CAR_Public/040830.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, August 30, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 171

                          Headlines

AFC ENTERPRISES: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AFC ENTERPRISES: Dismisses Defendants From GA Derivative Lawsuit
AFC ENTERPRISES: GA Court Stays Derivative Lawsuit Proceedings
AFC ENTERPRISES: Appeals Remand of Stock Suit To GA State Court
AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Submits Settlement To NY Court For Approval

ALLEN'S BLUEBERRY: Reaches $1M ME Price Fixing Suit Settlement
BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Face Cipro Antitrust Lawsuits
CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves $600T Settlement V. Camp Overcharging
CARDINAL HEALTH: Firm Sets August 31, 2004 As Plaintiff Deadline
CHRONIMED INC.: Shareholder Files Suit V. MIM Corporation Merger

CITIGROUP INC.: Investors File NY Fraud Suit V. Enron Securities
CREE INC.: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
FLIGHT SAFETY: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CT
GOODY'S FAMILY: Appeals Court Dismisses Consent Decree Appeals
HALLIBURTON COMPANY: TX Judge To Rule On $6M Investor Settlement

HIGH SPEED: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
HOME DEPOT: To Pay $5.5M To Settle EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit
INTERPOOL INC.: NJ Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
METROCALL HOLDINGS: Shareholders Launch Lawsuits V. Arch Merger
MOTOROLA INC.: IL Judge Upholds NJ Complaint V. Telsim Financing

NEBRASKA: AG Bruning Gives SAFE $5,000 from Salton Settlement
NEW YORK: PRLDEF To File Suit Against Driver License Revocation
NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: Six More Hospitals Face Patient Lawsuit
O'CHARLEY'S INC.: 24 Hepatitis A Outbreak Suits Consolidated
ONI SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement

ONI SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Dismiss CA Stock Lawsuit With Prejudice
PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS: Face Drug Antitrust Lawsuit in CA Court
REGENCY AFFILIATES: Investors Lodge Derivative, Stock Suit in DE
SALESFORCE.COM: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
SAV-ON DRUG: CA High Court Reinstates Statewide Overtime Lawsuit

SEMELE GROUP: AFG Investors File DE Shareholder Derivative Suit
SMITH BARNEY: Klayman & Toskes Advises Customers To "Opt Out"
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Submits Settlement To NY Court For Approval
TECO ENERGY: Accused of Misrepresenting Stock, Concealing Risks
TENGASCO INC.: TN Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement

TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Parties Ink $80M Pact for Desecration Suit
UNISOURCE ENERGY: Shareholders Sue Over Tucson Electric Proposal
UNITED STATES: NAPO applauds SSPBA On Armor Holdings Agreement
VICORP RESTAURANTS: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA
VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Executes Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit

WHITE ELECTRONIC: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in AZ

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BELO CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges TX Securities Suit
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in CA
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges MN Securities Suit
COMMERCE BANCORP: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
CP SHIPS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL

CROSS COUNTRY: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
FIRST VIRTUAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges NY Securities Suit
KVH INDUSTRIES: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Lawsuit in RI
RED HAT: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. NC

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in MN
SYNOPSYS INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
THORATEC CORPORATION: Abraham Fruchter Lodges CA Securities Suit
US UNWIRED: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in LA
WET SEAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA

WORLD INFORMATION: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Suit in NY

                          *********


AFC ENTERPRISES: Asks GA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFC Enterprises, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and several of its
current and former directors and officers.

The suit was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired AFC stock between March 2, 2001
and March 24, 2003.  In the Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs
allege that the registration statement filed in connection with
AFC's March 2001 initial public offering (IPO) contained false
and misleading statements in violation of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933.

The defendants to the 1933 Act claims include AFC, certain of
AFC's current and former directors and officers, an
institutional shareholder of AFC, and the underwriters of AFC's
IPO.  Plaintiffs also allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiffs' 1934 Act allegations
are pled against AFC, certain current and former directors and
officers of AFC, and two institutional shareholders.

The plaintiffs also allege violations of Section 20A of the 1934
Act against certain current and former directors and officers
and two institutional shareholders based upon alleged stock
sales.  The Consolidated Complaint seeks certification as a
class action, compensatory damages, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, attorney's fees and costs, an accounting of
the proceeds of certain defendants' alleged stock sales,
disgorgement of bonuses and trading profits by AFC's CEO and
former CFO, injunctive relief, including the imposition of a
constructive trust on certain defendants' alleged insider
trading proceeds, and other relief.


AFC ENTERPRISES: Dismisses Defendants From GA Derivative Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia dismissed five defendants from the shareholder
derivative suit filed on behalf of AFC Enterprises, Inc.  The
suit names as defendants certain current and former members of
the Company's board of directors and three of the Company's
largest shareholders.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
permitting AFC to issue financial statements that were
materially in error.  The lawsuit seeks, on behalf of AFC,
unspecified compensatory damages, disgorgement or forfeiture of
certain bonuses and options earned by certain defendants,
disgorgement of profits earned through alleged insider selling
by certain defendants, recovery of attorneys' fees and costs,
and other relief.

On February 23, 2004, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  On August 12, 2004, the Court dismissed
three of AFC's current or former officers and the two AFC
shareholders from the suit without prejudice to the plaintiff's
right to replead the claims against these defendants.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss as it related to the other
defendants.


AFC ENTERPRISES: GA Court Stays Derivative Lawsuit Proceedings
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Gwinnett County Superior Court, State of Georgia stayed
proceedings in the shareholder derivative suit filed on behalf
of AFC Enterprises, Inc., against certain current and former
members of the Company's board of directors.

The complaint alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties by permitting AFC to issue financial statements
that were materially in error and by failing to maintain
adequate internal accounting controls.  The lawsuit seeks, on
behalf of AFC, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys'
fees, and other relief.

On January 20, 2004, the defendants moved to dismiss or,
alternatively, to stay the case.  The court later entered an
order staying the proceedings until October 11, 2004, unless the
stay is lifted earlier by any of the parties or by the court.


AFC ENTERPRISES: Appeals Remand of Stock Suit To GA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
AFC Enterprises, Inc. appealed the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia order remanding a class
action filed against it and certain current and former members
of the Company's board of directors to state court.

On May 15, 2003, a plaintiff filed a securities class action
lawsuit in Fulton County Superior Court, State of Georgia, on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
"in or traceable to" AFC's December 2001 $185.0 million public
offering of common stock.  The lawsuit asserts claims under
Sections 11 and 15 of the 1933 Act.  The complaint alleges that
the registration statement filed in connection with the offering
was false or misleading because it included financial statements
issued by the Company that were materially in error.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class action, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

The plaintiff claims that as a result of AFC's announcement that
it was restating its financial statements for fiscal year 2001
(and at the time of the complaint, were examining restating its
financial statements for fiscal year 2000), AFC will be
absolutely liable under the 1933 Act for all recoverable
damages sustained by the putative class.

On July 20, 2003, the defendants removed the action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia.  The plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to
state court.  The defendants opposed the motion to remand. On
November 25, 2003, the federal district court entered an order
remanding the case to state court but staying the order to allow
the defendants to appeal the decision.  The appeal is pending
before the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit.


AIRSPAN NETWORKS: Submits Settlement To NY Court For Approval
-------------------------------------------------------------
Airspan Networks, Inc. submitted settlement documents for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York for approval.

On and after July 23, 2001, three class actions were filed
against the Company, Eric D. Stonestrom (President and Chief
Executive Officer), Joseph J. Caffarelli (former Senior Vice
President and Chief Financial Officer), Matthew Desch (Chairman)
and Jonathan Paget (Executive Vice President and Chief Operating
Officer) together with certain underwriters of our July 2000
initial public offering.  A Consolidated Amended Complaint,
which is now the operative complaint, was filed on April 19,
2002.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for issuing a Registration
Statement and Prospectus that contained materially false and
misleading information and failed to disclose material
information.  In particular, Plaintiffs allege that the
underwriter-defendants agreed to allocate stock in our initial
public offering to certain investors in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those investors to
make additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.  The action seeks damages in an unspecified
amount.

This action is being coordinated with approximately three
hundred other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies.  On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all
claims against it and the Individual Defendants.  On October 9,
2002, the Court dismissed the Individual Defendants from the
case without prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal
filed by the plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants.  This
dismissal disposed of the Section 15 and 20(a) control person
claims without prejudice, since these claims were asserted only
against the Individual Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the
Court dismissed the Section 10b claim against the Company, but
allowed the Section 11 claim to proceed.

The Company has approved the terms of a settlement agreement
(the "Settlement Agreement") and related agreements which set
forth the terms and conditions 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
Agreement provides for a release of Airspan and the Individual
Defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.

Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, Airspan will
agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing
to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims
Airspan may have against its underwriters.  Accordingly, Airspan
does not expect that the settlement will involve any payment by
Airspan.


ALLEN'S BLUEBERRY: Reaches $1M ME Price Fixing Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allen's Blueberry Freezer of Ellsworth agreed to pay $1 million
to Maine wild blueberries growers to settle a class-action
lawsuit that accuses Allen's and three other blueberry
processors with fixing prices paid to growers for four years in
the 1990s, the Bangor Daily News reports.

Pending approval from the Superior Court judge who has presided
over the civil case for more than four years approves, the
settlement would bring to a close a legal battle that brought
turmoil to the industry.

According to William Robitzek, the Lewiston attorney who
represents the growers, "It's good to bring this to a conclusion
because it's been a long time since we actually won the case.
Once we get approval and the appeals get dismissed, we will be
able to finally make distributions [to the growers]."

The three other processors include Cherryfield Foods Inc. of
Cherryfield, Jasper Wyman & Son of Milbridge, who were found
guilty of price-fixing alongside Allen's last November, who
later reached post-verdict settlements amounting to $2.5 million
and $1.5 million respectively through a mediator in February and
Merrill's Blueberry Farms of Ellsworth, which settled with the
growers for $85,000 last October.

Allen's had been the lone challenger, even questioning the
settlements reached by Cherryfield Foods and Wyman's.

The terms of the Allen's settlement involves the payment of $1
million dollars, an amount that a state-appointed negotiator had
floated as a fair settlement figure for Allen's back in
February.


BARR PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues to Face Cipro Antitrust Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. continues to face litigation filed in
state and federal courts by direct and indirect purchasers of
Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) from 1997 to the present.

The company, Bayer Corporation, The Rugby Group, Inc. and others
face approximately 38 class actions alleging that the 1997
Bayer-Barr patent litigation settlement agreement was anti-
competitive and violated federal antitrust laws and/or state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.  A prior investigation
of this agreement by the Texas Attorney General's Office on
behalf of a group of state Attorneys General was closed without
further action in December 2001.

The lawsuits include nine consolidated in California state
court, one in Kansas state court, one in Wisconsin state court,
one in Florida state court, and two consolidated in New York
state court, with the remainder of the actions pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings (the
MDL Case).

