---

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

           Wednesday, September 1, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 173

                            Headlines

APPLIED MICRO: Discovery Proceeds, Suit Trial Expected in 2005
BAYCORP ADVANTAGE: Faces Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Credit Checks
CALIFORNIA: Judge Tentatively Approves Wackenhut Suit Settlement
CALIFORNIA: UCLA Students Lodge Suit V. Fees, Obtain Injunction
CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Settles Visa Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Canada

CHRONIMED INC.: Shareholders Sue To Halt MIM Corporation Merger
COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: DE Court Nixes Expedited Proceedings For Suit
CV THERAPEUTICS: CA Court Grants Stock Lawsuit Dismissal in Part
EDUCATIONAL TESTING: KY Resident Files Suit V. False Test Result
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Trial Ends, Plaintiffs Seek $8.6M In Damages

GEORGE CARAPELLA: SEC Lodges Suit For Fraud, Stock Violations
IBM CORPORATION: Asks Swiss High Court To Block Gypsies' Lawsuit
ILLINOIS: Attorneys Lodge Suit V. Radio Station's "Junk" Fax
INTERNATIONAL FLAVOR: MO Court Refuses Certification For Lawsuit
INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Discovery Proceeds in SC Antitrust Lawsuit

KIMBERLY SECURITIES: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. Former Employees
MATRIXONE INC.: Parties Lodge Settlement Documents in NY Court
MICROMUSE INC.: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
NBTY INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. NY
SMITH BARNEY: Law Firm Reminds Investors of September 1 Deadline

SPX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in NC
STANDARD COMMERCIAL: NC Court OKs Leaf Merchant Antitrust Pact
TRIPOS INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in MO
UNION PACIFIC: LA Judge Formally Approves $65M Eunice Settlement
WELLS FARGO: Reaches $6.7M Pact For CA Consumer Privacy Lawsuit

WILSONART INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Summary Judgment in NY Fraud Suit
WORLD INFORMATION: Denies Merit of NY Lawsuit, To Defend Itself

               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIED WASTE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in AZ
FERRO CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files OH Securities Suit
INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Lodges CA Securities Suit
NETOPIA INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NC

ST. PAUL TRAVELLERS: Chestnut & Cambronne Files Stock Suit in MN
TECO ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in FL
THORATEC CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges CA Securities Suit
VISTACARE INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ

                            *********


APPLIED MICRO: Discovery Proceeds, Suit Trial Expected in 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Applied Micro Circuits Corporation and certain of its executive
officers and directors is expected to commence in 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The suit, styled "In re Applied Micro Circuits Corp. Securities
Litigation, lead case number 01-CV-0649-K(AB)," alleges
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and is brought
as a shareholder class action under Sections 10(b), 20(a), 20A
and Rule 10b-5 under the Act.  Plaintiff seeks monetary damages
on behalf of the shareholder class.

Discovery in this lawsuit is continuing.  Trial is currently
scheduled for calendar year 2005.


BAYCORP ADVANTAGE: Faces Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Credit Checks
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Zealand debt collector Baycorp Advantage faces a potential
class action to be filed before the Human Rights Review
Tribunal, after an Auckland property developer discovered
unauthorized searches of his financial records through the
Company's database, the New Zealand Herald reports.

Individuals and businesses searching the Baycorp register must
have good reason for doing so - and with a few exceptions,
written permission.  The most common reason for searches is
running credit checks before lending money or giving credit to
customers.

Developer Stuart Herron asserted that his ability to borrow
money and his reputation suffered after several organizations
used Baycorp's database to do credit checks on him.  He charged
that the Company is giving parties unauthorized access to
private financial information about him and other New
Zealanders.  He believes it might be grounds for other Kiwis to
take a class action against the Company.

Mr. Herron asserts that a number of companies, including Speirs
Group, Westpac bank, Nationwide Business Services and Link
Services, had not gained permission before carrying out
searches. "I never even met with some of the organizations who
have looked at my information," he told the New Zealand Herald.
"No one minds if you give permission, but it seems to me there
are very poor processes with Baycorp on how it checks who is
authorised to look things up."

Mr. Herron filed a complaint with the Privacy Commissioner's
office, which found breaches of rules governing the gathering of
information.  However, the commission also ruled that Mr. Herron
had suffered no "harm" as a result of the searches.

"It is harming me because I have people with inaccurate
information about me and postings against my name and it affects
my ability to borrow money," Mr. Herron told The New Zealand
Herald.  Mr. Herron said he was considering a lawsuit and had
rejected an out-of-court settlement offered by Baycorp.

Baycorp Advantage managing director Andrew Want said there were
thousands of credit searches every day at Baycorp, and it was
impossible to check the legitimacy of every search. Baycorp
carried out random checks.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Tentatively Approves Wackenhut Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Kern County Superior Court tentatively approved a settlement
in a class action lawsuit that accuses Wackenhut Corrections of
requiring employees at the Taft Correctional Institution to work
unpaid overtime, the Midway Driller reports.

Tentatively approved by Kern County Superior Court Judge John R.
Kelly, the settlement will be back in court for final approval
on Sept. 27, 2004.

According to a plaintiff's attorney the settlement could result
in up to $1 million being paid to 1,600 current and former
employees, some of whom will receive cash awards, while others
will get non-cash considerations such as paid days off. Some
employees could receive up to $6,500.

Filed in December of 2001 by 10 named plaintiffs, the suit would
later become a class action that encompasses hundreds of
employees at TCI and other prison facilities that were operated
by Wackenhut Corrections, which was recently purchased by the
GEO Group.

Plaintiff's attorney Phillip Ganong of Bakersfield stated that
Wackenhut had a corporate policy of refusing to pay overtime. He
also adds, "We began investigating and found what we thought was
a potential labor law violation - people working and not being
paid." According to the attorney, there was a pattern of
violation, ranging from employees being misclassified as
supervisors so they would be ineligible for overtime and
employees being required to work overtime while off the clock.

The settlement, if approved calls for the retraining and
restructuring of GEO human resource employees at facilities in
California and Oregon. Employees who worked at the facilities
between December of 1997 and July of this year might be eligible
for part of the settlement.


