---

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

            Thursday, August 26, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 169

                          Headlines

ABSOLUTEFUTURE.COM: SEC Seeks Penny Stock Bar V. Graham Andrews
ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
ACCELERATED NETWORKS: NY Suit Settlement Documents In Process
ACCREDITED HOME: Consumer Fraud Suit Moved To IL Federal Court
ACCREDITED HOME: Requests Arbitration For CA Overtime Wage Suits

ACCREDITED HOME: Consumers Launch Fraud Suit Over Mortgage Loans
AMERICA FIRST: Plaintiffs Yet To File Amended DE Suit V. Merger
ANDREW SHUPE: Barred From Association With Any Broker/Dealer
ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs To Appeal Certification Denial
AXEDA SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeds in PA Securities Fraud Lawsuit

AXEDA SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Lawsuit Pact
BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Submits NY Stock Lawsuit Pact For Approval
BELO CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in TX
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Faces New Lawsuit V. Equity Fund in DE Court
CARESCIENCE INC.: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set October 2004

CHEVRONTEXACO: Appeals Sunburst Ruling, Plaintiffs Not Surprised
CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Executes Settlement Pact in NY Stock Lawsuit
DDI CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA Securities Suit
DRYVIT SYSTEMS: TN Court Allows Claims Processing in Suit Pact
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: FL Trial Begins, Accused of Fleecing Tenants

GENTEK INC.: Master Complaint Filed Over CA Sulfur Gas Releases
GOODYEAR TIRE: Entran II Lawsuit Settlement Expanded, Modified
HALLWOOD REALTY: Reaches Settlement For DE Shareholder Lawsuit
ILLINOIS: Judge Rules That Medicaid Program Violates Federal Law
KATY INDUSTRIES: TX Court Dismisses Suit For CERCLA Violations

KIA MOTORS: Owners' Group To File Consumer Fraud Suit Over SUVs
KMART CORPORATION: MI Court Grants Certification To ERISA Suit
LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
NATIONAL COMMERCE: Settles Shareholder Suits V. SunTrust Merger
NBO SYSTEMS: IL Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit Over Gift Cards

NET PERCEPTIONS: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal of MN Lawsuit Dismissal
NIKE INC.: Employees Lodge Race Discrimination Suit in IL Court
NUI CORPORATION: Discovery Commences in NJ Securities Fraud Suit
NUI CORPORATION: Plan Holders Launch ERISA Violations Suit in NJ
PIRANHA INC.: SEC Lodges TX Suit For Fraud, Market-Manipulation

PIZZA HUT: Drivers Launch CA Suit V. Work Expenses Reimbursement
QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Plaintiffs to File Consolidated Suit in FL
QUOVADX INC.: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
QUOVADX INC.: Rogue Wave Shareholders Launch CO Securities Suit
ROYAL DUTCH: SEC Imposes $120M Fine in TX Civil Suit V. Reserves

SHOE PAVILION: CA Court Approves Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
SINOFRESH HEALTHCARE: FL Court Stays Shareholder Derivative Suit
TELECOMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Appeals Suit Discovery Order
TEXAS: Judge Grants Continuance For Suit V. Lufkin Paper Mill
TORCH OFFSHORE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of LA Stock Suit

TRUEHEDGE CAPITAL: SEC Files Civil Action, Obtains Asset Freeze
TRUS JOIST: LA Jury Dismisses Claims V. Engineered-Wood Plant
UTAH: Judge Enters Permanent Injunction V. Robert Cord Beatty
VAXGEN INC.: SEC Files Insider-Trading Charges V. John Patrucco


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BELO CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
BELO CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges TX Securities Fraud Suit
CROSS COUNTRY: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in FL
CROSS COUNTRY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in FL
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges TX Securities Suit

INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges TX Securities Suit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in CA
NETOPIA INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
NETOPIA INC.: Braun Law Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
PETMED EXPRESS: Emerson Poynter Lodges FL Securities Fraud Suit

PETMED EXPRESS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Krislov & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in MN
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in MN
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Vianale & Vianale Lodges MN Securities Suit
TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY


                          *********


ABSOLUTEFUTURE.COM: SEC Seeks Penny Stock Bar V. Graham Andrews
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceeding Pursuant to Section
15(b)(6) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)
against Graham Andrews, a resident of Monaco. The Order is based
on a final judgment and injunction entered against Andrews in
Securities and Exchange Commission v. AbsoluteFuture.com, et
al., Civ. Action No. 01-9058 (S.D.N.Y.). The Commission's
complaint in that case alleged that Andrews, as president and
CEO of AbsoluteFuture.com (AFTI), violated the anti-fraud,
registration and reporting provisions of the federal securities
laws by engaging in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the price
of AFTI stock from July 1999 through April 2000. According to
the complaint, during the relevant time period, AFTI was a penny
stock that traded on the OTC Bulletin Board. The Commission's
complaint also alleged that, in furtherance of the scheme,
Andrews caused AFTI to issue false and misleading press
releases, make false statements in its filings with the
Commission and issue 4.1 million shares of unrestricted stock to
promoters for use in manipulating the price of AFTI stock.

On July 28, 2004, the District Court for the Southern District
of New York entered a final judgment of default against Andrews
finding that Andrews violated Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20 and 13a-1 thereunder and
permanently enjoining him from violating those provisions. The
Court also ordered Andrews to disgorge proceeds of the fraud
totaling $65,000 and pay prejudgment interest of $19,601.41 and
a civil penalty. In addition, the Court barred Andrews from
acting as an officer or director of any public company.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, to provide Andrews an opportunity to dispute these
allegations and to determine whether a penny stock bar is in the
public interest.

The Order requires that the administrative law judge shall issue
an initial decision no later than 210 days from the date of
service of the Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the
Commission's Rules of Practice.


ACCELERATED NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California approved the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Accelerated Networks, Inc.
(now known as Occam Networks, Inc.) and certain of its current
and former officers and directors, styled "In Re Accelerated
Networks Securities Litigation.

Several suits were filed following the Company's April 17, 2001
announcement that it would restate its financial results.  The
cases were consolidated by the Honorable Judge Ronald S. W. Lew
in a court order dated June 15, 2001.  Plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on October 30, 2001.

The amended complaint generally alleges the defendants made
materially false and/or misleading statements regarding the
company's financial condition and prospects during the period of
June 22, 2000 through April 17, 2001 in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and that the registration statement and prospectus issued
by defendants in connection with the Company's June 23, 2000
initial public offering contained untrue statements of material
fact and omitted to state material facts in violation of
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The Company previously filed two motions to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaints.  The plaintiffs opposed the
motions and a hearing on each motion took place.  At both
hearings, the Court granted the motion as to the plaintiffs'
1934 Act claims, and denied the motion as to plaintiffs' 1933
Act claims.  In each instance the plaintiffs were given 30 days
leave to amend their 1934 Act claims.  The plaintiffs filed
their third amended complaint and the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the third amended complaint.  The plaintiffs opposed the
motion and a hearing took place on February 3, 2003.  At that
hearing, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the 1934 Act
claims.

Subsequently, the parties agreed to enter into mediation that
occurred on October 1, 2003.  At the mediation the parties and
the Company's insurance carrier reached a tentative settlement
that is subject to Court and shareholder class approval, whereby
the insurance carrier paid the entire $8 million settlement,
leaving no obligation for the Company.  The members of the
shareholder class have approved the settlement.  The Court
dismissed the complaint with prejudice on June 28, 2004.


ACCELERATED NETWORKS: NY Suit Settlement Documents In Process
-------------------------------------------------------------
The documents for the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Accelerated Networks, Inc. (now known
as Occam Networks, Inc.), certain of its then officers and
directors and several investment banks that were underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering are being processed.

The consolidated suit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
investors who purchased Company stock between June 22, 2000 and
December 6, 2000.  The suit alleges violations of Sections 11
and 15 of the 1933 Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the 1934 Act against one or both of the Company and the
individual defendants.

The claims are based on allegations that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's initial
public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases in the aftermarket at pre-determined
prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering was false and misleading in violation of
the securities laws because it did not disclose these
arrangements.

These lawsuits are part of the massive "IPO allocation"
litigation involving the conduct of underwriters in allocating
shares of successful initial public offerings.  The Company
believes that over three hundred other companies have been named
in more than one thousand similar lawsuits that have been filed
by some of the same plaintiffs' law firms.  In October 2002 the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the individual defendants
without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003 a motion to dismiss filed by the issuer
defendants was heard and the court dismissed the 10(b), 20(a)
and Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company.  On July 31, 2003,
the Company agreed, together with over three hundred other
companies similarly situated, to settle with the Plaintiffs.  A
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), along with a separate
agreement and a performance bond of $1 billion issued by the
insurers, for these companies' guarantees, allocated pro rata
amongst all issuer companies, to the plaintiffs as part of an
overall recovery against all defendants including the
underwriter defendants who are not a signatory to the MOU.  Any
recovery by the plaintiffs against the underwriter defendants
reduces the amount to be paid by the issuer companies.

It is anticipated that the Company will execute the settlement
documents on or before September 30, 2004.  The settlement must
be approved by the members of the class of plaintiffs and by the
Court.


ACCREDITED HOME: Consumer Fraud Suit Moved To IL Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.,
styled "Wratchford et al. v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," was
brought to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois, from Madison County Court.

The suit makes claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and the consumer protection
statutes of the other states in which the Company does business.
The complaint alleges the Company has a practice of
misrepresenting and inflating the amount of fees it pays to
third parties in connection with the residential mortgage loans
the Company funds.

Plaintiffs claim to represent a nationwide class consisting of
all other persons similarly situated, that is, all persons who
paid money to the Company to pay, or reimburse the Company's
payment of, third-party fees in connection with residential
mortgage loans and never received a refund for the difference
between what they paid and what was actually paid to the third
party.  Plaintiffs are seeking to recover damages on behalf of
themselves and the class, in addition to pre-judgment interest,
post-judgment interest, and any other relief the court deems
just and proper.


ACCREDITED HOME: Requests Arbitration For CA Overtime Wage Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. filed motions seeking arbitration
for the class actions filed against it in California State
Court, alleging violations of overtime wage laws.

In January 2004, the Company was served with a complaint,
"Yturralde v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc.," brought in
Sacramento County, California.  The complaint alleges that the
Company violated California and federal law by misclassifying
the plaintiff, formerly a commissioned loan officer for the
Company, as an exempt employee and failing to pay the plaintiff
on an hourly basis and for overtime worked.  The plaintiff seeks
to recover, on behalf of himself and all of the Company's other
similarly situated current and former employees, lost wages and
benefits, general damages, multiple statutory penalties and
interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit, and also seeks to
enjoin further violations of wage and overtime laws and
retaliation against employees who complain about such
violations.

Under California law, a private individual who is not a current
or former employee of an employer may bring an action to enforce
certain provisions of California law against that employer.
Such a complaint regarding this matter has been filed and served
upon the Company.

In addition, the Company has been served with ten substantially
similar complaints on behalf of its other former and current
employees, which ten actions have been consolidated with the
"Yturralde" action.


ACCREDITED HOME: Consumers Launch Fraud Suit Over Mortgage Loans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Accredited Home Lenders, Inc. faces a class action complaint,
styled "Aslam v. Accredited Home Lenders, Inc., et al.," brought
in Cook County, Illinois.  The complaint alleges the purchase
money, first priority mortgage loan the Company made to the
plaintiff violated Illinois law because the loan, which had an
interest rate in excess of 8%, included a prepayment charge and
because Accredited charged certain fees for the loan, which fees
allegedly exceeded 3% of the original loan amount.

The plaintiff seeks to recover, on behalf of himself and all
other individuals to which the Company made loans with the same
alleged violations, the damages allowed by statute, interest,
costs and attorneys' fees.  The damages allowed by statute
include actual economic damage and an amount equal to twice the
total of all interest, discount and charges determined by the
loan contract or paid by the obligor, whichever is greater.

