CAR_Public/040825.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, August 25, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 168

                          Headlines

AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Complies With Discovery in NY Suit Pact
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Agrees To Settle Insurance Policy Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Investor To Face DaimlerChrysler Shareholder's Suit
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Fiduciary Suit in DE
CENTRAL PARKING: TN Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit

DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Settlement Signed on Company's Behalf
DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended DE Securities Suit
DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: DE Stockholders File Suits V. Protek Merger
DELTA FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in NY Consumer Fraud Suit
FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Stockholders Suit

HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: SEC Asses CPA $10T Fine, Suspension
IDAHO: Officials Forge Federal Reserved Water Rights Claims Pact
IMPAC FUNDING: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Noteholder Fraud Lawsuit
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: MA Court To Hear Motion To Dismiss Suit
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: TX Court Approves Lease Suit Settlement

LEASECOMM CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Lease Suit Settlement
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit
LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit
MAJESTIC STAR: Seamen Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuits in N.D. IN

MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Discovery Halted in AL Consumer Fraud Suit
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Claims Fund To Be Distributed
NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
NEBRASKA: AG Office Says $110M Corn Settlement Includes Interest
OCWEN FEDERAL: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit in AL

OCWEN FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits in IL
ONE TOUCH: Judge Enters Judgment, Orders $1,608,102 in Penalties
PETMED EXPRESS: Calls Suit Frivolous, Denies Allegations
PFIZER INC.: Freidin & Brown Lodges FL Deceptive Practices Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Workers at AK Plant File Race, Age Bias Lawsuit

PLATINUM INVESTMENT: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint in NY
REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. OH
SEITEL INC.: TX Court Affirms Dismissal of Trespass Suit in TX
SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
SHURGARD STORAGE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA

STEVEN BOLLA: SEC Institutes Settled Administrative Proceedings
TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Appeals Certification of CT Fraud Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Tribal Descendants To Receive Payments in Lawsuit
WAVE SYSTEMS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in MA Court
WORLD AIRWAYS: Faces Suits On Cancelled Nigeria Charter Flights


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BELO CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX
BELO CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in TX
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO
FERRO CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH

GOLDEN STATE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
GOLDEN STATE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in TX
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Charles J. Piven Files TX Securities Suit
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodge TX Stock Suit

INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges CA Suit
KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Abraham Frutcher Files NY Securities Suit
KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in NY
KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files NY Securities Suit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Files CA Securities Suit

NETOPIA INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
NETOPIA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
NETOPIA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in VA
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Berman Devalerio Files Securities Suit in MN

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MN
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Stock Suit in MN
THORATEC CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in CA
WHITE ELECTRONIC: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in AZ


                          *********


AIRNET COMMUNICATIONS: Complies With Discovery in NY Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Airnet Communications, Inc. is complying with discovery
obligations in the settlement for the securities class action
filed against it, the members of the underwriting syndicate
involved in its initial public offering and two of its former
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

The action, number 21 MC 92 (SAS), alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws and seeks unspecified monetary
damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all
persons and entities who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common stock between
December 6, 1999 and December 6, 2000, inclusive.

Specifically, the complaint charges the defendants with
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  In
substance, the allegations are that the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering charged commissions in excess
of those disclosed in the initial public offering materials and
that these actions were not properly disclosed.

On July 15, 2002, the Issuers' Committee filed a Motion to
Dismiss on behalf of all issuers and individual defendants in
similar lawsuits.  In February 2003, the Motion to Dismiss was
granted in part (with respect to the Company) and denied in part
(with respect to all issuer defendants).  The claims against the
Company's two former officers named in the class action lawsuit
have been dismissed without prejudice.  The issuer defendants
and the plaintiffs have since drafted and agreed upon a
settlement, which is pending approval by the court.  A committee
of the Company's Board of Directors has accepted the pending
settlement.  Pending court approval, the individual tolling
agreements dismissing the named individual defendants have been
extended, so that the individual defendants will be covered by
the settlement as well.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Agrees To Settle Insurance Policy Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a proposed settlement filed in Nashville federal court,
Allstate Insurance Company, agreed to make sure customers are
notified whenever their credit scores were used to decide rates
on insurance policies, The Tennessean reports.

The proposed agreement also called for the reimbursement of
affected policyholders with higher premiums paid because of
blemishes on their credit records.

Aside from notifying customers, Allstate also agreed to pay
plaintiffs' lawyers $8 million in attorney's fees and to change
some wording in policies, as well as to offer people covered by
the settlement a free credit report.

However, Judge Aleta Trauger must first grant preliminary
approval for the proposed settlement. Once approved the
settlement would end a part of the case that involves people who
were existing Allstate customers or who signed for policies at
higher rates without being told about the use of their credit
records.


CALIFORNIA: Investor To Face DaimlerChrysler Shareholder's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Florence-Marie Cooper has ruled that
billionaire investor Kirk Kerkorian must answer a
DaimlerChrysler AG shareholder's claims that the he wrongfully
sold shares in the carmaker after obtaining insider information,
Bloomberg.com reports.

The judge ruled that investor Donald Johnson can proceed with
his lawsuit, which is seeking class action status against Mr.
Kerkorian, who he accuses of benefiting from non-public data
about DaimlerChrysler's performance. The judge though dismissed
some of the suit's other claims. The suit specifically alleges
that James Aljian, who became a member of DaimlerChrysler's
shareholder committee board after the merger, passed
confidential information about the company's cash flow problems
to Mr. Kerkorian in 1999. Mr. Kerkorian was once the largest
shareholder of Chrysler Corp., which combined with Daimler-Benz
AG to form the world's No. 5 automaker.

Judge Cooper wrote in her 17-page decision that Johnson's suit
stated enough facts about Kerkorian's alleged improper trading
of DaimlerChrysler's shares to give rise to "a strong inference
of wrongdoing"

However officials of Tracinda Corporation, Mr. Kerkorian's
investment company pointed out that the judge dismissed "the
heart" of Johnson's case. According to Tracinda spokeswoman
Carrie Bloom, while Mr. Johnson's case can go forward, the judge
didn't make "a finding of fact" about the insider trading
allegations.

The case is titled, Donald Johnson v. James D. Aljian, CV 03-
5986, U.S. District Court, Los Angeles.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Fiduciary Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit on behalf of two former employees of
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce ("CIBC") in Delaware Chancery
Court demanding that CIBC ESC Management, a general partner of a
Fund created and controlled by CIBC, turn over the Fund's books
and records. The Complaint involves the CIBC Employee Private
Equity Fund, a limited partnership, which was set up by CIBC in
about 2000, presumably to reward its top producers by enabling
them to invest along side of the investment bank, and reap a
percentage of the profits.

The Complaint alleges, however, that CIBC purportedly off loaded
certain of its poorly producing investments onto the Fund, and
generally acted recklessly and in conflict with the Fund and the
interests of CIBC employees and investors, in order to improve
the bank's financials, thereby losing millions of dollars for
its employee-investors.

The Complaint seeks to make the Fund and its general partner, a
CIBC controlled entity, provide the named plaintiffs with access
to certain books and records which plaintiffs allege will help
them determine whether CIBC and the general partner, breached
their fiduciary and contractual duties to the Fund and its
investors.

For more details, contact Lynda J. Grant, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton by Phone: (212) 907-0857 or by E-mail:
investorrelations@glrslaw.com


CENTRAL PARKING: TN Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class
action filed against Central Parking Corporation, its former
CEO, its former CFO and its current CEO on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's Common Stock.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants
made material misrepresentations and/or omissions in connection
with the Company's financial statements for the quarter and the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2002 and about the Company's
internal controls in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, which allegedly caused the plaintiffs to buy Company stock
at inflated prices.  The cases have been consolidated by the
Court.

By order dated December 10, 2003, the Court has consolidated the
cases now identified as "In re: Central Parking Corporation
Securities Litigation, civil action No. 03-CV-0546," appointed
two individuals as co-lead plaintiffs and approved their
selection of counsel.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
on February 13, 2004 in which plaintiffs added the Company's
Registered Public Accountant as a defendant and in which the
plaintiffs added a number of allegations.

The amended complaint also seeks to extend the putative class
period during which investors purchased the Company's Common
Stock by approximately nine months (the new class period is
February 5, 2002 to February 13, 2003).  On April 23, 2004, the
Company filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit and the plaintiffs
have responded to the motions to dismiss.


DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Suit Settlement Signed on Company's Behalf
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement for the securities class action filed against
Daleen Technologies, Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York has been signed on the
Company's behalf.

The suit was filed by two plaintiffs purportedly on behalf of
persons purchasing the Company's common stock between September
20, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The complaint is styled as
"Angelo Fazari, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, vs. Daleen Technologies, Inc., BancBoston Robertson
Stephens Inc., Hambrecht & Quist LLC, Salomon Smith Barney
Inc., James Daleen, David B. Corey and Richard A. Schell."

The individual defendants, Mr. Corey, Mr. Schell and Mr. Daleen,
have entered into tolling agreements with the plaintiffs
resulting in their dismissal from the case without prejudice.
The remaining defendants include the Company and certain of the
underwriters from the Company's initial public offering (IPO).

More than 300 similar class action lawsuits filed in the
Southern District of New York against numerous companies and
their underwriters have been consolidated for pretrial purposes
before one judge under the caption "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation."

The complaint includes allegations of violations of Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 by all named defendants, Section
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by the individual defendants
and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the underwriter defendants.
Specifically, the plaintiffs allege in the complaint that, in
connection with the IPO, the defendants failed to disclose
"excessive commissions" purportedly solicited by and paid to the
underwriter defendants in exchange for allocating shares of the
Company's common stock in the IPO to the underwriter defendants'
preferred customers.

Plaintiffs further allege that the underwriter defendants had
agreements with preferred customers tying the allocation of
shares sold in the IPO to the preferred customers' agreements to
make additional aftermarket purchases at pre-determined prices.
Plaintiffs further allege that the underwriters used their
analysts to issue favorable reports about the Company to further
inflate the Company's share price following the IPO.  Plaintiffs
claim that the defendants knew or should have known of the
underwriters' actions and that the failure to disclose these
alleged arrangements rendered the prospectus included in the
Company's registration statement on Form S-1 filed with the SEC
in September 1999 materially false and misleading.  Plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages and other relief.

In June 2004, the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with
Defendant Issuers and Individuals was signed on the Company's
behalf.  Court approval of the settlement is required.  Under
the terms of the settlement, there would be no liability to be
recorded by the Company.  There is no assurance the settlement
will be finalized.


DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Amended DE Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Daleen Technologies, Inc. in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware in and for New Castle County, styled "Kops
Investment Advisors LLC v. Daleen Technologies, Inc., James
Daleen, Gordon Quick, Ofer Nemirovsky, Daniel J. Foreman, Dennis
G. Sisco, Stephen J. Getsy, and John S. McCarthy, Behrman
Brothers, L.L.C., Behrman Capital II, L.P., Strategic
Entrepreneur Fund II, L.P."

The amended suit alleges the merger transaction between the
Company and Protek Telecommunications Solutions Limited
contemplated as part of the Investment and Acquisition
Transactions is a freeze-out of Common Stock by the Series F
Preferred stockholders through unfair dealing by the defendants
and that the defendants have breached and continue to breach
their fiduciary duties of loyalty, care and good faith to the
plaintiff and other members of the class.  The amended complaint
seeks for the Merger, if consummated, to be rescinded and
rescissory damages to be awarded to the class; for the
defendants to be directed to account to the class for all profit
received by the defendants and all damages sustained by the
class; and for costs of the action including attorney's and
experts fees to be awarded to the plaintiff.


DALEEN TECHNOLOGIES: DE Stockholders File Suits V. Protek Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daleen Technologies, Inc. faces class actions filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County opposing its merger with Protek Telecommunications
Solutions Limited.

The first suit was filed by an individual holder of the Common
Stock of the Company and styled "Kurt Feierbend v. James Daleen,
Gordon Quick, Daniel J. Foreman, Stephen J. Getsy, John S.
McCarthy, Dennis G. Sisco, Ofer Nemirovsky, Daleen Technologies,
Inc., Quadrangle Group LLC, Quadrangle Capital Partners LP,
Behrman Capital and Behrman Brothers, L.L.C."

The complaint, which is purported to be brought on behalf of the
public holders of the Common Stock with respect to the Merger,
generally alleges that:

     (1) the Company and its directors breached their fiduciary
         duties;

     (2) the consideration offered by Quadrangle Capital
         Partners LP and Behrman Capital is inadequate and that
         the transaction was a result of unfair dealing;

     (3) Behrman Capital, as controlling stockholder, breached
         its fiduciary duty to our minority stockholders by
         acting to further its own interests at the expense of
         the Company's minority stockholders; and

     (4) Behrman Brothers, Quadrangle Group and Quadrangle
         Capital Partners LP knowingly aided and abetted Behrman
         Capital's violations of fiduciary duty

The complaint seeks to enjoin the Merger and related
transactions, or if the Merger and related transactions are
consummated, to rescind them; to recover damages in an unstated
amount and to recover costs including attorney's fees associated
with the lawsuit.

On June 24, 2004, a purported class action complaint virtually
identical to the complaint filed by Feierbend was filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County by another individual holder of the Common Stock of the
Company.  The complaint is styled "Russell Winter v. James
Daleen, Gordon Quick, Daniel J. Foreman, Stephen J. Getsy, John
S. McCarthy, Dennis G. Sisco, Ofer Nemirovsky, Daleen
Technologies, Inc., Quadrangle Group LLC, Quadrangle Capital
Partners LP, Behrman Capital and Behrman Brothers, L.L.C."


DELTA FINANCIAL: Discovery Continues in NY Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the class action filed against Delta
Financial Corporation in the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County, alleging that the Company had improperly
charged certain borrowers processing fees.

The complaint sought certification of a class of plaintiffs, an
accounting and unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
including attorneys's fees, based upon alleged unjust
enrichment, fraud and deceptive trade practices.

In April 1999, the Company filed an answer to the complaint. In
September 1999, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint, which was opposed by the plaintiffs, and in February
2000, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  In April 1999,
the Company filed a motion to change venue and the plaintiffs
opposed the motion.  In July 1999, the Court denied the motion.
The Company appealed, and in March 2000, the Appellate Court
granted its appeal to change venue from New York County to
Nassau County.

In August 1999, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, which the Company opposed in July 2000.  In
September 2000, the Appellate Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, from which the Company appealed.
The Appellate Court denied the Company's appeal in December
2001.  In June 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment to dismiss the complaint, which was denied by the Court
in October 2001.  The Company appealed that decision, but the
Appellate Court denied its appeal in November 2002.  The Company
filed a motion to reargue in December 2002, which was denied by
the Appellate Court in January 2003.


FORD MOTOR: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal Of Stockholders Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Sixth Circuit appeals court in Cincinnati, Ohio upheld the
dismissal of a class-action lawsuit filed in 2000 by Ford Motor
Company stockholders who claimed the company misled them about
the safety of tires on Ford Explorers, The Detroit News reports.

In their suit, the Ford shareholders, which includes the Public
School Teachers' Pension and Retirement Fund of Chicago, the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 98 and
the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority, claimed that Ford omitted
information concerning the "dangerousness" of Ford Explorer
models equipped with Bridgestone/Firestone ATX tires when making
statements about the quality and safety of the Explorer.

The SUV came under intense federal investigation over what
caused Firestone tires to fail on Explorer models. Firestone was
eventually forced to recall millions of tires by federal
regulators.

The suit filed on behalf of all shareholders who bought Ford
stock between March 31, 1998 and August 31, 2000 also claims
that Ford's financial statements during the recall period were
false because Ford failed to include information concerning
possible liability of related lawsuits and recalls.

However, the three-judge panel in Cincinnati rejected arguments
by Ford stockholders that they were misled investors by the
Company's touting of its quality as "its best ever" and stating
"quality comes first."

Judge Cornelia G. Kennedy also wrote for the court that, "Such
statements are either mere corporate puffery or hyperbole that a
reasonable investor would not view as significantly changing the
general gist of available information."

Ford argued in the appellate court hearing that stockholders
sufficiently were warned in a 1999 Securities and Exchange
Commission filing that the Company was subject to 28 ongoing
federal investigations of alleged safety defects and that recall
campaign expenses could be substantial.


HEALTHSOUTH CORPORATION: SEC Asses CPA $10T Fine, Suspension
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e)
of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Kenneth K. Livesay.
The Order finds that Livesay, a certified public accountant
licensed to practice in the State of Alabama, served as
assistant controller of HealthSouth Corporation (HealthSouth)
from 1989 until November 1999. The Order finds that on April 3,
2003, the Commission filed a complaint against Livesay in SEC v.
Kenneth K. Livesay et al., (Civil Action No. CV-03-S-0758-S),
and that on August 19, 2004, the court entered an order
permanently enjoining Livesay, by consent, from future
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and from aiding and
abetting violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and
Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13
thereunder.

The Commission's complaint alleged, among other things, that
Livesay directed other HealthSouth employees to record
fictitious assets on the company's books, which matched
generally fraudulent overstatements of income. The complaint
alleged that the fraudulent entries were designed to avoid
detection by HealthSouth's independent auditors.

The Order also finds that on June 3, 2004, a judgment of
conviction was entered against Livesay in United States v.
Livesay, CR-03-C-0182-S, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama, finding him guilty of one count of
conspiracy to commit wire fraud, one count of securities fraud
and one count of willfully and knowingly falsifying books and
records of HealthSouth. As a result of this conviction, Livesay
was sentenced to 60 months probation, with the first six months
home detention, to pay a $10,000 fine, to forfeit $750,000 and
to pay a $200 assessment.

Based on the above, the Order forthwith suspends Livesay from
appearing or practicing before the Commission as an accountant.
Livesay consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting
or denying any of the allegations in the civil injunctive
action.


IDAHO: Officials Forge Federal Reserved Water Rights Claims Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho State and Federal officials announced the settlement of
federal reserved water rights claims filed in Idaho's Snake
River Basin Adjudication for six Wild and Scenic Rivers and the
Hells Canyon National Recreation Area (HCNRA).

"Once again the Bush Administration came to the table to work
with Idahoans who are impacted by pressure on our state's
natural resources," Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne said. "I
believe the settlement announced today will avoid a scenario
where the courts decide what is best for Idaho while
accommodating the future economic needs of the region."

"I am pleased that the United States, the State of Idaho, and
private water users have reached agreement on the quantification
of reserved water rights for these six Wild and Scenic Rivers
and certain tributary streams and lakes in the Hells Canyon Area
in Idaho," said Intermountain Region Forester Jack Troyer.  "The
agreement protects the outstandingly remarkable values for which
these rivers were designated and will help to preserve the
unique and significant resources of the HCNRA.  At the same
time, the agreement protects existing water rights and allows
for continued community growth and development in these water
basins in Central Idaho."

In 2000, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled that the United States
was entitled to water rights for the Main Salmon, Middle Fork
Salmon, Rapid, Selway, Lochsa and Middle Fork Clearwater River,
as well as for the HCNRA.  The Court also ruled that the United
States was only entitled to the minimum amount of water
necessary to fulfill the purposes for which Congress designated
each river and established the HCNRA.

"Since Congress created an express federal reserved water right
for Wild and Scenic Rivers and the HCNRA, the only question was
how much water the United States would receive," Attorney
General Wasden said.  "Through good faith negotiations with the
United States, Idaho was able to ensure that all existing water
rights as of the date of the agreement were preserved and that
additional water will be available for future development in the
Salmon and Clearwater Basins.  If the litigation had gone
forward, these federal reserved water rights could potentially
have affected up to a thousand junior water right claims as well
as future water development in these basins."

AG Wasden also noted that the HCNRA Act did not create a
reserved water right on the Main Snake River.  The Hells Canyon
reserved water rights are limited to tributary streams and lakes
within the Hells Canyon Recreation Area.  "Like the Wild and
Scenic Rivers settlement, all existing water rights within the
HCNRA are protected," he said.

These federally designated Wild and Scenic Rivers total
approximately 444 river miles in Central Idaho and include some
of the nation's most revered whitewaters.

"Thousands of people come from all over the world to experience
the beauty and serenity of boating on these rivers," said
Northern Region Forester Gail Kimbell.  "In addition, these six
designated rivers provide habitat for numerous threatened and
endangered species, including chinook salmon, steelhead, and
sockeye salmon, and bull trout."

The HCNRA encompasses over 150,000 acres of pristine, rugged
canyon country on the Idaho side of the Snake River, including a
designated Wilderness Area.  The HCNRA is also the home to
threatened and endangered species, including chinook and
steelhead salmon, and bull trout.

Rather than litigating the issue of the quantity of water to
which the United States was entitled under each of these claims
through an expensive and time consuming trial, the parties
reached a negotiated settlement that protects stream flows and
lake levels in quantities sufficient to preserve these resources
for this and future generations, while ensuring the availability
of water for both existing and future private uses.

"This agreement represents an excellent example of the type of
federal, state and local cooperation on resolving water issues
that affect us all" said Troyer.

Parties to the Wild and Scenic River agreement include the State
of Idaho, the Cities of Salmon and Challis, Idaho Power Company,
environmentalists and irrigation and mining interests. The two
settlements provide for the issuance of water rights decrees
for the six Wild and Scenic Rivers and for 32 tributary streams
and lakes in the HCNRA; and the subordination of these federal
water rights to existing water rights and uses and to specified
future rights and uses.


IMPAC FUNDING: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Noteholder Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Impac Funding Corporation d/b/a Impac Leasing Group asked the
Circuit Court of DuPage County, Illinois to dismiss the class
action filed against it as Case No. 04 L 391 entitled "Sally
Sengpiel v. GMAC Mortgage Corporation, Impac Funding Corp. d/b/a
Impac Leasing Group."

The complaint contains allegation of a class action and alleges
that the defendants required prepayment penalties on notes,
which exceed an annual percentage rate of 8% per annum in
violation of Illinois law.  The plaintiff is seeking actual and
statutory damages and injunctive relief.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: MA Court To Hear Motion To Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cambridge District Court in Massachusetts will hear this
month Leasecomm Corporation's motion to dismiss the class action
filed against it and one of its dealers.  The class sought to be
certified is a nationwide class (excluding certain residents of
the State of Texas) who signed identical or substantially
similar lease agreements with the Company covering the same
product.

After the Company had filed a motion to dismiss, but before the
motion to dismiss was heard by the Court, plaintiffs filed an
Amended Complaint.  The Amended Complaint asserts claims against
the Company for declaratory relief, absence of consideration,
unconscionability, and violation of Massachusetts General Laws
Chapter 93A, Section 11.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The Court allowed the Company's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint in March 2004.  In May 2004, a purported class action
on behalf of the same named plaintiffs and asserting the same
claim was filed in Cambridge District Court.  The Company has
filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: TX Court Approves Lease Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas State Court preliminarily approved the settlement for
the class action filed by plaintiff Wallace Dickey against
Leasecomm Corporation, Cardservice International, Inc.,
Linkpoint International, Inc., and Clear Commerce Corporation.

The suit alleges that the plaintiff lease-financed through the
Company the right to use certain computer software manufactured,
distributed, and sold by the other defendants.  The Plaintiff
did not allege that the Company failed to provide the lease
financing contemplated by the Leasecomm lease.  Instead, the
Plaintiff alleged that the other defendants' software failed to
operate as well as he believed it would.  He sued for a
declaration that would allow him to rescind his contract, to
recover money paid in the course of the transaction, and to
recover damages allegedly caused by unspecified deceptive trade
practices.  The Plaintiff asserted his claims "on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated."

The Company denied all of the Plaintiff's allegations.  The
defendants agreed to a proposed class action settlement with the
Plaintiff and his counsel.  The proposed settlement, if granted
final approval by the Court, would apply to all Texas residents
who lease-financed through Leasecomm the same software rights
that the Plaintiff lease-financed.

The Court preliminarily approved certification of the Texas
class for settlement purposes only, and the parties have
distributed notice to all class members in accordance with the
Court's instructions.  Once the notice period expires, the
parties will seek final Court approval of the class action
settlement.  The proposed class action settlement cannot become
final without Court approval.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Lease Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County Superior Court for the State of California
granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the class
action filed against Leasecomm Corporation, Galaxy Mall, Inc.
and Electronic Commerce International, Inc.

On April 29, 2003, Maria J. Smith filed the suit, alleging
claims for unfair business practices and competition under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200 et seq.
The essence of the claim is that Ms. Smith and others who are
similarly situated were defrauded in connection with their
acquisition of certain licenses that were financed by the
Company.

In May 2003, the Company filed a motion to stay the action in
favor of a Massachusetts forum based on a forum selection clause
contained in plaintiff's lease agreement with the Company.
After filing the motion, Leasecomm entered into settlement
negotiations with plaintiff's counsel to explore the possibility
of resolving the matter on a class wide basis without the need
for further litigation (meaning the settlement would, if
accepted, apply not only to the named plaintiff but to others
similarly situated).

The parties have signed a stipulation setting forth the terms of
their agreement and the Court has preliminarily approved the
settlement, approved the form of notice to class members and has
set a final approval hearing for October 15, 2004.  The
settlement must receive final approval to become effective.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Leasecomm
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts alleging violations of federal securities law.
The purported class would consist of all persons who purchased
Company securities between February 5, 1999 and October 30,
2002.

The Complaint asserts that during this period the Company made a
series of materially false or misleading statements about the
Company's business, prospects and operations, including with
respect to certain lease provisions, the Company's course of
dealings with its vendor/dealers, and the Company's reserves for
credit losses.

In April 2004, an Amended Class Action Complaint was filed which
added additional defendants and expanded upon the prior
allegations with respect to the Company.  No motion or answer
has been filed in response to the Complaint.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks MA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corporation asked the Superior Court in Massachusetts
to dismiss a class action filed against it, a dealer, and a
party purportedly related to the dealer.  The class sought to be
certified is a nationwide class who signed lease agreements
identical to, or substantially similar to, the plaintiff's lease
agreement with the Company, and covering the same product.

The Complaint asserts claims for declaratory judgment, absence
of consideration, unconscionability, and violation of
Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 93A, Section 11.  The claims
concern the validity, enforceability, and alleged
unconscionability of the lease of a product which enabled a
merchant to process credit card payments.  The Complaint seeks
rescission of lease agreements with Leasecomm, restitution,
multiple damages and attorneys fees under Chapter 93A, and
injunctive relief.


LEASECOMM CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Leasecomm Corporation asked the Los Angeles County Superior
Court for the State of California to dismiss a class action
filed against it, styled "Margarita Hinojosa, et al. v.
Leasecomm Corporation, case no. BC317371."

Plaintiffs purport to bring claims against the Company on behalf
of themselves and others similarly situated for fraud, unfair
business practices under California Business & Professions Code
section 17200 et seq., false advertising under California
Business & Professions Code section 17500 et seq. and violations
of various California consumer protection statutes.

The essence of the claim is that plaintiffs and others who are
similarly situated were defrauded in connection with their
acquisition of credit card swipe machines that were financed by
Leasecomm and which plaintiffs claim they intended to use to add
value to telephone calling cards that could be used for their
personal use or resale to others.

During negotiations with plaintiffs' counsel prior to the filing
of the Complaint, Leasecomm reached a proposed class action
settlement of all claims.  Immediately following the filing of
the Complaint, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the proposed class action settlement, certification
of a settlement class, approval of class notice and the setting
of a final approval hearing.  The settlement will require final
Court approval to become effective.


MAJESTIC STAR: Seamen Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuits in N.D. IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Majestic Star Casinos LLC faces two overtime wage lawsuits filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Indiana, Hammond Division.

In August 2003 a former Company employee filed a complaint
seeking back wages plus all other relief to which he may be
entitled under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The
Company's position is that the plaintiff was employed as an
able-bodied seaman and thus is exempt from the overtime
provisions of the FLSA.  Plaintiff's counsel has indicated that
he may amend the complaint to a collective action.

On July 20, 2004, another individual formerly employed with
Majestic Star as an able-bodied seaman filed a similar complaint
in the same court on behalf of himself and a class of employees
similarly situated seeking back wages, plus all other relief to
which he may be entitled, at law or in admiralty, including
liquidated damages and attorney's fees under 29 U.S.C. 216(b).
Potentially, the four seamen currently employed by the Company
and approximately 19 former seamen could qualify for the class,
if class action status were to be granted.

The August 2003 FLSA Seaman's case is in discovery and the July
2004 FLSA Seaman's Case has not yet progressed to a formal
discovery stage, and it is too early to determine the likelihood
of an unfavorable outcome or range of potential loss in either
matter, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.


MICROFINANCIAL INC.: Discovery Halted in AL Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery in the complaint filed against MicroFinancial, Inc.,
Leasecomm Corporation and Galaxy Mall, Inc, in Bullock County
State Court in Alabama has been halted, pending a discovery
order to be entered into in connection with a schedule for class
certification proceedings.

On August 22, 2002, Plaintiff Aaron Cobb filed the suit,
alleging:

     (1) breach of contract;

     (2) Fraud, Suppression and Deceit;

     (3) Unjust Enrichment;

     (4) Conspiracy;

     (5) Conversion;

     (6) Theft by Deception; and

     (7) violation of Alabama Usury Laws

The Complaint was filed on behalf of Aaron Cobb individually,
and on behalf of a class of persons and entities similarly
situated in the State of Alabama.  More specifically, the
Plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons and small
business in the State of Alabama who allegedly were induced to
purchase services and/or goods from any of the Defendants named
in the Complaint.

On March 31, 2003 the trial court entered an Order denying the
Company's Motion to Dismiss.  An appeal of the Order was filed
with the Alabama Supreme Court on May 12, 2003.  On February 20,
2004, the Alabama Supreme Court overruled the Company's
application for rehearing.  On February 24, 2004, Plaintiff
filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in which Plaintiff
added Electronic Commerce International (ECI) as an additional
party defendant.  No new allegations were asserted against the
Company in the Amended Complaint.

On March 31, 2004 the Company filed an answer to the Amended
Complaint denying the Plaintiff's allegations. The Company has
also filed an additional motion to enforce a forum selection
clause, which, if successful, would cause this case to be
dismissed with leave to re-file in Massachusetts.  Galaxy Mall
has filed a similar motion.  These motions are scheduled for
hearing this September.


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining Claims Fund To Be Distributed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois ordered the distribution of the remaining settlement
fund for the securities class action filed against Nanophase
Technologies, Inc., certain of its current and former officers
and the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering
(IPO).

Harbour Court LPI, a small stockholder of the Company, filed the
suit in 1998, alleging that defendants had violated the federal
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making supposedly fraudulent
material misstatements and omissions of fact in connection with
soliciting consents to the IPO from certain of the Company's
preferred stockholders.  The supposed misrepresentations
concerned purported mischaracterization of revenue that the
Company received from its then-largest customer.

The complaint further alleged the suit should be maintained as a
plaintiff class action on behalf of certain former preferred
stockholders whose shares of preferred stock were converted into
common stock on or about the date of the IPO.  The complaint
sought unquantified damages and attorneys' fees.

In September 2000, each defendant answered the complaint,
denying all wrongdoing.  After certain discovery, the Company
decided to avoid protracted litigation and resulting defense
costs by agreeing to settle all claims against all defendants
for $800,000, plus up to an additional $50,000 for the cost of
settlement administration.  The settlement did not admit
liability by any party.

The Court ordered final approval of the settlement in January
2002 and concurrently dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
In January 2003, the Court approved interim payment to
plaintiffs of $17,102 in settlement administration costs.  On
August 3, 2004, the Court ordered distribution of the
approximately $23,000 in remaining settlement funds and approved
up to an additional $7,000 in further settlement administration
costs.


NANOPHASE TECHNOLOGIES: IL Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois granted final approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Nanophase Technologies,
Inc. and its president and chief executive officer Joseph Cross.

In November 2001, George Tatz, a purchaser of 200 shares of the
Company's common stock, filed the suit, alleging the defendants
violated the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and omissions of
fact in connection with the Company's public disclosures,
including certain press releases, concerning the Company's
dealings with Celox, a British customer.

The complaint further alleged the action should be maintained as
a plaintiff class action on behalf of certain persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock from April 5,
2001 through October 24, 2001.  The complaint sought relief
including unquantified compensatory damages, attorneys' and
expert witness' fees.

In March 2002, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, alleging
that the Company and four of its officers (Joseph Cross; Daniel
Bilicki, its vice president of sales and marketing; Jess
Jankowski, its then acting chief financial officer; and Gina
Kritchevsky, its then-current chief technology officer) were
liable under the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for
making supposedly fraudulent material misstatements and
omissions of fact in connection with the Company's press
releases, publicly-filed reports and other public disclosures
concerning the Company's relationship with Celox and the
Company's purportedly improper booking, and later reversal, of
$400,000 in revenue from a one-time sale to that customer
treated as a bill and hold transaction.  The amended complaint
alleged the same class and sought the same relief as in
plaintiff's initial complaint.

In November 2002, defendants answered the amended complaint,
denying all alleged wrongdoing.  Following certain discovery, in
June 2003, the Company decided to avoid protracted litigation
and resulting defense costs by agreeing to settle all claims
against all defendants for $2,500,000.  Thereafter, the Court
certified the class alleged in the amended complaint.  The Court
later ordered final approval of the settlement and dismissed the
amended complaint with prejudice.  The settlement did not admit
liability by any party.


NEBRASKA: AG Office Says $110M Corn Settlement Includes Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
The office of Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning reiterated
that farmers will be paid interest on the $110 million StarLink
Corn Settlement will include interest, which was reached with
the makers and distributors of the genetically modified corn
that was mistakenly introduced into the food supply, the Yankton
Daily Press & Dakotan reports.

The attorney general's office clarifies that the settlement will
include a 4 percent interest after farmers expressed concern
about delays in getting their money. According to the attorney
general interest began accruing since Sept. 24, 2002 and that
payments from the settlement could begin soon after a September
2, 2004 court hearing.

The settlement would give farmers who did not grow StarLink corn
but suffered from a consumer backlash when it was revealed that
it had gotten into the food supply up to $2 per acre in
payments.

Engineered with a bacterium's gene that's deadly to the corn
borer pest, the StarLink corn was approve in 1998 by the
Environmental Protection Agency for use in animal feeds, but not
for human consumption.

After being mistakenly mixed with corn intended for food or
export and causing a worldwide drop in corn prices, StarLink's
creator Aventis SA, Starlink maker StarLink Logistics Inc. and
Avanta USA, which owns StarLink distributor Garst Seed Co. were
sued by farmers soon after.

The lawsuit was elevated to class action status, which would
include every farmer who did not grow StarLink and thus making
them eligible for a share of the estimated $70 million
settlement after expenses are paid.

In 2001, Aventis agreed to compensate farmers and grain
elevators across the country. That agreement, between Aventis,
Nebraska and 16 other states, called for the company to pay
farmers up to 25 cents per bushel for tainted corn and reimburse
them for other losses and so far some $130 million have been
shelled out for payment.

A third settlement called for $9 million to be paid to consumers
who said they suffered allergic reactions from eating food
products that contained the genetically modified corn.


OCWEN FEDERAL: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit in AL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ocwen Federal Bank FSB reached an agreement to settle the class
action filed against it in Alabama State Court, challenging the
Bank's mortgage servicing practices, and particularly certain
fees charged to borrowers.  In the proceeding, which relates to
loans that were part of a portfolio that the Bank acquired from
a third party, plaintiffs alleged common law and Alabama state
law claims against the Bank and other defendants.

The Bank recently concluded an agreement with counsel for the
plaintiffs to settle the case on a non-class basis and to
dismiss all claims with prejudice.  Pursuant to this settlement
agreement, on August 6, 2004, the parties jointly filed a Joint
Motion to Vacate and to Dismiss the case with the Court.


OCWEN FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs Consolidate Consumer Lawsuits in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action against Ocwen
Financial Corporation and certain of its affiliates, including
Ocwen Federal Bank FSB, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, challenging the Bank's
mortgage servicing practices.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the defendants
violated federal and state statutes, including the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act, Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act and state deceptive trade practices statutes, and assert
common law claims.  The lawsuits seek actual and punitive
damages, and injunctive and other relief.

The consolidated suit, styled: In re Ocwen Federal Bank FSB
Mortgage Servicing Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1604, is at an
early stage of proceedings, and the court has not yet considered
a motion for class certification.


ONE TOUCH: Judge Enters Judgment, Orders $1,608,102 in Penalties
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, U.S. District Court Judge for
the District of Columbia, entered an Order and Amended Judgment
as to Defendants Richard B. Parnell and One Touch Marketing,
Inc. (OTM). Previously, on June 9, 2004, the court had entered a
Final Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief against
Defendants Parnell and OTM. The Final Judgment and Order
(collectively, the "Judgment") were both entered following the
Commission's motion for summary judgment, to which the
defendants failed to respond. The Judgment orders the defendants
Parnell and OTM, jointly and severally, to pay $663,000 in
disgorgement, $141,051 in prejudgment interest and a $804,051
penalty. The Judgment enjoins Parnell and OTM from violating
Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

According to the complaint, Parnell and OTM violated various
registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws in connection with the unregistered nationwide sales of
securities designated as partnership units in Internet Broadcast
Group, a purported general partnership formed to engage in the
wireless and hardwired cable business in Muskegon, Michigan and
Mesa, Arizona. The Commission's complaint alleged that Parnell
and OTM, his wholly controlled company, functioned as brokers by
selling the securities without first having registered as such
as required by applicable securities laws. Further, the
Commission's complaint alleged that Parnell and OTM used a
variety of false and misleading sales literature, correspondence
and telephone statements to sell the securities. The action is
titled, SEC v. Internet Broadcast Group, et al., Civil Action
No. 96CV02226 (RCL) (D.D.C.) (LR-18441).


PETMED EXPRESS: Calls Suit Frivolous, Denies Allegations
--------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. (Nasdaq:PETS) denies the allegations of
wrongdoing in the complaint filed by the law firm, Milberg
Weiss. PetMed Express has experienced substantial growth in both
sales and profits during the period of time referenced in the
complaint, and the complainant's own allegations concede this
fact. PetMed Express will not be bullied by this frivolous suit.

Filed by Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP 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"), the complaint is
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, Menderes Akdag, Marc
Puleo, and Bruce S. Rosenbloom ("Defendants").

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

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

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

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

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

For investment relations, contact PetMed Express, Inc., Pompano
Beach, Bruce S. Rosenbloom, CFO by Phone: 954-979-5995


PFIZER INC.: Freidin & Brown Lodges FL Deceptive Practices Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Miami law firm Freidin & Brown, P.A., has filed a class-
action fraud suit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court against Pfizer
Inc., which recently pleaded guilty to criminal charges of
illegal marketing of Neurontin, its best-selling epilepsy drug.

The 47-page, five-count suit - filed this month on behalf of two
South Florida women and a class of people in similar situations
- says the patients were both prescribed Neurontin for
conditions not approved by the federal Food and Drug
Administration, which authorized the drug only as a
supplementary treatment for epilepsy and certain nerve pain
relating to shingles.

Instead, the suit says, Warner Lambert and its Parke-Davis, Inc.
subsidiary - both acquired by Pfizer in 2000 - launched, in the
late 1990s, an illegal, deceptive and highly profitable scheme
to get doctors to prescribe the drug as a primary medication for
such unauthorized uses as bipolar disorder, nerve pain and
neuropathy, among a host of other uses.

The suit is titled, Ana Medero and Shirley Levin v. Pfizer,
Inc., Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis, Inc., Miami-Dade Circuit
Court, 11th Judicial Circuit, Case No. 04-17021-Ca 32.

"The outrage is the deceptive practices of Warner-Lambert (now
Pfizer) hurt people suffering from serious medical conditions,"
said Omar Malone, a lawyer with Freidin & Brown, who represents
the women. "People rely on drug manufacturers to provide some
measure of relief. And rather than provide relief through
approved FDA medications, Warner-Lambert went behind the FDA's
back to promote these drugs to the most vulnerable in our
society. This drug was promoted big-time among people with
bipolar syndrome, for instance. We have fielded hundreds of
calls on this, including people who have suffered side effects,
and expect to file more suits shortly."

The suit alleged Shirley Levin of Boca Raton and Ana Medero of
Miami were prescribed Neurontin for neuropathy, an unapproved
use. Malone said Levin spent nearly $5,000 out of pocket for the
drug, and Madero spent $10,000 and suffered hallucinations and
other side effects.

The suit was filed against Pfizer, Warner Lambert, which
manufactured and marketed the drug through its Parke-Davis
subsidiary before Pfizer acquired it in 2000, and Parke-Davis.
The suit charges the defendants with violations of Florida's
Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, negligence, unjust
enrichment, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and
breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose.

Like the criminal charge that preceded the civil suit, the
action provides a window into the manner in which drug companies
use sophisticated tactics to promote drugs for unapproved uses
to goose up their profits.

The government charged, and the suit alleges, that Pfizer goosed
up sales for the drug through non-approved uses by flying
doctors to lavish resorts, paying them kickbacks as consultants'
and speakers' fees for unapproved uses, and fired salespeople if
they didn't recruit enough doctors to prescribe Neurontin for
pain. The government also said Pfizer suppressed a study
revealing the drug to be less effective than a sugar pill
placebo in treating bipolar disorder, leaving both doctors and
patients uninformed.

The case against Neurontin goes back to 1996, when Warner-
Lambert employee and whistleblower David Franklin revealed the
scheme to the government.

Although Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million in criminal and
criminal penalties in pleading guilty last May, that payment was
a fraction of the drug manufacturer's $2.7 billion in sales from
Neurontin in 2003, up from $97 million in 1997.

For more details, contact T. Omar Malone of Freidin & Brown,
P.A. by Mail: One Biscayne Tower, 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Ste 3100,
Miami, FL 33131 by Phone: (305) 371-3666 by Fax (305) 371-6725
by E-mail: omalone@freidinbrown.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.freidinbrown.com


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Workers at AK Plant File Race, Age Bias Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and ConAgra Poultry Company face a
purported class action complaint styled "Angela Goodwin, et al.
v. ConAgra Poultry Company and Pilgrim's Pride" in the United
States District Court, Western District of Arkansas, El Dorado
Division.

The suit alleges racial and age discrimination at one of the
facilities the Company acquired from ConAgra.  The Company is
evaluating the defense and materiality of the claim.  Neither
the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the ultimate
liability, if any, can be determined at this time, the Company
said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


PLATINUM INVESTMENT: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Complaint in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) against respondents Platinum
Investment Corporation (Platinum), Andrew Antonucci (Antonucci)
and Mathew Beaulieu (Beaulieu). According to the Order
Instituting the Proceedings (OIP), the Commission's Division of
Enforcement alleges that Platinum is a registered broker-dealer
with which Antonucci and Beaulieu were associated. The Division
also alleges in the OIP that the respondents were named as
defendants in a civil injunctive action filed by the Commission
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
on July 31, 2002. In that action, according to the Division's
allegations in the OIP, the Commission's Complaint alleged that
the respondents and other defendants raised over $1.5 million
through fraudulent unregistered stock offerings conducted
through Platinum and that they defrauded investors by making
material misrepresentations with respect to the securities
involved in the offerings. The Division also alleges in the OIP
that in the civil injunctive action the respondents, upon their
consent, were permanently enjoined from further violations of
Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the OIP are
true, and to provide them with an opportunity to respond to the
allegations, and to determine what, if any, remedial sanctions
are appropriate and in the public interest.

The Order requires the administrative law judge to issue an
initial decision no later than 300 days from the date of service
of this Order, pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice.


REYNOLDS & REYNOLDS: Faces Securities Fraud Lawsuits in S.D. OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Reynolds & Reynolds Co., one of its current officers and a
former officer face several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Ohio on behalf of shareholders who purchased the Company's
common stock (NYSE:REY), between January 22, 2003 and June 24,
2004, inclusive.

This complaint alleges that the company, a current officer and a
former officer violated provisions of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  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 Reynolds securities,
an earlier Class Action Reporter Story (August 3,2004) states.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.


SEITEL INC.: TX Court Affirms Dismissal of Trespass Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court ruling
dismissing plaintiffs' claims in a class action filed against
Seitel, Inc. and its subsidiary, Seitel Data, Ltd., entitled
"Juan O. Villarreal v. Grant Geophysical, Inc., et al., Cause
No. DC-00-214," in the 229th District Court of Starr County.

The suit charges a number of defendants, for geophysical
trespass.  The plaintiffs allege that certain defendants
conducted unauthorized 3-D seismic exploration of the mineral
interests, and sold the information obtained to other
defendants.  The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
damages.

All of the defendants have obtained summary judgments dismissing
the plaintiffs' claims, and the case was appealed before the San
Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV.  On
March 24, 2004, the Texas Court of Appeals affirmed the lower
court's decision.   Appellants have sought review in the Texas
Supreme Court.


SHURGARD STORAGE: CA Court Limits Class in Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Orange County limited the
class of potential members in the class action against Shurgard
Storage Centers, Inc. to California customers of the Company.

The suit, styled "Gary Drake v. Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc.
et al (Case No. 02CC00152)," alleges that the Company
misrepresents the size of its storage units.  The suit seeks
damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief against the
Company under California statutory and common law relating to
consumer protection, unfair competition, fraud and deceit and
negligent misrepresentation.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shurgard Storage Centers, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California styled as Patricia Scura et al. v. Shurgard Storage
Centers, Inc. (Case No. C 02-5246-WDB).

The complaint alleges that the Company required its hourly store
employees to perform work before and after their scheduled work
times and failed to pay overtime compensation for work performed
before and after hours and during meal periods.  The lawsuit
seeks class action status and seeks damages, injunctive relief
and a declaratory judgment against the Company under the federal
Fair Labor Standards Act and California statutory wage and hour
laws and laws relating to unlawful and unfair business
practices.


STEVEN BOLLA: SEC Institutes Settled Administrative Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled
administrative proceedings against Steven and Susan Bolla based
on the entries of injunctions against them. Steven Bolla
consented to the SEC's imposition of an order barring him from
associating with any broker, dealer or investment adviser.
Susan Bolla consented to the SEC's imposition of an order
barring her from associating with any investment adviser.

In the Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings, Steven and
Susan Bolla admit that a U.S. District Court entered injunctions
against them in SEC v. Steven M. Bolla, Washington Investment
Network, Susan Bolla and Robert Radano, Case No. 1:02CV1506
(D.D.C.) (CKK). The injunctions were based on the Commission's
District Court complaint alleging that Steven Bolla violated a
June 2000 SEC order barring him from associating with any
investment adviser. The Commission's complaint alleges that
Steven Bolla managed the finances of Washington Investment
Network, Inc. (WIN), an investment adviser, and dealt with WIN
clients for ten months after he was barred. The SEC charged
Susan Bolla with aiding and abetting WIN's violations of the
SEC's bar order. The complaint alleges that Susan Bolla, who had
no previous investment advisory or other securities experience,
was set up as the nominal co-owner of WIN to conceal her
husband's association with the firm.

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

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

The final District Court judgment as to Steven Bolla enjoins him
from violating Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) and Section 203(f) of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940 (Advisers Act), and orders him to pay
$117,500 in disgorgement and prejudgment interest and a $57,500
penalty. In a prior SEC action, Steven Bolla was enjoined in
June 2000 from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Sections 206(1)
and (2) of the Advisers Act in. The final District Court
judgment as to Susan Bolla enjoins her from violating Sections
203(f), 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act.


TRAVELERS INSURANCE: Appeals Certification of CT Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Travelers Insurance Co. appealed the Connecticut Superior
Court's certification of the class action filed against it, its
parent company, certain of the Company's affiliates
(collectively TLA) and its former affiliate Travelers Property
Casualty Corporation.

The suit, styled "Lisa Macomber, et al. vs. Travelers Property
Casualty Corporation, et al.," alleges Travelers Property
Casualty Corporation purchased structured settlement annuities
from the Company and spent less on the purchase of those
structured settlement annuities than agreed with claimants; and
that commissions paid to brokers of structured settlement
annuities, including an affiliate of the Company, were paid, in
part, to Travelers Property Casualty Corporation.

The amended complaint was dismissed and following an appeal by
plaintiff in September 2002 the Connecticut Supreme Court
reversed the dismissal of several of the plaintiff's claims.  On
May 26, 2004, the Connecticut Superior Court certified a nation
wide class action involving the claims of violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practice Statute, unjust enrichment and
civil conspiracy against the TLA.


UNITED STATES: Tribal Descendants To Receive Payments in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence Piersol ordered the federal government
to settle a class action lawsuit over treaty-related payments
from the Bureau of Indian Affairs in Aberdeen for descendants of
the Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux tribe, the Rapid City Journal
reports.

The suit was filed by Barry LaBeau, a lineal descendant of the
tribe claiming that he and about 2,000 other descendants should
have received the money, which has since ballooned to nearly $1
million. According to Mark Meier-henry, a Sioux Falls lawyer for
the descendants, the judge ruled that the federal government has
to payeach class member $475.

In his decision the judge wrote, "The federal government
breached its trust duties owed to the class members by
unreasonably delaying the partial distribution of the money
requested in 1982," which according to attorney Meier-henry was
used by Congress for other purposes.

Attorney Meier-henry also stated, "A trustee should have paid
out this money prior to 1983, had the government done that, then
Congress couldn't have raided the cookie jar. That's what the
judge found."


WAVE SYSTEMS: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in MA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wave Systems Corporation faces nine securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  Seven of these suits also name the Company's
Chief Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer as
defendants and two name the Company's Chairman of the Board.

The purported class action complaints have been filed by alleged
purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the
purported class period July 31, 2003 through February 2, 2004.
The complaints claim that the Company and the named individuals
violated the federal securities laws by publicly disseminating
materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company, relating to Intel and IBM agreements, resulting in the
artificial inflation of the Company's Class A Common Stock price
during the purported class periods.  The complaints do not
specify the amount of alleged damages plaintiffs seek to
recover.


WORLD AIRWAYS: Faces Suits On Cancelled Nigeria Charter Flights
---------------------------------------------------------------
World Airways, Inc. faces seven purported class actions (four in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, one in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, one in the Superior Court of DeKalb
County, Georgia, and one in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois) and four individual
complaints (one in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, one small claims action in New
York, one small claims action in New Jersey, and one small
claims action filed in California) arising out of the
discontinuance of charter flights upon the expiration of the
Company's obligation to provide services under an air services
agreement.

The purported class action cases were consolidated for discovery
purposes into the Eastern District of New York.  The Company had
operated the charter flights between cities in the United States
and Lagos, Nigeria for Ritetime Aviation and Travel Services,
Inc. (Ritetime).  The Company's obligation to perform air
services for Ritetime ended with the last chartered flight on
December 30, 2003.

From the allegations made by the various plaintiffs, it appears
that Ritetime continued to sell tickets to passengers for
flights purportedly scheduled to depart after the expiration of
the Company's contractual obligations for air services, the
Company stated in a filing with the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  The plaintiffs purport to act for themselves and on
behalf of other persons who held tickets issued by Ritetime for
the non-contracted flights.  Ritetime is also named as a
defendant in each of these lawsuits.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory, punitive and/or treble damages and costs and
expenses, including attorneys fees, based on various legal
theories including:

     (1) breach of contract,

     (2) fraud,

     (3) negligent misrepresentation,

     (4) unjust enrichment,

     (5) illegal/excess tax and

     (6) violations of U.S. federal laws and regulations
         governing air transportation and of the Federal
         Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Statute

The Company's insurance carrier has responded and assumed the
defense of these cases.  During March 2004, Ritetime filed a
Demand to Arbitrate in Peachtree City, Georgia, and subsequently
the Company responded and filed a counterclaim.

The Department of Transportation (DOT) is investigating this
matter and the Company is negotiating the terms of a settlement
with the DOT, without however admitting or denying any
allegations.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BELO CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of
Belo Corp. (NYSE:BLC) ("Company") common stock during the period
between May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


BELO CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Texas on
behalf of purchasers of Belo Corp. ("Belo") (NYSE:BLC) common
stock during the period between May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Belo and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Belo is a media company which owns four daily newspapers,
19 television stations, 10 local and regional cable news
channels and more than 30 Web sites. Belo's flagship property is
The Dallas Morning News newspaper.

The complaint alleges that beginning as early as 2003,
defendants initiated and engaged in a scheme to defraud
advertisers at The Dallas Morning News as well as Belo's
investors by intentionally overstating the circulation of The
Dallas Morning News in order to fraudulently extract higher
incentive payments from the paper's advertisers. These
fraudulent inflated circulation numbers were reported to
investors and the market on a regular basis and the ill-gotten
gains from the scheme artificially inflated Belo's financial
results. As a result, defendants' scheme not only defrauded
advertisers, but artificially inflated the value of Belo's
stock, thus defrauding investors as well. According to the
complaint, the scheme involved creating an incentive program for
third-party vendors who sold The Dallas Morning News to the
public. The more newspapers these vendors claimed to have to
sold to the public, the larger the incentive payment and the
purported circulation of the newspaper. The individuals who
should have monitored this program for abuse were the
circulation managers at The Dallas Morning News. Instead of
encouraging the circulation managers to carefully audit the
third-party vendors, however, Belo created an incentive program
for the circulation managers as well. Thus, when third-party
vendors reported fraudulent circulation numbers in order to
receive incentive payments, the circulation managers themselves
had an incentive to turn a blind-eye to the scheme.

On August 5, 2004, Belo reported its circulation numbers for The
Dallas Morning News were overstated by 1.5% for the daily paper
and 5% for the Sunday paper. Belo also announced the resignation
of defendant Barry Peckham, the Executive Vice President in
charge of circulation at The Dallas Morning News. Belo announced
it was conducting an internal investigation and that it would
refund to advertisers all amounts that they had been
overcharged. In response to this announcement, Belo's stock
price plummeted from $23.21 at the close of business on August
5, 2004 prior to the announcement to a low of $18 the next day
before finally settling at $21.55, on unprecedented volume of
over 4.6 million shares traded.

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/belo/


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Files CA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Biolase Technology, Inc. ("Biolase" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: BLTI) between October 29, 2003 through July 16, 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 Central District of California, Southern Division, against
defendants Biolase, Jeffrey W. Jones (CEO) and Edson J. Rood
(CFO).

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 29, 2003
through July 16, 2004. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Class Period, beginning in October 2003, Biolase
reported double-digit revenue and profit growth and represented
that the Company would grow its business even more rapidly in
2004. Among other things, the Company represented that Biolase
was effectively penetrating the largely untapped market for
dental lasers, and that the Company could both increase its
impressive growth of 2003 while at the same time ramping up its
marketing efforts. As defendants knew but failed to disclose to
the investing public, such representations were materially false
and misleading when made because, among other reasons:

     (1) demand for the Company's products was declining during
         the Class Period, especially internationally. This was
         masked by the fact that increased sales, recognized by
         the Company upon shipment to distributors, reflected
         inventory-buildup by distributors, who would meet end-
         user demand from existing inventory, which would
         foreseeably lead to decreased growth and profitability
         for Biolase;

     (2) The Company's introduction of Diolase Plus, a low-
         priced ($12,000) alternative to its main product, the
         Waterlase system ($50,000), confused purchasers and led
         to decreased demand for the Waterlase system. The
         investing public was wholly unaware of the materially
         negative effect that Diolase Plus was having on
         Biolase's business; and

     (3) the Company's growth in revenue and profitability could
         not continue, much less increase, in line with the
         Company's representations.

On July 16, 2004, the Company announced that its performance in
the second quarter of 2004 would be far worse than expected and
would force the Company to materially lower its expected sales
growth for 2004, due to weakened demand. In reaction to this
surprising announcement that business was not, and would not be,
as good as the Company had previously represented, the price of
Biolase common stock plummeted, falling 27% in one day, from
$12.05 per share on July 16, 2004 to $8.78 per share on July 19,
2004 (the next trading day), on unusually heavy trading volume.

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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Express Scripts, Inc.
("Express Scripts" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ESRX) between
October 29, 2003 through August 3, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period. The Complaint alleges that
Defendants failed to disclose numerous illegal practices and
inflated the Company's revenues. It was disclosed that New York
State Attorney General, Elliott Spitzer alleged in a lawsuit
that the Company conducted an intricate and elaborate scheme
that inflated millions of dollars of costs of prescription drugs
to New York state's employee health plan. The lawsuit details
how Express Scripts engaged in switching a patient's
prescription from one prescribed drug to another for which
Express Scripts received money from the drug manufacturer. On
news of these investigations, Express Scripts stock fell to
$62.48 from a class period high of $79.81.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


FERRO CORPORATION: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio, on behalf of purchasers
of the common stock of Ferro Corporation ("Ferro" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FOE) between October 28, 2003 through July 22,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action is pending against defendants Ferro, Hector Ortino
(CEO, President and Chairman) and Thomas M. Gannon (CFO and Vice
President). The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements contained in press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class
Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that:

     (1) the Company materially understated costs and expenses
         and overstated its earnings and net income by failing
         to properly account for the activities within Ferro's
         polymer additives business;

     (2) the Company's financial statements were not in
         conformity with generally accepted accounting
         principles ("GAAP"); and

     (3) defendants' positive statements regarding the Company's
         financial condition lacked any reasonable basis in
         fact.

On July 23, 2004, Ferro announced that its earnings for the
second quarter of 2004 would fall short of expectations by over
70% based upon the Company's internal review of "inappropriate
accounting entries in its Polymer Additives business," which
revealed a multi-million-dollar overstatement of earnings. In
reaction to this news, shares of Ferro stock declined over $4.00
per share, or 16.21 percent, to close at $20.68 on unusually
high trading volume.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


GOLDEN STATE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Golden State
Vintners, Inc. ("Company') (Nasdaq:VINT) between December 23,
2003 and April 23, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


GOLDEN STATE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., commenced a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons
who sold the publicly traded securities of Golden State
Vintners, Inc. (Nasdaq: VINT) ("Golden State Vintners") between
December 23, 2003 and April 23, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Defendants made false statements in a
December 23, 2003 merger proxy statement in order to keep the
price of Golden State Vintners securities artificially low and
thus facilitate the company's takeover by the O'Neill
Acquisition Co., LLC, an entity controlled by Golden State
Vintner's President and Chief Executive Officer, Jeffrey B.
O'Neill.

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


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired Integrated
Electrical Services, Inc. (NYSE: IES) securities between
November 10, 2003 and August 13, 2004, inclusive (the Class
Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, against the company and certain key
officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Charles J. Piven Files TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Integrated
Electrical Services, Inc. (NYSE:IES) ("Company") between
November 10, 2003 and August 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas. The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodge TX Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Integrated Electrical Services (NYSE: IES)
("IES" or the "Company") from November 10, 2003 through August
13, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges IES, C. Byron Snyder, Herbert Allen,
Jeffrey Pugh, and William W. Reynolds with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company failed to appropriately adjust for
         actual costs in a series of large contracts;

     (2) that with respect to one contract the Company
         inappropriately accounted for general and
         administrative costs;

     (3) that the Company incorrectly recorded margin on a
         particular contract;

     (4) that the Company improperly recognized revenue on the
         substantial contract;

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

     (6) that as a result of the foregoing the Company's
         financial results violated the Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and were materially
         inflated at all relevant times.

On August 2, 2004, IES announced that it had rescheduled its
fiscal 2004 third quarter earnings release and conference call,
due to its ongoing evaluation of certain large and complex
projects at one subsidiary that experienced project management
changes in the latter part of the third quarter. On this news,
shares of IES fell $0.85 per share, or 10.08 percent to close,
on August 3, 2004, at $7.58 per share. Then, on August 13, 2004,
IES announced that it had delayed the filing of its quarterly
report on Form 10-Q. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
IES fell $2.65 per share, or 40.27 percent, on August 16, 2004,
to close at $3.93 per share.

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


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges CA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated
securities class action lawsuit in the Northern District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of IntraBiotics
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("IntraBiotics") (NASDAQ: IBPI) securities
between September 5, 2003 and June 22, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

Plaintiff alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material, adverse facts concerning
the Company's wonder drug, iseganan, which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) iseganan was not safe and well-tolerated at
         therapeutically relevant doses when administered to the
         oral cavity;

     (2) the drug caused a higher rate of ventilator-associated
         pneumonia ("VAP") and mortality as compared to placebo;

     (3) despite knowing and/or recklessly disregarding the
         aforementioned facts, the defendants nevertheless
         raised capital through offerings of its common stock in
         order to portray to the market that iseganan was a
         viable marketable product that was on the "fast track"
         to FDA approval; and

     (4) as a result of the above, the defendants' statements
         concerning iseganan were lacking in any reasonable
         basis.

On June 23, 2004, the Company announced that an independent data
monitoring committee recommended to the Company that it
discontinue its pivotal trial of iseganan for the prevention of
VAP based on an interim analysis of the data. Shares of
IntraBiotics fell $9.45 per share, or 69 percent, to close at
$4.23 per share on unusually high trading volume.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: IBPI@bernlieb.com


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Abraham Frutcher Files NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of KongZhong
Corporation's ("KongZhong" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KONG)
American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") during the period between
July 9, 2004 and August 17, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, and alleges that KongZhong
and certain of its officers and directors violated Sections 11,
12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially
false and misleading prospectus (the "Prospectus") with the
Securities & Exchange Commission in connection with the initial
public offering of KongZhong common stock, which took place on
or about July 9, 2004 (the "IPO"). Also named as Defendants are
the underwriters for the IPO. The Prospectus, which forms part
of the Registration Statement, became effective on or about July
9, 2004, and 10 million of the Company's ADSs were sold to the
public, raising approximately $100 million.

KongZhong describes itself as "the leading provider of advanced
second generation, or 2.5G, wireless interactive entertainment,
media and community services, in terms of revenue, to customers
of China Mobile Communications Corporation, or China Mobile,
which has the largest mobile subscriber base in the world." The
complaint alleges that the Prospectus failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

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

     (2) that in response to such violation, KongZhong would be
         subject to sanctions that could materially impact its
         business; and

     (3) because of the above, KongZhong's relationship with
         China Mobile would be negatively impacted.

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

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Lawrence D.
Levit, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by Mail: One
Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119 by Phone:
(212) 279-5050 or (212) 714-2444 or (800) 440-8986 by Fax:
(212) 279-3655 or by E-mail: Jfruchter@aftlaw.com or
Llevit@aftlaw.com


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired KongZhong
Corporation American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") (NASDAQ: KONG)
securities between July 9, 2004 (the date of the IPO for the
ADSs) and August 17, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of New York, against the company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased KongZhong
Corporation ("Company") American Depositary Shares ("ADSs")
(Nasdaq:KONG) during the period between July 9, 2004 (the date
of the IPO for the ADSs) and August 17, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Spector Roseman Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated
a securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Ligand" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:LGND) between March 3, 2004
through August 2, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

On August 3, 2004, Ligand announced that its second-quarter loss
increased, and that its outside auditor had resigned. Shares of
Ligand fell almost 40% or $5.40 per share to close at $8.18 per
share.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


NETOPIA INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of
Netopia, Inc. (Nasdaq:NTPA) ("Company") common stock during the
period between November 5, 2003 and August 16, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


NETOPIA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in 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 purchasers of Netopia, Inc. ("Netopia") (NASDAQ:NTPA)
common stock during the period between November 5, 2003 and
August 16, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Netopia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Netopia develops, markets and supports broadband and
wireless products and services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Netopia's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants knew, but concealed from the investing
public, the following material adverse facts:

     (1) the Company was experiencing weaker than claimed gross
         margins due to higher component costs (including
         shipping and surcharges);

     (2) the Company was actually experiencing decreases in
         average selling prices to its key carrier customers;

     (3) certain of the Company's top customers were declining
         to participate in the Company's roll out of its 802.11g
         launch;

     (4) the Company's receivables (and earnings) were
         overstated by virtue of the fact that the Company's
         clients were not even capable of paying for prior
         shipments;

     (5) the Company's largest customers were, early on,
         altering their purchasing mix, which defendants were
         keenly aware would result in dramatically lower average
         selling prices;

     (6) the Company's European customers had changed delivery
         standards resulting in a pushing out of potential
         revenue into future quarters; and

     (7) as a result of the above, the Company was not on track
         to achieve stated projections and, moreover, the
         Company's accounting was false and misleading.

On August 17, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that "it will file today a Form 12b-25 with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission with notice of
late filing of the Report on Form 10-Q for the third fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2004. As Netopia previously announced on
July 22, 2004, Netopia's Audit Committee has initiated an
inquiry into Netopia's accounting and reporting practices,
including the appropriateness and timing of revenue recognition
of software license fees in two transactions with a single
software reseller customer."

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/netopia/


NETOPIA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Netopia, Inc. (Nasdaq: NTPA) ("Netopia" or the
"Company") from November 5, 2003 through August 16, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Netopia, Alan Lefkof, and William Baker
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company inappropriately timed the recognition
         of software license fees in two transactions with a
         single software reseller customer;

     (2) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated by $2.25 million;

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

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

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

On July 6, 2004, Netopia announced preliminary results for the
third fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2004. Netopia announced that
it expected operating expenses for the third fiscal quarter to
include a specific bad debt charge of approximately $750,000
relating to non-payment from a software reseller. News of this
shocked the market. Share of Netopia fell $.88 per share, or
15.09 percent, on July 7, 2004, to close at $4.95 per share. On
July 22, 2004, Netopia announced results for the third fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2004, and the initiation of an internal
review by its Audit Committee of the accounting treatment and
revenue recognition of certain software transactions.

On this news, shares of Netopia fell $.71 per share, or 16.47
percent, on July 23, 2004, to close at $3.60 per share. On
August 17, 2004, Netopia announced that it would delay the
filing of its quarterly report with the SEC on Form 10-Q. The
market reacted sharply to this final blow. Shares of Netopia
fell $.59 per share, or 20.21 percent, on August 17, 2004, to
close at $2.33 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Primus Telecommunications Group (Nasdaq: PRTL)
("PRIMUS" or the "Company") from August 5, 2003 through July 29,
2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges PRIMUS, Neil L. Hazard, and K. Paul Singh
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company was operating in a new
         competitive reality where major incumbent carriers used
         long distance offerings as a "loss leader" to encourage
         customers to subscribe to their bundled local, cellular
         and broadband services;

     (2) that the Company's core long distance and dial-up
         Internet service provider products ("ISP") were
         experiencing significant pricing pressures;

     (3) that the Company's wireline long distance usage was
         continuing to appreciably decline due to increased use
         of cellular phones and Internet services;

     (4) that the Company was forced to accelerate investment in
         voice-over-Internet protocol ("VoIP") and mobile
         virtual network operator ("MVNO") networks; and

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

On July 29, 2004, after the close of the market, PRIMUS
announced its results for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. The
Company reported a net loss for the quarter of $15 million
compared to net income of $20 million in the second quarter of
2003. News of this shocked the market. Shares of PRIMUS fell
$1.70 per share, or 50.75 percent, on July 29, 2004, to close at
$1.65 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Berman Devalerio Files Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Minnesota against The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul Travelers") (NYSE:STA), claiming the
company and its predecessor misled the investing public about
its business operations, financial results and reserves.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of all former holders of
Travelers Property Casualty Corp. ("Travelers") Class A and
Class B common stock who acquired shares of The St. Paul
Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul") common stock pursuant to St. Paul's
materially false and misleading registration statement, which
included the joint proxy statement/prospectus, as amended and
filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 13, 2004, in connection with the issuance of St. Paul's
common stock to Travelers' shareholders in St. Paul's stock-for-
stock merger with Travelers on April 1, 2004 (the "Merger") to
form The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint alleges that the defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements about St. Paul's business
operations, financial results and reserves which artificially
inflated St. Paul's common stock. The lawsuit asserts that had
the true facts about St. Paul been disclosed to Travelers'
shareholders, they would not have voted to approve the Merger or
would not have accepted the stock exchange ratio offered.

On July 23, 2004, less than four months after the closing of the
Merger, the new St. Paul Travelers Companies announced that it
would add $1.63 billion to reserves due to the need to increase
reserves from St. Paul's business, which had reserved on a "less
conservative" basis. The second quarter results were delayed to
determine whether the combined company would have to reflect a
second quarter loss on its income statements due to the
increased reserves.

On August 5, 2004, St. Paul Travelers issued an announcement
disclosing it had reported a $300 million second quarter loss
due to the $1.63 billion reserve adjustments.

By the time the true extent of required reserve increase and its
adverse impact against St. Paul Travelers were fully disclosed
to the markets on August 5, 2004, the per-share price of St.
Paul Travelers common stock had declined by $6.02 or 14.77% to
close at $34.75 on August 5, 2003 -- causing massive losses to
former Travelers shareholders.

For more details, contact Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. by Mail:
Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, 515 N. Flagler Drive, West Palm
Beach, FL 33401 by Phone: (800) 349-4612 or by E-mail:
lawfla@bermanesq.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Minnesota on behalf of its client and on behalf of former
holders of shares of Travelers Property Casualty Corporation
("Travelers") Class A and Class B common stock -- formerly
(NYSE:TAP.A) (NYSE:TAP.B) -- who acquired shares of St. Paul
Travelers' stock pursuant to joint proxy statement / prospectus
/ registration statement ("Prospectus/Registration Statement")
and on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of the St.
Paul Travelers Companies Inc. (NYSE:STA) ("St. Paul Travelers"
and the "Company") from April 2, 2004, through August 5, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period').

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Angela Wallis
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005
by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail:
stolldc@cmht.com or awallis@cmht.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota against 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 true facts were disclosed to the market on July 23, 2004,
when St. Paul Travelers revealed that certain conditions
relating to St. Paul required the Company to increase its claims
reserves by $1.6 billion. On August 5, 2004, St. Paul Travelers
further announced that the required $1.6 billion increase in
claims reserves would result in an operating loss of $310
million or $0.47 per basic and diluted share for the quarter.

The per share closing price of St. Paul common stock was $40.77
on April 1, 2004, the date on which each share of Travelers'
Class A and Class B common stock was exchanged for 0.4334 share
of St. Paul common stock pursuant to the materially false or
misleading registration statement. By the time the true extent
of 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 Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Stock Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP ("Zwerling
Schachter") 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") (NYSE:
STA) and certain of its current and former officers and
directors, on behalf of former shareholders of Travelers
Property Casualty Corp.'s ("Travelers") Class A and
Class B common stock who acquired St. Paul Travelers common
stock pursuant to a joint proxy statement / prospectus /
registration statement filed with the SEC in connection with The
St. Paul Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul") stock-for-stock merger
with Travelers on April 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that St. Paul Travelers' registration
statement was materially false or misleading because it failed
to disclose that 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
over $1 billion to conform St. Paul's less conservative
accounting and actuarial methods to that of Travelers adversely
impacting earnings, capital accumulations and cash. On July 23,
2004, St. Paul Travelers revealed that certain conditions
relating to St. Paul required it to make "reserve valuation
adjustments" totaling $1.625 billion. On August 5, 2004, St.
Paul Travelers further announced that the required $1.625
billion increase in claims reserves would result in an operating
loss of $310 million or $0.47 per basic and diluted share for
the quarter. On April 1, 2004, shares of Travelers Class A and
Class B were exchanged for .4334 shares of St. Paul Travelers
common stock pursuant to the false and misleading registration
statement. Between April 1, 2004, and August 5, 2004 shares of
the combined Company have fallen approximately $6.02,
representing a decline of approximately 14.8% to close at $34.75
on August 5, 2004.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Willy Gonzalez
by Phone: 1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or
wgonzalez@zsz.com


THORATEC CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Thoratec Corporation ("Thoratec" or the
"Company")(Nasdaq:THOR) between April 28, 2004 and June 29,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Thoratec and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Thoratec's operations and
prospects artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. The Complaint alleges
defendants knew, but concealed from the investing public,
adverse facts including:

     (1) the true market for "Destination Therapy," Throratec's
         flagship treatment option for end-stage heart failure,
         was far less than claimed;

     (2) less than 75 hospital centers have been designated
         Medicare-approved for Destination Therapy, though
         defendants claimed there were approximately 900
         qualified centers in the U.S.;

     (3) Medicare had rigid, preset reimbursement guidelines and
         schedules for Destination Therapy that could only
         translate into a serious negative impact on Thoratec's
         FY 2004 sales projections for the HeartMate ventricular
         assist device;

     (4) Cardiothorasic surgeons, concerned about HeartMate's
         reliability in long-term settings, were rejecting
         and/or not accepting the device for Destination Therapy
         patients;

     (5) demand for Destination Therapy implants was not growing
         at the rate claimed;

     (6) the Company's Destination Therapy implant estimate for
         FY2004 was grossly overstated and internally projected
         to be a fraction of the estimate;

     (7) Thoratec's FY2004 revenue projections of $190-$200
         million were overstated by tens of millions;

     (8) reimbursement charges were delaying implants, and the
         Company knew that significant expansion of existing
         implant programs was delayed until the expected October
         1, 2004, availability of a significant increase in
         certain reimbursement rates;

     (9) HeartMate implant sales would be depressed until Q4
         2004, and the Company's Q1 2004 earnings shortfall
         would not be made up until Q1 2005, at best.

As a result of defendants' false statements, Thoratec's stock
price traded at artificially inflated levels during the Class
Period, increasing to $14.55 on May 24, 2004 and $14.84 on June
8, 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold
more than $143.7 million of corporate notes.

For more details, contact Michael Goldberg, Esq. 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 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of White Electronic Designs Corporation
("White Electronic" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:WEDC) between
January 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against White Electronic, Hamid
R. Shokrgozar, Edward A. White and William J. Rodes
("Defendants").

The complaint charges 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 issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding White Electronic's increasing revenues and long-term
growth prospects, charging that Defendants knew or recklessly
disregarded that White Electronic's increasing revenues and
earnings could not be sustained and that orders for sales of the
Company's microelectronic products for use in military weapons
and procurement programs had been declining since at least the
second quarter of fiscal 2003. Defendants failed to disclose
that the declines marked a long-term change in priorities by the
U.S. military following the build-up of orders prior to the
armed conflict in Iraq.

On June 9, 2004, White Electronic issued a press release
announcing its forecast of net sales of between $24-$25 million
for the third quarter of fiscal 2004, the period ending July 3,
2004, far short of analysts' consensus estimates of
approximately $30 million. On this news, the price of White
Electronic shares fell 13.9% to $5.16 per share, on extremely
heavy trading volume

For more details, contact Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488
Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(877) 935-7400


                            *********


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  * * *