Fact discovery in the MDL Case has been completed and the
parties are proceeding with summary judgment briefing.  The
direct purchaser and indirect purchaser plaintiffs also have
filed motions for class certification in the MDL Case, but the
Court has indicated that it will defer ruling on the motions at
the present time.  The state court actions remain in a
relatively preliminary stage generally, tracked to follow the
MDL Case, although defendants have filed dispositive motions and
plaintiffs have moved for class certification in certain of the
cases, and certification of a California-only end-payor class
has been granted in the California consolidated cases.

On May 20, 2003, the District Court entered an order in the MDL
Case holding that the Barr-Bayer settlement did not constitute a
per se violation of the antitrust laws and restricting the scope
of the legal theories the plaintiffs could pursue in the case.
On May 28, 2004, pursuant to the Court's instruction and
scheduling order, defendants filed motions for summary judgment
on all claims.  Plaintiffs opposed those motions on July 9,
2004.  A hearing date on the motions has not been set.  All
other proceedings (including the setting of a trial date) have
been stayed pending resolution of the summary judgment motions.

On September 19, 2003, the Circuit Court for the County of
Milwaukee dismissed the Wisconsin state class action for failure
to state a claim for relief under Wisconsin law.  Plaintiffs
appealed, but the appeal has been stayed pending a decision by
the Wisconsin Supreme Court in another case involving similar
legal issues.  On October 17, 2003, the Supreme Court of the
State of New York for New York County dismissed the consolidated
New York state class action for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted and denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification.

On April 22, 2004, the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motions to
dismiss, thereby narrowing some of plaintiffs' claims, although
the language of the order memorializing the Court's oral ruling
remains under review.  The decisions by the Wisconsin Circuit
Court, the New York Supreme Court, and the Kansas District Court
do not affect the federal class actions currently pending in the
U.S. District Court or the state class actions currently pending
in other state courts.

On July 24, 2004, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth
Appellate District concluded that the certification of a
California-only class was overbroad to the extent that it
included purchasers who would have paid the same fixed co-
payment for ciprofloxacin as for branded Cipro under the terms
of their prescription drug benefit plans.  Discovery is ongoing
in the California consolidated cases, with a current trial date
of January 2005.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Approves $600T Settlement V. Camp Overcharging
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sacramento Superior Court Judge Shelleyanne W.L. Chang approved
a $600,000 settlement in a class-action lawsuit filed in 1997 by
California migrant farm workers who lived in state-funded camps
in 1996 and 1997 against the state Department of Housing and
Community Development, which oversees the operation of the 21
camps, the Sacramento Bee reports.

The settlement concludes an eight-year legal battle that began
when the state doubled the rent in the migrant camps without
providing adequate notice, and then refused to refund the
overcharges.

The camps scattered all over Central and Northern California,
includes the Davis Migrant Center, the Yuba City Migrant Center
and the F.H. Rehrman Migrant Center in Dixon.

According to Jeff Cereghino, lead attorney for the plaintiffs
about 1,800 farm workers may be eligible to receive refunds from
the settlement, calls for 100 percent return of the farm
workers' overpayment, plus 17 percent interest on the principal.

Ms. Penelope Montemayor, a member of the Western Farm Workers
Association's organizing committee, also stated that each
eligible family could be reimbursed between $500 and $1,000,
depending on how long they lived in the camps.

State officials stated that they're pleased that the families
will finally be repaid. Attorney Richard Friedman, chief counsel
for the department even adds, "We've got the money appropriated
and we're very eager to reimburse the folks that are entitled to
reimbursement." He also stated that the settlement includes
funds for a claims administrator and to advertise the settlement
to potential class members, who must file a claim by October
2005 to be eligible for a refund.

For more details, contact (866) 422-0150.


CARDINAL HEALTH: Firm Sets August 31, 2004 As Plaintiff Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott reminds purchasers of the
securities of Cardinal Health, Inc. ("Cardinal" or the
"Company") (NYSE: CAH - News) between the period of October 24,
2000 and June 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period") that the
deadline to move for lead plaintiff is due on August 31, 2004 in
a class action lawsuit filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio.

Plaintiffs allege that during the Class Period, Cardinal and
certain of its officers and directors were in violation of the
United States securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of 1934).
Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, Cardinal Health failed to record, on a timely basis,
litigation claims it owed, causing its earnings and assets to be
artificially inflated. The Company also misclassified non-
operating revenues as operating, giving a misleading picture of
the Company to investors. It is also alleged that Cardinal
improperly accounted for the $22 million recovered from vitamin
makers accused of overcharging Cardinal by booking such
recoveries as revenue when the antitrust cases had not been
resolved. It is also alleged that defendants made misleading,
materially incomplete statements to investors about its
transition to a fee-for-service model of drug distribution.
Cardinal has announced that on June 21, it received a subpoena
from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection
with the SEC's formal investigation announced on May 14. The
Company is under investigation by the Department of Justice.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Mail: 108 Norwich
Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone: 800-404-7770 (EDT) or
800-332-2259 (PDT) or 860/537-3818 by Fax: 860/537-4432 or by E-
mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com


CHRONIMED INC.: Shareholder Files Suit V. MIM Corporation Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
A complaint has been filed in Hennepin County District Court in
Minneapolis, Minnesota against Chronimed Inc. (Nasdaq:CHMD) and
it's Board of Directors. The complaint relates to the pending
merger between Chronimed and MIM Corporation (Nasdaq:MIMS).
Under the terms of the merger agreement between the parties
dated August 9, 2004, Chronimed and MIM would combine under the
name "BioScripr" and Chronimed's shareholders would receive
1.025 shares of MIM common stock in exchange for each share of
Chronimed common stock.

The plaintiff seeks to have the court certify his individual
action as a class action on behalf of a class of Chronimed
shareholders. The plaintiff requests that the court enjoin the
merger and award the plaintiff costs and disbursements of the
action, including attorney's and expert's fees.

"The complaint contains many inaccuracies about the merger, and
it is without merit," said Henry Blissenbach, Chronimed's
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President. "We intend to
vigorously defend against it and plan to continue moving forward
with the merger."


CITIGROUP INC.: Investors File NY Fraud Suit V. Enron Securities
----------------------------------------------------------------
Investors represented by the Bank of New York initiated a class
action lawsuit against Citigroup, Inc. for fraud, breach of
contract, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence regarding the
sale of securities tied to now-bankrupt Enron, the CBS
MarketWatch reports.

Filed in New York state Supreme Court, the suit accuses
Citigroup of taking part in a "massive scheme of deception" to
raise billions of dollars from the plaintiffs. It further
accuses the company of using the money obtained to make
disguised loans to Enron and its affiliates to reduce its own
"Enron credit risk, prop up Enron, cover up Enron's failing
financial condition and generate significant fees in the
process." The lawsuit claims that Citigroup C created what it
called the "Yosemite transactions" in 1999 to raise $2.4 billion
by selling Enron-backed notes that were used to repay Citi's
pre-existing loans and reduce the company's prior Enron
exposure.

The suit alleges that Citigroup realized in the first quarter of
1999 that its total credit exposure to Enron had jumped to about
$1.7 billion, more than four times Citi's internally imposed
credit limit of $375 million for the energy company.

The Plaintiffs in the suit include such firms as Angelo Gordon &
Co., Elliot International and Appaloosa Investment with the Bank
of New York acting as a trustee for the plaintiffs.

However, in a press statement, Citigroup stated that purchasers
of the notes are among the largest and most sophisticated
financial institutions in the world. According to Citigroup, "We
complied fully with all of our obligations in dealing with
them."

The lawsuit is the latest against a securities firm because of
its ties to Enron.


CREE INC.: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cree, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and current and former directors.

The amended complaint asserts, among other claims, violations of
federal securities laws, including violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule
10b-5, and violations of Section 20(a) and Section 18 of the
Exchange Act against the individual defendants and also asserts
claims against certain of the Company's officers under Section
304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

The amended complaint alleges that the Company made false and
misleading statements concerning its investments in certain
public and privately held companies, the Company's acquisition
of the UltraRF division of Spectrian, its supply agreement with
Spectrian, its agreements with C&C, and its employment
relationship with Eric Hunter and that the Company's financial
statements did not comply with the requirements of the
securities laws during the class period.

The amended complaint requests certification of a plaintiff
class consisting of purchasers of Cree stock between August 12,
1998 and June 13, 2003 and seeks, among other relief,
unspecified damages and disgorgement of profits by the
individual defendants, plus costs and expenses, including
attorneys' accountants' and experts' fees.


FLIGHT SAFETY: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flight Safety Technologies, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut, on behalf of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the Company's securities (Amex: FLT)
between January 14, 2003 and July 16, 2004, inclusive.  The
suits also name as defendants certain officers and directors of
the Company.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August
21,2004) states.


GOODY'S FAMILY: Appeals Court Dismisses Consent Decree Appeals
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
all appeals relating to the consent decree entered by Goody's
Family Clothing, Inc. for the class action filed against it and
its chairman of the board and chief executive officer Robert M.
Goodfriend.

20 named plaintiffs filed the suit in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Georgia in February 2001,
generally alleging that the Company discriminated against a
class of African-American employees at its retail stores through
the use of discriminatory selection and compensation procedures
and by maintaining unequal terms and conditions of employment.
The plaintiffs further alleged that the Company maintained a
racially hostile working environment.

On February 28, 2003, a proposed Consent Decree was filed with
the District Court for its preliminary approval.  The proposed
Consent Decree sets forth the proposed settlement of the class
action race discrimination lawsuit.  Ultimately, class action
certification was sought in the lawsuit only with respect to
alleged discrimination in promotion to management positions and
the proposed Consent Decree is limited to such claims.

Generally, the proposed settlement provides for a payment by the
Company in the aggregate amount of $3.2 million to the class
members (including the named plaintiffs) and their counsel, as
well as the Company's implementation of certain policies,
practices and procedures regarding, among other things, training
of employees.  The Company's employer liability insurance
underwriter has funded $3.1 million of such payment to a third-
party administrator.  The proposed Consent Decree explicitly
provides that it is not an admission of liability by the Company
and the Company continues to deny all of the allegations.

On April 30, 2003, the District Court granted preliminary
approval of the proposed Consent Decree, and a hearing was held
on June 30, 2003, regarding the adequacy and fairness of the
proposed settlement.  On March 3, 2004, the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia issued an
Order granting final approval of the Consent Decree.

On February 23, 2004, a purported class member filed an appeal
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
alleging, among other things, misconduct on the part of the
District Court and the plaintiff's/appellant's counsel; the
Eleventh Circuit dismissed this appeal on March 5, 2004.  On
March 12, 2004, a Motion to set aside the dismissal was filed
with the Eleventh Circuit.

Pursuant to the terms of the March 3, 2004 Order, the District
Court will maintain jurisdiction of this matter until July 2006
to monitor the parties' compliance with the Consent Decree.


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: TX Judge To Rule On $6M Investor Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn of the Northern District of
Texas is set decide next week on whether or not Halliburton
Company's $6 million class-action lawsuit settlement with
investors who had accused the company of fraud should be
accepted, the AP Online reports.