To the extent the plaintiff's loan included any provisions or
fees which might otherwise violate Illinois law, the Company
included those provisions or fees in plaintiff's loan on the
basis that federal law preempted Illinois law with respect to
plaintiff's loan.  The Company's position in this regard was
consistent with prior case law and previously announced
positions of the Illinois Attorney General and the Illinois
Office of Banks and Real Estate, the Company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

However, in "U.S. Bank, National Association, et al., v. Clark,
et al.," consolidated cases that involve alleged violations of
Illinois law similar to those alleged against the Company, an
Illinois appellate court recently held that federal preemption
was not available for the non-purchase money, first priority
mortgage loans involved in those cases.  The "Clark" decision
has been appealed.  There is a significant risk that if the
"Clark" decision is not reviewed or reversed on appeal, the
plaintiffs might argue that the rationale by which the "Clark"
court reached its decision undermines the Company's ability to
rely on federal preemption with respect to the loan it made to
the plaintiff and any other Illinois resident.  A co-defendant
in the Aslam suit has removed the case to federal court, and the
Company has joined with that co-defendant in a motion to compel
arbitration of the matter, but there has not yet been a hearing
on that motion.


AMERICA FIRST: Plaintiffs Yet To File Amended DE Suit V. Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs have yet to file an amended class action against
America First Real Estate Investment Partners, L.P., after the
Partnership's merger with America First Apartment Investors,
Inc. was completed.

Harvey Matcovsky and Gloria Rein, in their capacities as holders
of assigned liminted partner interests (units) of the
Partnership, filed the suit on December 3, 2003 in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against the Partnership, its general partner
and America First Companies, L.L.C.  The plaintiffs seek to have
the lawsuit certified as a class action on behalf of all Units
holders.

The lawsuit alleges, among other things, that the defendants
acted in violation of their fiduciary duties to the Unit holders
in connection with the merger of the Partnership with and into
America First Apartment Investors, Inc.  The plaintiffs were
seeking to enjoin the proposed merger and unspecified damages
and costs.

The merger was completed on June 3, 2004 and, as a result,
America First Apartment Investors, Inc. assumed all liabilities
of the Partnership, including any liability that may be imposed
as a result of this lawsuit.  To date, the plaintiffs have not
amended their complaint to formally name America First Apartment
Investors as a defendant or to modify the relief they are
seeking.


ANDREW SHUPE: Barred From Association With Any Broker/Dealer
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order Making
Findings and Imposing Remedial Sanctions and Cease-and-Desist
Order Pursuant to Section 8A of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 15(b) and 21C of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Order) against L. Andrew Shupe II, an investment banker from
Western Pennsylvania, barring Shupe from association with any
broker or dealer and ordering Shupe to cease and desist from
committing or causing any violations and any future violations
of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section  10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Order finds that Shupe served as investment banker for a
$9.6 million offering in June 2000 of purportedly tax-exempt
notes by the Neshannock Township School District, located in
Lawrence County, Pennsylvania (Notes).

The Order also finds that the Notes were offered and sold on the
basis of a materially false and misleading disclosure document
drafted by Shupe. That disclosure document did not accurately
describe the use of the Note proceeds, and did not disclose the
resulting risk to the Notes' purported tax-exempt status.
According to the Order, Shupe marketed the issuance of the Notes
to the School District as a way to earn $225,000 of interest
rate arbitrage profit, by investing the net Note proceeds for
three years without spending any of those proceeds on capital
projects. The tax-exempt status of the Notes however was
dependent upon, among other matters, the School District
reasonably expecting on an objective basis to spend
substantially all of the Note proceeds on capital projects
within three years of the Notes' issuance. According to the
Order, Shupe made a presentation to the School Board, including
a written financing proposal, listing $225,000 as the total
amount available for capital improvements after the issuance of
the Notes.

The Order further finds that the Internal Revenue Service
subsequently issued a preliminary determination that the Notes
were taxable arbitrage notes. The School District and the IRS
have since entered into an agreement that, among other things,
preserves the tax-exempt status of the Notes.

The Order finds that Shupe willfully violated, aided and abetted
and caused the School District's violations of the anti-fraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, particularly Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

On the basis of Shupe's representations in sworn financial
statements and other documents and information furnished to the
Commission, payment of disgorgement was waived and civil
penalties were not imposed. Shupe consented to the issuance of
the Order without admitting or denying any of the allegations in
the administrative proceeding.


ASCENDANT SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs To Appeal Certification Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs seek permission to appeal the denial of class
certification for the securities suit filed against Ascendant
Solutions, Inc., certain of its directors and a limited
partnership of which a director is a partner.

Between January 23, 2001 and February 21, 2001, five putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against us, asserting
causes of action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, for an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of a putative class of individuals
who purchased the Company's common stock between various periods
ranging from November 11, 1999 to January 24, 2000.  The
lawsuits claim that the Company and the individual defendants
made misstatements and omissions concerning its products and
customers.

In April 2001, the Court consolidated the lawsuits, and on July
26, 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the CAC on September 9,
2002.  On July 22, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in
part defendants' motion to dismiss.  On September 2, 2003,
defendants filed an answer to the suit.  Plaintiffs then
commenced discovery.

On September 12, 2003, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and on February 17, 2004, the Company filed its
opposition.  On July 1, 2004, the Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for certification.  On July 15, 2004, plaintiffs
petitioned the Fifth Circuit for permission to appeal the denial
of class certification.  On July 28, 2004, the Company filed its
opposition.  The Fifth Circuit has not ruled on the petition.


AXEDA SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeds in PA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is now proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Axeda Systems, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, styled "In re RAVISENT
Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation."

The suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock from July 15, 1999 through April 27, 2000, alleges
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On July 3, 2000, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated and amended class action
complaint.  On July 13, 2004, the Court denied the motion and
the discovery stay has been lifted.  The Company will answer the
consolidated and amended class action complaint in September
2004.  No trial date has been set.


AXEDA SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Lawsuit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Axeda Systems, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
filed against the Company, certain of its officers and
directors, and several investment banks that were underwriters
of its initial public offering.

The action was filed purportedly on behalf of investors who
purchased Company stock between July 15, 1999 and December 6,
2000.  The lawsuit alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against one or both of the Company and the Individual
Defendants.

The claims are based on allegations that the underwriter
defendants agreed to allocate stock in the Company's July 15,
1999 initial public offering to certain investors in exchange
for excessive and undisclosed commissions and agreements by
those investors to make additional purchases in the aftermarket
at pre-determined prices.  Plaintiffs allege that the prospectus
for the Company's initial public offering was false and
misleading in violation of the securities laws because it did
not disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

Similar "IPO allocation" actions have been filed against over
300 other issuers that have had initial public offerings since
1998 and all are included in a single coordinated proceeding in
the Southern District of New York.  The Company has approved a
settlement agreement and related agreements which set forth the
terms of a settlement between the Company, the Individual
Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately 300 issuer defendants and the individual
defendants currently or formerly associated with those
companies.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the Company and the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful. The Company would agree to
undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to assign
away, not assert, or release certain potential claims the
Company may have against its underwriters.  It is anticipated
that any potential financial obligation of the Company to
plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and
related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.  The
settlement agreement has not yet been executed.  The agreement
will be subject to approval by the court, which cannot be
assured.

On July 14, 2004, the underwriter defendants filed a memorandum
in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement with Defendant Issuers' and Individuals.  Plaintiffs
and issuer defendants filed replies on August 4, 2004.


BACKWEB TECHNOLOGIES: Submits NY Stock Lawsuit Pact For Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
BackWeb Technologies, Inc. submitted the proposed settlement
agreement for the securities class action filed against it to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York for preliminary approval.

On November 13, 2001, the Company, six of its officers and
directors, and various underwriters for the Company's initial
public offering were named as defendants in a consolidated
action captioned "In re BackWeb Technologies Ltd. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-10000."

Similar cases have been filed alleging violations of the federal
securities laws in the initial public offerings of more than 300
other companies, and these cases have been coordinated for
pretrial proceedings as "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."

A consolidated amended complaint filed in the BackWeb case
asserts that the prospectus from the Company's June 8, 1999
initial public offering failed to disclose certain alleged
improper actions by the underwriters for the offering, including
the receipt of excessive brokerage commissions and agreements
with customers regarding aftermarket purchases of shares of the
Company's stock.  The complaint alleges violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On July 15, 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the
coordinated litigation on behalf of defendants, including
BackWeb, on common pleadings issues.  In October 2002, the Court
dismissed all six individual defendants from the litigation
without prejudice, pursuant to a stipulation.  On February 19,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to the
claims against BackWeb.  No trial date has yet been set.

A proposal has been made for the settlement and release of
claims against the issuer defendants, including BackWeb.  The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the proposed settling parties and the court.


BELO CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in TX
------------------------------------------------------------
Media giant Belo Corporation (NYSE: BLC) faces purported class
action lawsuits that have been commenced in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Texas against Belo and its
chairman, president and chief executive officer, together with a
former officer of The Dallas Morning News.

The suits alleged that Belo and the named individuals including
its chairman, Robert Decherd violated federal securities laws in
connection with The Dallas Morning News' circulation practices
and related Company disclosures, and seek to recover damages for
purchasers of Belo common stock between May 12, 2003, and August
6, 2004, but must first be certified by a judge as a class
action.  The plaintiffs would not have bought the stock at the
prices they paid, if at all, if they had known that the market
prices had been artificially inflated, the lawsuit alleges.

Belo disclosed on August 5, 2004 that the Morning News had
overstated newspaper sales by 5 percent on Sundays and 1.5
percent for other days. The company announced last week that it
would pay $23 million in cash to compensate advertisers who
overpaid because rates are usually based on circulation.

Currently law firms that have filed suits against the company,
include: The Law Offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A., The Law
Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., Schatz & Nobel, P.C. and
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Faces New Lawsuit V. Equity Fund in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. 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 the law offices of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


CARESCIENCE INC.: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set October 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against CareScience, Inc. and
certain of its present and former officers is set for October
27,2004 in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

The class action litigation is the result of several complaints
filed with the court beginning on October 17, 2001.  These
actions were consolidated on November 16, 2001.  The court
approved the selection of the lead plaintiff in the litigation
on March 12, 2002.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint on August 7, 2002.

These complaints purport to bring claims on behalf of all
persons who allegedly purchased the Company's common stock
between June 29, 2000 and November 1, 2000, for alleged
violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a
materially false and misleading Prospectus and Registration
Statement with respect to the initial public offering of
CareScience common stock.

Specifically, the complaints allege, among other things, that
the CareScience Prospectus and Registration Statement
misrepresented and omitted to disclose material facts concerning
its competitors, two of its prospective products and its
contract with the California HealthCare Foundation.  On July 25,
2003, the Judge granted the Company's motion to dismiss the
claims under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act, but denied
its motion to dismiss the claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act.  The Company filed an answer denying all
allegations of wrongdoing.  Discovery has not yet commenced.

In February 2004, an agreement was reached to settle this case,
subject to court approval after notice to the former
shareholders.  On July 28, 2004, the Court signed an order
approving the form of the settlement notices, setting forth
requirements for providing notice to the class and handling any
objections.


CHEVRONTEXACO: Appeals Sunburst Ruling, Plaintiffs Not Surprised
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Dan Johnson, ChevronTexaco's manager of public and
government affairs for in the Rockies, the company will file a
motion for a new trial in the next month after being ordered by
a Montana jury to pay more than $41 million to more than 75
Sunburst residents, who filed a pollution-liability suit against
the company, Great Falls Tribune reports.

The spokesman also stated that if District Judge Thomas
McKittrick denies the request, the company would appeal the
verdict to the state Supreme Court.

However, Sunburst residents involved in the case stated that the
company's plans were no surprise. According to plaintiff Marylou
Benson, "I think everybody knew that, they're not just going to
dump a bunch of money. They're going to fight for it." Retired
Sunburst schoolteacher and plaintiff Lynn Ahrens added, "It's
the next step, it was to be expected, with these sums of money
involved and that big an outfit. It was almost a given."

Mr. Johnson was reluctant to go into specifics about the appeal
though he stated that company officials believe the verdict
would have been different had the jury in the month long trial
been allowed to hear all their evidence.


CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Executes Settlement Pact in NY Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chordiant Software, Inc. executed a formal settlement agreement
with plaintiffs in the securities class action filed against it
and certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "In
re Chordiant Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-6222."