CALIFORNIA: UCLA Students Lodge Suit V. Fees, Obtain Injunction
---------------------------------------------------------------
Seven professional school students, who filed a class action
lawsuit against the University of California Board of Regents in
2003 recently obtained a preliminary injunction that prevents
the University of California from implementing its 2004-2005 fee
increases for students who were enrolled in University of
California professional schools in 2002, the UCLA Daily Bruin
reports.

The suit claims that the University of California-Los Angeles
(UCLA) breached its contract by raising fees after promising
students before they enrolled in their various programs that the
cost for a professional degree would stay the same for the full
time of their enrollment.

UCLA fee increases in recent years have forced some students in
professional schools to reconsider their career choices or take
on part-time jobs, as well as apply for hefty loans, in order to
continue their education.

However, Hanan Eisenman, a spokesperson for the University of
California Office of the President, pointed out that the same
publications, which the students claim to have the guarantee
also have disclaimers, which state that fees are subject to
change without notice. He also added that fees were raised
because of the state financial problems and only after UCLA made
as many budget cuts as possible and that the university tried to
notify students about the fee increases in advance so they could
have time to prepare.

Students, like Colin Bailey, a third year law student said they
would have chosen to attend a different school if they had known
fees would increase so much during their time in professional
school. Another third-year law student, John Alden, who is one
of the plaintiffs in the case against UCLA, said one of the
biggest reasons he chose to be involved in the lawsuit is how
the fee increases are affecting his plans for the future.

With the recent court ruling, many students are pleased they
will not have to take out more loans to pay for further fee
increases. But despite the temporary relief students are
getting, most students are still cautious about their financial
situation.

Students from professional schools must still pay for fee
increases made in previous years and, because the injunction is
preliminary, students will be forced to pay the university back
if they ultimately lose the case.


CANADIAN IMPERIAL: Settles Visa Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) agreed to settle a
seven-year-old suit alleging it gouged CIBC Visa customers with
undisclosed or inadequately disclosed markups on foreign
exchange transactions, The Globe and Mail reports.  Paul Pape of
Toronto and Harvey Strosberg of Windsor, Ontario filed the suit
on behalf of cardholders.

The Company has agreed to pay about $19.5-million, including $3-
million in legal costs, to settle the suit.  If the deal is
approved in a court hearing in Toronto on October 7, millions of
cardholders will receive cheques or credits in amounts ranging
from 72 cents to $14.32.  The settlement includes $13.85-million
for cardholders, $1.65-million for a class proceedings fund that
helped to bankroll the suit and a $1-million United Way
contribution in lieu of payments to past cardholders.

In an interview with The Globe and Mail, Mr. Strosberg said the
case arose when people noticed they were paying an extra 1.8 per
cent above the exchange rate on foreign purchases.  "People in
Windsor are always in Detroit, as you know, and a couple of
people we knew bought something in Detroit - a small appliance -
and took it back the next day, and the credit and the debit
didn't match," he said.


CHRONIMED INC.: Shareholders Sue To Halt MIM Corporation Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chronimed Inc. faces a purported securities class action filed
in Minnesota court, seeking to block the Company's proposed
merger with Elmsford, N.Y.-based MIM Corporation, the St. Paul
Pioneer Press reports.

Earlier this month, the two specialty pharmaceutical companies
agreed to combine under the name BioScrip.  Under the terms of
the agreement, Chronimed's shareholders would receive 1.025 MIM
shares for each share of Chronimed.  MIM and Chronimed shares
fell sharply after the merger was announced.


COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: DE Court Nixes Expedited Proceedings For Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery refused plaintiffs' motions for
discovery and expedited proceedings in the consolidated class
action filed against CompuCom Systems, Inc., its directors and
Safeguard Scientifics, Inc.

On May 28, 2004, June 1, 2004 and June 10, 2004, three
substantially similar complaints were filed allegedly on behalf
of a class of holders of the Company's common stock.  By order
dated July 22, 2004, these three actions were consolidated for
all purposes.  On July 27, 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended
class action complaint under the caption of one of the three
actions.

The Amended Complaint alleges that the Company, its directors,
and Safeguard breached fiduciary duties in connection with the
merger agreement described in the Company's press release of May
28, 2004 and aided and abetted one another in the course of
committing the alleged breach.  Among other things, the Amended
Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to obtain the best
transaction reasonably available and diverted merger
consideration from the Company's minority stockholders to
Safeguard and the Company's directors and certain of its
officers.

It is also alleged that the Company failed to disclose, or only
partially disclosed, certain matters in the Company's proxy
statement.  The Amended Complaint seeks:

     (1) an injunction against the proposed transaction,

     (2) an order invalidating the proposed transaction in the
         event it is consummated,

     (3) an order directing the Company's directors to obtain a
         transaction that is in the best interests of all of its
         shareholders and to disclose all material information
         to shareholders in connection with any transaction; and

     (4) the imposition of a constructive trust, in favor of
         plaintiffs, upon any benefits improperly received by
         defendants

On July 27, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited
proceedings and discovery in connection with the injunctive
relief sought and requested that a preliminary injunction
hearing be held before August 19, 2004, the date of the special
meeting of the stockholders of the Company.  Defendants filed
their opposition to the motion on July 28, 2004.


CV THERAPEUTICS: CA Court Grants Stock Lawsuit Dismissal in Part
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted in part the motions to dismiss the securities
class action filed against CV Therapeutics, Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors.

Several suits were initially filed on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities, and seeks
unspecified damages.  As is typical in this type of litigation,
several other purported securities class action lawsuits
containing substantially similar allegations have since been
filed against the defendants, and the Company expects that
additional lawsuits containing substantially similar allegations
may be filed in the future.

In November 2003, the court appointed a lead plaintiff, and in
December 2003, the court consolidated all of the securities
class actions filed to date into a single action captioned
In re CV Therapeutics, Inc. Securities Litigation."  In January
2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.

The Company and the other named defendants filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated complaint in March 2004.  In August
2004, these motions were granted in part and denied in part.
The court granted the motions to dismiss by two individual
defendants, dismissing both individuals from the action with
prejudice, but denied the motions to dismiss by the company and
the two other individual defendants.


EDUCATIONAL TESTING: KY Resident Files Suit V. False Test Result
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Sean Ragland of Louisville, Kentucky initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status in Jefferson Circuit Court
against Educational Testing Service Inc. on behalf of Joan
Beckwith, 51, who took the necessary certification exam, and
twice heard from the testing company that she had failed, The
Courier-Journal reports.

In her suit Ms. Beckwith alleges that Educational, based in
Princeton, New Jersey was negligent in administering the test
and failed to score it properly, causing her humiliation as well
as costing her time and wages. In an interview with the Courier-
Journal, Ms. Beckwith stated, "I was really shook up and it was
a huge disappointment. At my age, it was hard enough to go back
to school, but I knew we needed good teachers." Ms. Beckwith's
lawsuit also alleges that hundreds of people in Kentucky may
have been affected. She is seeking punitive damages and a trial.

The company, based in Princeton, N.J., has said that incorrect
scores went to about 10 percent of the 40,000 people who took
the test from January 2003 through April 2004, according to
information from the company's Web site.

According to Sean Ragland, this is the first such lawsuit
against Educational Testing Service in Louisville; similar
actions have been filed in Ohio and Pennsylvania.

A statement on the company's Web site said there was a scoring
"anomaly" on the short essay questions, accounting for lower
scores. "This is certainly not up to the standards that our
clients have every right to expect from ETS, or how I expect ETS
to perform," Kurt Landgraf, the company's president and chief
executive officer, said in the statement.

Last month, the company announced the mistakes in the scoring of
the examination used to license teachers and began notifying the
4,100 test takers moved from failing to passing.


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Trial Ends, Plaintiffs Seek $8.6M In Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit against Equity Residential Properties
Trust, one of the nation's largest landlords ended Monday in
Palm Beach County Circuit Court, with plaintiffs' attorneys
asking for $8.6 million in damages for allegedly violating
billing and collections laws, the Sun-Sentinel.com reports.

Palm Beach Circuit Judge Susan Lubitz heard the one-week trial
without a jury, and she said she will try to issue a ruling as
quickly as possible.

According to Rod Tennyson, a plaintiffs' attorney, the trust was
attempting to collect on rents twice, which is prohibited by
law. Attorney Tennyson disputed that the company was trying to
collect "fees." "It is rent, clear and simple," he said.

Plaintiffs' attorneys contended some of the most damaging
evidence against Equity Residential came from legal advice by a
West Palm Beach attorney, who was hired to review the trust's
proposed nationwide lease. The Plaintiffs point out that the
attorney discovered the company's provisions of the lease to be
running contrary to state law. Plaintiffs' attorneys argued that
the letters showed Equity Residential was put on notice that
some policies did not follow the law but went ahead with them
regardless.

However, Craig White, an attorney representing Chicago-based
Equity Residential, said the lease provisions in question are
independent covenants that don't fall under the state's
landlord-tenant law. Attorney White also said Equity
Residential's in-house lawyer tried to follow the advice given
by the West Palm Beach attorney and thought the final lease that
went into use followed the law. According to attorney white if
the judge finds otherwise, "It is not because it was deliberate.
It was simply a drafting error."

Equity Residential changed its billing and collection practices
in July 2003, seven months after the suit was filed. The changes
were made to bring greater uniformity to the company's lease
agreements in 34 states.

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


GEORGE CARAPELLA: SEC Lodges Suit For Fraud, Stock Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency
federal civil action against George Carapella and Alan S.
Lipstein (collectively, "defendants") for illegally
participating in penny stock offerings and committing securities
fraud in violation of prior injunctions and Commission orders
barring them from such activities.

The Commission's action includes a civil complaint and also a
contempt motion against the defendants for violating permanent
injunctions entered against them in SEC v. Tel-One, Inc. et al,
Civil Action 8:02-120-T-30TGW (M.D. Fla. 2002), in which the
Commission alleged that Carapella and Lipstein orchestrated a
pump-and-dump fraud involving the common stock of Tel-One, a
Tampa, Florida company. Following the entry of the injunctions,
the Commission entered administrative orders in July 2002, on
consent, that barred Carapella and Lipstein from participating
in offerings of penny stocks.

The Commission's most recent complaint, filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleges that
despite the entry of those prior orders, the defendants
participated in a penny stock offering in late 2003 and early
2004 by attempting to merge a Florida company they control with
a private cellular telephone retailer and take the newly-created
company public through a reverse merger or an initial public
offering. According to the Commission's complaint, the
defendants fraudulently represented themselves as experienced
consultants who had successfully taken companies public and
concealed their history of criminal convictions, securities law
violations, and enforcement actions against them.

The Commission also alleges that Carapella and Lipstein
currently control a Nevada shell company and are violating the
Commission's penny stock bars by actively seeking a company to
merge into that shell.

The Commission's complaint charges the defendants with violating
Sections 17(a)(1) and 17(a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933,
and with participating in penny stock offerings in violation of
Section 15(b)(6)(B)(i) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
In addition to emergency relief, the complaint seeks permanent
injunctions prohibiting future violations of the securities
laws, civil penalties, personal trading bans, and judicial penny
stock bars.

In addition to its civil complaint, the SEC filed a contempt
action against Carapella and Lipstein for disobeying a prior
final judgment of permanent injunction entered against them on
July 12, 2002 in SEC v. Tel-One, Inc., et al. Among other
things, those prior injunctions enjoined Carapella and Lipstein
from violating the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws. The action is titled, SEC v. George Carapella
and Alan S. Lipstein, Case No. 8:04-CV-1858-T-23MSS, M.D. Fla.
(LR-18859).


IBM CORPORATION: Asks Swiss High Court To Block Gypsies' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
IBM Corporation asked from Switzerland's highest court, the
Federal Tribunal to overturn a Geneva court ruling that allowed
a lawsuit by Gypsies claiming the company's punch-card machines
helped the Nazis more efficiently commit mass murder to proceed,
the Associated Press reports.

Brian Doyle, a spokesman for the N.Y.-based computer giant told
The Associated Press in a telephone interview that IBM's lawyers
have asked the Federal Tribunal to overturn the court ruling
that allowed the case to proceed and added, "Beyond that we
don't comment on pending litigation."

Filed by the Gypsy International Recognition and Compensation
Action, the lawsuit about claims in a 2001 book by U.S. author
Edwin Black entitled "IBM and the Holocaust," which claims that
punch-card machines were used to codify information about people
sent to concentration camps thus enabling the Nazis to make
their killing operations more efficient. The suit also claims
that the company's Geneva office continued to coordinate Europe-
wide trade with the Nazis, acting on clear instructions from
IBM's world headquarters in New York, which the company has
vehemently denied.

Last year, a lower court in Geneva ruled that they had no
jurisdiction to hear the case, stating that IBM only had an
"antenna" in the Swiss city during World War II. However in June
of this year, the Geneva's appeals court stated that the
decision was wrong, citing city records, which proves that IBM
did open an office in 1936 under the name "International
Business Machines Corporation New York, European Headquarters."

According to the appeals court it couldn't rule out "IBM's
complicity through material or intellectual assistance to the
criminal acts of the Nazis."

The Gypsy group sued IBM for "moral reparation" and $20,000 each
in damages on behalf of four Gypsies, or Roma, from Germany and
France and one Polish-born Swedish Gypsy all of who were
orphaned in the Holocaust.

Besides systematically murdering 6 million Jews, the Nazis are
believed to have also killed approximately 600,000 Gypsies,
although Roma groups say the number could have been as high as
1.5 million.

Through Germany's government-industry initiative, IBM's German
division has compensated people forced to work for the Nazis
during the war.

In April 2001, a class action lawsuit against IBM in New York
was dropped after lawyers said they feared it would slow down
payments from the German Holocaust fund, which German companies
had committed into on the condition that they be freed from
legal actions.

Henri-Philippe Sambuc, the Gypsies' lawyer told AP that the
Geneva case is the first Holocaust-related action against IBM in
Europe. He further states that the Federal Tribunal could rule
on IBM's appeal as early as November.


ILLINOIS: Attorneys Lodge Suit V. Radio Station's "Junk" Fax
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys Stephen L. Kerschner and Burton Witt initiated a
lawsuit that could become a potential class action against radio
station WSCR-AM (670) in Cook County Circuit Court claiming
their office fax machine has been clogged by ad-driven faxes,
the Chicago Sun Times reports.

In their suit, the attorneys alleged that WSCR-AM (670) "The
Score" ad agents sent them a fax they never asked for promoting
ad rates for airtime on the station and might have blocked
other, important incoming faxes.

Their suit, which seeks unspecified damages from the station and
its owner, Infinity Broadcasting also alleges that WSCR's fax,
which includes graphics, station logos and bold print for
special rates, used more ink and toner than a normal fax, which
cost the lawyers money.

The suit claims that the ad in question was faxed in May 2002
and violates standards set by the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, a federal statute, which makes it illegal to use a fax
machine "to send an unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine.
The suit against "The Score" seeks damages on behalf of "more
than 50" others who got the fax.


INTERNATIONAL FLAVOR: MO Court Refuses Certification For Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri denied class action
status to a purported class action brought against International
Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. on behalf of certain former and
current workers at a plant owned and operated by Gilster-Mary
Lee Corporation in Jasper, Missouri.

The plaintiffs in that action are alleging that they sustained
respiratory injuries in the workplace due to the use by Gilster-
Mary Lee Corp of an IFF and BBA flavor.  As a result of this
decision, each of the 30 plaintiff cases is to be tried
separately.

The Company appealed a March 15, 2004 jury verdict in favor of
one of the plaintiffs awarding approximately $20 million in
compensatory damages.  The Company believes the verdict is not
supported by the evidence or law.

On April 30, 2004, a second case was settled for an amount
agreed by the parties to be held confidential, on June 28, 2004
the trial court found in favor of the Company in four additional
plaintiff's cases, and on July 21, 2004 another case was
resolved through a confidential settlement.

Six other actions based on similar claims of respiratory illness
are currently pending against the Company and other flavor
suppliers.  The parties are in the discovery phase in the action
brought against the Company and another flavor supplier by 20
former and current workers at a popcorn factory in Marion,
Ohio.

In May 2004, the Company and another flavor supplier were named
defendants in a lawsuit by 4 former workers at a Ridgeway,
Illinois factory in an action brought in the Circuit Court for
the Second Judicial Circuit, Gallatin County, Illinois and
another concerning 11 other workers at this same plant was filed
in July 2004 in Cook County, Illinois against the Company and
another flavor supplier.

In June 2004, the Company and 3 other flavor suppliers were
named defendants in a lawsuit by 1 current worker at a Sioux
City, Iowa facility in an action brought in the Iowa District
Court for Woodbury County.

In July 2004, the Company and 3 other flavor suppliers were
named defendants in a lawsuit by a former worker at a Northlake,
Illinois facility in an action brought in the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois.  In July 2004, the Company, 4 other
flavor suppliers and other unnamed parties were named defendants
in a lawsuit by 1 former worker at an Iowa City, Iowa facility
in an action filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa.

While the Company has not been served with a complaint, it has
received information concerning an additional action based on
similar claims of respiratory illness by 1 plaintiff in Hamilton
County, Ohio against the Company, 5 other flavor suppliers and
other unnamed defendants.


INTERNATIONAL PAPER: Discovery Proceeds in SC Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the class action filed against
International Paper Co. in the United States District Court in
Columbia, South Carolina by a group of private landowners.

The suit alleges the Company and certain of its fiber suppliers,
known as "Quality Suppliers" engaged in an unlawful conspiracy
to artificially depress the prices at which the Company procures
fibers for its mills.  The suit seeks injunctive relief as well
as treble damages and other costs associated with the
litigation.

On March 31, 2004, the case was certified as a class action.
The Company then asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit for permission to appeal the District Court's order
granting class certification, but that request was denied.
Discussion of issues concerning class notice is also ongoing.


KIMBERLY SECURITIES: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. Former Employees
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
former employees of Kimberly Securities, Inc., a defunct broker-
dealer that was formerly located on Long Island, New York. The
complaint alleges that from early 2000 through September 2002,
Kimberly Securities registered representatives, and others,
participated in a scheme to defraud their customers by
repeatedly executing unauthorized, unsuitable transactions in
their customers' accounts, and churning these customers'
accounts.

The complaint alleges that from early 2000 until September 2002,
Kimberly J. Carrella, a registered principal of Kimberly
Securities, and her husband, Vincent M. Carrella, directed the
scheme to defraud Kimberly Securities' customers. In the initial
phase of the scheme, Kimberly Securities' registered
representatives, including Kimberly Carrella, James R. Mancuso,
Kevin J. Barton, Philip J. Hourican, and Noel J. Belmonte,
misrepresented, and failed to disclose, material information to
investors to persuade them to open brokerage accounts at
Kimberly Securities and to invest significant funds. Once
customers invested their funds, Kimberly Carrella, Mancuso,
Barton, and Hourican executed numerous transactions that were
unauthorized by, and unsuitable for, these customers, and the
registered representatives churned their customers' accounts.
When the customers' accounts were depleted of funds through
commission charges and trading losses, the defendants lured new,
unsuspecting customers into opening accounts at Kimberly
Securities, and repeated the same conduct. John C. Kawas, Jr.,
Kimberly Securities' Compliance Officer, assisted the scheme by,
among other things, failing to address red flags that registered
representatives were executing unauthorized trades and churning
accounts, and by obstructing customers' efforts to stop the
improper trading in their accounts. Through this scheme,
defendants enriched themselves at their customers' expense. For
example, from January 2000 to September 2002, Kimberly
Securities charged customers approximately $4.5 million in
commissions. During the same time period, customers lost in
excess of $4 million through trading losses and commission
charges.

The Commission's complaint charges Kimberly Carrella, Vincent
Carrella, Mancuso, Barton, Hourican, and Belmonte with violating
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The complaint also charges Kawas with aiding and abetting
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.
The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-
gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and the imposition of
civil monetary penalties against each of the defendants. The
action is titled, SEC v. Kimberly Carrella, et al., Civil Action
No. CV-04-3754 (LDW) EDNY (LR-18860).


MATRIXONE INC.: Parties Lodge Settlement Documents in NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Matrixone, Inc. have submitted formal settlement
documents to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed, superseding five virtually identical complaints that
had been filed from July 24, 2001 to September 5, 2001.  The
suit also names as defendants two of the Company's officers, and
certain underwriters involved in its initial public offering of
common stock (IPO).  The complaint is allegedly brought on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
period from February 29, 2000 to December 6, 2000.

The suit asserts, among other things, that the Company's IPO
prospectus and registration statement violated federal
securities laws because they contained material
misrepresentations and/or omissions regarding the conduct of the
Company's IPO underwriters in allocating shares in its IPO to
the underwriters' customers.  The action seeks damages, fees and
costs associated with the litigation, and interest.

Pursuant to a stipulation between the parties, the Company's two
named officers were dismissed from the lawsuit, without
prejudice, on October 9, 2002.  On February 19, 2003, the Court
ruled on a motion to dismiss the complaint that had been filed
by the Company, along with the three hundred plus other publicly
traded companies that have been named by various plaintiffs in
substantially similar lawsuits.  The Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the claim filed against it under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, but denied the
Company's motion to dismiss the claim filed against it under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as it denied the
motions under this statute for virtually every other company
sued in the substantially similar lawsuits.

In June 2003, the Company, implementing the determination made
by a special independent committee of the Board of Directors,
elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with
the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If ultimately approved by
the Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect
to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of
any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the
litigation as against those defendants is continuing.  The
proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class
action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants
will be guaranteed a recovery of $1.0 billion by insurers of the
participating issuer defendants.  If recoveries totaling $1.0
billion or more are obtained by the class members from the
underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the
class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied.
In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of
their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability
insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.

The parties to the proposed settlement have drafted formal
settlement documents and requested preliminary approval by the
Court of the proposed settlement, including the form of the
notice of the proposed settlement that will be sent to members
of the proposed classes in each settling case.  Certain
underwriters who were named as defendants in the settling cases,
and who are not parties to the proposed settlement, have filed
an opposition to preliminary approval of the proposed settlement
of those cases.

If preliminary Court approval is obtained, notice of the
proposed settlement will be sent to the class members, and a
motion will then be made for final Court approval of the
proposed settlement.  Consummation of the proposed settlement
remains conditioned upon, among other things, receipt of both
preliminary and final Court approval.


MICROMUSE INC.: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the seven securities class
actions filed against Micromuse, Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.

The complaints were filed as purported class actions by
individuals who allege they purchased the Company's common stock
during a purported class period and seek an unspecified amount
of damages.  The complaints assert causes of action for alleged
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the Company's
decision to restate its previously issued financial statements
for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 and 2002 and for
the quarters ended December 31, 2000 through June 30, 2003 and
the Company's decision to adjust its preliminary consolidated
financial statement information for the quarter and fiscal year
ended September 30, 2003, as initially announced on October 29,
2003.

The Court also named the law firm of Berman, DeValerio, Please,
Tabacco, Burt & Pucillo as Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel.  Plaintiffs
plan to file a consolidated amended complaint in accordance with
the court-ordered schedule.


NBTY INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
NBTY, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors face
several securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
shareholders of the Company who purchased shares of the
Company's stock during certain periods of time.

The complaints generally allege that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing false and misleading statements and
by failing to disclose material facts concerning the Company's
financial results that allegedly caused declines in the price of
the Company's stock.

The complaints charge that NBTY, Scott Rudolf, and Harvey Kamil
violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 28,2004) states.  More specifically,
the Complaints allege that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's increased financial results over the
         prior year was attributable to a shift in the timing of
         a promotional mailing and was not attributable to any
         long-term improvement at the Company;

     (2) that a significant number of customers had shifted to
         purchasing supplements in the mass channel area such as
         drug chains and deep discounters, thereby negatively
         impacting the Company's retail sales at its Vitamin
         World chain; and

     (3) that as a result of the foregoing, defendants' positive
         statements concerning the Company's prospects were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

In addition to the shareholder class actions, a derivative claim
based on the same allegations has been filed in the Eastern
District of New York against individual directors of the
Company.


SMITH BARNEY: Law Firm Reminds Investors of September 1 Deadline
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities arbitration law firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
("K&T") continues to pursue individual arbitration claims
against Smith Barney/Citigroup on behalf of current and former
Kiewit employees with an over-concentration of shares in Level 3
Communications (Nasdaq: LVLT) and WorldCom, which were obtained
as a result of a spinoff of Kiewit's holdings. These investors
do not wish to participate in the class action case (#02 Civ.
3288 DLC) pending in New York and have elected to "opt out." The
deadline to "opt out" of the class action is September 1, 2004.

Securities 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 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/


SPX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs consolidated the securities class actions filed
against SPX Corporation and certain of its current and former
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina.

Beginning in March 2004, multiple class action complaints were
filed or announced by certain law firms representing or seeking
to represent purchasers of the Company's common stock during a
specified period.  The suits allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The
plaintiffs generally allege that the Company made false and
misleading statements regarding the forecast of its 2003 fiscal
year business and operating results in order to artificially
inflate the price of our stock.

Additionally, on April 23, 2004, an additional class action
complaint was filed, alleging breaches of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) by the Company,
its general counsel and the Administration Committee regarding
one of the Company's 401(k) defined contribution benefit plans
arising from the plan's holding of Company stock.


STANDARD COMMERCIAL: NC Court OKs Leaf Merchant Antitrust Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
North Carolina, Greensboro Division granted final approval to
the settlement of the class action filed against Standard
Commercial Corporation and other leaf merchants, styled
"Deloach, et al. V. Philip Morris Inc., et al., Case No. 00-CV-
1235."

The suit was originally filed against U.S. cigarette
manufacturers in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia.  The suit was a class action claim brought
on behalf of U.S. tobacco growers and quota holders alleging
that defendants violated antitrust laws by bid-rigging at
tobacco auctions and by conspiring to undermine the tobacco
quota and price support program administered by the federal
government.  Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, trebled
damages in an unspecified amount, pre- and post-judgment
interest, attorney's fees and costs of litigation.

On April 3, 2002, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
class action certification.  In May 2003, the Company, along
with all but one of the other defendants, entered into a
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs which received final
approval, and which accorded the Company's a full release from
all the claims in exchange for a payment of $7.0 million towards
a larger total settlement agreement.  On April 22, 2004, the
case was settled and the settlement approved by the Court as to
the remaining defendant.


TRIPOS INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Fraud Suit in MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against Tripos,
Inc. and two of its executive officers, Dr. John P. McAlister
and Mr. B. James Rubin, in the United States District Court in
St. Louis, Missouri on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the first half of 2002.

The consolidated class action complaint alleged that statements
made by the Company in press releases and other public
disclosures contained materially false and misleading
information in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
suit, filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock between February 9, 2000 and July 1, 2002, generally
alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants made false or
misleading statements of material fact about the Company's
prospects and failed to follow generally accepted accounting
principles in violation of the federal securities laws.  The
second amended complaint also names Ernst & Young LLP as a co-
defendant.  The amount of damages being sought is unspecified at
this time.


UNION PACIFIC: LA Judge Formally Approves $65M Eunice Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Richard Haik formally approved the $65
million settlement for a class-action lawsuit filed over a May
2000 train derailment that forced the evacuation of more than
3,000 Eunice area residents after train cars carrying hazardous
chemicals jumped the track, which was tentatively reached in
May, Opelousas Daily World reports.

Under the terms of the settlement the Union Pacific Railroad
Company will pay $65 million as compensation. Minus attorney's
fees, the money will be split among the 12,273 people who have
filed claims in the case. Taking into account the maximum
allowable attorneys fees of 40 percent, each plaintiff could
receive an average of $3,177.

According to Pat Juneau, court-appointed overseer of the
settlement payout, the amount paid to each person will be
determined through a review process over the next two months,
and plaintiffs should receive a letter stating how much they are
eligible for by the end of October.

The formal approval of the settlement came after a so-called
fairness hearing before U.S. District Judge Richard Haik to
determine if the monetary amount is adequate and to hear
objections to the settlement. However, the judge put off ruling
on the amount of attorneys fees in the case but capped the
figure at 40 percent of the total settlement.


WELLS FARGO: Reaches $6.7M Pact For CA Consumer Privacy Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco, California Superior Court granted approval to
the settlement of a class action filed against Wells Fargo,
alleging the banking giant illegally sold customers' financial
information to telemarketers, the San Francisco Chronicle
reports.

Wells Fargo agreed to pay $6.7 million to settle the suit.  $3.2
million will go to 81 charities, while $3.5 million will go into
proving online services to customers.  Under the agreement,
current and former Wells Fargo customers who had checking or
savings accounts between September 1995 and July 2001 will be
eligible for online bill paying service for free for a month.

Lawyers in the case estimate that of the 6 million class
members, about 500,000 are expected to take advantage of the
free services.  Wells Fargo, while not admitting any wrongdoing,
said that it could not pay a specific amount of money to class
members because it did not have a list of the account holders
whose information was sold to telemarketers.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer rejected
complaints from individuals and consumer groups who said that
most of the settlement money will go to groups that have nothing
to do with consumer privacy, the Chronicle states.

"This is a unique claim and a unique situation," said Kramer in
approving the settlement.  He said that many of the Wells Fargo
customers who received notice of the settlement had no idea
their account information was sold without their permission.

Robert Stumpf Jr., one of the lawyers for Wells Fargo, told
Judge Kramer that he was proud of the settlement, which was
hammered out after more than a year of negotiations.  He said
the primary obstacle was in calculating the "amorphous" harm to
customers whose dinners were interrupted by calls from
telemarketers, the Chronicle reports.

Reuben Yeroushalmi, a Los Angeles lawyer who is counsel for the
class, told the Chronicle he was happy with the settlement,
which he says will benefit a class made up of an unusually
diverse group of people.


WILSONART INTERNATIONAL: Seeks Summary Judgment in NY Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wilsonart International, Inc. asked the United States District
Court in White Plains, New York to grant summary judgment for
the class action filed against it and other members of the high-
pressure laminates industry, on behalf of purchasers of high-
pressure laminates.

The complaint alleges that the Company participated in a
conspiracy with competitors to fix, raise, maintain or stabilize
prices for high-pressure laminates between January 1, 1994 and
June 30, 2000, and seeks injunctive relief as well as treble
damages and other costs associated with the litigation.

Indirect purchasers of high-pressure laminates filed similar
purported class action cases under various state antitrust and
consumer protection statutes in Arizona, California, the
District of Columbia, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New
Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee,
West Virginia and Wisconsin.  All of the state cases have been
stayed, and certain plaintiffs have opted not to participate in
the class litigation.  These lawsuits were brought following the
commencement of a federal grand jury investigation of price-
fixing in the high-pressure laminate industry, which was
subsequently closed by the Department of Justice with no further
proceedings and with all documents returned to the parties
involved.

On April 30, 2004, the Company presented and argued its motion
for summary judgment in the consolidated class action lawsuit.
To date, no decision has been rendered on this motion.

On April 29, 2004, International Paper Company, one of the
defendants in the consolidated class action case, received
preliminary approval of a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.  That settlement agreement, dated as of April 23,
2004 received final court approval on July 14, 2004 and,
provides, among other things, for the payment to the class
members in the consolidated class actions of $31,000,000.  In
addition, on July 14, 2004 the plaintiffs sought preliminary
approval of a settlement with Panolam International, Inc.,
another defendant in the case, for $9,500,000.  However, the
Court set the matter for a hearing on September 30, 2004.


WORLD INFORMATION: Denies Merit of NY Lawsuit, To Defend Itself
---------------------------------------------------------------
World Information Technology Inc. (Pink Sheets: WRLT) responded
to a press release concerning a shareholder class action filed
against the company and several of its officers. World believes
the lawsuit is in response to a recent decrease in the market
price of its common stock.

The lawsuit was commenced by the law firm of Vianale & Vianale
LLP 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.

According to Parsh Patel, World's president and CEO, "We have
reviewed the complaint and believe the claims are unfounded and
the lawsuit is without merit. We believe this lawsuit represents
the very type of baseless suits instigated by class action
plaintiffs' lawyers that Congress has recognized as abusive.
World will vigorously defend itself against this litigation."

The company is confident that it has complied with applicable
laws and properly disclosed its business and financial
information to stockholders. The company intends to defend the
action vigorously and to request the court to dismiss the case
at the earliest opportunity.


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

September 01-28, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-28, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-28, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-28, 2004
AVOIDING MALPRACTICE CLAIMS: THINGS TO DO (AND NOT DO)
ON THE FIRST DAY YOU REPRESENT A CLIENT
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-28, 2004
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIED WASTE: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Allied Waste Industries, Inc. ("Allied Waste" or
the "Company") (NYSE:AW) between February 10, 2004 and July 27,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Allied Waste and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Allied Waste's operations and
prospects artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. Allied Waste provides
collection, transfer, recycling and disposal services for non-
hazardous solid waste. The Complaint alleges defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded material adverse facts including:

     (1) the Company's internal growth, which defendants touted
         as strong, actually was lagging due to poor management
         execution and the loss of a large contract;

     (2) defendants had failed to successfully implement the
         Company's "best practices" initiatives because the
         Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (3) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the
         much-anticipated cyclical volume pickup of trash was
         not materializing; and

     (4) as a result of the above, defendants' statements about
         the Company were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On July 27, 2004, Allied Waste posted earnings below analysts'
expectations, and a net loss of 7 cents per share. This news
caused Allied Waste shares to plummet $2.55 per share, or 20.83
percent, on unusually high trading volume, to close at $9.69 per
share on July 28, 2004. This was Allied Waste's biggest drop in
five years.

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


FERRO CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files OH 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 Ohio on behalf of all securities purchasers
of Ferro Corporation (NYSE:FOE) ("Ferro" or the "Company") from
October 28, 2003 through July 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Ferro, Hector R. Ortino, and Thomas M.
Gannon with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. According to the complaint, defendants issued a
series of material misrepresentations to the market between
October 28, 2003 and July 22, 2004, about the Company's
financial condition thereby artificially inflating the price of
Ferro's shares. 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 financial results were materially
         overstated;

     (2) that the Company's Polymer Additives business unit
         overstated the business unit's performance because of
         its inability to raise selling prices to keep pace with
         raw material costs;

     (3) that the Company's Polymer Additives business unit also
         understated its operating costs by failing to report
         the increasing losses that were plaguing the Company
         thereby affecting the reliability of the Company's
         forecasting process;

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

     (5) that as result of the above, the Company's financial
         statements were not in conformity with Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On July 23, 2004, defendants revealed that the Company was
slashing earnings expectations for the second quarter of fiscal
2004 by more than 70% based upon an internal review, purportedly
conducted in conjunction with Ferro's closing its books for the
quarter, which unearthed a multi-million dollar overstatement of
earnings resulting from certain unspecified accounting
manipulations. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Ferro
plunged $4.00 per share, or 16.21 percent, to close at $20.68
per share on unusually high trading volume.

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


INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Kirby McInerney Lodges CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
Invision Technologies Inc. ("Invision" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:INVN) securities during the period from March 15, 2003
through July 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Invision and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect -- during the Class
Period -- of artificially inflating the price of Invision's
shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company's foreign distributors were engaging
         in questionable and potentially illegal activities;

     (2) that its foreign distributors made improper payments in
         connection with foreign sales activities, which were in
         violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act;

     (3) that Invision improperly accounted for the funds used
         in these payments; and

     (4) that as a result, Invision's improper accounting for
         such payments allowed Invision to enter into a
         definitive merger agreement with General Electric
         Company.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-Mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.kmslaw.com/new_cases/invision/invision.htm


NETOPIA INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
purchasers of Netopia Inc. ("Netopia" or the ``Company')
(Nasdaq:NTPA) securities during the period from November 5, 2003
through August 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Netopia and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect -- during the Class
Period -- of artificially inflating the price of Netopia's
shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts:

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-Mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.kmslaw.com/new_cases/netopia/netopia.htm


SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina on behalf of all purchasers
of Salesforce.com Inc. ("Salesforce" or the "Company")
(NYSE:CRM) securities during the period from June 21, 2004
through July 21, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Salesforce and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect - during the Class
Period - of artificially inflating the price of Salesforce's
shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its revenues and earnings per share were
         steadily declining;

     (2) that the defendants concealed the aforementioned facts
         from the investing public in order to boost the price
         of the I.P.O., which netted the Company $126 million;
         and

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

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-Mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.kmslaw.com/new_cases/salesforce/salesforce.htm


ST. PAUL TRAVELLERS: Chestnut & Cambronne Files Stock Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A. and Krislov &
Associates initiated a lawsuit on behalf of Walter E. Ryan, Jr.
and on behalf of former holders of shares of Travelers Property
Casualty Corp. ("Travelers") Class A and Class B common stock -
formerly (NYSE:TAP.A) (NYSE:TAP.B) - who acquired shares of St.
Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. stock (NYSE:STA) (St. Paul
Travelers) pursuant to joint proxy statements / prospectus /
registration statement ("Prospectus / Registration Statement").
See Ryan v. St. Paul Travelers Companies, et al., Civ. 04-3888
MJD/JGL (D. Minn.). Class action status is sought for a class of
Travelers purchasers who exchanged their shares on April 1, 2004
for shares of St. Paul Travelers.

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

On July 23, 2004, the Company stated that the historic
accounting and actuarial methods of St. Paul were being
conformed to those of Travelers and that as a result, the
Company would take a $1.625 billion reserve charge.
Consequently, owners of Travelers paid far too much for their
shares of St. Paul Travelers.

For more details, contact Karl L. Cambronne, Esq. or Jeffrey D.
Bores, Esq. of Chestnut & Cambronne, P.A. by Mail: 3700 Campbell
Mithun Tower, 222 South Ninth Street, Minneapolis, MN 55402 by
Phone: (612) 339-7300 by Fax: (612) 336-2940 by E-mail:
kcambronne@chestnutcambronne.com or jbores@chestnutcambronne.com


TECO ENERGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida on behalf of all securities
purchasers of TECO Energy, Inc. (NYSE: TE) ("TECO" or the
"Company") from October 30, 2001 through February 4, 2003
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges TECO, Robert D. Fagan, and Gordon L.
Gillette with violations of sections 10(b)5 and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. TECO is a holding company for regulated utilities
and other unregulated businesses. It owns no operating assets
but holds all of the common stock of Tampa Electric Company and
directly, or through its subsidiary TECO Diversified, Inc.,
other subsidiaries. Tampa Electric Company, the Company's
principal subsidiary, through its Tampa Electric division,
provides retail electric service to more than 612,000 customers
in West Central Florida with a net system generating capability
of 3,256 megawatts. Other subsidiaries of the Company include
TECO Transport Corporation, TECO Coal Corporation, TECO
Wholesale Generation, Inc. and other unregulated companies.
According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that TECO's debt levels had risen significantly;

     (2) that the Company concealed the scale of its exposure to
         Enron's bankruptcy;

     (3) that Panda Energy International was in dire financial
         straits, which eventually caused Panda to shift its
         debt and liabilities to TECO;

     (4) that dividends were at risk of being cut; and

     (5) that the Company was mismanaging the use of its power
         capacity coming online upon completion of its power
         plants.

On February 4, 2003, Moody's downgraded Panda Funding
Corporation to B1 from Ba3. Moody's cited lower-than-expected
dividend distributions from Panda's other power plants. Moody's
further stated that such dividends were Panda Funding's only
source of cash to pay back debt to TECO. News of this shocked
the market. Shares of TECO fell $1.79 per share or 13 percent,
between February 3 and 5, 2003, to close at $12.40 per share, on
February 5, 2003.

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


THORATEC CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP announces that a
class action lawsuit has been commenced in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all purchasers of Thoratec Corporation ("Thoratec" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:THOR) securities during the period from April
28, 2004 through June 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Thoratec and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect - during the Class
Period - of artificially inflating the price of Thoratec's
shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts:

     (1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that the Company significantly underestimated the time
         and the resources necessary to develop a stable market
         for its much touted Destination Therapy;

     (2) that the Company exaggerated the ultimate size of the
         market for the Destination Therapy, while underplaying
         the risk presented by competitive products and
         alternative therapies;

     (3) that the Company ignored the reluctance of the medical
         community to treat non-critical patients with the
         product, in order to take advantage of the higher
         reimbursement levels available from Medicare beginning
         October 1, 2004; and

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

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-Mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.kmslaw.com/new_cases/thoratec/thoratec.htm


VISTACARE INC.: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, commenced a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all purchasers of Vistacare,
Inc. ("Vistacare" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:VSTA) securities
during the period from November 6, 2003 through August 5, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Vistacare and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect - during the Class
Period - of artificially inflating the price of Vistacare's
shares.

Investors allege that during the Class Period, the Company
concealed the following material adverse facts:

     (a) that the Company had manipulated the Company's EPS
         during the Class Period by understating the Company's
         Medicare reserves; and

     (b) that the Company's mix of patients requiring shorter
         hospital stays was declining, forcing the Company to
         increase reserves beyond the Medicare credit of $18,661
         per patient, the equivalent of approximately 150 days.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY
10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-Mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.kmslaw.com/new_cases/vistacare/vistacare.htm


                            *********


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  * * *