Halliburton Company (NYSE: HAL) recently negotiated the
settlement with three of the four lead plaintiffs, who filed the
class-action lawsuit that alleges deceptive accounting practices
by the company as well as claims of misleading investors and
analysts by failing to disclose for nearly three months in 2001
a multimillion dollar asbestos verdict against a company with
which the Houston-based oil field service and construction giant
had merged.

However, the Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, the
fourth plaintiff opposed the settlement, which they say is too
small. They also want the judge to allow the case to proceed so
its lawyers can pursue broader fraud allegations.

An attorney for Halliburton described the suit as being baseless
and that if the judge allows it to move forward, the company
will seek to have it dismissed.

Judge Lynn, who stated that she needed to review the facts
further and would rule early next week, pointed out that the $6
million settlement, cut in half by attorney and administrative
fees, would result in low payouts to thousands of plaintiffs in
the class-action lawsuit.

However, Halliburton's attorney, Ronald Stevens, argued that $6
million is all the class members deserve for a case with no
merit and allowing it to proceed would only encourage frivolous
lawsuits.


HIGH SPEED: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
High Speed Access Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the securities class action filed
against it, two of its officers, and:

     (1) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

     (2) J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc.,

     (3) CIBC World Markets Corporation, and

     (4) Banc of America Securities, Inc.

The suit, styled "Ruthy Parnes v. High Speed Access Corp., et.
al., Index No. 01-CV-9743(SAS)," alleges that the Company's
Registration Statement, dated June 3, 1999, and Prospectus,
dated June 4, 1999, for the issuance and initial public offering
of 13,000,000 shares of the Company common stock to investors
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.

The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The essence of the complaints is that defendants
issued and sold our common stock pursuant to the Registration
Statement for the IPO without disclosing to investors that
certain underwriters in the offering had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.

The complaints also allege that the Company's Registration
Statement for the IPO failed to disclose that the underwriters
allocated Company shares in the IPO to customers in exchange for
the customers' promises to purchase additional shares in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices above the IPO price,
thereby maintaining, distorting and/or inflating the market
price for the shares in the aftermarket.  The plaintiff asks to
represent the interest of all holders of the Company's common
stock and seeks unspecified monetary damages.

On July 15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
against its defendant officers, and those allegations were
dismissed without prejudice on October 11, 2002 pursuant to a
Reservation of Rights and Tolling Agreement dated as of July 20,
2002. On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the alleged violations of Section 11 and 15 of
the 1933 Act.  However, the Court granted the Company's motion
to dismiss the alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On June 26, 2003, the Plaintiffs' Executive Committee announced
that a proposed settlement between the approximately 300 issuer
defendants and their directors and officers and the plaintiffs
has been structured in the IPO Litigation which would guarantee
at least $1.0 billion to investors who are class members from
the insurers of the issuers.  The cases will continue against
the 55 investment bank underwriter defendants.

The Company has assented to participate in the settlement, and
all of the settlement documents were finalized and executed by
most of the parties in May 2004.  The settlement was presented
to the court on June 14, 2004.  The Plaintiffs filed a motion
for preliminary approval on Friday, July 2, 2004.  Once the
Court decides the motion, and assuming it grants preliminary
approval (which is expected), the Plaintiffs will notify the
class.  Following this notice (which will likely take several
months given the size of the class), there will be a hearing
regarding Court approval of the settlement.  If and when final
settlement occurs, the Company and its directors should be
removed from the litigation without payment of any funds.


HOME DEPOT: To Pay $5.5M To Settle EEOC Discrimination Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Home Depot, the nation's largest home improvement store
chain agreed to pay $5.5 million to settle a U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission discrimination and retaliation
claim, which was filed on behalf of the store's Colorado
employees, The Denver Post reports.

Upon settling the suit, the Atlanta-based company reiterated it
agreed to the payout to avoid a protracted and costly litigation
as well as denying any workplace misconduct.

The EEOC lawsuit against The Home Depot alleged that several
stores in Colorado created hostile work environments where
employees were discriminated against on the basis of sex, race
and national origin and retaliated against if they voiced
complaints.

According to Joseph H. Mitchell, the regional attorney for the
EEOC Denver District Office, "I think this is good for the
public and good for Home Depot. If there were problems at Home
Depot, this goes a long way towards fixing those problems. In
the long run, employers have better businesses if they have
employees who are contented, so to speak."

The settlement calls for Home Depot to shell out $3 million to
resolve the discrimination accusations filed by 38 current and
former employees with individual payments ranging from $5,000 to
$270,000. In addition the chain must also provide $2.5 million
for the creation of a class-settlement fund for individuals who
have yet to come forward.

The settlement is open to current and former employees employed
by The Home Depot in Colorado between Jan. 1, 2000, and the date
by which the settlement is approved by a U.S. judge in Denver.
That's expected to happen by November.


INTERPOOL INC.: NJ Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against
Interpool, Inc. and certain of its present and former executive
officer and directors.  Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel have
been appointed.

The complaints alleged violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the Company's reported Consolidated Financial
Statements for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 2001 and
the nine months ended September 30, 2002, which the Company
announced in March 2003 would require restatement.  Each of the
complaints purported to be a class action brought on behalf of
persons who purchased the Company's securities during a
specified period.  The lawsuits seek unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including legal
fees.


METROCALL HOLDINGS: Shareholders Launch Lawsuits V. Arch Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Metrocall Holdings, Inc. faces two shareholder suits filed in
the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle
County, over its proposed merger with Arch Wireless, Inc.

The first suit was filed on June 29, 2004 by a Company
shareholder naming the Company and members of its board
of directors, together with Arch and USA Mobility, as
defendants.  The suit seeks compensatory relief in addition to
seeking to enjoin Metrocall's proposed merger with Arch.

The complaint alleges that the Metrocall directors violated
their fiduciary duties to Metrocall shareholders in connection
with the proposed merger. In addition, the complaint asserts
that Arch and USA Mobility aided and abetted the Metrocall
directors' alleged breach of their fiduciary duties.

On July 28, 2004, a purported shareholder class action complaint
similar to the prior suit was filed by another Metrocall
stockholder.


MOTOROLA INC.: IL Judge Upholds NJ Complaint V. Telsim Financing
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Wolf Popper LLP, the Honorable Rebecca R.
Pallmeyer, United States District Court Judge for the Northern
District of Illinois sustained the consolidated class action
complaint against Motorola, Inc. (NYSE: MOT), filed by Lead
Plaintiff the State of New Jersey, Department of Treasury,
Division of Investment.

Wolf Popper LLP and Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas, LLP are co-
lead counsel for New Jersey.

This is a consolidated securities fraud class action which
alleges, among other things, that Motorola made false and
misleading statements to investors, including misstating
Motorola's financial statements, primarily relating to
Motorola's $2 billion in vendor financing to Turkish wireless
telephone provider Telsim Mobil Telekomunikayshon Hizmetleri
A.S. The class action covers investors who purchased Motorola
securities during the period February 3, 2000 through May 14,
2001.

Lester L. Levy, the Chairman of Wolf Popper's Executive
Committee, stated that "We are pleased that the Court recognized
that this case should proceed based on the strength of the
allegations in the Complaint."

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


NEBRASKA: AG Bruning Gives SAFE $5,000 from Salton Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning presented a $5,000 check
to the Spouse/Sexual Abuse Family Education (SAFE) Center, a
non-profit organization that serves women, men and children that
have experienced domestic violence or sexual assault, the Grand
Island Independent reports.

The check, one of nine totaling $45,000 are being distributed as
part of an $8.2 million class action lawsuit settlement reached
between Salton Inc. and attorney generals in 43 states, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Salton was accused of violating federal anti-trust laws for
fixing the price of George Foreman grills, which the company
manufactures. But because of the difficulty in identifying
consumers affected by Salton's business practices, the money
will be distributed to charities.

Commenting on the settlement, "This is a classic example of
getting something positive from a bad situation. Thanks to this
settlement, we have a wonderful opportunity to recognize the
unsung heroes who are out there every day working to make a
difference in the lives of those in need."

In addition to the Kearney S.A.F.E. Center, other organizations
that will also receive funds include; Lincoln - Rape/Spouse
Abuse Crisis Center, $5,000; Norfolk - Goldenrod Hills Community
Service, $5,000; North Platte - Lincoln Connection, $5,000;
Omaha - All Our Kids Inc., $10,000; Scottsbluff - YMCA Trails
West Camp, $3,333; Domestic Violence Emergency Services, $3,333;
Panhandle Youth Shelter, $3,333; and South Sioux City - Haven
House, $5,000.


NEW YORK: PRLDEF To File Suit Against Driver License Revocation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund (PRLDEF), a
privately funded 501(c)(3) nonprofit and nonpartisan
organization is set to file a class action lawsuit in State
Supreme Court in Manhattan against a state policy that will take
away the driver's licenses of immigrant New Yorkers, the New
York Times reports.

According to the PRLDEF the policy is unlawful since it usurps
federal responsibility for immigration, oversteps state law on
issuing licenses and ignores due process. The group as well as
other immigrant advocates has denounced the policy as
discriminatory against non-citizens and dangerous to highway
safety.

Considered to be the first legal challenge to a new policy that
is characterized as a means of ferreting out fraud and foiling
would-be terrorists, the lawsuit names Gov. George E. Pataki and
the motor vehicles commissioner, Raymond P. Martinez, as
defendants. It is being filed on behalf of seven plaintiffs as
well as all New Yorkers denied a driver's license or identity
document for lack of a verifiable Social Security number or an
immigration document satisfactory to the Department of Motor
Vehicles.

According to the suit, most of the seven plaintiffs are here
without legal authorization, but two who are in the United
States legally also had their applications denied by motor
vehicles clerks without notice.

According to Cesar A. Perales, president of the Puerto Rican
Legal Defense and Education Fund, "Clearly New York State has no
expertise in enforcing the immigration laws. It makes no sense
to me for New York State to have undertaken this new policy -
the federal government hasn't asked the governor and the
commissioner of motor vehicles to do this."

State officials have refused to make comments regarding the
lawsuit. However in recent interviews and at a public hearing
last week, Commissioner Raymond P. Martinez vigorously defended
as a public security measure his agency's move to revoke the
license of any driver unable to provide a verifiable Social
Security number or an immigration document granting a year's
legal residence and expiring in no less than six months.


NON-PROFIT HOSPITALS: Six More Hospitals Face Patient Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Six more class action lawsuits have been initiated by uninsured
patients against nonprofit hospitals, the law firm of Richard
Scruggs said in a statement. The nonprofit hospital systems and
hospitals named as defendants in the six lawsuits are: Baptist
Hospital, Inc. of Pensacola, Florida; Sacred Heart Health
System, Inc., Ascension Health of Pensacola, Florida; Protestant
Memorial Medical Center, Inc., d/b/a Memorial Hospital of
Belleville, Illinois; St. Elizabeth's Hospital Sisters of the
Third Order of St. Francis, d/b/a St. Elizabeth's Hospital of
Springfield, Illinois; The Hospital of the University of
Pennsylvania ("HUP") of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia ("CHOP") of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The American Hospital Association ("AHA") is named
as a co-defendant in the Baptist Hospital, Sacred Heart and
Ascension, Protestant Memorial and St. Elizabeth's Hospital
litigations.

The lawsuits charge the defendants, and those in which the AHA
is also named as a defendant, with failing to fulfill their
government obligations to provide charitable healthcare to their
uninsured patients in return for which the defendant hospital
systems and hospitals receive substantial tax exemptions.

With the filing of these lawsuits, the number of nonprofit
hospital systems and hospitals that have been named along with
the AHA as defendants in the nonprofit hospital litigation which
commenced on June 17, 2004 now involves over 50 uninsured
patient class action litigations. These defendants nonprofit
hospital systems and hospitals advised by the AHA control well
in excess of over 350 hospitals in aggregate.

Specifics about these recent class action lawsuits are as
follows:

     (1) In Florida:  Defendants: Baptist Health, Inc. and
         American Hospital Association; The United States
         District Court for the Northern District of Florida
         Pensacola Division; litigation filed by Lovelace Law
         Firm, P.A., Vroon & Crongeyer, LLP, Weisman, Goldberg &
         Weisman Co., LPA and Barrett Law Office, PA.

         Defendants: Sacred Heart Health Systems, Inc. Ascension
         Health, and American Hospital Association; The United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         Florida Pensacola Division; litigation filed by
         Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., Vroon & Crongeyer, LLP,
         Weisman, Goldberg & Weisman Co., LPA and Barrett Law
         Office, PA.

     (2) In Illinois:  Defendants: Protestant Memorial Medical
         Center, Inc. d/b/a Memorial Hospitals and American
         Hospital Association; The United States District Court
         for the Southern District of Illinois; litigation filed
         by Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli, P.C.,
         Becker, Paulson, Hoerner & Thompson, P.C., and Barrett
         Law Office, PA.

         Defendants: St. Elizabeth's Hospital Sisters of The
         Third Order of St. Francis, d/b/a St. Elizabeth's
         Hospital and American Hospital Association; The United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois; litigation filed by Goldenberg, Miller,
         Heller & Antognoli, P.C., Becker, Paulson, Hoerner &
         Thompson, P.C., and Barrett Law Office, PA.

     (3) In Pennsylvania: Defendant: The Hospital of the
         University of Pennsylvania; The United States District
         Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania;
         litigation filed by Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman,
         Weisman, Kennedy & Berris Co., LPA and Monheit
         Silverman & Fodera.

         Defendant: Children's Hospital of Philadelphia; The
         United States District Court for the Eastern District
         of Pennsylvania; litigation filed by Levin, Fishbein,
         Sedran & Berman, Weisman, Kennedy & Berris Co., LPA and
         Monheit Silverman & Fodera.

As noted in the litigation against defendants Baptist Hospital
and AHA: "Baptist Hospital's conduct is an unconscionable,
discriminating, misleading, and deceptive creation and
collection of inflated debts from uninsured patients. Baptist
Health and their 'nonprofit' confederates across the country who
employ the same business model have thereby amassed and hoarded
billions of dollars in cash and marketable securities, which
otherwise should be available to provide charity care to those
who were contemplated by the tax exemption (received by
nonprofit hospitals) ... Despite their surplus revenues and
substantial federal, state, and local tax exemptions, Baptist
Hospital has engaged in the pattern and practice of charging
inordinate and inflated rates for medical care to the Plaintiff
and the Class, who are uninsured Baptist patients. Baptist
Hospital charged the Plaintiff and the Class significantly more
for medical services than they charge their insured patients for
the same services. They also utilize aggressive, abusive and
humiliating collection practices to recover these inflated
medical debts from the Plaintiff and the Class."

As described in the litigation against Sacred Heart Health Inc.,
Ascension Health and the AHA: "Uninsurance is a prevalent
problem for many citizens in Florida. About 3 million Floridians
do not have health insurance. This is about 18% percent of
Florida's population. Florida ranks 6th in the nation in
uninsured residents ... Because the Medicare program provides
health insurance for most people age 65 and over, the majority
of the uninsured (in Florida) are under the age of 65. The
largest numbers of uninsured are those aged 30-49, but the rate
of uninsurance is highest for young adults, aged 19-29.
Approximately 23 percent of those aged 19-64 in the State of
Florida lack insurance. The uninsured are disproportionately
racial and ethnic minorities, though whites are the largest
group of uninsured nationwide. Among Hispanics, 33.2 percent are
uninsured ... The perception of a growing financial crisis for
Florida's hospitals is false. After-tax profits for the average
Florida hospital rose 156% between 1990 and 2001 and 38% between
2000 and 2001 ... Like their counterparts nationally, Florida's
hospitals, including non profit ones like the Ascension
Defendants, have adopted a 'Persian market' system of patient
care charges. Basically, the system features a 'retail' charge
for health care services -- which only a few uninsured patients
are obligated to pay -- versus a much lower health care charge
negotiated by government and private health insurance groups ...
Higher charges for the uninsured have led to higher
reimbursements and benefits to the Ascension defendants from the
Federal and State governments."

The class action lawsuit against Protestant Memorial Medical
Center and the AHA states: "Memorial holds itself out as a
charitable non-profit entity in order to operate free from tax
... In reality, Memorial is anything but charitable ...
uninsured patients are generally unable to pay these inflated
and unreasonable charges (charged by Memorial). Moreover,
Memorial, as a self-proclaimed charity, also pursues aggressive
collection practices, which often result in lawsuits against
uninsured patients. These aggressive collection practices
violate Memorial's tax exemption agreements with the United
States Government, the State of Illinois and St. Clair County."

Among other charges made in the litigation against St.
Elizabeth's Hospital Sisters of The Third Order of St. Francis
and the AHA are: "St. Elizabeth's sets its charges for medical
services at patently unreasonable and excessive rates. While St.
Elizabeth's has pre-admission contracts with private insurance
companies and governmental third party payors like Medicare,
Medicaid and Illinois Public Aid that only reasonable amounts
will be collected and/or attempted to be collected from their
insured, all of the St. Elizabeth's uninsured patients are
charged grossly inflated charges well above reasonable rates,
which can be as large as twice as much charged to the insured
for the same service. St. Elizabeth's realizes substantial
revenues from this discriminatory practice charging practices
... Not only does St. Elizabeth charge its uninsured patients
the highest rates for medical care, which most cannot afford to
pay, it has also engaged in the uniform pattern and practice
aggressively pursuing such debt through collection efforts such
as collection lawsuits ... The AHA, through internal memos
called 'white papers' and other sponsored publications, provides
guidance to St. Elizabeth's and the non profit hospital industry
on its billing and collection practices for uninsured patients,
including promoting publications such as, Seven Strategies to
Improve Your Bottom Line ... In these sponsored publications,
the AHA encourages St. Elizabeth's and its nonprofit hospital
members to inflate its chargemaster prices, which only St.
Elizabeth's insured patients are charged. These inflated
chargemaster prices have the intended effect of increasing St.
Elizabeth's outlier payment reimbursements under the DSH and
Medicare reimbursement programs."

According to the class action lawsuit against defendant The
Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania: "Despite its
favorable tax exempt status and its substantial net revenues and
asset reserves in the billions of dollars, Defendant HUP has
breached its Agreements with the United States Government, and
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania by: failing to provide
emergency room medical care to its uninsured patients without
regard to their ability to pay for such care; charging its
uninsured patients exorbitant and unaffordable rates for medical
care; and by engaging in aggressive efforts to collect debt from
its uninsured patients ... Despite sizeable net revenues and its
asset reserves, Defendant HUP and its affiliate provide little
charity care to the uninsured."

As noted in the class action litigation against defendant
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia: "Defendant CHOP's uninsured
patients have therefore not received the benefit of the of the
Agreements between Defendant CHOP and the United States
Government and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These uninsured
patients primarily consist of the working poor who do not
qualify for Medicaid but cannot afford private health insurance
and/or cannot obtain health insurance through their employers
... Defendant CHOP sets its charges for medial services at
patently unreasonable rates. While Defendant CHOP has pre-
admission contracts with private insurance companies and
governmental third party payors like Medicare and Medicaid that
only reasonable amounts will be collected and/or attempted to be
collected from their insureds, all of its uninsured patients are
charged grossly inflated amounts that are well above reasonable
rates, which can be twice as much as charged to the insured for
the same service ... Plaintiff believes that certain members of
the CHOP Board and/or top executives either individually or on
behalf of for-profit organizations that they are affiliated
with, receive benefits not generally available to the general
public by virtue of their position which is a per se violation
of Federal law. Further, Plaintiff believes that CHOP gives
substantial discounts for for-profit insurers and allows for-
profit non-charitable entities to use the CHOP facilities to
derive a profit, both of which are violations of 501(c)(3)'s
requirement that CHOP operate exclusively for charitable
purposes."

For more details, contact Richard Scruggs of the Scruggs Law
Firm, P.A. by Phone: (662) 281-1212 or visit the litigation Web
site: http://www.nfplitigation.com


O'CHARLEY'S INC.: 24 Hepatitis A Outbreak Suits Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------------
24 lawsuits filed against O'Charley's, Inc. relating to a
Hepatitis A outbreak at its Knoxville, Tennessee restaurant have
been consolidated for discovery purposes only.

In September 2003, the Company became aware that customers and
employees at one of its O'Charley's restaurants located in
Knoxville, Tennessee were exposed to the Hepatitis A virus,
which resulted in a number of the Company's employees and
customers becoming infected.  The Company worked closely with
the Knox County Health Department and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention when it became aware of this incident and
cooperated fully with their directives and recommendations.

The Company is aware of 81 individuals who have contracted the
Hepatitis A virus, most of whom have been linked to its
Knoxville restaurant during the time of the outbreak.  As of the
date of this filing, the Company is also aware of 43 lawsuits
that have been filed against it, all of which have been filed in
the Circuit Court for Knox County, Tennessee, that allege
injuries or fear of injuries from the Hepatitis A incident.  A
number of these suits seek substantial damages, including treble
damages under Tennessee consumer protection laws and punitive
damages, and some of which seek to be certified as class
actions.  One of the infected individuals who filed suit died
soon after.  This suit has been amended to seek compensatory
damages not to exceed $7.5 million and punitive damages not to
exceed $10.0 million alleging wrongful death.  Other plaintiffs
have alleged significant health concerns, including ailments
requiring hospitalization.


ONI SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
ONI Systems Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to approve the settlement
for the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
as a result of its merger with Ciena Corporation.

Beginning in August 2001, a number of substantially identical
class action complaints alleging violations of the federal
securities laws were filed against it and:

     (1) Hugh C. Martin, ONI's former chairman, president and
         chief executive officer;

     (2) Chris A. Davis, ONI's former executive vice president,
         chief financial officer and administrative officer; and

     (3) certain underwriters of ONI's initial public offering

The complaints were consolidated into a single action, and a
consolidated amended complaint was filed on April 24, 2002.  The
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
initial public offering's registration statement and by engaging
in manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of
ONI's common stock after the initial public offering.

The amended complaint also alleges that ONI and the named former
officers violated the securities laws on the basis of an alleged
failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation
arrangements and manipulative practices.  No specific amount of
damages has been claimed.