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

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

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies (Issuers) that conducted IPOs of their
common stock in the late 1990s (collectively, the "IPO
Lawsuits").  In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the
statute of limitations with respect to the Company's officers
and directors until September 30, 2003, and on the basis of this
agreement, its officers and directors were dismissed from the
IPO Lawsuits without prejudice.  In February 2003, the court
issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Section 11
claims against Chordiant and almost all of the other Issuers and
denying the motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claims against
Chordiant and many of the Issuers.

In June 2003, Issuers and plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would, among other things, result in
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the Issuers
and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits, and the
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the
Issuers may have against the underwriters.  The tentative
settlement also provides that, in the event that plaintiffs
ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum of $1 billion from
the IPO underwriters, plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.

Although the Company has approved this settlement proposal in
principle, it remains subject to a number of procedural
conditions, as well as formal approval by the Court.  In
September 2003, in connection with the possible settlement,
those officers and directors who had entered tolling agreements
with plaintiffs agreed to extend those agreements so that they
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized.

In June 2004, the Company executed a formal settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs consistent with the terms described above.
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
action by the Court certifying a class action for settlement
purposes and formally approving the settlement.  The
underwriters have opposed both certification of the class and
judicial approval of the settlement.


DDI CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
certain of DDI Corporation's officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

In October and November 2003, several class action complaints
were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  In December 2003, a related class action complaint was
filed in the Central District of California alleging similar
claims against similar parties, but also adding causes of action
under the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
Company's February 2001 public offering of common stock.  The
latter complaint also named as defendants a private investment
firm and the underwriters of the secondary offering.

On December 16, 2003, a federal district court judge
consolidated the Central District of California actions into a
single action, "In re DDi Corp. Securities Litigation, Case No.
CV 03-7063 MMM (SHx)."  On May 21, 2004, the Court appointed as
Lead Plaintiffs Paul Poppe, LeRoy Schneider, and Rand Skolmick.
On July 26, 2004, the Lead Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Company common stock between December 19, 2000 and
April 29, 2002, including those who acquired Company common
stock pursuant to, or traceable to, its February 14, 2001 public
offering of common stock.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and
alleges defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
by, among other things, misrepresenting and/or failing to
disclose material facts about the Company's reported and
projected financial results during the class period, including
reported and projected financial results in connection with the
registration statement and prospectus for the public offering.
Neither the Company nor any of it subsidiaries were named as a
defendant in this consolidated amended complaint.  Pursuant to a
November 12, 2003 scheduling order, the Defendants will respond
to this complaint on or before September 9, 2004.


DRYVIT SYSTEMS: TN Court Allows Claims Processing in Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Jefferson County, Tennesse Court has allowed the processing
of claims in the settlement of the state class action filed
against Dryvit Systems, Inc., styled Bobby R. Posey, et al. v.
Dryvit Systems, Inc. (formerly styled William J. Humphrey, et
al. v. Dryvit Systems, Inc.)"

A preliminary approval order was entered on April 8, 2002 in the
case for a proposed nationwide class action settlement covering,
"All Persons who, as of June 5, 2002, own a one- or two-family
residential dwelling or townhouse in any State other than North
Carolina clad, in whole or in part, with Dryvit exterior
insulated finish systems (EIFS) installed after January 1, 1989,
except persons who (1) prior to June 5, 2002, have settled with
Dryvit, providing a release of claims relating to Dryvit EIFS;
or (2) have not obtained a judgment against Settling Defendant
for a Dryvit EIFS claim, or had a judgment entered against them
on such a claim in Settling Defendants' favor; and (3) any
employees of Dryvit."

Nationwide notice to all eligible class members began on June
13, 2002.  Any person who wished to be excluded from the Posey
settlement was provided an opportunity to individually "opt out"
and thus not be bound by the final Posey order.  A fairness
hearing was held to determine whether the proposed settlement is
fair, reasonable and adequate and an order and judgment granting
final approval of the settlement was entered on January 14,
2003.  Notices of appeal were filed by persons seeking to
challenge certain provisions of the proposed settlement
including challenging the trial court's denial of certain
builders and one homeowner's right to appear at the fairness
hearing and intervene in the underlying action.

On March 22, 2004, the Tennessee Court of Appeals dismissed the
homeowner's appeal but ruled that the builders should be allowed
to intervene to determine their rights and obligations, if any,
under the proposed national settlement.  Dryvit has urged the
trial court to expeditiously address this issue on remand so the
settlement can be finalized.

During the pendency of the foregoing issues, the court has
allowed claims to be processed under the proposed Posey
settlement.  As of the June 5, 2004 claim submission deadline,
approximately 7,000 total claims have been filed.  Of these
7,000 claims, approximately 3,400 claims have been rejected or
closed for various reasons under the terms of the settlement.
An additional 600 claims are under review for potential filing
deficiencies.  The approximately 3,000 remaining claims are at
various stages of review and processing under the terms of the
proposed settlement.  As of June 5, 2004, approximately 170
claims have been paid a total of $1.6 million.


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: FL Trial Begins, Accused of Fleecing Tenants
----------------------------------------------------------------
The trial in a class action lawsuit against Equity Residential
Properties Trust, which is accused of charging 14,000 former
tenants more than $14 million in illegal fees and got under way
in Palm Beach Circuit Court, South Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

In there opening statements, attorneys for South Florida's
largest landlords contend that the allegations by the plaintiffs
are exaggerated and the actual damages are far less than those
claimed.

Plaintiffs' attorney Theodore Babbitt countered in his opening
statement by pointing out that the average illegal charge to
tenants who terminated their leases early was $1,372 and that
Equity Residential sometimes collected two or three months'
worth of rent or fees when a tenant left before the lease was up
or didn't give 60 days' notice that it wouldn't be renewed,
which is in violation of Florida's landlord-tenant and fair-
trade-practices laws. He further states, "These are not the only
landlords that do that, which is why this case is so important
as the benchmark in Florida."

According to Craig White, an attorney representing Equity
Residential, the company changed its billing and leasing
practices in July 2003, seven months after the lawsuit was filed
and that the changes were made to bring greater uniformity to
the company's lease agreements in 34 states. He also stated that
even if the average charges to former tenants amounted to
$1,372, the vast majority of those charges went uncollected and
don't constitute damages to those tenants.

However attorney Babbitt countered by pointing out that the
company used aggressive collection tactics, reported delinquent
tenants to credit bureaus and obtained judgments against them.

Circuit Judge Susan Lubitz is hearing the case without a jury
due to conditions set out in the leases signed by tenants.

Equity Residential has more than 80 rental complexes in Florida,
including about 24,000 units and also has a strong presence in
Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties, as well as Orlando,
Tampa Bay, Jacksonville and Fort Myers.


GENTEK INC.: Master Complaint Filed Over CA Sulfur Gas Releases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a master complaint against Gentek, Inc. and
General Chemical Corporation, consolidating litigation over the
alleged release of sulfur dioxide and/or sulfur trioxide from
the Company's Richmond, California sulfuric acid facility on May
1,2001 and November 29, 2001.

Prior to October 2002, lawyers claiming to represent more than
47,000 persons filed approximately 24 lawsuits in several
counties in California state court (Alameda, Contra Costa, San
Francisco superior courts).  The first case was filed in 2001
and subsequent cases were filed from March through July 2002.
On May 1, 2002, a class action lawsuit arising out of the same
facts was also filed.

The lawsuits claim various damages for alleged injuries,
including, without limitation, claims for personal injury,
emotional distress, medical monitoring, nuisance, loss of
consortium and punitive damages.  The Company filed a petition
for coordination to consolidate the state court cases before a
single judge.  The petition for coordination has now been
granted and a follow-on petition to add additional cases to the
coordinated proceedings has been orally granted.  The state
court cases were stayed as a result of the Filing.

Approximately 73,000 proofs of claim were submitted in the
bankruptcy proceedings on behalf of the Richmond claimants,
seeking damages for the May 1, 2001 and/or November 29, 2001
releases.  A preliminary review of the claimant list indicates
that the claimants include most of the plaintiffs in the state
court cases, plus several thousand duplicates and some
additional claimants.  In addition, one class proof of claim was
submitted.  A motion for class certification was filed but the
motion was later withdrawn subject to being re-filed in state
court.

The Company filed a motion to lift the automatic stay and
discharge injunction to allow liquidation of the claims to
proceed in California State Court.  That motion was granted upon
stipulation of the parties, and the action is proceeding in
California State Court.

In June 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Master Complaint that is
intended to supersede the prior pleadings on behalf of
individual plaintiffs.  The Master Complaint seeks damages and
other remedies arising out of the May 1, 2001 and November 29,
2001 releases based upon causes of action, among others, for
negligence, Business and Professions Code Section 17200,
nuisance and trespass.  The Master Complaint also names Latona
Associates, Matthew Friel (GenTek's Chief Financial Officer) and
Paul Montrone (a former director and shareholder of GenTek) as
defendants.  The class action complaint was also amended in June
2004 to add these additional defendants.  The Company's
responsive pleadings are due September 1, 2004.  The state court
has entered several case management orders for the first phase
of the cases, including the requirement that plaintiffs complete
questionnaires regarding their claims by September 10, 2004.  No
trial date has been set.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Entran II Lawsuit Settlement Expanded, Modified
--------------------------------------------------------------
Homeowners in the U.S. and Canada with leaking and defective
radiant heating systems that use a particular rubber hose are
eligible to benefit from a proposed class action settlement. The
proposed Class Action Settlement was recently expanded and
modified to offer greater relief than originally proposed and to
include all US homeowners, US Newswire reports.

The hose, Entran II, is orange rubber and stamped with the name
"Heatway" or "Heatway Systems." It is put in floors or driveways
to carry warm water that provides warmth and melts snow. The
majority of the hose was sold and/or installed between 1989-
1995.

The Settlement Fund, expanded and now totaling $300 million, is
the result of the proposed settlement of a class action
certified by Federal District Court Judge Stanley R. Chesler of
the District of New Jersey. The settlement affects both
Americans and Canadians who have suffered damage from radiant
heating systems with Entran II hose, and now includes the New
England states of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, and Connecticut. Currently the Court-approved
notice program is underway to inform consumers nationwide of the
expanded proposed Settlement.

An interactive Web site, http://www.entraniisettlement.com,
includes the complete notice form, claim form, and other Court
documents. There is also a "Frequently Asked Questions" section,
as well as information, pictures, and a video clip to assist
homeowners in identifying Entran II hose. Homeowners with a
radiant heating system with Entran II hose are encouraged to
call 1-800-254-9222 or visit www.entraniisettlement.com to get
complete information on the proposed Settlement.

"I would encourage all homeowners who believe they may have
Entran II hose to look into this matter. It is worth visiting
the Web site or calling to get complete information regarding
the options Class Members have," said Class Counsel Jonathan
Cuneo.

The Entran II lawsuit brought on behalf of homeowners alleges
the Defendant manufactured a defective product in Entran II and
that the hose is prone to leaking when used under normal
conditions. The Defendant, Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., has
denied all allegations and maintains the hose works as intended
if properly maintained and used as directed.

The Court will determine if the settlement is fair and
reasonable in proceedings scheduled for October 19, 2004. Class
Members wishing to remain in the Class need not act now, but
those wishing to file a claim must do so by October 19, 2009.
Claim forms are available on the Web site. Any Class Members who
wish to exclude themselves must do so by September 10, 2004.

"Other home owners who may have experienced a leak with their
Entran II hose should look into this because it offers them a
way to get compensation," said Class Member Greg Muse.

For more details, contact Tim McHugh Entran II settlement
administrator by Phone: 202-686-4111 or 1-800-254-9222 or visit
the settlement Web site: http://www.entraniisettlement.com


HALLWOOD REALTY: Reaches Settlement For DE Shareholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hallwood Realty LLC (General Partner) reached a settlement for
the class action filed against it, its directors and Hallwood
Realty Partners, LP (HRP) as nominal defendant by three
purported unitholders of HRP in the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware, styled "I.G. Holdings, Inc., et al, v.
Hallwood Realty LLC, et al, (C.A. No. 20283)."

The action asserts that in allegedly refusing to consider the
High River tender offer, the defendants are not acting in good
faith and are deriving an improper personal benefit in impeding
a potential removal of the Company or a sale of control of HRP,
in breach of their fiduciary duties under the partnership
agreement.  The action further asserts that HRP's Schedule 14D-9
issued in response to the High River tender offer fails to
disclose material information relating to the General Partner's
recommendation regarding the offer.

