternet was
charging them $29.95 a month because the charges appeared as
part of their local telephone bills.

"Study your phone bill as carefully as you would your bank
statement," AG Cooper advised consumers.  "If you see charges
you don't recognize and didn't approve, let my office know about
it."

For more information, contact Noelle Talley, Public Information
Officer, N.C. Department of Justice by Phone: (919) 716-6484 or
(919) 716-6413 or by Fax: (919) 716-0803 or by E-mail:
ntalley@ncdoj.com.


HPL TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches CA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
HPL Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against it,
certain current and former officers and directors of the
Company, and the Company's independent auditors.

The suit alleges that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 by making a series of material
misrepresentations as to the financial condition of the Company
during the class period of July 31, 2001 to July 19, 2002.  The
plaintiffs are generally seeking to recover compensatory
damages, costs and expenses incurred, interest and such other
relief as the court may deem appropriate.

The parties have stipulated to extend the time to respond to the
consolidated complaint.  A status conference with the Court is
scheduled for August 31, 2004.

The Company has signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with
the lead plaintiffs that resolves the Securities Class Action.
Under the MOU, the Company would issue shares of common stock to
the class.  Final settlement is contingent on several
conditions, including execution of a formal settlement agreement
and court approval.


INFORTE CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Inforte Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to certify the class and
approve the settlement for the securities class action filed
against it and:

     (1) Philip S. Bligh, an officer of Inforte,

     (2) Stephen C.P. Mack, former officer,

     (3) Nick Padgett, former officer,

     (4) Goldman Sachs & Co., and

     (5) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The suit, styled "Mary C. Best v. Inforte Corp.; Goldman, Sachs
& Co.; Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.; Philip S. Bligh; Stephen C.P.
Mack and Nick Padgett, Case No. 01 CV 10836," is among more than
300 putative class actions against certain issuers, their
officers and directors, and underwriters with respect to such
issuers' initial public offerings, coordinated as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS).

An amended class action complaint was filed in the Case on April
19, 2002.  The amended complaint in the Case alleges violations
of federal securities laws in connection with Inforte's initial
public offering occurring in February 2000 and seeks
certification of a class of purchasers of Inforte stock,
unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' and expert witness
fees and other costs.  The amended complaint does not allege any
claims relating to any alleged misrepresentations or omissions
with respect to our business.  The individual defendants have
been dismissed from the case without prejudice pursuant to a
stipulated dismissal and a tolling agreement.  The Company has
moved to dismiss the plaintiff's case.

On February 19, 2002, the Court granted this motion in part,
denied it in part and ordered that discovery in the case may
commence.  The Court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's
purported claim against the Company under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but left in place the
plaintiff's claim under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933.

Inforte has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU),
along with most of the other defendant issuers in the Multiple
IPO Litigation, whereby such issuers and their officers and
directors (including Inforte and Mr. Bligh, Mr. Mack and Mr.
Padgett) will be dismissed with prejudice from the Multiple IPO
Litigation, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions.
Under the terms of the MOU, neither Inforte nor any of its
formerly named individual defendants admit any basis for
liability with respect to the claims in the Case.

The MOU provides that insurers for Inforte and the other
defendant issuers participating in the settlement will pay
approximately $1 billion to settle the Multiple IPO Litigation,
except that no such payment will occur until claims against the
underwriters are resolved and such payment will be paid only if
the recovery against the underwriters for such claims is less
than $1 billion and then only to the extent of any shortfall.
Under the terms of the MOU, neither Inforte nor any of its named
directors will pay any amount of the settlement.  The MOU
further provided that participating defendant issuers will
assign certain claims they may have against the defendant
underwriters in connection with the Multiple IPO Litigation.
The MOU is subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions,
including, among others, approval of the Court.


INTERMIX MEDIA: Suit Stayed To Accommodate Possible Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated securities class action filed against Intermix
Media, Inc. and several of its current and former Company
officers and/or employees has been stayed until October 13,2004
to attempt a mediated settlement for the suit.

The suit arose out of the Company's restatement of quarterly
financial results for fiscal year 2003 and includes allegations
of, among other things, intentionally false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business prospects, financial
condition and performance.

On December 17, 2003, plaintiffs in the Securities Litigation
filed their amended and consolidated class action complaint
reiterating those allegations and also naming the Company's
former auditor as an additional defendant.  The Company and
other defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit for, among
other things, the failure of the complaint to state a valid
claim for violation of securities laws.  On June 9, 2004, the
Court granted the Company's and other defendants' motions to
dismiss the lawsuit and plaintiffs were permitted to file an
amended complaint.


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Investors Launch Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and several of its officers
face several securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suits were purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of
IntraBiotics common stock between September 5, 2003 and June 22,
2004 and generally allege that the defendants made false or
misleading statements concerning the clinical trial of iseganan.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages.


JAMES UPSHAW: SEC Halts $6M Affinity Fraud, Orders Asset Freeze
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained an Order of
Permanent Injunction and Other Equitable Relief against
defendants James Upshaw (Upshaw) and Upshaw and Associates,
L.L.C. (Upshaw and Associates), enjoining them from violating
the antifraud and registration provisions of the federal
securities laws. The Order of Permanent Injunction also freezes
the assets of Upshaw and Upshaw and Associates pending
resolution of the appropriate amount of disgorgement and civil
penalties; requires the defendants to give an accounting;
prohibits document destruction; and permits expedited discovery.
The defendants consented to the Order of Permanent Injunction
without admitting or denying the allegations of the Commission's
complaint.

In its complaint, which was filed on August 18, the Commission
charged that Upshaw's investment scheme was an "affinity fraud,"
targeting members of the African-American community, including
African-American churches and their members. Upshaw is 47 years
old and a resident of Oak Brook, Ill. The Commission alleged
that, from at least October 2000 to the present, Upshaw raised
at least $6.1 million from more than 130 investors through the
unregistered offer and sale of securities in the form of high
return promissory notes, which were issued by Upshaw &
Associates. According to the complaint, Upshaw represented to
investors that he would invest their funds in large-cap U.S.
stocks, Treasury bills and commercial paper, guaranteeing
returns of up to 10% per month. Upshaw, however, invested
little, if any, investor proceeds in the manner promised.
Instead, Upshaw used investor funds to pay returns to other
investors, fund business ventures for himself, his wife, and his
friends, and to purchase a luxury home and two luxury cars. In
addition, Upshaw made a series of misrepresentations regarding
the safety of the investments, falsely stating that the returns
were guaranteed and insured. The majority of investors in the
scheme reside in Illinois, Ohio and California. The action is
titled, SEC v. Upshaw and Associates, L.L.C., et al., Civil
Action No. 04 C 5437, USDC N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 18, 2004] (LR-
18839).


KENTUCKY: Employees Lodge Suit Questioning Reduced Pay Increases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Phillip Shepherd, on behalf of four current and retired
state employees, has initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status in Franklin County Circuit Court. The suit claims former
Kentucky Gov. Paul Patton did not have the authority to reduce
their 5 percent pay raises to 2.7 percent during the 2002-2003
budget crisis, the Lexington Herald-Leader reports.

According to attorney Shepard, the state could owe up to $20
million in back pay and salary adjustments. Attorney Shepard
also stated that he and his plaintiffs are insisting that only
the General Assembly can suspend a Kentucky law requiring at
least a 5 percent annual raise for state workers. The plaintiffs
who filed the lawsuit includes; Lisa Baker and Jeffrey Howard,
inspectors in the Division of Surface Mining; John Meehan, a
probation and parole officer in the Department of Corrections;
and Stanley Campbell Nickell, who retired in June as an attorney
in the Environmental and Public Protection Cabinet.

In 2002, lawmakers failed to pass a budget and Gov. Patton
drafted a spending plan for the nine months there was no budget.
A budget, which allegedly resulted in the suspension by the
governor of the salary increases of state employees.

The lawsuit involving Gov. Patton's reduction of pay raises
seeks for a court order prohibiting governors from suspending
the law on salary increases.

Attorney Shepherd told Lexington Herald-Leader that the lawsuit
should pressure the legislature to pass a budget. He further
stated, "This is part of the cost of failing to pass a budget.
And if no one presses to see that those costs aren't paid, then
there's no incentive to solve the budget deadlock."


LINES OVERSEAS: Judge Orders Demonstration For Failure To Comply
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the action SEC v. Lines Overseas Mgmt., Ltd., et al., Misc.
Action No. 04 MC 302 (D.D.C.), Magistrate Judge Alan Kay of the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered Lines
Overseas Management, Ltd. (LOM), a Bermuda-based holding company
with broker-dealer subsidiaries, and its Managing Director,
Scott Lines, to demonstrate why they should not be ordered to
comply with four subpoenas lawfully issued and validly served by
the Commission in connection with two separate investigations.
LOM and Lines, a Bermuda resident, refused to appear for
testimony and produce documents as directed by the four
subpoenas. On June 10, 2004, the Commission filed the above-
mentioned subpoena enforcement action seeking a court order
requiring LOM and Lines to comply with the subpoenas.

The Commission issued the subpoenas in connection with two
separate investigations into possible fraud, market
manipulation, and reporting violations in the securities of
three U.S. public companies: Hienergy Technologies, Inc., Sedona
Software Solutions, Inc., and SHEP Technologies, Inc. The
Commission's investigations have revealed that certain
individuals engaged in extensive trading in the securities of
Hienergy, Sedona, and SHEP through accounts at LOM in Bermuda,
the Bahamas, and the Cayman Islands.

The Commission has alleged that the subpoenaed documents and
testimony are relevant to matters under investigation and are
within the scope of the Commission's investigative authority.
The Commission has requested that the court order LOM and Lines
to comply fully with the terms of the subpoenas by producing
documents and appearing for testimony. The action is titled, SEC
v. Lines Overseas Mgmt., Ltd., et al., Misc. Action No. 04 MC
302, D.D.C. (LR-18840).


NETWORK ENGINES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts consolidated the securities class actions filed
against Network Engines, Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors.

These suits generally concern the timing of the announcement of
an amendment to Network Engines' agreement with EMC Corporation
regarding the resale of EMC-approved Fibre Channel HBAs.  In its
March 17, 2004 order, the Court selected Wing Kam Yu, Blake
Kunkel, and Thomas Cunningham as Lead Plaintiffs and appointed
Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (now Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman LLP) as Plaintiffs' Lead Counsel.

The Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on
June 4, 2004.  The Defendants have until August 13, 2004 to file
a motion to dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  The
Plaintiffs will have until October 12, 2004 to file an
opposition to the Defendants' motion to dismiss, and the
Defendants will then have until November 12, 2004 to file a
reply to Plaintiffs' opposition.


NEW JERSEY: Municipalities Reach Settlement in Overcharging Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
As part of a class action settlement involving hundreds of
communities in the state of New Jersey, 22 Gloucester County
towns must issue refunds to individuals they overcharged for
municipal court documents known as "discovery" materials since
2000, the Gloucester County Times reports.

The settlement, which will be reviewed in Superior Court next
month, will also require each municipality to pay $1,700 in
addition to any refund costs to anyone who paid a flat fee for
discovery materials in a participating town since Jan 19, 2000,
could be eligible for a refund. The settlement also calls for
the municipalities involved to amend their fee structures for
court discovery materials to comply with the state's Open Public
Records Act.

The tentative settlement stems from a suit filed against the
Deptford Township that claimed it violated the state's Open
Public Records Act by charging a Willingboro resident $20 for a
four-page court document. The court consolidated the Deptford
complaint with similar suits against six other municipalities.

The class action suit, filed by Willingboro resident Nicholas
Fernandez, took issue with flat fees that many municipalities
had been charging for the "discovery" materials.

According to Sander D. Friedman, a Marlton attorney who served
as lead co-counsel with Donald M. Doherty Jr. for the plaintiff,
an order directing the state to set up a per-page fee schedule
was already being passed by the state, but many municipalities
continued to charge a flat fee as high as $20 for a packet of
discovery documents. In 2003, the state passed a new open
records law that limited charges for copies of public documents
to 75 cents for the first 10 pages, 50 cents for the next 10
pages, and 25 cents for each page after that.

West Deptford Township and National Park, West Deptford Township
and National Park were not included in the settlement, since it
only included towns that are insured by the Municipal Excess
Liability Joint Insurance Fund. Out of nearly 360 municipalities
insured by the fund in the state, six opted out of the
settlement.

Defendants lead-counsel, William John Kearns Jr., told the
Gloucester County Times that it would be difficult to estimate
how much the settlement would cost each municipality since the
number of people who were overcharged during the three-year
period or how many would apply for refunds has not been
determined.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Faces $192M Suit in Canada, Another Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks Corporation (NYSE: NT) and certain of its
officers and directors face two class action lawsuits filed in
Canada and New York, the Computerworld.com.nz reports.

The Canadian class action lawsuit was filed in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice claiming damages of C$250 million
($US192 million). The lawsuit claims alleged breaches of trust
and misappropriation of corporate assets relating to payment of
cash bonuses to executives, officers and employees in 2003 and
2004, based on falsely reported financial performance.

The New York suit, on the other hand is asking the company to
recover damages arising from unlawful conduct by certain
directors and officers, and certain former directors and
officers, was filed on July 30 in the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


PAYLESS HOTEL: Faces Suit Over Hurricane Charley Price-Gouging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist filed a suit against an
Ocala hotel, Payless Inn & Suites, charging that the hotel
improperly inflated prices to Florida consumers seeking
emergency shelter from Hurricane Charley.

The complaint accused Payless Inn and Suites, located off
Interstate 75 at 3767 NW Blitchton Road in Ocala, of price
gouging and deceptive and unfair trade practices for charging
significantly higher prices than their regularly advertised
rates as the hurricane struck Florida.  The civil complaint,
which resulted from the work of the Attorney General's Hurricane
Task Force, asserts that the hotel made representations about
its rates that were "false, deceptive and misleading."

"It is ironic that something named 'Payless' is now accused of
making consumers pay more," said AG Crist.  "To have them
allegedly increase their rates by more than 200 percent is
outrageous. Florida's price gouging law is designed to protect
consumers, and our job is to enforce that law."

The complaint cites a 77-year-old woman who, with her husband
and physically disabled daughter, fled their Tampa home because
it was located in a designated evacuation zone.  The family
checked into the hotel after seeing a highway billboard
advertising a 50 percent discount for senior citizens.  The desk
clerk notified the woman that there was only one room left on
the ground floor.

The next day, the family was charged $160.49 for one night's
stay.  Later that day they found a booklet at a rest stop
advertising rates at the Payless hotel of only $29.99 per night,
with a $10-per-person charge for additional guests.  Two days
after the family's stay, the hotel quoted a ground-floor room
rate of $59.99 over the phone.

Separately, an Ocala mobile home resident seeking shelter from
the storm at Payless Inn & Suites was told that only two rooms
were available at a rate of $129.90 plus tax.  He was also told
the high price was because the room was a suite.  In fact, the
room was a regular room with two beds, but the guest was still
charged the suite rate.  The consumer called Payless on August
15 and was told the rate for a regular room with two beds was
$79 per night.

This is the third suit filed this week as a result of the
Attorney General's Hurricane Task Force.  Earlier this week
Crist filed civil complaints against hotels in West Palm Beach
and Lakeland for charging inflated prices as Floridians
evacuated from the approach of Hurricane Charley.

In this most recent complaint, the Attorney General alleges the
Payless Inn & Suites substantially increased rates for would-be
guests on the night of Friday, August 13.  In addition,
yesterday the Attorney General's Office worked with the
Charlotte County Sheriff's Office leading to the arrest of an
out-of-state roofer for operating without a valid Florida
contractor's license.

The civil complaints were filed under Florida's price gouging
statute and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices
Act. Provisions of the price gouging statute took effect when
Governor Jeb Bush declared a state of emergency on August 10,
2004. The Attorney General's Office continues to receive
complaints at its price gouging hotline, 1-800-646-0444.

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


TENNESSEE: Judge Dismisses KCDC As A Defendant in Hope VI Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knox County Circuit Court Judge Dale Workman dismissed the
Knoxville Community Development Corporation (KCDC) as a
defendant in two proposed class action lawsuits over the Hope VI
project, ruling that it has immunity against all but one of the
legal claims against it.

The ruling was for the lawsuits filed by Venus L. Oderson and
Robert S. and April J. Price against KCDC, contractor Danco
Inc., Realtor Lewis Holmes and Renaissance Realty, over the $50
million Hope VI homes project, which they claim were built with
inferior materials and shoddy workmanship. The breach of
contract claim was the only one that the judge did not exempt
the defendants from.

The Hope VI project in Mechanicsville included the razing of the
College Homes housing development and replacing those apartments
with houses that were offered to low- and middle-income families
for purchase.

The lawsuits, filed by attorney Danny Garland, allege that the
homes are substandard and KCDC knew it. However defendant's
attorney Michael Kelley successfully argued that state law
exempts governmental entities from most legal claims.

The court though has not yet ruled on attorney Garland's request
to classify the litigation as a class action lawsuit, which
would allow a more Hope VI buyers to join in.


TENNESSEE: Judge Limits Scope of New Sex-Offender Registry Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Todd J. Campbell has ordered the state
of Tennessee not to enforce its new sex-offender registry law
against those convicted before the statute went in to effect,
The Tennessean reports.

The federal judge's order was in response to a challenge made by
a Davidson County resident, named only as John Doe, who filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status in a U.S. District Court in
Nashville, claiming that the amended "Sex Offender Registration
and Monitoring Act of 1995" is violating not only his
constitutional rights but those of all sex offenders covered by
the law, which went into effect on Aug. 1, forbidding sex
offenders from living or working within 1,000 feet of a school
or day care.

However Judge Campbell stated his order only applies to those
who were convicted in Tennessee before the new law went into
effect and did not address the law as it applies to those
convicted after its effective date.

The suit requested that the federal court block the enforcement
of the law and grant class-action status to an estimated 7,000
sexual offenders, who would have very few choices in where they
could live.

According to the unnamed plaintiff's attorney, Brent Horst the
new law left intact the school-zone restrictions, which
"violates a number of constitutional provisions." He also argued
that the new statute shouldn't be applied to people convicted
before the law was passed and that it doesn't take into
consideration the severity of the criminal conviction and
whether the sexual crime was against a child.

For more details, contact the Law Office of Brent Horst by Mail:
1215 7th Ave., North Nashville, TN 37208 by Phone:
(615) 259-9867 by Fax: (615) 259-9859 by E-mail:
b-horst@comcast.net or visit their Web site:
http://www.brenthorstlaw.com


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: NY Court Grants Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of the
shareholders of Tower Semiconductor Ltd. (NASDAQ: TSEM)(TASE:
TSEM), against Tower and certain of its directors and
shareholders, asserting claims arising under Sections 14(a) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder has been dismissed in its entirety.

The Court accepted the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of the
Tower defendants and noted that Tower's status as a foreign
private issuer exempts it, its directors and controlling from
liability under the proxy rules of Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.


TREVOR WATSON: CA Judge Enters Final Judgment, Orders No Payment
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange obtained on Aug. 13, 2004, from the
Honorable John A. Houston of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California a final judgment against
Trevor Watson, which permanently enjoins him from violating
federal securities laws. Watson, without admitting or denying
the allegations, settled the action against him by consenting to
entry of court orders that permanently enjoin him from violating
Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

On October 3, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed
suit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California against Brian Lee, Todd DiRoberto, Lonnie
Dragon and Trevor Watson, all San Diego, California, for
violations of the antifraud, securities registration, and
broker-dealer registration provisions of the federal securities
laws. Each of the defendants had previously been associated with
Zandria Corp., a defunct Internet company previously located in
San Diego.

In the suit, the Commission alleges that between November 1998
and September 2000, Lee, DiRoberto, Dragon and Watson offered
more than $10 million in securities and raised approximately $6
million from more than 200 investors nationwide in two purported
private placement offerings of stock in Zandria Entertainment
Networks, Inc. ("ZEN") and LevelRed Investments, Inc. The
Commission further alleges that the ZEN and LevelRed Investments
offerings were fraudulent because, among other things, the
defendants failed to disclose that Lee and DiRoberto, both
convicted felons, owned and controlled ZEN. In addition, the
Complaint alleges that the defendants used high-pressure,
"boiler-room" sales tactics and failed to disclose to investors
the full extent of their commissions and other fees, which
exceeded forty percent.

The Complaint alleges that Lee, DiRoberto and Dragon violated
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Sections
10(b) and 15(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The complaint further alleges that Watson violated Sections
5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Due to Watson's demonstrated inability to pay, he was not
ordered to pay a civil penalty and disgorgement of $26,000 and
prejudgment interest thereon of $7,063 were waived. The action
is titled, SEC v. Brian Lee (aka Brian Lee Petrosian), Todd
DiRoberto, Lonnie Dragon and Trevor Watson, Case No. 03-CV-1957-
JAH, JFS, SDCa (LR-18390).


TRIPLE-S INC.: To Seek Dismissal of FL Physician Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami District to dismiss
a putative class action suit filed by Kenneth A. Thomas, M.D.
and Michael Kutell, M.D., on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated and the Connecticut State Medical Society
against the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association  (BCBSA) and
multiple other insurance companies, including the Company.

The individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants which are
alleged to have resulted in a loss of plaintiff's property and a
detriment to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive
relief to end those practices and prevent further losses.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payments due to doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.  The class action complaint alleges that the Company's
health care plans are the agents of BCBSA licensed entities, and
as such have committed the acts alleged above and acted within
the scope of their agency, with the consent, permission,
authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of
both their interest and the interests of other defendants.

On June 18, 2004, the Plaintiffs moved to amend the complaint to
include the Colegio de Medicos Cirujanos de Puerto Rico (a
compulsory association grouping all physicians in Puerto Rico),
Marissel Velazquez, MD, and Andres Melendez, MD, as plaintiffs
against the Company.


TRIPLE-S INC.: To Ask FL Court To Dismiss Physicians Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S, Inc. intends to ask the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division to dismiss
the putative class action filed by Jeffrey Solomon, MD, and
Orlando Armstrong, MD, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated and the American Podiatric Medical
Association, Florida Chiropractic Association, California
Podiatric Medical Association, Florida Podiatric Medical
Association, Texas Podiatric Medical Association, and
Independent Chiropractic Physicians, against the Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association (BCBSA) and multiple other insurance
companies, including the Company, all members of the BCBSA.

The individual Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of
themselves and a class of similarly situated physicians seeking
redress for alleged illegal acts of the defendants which are
alleged to have resulted in a loss of Plaintiff's property and a
detriment to their business, and for declaratory and injunctive
relief to end those practices and prevent further losses.
Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, on their own and as part
of a common scheme, systematically deny, delay and diminish the
payment due to the doctors so that they are not paid in a timely
manner for the covered, medically necessary services they
render.

The class action complaint alleges that the Company's health
care plans are the agents of BCBSA licensed entities, and as
such have committed the acts alleged above and acted within the
scope of their agency, with the consent, permission,
authorization and knowledge of the others, and in furtherance of
both their interest and the interests of other defendants.  On
June 25, 2004, the Plaintiff amended the complaint but the
allegations against the Company did not vary.


TRIPLE-S MANAGEMENT: Asks PR Court To Dismiss RICO Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Triple-S Management Corporation (TSM) asked the United States
District Court for the District of Puerto Rico to dismiss the
class action filed against it, some of the Company's present and
former directors and some of Triple-S, Inc.'s (TSI) current and
former directors.

The suit alleges violations under the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, better known as the RICO Act.  The
suit, among other allegations, alleges a scheme to defraud the
plaintiffs by acquiring control of TSI through illegally
capitalizing TSI and later converting it to a for-profit
corporation and depriving the stockholders of their rights.  The
plaintiffs base their later allegations on the supposed
decisions of TSI's Board of Directors and stockholders,
allegedly made in 1979, to operate with certain restrictions in
order to turn TSI into a charitable corporation, basically
forever.


VIA NET.WORKS: Working To Settle Consolidated NY Stock Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
VIA NET.WORKS, Inc. continues to work towards settling the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against the
Company, certain of the underwriters who supported its initial
public offering (IPO) and certain of its officers, under the
title "O'Leary v. Via Net.works [sic], et al [01-CV-9720]."

The Complaint alleges that the prospectus the Company filed with
its registration statement in connection with its IPO was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose,
among other things, that:

     (1) the named underwriters had solicited and received
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for the right to purchase large
         blocks of VIA IPO shares; and

     (2) the named Underwriters had entered into agreements with
         certain of their customers to allocate VIA IPO shares
         in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
         additional VIA shares in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices, thereby artificially inflating the
         Company's stock price.

The Complaint further alleges violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder arising out of the alleged failure to
disclose and the alleged materially misleading disclosures made
with respect to the commissions and the Tie-in Arrangements in
the prospectus.  The plaintiffs in this action seek monetary
damages in an unspecified amount.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have
had similar suits filed against them, all of which are included
in a single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of
New York.  On June 30, 2003, the special litigation committee of
the board of directors of the Company conditionally approved the
global settlement between all plaintiffs and issuers in the IPO
Litigations; the Company is in the process of completing a
settlement with the plaintiffs in the case.

The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of
the Company and of the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful by the plaintiffs.  Under
the proposed settlement, the Company would agree to undertake
other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters.
Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.

The special litigation committee agreed to approve the
settlement subject to a number of conditions, including the
participation of a substantial number of other defendants in the
proposed settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to
the settlement, and the completion of acceptable final
settlement documentation.  Furthermore, the settlement is
subject to a hearing on fairness and approval by the Court
overseeing the IPO Litigations.


VIBO CORPORATION: To Join Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Vibo Corporation of Miami, Florida, has joined the tobacco
Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) as a participating
manufacturer, Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden announced
in a statement.

Vibo, which does business as General Tobacco, sells a number of
cigarette brands such as Bronco, GT One, Silver and Champion.
Given current market conditions, Vibo will pay $1.7 billion to
the participating states over the next ten years.  Idaho's share
of the settlement will be approximately $6,175,474.

The MSA was entered into between 46 states and the major tobacco
companies in November 1998.  Since that time, more than 40 other
companies have joined the MSA.  Participating manufacturers
under the MSA are bound by a wide array of restrictions on
advertising, promotion and marketing of cigarettes.  Those
restrictions include bans which target youth, outdoor
advertising, and distribution of any merchandise advertising a
cigarette brand.  Youth smoking rates nationally have dropped by
more than 25% and overall smoking has declined nearly 20% since
the MSA took effect.  Participating manufacturers make
substantial payments to the states.

As a result of the agreement, Vibo will make an immediate
payment of $78 million to the MSA states, and make full payments
yearly.  Vibo agreed to make quarterly payments of these
obligations to the states.

"Vibo's decision to join the MSA is significant because the
company represents the largest tobacco product manufacturer
remaining outside the MSA," Attorney General Wasden said.  "Vibo
is the exclusive U.S. importer of cigarettes from Protabaco,
S.A., of Bogota, Colombia.  Today's agreement binds Protabaco to
sell all of its cigarettes in the U.S. through Vibo and in
accordance with the MSA."

Attorney General Wasden and Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller are
co-chairs of the National Association of Attorneys General
Tobacco Committee, which coordinates state enforcement of the
MSA.  "Vibo's agreement to join the MSA is a very important
indicator of a growing recognition by companies outside the
agreement that it is in their interest to observe the public
health restrictions of the MSA.  Persuading the largest
cigarette company outside the MSA to join the Agreement
represents a great achievement for the MSA States," Wasden and
Miller said.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Bennett Environmental, Inc. ("Bennett" or the "Company")
(AMEX: BEL) (TSE: BEV.TO) between June 2, 2003 and July 22,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending before the Honorable Laura Taylor Swain,
Case No. 04-CV-6763, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against defendants Bennett, John
Bennett (Chairman), Allan Bulckaert (President and CEO), Danny
Ponn (COO), Richard Stern (CFO), and Robert Griffiths (VP of
U.S. Sales and Marketing). According to the complaint,
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that at the beginning of the Class Period,
Bennett announced that the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(the "U.S. Army") awarded the Company a lucrative $200 million
CDN contract to remediate at least 300,000 tons of soil
contaminated with wood treatment chemicals from Phase III of the
Federal Cresote Superfund Site in New Jersey ("Phase III
Contract"). According to defendants, the Phase III Contract was
one of the largest ever awarded to the Company. Throughout the
Class Period, defendants touted the Company's purportedly
positive financial results and contract backlog in press
releases and SEC filings, and attributed these results, in
material part, to the federal contract. Unbeknownst to the
Class, however, the Company's purported success was the product
of defendants' deceptive and fraudulent scheme to conceal from
the public that the Contract was in serious jeopardy, a fact
known to defendants as early as August 2003.

On July 22, 2004, Bennett shocked investors when it announced
that shortly after it had been awarded the Phase III Contract,
the Contract was "purportedly" withdrawn by the U.S. Army, and
that the U.S. Army had decreased shipments of contaminated soil
to Bennett, pursuant to the Contract, from 300,000 tons to
merely 10,000 tons. Defendants revealed that since August 2003,
they were uncertain of whether the Contract had, in fact, been
cancelled, especially in light of the fact that in May 2004, the
U.S. Army awarded new subcontracts for the same type of services
covered by the Phase III Contract. According to the release,
Bennett submitted bids and was awarded one of the subcontracts
for a maximum shipment of 100,000 tons of contaminated soil,
which defendants characterized as a contract "on less favorable
economic terms than the Phase III Contract" and "will remove $90
million from the contract backlog." In reaction to this news,
the price of Bennett stock plummeted, falling $2.13, or 21.4%,
from its previous trading day's closing price, to close on July
22, 2004 at $7.80 per share.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP by
Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165
by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com


CROSS COUNTRY: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. ("Cross Country" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:CCRN) between October 25, 2001 and August
6, 2002, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Cross Country and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Cross Country's business
operations and prospects artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Cross Country
provides healthcare staffing services to hospitals,
pharmaceutical companies and other healthcare providers across
all 50 states. The complaint alleges that defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that:

     (1) contrary to defendants' upbeat statements, hospitals
         actually were hiring fewer of the Company's nurses;

     (2) the nursing shortage, which the Company previously had
         touted as creating a favorable business environment,
         was no longer creating the demand for temporary nurses
         that Cross Country represented to the investing public;
         and

     (3) Cross Country had problems with staffing orders being
         received from hospitals and then abruptly canceled -- a
         problem which also hurt the Company's stock and spread
         to the rest of the industry, but which defendants never
         disclosed to the investing public.

On August 7, 2002, following news of the decline in demand and a
drop in the number of the Company's full-time nurses, Cross
Country shares fell below the Company's IPO price for the first
time in its history, closing 45% below the previous day's close.

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


GOLDEN STATE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Golden State Vintners, Inc.
("Golden State" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:VINT), between
December 23, 2003 and April 23, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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 Golden State
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


GOLDEN STATE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all persons who sold Golden State Vintners, Inc.
("Golden State") (Nasdaq:VINT) common stock between December 23,
2003 and April 23, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Golden State and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Golden State is a supplier of premium bulk wines, wine
processing and storage services and case goods in the United
States.

The complaint alleges that by the summer of 2003, Golden State
was beginning to emerge from a long history of losses coupled
with massive writedowns, and that defendants realized that
Golden State had not only turned around financially but had
begun to exhibit strong growth. Defendants knew that disclosing
the Company's profitability would send the Company's shares
higher, making the defendants' plans to acquire Golden State in
a reverse split/going private transaction (the "Reverse Split
Scheme") less profitable, if not impossible. As part of
defendants' Reverse Split Scheme, defendants disseminated to
shareholders a proxy statement dated December 23, 2003 (the
"Proxy") detailing the terms of the proposed transaction. The
Complaint alleges that the Proxy included false statements about
the value of Golden State's business and its prospects, which
false statements were included in the Proxy for the purpose of
inducing Golden State shareholders to approve the sale of Golden
State to the O'Neill Acquisition Co. LLC, a California limited
liability company associated with defendant Jeffrey B. O'Neill
(the "O'Neill Group") which would cash out all Golden State
shareholders holding less than 5,900 shares for $3.25 per share.

On January 7, 2004 the Reverse Split Scheme was thwarted when a
third party made an offer to buy the Company at a price which
trumped the O'Neill Group's $3.25 offer. Instead of disclosing
the third-party offer, the Complaint alleges that defendants
concealed this information from the Company's shareholders until
they could modify the terms of their plan to acquire the Company
via the management-led buyout.

According to the complaint, on January 20, 2004, after
concealing the third-party offer for two weeks, defendants
falsely stated that the O'Neill Group transaction had been
"indefinitely suspended ... in order to provide more time to
fully evaluate current conditions and the potential implications
for shareholder value." Defendants further stated that they were
terminating the sale to the O'Neill Group due to "recently
improved business and market conditions." Thereafter, the
Company executed an agreement to sell Golden State for a much
higher price and ultimately signed a definitive agreement to
sell the Company to The Wine Group for $8.25 per share.

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


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Integrated Electrical
Services, Inc. ("Integrated Electrical " or the "Company")
(NYSE:IES), between November 10, 2003 and August 13, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

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 Integrated
Electrical securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

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


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of purchasers of Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.
("Integrated Electrical") (NYSE:IES) common stock during the
period between November 10, 2003 and August 13, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Integrated Electrical and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Company provides electrical
contracting and maintenance services to the commercial,
industrial, residential, and power line markets. The Company
also provides data communication services, which include the
installation of wiring for computer networks and fiber optic
telecommunications systems.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused IES shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges:

     (1) that the Company failed to timely make appropriate
         adjustments for a series of large contracts that were
         accounted for on a percentage of completion basis in
         which the actual costs expected to be incurred already
         exceeded the original projected costs;

     (2) that the Company had improperly accounted for general
         and administrative costs in a particular contract for
         costs that did not relate to that contract;

     (3) that the Company had improperly recognized revenue on a
         particular contract;

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

     (5) that as a result, the values of the Company's net
         income and financial results were materially overstated
         at all relevant times.

On August 13, 2004, after the market closed for regular trading,
the Company announced that:

     (i) it would not be able to file its fiscal 2004 Third
         Quarter Report on Form 10-Q in a timely manner;

    (ii) the delay in filing may result in a default under the
         terms of its outstanding debt and could affect IES's
         ability to secure surety bonds;

   (iii) its independent auditors had identified two material
         weaknesses in the Company's internal controls;

    (iv) it was withdrawing its previously announced earnings
         estimates for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004; and

     (v) the Company may have to restate its previously reported
         financial results.

Following this announcement, shares of IES common stock fell
$2.65 per share, or 40%, to close at $3.93 per share, on
extremely high trading volume.

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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Goddkind Labaton Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Ligand" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:LGND) between March 3, 2004 and August 2, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Ligand and David E. Robinson and Paul V. Maier ("Defendants").

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. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented that
Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that inventory de-
stocking at the wholesale level was occurring because the
Company was unloading Avinza inventory which was soon to expire,
that the overall demand of the Company's products was down due
to inventory de-stocking, and that Medicaid prescriptions were
increasing, causing the Company to pay large rebates to
Medicaid, which were not a one-time occurrence.

On August 3, 2004, Ligand announced that its second-quarter loss
increased, missing analyst expectations and that its independent
auditor had resigned. Shares of Ligand fell dramatically in
response to the news, falling almost 40% or $5.40 per share to
close at $8.18 per share.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 800-321-0476 or (212) 907-0853 by Fax:
(212) 883-7053 or by E-mail: info@glrslaw.com or
ckeller@glrslaw.com


PETMED EXPRESS: Brauldi Law Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm announces that it has filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of PetMed
Express, Inc. ("PetMed" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PETS) between
June 18, 2003, and July 26, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"). A copy of the complaint filed in this
action is available from the court, or from The Brualdi Law Firm
(212) 952-0602.

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

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

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

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

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

     (4) as a result, the Company's financial results were not
         sustainable, causing the stock to trade at artificially
         high prices.

During the class period while PetMed's stock price was inflated,
Defendants and Company insiders sold almost $65 million in
privately held PetMed's stock.

For more details, contact Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. or Gaitri
Boodhoo, Esq. of the Brualdi Law Firm by Mail: 29 Broadway,
Suite 2400, New York, NY 10006 by Phone: (877) 495-1187 or by E-
mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Stock Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Primus Telecommunications Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRTL) between
August 5, 2003 through and including July 29, 2004 inclusive,
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia against defendants Primus, K.
Paul Singh (the Company's CEO), and Neil L. Hazard (the
Company's Chief Operating and Financial Officer).

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued quarter after quarter of "record" financial
results, including increasing revenues. Defendants also
continually reaffirmed the Company's financial projections
assuring investors that Primus was on track to meet its earnings
goals. These false statements enabled defendants to raise
significant and much need capital through bond offerings, and
allowed Company insiders to sell their own Primus shares at
significant profits. The Complaint alleges that defendants'
Class Period statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company was not on track to meet its financial
         projections;

     (2) due to pricing pressures and deep discounting from
         competitors, the profitability of the Company's
         international business had declined in Australia and
         Canada; and

     (3) defendants materially overstated the Company's network
         capacity and resulting revenues, as well as its
         dependence on speculative growth initiatives to fuel
         continued growth.

On July 29, 2004, after market closed, defendants shocked the
market by reporting a second-quarter loss of $14.9 million or
$0.17 a share, far short of Wall Street's estimates of a 10
cents a share gain on revenue of $348 million. In response,
Primus's share price plummeted over 53% on trading volumes of 33
million, much greater than average trading volumes of less than
2 million.

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


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against The St. Paul Travelers Companies,
Inc. ("St. Paul Travelers" or the "Company")(NYSE:STA)(formerly
known as The St. Paul Companies, Inc. or "St. Paul") on behalf
of a class (the "Class") consisting of former shareholders of
Travelers Property Casualty Corp.'s ("Travelers") Class A and
Class B common stock who acquired St. Paul's common stock
pursuant to a St. Paul registration statement filed with the SEC
in connection with St. Paul's stock-for-stock merger with
Travelers on April 1, 2004.

The Complaint charges St. Paul and certain of the Company's
officers and directors with violations of federal securities
laws. Plaintiff claims that St. Paul's registration statement
was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose
that:

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the
Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067 by Phone: (310) 201-9150
or (888) 773-9224 by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Goodkind Labaton Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Wireless Facilities, Inc. ("Wireless" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:WFIIE) between April 26, 2000 and August 4, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Wireless and Masood Tayebi, Terry Ashwill, Daniel Stokely, Eric
DeMarco and Thomas Munro ("Defendants").

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. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented that the
Company materially underreported its large foreign tax burden
and that as a result had inflated its net income or loss by 3%
to 8% or $10 to $12 million and that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls and was unable to ascertain its true financial
condition.

On August 4, 2004, Wireless reported results for the second
quarter of fiscal 2004. It also announced that it intends to
restate its financial results filed on Form 10-K for the years
2001 through 2003 to accrue for certain foreign tax
contingencies. Shares of Wireless fell dramatically in response
to the news, falling as much as 30% on heavy trading volume.
Shares closed at $5.02 per share, representing a decline of
approximately 28%.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10017 by Phone: 800-321-0476 or (212) 907-0853 by Fax:
(212) 883-7053 or by E-mail: info@glrslaw.com or
ckeller@glrslaw.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  * * *