Similar complaints have been filed against more than 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998, and
all of these actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.  Mr. Martin and Ms. Davis have been dismissed from
the action without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement.

In July 2004, following mediated settlement negotiations, the
plaintiffs, the issuer defendants (including CIENA), and their
insurers entered into a settlement agreement, whereby the
plaintiffs' cases against the issuers are to be dismissed.  This
settlement is subject to court approval.  The settling parties
have moved the court for approval of the settlement, which
motion has been opposed by the underwriter defendants.


ONI SYSTEMS: Plaintiffs Dismiss CA Stock Lawsuit With Prejudice
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the consolidated shareholder class
action filed against ONI Systems Corporation in California State
Court, as a result of its merger with CIENA Corporation.

Two substantially identical purported class actions were
initially filed on behalf of ONI security holders originally
brought against the Company and members of its board of
directors.  The complaints alleged that the director defendants
breached their fiduciary duties to ONI in approving the merger
with CIENA and seek declaratory, injunctive and other relief
permitted by equity.

The plaintiffs failed to obtain an injunction against completion
of the merger.  The first of these cases was filed on February
20, 2002, in the Superior Court of the State of California,
County of San Mateo, and is styled "K.W. Sams, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. ONI Systems
Corporation, et al."  The second case was brought on March 19,
2002, in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Santa Clara, and is styled "Steven Myeary, On Behalf of
Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. ONI Systems
Corporation."

On April 14, 2003, the plaintiffs in these cases filed a
consolidated amended complaint and named four additional
defendants:

     (1) CIENA Corporation,

     (2) James F. Jordan,

     (3) Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and

     (4) Mohr Davidow Ventures

CIENA and the other defendants subsequently filed a demurrer and
served a motion for sanctions on plaintiffs based on factual
inaccuracies in the consolidated amended complaint.  In
response, the plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated amended
complaint, the demurrer to which was sustained by the court in
April 2004 with leave to amend.


PHARMACEUTICAL FIRMS: Face Drug Antitrust Lawsuit in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
A San Francisco law firm initiated an antitrust lawsuit against
15 of the biggest drug manufacturers in Superior Court in
Oakland on behalf of 14 independent California pharmacists, USA
Today reports.

The suit alleges that drugmakers have conspired to charge
"artificially higher prices" for their products in the USA and
have acted to prevent importation of lower-priced drugs. Aside
from targeting price differences between the USA and other
countries, the suit is also taking aim at recent efforts by some
drug producers to limit supplies of their products to Canadian
pharmacies who sell to U.S. residents as well as

According to attorney Joseph Alioto, who has spent much of his
career pursuing antitrust cases, "The reason they are trying to
prevent cheaper drugs from coming into the U.S. is they are
protecting the U.S. market, where they have fixed high prices."

Among the 15 companies named in the lawsuit, are Pfizer, Merck,
Bristol-Myers Squibb and GlaxoSmithKline.

Nancy Pekarek, a spokeswoman for Glaxo, told USA Today that the
allegations in the lawsuit are untrue and outrageous. She
further states, "GlaxoSmithKline does not discuss or negotiate
its pricing with other companies." A Pfizer spokesman also
stated that allegations of price fixing are totally without
merit.

The lawsuit seeks to lower drug prices in the USA and refunds to
pharmacists for the difference between what they paid for the
drugs and what foreigners paid in the past four years.


REGENCY AFFILIATES: Investors Lodge Derivative, Stock Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Regency Affiliates, Inc. was named as a nominal defendant in the
purported derivative and class action lawsuit filed by two of
its individual shareholders in the New Castle County Court of
Chancery, Delaware.  The suit names as defendants certain
current and former directors of the Company, Royalty Holdings
LLC and certain of its affiliates, and Statesman Group, Inc.

The complaint alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties by the former director defendants and Statesman Group,
Inc. in connection with:

     (1) the exercise by Statesman Group, Inc. in 2001 of an
         option to acquire shares of common stock of the
         Company,

     (2) the 2001 sale of rock aggregate by the Company to Iron
         Mountain Resources, Inc., and

     (3) the October 2002 recapitalization of the Company.

The complaint also alleges breaches of fiduciary duties by the
current director defendants in connection with the payment by
the Company in 2003 of accrued compensation owed to William R.
Ponsoldt, Sr. for periods prior to the October 2002
recapitalization of the Company.  The complaint also alleges
that Royalty Holdings LLC and its affiliates knowingly
participated in the breaches of fiduciary duties by the former
director defendants relating to the October 2002
recapitalization of the Company.

In addition to other damages, plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory and/or rescissory damages against all defendants, a
declaration that all Company stock issued to Statesman Group,
Inc., William R. Ponsoldt, Sr., Royalty Holdings LLC and any
person affiliated with the foregoing is void, an order
rescinding any payments in any form made by the Company to
William R. Ponsoldt, Sr. or any of his affiliates or family
members, an order rescinding the October 2002 recapitalization
of the Company, and an order rescinding Statesman Group, Inc.'s
2001 option exercise and rescinding the option itself.


SALESFORCE.COM: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salesforce.com, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

On July 26, 2004, a purported class action complaint, styled
"Morrison v. salesforce.com, et al.," was filed against the
Company, its Chief Executive Officer and its Chief Financial
Officer.  The complaint alleges 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
salesforce.com common stock between June 21, 2004 and July 21,
2004, inclusive.  The claims are based on allegations that the
Company failed to disclose a declining trend in its revenues and
earnings.

Subsequently, three other substantially similar class action
complaints were filed in the same district based on the same
facts and allegations, entitled "Evans v. salesforce.com, et
al.," "Santos v. salesforce.com, et al.," and "Schumacher v.
salesforce.com, et al."  The plaintiff in "Santos" also asserted
claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended.

The actions likely will be consolidated.  Each of the actions
seeks damages against the defendants in an unspecified amount.
The time for filing motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel expires on or about September 24,
2004.


SAV-ON DRUG: CA High Court Reinstates Statewide Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court in the matter of Sav-on Drug Stores
v. Superior Court, S106718 has ruled to reinstate the statewide
class-action lawsuit against the chain, which is accused of
wrongfully denying overtime pay to as many as 1,400 of its
workers, the AP Online reports.

In their ruling, the seven justices unanimously agreed that the
former and current store managers and assistant managers could
be represented under one lawsuit against the chain, which was
acquired by Albertsons, Inc. in 1999 from American Stores.

The suit alleges that the employees were entitled to overtime
pay, despite a California law that exempted managers. According
to the managers they were not exempt and claimed that they
should have been paid time and a half for work beyond 40 hours a
week citing a state law that takes away the exemption if they
don't spend more than 50 percent of their day on managerial
duties. They also claimed the bulk of their overtime was
stocking shelves and running cash registers.

The Supreme Court's ruling overturned a 2002 Los Angeles state
appellate court's decision, which dissolved the case on the
grounds that the workers did not have similar claims because
they performed different tasks for differing times.

In reinstating the case, Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar wrote
on behalf of the 7-man panel, "Many of the issues likely to be
most vigorously contested in this dispute ... are common ones.
Absent class treatment, each individual plaintiff would present
in separate, duplicative proceedings the same or essentially the
same arguments and evidence, including expert testimony."

No trial date has been set. The lawsuit covers the managers and
assistant managers who worked between April 3, 1996 and June 22,
2001.


SEMELE GROUP: AFG Investors File DE Shareholder Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Semele Group, Inc. was named in a class and derivative action
filed in the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware, styled
"Robert Lewis v. Gary D. Engle, James A. Coyne, AFG ASIT
Corporation, Equis II Corporation, Semele Group Inc., PLM MILPI
Holdings LLC, Defendants, and AFG Investment Trust C, Nominal
Defendant, C.A. No. 497-N."

The suit was filed on behalf of a proposed class of investors
holding units of beneficial interest in AFG Investment Trust C,
against a number of its affiliates, including AFG ASIT
Corporation, its managing trustee and a wholly-owned subsidiary
of the Company, as defendants, and the trust as a nominal
defendant.

The plaintiff has alleged, among other things, claims against
the defendants on behalf of the trust for breaches of fiduciary
duty and a duty to disclose, as well as breach of the trust
agreement that governs the trust.  These allegations relate to a
consent solicitation statement mailed by the trust to its
unitholders on or about June 2, 2004, and the MILPI sale
transaction and the proposed amendments to the trust agreement
described therein.

Specifically, Plaintiff has alleged that the MILPI sale
transaction and the amendments are unfair to the trust and the
minority interest holders in the trust and represent conflicts
of interest with respect to the defendants since, among other
things, the sale price is allegedly unfairly low and the
amendments allegedly permit the managing trustee to unilaterally
determine the value of the assets for making in-kind
distributions and the terms of asset sales by the trust to the
defendants.  The plaintiff also has alleged, among other things,
that a fairness opinion delivered with respect to the fairness
from a financial point of view of the aggregate consideration to
be received by the trust and an affiliated trust in the MILPI
sale transaction does not support the purchase price and is
inadequate, misleading, and stale.

The plaintiff also has alleged that the defendants have breached
their fiduciary duty of disclosure in that the consent
solicitation statement, among other things, allegedly is
materially misleading and failed to disclose the conflicting
self-interests of the defendants in the MILPI sale and the
amendments and how the managing trustee chose or arrived at the
MILPI sale price.  In addition, the plaintiff alleges that the
managing trustee has breached the trust agreement by acting to
dissolve the trust prior to the occurrence of certain events
described in the trust agreement as conditions precedent to the
liquidation of the trust.

The plaintiff has requested that the court certify the lawsuit
as a class action and the plaintiff as representative of the
class; preliminarily and permanently enjoin the liquidation of
the trust, the consent solicitation and the MILPI sale
transaction and the amendments; order corrective supplemental
disclosures; award unspecified damages; and such other relief as
the court may grant.


SMITH BARNEY: Klayman & Toskes Advises Customers To "Opt Out"
-------------------------------------------------------------
The securities arbitration law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
("K&T") advises Smith Barney/Citigroup (NYSE: C) customers who
lost in excess of $1 million should "opt out" of the WorldCom
class action case #02 Civ. 3288 DLC to pursue individual
securities arbitration claims against Smith Barney/Citigroup.
The deadline to "opt out" of the class action is September 1,
2004.

K&T is currently pursuing individual securities arbitration
claims worth over one hundred million dollars against Smith
Barney/Citigroup on behalf of many high-net-worth investors and
large groups of current and former MCI/WorldCom employees who
held large positions in WorldCom stock. These investors have
filed 'opt out' notices to be excluded from the class action
case.

Securities arbitration law experts contend that it makes
economic sense to 'opt out' of a class action if you have a very
large claim. For small claimants, however, the cost of pursuing
an individual lawsuit may be larger than the amount that they
could recover. Investors also need to be aware of the statute of
limitations for filing these types of claims.

In April 2003, K&T authored a detailed study on the appropriate
path for securities dispute resolution against Wall Street
brokerage firms. A link to the study is available at the firm's
website (http://www.nasd-law.com/)under "The Process" heading
at the end of the first paragraph.

For more details, contact Lawrence L. Klayman, Esq. of Klayman &
Toskes, P.A. by Phone: 888-997-9956 or visit their Web site:
http://www.nasd-law.com/


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: Submits Settlement To NY Court For Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sycamore Networks, Inc. submitted to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York settlement documents
for the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
for approval.

Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class action
complaints were filed against the Company and several of its
officers and directors and the underwriters for the Company's s
initial public offering on October 21, 1999.  Some of the
complaints also include the underwriters for the Company's
follow-on offering on March 14, 2000.  The complaints were
consolidated into a single action and an amended complaint was
filed on April 19, 2002.

The amended complaint, which is the operative complaint, was
filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between October 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  The
amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, primarily based on the assertion that the Company's
lead underwriters, the Company and the other named defendants
made material false and misleading statements in the Company's
Registration Statements and Prospectuses filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, (SEC), in October 1999 and
March 2000 because of the failure to disclose:

     (1) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
         undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in
         connection with the allocation of shares of common
         stock to certain investors in the Company's public
         offerings and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered
         into agreements with investors whereby underwriters
         agreed to allocate the public offering shares in
         exchange for which the investors agreed to make
         additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at
         pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint alleges claims against the Company,
several of the Company's officers and directors and the
underwriters under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.  It
also alleges claims against the Company, the Individual
defendants and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act.  The amended complaint seeks
damages in an unspecified amount.

The action against the Company is being coordinated with
approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed
against other companies.  The action seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.  On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the
Individual Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon
Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Individual Defendants.

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 three hundred 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. Therefore, the Company does not expect that the
settlement will involve any payment by the Company. The
settlement agreement, which has not yet been executed, has been
submitted to the Court for approval. Approval by the Court
cannot be assured.

Due to the large number of nearly identical actions, the Court
has ordered the parties to select up to twenty "test" cases.  To
date, along with eleven other cases, the Company's case has been
selected as one such test case.  As a result, among other
things, the Company will be subject to discovery obligations and
expenses in the litigation, whereas non-test case issuer
defendants will not be subject to such obligations.


TECO ENERGY: Accused of Misrepresenting Stock, Concealing Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
The NECA-IBEW Pension Trust Fund of Decatur, Illinois initiated
a class action lawsuit targeting TECO Energy Inc., alleging that
the Tampa utility hid the extent of the risks associated with
its unregulated wholesale power business, St. Petersburg Times
reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Tampa by Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman Robbins LLP on behalf of TECO shareholders who had
purchased stock between Oct. 30, 2001, and Feb. 4, 2003, the
suit claims that the company "concealed the problems with
several independent power plant construction ventures and the
vulnerability of the company's large cash dividend, causing
TECO's common shares to trade at artificially inflated levels."
The suit further claims that if shareholders had been aware of
the full extent of TECO's financial woes, they "would not have
purchased TECO publicly traded securities at the prices they
paid, if at all."

The suit also contends TECO's statements about its financial
status, which the plaintiffs say did not adequately reflect the
utility's "dangerously high" debt levels, the frailty of
business partner Panda Energy International of Dallas, the
extent of the company's exposure to the bankruptcy of Enron
Corp. and "the extremely high likelihood that TECO's dividend
was not only at risk, but that a cut would become inevitable."

Aside from the TECO, the suit also names former it's chairman
and chief executive Robert Fagan and chief financial officer
Gordon Gillette as co-defendants.

Asked for comments regarding the suit, TECO spokeswoman Laura
Plumb declined since the company hadn't yet been served with the
lawsuit. She did however state, "Once that happens, we will be
able to evaluate what we will do in response."


TENGASCO INC.: TN Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, Knoxville Division granted final approval to the
settlement of a class action filed against Tengasco, Inc.,
styled "Paul Miller v. M. E. Ratliff and Tengasco, Inc., Docket
Number 3:02-CV-644."

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of all persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock between August 1,
2001 and April 23, 2002 and seeks damages in an amount not
specified.  The suit alleged violations of the federal
securities laws, specifically Rule 10b-5 issued under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 as to the Company and Malcolm E.
Ratliff, the Company's former Chief Executive Officer and a
Director, and Section 20(a) the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
as to Mr. Ratliff.  The complaint alleges that documents and
statements made to the investing public by the Company and Mr.
Ratliff misrepresented material facts regarding the business and
finances of the Company.

As of January 30, 2004, a written stipulation of settlement
documenting the settlement terms was signed by counsel for all
parties.  The stipulation of settlement was presented to the
Court on February 27, 2004 for a determination of initial
fairness and initiation of other procedures leading to a final
hearing.

At the hearing, the Court granted initial approval of the
settlement as proposed and established periods for determination
of the class and dates for a final settlement hearing approving
disbursement of settlement funds to any class members.  Under
the settlement, the Company has paid into a settlement fund the
amount of $37,500 to include all costs of administration, and
has also contributed 150,000 shares of stock of Miller
Petroleum, Inc. that is currently owned by the Company that had
been accepted in payment of an obligation owed to the Company by
Miller Petroleum.

The Company also contributed to the settlement fund the
Company's agreement to issue 300,000 warrants to purchase a
share of the Company's common stock for a period of three years
from date of issue at $1 per share.  The number or price of the
warrants is to be adjusted to account for the additional shares
sold pursuant to the rights offering made by the Company or
other stated events.  All expenses including attorney's fees as
are awarded by the court on final hearing are to be paid out of
the settlement funds.  The parties stipulated the existence of a
class for settlement purposes only.

On April 29, 2004, a final hearing for approval of the
settlement was held in federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee.
The Court later entered its final order approving the fairness
of the settlement to the class, dismissing the action pursuant
to the Settlement Stipulation, and fully releasing the claims of
the class members.  Pursuant to the Settlement Stipulation and
the Court's final order, class members may file their claims
against the settlement fund through July 15, 2004.  The fund
will be disbursed in accordance with the claims filed.  No
further court approval is required or contemplated, although the
Court retains jurisdiction to enforce the settlement stipulation
and the Court's final order.


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Parties Ink $80M Pact for Desecration Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The trial of the Tri-State Crematory case came to a conclusion
with an agreement between both parties to an $80 million
settlement for families of those whose bodies were found
uncremated at the Noble, Georgia facility, The Chattanoogan
reports.

However, family members of those sent to the crematory may not
be able to collect, since a judge in a case in Walker County has
already ruled that the insurance policy the crematory operators
had with Georgia Farm Bureau did not cover what happened with
the bodies.

In response to the settlement, plaintiff attorney Kathryn
Barnett of Nashville said the families "intend to collect every
penny of it" from the insurance company.

The class action lawsuit was heard before Federal Judge Harold
Murphy at Rome, Georgia, who recessed it early to allow
attorneys to hold talks.

Georgia Farm Bureau, which had provided coverage for the Marsh
family that operated the crematory, earlier agreed to pay $3.5
million, but the deal didn't push through, since plaintiff's
attorneys said that was not going to stop all of the claims.

Upon reaching the settlement it was agreed at Rome that
litigation would end against the Marshes and attorneys would not
come after their personal assets.


UNISOURCE ENERGY: Shareholders Sue Over Tucson Electric Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
UniSource Energy Corporation faces two shareholder derivative
suits filed in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona,
styled "McBride v. Pignatelli, et al." and "Zetooney v.
Pignatelli, et al."

The suits were filed relating to Tucson Electric Power Co.'s
proposed acquisition of the Company.  The plaintiffs allege that
UniSource Energy's Board of Directors, in its consideration and
approval of the acquisition agreement, breached its fiduciary
duty to UniSource Energy's shareholders in approving the
acquisition agreement.

The plaintiffs, who request that their suits be permitted to
proceed as class actions, seek damages and an order from the
court declaring that UniSource Energy's Board of Directors has
breached its fiduciary duties to UniSource Energy's
shareholders, ordering that UniSource Energy's Board of
Directors take the steps specified in the complaint to correct
the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and enjoining the
acquisition from proceeding.


UNITED STATES: NAPO applauds SSPBA On Armor Holdings Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agreement The National Association of Police Organizations
("NAPO") offered its congratulations to the Southern States
Police Benevolent Association of McDonough, Georgia ("SSPBA")
for its hard work in hammering out a tentative agreement with
Armor Holdings, the manufacturer of several Zylon-based body
armors used by police, the US Newswire reports.

The tentative agreement was first publicly announced August 12,
and since that time, NAPO has been in direct contact with Armor
Holdings and has also been reviewing the settlement documents to
determine whether this tentative settlement sufficiently
addresses all the issues raised in NAPO's own class action
lawsuit against Armor Holdings and Toyobo, the Japanese
manufacturer of the Zylon fiber at issue in the case.

"From what we've seen so far, this proposal is a huge step in
the right direction, and our brother and sister officers in the
SSPBA deserve to be congratulated for their hard work and
dedication to officer safety in helping to make this tentative
agreement a reality," said Bill Johnson, NAPO's executive
director. "This goes to show just how much can be accomplished
for America's police when groups stop fighting amongst
themselves and concentrate on fixing the problem, which is vests
that pose a danger to our police," Johnson added.

A state court judge in Jacksonville, Florida has scheduled a
hearing for September 30 to evaluate the proposal. "NAPO will
continue working with all parties of good will as we approach
September 30 to do everything we can to ensure that the
agreement does what it is supposed to," said NAPO national
president Thomas J. Nee of the Boston Police Patrolmen's
Association. "This should be a wake-up call to other groups to
join the process against manufacturers of suspect vests, instead
of staying on the outside criticizing the efforts of those
involved in the fight."

NAPO also has a class action lawsuit pending in Michigan against
Second Chance Body Armor, maker of the Ultima and Ultimax Zylon
vests. Although some other groups were initially harshly
critical of NAPO's efforts to negotiate a settlement in that
case, they have now joined the process and are now also trying
to reach settlements. "One of the positive things about the
SSPBA proposal is that it should provide new replacement body
armors of the officer's choice, at no cost to the officer or
agency involved. This will put pressure, frankly, on Second
Chance to do likewise," said NAPO executive director Johnson.
"Whether such an outcome is achieved through negotiations with
NAPO alone, or with other police groups is not, at this point,
very important. The important thing is to get our officers
protected, and if any party at all, including other police
groups, can build from the foundation that NAPO has already
laid, they should be encouraged to do so. A bullet doesn't care
whether the officer is a PBA or FOP member."

"We were the first, and for many months the only, national
police group to go after Second Chance. Now that other groups
have finally joined the fight instead of merely criticizing the
efforts of others, let us do everything in our power to compel a
similar closure to the Second Chance case," said NAPO president
Tom Nee.

For more details, visit NAPO's website: http://www.napo.orgor
at http://www.americanbodyarmor.com/zx/notice-claimform.pdf


VICORP RESTAURANTS: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
VICORP Restaurants faces two overtime wage class actions filed
in California State Courts.

The first class action claim was brought in October 2003 by two
former employees and one current employee, and the second class
action claim was brought in May 2004 by two former employees.
The complaints allege that the Company violated California law
with regard to rest and meal periods, bonus payment calculations
(in the October 2003 complaint), overtime payments (in the May
2004 complaint) and California law regarding unfair business
practices.

The classes and subclasses alleged in the actions have not been
certified by the respective courts at the current stages of the
litigation, but generally are claimed in the 2003 complaint to
include persons who have been employed by VICORP in California
since October 17, 1999 in the positions of food server,
restaurant general manager and assistant restaurant manager, and
generally are claimed in the 2004 complaint to include persons
who have been employed by the Company in California since May
21, 2000 in the positions of restaurant general manager and
restaurant associate manager.  No dollar amount in damages is
requested in either complaint, and the complaints seek statutory
damages, compensatory damages, interest and attorneys' fees in
unspecified amounts.


VITRIA TECHNOLOGY: Executes Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vitria Technology, Inc. executed the final 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, captioned
"Kideys, et al., v. Vitria Technology, Inc., et al., Case No.
01-CV-10092."

The plaintiffs allege that the Company, certain of its officers
and directors and the underwriters of its initial public
offering (IPO), violated federal securities laws because the
Company's IPO registration statement and prospectus contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts
regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock
allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

Similar complaints were filed in the same court beginning in
January 2001 against numerous public companies that first sold
their common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of the IPO-related
lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before United
States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York.

Defendants filed a global motion to dismiss the IPO-related
lawsuits on July 15, 2002.  In October 2002, Vitria's officers
and directors were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a
stipulated dismissal and tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.
On February 19, 2003, Judge Scheindlin issued a ruling denying
in part and granting in part the Defendants' motions to dismiss.


In June 2003, Vitria's Board of Directors approved a resolution
tentatively accepting a settlement offer from the plaintiffs
according to the terms and conditions of a comprehensive
Memorandum of Understanding negotiated between the plaintiffs
and the issuer defendants.  Under the terms of the settlement,
the plaintiff class will dismiss with prejudice all claims
against Vitria and its current and former directors and
officers, and Vitria will assign to the plaintiff class or its
designee certain claims that Vitria may have against the
underwriters of its IPO.

In addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the
event that the plaintiffs recover less than $1.0 billion in
settlement or judgment against the underwriter defendants in the
IPO-related lawsuits, the plaintiffs will be entitled to recover
the difference between the actual recovery and $1.0 billion from
the insurers for the Issuers.  The settlement is still 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
the certification of the class and the judicial approval of the
settlement.


WHITE ELECTRONIC: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
White Electronic Designs Corporation faces three shareholder
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona, styled:

     (1) McJimsey v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et
         al. (Case No. CV04-1499PHX),

     (2) Afework v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al
         (Case No. CV04-1558PHX), and

     (3) Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al.
         (Case No. CV04-1632PHX)

The suits also names as defendants certain of the Company's
current officers and directors and a former officer.  The
Company expects additional similar complaints may be filed.  The
complaints allege, among other things, that between January 23,
2003 and June 9, 2004, the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business, in
violation of the federal securities laws.  The complaints did
not identify alleged monetary damages.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BELO CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Belo Corporation (NYSE: BLC) ("Belo" or the
"Company") from August 5, 2003 through July 29, 2004 inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Belo, Robert W. Decherd, and Barry Peckham
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 implemented a circulation sales rewards
         program designed to motivate contractors to sell
         more of The Dallas Morning News newspapers to the
         general public;

     (2) that the contractors, in order to qualify for the
         circulation sales rewards, were overstating the true
         amounts of newspapers that were sold to the public;

     (3) that circulation managers failed to verify the
         contractors' sales in order to take advantage of the
         rewards program;

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing, Belo's reported
         audited circulation numbers were materially inflated,
         which in turn allowed Belo to sell more advertisements
         thereby achieving higher advertising revenues for the
         Company; and

     (5) that Belo's reported financial results, as a result of
         the aforementioned scheme, were materially inflated at
         all relevant times.

On August 5, 2004, Belo announced that The Dallas Morning News,
a wholly owned subsidiary, reported a greater than expected
decline in its September 2004 circulation. News of this shocked
the market. Shares of Belo fell $1.66 per share, or 7.15
percent, on August 6, 2004, to close at $21.55 per share.

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


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Biolase Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:BLTI)
("Biolase" or the "Company") from October 29, 2003 through July
16, 2004, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled Olsen v. Biolase Technology, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04-CV-7070 (JYL), is pending in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Western
Division, and names as defendants, the Company, its President
and Chief Executive Officer (until his resignation), Jeffrey W.
Jones, and its Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Edson
J. Rood.

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

     (1) that the demand for the Company's core product,
         Waterlase, was severely lagging because sales of the
         Company's newer lower- priced "entry level" laser not
         only confused the marketplace but cannibalized sales of
         Waterlase;

     (2) that international sales growth was severely slowing
         despite the Company's attempts to ramp it up;

     (3) that receivables were rising due to the Company's
         continual unloading of inventory unto wholesalers;

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing the Company was
         improperly recognizing revenue, in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and

     (5) therefore, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times.

On July 16, 2004, Biolase announced preliminary results for the
second quarter ended June 30, 2004 and lowered guidance for the
second half of the year. News of this shocked the market. Shares
of Biolase fell $3.27 per share or 27.14 percent on July 19,
2004, to close at $8.78 per share.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler of Shareholder
Relations - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-
mail: vsoler@whesq.com


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges MN Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Ceridian Corporation ("Ceridian" or
the "Company") (NYSE: CEN) between April 17, 2003 and July 19,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), against defendants
Ceridian, Ronald L. Turner (the Company's President and Chief
Executive Officer), and John R. Eickhoff (the Company's Chief
Financial Officer).

The case name and index number are Lear v. Ceridian Corp., et
al., 04-cv-3895.

The Complaint alleges that defendants issued a series of false
and misleading statements and failed to disclose other adverse
facts to the investing public, which had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of the Company's stock.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants' statements
were materially false and misleading when made because they
failed to disclose or indicate the following:

     (1) that the Company improperly recognized $37 million in
         revenue in its Stored Value Systems ("SVS") unit;

     (2) that the Company improperly accounted for the
         capitalization of upfront costs of its U.S. Human
         Resource Solutions business by capitalizing such costs
         rather than expensing them;

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

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

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

Defendants took advantage of the inflated share price by selling
216,298 shares of their individual Ceridian holdings for
proceeds of $3.9 million.

On July 19, 2004, Ceridian announced that it had postponed its
second quarter earnings release and its related teleconference
and Webcast with investors because of a recently initiated
review of the capitalization and expensing of certain costs in
its U.S. Human Resources Solutions business being conducted by
members of the Audit Committee in conjunction with Deloitte &
Touche LLP. This news shocked the market. Shares of Ceridian
fell $2.13 per share, or 10.47 percent, on heavy trading to
close at $18.21 per share on July 24, 2004.

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


COMMERCE BANCORP: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Commerce Bancorp, Inc. ("Commerce Bank" or the
"Company") (NYSE:CBH) between June 18, 2002 and June 28, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Commerce Bank and certain of the Company's
officers and directors with violations of federal securities
laws. Plaintiff claims that defendants made material omissions
and misrepresentations concerning Commerce Bank's operations in
Company press releases, public filings and conference calls
during the Class Period. The Complaint alleges that Commerce,
and certain of its officers and directors, regularly violated
the securities laws. Specifically, through massive political
campaign contributions to politicians in Pennsylvania and New
Jersey, defendants violated Municipal Securities Rulemaking
Board's Rule G-37 which prevents banks from underwriting bond
offerings for issuers if they have contributed more than $250 to
the political campaigns of the officials of the issuer. These
violations were not disclosed to investors during the Class
Period. Additionally, it is alleged the defendants had intimate
knowledge of FBI investigations and grand jury proceedings
delving into the actions of Commerce and certain officers, and
that Commerce had access to telephone tapes which clearly
establish the culpability of the three Commerce
Bank/Pennsylvania defendants and were at the center of the
eventual criminal indictments.

On June 30, 2004, the U.S. Attorney announced the indictment of
a Commerce director and two executives. Commerce Bank shares
plummeted from $64.46 on June 28 to $55.01 on June 30.

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


CP SHIPS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all securities
purchasers of CP Ships Limited (NYSE:TEU) ("CP Ships" or the
"Company") from January 29, 2003 through August 9, 2004, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled Hood v. CP Ships Limited., et al., Case No.
(not yet assigned), is pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida and names as
defendants, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, President,
and a member of the Board of Directors, Ray Miles, its Chief
Operating Officer, Frank Halliwell, and its Chief Financial
Officer, Ian Webber.

CP Ships is a container shipping company offering its customers
door-to-door, as well as port-to-port containerized services for
the international transportation of a range of industrial and
consumer goods, including raw materials, semi- manufactured and
finished goods. The complaint charges defendants with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

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

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

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

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

On August 9, 2004, CP Ships announced that in conjunction with
the release of second quarter 2004 results it would restate
previously reported financial results, the Company
insufficiently accrued certain costs which caused the Company's
net income figures to be materially inflated. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of CP Ships fell $3.70 per share or
22.36 percent, on August 9, 2004, to close at $12.85 per share.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler of Shareholder
Relations - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-
mail: vsoler@whesq.com


CROSS COUNTRY: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities fraud
class action lawsuit was 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, and the Class included
purchasers of Cross Country securities during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Ms. Tanya Autry or Scott E. Poynter of
Investor Relations Department - EMERSON POYNTER LLP by Mail:
2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100, Little Rock, AR 72202 by Phone:
1-800-663-9817 by E-mail: info@emersonpoynter.com


FIRST VIRTUAL: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of First Virtual Communications, Inc. ("First Virtual" or the
"Company") (PNK:FVCC) between March 29, 2004 and August 23,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, Case No. 04-CV-3585, is pending before the Honorable
Fern M. Smith, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, against defendants First
Virtual, Jonathan Morgan (President and CEO), and Truman Cole
(CFO and VP). According to the complaint, defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a "pump and
dump" scheme that enabled Company insiders to profit at the
expense of class members by selling over a million shares of
their personally held First Virtual securities at artificially
inflated prices. Specifically, defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements about the Company's financial
condition and sales of its real-time rich media communications
software and services and specialized networking hardware
equipment worldwide, and a contract to provide the United States
Air Force with the Company's proprietary Click to MeetTM web
communications infrastructure and solutions. In reaction to
these statements, the price of First Virtual stock skyrocketed
161% between February 5, 2004 and April 6, 2004, allowing
certain Company insiders to sell over 1.98 million shares of
their personally held First Virtual stock for proceeds of more
than $8.5 million.

On April 30, 2004, the truth about the Company's financial
condition began to emerge. On that day, defendants announced
that the Company's audit committee had commenced an
investigation into certain irregular sales transactions, and
that until the review was completed, the Company would not be
able to release its first-quarter earnings or file its Form 10-Q
with the SEC. In reaction to this news, the price of First
Virtual stock fell 37% from its previous day's closing price. As
a result of its failure to comply with the SEC's filing
requirements, First Virtual's securities were subject to
delistment from the Nasdaq SmallCap market. On August 5, 2004,
defendants announced that the Company had received a letter from
Nasdaq which granted the Company a conditional temporary
extension to file its first quarter 2004 report. On August 17,
2004, defendants disclosed that

     (1) the Company could not meet the conditions of its
         temporary filing extension;

     (2) the Company had incurred $2.1 million in expenses
         directly related to the investigation;

     (3) the Company was in danger of defaulting on a $3.0
         million credit facility agreement; and

     (4) based on the Company's profit and loss projections for
         the remainder of 2004, its stockholder equity would
         fall below Nasdaq's listing requirements.

On August 24, 2004, before the market opened, defendants
disclosed that the Company's request for an extension to comply
with Nasdaq's listing and filing requirements had been denied,
and that the Company's securities would be delisted from the
Nasdaq SmallCap at the commencement of trading on August 25,
2004. In reaction to that news, the price of First Virtual stock
fell 47 percent from its previous trading day's closing price,
to close at $0.37 per share.

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


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of KongZhong Corporation
("KongZhong" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: KONG) between July 9,
2004 and August 17, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against KongZhong and certain officers and
directors and the underwriters for the Initial Public Offering
("IPO").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially
false and misleading prospectus (the "Prospectus") with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with
the initial public offering of KongZhong common stock, which
took place on July 9, 2004, selling 10 million shares and
raising approximately $100 million in proceeds. Specifically the
complaint alleges that the Prospectus failed to disclose and
misrepresented that in early June 2004, KongZhong had carried
inappropriate content on its interactive voice response system,
which was in violation of the agreement with China Mobile, and
that in response to such a violation, KongZhong would be subject
to violations that could materially impact its operations.

On August 9, 2004, KongZhong issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the second fiscal quarter of 2004. It
reported earnings of $0.19 per American Depository Shares
("ADS"). On August 18, 2004 KongZhong issued a press release
announcing that it had been notified by China Mobile of a
sanction imposed on the Company. China Mobile would suspend new
applications for new products and any applications to operate in
new platforms until June 30, 2005. In response to the news,
shares of KongZhong traded lower, falling 16.6% to $5.32 per
ADS.

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


KVH INDUSTRIES: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Lawsuit in RI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP filed a securities fraud
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the District of Rhode Island against KVH Industries, Inc. ("KVH"
or the "Company") (NYSE: KVHI-news), Martin A. Kits van
Heyningen and Patrick J. Spratt on behalf of purchasers of KVH
securities, during the period between January 6, 2004 and July
2, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges KVH, Martin A. Kits van Heyningen and
Patrick J. Spratt with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class
Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding KVH's increasing financial results and the
strong demand for its newly developed TracVision A5 and G8
satellite TV systems (the "TracVision system"). As alleged in
the complaint, these statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose, among other things:

     (1) that defendants had "stuffed" the retail channels with
         overpriced TracVision systems;

     (2) that the Company's revenues were not growing by
         millions of dollars per quarter and the purported
         growth trends in the Company's revenues could not be
         sustained; and

     (3) that KVH had not realized any material cost reduction
         in the manufacture of its TracVision systems and would
         be forced to write-down its inventory of manufactured
         goods by millions of dollars.

The complaint further alleges that defendants failed to disclose
these adverse facts in order to complete a public offering of
KVH common stock, raising more than $51.5 million in much needed
capital.

On or about July 6, 2004, before the market opened for trading,
KVH stunned the investing public by announcing that it was
slashing the retail price of its TracVision systems by more than
34% and taking a multimillion dollar write down of vendor
purchase commitments and on-hand inventories to reflect the true
value of KVH's TracVision systems sales. In pre-opening market
trading, KVH common stock declined more than 19%, to open at
$9.51 per share on July 6, 2004, a 49% decline from the public
offering price just 4 months prior.

For more details, contact Nichole Browning Adams, Esq. of
Chitwood & Harley by Phone: 1-888-873-3999, ext. 4873 by E-mail:
nba@classlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.classlaw.com


RED HAT: Scott + Scott Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in E.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina against Red Hat, Inc. ("Red Hat" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:RHAT), Matthew Szulik, Kevin B. Thompson
and Timothy J. Buckley, on behalf of common stock purchasers
during the period between June 19, 2001 and July 13, 2004 (the
"Class Period"), inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
issued a series of materially false and misleading statements to
the market in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
More specifically, on July 13, 2004, defendants revealed they
were restating financial results for fiscal years ended February
2004, 2003 and 2002 as well as its unaudited financial statement
for its fiscal first quarter ended May 31, 2004 as a result of
the change in the way they recognized revenue from subscription
contracts, noting that they would now be recognizing revenue
from subscriptions on a daily basis rather than on a monthly
basis. Additionally, Red Hat announced that the Securities and
Exchange Commission is conducting a review of one of its annual
reports. On this news, Red Hat's stock price fell from a closing
price of $20.35 per share on July 12, 2004 to an intra-day low
of $15.62 per share on July 13, 2004.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott by
Phone: 800/404-7770 or 860/537-3818 (EDT) or 800/332-2259 or
619/233-4565 (PDT) by Fax: 619/233-0508 by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.scott-scott.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Abraham Fruchter Files Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced 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" or
the "Company") (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 was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota, and 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 than
         those of Travelers, which, if revealed, would have
         impaired 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 this news, 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.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of former holders
of shares of Travelers' Class A or Class B common stock who
acquired shares of St. Paul's common stock in connection with
St. Paul's merger with Travelers, and on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of St. Paul between April 2, 2004
and August 5, 2004, inclusive (the "Class").

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


SYNOPSYS INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Synopsys, Inc. (Nasdaq: SNPS)
("Synopsys") between December 3, 2003 and August 18, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Synopsys
made false or misleading positive statements about its expected
quarterly financial performance. Then on August 2, 2004,
Synopsys warned that based on its preliminary results for the
fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2004, its total revenue would fall
well short of its previously announced target range. On this
news, Synopsys dropped from a close of $25.25 per share on July
30, 2004, to close at $21.05 on August 2, 2004.

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


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

The Complaint charges Thoratec and certain of the Company's
officers and directors with violations of federal securities
laws. Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Thoratec's operations and
prospects artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. Thoratec is the leading
supplier of implantable heart pumps and left ventricular assist
devices. The Company manufactures these products for use by
patients with congestive heart failure, including "end-stage"
patients. Traditionally, these products were used as a "bridge
to transplant" for patients awaiting a heart transplant. The
Company's "Destination Therapy" is its flagship new treatment
option for patients with end-stage heart failure. The Company
claims that its HeartMate XVE ("HeartMate") is an approved
ventricular assist device that is designed to provide permanent
support for these patients.

The Complaint alleges defendants knew, but concealed from the
investing public, adverse facts including:

     (1) the true market for Destination Therapy was far less
         than claimed;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Complaint further alleges that as a result of defendants'
false statements, Thoratec's stock price traded at artificially
inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to $14.55
per share on May 24, 2004 and $14.84 per share on June 8, 2004,
and the Company's top officers and directors were able to sell
more than $143.7 million of corporate notes in an offering.

On June 29, 2004, after the market closed, Thoratec released its
preliminary results for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. These
results were much worse than previous forecasts. On this news,
the price of Thoratec stock dropped dramatically to $10.74 per
share, a more than 25% decrease from the prior day's closing
price on large volume of more than 11 million shares.

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


US UNWIRED: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Lawsuit in LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a class action
lawsuit in the Eastern District of Louisiana against US Unwired,
Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: UNWR) on behalf of all securities
purchasers of US Unwired, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: UNWR) ("US
Unwired" or the "Company") from May 23, 2000 through August 13,
2002, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges US Unwired, William L. Henning Jr., Robert
W. Piper, and Jerry E. Vaughn with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. US Unwired holds direct or indirect
ownership interests in five Sprint PCS affiliates: Louisiana
Unwired, Texas Unwired, Georgia PCS, IWO Holdings and Gulf Coast
Wireless. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) the Company was increasing its subscriber base by
         signing up high-credit-risk customers;

     (2) that accounting changes implemented by the Company were
         done in order to conceal the Company's declining
         revenues;

     (3) that the Company had been experiencing high involuntary
         disconnections related to its high-credit- risk
         customers;

     (4) that the Company experienced lower subscription growth
         as a result of its policy that required credit-
         challenged customers to pay substantial deposits upon
         the initiation of services; and

     (5) that the Company was engaged in a dispute with Sprint
         PCS regarding its business relationship with Sprint PCS
         and Sprint PCS was pressuring the Company.

On August 13, 2002, US Unwired announced in a press release the
financial results for the second quarter period ended June 30,
2002. The Company revealed that it experienced lower
subscription growth as a result of its policy that required
credit-challenged customers to pay substantial deposits upon the
initiation of services. In response to this string of negative
announcements, on August 13, 2002, the price of US Unwired
common stock closed at $.90 per share, down 94.8% from its Class
Period high of $17.25 per share.

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


WET SEAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of The Wet Seal, Inc. (Nasdaq: WTSLA) ("Wet Seal" or
the "Company") from January 7, 2004 through August 19, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Wet Seal, Peter D. Whitford, Joseph E.
Deckop, and Irving Teitelbaum with violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's strategic initiatives plan was not
         strengthening the Company's corporate standing. In
         fact, the Company's strategic initiatives plan was a
         complete and total disaster that was leading the
         Company into financial ruin;

     (2) that demand for the Company's products was based on
         deep-discounting and that without deep-discounting its
         products, demand for such was at an all time low; and

     (3) that as a result of the above, the Company's
         projections, outlooks, and positive statements, were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On August 19, 2004, Wet Seal, after the market closed, shocked
the market by reporting that net loss from continuing operations
of $3.20 per share for the second quarter ended July 31, 2004.
Following this post-market announcement, shares of Wet Seal shed
$1.25 per share, or 59.52 percent, to close at $0.85 per share
on unusually high trading volume on August 20, 2004.

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


WORLD INFORMATION: Vianale & Vianale Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP commenced a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of World Information Technology, Inc. ("World
Information" or the "Company") (OTC: WRLT) between January 3,
2003 and March 16, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that the Company, its officers, directors
and outside auditor violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. World Information purported to
be a leading "online, member-created, Internet community."
Throughout the class period, the Company reported artificially
inflated sales, accounts receivable and net income. Despite
these violations, the Company's outside auditor, Beckstead &
Watts, LLP ("B&W"), certified the Company's 2002 financial
statements. In September 2003, B&W wrote to CEO Gary D. Morgan,
questioning the validity of the Company's accounts receivable
and noting problems with the Company's internal financial
controls, but did not withdraw its audit report. In January
2004, B&W resigned as the Company's auditor, followed by CFO
Steven D. Fellows who resigned in February 2004. On March 16,
2004, the Company announced that the Securities and Exchange
Commission had temporarily suspended trading of the Company's
securities due to the inaccuracy and incompleteness of the
Company's financial statements.

For more details, contact Vianale & Vianale by Phone: 888-657-
9960 or visit their Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.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  * * *