The complaint seeks as relief an order requiring the General
Partner to consider the High River tender offer, an order
preventing the General Partner or its affiliates from acquiring
units or otherwise improperly entrenching the General Partner or
impeding a transaction that would maximize value for the public
unitholders, an order directing the defendants to use the Rights
Plan fairly and disclose all material information in connection
with the tender offer and the General Partner's recommendations
and conclusions with respect thereto, and damages.

This matter was coordinated with the action was filed against
the General Partner, its directors and HRP as nominal defendant
by High River Limited Partnership, which is indirectly wholly
owned by Carl C. Icahn, in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, styled "High River Limited Partnership v. Hallwood
Realty, LLC, et al, (C.A. No. 20276)."

On October 7 and 8, 2003, a trial in the two coordinated actions
was held in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  Subsequent to the
trial, the Delaware Court of Chancery held several status
conferences relating to these matters.  On February 10, 2004,
plaintiffs in C.A. No. 20283 moved to amend their complaint to
add claims challenging the potential allocation of consideration
between the Company and its affiliates on one hand, and the
public unitholders on the other, that would result upon the sale
or merger of HRP, by alleging that the Company and its principal
stockholder have breached their fiduciary duties by demanding
more than 1% of the merger consideration.

On February 11, 2004, the Court granted class plaintiff's motion
to amend their complaint to add these claims.  At a status
conference held with the Court on April 2, 2004, the Court ruled
that a trial in the coordinated actions would be continued,
commencing on May 17, 2004.  At a status conference on May 3,
2004, the Court postponed trial at the request of plaintiffs in
the coordinated actions.

On June 30, 2004, the parties to the "I. G. Holdings, Inc., et
al. v. Hallwood Realty, LLC, et al.," action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding providing for the settlement of that
putative class action.  As contemplated by the Memorandum of
Understanding, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Compromise, Settlement and Release on July 29,
2004.  Pursuant to the Stipulation of Settlement, the parties
agreed that the action would be certified, for purposes of
settlement only, as a class action consisting of all record and
beneficial owners of partnership interests in HRP (other than
defendants and their affiliates and associates) on July 16,
2004, the effective date of the merger, that the action would be
dismissed with prejudice, and that plaintiffs could make an
application for attorneys' fees and expenses in an amount not to
exceed $2.5 million.

Defendants agreed not to oppose the fee application.  With
respect to any fees and expenses awarded by the Court of
Chancery, the first $2 million of such amount would be paid by
defendants' insurer and the balance of the amount awarded by the
court, if any, shall be paid from a $500,000 fund escrowed from
the merger consideration pursuant to a court order dated July
15, 2004.  A hearing on the proposed settlement has been
scheduled for October 25, 2004.


ILLINOIS: Judge Rules That Medicaid Program Violates Federal Law
----------------------------------------------------------------
Following a four-week trial, U.S. District Judge Joan Lefkow has
ruled that the state's Medicaid program violated federal law by
not providing proper access to health care services for roughly
600,000 children in Cook County, the Quad City Times reports.

In her 102-page opinion the judge, ruled in favor of the
plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit that accuses the Illinois
Department of Public Aid of violating the rights of Medicaid-
eligible youngsters in the county where Chicago is located.

The judge pointed out that the state's Medicaid program does not
provide Cook County children with access to health care services
equal to that of youngsters covered by private insurance, and
that the program comes up short in providing basic services such
as wellness screenings and immunizations.

Federal law requires state Medicaid programs to provide certain
routine preventive health care services, such as regular
checkups, and mandates that states provide children access to
health care services equal to that of the general population.

Judge Lefkow in her ruling also cited trial testimony that
pointed to low payments to doctors as a key reason for the
problem, she further cited that Illinois' Medicaid payments to
doctors are so low compared to private insurers or Medicare that
doctors are no longer willing to see Medicaid patients.

According to Mike Klaffey, spokesman for the Department of
Public Aid, who couldn't comment on the legal aspects of the
case because it is ongoing, stated that much of the data
presented during the trial was from 1998 through 2001, and
doesn't reflect improvements to the state's health care system
under Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich.


KATY INDUSTRIES: TX Court Dismisses Suit For CERCLA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Marshall Division dismissed a class action filed against
Katy Industries, Inc. alleging trespass, negligence and
nuisance.

Initially, a purported class action was filed by twenty
individuals in the same court on behalf of "landowners and
persons who reside and/or work in" an identified geographical
area surrounding the W.J. Smith Wood Preserving facility in
Denison, Texas.  The lawsuit purported to allege claims under
state law for negligence, trespass, nuisance and assault and
battery.  It sought damages for personal injury and property
damage, as well as punitive damages.  The suit named as the
Company and:

     (1) Union Pacific Corporation,

     (2) Union Pacific Railroad Company, and

     (3) W.J. Smith Wood Preserving Company, Inc.

On June 10, 2002, the Company and W.J. Smith filed a motion to
dismiss the case for lack of federal jurisdiction, or in the
alternative, to transfer the case to the Sherman Division.  In
response, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend the
complaint to add a federal claim under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act.  On July 30, 2002, the court dismissed
plaintiffs' lawsuit in its entirety.

On July 31, 2002, plaintiffs filed a new lawsuit against the
same defendants, again in the Marshall Division of the Eastern
District of Texas, alleging property damage class action claims
under the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), as well as state common
law theories.

While Plaintiffs' counsel confirmed that Plaintiffs were no
longer seeking class-wide relief for personal injury claims,
certain Plaintiffs continued to allege individual common law
claims for personal injury.  The Company deposed all of the
proposed class representatives and on October 31, 2003, filed a
motion for summary judgment on the grounds that the court lacks
jurisdiction and that Plaintiffs' claims are barred by the
applicable statute of limitations.  Plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification on the property damage claims on that
date as well.  By Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 8,
2004, the Court granted the Company's Motion for Summary
Judgment on the federal jurisdictional claim and dismissed the
case.


KIA MOTORS: Owners' Group To File Consumer Fraud Suit Over SUVs
---------------------------------------------------------------
326 members of online sports utility vehicles owners
cafedaum.net/04sorentorecall are filing a class action against
Kia Motors Corporation (KSE:000270), demanding refunds for the
2004 model Sorento SUVs, which are being recalled due to faulty
five-speed transmissions, the Asia Intelligence Wire reports.

The lawsuit against South Korea's second-largest automaker and
Hyundai Motor Company affiliate, which seeks refunds would be
the nation's largest class action suit filed against an
automaker for damages on defective automobiles.

In their petition the group stated, "We bought the cars, falling
prey to exaggerated advertisements that the model had the best
performance and safety features, but incurred damages due to
fatal defects. We want Kia to return our money."

Legal observers pointed out that if the petitioners win the
lawsuit, Kia may wound up paying as much as 9 billion won
(US$7.8 million) in damages.

The online owners' group stated that they were prompted to file
the lawsuit when the automaker decided in June to recall 21,850
Sorentos manufactured between December 13, 2003 and April 6,
2004 after a series of complaints from owners.

However, Kia argues that with no additional problems with the
SUVs, the customers have gone too far in seeking to file a
lawsuit. According to a Kia Motor official who spoke on
condition anonymity, "We did our best to meet our customers'
needs by conducting a recall, it seems to be too much for them
to file a lawsuit when we are doing everything we can for their
satisfaction."

The group countered such statements by official by pointing out
that the consumer protection law in South Korea states that the
occurrence of a fatal flaw in a car within a month from purchase
constitutes an acceptable basis to demand a refund or exchange.


KMART CORPORATION: MI Court Grants Certification To ERISA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan granted class certification to a lawsuit filed against
certain of Kmart Corporation's current and former employees and
former directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of participants or beneficiaries of
the Kmart Corporation Retirement Savings Plan, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) for:

     (1) excessive investment in the Company's stock;

     (2) failure to provide complete and accurate information
         about the Company's common stock; and

     (3) failure to provide accurate information regarding the
         Company's financial condition

Subsequently, amended complaints were filed that added
additional current and former employees and former directors of
the Company as defendants.  The Company is not a defendant in
this litigation.

On July 29, 2002, the plaintiffs filed proofs of claim with the
Court in an aggregate amount equal to $180 million.  On August
20, 2003, the defendants' motion to dismiss the purported class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan was denied.


LIBERATE TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Liberate Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit is based on the Company's announcements in October and
November 2002 that it would restate its financial results for
fiscal 2002 and that it was investigating other periods.  The
suit generally alleges, among other things, that members of the
purported class were damaged when they acquired the Company's
securities because, as a result of accounting irregularities,
its previously issued financial statements were materially false
and misleading, and caused the price of our securities to be
inflated artificially.  The suit further alleges that, as a
result of this conduct, the defendants violated Section 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule
10b-5, promulgated thereunder.  The Class Action seeks
unspecified monetary damages and other relief from all Class
Action Defendants.

The Company has entered into a memorandum of understanding with
counsel for the Class Action plaintiffs to settle the Class
Action for a payment of $13.8 million.  The proposed settlement
is subject to and will be effective only if and when, among
other things, the parties execute final settlement documents and
obtain approval from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of California and the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California.


NATIONAL COMMERCE: Settles Shareholder Suits V. SunTrust Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Commerce Financial Corporation (NYSE: NCF) agreed
in principle to settle the previously disclosed purported
shareholder class action lawsuits pending against NCF
challenging the proposed merger between NCF and SunTrust Banks,
Inc. (NYSE: STI)

"We have agreed to the settlement of the class action litigation
pending against us to eliminate the burden and expense of
further litigation," said William R. Reed, Jr., president and
chief executive officer of NCF.

In the settlement, SunTrust will agree to waive its right to
receive any portion of the termination fee payable under the
merger agreement in excess of $204,000,000. In addition, NCF has
agreed to publicly announce additional information regarding the
merger in a Form 8-K to be filed with the SEC.

Under the terms of the settlement, all claims relating to the
merger agreement, the proposed merger and disclosures related
thereto will be dismissed and released on behalf of the
settlement class. The settlement is subject to approval by the
court in which the consolidated actions are pending. Upon
approval of the proposed settlement by the court, plaintiff's
attorneys are expected to apply for an award of attorneys' fees
and expenses.

"We are pleased to put this matter behind us," said Mr. Reed.
"We can focus on our shareholder meeting to be held on September
15, 2004 and then to the completion of what we expect will be a
highly successful merger of two great financial services
companies."


NBO SYSTEMS: IL Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit Over Gift Cards
--------------------------------------------------------------
NBO Systems, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the
Illinois State Court in St. Clair County in connection with gift
cards sold at the St. Clair Square Mall in St. Clair County,
Illinois.

On February 13, 2004, Thomas Ripperda, et al, filed the suit
alleged that the term "valid thru" appearing on the face of the
gift card next to the expiration date of the gift card is
misleading.  The plaintiff seeks a return of all administrative
fees charged against his gift card prior to the "valid thru"
date.

The plaintiff has not yet moved to certify a class.  If a class
were certified, then the plaintiff would seek to recover similar
fees with respect to all gift cards that the Company sold, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


NET PERCEPTIONS: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal of MN Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the dismissal
of a class action filed against Net Perceptions, Inc., its
current directors and several unnamed defendants.

The suit was filed in the District Court, Fourth Judicial
District, of the State of Minnesota, County of Hennepin and is
captioned "Don Blakstad, on Behalf of Himself and All others
Similarly Situated, vs. Net Perceptions, Inc., John F. Kennedy,
Ann L. Winblad, John T. Riedl and Does 1-25, inclusive, File No.
03-17820."  The complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
independence, good faith and fair dealing and sought to enjoin
the proposed liquidation of the Company and to recover
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

On November 24, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, and by order dated March 8, 2004, the court dismissed
the complaint with prejudice.  By letter dated March 9, 2004,
the plaintiff requested the court's permission to file a motion
to reconsider the decision dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.  On March 18, 2004, the court denied the plaintiff's
request.  On April 9, 2004, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal and statement of the case with the Court of Appeals of
the State of Minnesota and, on April 22, 2004, defendants filed
their statement of the case with the Court of Appeals.  In June
2004 plaintiffs informed counsel for defendants of their desire
to dismiss the appeal, and, on June 3, 2004, the parties
submitted to the Court of Appeals a stipulation of voluntary
dismissal "without any right to further appeal."  The Court of
Appeals dismissed the appeal by order dated June 8, 2004.


NIKE INC.: Employees Lodge Race Discrimination Suit in IL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Niketown store on Chicago's Magnificent Mile faces an
amended federal lawsuit charging the store with discriminating
against African-American employees by segregating them into jobs
in the stockroom and denying them promotions to higher-paying
sales positions, Chicago Tribune reports.

The suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago,
stated that the store, owned by Nike Inc., employed 63 stockroom
workers between January 2001 and May 2003, 46 of whom were
African Americans and three were Caucasian. The suit also stated
that the starting hourly wage was less than $8 an hour.

The suit further stated that during the same time period, eight
of the 33 "commissioned sales specialists" were African American
and 23 were Caucasian, the sales specialists often earned three
to four times as much as a stockroom employee.

The 15 plaintiffs, who are current and former Niketown
employees, are seeking class-action status for their claims,
covering up to 200 people. They are also seeking an unspecified
amount of damages that includes lost wages and benefits. The
suit was filed in.

The plaintiffs also contend that even though many worked 40
hours a week, they were not considered fulltime employees and
therefore were denied benefits such as paid vacation and health
and dental insurance. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that
they were subject to a racially hostile work environment. The
plaintiffs further stated that despite complaints of harassment
to numerous managers, Nike failed to respond.

Two former employees who tried to represent themselves filed the
original complaint last December. A district court judge later
assigned the case to Noelle Brennan, a former attorney with the
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission now in private
practice.


NUI CORPORATION: Discovery Commences in NJ Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against NUI Corporation and certain of its officers
in the United States District Court of the District of New
Jersey.

Between October 28, 2002 and December 20, 2002, five
substantially similar civil actions were commenced, alleging
that the company and two of its former presidents violated
Federal securities laws by issuing false statements and failing
to disclose information regarding the company's financial
condition and current and future financial prospects in its
earnings statements, press releases, and in statements to
analysts and others.

By orders dated December 19, 2002, January 22, 2003, and
February 3, 2003, the five actions were consolidated into one
action captioned "In re NUI Securities Litigation."  The five
consolidated lawsuits include:

     (1) an action captioned "Jack Klebanow, on behalf of
         himself and all others similarly situated v. NUI
         Corporation and John Kean, Jr.," filed in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
         October 28, 2002;

     (2) an action captioned "Gisela Friedman, on behalf of
         herself and all others similarly situated v. NUI
         Corporation and John Kean, Jr.," filed in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
         October 31, 2002;

     (3) an action captioned "Thomas Davis, on behalf of himself
         and all others similarly situated v. NUI Corporation
         and John Kean, Jr.," filed in the United States
         District Court for the District of New Jersey on
         November 6, 2002;

     (4) an action captioned "Marvin E. Russell, on behalf of
         himself and all others similarly situated v. NUI
         Corporation and John Kean, Jr.," filed in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
         December 10, 2002; and

     (5) an action captioned "Phyllis Waltzer, on behalf of
         herself and all others similarly situated v. NUI
         Corporation and John Kean, Jr.," filed in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
         December 20, 2002

By order dated February 3, 2003, a Lead Plaintiff, Lead Counsel
and Liaison Counsel were appointed in the consolidated action.
By stipulation of the parties, an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint was filed on May 12, 2003, and
subsequently plaintiffs were granted leave to file a Second
Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, which was filed on
July 17, 2003.

The Second Amended Complaint, brought on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of NUI's common stock between November 8,
2001 and October 17, 2002, asserts claims under Section 10(b),
including Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a)
of the Exchange Act against the company and two of its former
presidents.

Specifically, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose material facts and materially
inflated the company's earnings by allegedly making misleading
statements concerning, and failing to properly record, bad debt
costs, and recording revenues from a purportedly illegal
"reterminating" billing practice allegedly engaged in by its
former subsidiary.  The Second Amended Complaint seeks
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the class, including
costs and attorneys fees.

On October 14, 2003, defendants moved to dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint under, inter alia, the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.  The motion was heard on March 15, 2004.
By decision and order dated April 23, 2004, the district court
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The district court dismissed the Section 10(b) claims
against the individual defendants and dismissed all claims
against the company concerning the alleged "reterminating"
scheme.

The district court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to
certain allegations that the company made misleading
misstatements concerning the accurate level of bad debt and
earnings and denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a)
claims against the individual defendants.  Defendants filed an
Answer to the Second Amended Complaint on May 10, 2004 denying
any wrong doing and asserting affirmative defenses.


NUI CORPORATION: Plan Holders Launch ERISA Violations Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
NUI Corporation faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, styled "Joseph
Pietrangelo, on behalf of himself and a class of persons
similarly situated v. NUI Corporation, John Kean, John Kean Jr.,
Mark Abramovic, James R. Van Horn, Thomas W. Williams, Charles
N. Garber, James J. Forese, Dr. Vera King Farris, J. Russell
Hawkins, Bernard S. Lee, R. V. Whisnand, and John Winthrop."

The suit makes claims for breach of fiduciary duty under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  The Plaintiff
alleges that the company and twelve current or former officers
and/or directors breached alleged fiduciary duties owed to the
employee participants of the NUI Corporation Savings and
Investment Plan for Collective Bargaining Employees and the NUI
Corporation Savings and Investment Plan for other company
employees (collectively, the Plans).

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to
disclose, and made false and misleading statements concerning,
the true level of the company's bad debt, the true level of the
company's earnings per share, the accurate status and
contribution of the company's energy trading business and
other allegedly material operating and accounting issues, all of
which allegedly caused the company's stock to trade at
artificially inflated prices.

As a result, Plaintiff alleges, Defendants breached various
fiduciary duties allegedly owed to participants of the Plans
under ERISA, and engaged in a prohibited transaction under
Section 404 of ERISA, by purportedly:

     (1) selecting and maintaining a stock fund consisting of
         company shares (the NUI Stock Fund) as an investment
         alternative in the Plans when it allegedly was no
         longer suitable and prudent,

     (2) encouraging employees to invest in the NUI Stock Fund,

     (3) continuing to invest in, and failing to divest the
         Plans from, the NUI Stock Fund when it allegedly became
         an imprudent investment,

     (4) abdicating a purported duty to review, evaluate and
         monitor the suitability of the Plans' investment in the
         NUI Stock Fund and

     (5) failing to provide accurate, material information to
         the Plans' participants concerning the NUI Stock Fund

Plaintiff purports to bring a putative class action on behalf of
all participants or beneficiaries of the Plans from November 11,
2001 through and including September 26, 2003.


PIRANHA INC.: SEC Lodges TX Suit For Fraud, Market-Manipulation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil lawsuit in
federal district court in Dallas, Texas, alleging an accounting-
fraud and market-manipulation scheme involving the stock of
Piranha, Inc., a development-stage technology company formerly
traded on the OTC Bulletin Board. The SEC alleges that the
scheme was orchestrated by Piranha's former CFO and principal
shareholder Richard S. Berger, 70, of Chicago, Illinois, and the
company's former CEO Edward W. Sample, 53, of Plano, Texas.

According to the SEC's complaint, Piranha issued numerous
misleading press releases, during 2000 and 2001, presenting the
company as a promising software-technology company with the
potential for huge earnings when, in truth, the company never
developed a commercially marketable product and generated
virtually no revenue. Piranha is also alleged to have filed
false reports with the SEC that materially overstated the value
of the company's principal asset, a mathematical algorithm from
which the company intended to develop various software products.
These reports also failed to disclose and wrongly accounted for
$675,000 that Berger allegedly misappropriated from the company.
During the scheme, Piranha's stock price reached $65 per share,
giving the company a market capitalization of over $596 million
within just four months of its inception. The complaint also
alleges that Berger profited from the scheme by selling more
than $1.5 million of Piranha shares individually and through his
wife, Linda A. Shaughnessy, of Chicago, Illinois, who acted as
his nominee in selling the shares.

The SEC's complaint alleges that Piranha, Berger, and Sample
violated the anti-fraud provisions of the federal securities
laws found in Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5; that Berger violated Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933; that Piranha, aided and abetted by
Berger and Sample, violated the issuer-reporting and internal-
controls provisions found in Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, and 13a-13; that Berger
and Sample violated Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 13b2-1, which prohibit falsifying books and records of SEC
reporting companies; and that Berger violated Exchange Act Rule
13b2-2 by making false statements to an accountant.

The SEC is seeking permanent injunctions against Piranha,
Berger, and Sample, civil penalties and officer-and-director
bars against Berger and Sample, and disgorgement plus
prejudgment interest against Berger. The SEC also named
Shaughnessy as a relief defendant, solely for the purpose of
seeking disgorgement of the proceeds from her stock  sales.
Finally, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, Sample consented to the entry of a permanent
injunction; a five-year officer-and-director bar; and a $25,000
civil penalty. Sample's settlement is subject to Court approval.
The action is titled, SEC v. Piranha, Inc., et al., Civil Action
No. 3:04-CV-1829-N, USDC, NDTX (Dallas Division) (LR-18842; AAE
Rel. 2084).


PIZZA HUT: Drivers Launch CA Suit V. Work Expenses Reimbursement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven lawyers representing delivery driver Franklin Castillo
filed a lawsuit seeking class action status in the Superior
Court of the State of California (Los Angeles) claiming Pizza
Hut, Inc. failed to reimburse him fully for work-related auto
expenses, the Pizza Marketplace.com reports.

The 14-page complaint also accuses Pizza Hut of not providing
adequate meal and rest breaks and not paying him mandated two-
hour shift minimums when he was sent home early.

According to the complaint, Mr. Castillo receives 50 cents per
delivery run, which he alleges is well below the actual cost he
absorbs operating his personal vehicle on behalf of Pizza Hut.

Mr. Castillo's attorneys are confident that the suit will become
a class action representing as many as 1,000 Pizza Hut drivers
working the chain's 270 California units.

However, Pizza Hut senior vice president and general counsel
Robert Millen called the suit "a head-scratcher" and stated the
company will move quickly to have it dismissed. He further
stated, "As I understand it, the plaintiff's class action
attorneys have literally cooked up a theory where they believe
the drivers are owed more money. I don't know of any legal
support for that. It seems to be in defiance of the (Internal
Revenue Service) regulations on this issue, as well as the well-
established practice in this industry for the past 20 years."

Gary Soter, one of Castillo's lawyers, agreed it's a common
pizza industry practice to pay drivers 50 cents per order, but
he called the practice illegal and states, "It violates
California law. California law requires employers to reimburse
employees for all expenses necessarily incurred in the direct
discharge of their responsibilities. Fifty cents per delivery
doesn't cover that. Companies know it, and they've been under-
reimbursing their drivers for years."

According to Sebastopol, California, attorney Pete Singler, a
12-unit Round Table Pizza franchisee, who also represents
franchisees from other pizza chains he disagrees with Soter's
claim that California laws mandate full reimbursement for all
auto-related expenses. He points out that pizza operators have
two basic ways to reimburse drivers who use their personal
vehicles for work: paying them a straight, per-mile rate based
on the IRS's minimum of 36.5 cents; or a set amount per
delivery. The latter, he added, can be troublesome to calculate.


QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Plaintiffs to File Consolidated Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are expected to file a consolidated amended complaint
against Quality Distribution, Inc. this week in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa
Division.

On February 24, 2004, a putative class action lawsuit titled,
"Meigs v. Quality Distribution, Inc., et al.," was filed against
the Company, Thomas L. Finkbiner, the Company's President, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board, and Samuel M.
Hensley, the Company's Senior Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer.  The plaintiff purports to represent a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock traceable to its
November 2003 initial public offering.

The complaint alleges that, in connection with the IPO, the
Company filed a registration statement with the SEC that
incorporated a materially false or misleading prospectus.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus
materially overstated the Company's financial results for the
years ended December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, and the nine
months ended September 30, 2003.  In addition, the complaint
alleges that these financial statements were not prepared
consistently with generally accepted accounting principles.

Accordingly, it asserts claims (and seeks unspecified damages)
against all defendants based on the alleged violations of
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and against Mr.
Finkbiner and Mr. Hensley as "control persons," under the
Securities Act's Section 15 by virtue of their positions at the
Company.

On May 11, 2004, the Court consolidated "Meigs" with a
substantially identical action titled "Cochran v. Quality
Distribution, Inc.," also pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.  On June 28, 2004, the
Court appointed Jemmco Investment Management LLC as lead
plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.  Plaintiffs must file a consolidated amended complaint on
or before August 27, 2004.

A second suit, "Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement
Security Funds v. Quality Distribution, Inc., et al.," was filed
in the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Hillsborough County, Florida, on March 26, 2004.  In
addition to the Company, Mr. Finkbiner and Mr. Hensley, the suit
names as defendants the other signatories to the registration
statement, namely:

     (1) Anthony R. Ignaczak,

     (2) Joshua J. Harris,

     (3) Michael D. Weiner,

     (4) Marc J. Rowan,

     (5) Marc E. Becker,

     (6) Donald C. Orris,

     (7) Credit Suisse First Boston LLC,

     (8) Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc., and

     (9) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.

The Steamfitters complaint alleges substantially identical facts
to those in the Meigs complaint and also includes the same
claims, plus an additional claim for rescission or damages based
on an alleged violation of Section 12 of the Securities Act.  On
April 28, 2004, the defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, where
Meigs was already pending.  On May 28, 2004, Steamfitters moved
to remand the case to state court.  On June 25, 2004, the court
remanded the case to state court.  Defendants filed a notice of
appeal of the court's remand order on July 23, 2004.  Plaintiff
moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on August
6, 2004.  That motion is currently being briefed to the Eleventh
Circuit.  The parties have agreed that the defendants' response
to the complaint is currently due on or before October 31, 2004.


QUOVADX INC.: Asks CO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quovadx, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado to dismiss the class action filed against
it, styled "Smith v. Quovadx, Inc. et al, Case No. 04-M-0509."
The suit also names as defendants its now-former Chief Executive
Officer and its now-former Chief Financial Officer.

The complaint alleged violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased Quovadx
common stock from October 22, 2003 through March 15, 2004.  The
claims are based upon allegations the Company:

     (1) purportedly overstated its net income and earnings per
         share during the class period,

     (2) purportedly recognized revenue from contracts between
         the Company and Infotech Networks Group prematurely,
         and

     (3) purportedly lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the financial condition
         of the Company.

Eight additional, nearly identical class action complaints were
filed in the same Court based on the same facts and allegations.
The actions seek damages against the defendants in an
unspecified amount.  On May 17 and 18, 2004, the Company filed
motions to dismiss each of the complaints.  Also on May 17,
2004, several potential lead plaintiffs filed motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff in the cases.  On May 21, 2004,
the Court entered an order denying consolidation of the actions
and directing that all discovery and other proceedings
(including the appointment of a lead plaintiff) are stayed
pending determination of the motions to dismiss.

Since then, all but one of the actions, entitled "Heller v.
Quovadx, Inc., et al., Case No. 04-M-0665 (OES) (D. Colo.),"
have been dismissed.  The plaintiff in "Heller" has filed a
first amended complaint, which asserts the same claims as those
asserted in the original complaint, and includes allegations
regarding the Company's accounting for certain additional
transactions.


QUOVADX INC.: Rogue Wave Shareholders Launch CO Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quovadx, Inc. faces a class action complaint filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado, entitled
"Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc. et al, Case No. 04-M-1006 (OES)."
The suit also names as defendants its now-former Chief Executive
Officer, its now-former Chief Financial Officer and its Board of
Directors.

The complaint alleged violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, purportedly on behalf of
all former shareholders of Rogue Wave Software, Inc. who
acquired Quovadx common stock in connection with the Company's
exchange offer effective December 19, 2003.  The claims are
based upon the same theories and allegations as asserted in the
Section 10(b) class actions described in the Smith v. Quovadx
suit filed in the same court.

The Court denied plaintiff's motion to consolidate this Section
11 action with the Section 10(b) cases and authorized the two
competing lead plaintiff candidates to take discovery of each
other in advance of a hearing on the appointment of lead
plaintiff.  On July 14, 2004, the Company filed an answer to the
Section 11 complaint, denying allegations of wrongdoing and
asserting various affirmative defenses.  The individual
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Section 11 complaint.


ROYAL DUTCH: SEC Imposes $120M Fine in TX Civil Suit V. Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted cease-and-
desist proceedings against foreign-based oil companies Royal
Dutch Petroleum Company ("Royal Dutch") and The "Shell"
Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c. ("Shell Transport" and,
together with Royal Dutch, "Shell") and simultaneously accepted
their offer of settlement in which they consented, without
admitting or denying the Commission's substantive findings, to
an order to cease and desist from future violations of the
antifraud, internal controls, record-keeping and reporting
provisions of the federal securities laws. The companies also
have undertaken to commit an additional $5 million to fund
comprehensive internal compliance programs to strengthen their
reserves estimation and reporting practices, and have committed
to continue cooperating with the Commission's ongoing
investigation.

The Commission also filed a civil complaint against Royal Dutch
and Shell Transport in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas, Houston Division, seeking a $120 million
civil penalty and nominal $1 disgorgement. Without admitting or
denying the Commission's allegations, the companies have
consented to pay these amounts. As provided in the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, the Commission's staff intends to ask the
District Court to place the penalty amount into a disgorgement
fund for the benefit of injured investors.

According to the Commission, Shell knowingly or recklessly
overstated its proved hydrocarbon reserves by 4.47 billion
barrels, or 23% of the total proved reserves Shell originally
reported in its Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002.
As a result, Shell's standardized measure of future cash flows
disclosed in that filing was overstated by $6.6 billion. The
Commission's order also finds, and the complaint alleges, that,
for the years 1998 through 2002, Shell materially misstated its
reserves replacement ratio ("RRR"), a key performance indicator
in the oil and gas industry. Had Shell properly reported proved
reserves, its RRR for the one-, three- and five-year periods
through 2002 would have been materially different from what it
originally reported. According to the Commission, Royal Dutch's
and Shell Transport's filings with the Commission and press
releases during this period were materially false and
misleading. The action is titled, SEC v. Royal Dutch Petroleum
Company and The "Shell" Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c.,
Civil  Action  No.  H-04-3359, U.S.D.C./Southern District of
Texas (Houston Division)]  (LR-18844; AAE Rel. 2086); In the
Matter of Royal Dutch Petroleum Company and The "Shell"
Transport and Trading Company, p.l.c., Exchange Act Rel. 34-
50233; AAE Rel. 2085; File No. 3-11595).


SHOE PAVILION: CA Court Approves Overtime Wage Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California granted
final approval to the settlement of the class action filed
against Shoe Pavilion, Inc. by one of its store managers who
asserted that he and all other store managers in California were
improperly classified as "exempt" employees under California's
wage and hour laws and therefore are entitled to overtime wages.

The suit seeks class action status on behalf of all store
managers in California was subsequently filed with the court.
The Company denied the plaintiff's claims and filed an answer
challenging class certification.

In December 2003, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement of the lawsuit.  Under the terms of the agreement,
which required court approval, the Company would pay store
managers a stipulated cash settlement based upon the number of
weeks worked for the period from April 1, 1998 through December
31, 2003.

Any appeal from the court order must be filed by September 13,
2004.  Payments are due under the settlement agreement only if
no appeal is filed and then must be made within 90 days of July
15, 2004.


SINOFRESH HEALTHCARE: FL Court Stays Shareholder Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
SinoFresh Healthcare, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division to stay
all the proceedings in the litigation filed against it, styled
"Hawkins, et al. v. Charles Fust, et al., Case No. 04-CV-95-FTM-
29 SPC."

Certain shareholders of the Company, including Charles Fust,
Stacey Maloney-Fust and P. Robert DuPont who are also officers
and directors of the Company, voted by written consent to remove
Stephen Bannon and David Otto as directors and officers of the
Company.  The decision to remove Mr. Bannon and Mr. Otto was
made after it became apparent that they were not investigating
certain improprieties that may have occurred as a result of
actions of Sargon Capital, Inc. and Andrew Badolato, a former
officer and director of the Company's predecessor and
a consultant to the Company. (Upon the request of Mr. Fust, Mr.
DuPont and Ms. Maloney-Fust, the Board earlier had formed a
committee comprised of Mr. Otto, Mr. Bannon and Mr. DuPont to
investigate the matters regarding Sargon Capital, Inc. and Mr.
Badolato.)  Mr. Bannon and Otto were notified by letter dated
January 30, 2004 that they had been removed as directors.  On
February 9, 2004, Mr. Fust, Mr. DuPont, Mr. Otto, Mr. Bannon and
Ms. Maloney-Fust received a letter from an attorney representing
Andrew Badolato, Sargon Capital, Inc. and four shareholders
(including Michael Hawkins, a director or other affiliate of
Sargon Capital, Inc.) alleging various breaches of fiduciary
duty and self-dealing purportedly committed by Mr. Fust, Mr.
DuPont and Ms. Maloney-Fust, and demanding an investigation and
a report within 30 days.

The suit, filed March 3, 2004 which merely changed allegations
directed toward the location where the action may be heard and
noted that the Company is a Florida corporation.  This legal
proceeding was moved to the U.S. District Court located in Ft.
Myers to the district court in Tampa, Florida.  The plaintiffs
include Stephen Bannon and David Otto, directors of the Company,
as well as other purported shareholders of the Company.  The
defendants are Charles Fust, Stacey Maloney Fust, Robert DuPont,
Russell R. Lee, III, and SinoFresh HealthCare, Inc.

The complaint alleges that it is a class action suit claiming
federal securities law violations, breach of fiduciary duty,
rescission of certain acts and contracts of the Company, and an
accounting and constructive trust, being brought by the lead
plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all persons in a class
(other than the defendants) who purchased the Company's publicly
traded shares between January 1, 2003 and February 19, 2004;
however, the lawsuit was not certified as a class action suit.
The complaint essentially contained the same allegations as
in the above-described demand letter.

In June 2004, the plaintiffs filed a corrected second amended
complaint in the U.S. District Court, Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, Case No. 8:04-CV-490-T-30MSS.  This
complaint notes the Company as a nominal defendant and adds the
Company's corporate counsel as additional defendants (seeking
compensatory damages, including reimbursement of legal fees paid
by the Company).  The complaint alleges that it is a derivative
suit, includes the same allegations as in the original
complaint, and also alleges, among other things, inadequate
disclosure by the defendants in SEC filings regarding related
party transactions and regarding Mr. Fust's beneficial ownership
(wherein Mr. Fust reported ownership of an additional 1,000,000
shares Crown IV Holdings portends to own), all for the alleged
purpose of the defendants maintaining control of the Company.

In this complaint the plaintiffs request, among other things,
that the Court appoint a special monitor during the pendency of
the litigation with authority to conduct investigations and
issue a report to the Court; that the Court enjoin the defendant
directors from "committing certain violations of Federal
securities laws;" and from taking certain actions, including
using corporate funds for the defense of the directors in the
suit, conducting transactions in the Company's stock and
soliciting proxies for a 2004 annual meeting.

In June 2004, the Company filed a motion with the Court
requesting the Court to appoint an independent person to make a
good faith determination, after conducting a reasonable
investigation, as to whether it is in the best interests of the
Company to maintain the shareholder derivative suit, and
requesting a stay of all proceedings in the case until the
results of the investigation are provided to the Court.


TELECOMUNICACIONES DE PUERTO RICO: Appeals Suit Discovery Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
Telecomunicaciones de Puerto Rico (PRTC) filed a writ of
certiorari with the Puerto Rico Court of Appeals seeking
reversal of the Superior Court's order allowing unlimited
discovery including class certification in the class action
filed against it by its subscribers.

On November 17, 2003, six residential subscribers and eight
business service subscribers filed the suit in the Superior
Court of Puerto Rico under the Puerto Rico Telecommunications
Act of 1996 and the Puerto Rico Class Action Act of 1971.  The
plaintiffs have claimed that the Company's charges for touchtone
service are not based on cost, and are therefore in violation of
the Act.  The plaintiffs have requested that the Superior Court:

     (1) issue an order certifying the case as a class action,

     (2) designate the plaintiffs as representative of the
         class,

     (3) find that the charges are illegal, and

     (4) order the Company to reimburse every subscriber for
         excess payments made since September 1996

On December 30, 2003, the Company filed its answer to the
complaint and requested dismissal on the grounds that the claim
is not a legitimate class action suit.  On February 17, 2004,
the plaintiffs filed their first set of interrogatories and
request for admissions to initiate discovery.  PRTC will ask the
Superior Court to first decide the threshold issue of class
certification.  On February 23, 2004, the Superior Court issued
an order scheduling a status conference for April 30, 2004.

At the hearing, the Superior Court ruled that at this stage of
the proceedings the discovery process would be addressed, but
not limited to the determination of the class.  Therefore, PRTC
was ordered to submit responses to the plaintiffs' request for
admissions and to their first and second sets of
interrogatories.  PRTC submitted its responses to the
plaintiffs' request for admissions and to their first and second
sets of interrogatories on July 6 and July 16, 2004,
respectively.  The court ordered the Company to submit responses
to the discovery on the merits without having certified the
class.


TEXAS: Judge Grants Continuance For Suit V. Lufkin Paper Mill
-------------------------------------------------------------
District 1-A Judge Monte D. Lawlis granted a continuance in a
hearing to determine whether a lawsuit filed in April 2003 by
Lake Sam Rayburn residents against a Lufkin paper mill will be
allowed to proceed as a class action suit, The Beaumont
Enterprise reports.

In the hearing, the Plaintiffs who are property owners along
some parts of Angelina River and Lake Sam Rayburn claimed that
dioxin and other metals discharged from the mill have
contaminated their properties. They further claimed that
contaminants have had a harmful effect on water quality, fish
and wildlife.

Named as defendants in the suit are Abitibi-Consolidated,
International Paper Co., Donahue Industries and five
individuals.

According to the lawsuit, International Paper owned the mill
until it sold it to Donahue Industries, who later became Abitibi
as a result of a stock takeover. Abitibi-Consolidated, a
Canadian-based paper manufacturer, indefinitely closed its
Lufkin mill in December. The closing cost 600 jobs.

The suit seeks for the diminution (decrease) of property values
as a result of the discharge and calls for a court-monitored
soil-testing program to be implemented for property owners to
test for dioxin.

Louisiana-based lead plaintiff attorney, Lisa Condrey, told The
Beaumont Enterprise that two people are currently named as
plaintiffs and if the suit is granted class action status, the
two plaintiffs would represent owners of the 4,000 to 5,000
properties around the affected waterway.


TORCH OFFSHORE: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of LA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
dismissal of a securities class action filed against Torch
Offshore, Inc. over its public offering of stock.  The suit is
styled "Karl L. Kapps, et al. v. Torch Offshore, Inc. et al.,
No. 02-00582."  The suit alleges federal securities law
violations and seeks unspecified monetary damages and is pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.

The lawsuit was dismissed on December 19, 2002 for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.   The
plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.


TRUEHEDGE CAPITAL: SEC Files Civil Action, Obtains Asset Freeze
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency action
in U.S. District Court in Wichita, Kansas against a Wichita-
based hedge fund and its manager, alleging that the hedge fund
manager fraudulently promoted the hedge fund by lying to
investors and then spent their money on his personal expenses,
including the construction of his new private residence in
Wichita. The Commission simultaneously filed in the civil
action, and the court granted, a motion seeking an asset freeze
and other emergency relief against the defendants, in order to
prevent the dissipation or concealment of assets that the
Commission claims should be paid as civil money penalties and
disgorgement of illegal profits.

In its complaint, the Commission alleged that Scott B. Kaye, of
Wichita, is the sole managing member of TrueHedge Advisors,
L.L.C. ("TrueHedge Advisors"), the unregistered investment
adviser of TrueHedge Capital Partners, L.P. ("TrueHedge
Capital"), a hedge fund based in Wichita. From June 2002 through
February 2003, according to the Commission's complaint, Kaye and
TrueHedge Advisors raised $1.9 million for TrueHedge Capital by
selling limited partnership interests to 18 investors. The
Commission further alleges that, whereas the private placement
memorandum claimed TrueHedge Advisors and Kaye would use the
funds to operate a hedge fund, investing in stocks and options,
Kaye misappropriated more than a third of the offering proceeds.

In its action, the Commission charged Kaye, TrueHedge Advisors,
and TrueHedge Capital Partners with violating Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, as well as
Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940. The Commission is seeking permanent injunctions, an order
requiring the defendants to disgorge any illicit profits from
their fraudulent scheme, plus prejudgment interest, and civil
money penalties. The Commission also filed a motion on August
23, seeking, against each of the defendants, ex parte emergency
relief, including an accounting, an asset freeze, and an order
prohibiting the destruction or alteration of documents and
expediting discovery. The court granted all relief sought by the
Commission in its motion. The action is titled, SEC v. Scott B.
Kaye, et al., Civil Action No. 04:1275MLB, United States
District Court for the District of Kansas (Wichita Division)
(LR-18845).


TRUS JOIST: LA Jury Dismisses Claims V. Engineered-Wood Plant
-------------------------------------------------------------
About 800 neighbors and some former workers of a wood products
plant in Natchitoches, Louisiana were disheartened when Trus
Joist was found not liable for health problems acquired by the
plaintiffs who lived or worked at the plant, KTBS 3 News
reports.

After only an hour of deliberations, a jury found Trus Joist not
liable for ill health effects claimed by plaintiffs in a class
action lawsuit. Former employees say toxic resin left them with
skin ailments that they fear are the first signs of cancer.
Nearby residents complain of respiratory problems.  However,
Trus Joist represented by the law firm of Stoel Rives LLP stated
that all emissions from the engineered-wood plant in Louisiana
meet state and federal regulations.  Both sides used scientific
experts to make their case.


UTAH: Judge Enters Permanent Injunction V. Robert Cord Beatty
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Judge Paul Cassell of the United States District
Court for the District of Utah enjoined defendant Robert Cord
Beatty ("Beatty") from future violations of the antifraud, lying
to auditors and issuer books and records provisions of the
federal securities laws.

The Commission filed its Complaint against Beatty and others on
August 10, 1998, alleging that Beatty and others engaged in a
scheme to inflate the assets of Diamond Entertainment, Inc. by
acquiring $5 million in certificates of deposit ostensibly
issued by a Russian bank but actually created at a Kinko's copy
center in Hollywood, Florida. The Complaint alleged that in
order to finance the acquisition of the certificates of deposit
Beatty and others arranged to have Chariot Entertainment, Inc.
issue stock, ostensibly in reliance on Regulation S, to  a
California corporation; those shares were then sold after forty
days with $1.5 million of the proceeds used to pay for the
certificates of deposit.

The Order against Beatty prohibits Beatty from further
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and violations of Section
13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rule 13b2-2 promulgated
thereunder. The action is titled, SEC v. Autocorp Equities,
Inc., et al., Docket No. (2:98CV0562, USDC, D.UT) (LR-18847)


VAXGEN INC.: SEC Files Insider-Trading Charges V. John Patrucco
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed insider-trading
charges against the former Associate Director of External
Reporting at VaxGen, Inc., a Brisbane, California biotechnology
company. The defendant, John Patrucco, was responsible for
preparing reports filed with the Commission disclosing to the
public material information about VaxGen.

The Commission alleges that Patrucco purchased VaxGen stock
based on his advance knowledge that the Food and Drug
Administration had approved VaxGen's Investigational New Drug
application for a potential anthrax vaccine. As part of his SEC
reporting duties, Patrucco later prepared a report on Form 8-K
filed with the Commission disclosing the news to the public.
After news of the FDA approval was announced, VaxGen's stock
price rose nearly 70%. Patrucco later sold the shares, realizing
a nearly $8,000 profit.

The Commission's lawsuit, brought in federal district court in
San Francisco, charges Patrucco with trading on the basis of
material, nonpublic information in violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Without admitting or denying the allegations, Patrucco has
agreed to settle the action by paying  $8,366.38 in disgorgement
and prejudgment interest and a $12,000 civil penalty (1.5 times
his illegal profit). Patrucco also consented to a judgment
enjoining him from violating Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The action is titled, SEC v. John
Patrucco, Case No. C 04-3515 WDB (N.D. Cal.)(LR-18846).


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BELO CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C., initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Belo Corporation (NYSE: BLC) securities 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, 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: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


BELO CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges TX Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Belo Corporation
(NYSE: BLC) ("Belo") between May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Belo
intentionally overstated the circulation of its flagship
newspaper, The Dallas Morning News, in order to exact higher
payments from the newspapers' advertisers. These numbers were
then reported to investors and used to inflate the company's
financial results.

On August 5, 2004, Belo admitted its Dallas Morning News
circulation was overstated by 1.5% for the daily paper and 5%
for the Sunday paper. It disclosed the resignation of Barry
Peckham, the Executive Vice President in charge of circulation,
and announced it was conducting an internal investigation and
would refund advertisers all amounts that they had been
overcharged. In response to this announcement, Belo's stock
price fell from a close of $23.21 per share on August 5, 2004 to
close at $21.55 per share on August 6, 2004, on unusually high
trading volume of over 4.6 million shares.

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


CROSS COUNTRY: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida against Cross
Country Healthcare, Inc. (Nasdaq: CCRN).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of concealing the demand
for the Company's services to the market which had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price.

The complaint further alleges Cross Country Healthcare, Inc.
concealed from the investing public that the Company was
experiencing problems with staffing orders for temporary nurses
and orders were abruptly cancelled by hospitals, which if this
information was disclosed to the investing public, would have a
materially negative impact on the Company's stock price. The
class period is from October 25, 2001 through August 6, 2002.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com


CROSS COUNTRY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Cross Country Healthcare, Inc. (Nasdaq: CCRN)
("Cross Country" and the "Company") from October 25, 2001
through August 6, 2002 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Cross Country, Joseph Boshart, and Emil
Hensel 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 defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that fewer of the Company's nurses were actually being
         hired by hospitals;

     (2) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that demand for temporary nurses was no longer being
         created by the nursing shortage, which the Company had
         previously touted as creating a favorable business
         environment;

     (3) that defendants were having problems with staffing
         orders being received from hospitals and then abruptly
         canceled; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company.

On August 6, 2002, Cross Country reported the decline in demand
and a drop in the number of the Company's full-time nurses. News
of this shocked the market. Shares of Cross Country fell, on
August 7, 2002, $11.85 per share, or 45.25 percent, to close at
$14.34 per share on unusually high trading volume.

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


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Integrated Electrical Services,
Inc. ("Integrated Electrical" or the "Company") (NYSE:IES)
between November 10, 2003 and August 13, 2004, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Integrated
Electrical and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
Defendants caused the shares of Integrated Electric to trade at
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
statements. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company failed to make timely adjustments for a series of large
contracts that were accounted for on a percentage-of-completion
basis, that it improperly accounted for general and
administrative costs, that it improperly recognized revenue on
at least one contract and that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls and was unable to ascertain its true financial
condition.

On August 13, 2004, after the market closed, Integrated Electric
announced that it would be unable to file its quarterly report
on Form 10-Q in a timely manner and that its delay might result
in a default under the covenants of its outstanding debt, that
its auditors had identified material weaknesses in its internal
controls, that it was withdrawing its earnings estimates for the
fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 and that it may have to restate
its previously reported financial results. Shares of Integrated
Electric reacted negatively to the news, falling 40%, or $2.65
per share, to close at $3.93 per share on heavy volume.

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


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Integrated
Electrical Services, Inc. (NYSE: IES) ("IES") between November
10, 2003 and August 13, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused IES shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that IES failed to timely
make appropriate adjustments for a series of large contracts
that were accounted for on a percentage of completion basis in
which the actual costs expected to be incurred already exceeded
the original projected costs; that IES had improperly accounted
for general and administrative costs in a particular contract
for costs that did not relate to that contract; that IES had
improperly recognized revenue on a particular contract; and that
IES lacked adequate internal controls and was therefore unable
to ascertain its true financial condition.

On August 13, 2004, IES announced that it would not be able to
file its fiscal 2004 Third Quarter Report on Form 10-Q in a
timely manner and that the delay in filing may result in a
default under the terms of its outstanding debt and could affect
IES's ability to secure surety bonds. IES further announced that
its independent auditors had identified two material weaknesses
in its internal controls, that it was withdrawing its previously
announced earnings estimates for the fourth quarter of fiscal
2004, and that IES may have to restate its previously reported
financial results. Following this announcement, shares of IES
common stock fell $2.65 per share, or 40%, to close at $3.93 per
share on extremely high trading volume.

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


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Files Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against Ligand Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Ligand" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:LGND) (CUSIP:53220K207) and certain of its
officers, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Ligand securities from July 28, 2003 through August 2,
2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC by issuing materially false
and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

Ligand's lead product, AVINZA, was approved by the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") in March 2002, for the relief of chronic
moderate to severe pain. The Company also has research and
development collaborations with various pharmaceutical
companies, including Eli Lilly & Company ("Lilly") and
GlaxoSmithKline ("GSK") for the development of peroxisome
proliferation activated receptors ("PPAR") to target other
medical problems.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, the
defendants had concealed critical material information regarding
the safety, efficacy and viability of Ligand's PPAR modulator
programs with Lilly and GSK, their inability to achieve
projected growth for AVINZA, and issues impacting revenue
recognition and profitability, including charge-offs and product
returns related to AVINZA.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants knew but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period the
following material adverse facts, among others:

     (1) distributors were returning large lots of unsold short-
         dated product for replacement, as a way to moderate
         channel stuffing by defendants, intended to meet sales
         targets for AVINZA;

     (2) despite continued claims for advancing sales of AVINZA,
         excess wholesaler inventories had built up, further
         diminishing even the possibility of achieving AVINZA
         sales and earnings for Ligand;

     (3) revelations of the cancer-causing effects of PPAR
         modulators would have a direct, adverse effect on the
         viability of the Company's PPAR compound programs;

     (4) the Company's revenue, accounts receivable and
         inventory valuation associated with AVINZA was grossly
         overstated as defendants had inappropriately sold and
         booked as revenue product lots that were "short-dated"
         and were rapidly approaching or had exceeded their
         expiration date; and

     (5) remaining in-house inventory could not be used for
         direct sale since it was required to replace AVINZA
         "short-dated" lots already sold, thus rendering the
         true value of this component of the Company's AVINZA
         inventory at nearly zero.

On August 3, 2004, the Company posted a second-quarter loss of
$14.2 million, or $0.19 a share, far from the projected loss of
$0.06 a share. It was also revealed, but not explained, that the
Company's auditors had resigned. The news caused the Company's
shares to fall sharply, tumbling $5.38, or 39%, to $8.17, on
volume of over 29 million shares.

For more details, contact Todd S. Collins, Esq., Douglas M.
Risen, Esq. or Diane Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager of
Berger & Montague, P.C. by Phone: (888) 891-2289 or
(215) 875-3000 by Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail:
InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit their Web site:
http://www.bergermontague.com


NETOPIA INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Netopia, Inc. (NASDAQ: NTPA) securities 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, 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: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


NETOPIA INC.: Braun Law Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Braun Law Group, P.C., initiated class action lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers (the "Class") of Netopia, Inc.'s securities
("Netopia" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:NTPA) between November 6,
2003 and July 6, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Defendants include Netopia, Alan B. Lefkof and William D. Baker.
The Complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10-
b(5).

Netopia, Inc. develops, markets and supports broadband and
wireless products and services. The Complaint alleges that
Netopia and certain of its officers and directors made a series
of material misrepresentations concerning Netopia's earnings,
product costs, and sales to its largest customer. In addition,
during the Class Period, Defendants and employees of Netopia
sold more than $9 million of Netopia stock.

For more details, contact Michael D. Braun, Esq. or Marc L.
Godino, Esq. of Braun Law Group, P.C. by Phone: (310) 442-7755
or (888) 658-7100 or by E-mail: info@braunlawgroup.com


PETMED EXPRESS: Emerson Poynter Lodges FL Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of purchasers of PetMed Express, Inc.
("PetMed" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PETS) securities during the
period between June 18, 2003 and July 26, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A copy of the complaint filed in this action is
available from the Court, or may be obtained by contacting
Emerson Poynter.

The complaint charges PetMed and its CEO Menderes Akdag
("Akdag"), President/Chairman Marc Puleo ("Puleo"), and CFO
Bruce S. Rosenbloom ("Rosenbloom"), with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning PetMed's business and financial
condition in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

PetMed operates from a 32,000-square-foot warehouse in Pompano
Beach, Florida, from where it sells pet medicines for home
delivery through the Internet and toll-free telephone numbers.
The Company has consistently promoted itself as an affordable
source of everyday brand-name pharmaceutical and non-
pharmaceutical products to treat dogs and cats afflicted with
fleas, ticks and heartworm, among other ailments. But during the
Class Period, the Complaint alleges that PetMed and its
executives failed to disclose that PetMed was failing in its
business and resorting to threatening practices aimed at
veterinarians to force them to authorize the refill of PetMed
prescriptions. Further, the Complaint charges that PetMed 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, which indeed prompted veterinarians to refuse
refilling prescriptions through PetMed.

More disturbing though, and in support of the Complaint's
alleged fraudulent scheme, the Company's executives are alleged
to have sold $65 million of their personal holdings in PetMed
stock while the stock was performing at artificially inflated
levels due to the Defendants' concealment of material
information from the investing public.

For more details, contact Ms. Tanya Autry of Investor Relations
Department at Emerson Poynter LLP by Phone: (800) 663-9817 or by
E-mail: info@emersonpoynter.com


PETMED EXPRESS: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Southern District of Florida on
behalf of purchasers of PetMed Express, Inc. ("PetMed")
(NASDAQ:PETS) common stock during the period between June 16,
2003 and July 26, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges PetMed and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. PetMed, along with its subsidiaries, is a nationwide pet
pharmacy. The Company markets prescription and non-prescription
pet medications, as well as health and nutritional supplements
for dogs and cats, direct to the consumer.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements to the public regarding
PetMed's business and prospects. The true facts, which were
known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing
public during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) that the Company had temporarily created the appearance
         of increased prospects by diverting costs to
         veterinarians which would ultimately cost the Company
         decreased sales in future quarters; and

     (2) that the defendants had engaged in wrongful conduct and
         risked the quality, safety or efficacy of PetMed drugs,
         resulting in veterinarians declining to refill
         prescriptions through the Company, which would
         ultimately cost the Company decreased revenue once
         defendants' scheme was uncovered.

As a result of the defendants' alleged false statements,
PetMed's stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, increasing to as high as $13.08 on February 13, 2004,
whereby certain of the defendants sold more than $15 million
worth of their own shares.

On July 26, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
its first quarter financial results, including net income of
$1.8 million, or $.08 per diluted share. These results were well
short of analysts' estimates of $0.11 per share for the
Company's first quarter net income. On news of this shortfall,
the Company's shares plummeted 29% to $4.90 from $6.97 per
share.

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


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Krislov & Associates Lodges Stock Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Krislov & Associates, Ltd. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit on behalf of former shareholders
of Travelers Property Casualty Corp.'s ("Travelers") Class A and
Class B common shares who exchanged their Travelers shares for
shares of St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. (NYSE: STA) ("St.
Paul Travelers") pursuant to a registration statement filed with
the SEC in connection with the merger of St. Paul Companies Inc.
("St. Paul") and Travelers on April 1, 2004. The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota.

The suit named as defendants St. Paul Travelers and its officers
and directors, as well as certain former officers and directors
of the predecessor companies, alleging violations of Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as
violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, and state common law Breach
of Fiduciary Duty.

The complaint alleges that St. Paul's registration statement was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
material information relating to St. Paul's accounting for its
loss and claim reserves, which were adjusted post-merger by over
$1.6 billion.

On July 23, St. Paul Travelers announced that it would be making
"certain reserve valuation adjustments" totaling $1.625 billion.
This reserve adjustment was an over $2.3 billion adverse
adjustment to the Company's reserves compared to what the
Company represented in its Registration Statement would be
adjusted. On August 2, 2004, the Company announced that it would
record the reserve adjustment as a charge to the income
statement in the second quarter 2004.

For more details, contact Clinton A. Krislov, Esq., Michael R.
Karnuth, Esq., or Jessica J. Mead, Esq. of Krislov & Associates,
Ltd. by Mail: Civic Opera Building, Suite 1350, 20 North Wacker
Drive, Chicago, IL 60606 by Phone: (312) 606-0500 by Fax:
(312) 606-0207 or by E-mail: mail@krislovlaw.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota on behalf of former holders of
shares of Travelers Property Casualty Corp. ("Travelers") Class
A and Class B common stock who acquired shares of The St. Paul
Travelers Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul") (NYSE:STA) common stock
in the April 1, 2004 stock-for-stock merger pursuant to St.
Paul's materially false and misleading joint proxy statement /
prospectus / registration statement, and on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of St. Paul between April 2, 2004
and August 5, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
St. Paul is engaged, through its subsidiaries, in providing
commercial property-liability insurance products and services.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period 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 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 St. Paul's insurance methodologies and practices
         used to calculate reserves were less conservative that
         those of Travelers, which, 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) that, as a result, St. Paul's earnings and assets were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On July 23, 2004, the Company revealed that certain conditions
relating to St. Paul required the Company to increase its claims
reserves by $1.6 billion. On this news, shares fell $0.89 per
share, or 2.44%, to close at $35.66 per share. Then, on August
5, 2004, St. Paul reported a net loss for the second quarter
ended June 30, 2004 of $275 million, or $0.42 per basic and
diluted share, compared to net income of $441 million or $1.02
per basic share and $1.01 per diluted share in the prior year
quarter. The Company reported an operating loss of $310 million
or $0.47 per basic and diluted share compared to operating
income of $431 million or $0.99 per basic and diluted share in
the prior year quarter. The current quarter net and operating
losses included the after-tax impact of $1.048 billion of
reserve adjustments and $26 million, after-tax, of restructuring
costs related to the merger. On news of this, shares of St. Paul
fell an additional $1.73 per share, or 4.74%, to close at $34.75
per share on August 5, 2004.

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


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Vianale & Vianale Lodges MN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP commenced a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in Minnesota federal court against
The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul Travelers")
(NYSE: STA) and certain of its officers, 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 in the stock-for-stock merger of The
St. Paul Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul") with Travelers on April 1,
2004.

The complaint alleges a violation of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. On April 1, 2004, shares of Travelers
Class A and Class B were exchanged for 0.4334 shares of St. Paul
Travelers common stock pursuant to a false and misleading
registration statement. The St. Paul Travelers' registration
statement 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. 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 revealed
that the increase in claims reserves would cause an operating
loss of $310 million or $0.47 per share for the quarter. Between
April 1 and August 5, 2004 shares of the combined Company have
fallen approximately $6.02, a decline of approximately 14.8%,
and closed at $34.75 on August 5, 2004.

For more details, contact Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. or Julie Prag
Vianale, Esq. by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 801
Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone: 561-391-4900 or 888-657-9960 or
by W-mail: info@vianalelaw.com


TARO PHARMACEUTICAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York against Taro Pharmaceutical Industries,
Ltd. ("Taro") (Nasdaq: TARO) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons who purchased Taro
securities on the open market from February 20, 2003, through
July 29, 2004 (the "Class").

The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose or
indicate that:

     (1) Taro was unloading inventory onto wholesalers due to
         competition in its generic drug business;

     (2) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Taro's
         development of new proprietary drugs was
         extraordinarily costly and was cutting into its
         profitability; and

     (3) as a consequence of the foregoing, the defendants had
         no basis for their statements about Taro's growth.

On April 29, 2004, Taro announced financial results for the
first quarter of 2004, reporting increased costs for marketing
and sales of several new drugs, causing Taro shares to fall
$16.88 per share, to close at $45.26. On July 29, 2004,
defendants' scheme was fully revealed when Taro reported
financial results for the second quarter of 2004, reflecting a
steep decline in sales and an unexpected loss causing Taro
shares to fall $5.94 per share or 19.75% to close at $24.14.

For more details, contact James Harrod, Esq. of Wolf Popper, LLP
by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022-6689 by Phone:
212-451-9642 or 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or
877-370-7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.wolfpopper.com



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *