CAR_Public/040907.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, September 7, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 177

                            Headlines

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Presents Stock Suit Settlement To NY Court
BELO CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in N.D. TX
BROWN-FORMAN CORPORATION: Sued For Advertising Alcohol To Minors
CNL HOTELS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. FL
COCA-COLA CO.: Moves Closer To EU Antitrust Lawsuit Settlement

CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Rehearing of TX Stock Lawsuit Ruling Refused
GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS: Shareholders Lodge Stock Suits in N.D. CA
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Shareholders File Stock Suits in S.D. TX
DE BEERS: FL Diamond Bourse Head Lodges Suit V. Supplier Policy
FARMERS INSURANCE: CA Judge Approves $200+ M Overtime Settlement

FORD MOTOR: Couple Files Lawsuit V. Defective Door Latches in AL
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: American Parents Lodge MN Lawsuit Over Seroxat
INDIANA: Parents File Suit V. School Officers Over Missing Funds
KANSAS: Wichita Denies Allegations in Sexual Discrimination Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Glenwood Springs Backs Out of CO Natural Gas Suit

KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Fraud Lawsuits in NY
NETOPIA INC.: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. CA
PALL LIFE: Files Motion To Dismiss MI 1.4-Dioxane Pollution Suit
PHILADELPHIA: Police Settles Trooper's Sexual Assault Lawsuits
PRICESMART INC.: Settles CA Lawsuits, Six More Still Pending

RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
SEARS ROEBUCK: EEOC Launches Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in NJ
TARGET CORPORATION: Reaches $1M Item-Pricing Settlement in MA
TEXAS: A.G. Abbot Praises Performance of Medicaid Fraud Unit
TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: NY Court Dismisses Shareholders' Lawsuit

WISCONSIN: County Settles Strip-Search Suit, Suspends Jail Chief


                     New Securities Fraud Cases  

ALLIED WASTE: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
BALLY TOTAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
BELO CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA

CARDINAL HEALTH: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. Ohio
CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MN
COMMERCE BANCORP: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
CP SHIPS: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
DECODE GENETICS: Brain M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY

DECODE GENETICS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit S.D. NY
DECODE GENETICS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. MO
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barriway Files Stock Suit in CA
WET SEAL: Robbins Umeda Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA

ZIX CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX

                            *********


AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: Presents Stock Suit Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Agilent Technologies, Inc. presented formal settlement documents
for the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its officers and directors and the certain of the
investment bank underwriters for its initial public offering in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The suit, styled "Kassin v. Agilent Technologies,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639," alleges violations
of the federal securities laws.  

On February 19, 2003, the Southern District Court of New York
granted the Company's motion to dismiss the claims against the
Company based on Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, but denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
claims based on Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended.

The Company and more than 200 other issuer defendants have
reached an agreement in principle for a settlement with
plaintiffs.  Under the settlement, plaintiffs' claims against
the Company and its directors and officers would be released,
in exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be
paid by the Company's insurer) and an assignment of certain
potential claims.

On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing the settlement among the
plaintiffs, issuer defendants and insurers were presented to the
Southern District Court of New York.  The settlement remains
subject to Court approval.  Plaintiffs continue to prosecute
their claims against the underwriter defendants, and discovery
is now underway.


BELO CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suits in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Belo Corporation faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly traded
securities of the Company between May 12, 2003 and August 6,
2004.

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

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

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, Mail: 230 South Broad Street, Suite
         404, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

     (2) Charles J. Piven, Mail: World Trade Center-
         Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD,
         21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (3) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), Mail: 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, e-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Mail: 330 Main Street, Hartford,
         CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-
         mail: sn06106@AOL.com;

     (5) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (6) Vail, Hamilton, Koch & Knox, LLP, Mail: 1700 Pacific
         Ave., Suite 2800, Dallas, TX, 75201, Phone: 214-712-
         4400, Fax: 214-712-4402


BROWN-FORMAN CORPORATION: Sued For Advertising Alcohol To Minors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brown-Forman Corporation and many other manufacturers of
spirits, wine and beer continue to face essentially similar
class action lawsuits seeking damages and injunctive relief over
alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to underage consumers.  

Five lawsuits have been filed to date, the first three against
eight defendants, including the Company:  

     (1) "Hakki v. Adolph Coors Company, et.al.," U.S. District
         Court for the District of Columbia, No. 1:03cv02621
         (GK), filed November 2003;  

     (2) "Kreft v. Zima Beverage Co., et.al.," District Court,
         Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04cv1827, filed
         December 2003;

     (3) "Wilson v. Zima Company, et.al.," U.S. District Court
         for the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
         Division, No. 3:04cv141, filed January 2004.

Two virtually identical suits with allegations similar to those
in the first three lawsuits were filed in Cleveland, Ohio, in
April and June 2004, respectively, against the original eight
defendants as well as an additional nine manufacturers of
spirits and beer, styled "Eisenberg v. Anheuser-Busch," U.S.  
District Court for the District of Northern Ohio, No  
1:04cv1081, and "Tully v. Anheuser-Busch," U.S. District Court
for the District of Northern Ohio, No. 1:04cv1101.  

In addition, the Company has received a pre-lawsuit notice under
the California Consumer Protection Act indicating that the same
lawyers intend to file a lawsuit there against many industry
defendants, including the Company, presumably on the same facts
and legal theories.

The suits allege that the defendants have engaged in deceptive
marketing practices and schemes targeted at underage consumers,
negligently marketed their products to the underage, and
fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct.  Plaintiffs
seek class action certification on behalf of:

     (i) a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or
         are parents of children whose funds were used to
         purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants
         which were consumed without their prior knowledge by
         their children under the age of 21 during the period
         1982 to present; and

    (ii) an injunctive class consisting of the parents and
         guardians of all children currently under the age of
         21.

The lawsuits seek a finding that defendants engaged in a
deceptive scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage
persons and an injunction against such alleged practices;
disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all proceeds
resulting from sales to the underage since 1982; and judgment to
each guardian class member for a trebled award of actual
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees.  


CNL HOTELS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNL Hotels & Resorts, Inc. (f/k/a CNL Hospitality Properties,
Inc.) faces several securities class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from August
16,2001 to August 16,2004.  The suits also name as defendants:

     (1) CNL Hotel Development Company,

     (2) CNL Hospitality Corporation (Advisor),

     (3) CNL Financial Group, Inc.,

     (4) CNL Real Estate Group, Inc.,

     (5) Five Arrows Realty Securities II, LLC,

     (6) CNL Hospitality Partners, L.P.,

     (7) RFS Partnership, L.P., and

     (8) certain of its officers and directors

The Complaint charges defendants with violations of the federal
securities laws, including Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 14(a) and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9 promulgated
thereunder.  In addition, by virtue of the defendants' conduct,
the Complaint alleges that defendants have also breached their
fiduciary duties owed to the proposed Class.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges, among other things, that
defendants utilized improper accounting practices and other
manipulative devices to carry out a systematic scheme of
materially inflating CNL's reported income and, thereby, created
and maintained the appearance that CNL generated sufficient cash
flow from operations to consistently pay dividends to
shareholders at the levels promised in CNL's Prospectuses.

NOTE: CNL Hotels & Resorts Inc. are involved in the ownership
and operation of hotel and resort properties.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Chimicles & Tikellis LLP, Mail: 361 West Lancaster
         Avenue, Haverford, PA, 19041, Phone: 888.805.7848, Fax:
         610.649.3633, E-mail: mail@chimicles.com;

     (2) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, Mail: 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com;

     (3) Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., Mail: 100 Park Avenue, New York,
         NY, 10017

     (4) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


COCA-COLA CO.: Moves Closer To EU Antitrust Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beverage giant The Coca-Cola Co. is moving closer to a
settlement for the long-running antitrust case filed by the
European Union, after it submitted draft proposals to address
the Union's concerns, the Associated Press reports.

The antitrust suit was started after rival PepsiCo, Inc.
complained about Coke's distribution deals in Europe in the
1990s, which allegedly restricted access for competing products
to store shelves and coolers.  Coke has roughly half the
European market, compared to about 10 percent for New York-based
Pepsi.  In the United States, the two cola giants are more
evenly matched.

Under the settlement, Coke offered to scrap all rebates that
require retailers to reach specific sales or growth targets.  It
also will no longer link discounts on flagship products to sales
of new flavors or less-popular brands, and promised to drop
requirements that its products be displayed all together on
store shelves.  The Company also agreed to allow rivals to
occupy 20 percent of the space inside its coolers, if it is the
only one in the store, and to allow outlets, like fast-food
restaurants, to serve a "guest" beverage from some Coke-branded
soda fountains.  

Store owners would also be allowed to terminate exclusivity
deals by buying the equipment after three years, the Associated
Press reports.  By offering to settle the case on a Europe-wide
basis, Coke would avoid a fine and save potentially years of
litigation.

The EU judged Coke's latest offer good enough to begin market-
testing, sources close to the talks told AP.  The European
Commission is sending letters to soft-drink rivals and other
third parties seeking their input to the offer made by Coke in
early August.

A Coca-Cola spokesman did not return messages left for comment,
AP reports.  However, in a filing Friday with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission, the company said it had
"recently submitted draft proposals" to address the EU's
concerns.  "The commission has advised the company that it
intends to share these proposals with parties involved ...
including retailers and other beverage suppliers, for their
comment," the statement said.

An EU spokesman declined to comment on the case, AP reports.  EU
Competition Commissioner Mario Monti is understood to want the
5-year-old case wrapped up before his term expires at the end of
October. Sources said the preliminary settlement could be
published as early as mid-October and be made binding the
following month.


CROSSROADS SYSTEMS: Rehearing of TX Stock Lawsuit Ruling Refused
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused
plaintiffs' motion for rehearing of a lower court ruling in
favor of Crossroads Systems, Inc. in the securities class
actions filed against the Company and several of its officers
and directors.

Several suits were initially filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during various periods ranging
from January 25, 2000 through August 24, 2000.

On February 24, 2003, the Court entered a final judgment in the
defendants' favor.  Plaintiff's appealed to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.  On April 14, 2004, the
Fifth Circuit issued an opinion, which affirmed in part and
vacated in part the district court's ruling.  The remaining
claims were remanded to the district court.  On May 12, 2004,
the Fifth Circuit denied plaintiff's request for panel
rehearing.


GOLDEN STATE VINTNERS: Shareholders Lodge Stock Suits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Golden State Vintners, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all persons who sold the publicly traded
securities of the Company between December 23, 2003 and April
23, 2004.

The Complaints allege that Golden State Vintners and certain of
its directors and officers violated Sections 10 and 20 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false statements in a December 23, 2003
merger proxy statement in order to keep the price of Golden
State Vintners securities artificially low and thus facilitate
the company's takeover by the O'Neill Acquisition Co., LLC, an
entity controlled by Golden State Vintner's President and Chief
Executive Officer, Jeffrey B. O'Neill. O'Neill Acquisition Co.,
LLC was also named as defendant in the Complaint.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), Mail: 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA,
         92101, Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San
         Francisco), Mail: 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San
         Francisco, CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax:
         415.288.4534, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com;


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Shareholders File Stock Suits in S.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. faces several class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of all the Company's securities
purchasers from November 10, 2003 through August 13, 2004
inclusive.

The complaint charges IES, and certain of its officers and
directors, 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 known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

On August 2, 2004, IES announced that it had rescheduled its
fiscal 2004 third quarter earnings release and conference call,
due to its ongoing evaluation of certain large and complex
projects at one subsidiary that experienced project management
changes in the latter part of the third quarter. On this news,
shares of IES fell $0.85 per share, or 10.08 percent to close,
on August 3, 2004, at $7.58 per share.

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

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, Mail: 230 South Broad Street, Suite
         404, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, Mail: 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39,
         Bala Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com;

     (3) Charles J. Piven, Mail: World Trade Center-
         Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD,
         21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (4) Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP, Mail: 440 Louisiana - Suite 720,
         Houston, TX, 77002, Phone: 713.227.7720;

     (5) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Mail: 330 Main Street, Hartford,
         CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-
         mail: sn06106@AOL.com;

     (6) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


DE BEERS: FL Diamond Bourse Head Lodges Suit V. Supplier Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Bourse of the Southeast United States President Derek
Parsons and his Miami-based British Diamond Import Company filed
a $3 billion class action lawsuit against South Africa-based De
Beers, alleging that its Supplier of Choice policy deprives
American dealers of their livelihood, the JCK-Jewelers Circular
Keystone reports.

The suit claims De Beers violates the Sherman Act by
"controlling and monitoring" who its sightholders sell to and
discouraging sales to non-sightholders, which keeps the price of
polished diamonds "artificially high and at non-competitive
levels" and "restrains competition" from those outside its
network. The suit further claims, "Plaintiffs and other class
members have been injured in their business . by being unable to
purchase polished diamonds, except at prices higher than they
otherwise would have paid in the absence of [De Beers'] unlawful
conduct."

According to Mr. Parsons, the suit was not launched on behalf of
the Miami bourse, although his affiliation is mentioned in the
suit and its board voted in favor of the action. He further
states that he is representing every diamond dealer in America
who are horrified that they're businesses are suffering
dramatically due to De Beers' actions.

Parsons states he decided to launch the suit after "four years
of political fighting with officials in the World Federation of
Diamond Bourses got nowhere. The officials, Mr. Parsons
continues were either sightholders or have some dealings with De
Beers, and because of that, and how vulnerable they are, they
have not been able to achieve the things they say they want."

He further adds, "The only thing De Beers has done is supply
small qualities of rough through Diamdel, and that was just to
say they were doing something."


FARMERS INSURANCE: CA Judge Approves $200+ M Overtime Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alameda Superior Court Judge Ronald M. Sabraw approved the
parties' plan for final resolution of the largest overtime pay
class action ever tried in the United States. The lawsuit, Bell
v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, No. 774013-0, was brought by
Steven G. Zieff of the San Francisco law firm of Rudy, Exelrod &
Zieff on October 1, 1996 on behalf of 2,402 claims adjusters who
worked for Farmers Insurance Exchange in California. The jury
entered a damages verdict on July 10, 2001 for about $90
million, which the Court of Appeal affirmed on February 9, 2004.
The California Supreme Court denied further review on May 24,
2004, and Farmers has now agreed to pay the entire Judgment,
including attorneys' fees and accumulated interest, which adds
approximately $80 million more to the claims adjusters'
recovery.

In the second part of the global resolution of the adjusters'
claims, Farmers agreed, effective September 1, 2004, to begin
paying overtime to all California class members, and to pay up
to $40 million more for overtime pay that was not included in
the original Judgment, mostly for overtime hours worked after
the 2001 trial. Although the total payment to be made by Farmers
will not be calculated until March 2005 when the final
distributions are anticipated, it is expected that it will
exceed $200 million, making this the largest resolution of a
class action overtime case in United States history.

Counsel for the plaintiffs are Steven G. Zieff of Rudy, Exelrod
& Zieff and associated counsel Michael Rubin of Altshuler,
Berzon, Nussbaum, Rubin & Demain, also of San Francisco.

"We have been working on behalf of Farmers' California claims
representatives for more than eight years," said lead counsel
Steven G. Zieff, "and are gratified to see that justice has
finally been served. These hard-working, loyal employees have
been owed millions of dollars in overtime wages pay dating back
as far as 1993. Now they will be paid, and will receive a
sizeable payment for interest as well," he added. "Plaintiffs'
counsel estimates that individual recoveries from the 2001
verdict will average over $50,000, with some class members
getting substantially more." Adds co-counsel Michael Rubin, "The
legal principles in this case were settled by the Court of
Appeal several years ago, but Farmers and its industry
supporters kept fighting their workers' claims with all their
resources. We are delighted that the workers will finally be
fairly compensated for their long hours of work on Farmers'
behalf."

Bell v. Farmers Insurance Exchange, Alameda S. Ct. No. 774013,
was filed as a class action on October 1, 1996. In 1999, the
Superior Court in Oakland ruled that the claims adjusters were
not exempt administrators and were therefore entitled to
overtime pay. On July 10, 2001, after trial by jury on issues of
damages, the jury returned a special verdict awarding the
plaintiff class $90,009,208.12 for unpaid overtime compensation
covering overtime hours worked up to the date of trial -- June
26, 2001. On February 9, 2004, the Court of Appeal affirmed the
damages verdict (except as to the jury's award of double time
overtime damages). The California Supreme Court denied review on
May 12, 2004. On August 17, 2004, the parties signed an
agreement that resolved the claims representatives' claims
against Farmers. Following eight years of legal battles with
Farmers and the insurance industry, the plaintiffs have been
completely successful in protecting the rights of Farmers'
workers in California to be paid premium overtime pay for all
overtime hours worked.

The highlights of the agreement between Farmers and the class of
claims representatives are as follows:

     (1) Farmers has agreed to pay the interest-adjusted
         Judgment and has deposited $120 million into the Class
         Damages Fund as an initial installment against the
         approximately $170 that plaintiffs estimate Farmers
         will eventually owe on the Judgment entered after the
         2001 jury trial. Moneys will be paid to class members
         in accordance with a Plan of Distribution approved by
         both the trial court and the Court of Appeal.

     (2) Farmers will comply with all Court Orders requiring it
         to reclassify and to pay overtime to its claims
         representatives who work overtime, starting September
         1, 2004.

     (3) Farmers has agreed not to pursue any further appeals.

     (4) Subject to court-approval, Farmers has agreed to a
         settlement of additional wage and hour claims arising
         largely in the period after the 2001 verdict for a
         maximum payment of $40 million. The settlement is
         intended to fully compensate Farmers' California claims
         representatives who worked after June 26, 2001 for
         overtime hours that they worked, but for which they
         were not paid.

"This resolution, while long overdue, is a total victory for the
claims adjusters who pursued their claims against Farmers, and
represents a vindication of these workers' statutory right to
overtime pay. Many of these adjusters have been waiting eleven
years to recover the overtime pay to which they are clearly
entitled. Finally they will be compensated," added Steven G.
Zieff, lead counsel for plaintiffs.

A separate case against Farmers Insurance Exchange, on behalf of
claims adjusters nationwide outside of California, is pending in
the federal court in Portland, Oregon, and is entitled Farmers'
Insurance Exchange Claims Representatives' Overtime Pay
Litigation, MDL 1439.


FORD MOTOR: Couple Files Lawsuit V. Defective Door Latches in AL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Tim Davis initiated a lawsuit seeking class action on
behalf of a Hueytown couple against the Ford Motor Co., alleging
that the manufacturer sold vehicles that did not meet federal
safety standards, the Birmingham News reports.

Filed in the Bessemer Division of Jefferson County Circuit
Court, the suit claims that Ford sold trucks and SUVs from 1997
to 2000 that have defective door latches, which during an
accident could cause doors may pop open because the latches are
not strong enough to keep the door closed. The lawsuit also
alleges that Ford sold the vehicles with a warranty that said
the truck or SUV conformed to federal motor vehicle safety
standards. Mr. Davis said the plaintiffs paid for a vehicle that
met all safety standards and that Ford is liable because Ford
did not provide that.

Mr. Davis also claims that Ford's own records indicate the
manufacturer was aware of the problem and has scheduled a recall
that was later canceled.

Aside from seeking class action status, the suit asks for
compensatory damages of up to $74,000 of each member of the
class.

In response to the suit, Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said,
Ford was aware of the concern surrounding the door latches and
took steps to make sure the part was in compliance with safety
standards. She further said that after Ford's investigation into
the matter, the company was satisfied that the part was safe.
"All of this extensive work reconfirmed that Ford was correct in
concluding that this latch complies with all applicable federal
standards and is safe and appropriate for use," she said.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: American Parents Lodge MN Lawsuit Over Seroxat
---------------------------------------------------------------
American parents initiated a class action lawsuit against
GlaxoSmithKline plc (NYSE: GSK [ADR]), following an inquiry by
New York state attorney general Eliot Spitzer over the
antidepressant, Seroxat, The Guardian reports.  

The suit seeks refunds for children and adolescents who were
given the drug, after claims surfaced that the firm suppressed
data showing the product to be ineffective and possible side
effect of increasing suicidal tendencies in young people.  The
suit, filed in a Minnesota district court, alleges that GSK hid
the results of two clinical trials that showed the drug was no
more effective than a placebo in treating depression and that
the mixed results from a separate study were published in a
scientific journal and used to promote the drug.

There are already several class actions against GSK regarding
the withdrawal side effects from Seroxat.  However, Paul
Dahlberg, who spearheads the case at the Meshbesher & Spence law
firm, said that the lawsuit was the first class action intended
to reclaim the money paid for the drug based on the alleged
suppression of clinical trial data.

Mr. Dahlberg is now representing an estimated 24 parents who
bought Seroxat for their children and is seeking to enlist other
Americans who have done so for the class action. The lead
plaintiff is Nancy Gerdts, who bought the drug for her 12-year-
old son in August 2002 and is now attempting to get her money
back.

Last month GSK, who manufactured and sold Seroxat, which is
named Paxil in the U.S. settled with Mr. Spitzer for $2.5m
(o1.4m), without admitting liability. An amount that shocked the
industry, since Mr. Spitzer wanted to recover all the money GSK
had made from selling the drug, which analysts have estimated at
about $355m (o200m).


INDIANA: Parents File Suit V. School Officers Over Missing Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Merrillville attorney Hawk Kautz filed a class action lawsuit on
behalf of concerned parents against the Porter Township School
administrators aimed at recovering as much as $20,000 in missing
cheerleading funds, the Munster Times reports.

The suit, which was filed when the Porter Township School Board
failed to respond to a call for an investigation into the school
administration's role regarding the missing funds accuses the
board of failing to comply with fund-raising laws or properly
accounting for the funds collected.

Marlene Christie, who is among the plaintiffs, accused
administrators of not taking their concerns seriously, she and
other parents had earlier asked the board to shed some light on
the issue in May 2002 and repeatedly brought documents to
administrators concerning the loss of the cheerleading money.

An audit by the Indiana State Board of Accounts revealed that an
amount of $10,649 in cheerleading funds was unaccounted for. The
audit board also claimed that former coach Julie Whiteside is
responsible for the money, plus $2,591 for the cost of the
audit.

Targeted by the suits were Porter Township Superintendent James
Petersen, who was away from his office and unavailable for
comment, Boone Grove High School Principal Garry DeRossett,
Boone Grove Assistant Principal Suzi Peterson and Boone Grove
athletic director Doug Knutson.

There was also no one available for comment at the Munster law
firm of Singleton Crist, which represents the school district.

Those bringing the suit include Andrea and Stephan Gibson, and
John and Cheryl Hinko, who had been targeted in a slander suit
by Ms. Whiteside after she objected to public accusations that
she stole the cheerleading funds, that suit was eventually
dismissed in July.


KANSAS: Wichita Denies Allegations in Sexual Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Wichita, Kansas denied allegations of sexual
discrimination in response to a federal lawsuit seeking class
action status that was filed by four female Wichita Police
officers, the Associated Press reports.

In their 12-page response, which was filed in U.S. District
Court against the July 29 lawsuit, the city's attorneys stated
that the city denies ignoring complaints and "deterring females
from initiating complaints" and rejected the accusation that
female officers are treated unequally. The response also
included a statement that the city has taken reasonable care to
prevent and correct discrimination and perceived discrimination.

The lawsuit alleges that female officers have been discriminated
against in areas of pay, assignments and promotions compared
with their male counterparts. The female officers themselves
alleged that complaining about unequal treatment was met with
retaliation.

Lawrence Williamson, the attorney representing the four female
officers, said that he still was reviewing the filing, but had
expected the city to deny the allegations.


KINDER MORGAN: Glenwood Springs Backs Out of CO Natural Gas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Glenwood Springs, Colorado dropped out of a class
action lawsuit that it jointly filed with Aspen City on behalf
of customers in those cities and across the Western Slope of
Colorado against Kinder Morgan, which they accuse of
overcharging natural gas customers, the Glenwood Springs Post
Independent reports.

Though disappointed by Glenwood Sprigs decision, Aspen City
attorney John Worcester said Aspen still plans to move forward
with the suit. Mr. Worcester also adds, "We hoped Glenwood would
at least stay through this motion to dismiss," he said.

Kinder Morgan filed a motion to dismiss the case in August, but
that motion has yet to be ruled on by a 9th District judge.

The suit, filed in Garfield County District Court alleges that
because the gas companies failed to compensate for a decrease in
air pressure at higher elevations - high elevation naturally
decreases the density of the gas - the less-dense gas "had
significantly lower heating content." The suit further claims
that at Aspen's elevation - which is around 8,000 feet - natural
gas contains at least 23 percent less heating value than it
would at sea level and as a result, the gas companies
"knowingly, deceptively and falsely fail to apply the required
conversion factor when billing for the natural gas they have
sold and continue to sell."

According to Glenwood Springs' city attorney Karl Hanlon it was
time for the city to step away. He also states that the city has
accomplished a lot of the things it wanted to do, on oh which is
the company promise that it will place more scrutiny on how it
charges its gas rates. "Besides even if we were successful, the
Colorado Public Utility Commission allows them to get the money
back. They can do this by charging higher rates to cover any
legal fees as a cost of doing business," he said.

Clearly pleased with Glenwood Springs' decision, Kinder Morgan's
retail division president Dan Watson said, "This further
validates our position that the case against us, which was
actually prepared and signed by attorneys employed by Jack
Grynberg, is frivolous and without merit. We continue to work
toward a dismissal of the suit."


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Fraud Lawsuits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
KongZhong Corporation faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
Company's American Depositary Shares ('ADSs') during the period
between July 9, 2004 and August 17, 2004.

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

The complaint alleges that the Prospectus failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

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

NOTE: KongZhong Corporation is a provider of advanced second-
generation (2.5G) wireless interactive entertainment, media and
community services. In addition, the Company has begun to
provide wireless value-added services on the networks of China
United Telecommunications Corporation (China Unicom), China
Telecommunications Corporation (China Telecom) and China Network
Communications Group Corporation (China Netcom). In March 2004,
the Company changed its name from Communication Over The Air
Inc. to KongZhong Corporation.

The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

     (1) Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, Mail: One Pennsylvania
         Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, NY, 10119, Phone:
         212.279.5050, Fax: 212.279.3655,
         JFruchter@FruchterTwersky.com;

     (2) Brian Felgoise, Mail: 230 South Broad Street, Suite
         404, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

     (3) Charles J. Piven, Mail: World Trade Center-
         Baltimore,401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD,
         21202, Phone: 410.332.0030, e-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Mail: 330 Main Street, Hartford,
         CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-
         mail: sn06106@AOL.com;


NETOPIA INC.: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Lawsuits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Netopia, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors face
several class actions filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock from November 6,2003 to July
6,2004.  The suits are filed under Judge Ronald M. Whyte.

The complaints allege that Netopia and certain of its officers
and directors knowingly or recklessly made a series of material
misrepresentations concerning Netopia's earnings, product costs,
and sales to its largest customer.  Moreover, Defendants and
employees of Netopia profited handsomely from those
misrepresentations, selling over $9 million of Netopia stock
during the Class Period.

NOTE: Netopia is a company that, among other things, develops,
markets and supports broadband and wireless (Wi-Fi) products and
services, as well as produces server software products that
enable remote support and centralized management of installed
broadband gateways.

The plaintiff firms in the litigation are:

     (1) Brian Felgoise, Mail: 230 South Broad Street, Suite
         404, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185;

     (2) Charles J. Piven, Mail: World Trade Center-Baltimore,
         401 East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com;

     (3) Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP, Mail: 830 Third Avenue
         10th Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone:
         212.317.2300;

     (4) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., Mail: 330 Main Street, Hartford,
         CT, 06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-
         mail: sn06106@AOL.com;

     (5) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com;

     (6) Braun Law Group, P.C., Phone: (888)658-7100, E-mail:
         info@braunlawgroup.com;


PALL LIFE: Files Motion To Dismiss MI 1.4-Dioxane Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a motion filed last Friday in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, Pall Life Sciences asked for the
dismissal of a federal lawsuit filed on may 18, 2004 by Ann
Arbor resident, Carol S. Shultheis, which is seeking class
action status that was filed against the company for allegedly
contaminating her property and that of at least 2,000 property
owners in the area, the Ann Arbor News reports.

The specifically alleges that 1.4-dioxane, a human carcinogen,
polluted Ms. Shultheis water and that the aforementioned
contaminant originated at Pall's manufacturing facility, 600 S.
Wagner Road in Scio Township. The suit further alleges that the
contaminant "is at levels many times in excess of safe drinking
water standards and has been present on plaintiffs' properties
... for as many as 20 years." The suit also alleges that the
dioxane plume is the largest such in the country.

The lawsuit joins what has been a lengthy dispute between Pall
and the city of Ann Arbor regarding a contamination plume
stretching west of Pall into Scio Township and east into Ann
Arbor. In fact several days before Ms. Shultheis filed her suit,
the city of Ann Arbor sought damages against Pall for
groundwater contamination. The city's suit asks that Pall be
required to use another water source to replace a contaminated
city well.

The Ann Arbor-based Company denied Ms. Shultheis' allegations
and says that her property hasn't been damaged.


PHILADELPHIA: Police Settles Trooper's Sexual Assault Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia State Police agreed to pay $5 million to settle
civil suits filed against it, after several women charged a
former trooper with sexual assault, the Associated Press
reports.

Several women filed the suit in federal court, alleging that
former trooper Michael Evans harassed them.  One of the
plaintiffs was 14 years old when the trooper harassed here in
the late 1990s.  The women further alleged that Mr. Evan's
supervisors were aware of his unsavory conduct, but did not
punish him or remove him from duty.

The lawsuits prompted a broad review of the way the agency
handles allegations of trooper misconduct.  Attorneys for the
women won a court order forcing the agency to turn over internal
records related to more than 100 cases of alleged sexual
misconduct by state troopers, ranging from sexual harassment to
gang rape.  A suit involving three of the four women had been
scheduled to go to trial on September 13.

The deal was announced Thursday in a joint statement by State
Police Commissioner Jeffrey B. Miller and three attorneys for
the women, who will split the money.  The settlement will
resolve the women's civil claims against a number of state
police commanders.  Other women alleged to have been victimized
by troopers also sued the state, but had previously settled
their claims, AP reports.


PRICESMART INC.: Settles CA Lawsuits, Six More Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart, Inc. (Nasdaq: PSMT) settled the federal securities
litigation, Performance Capital, L. P. v. PriceSmart, Inc. et
al., Case No. 03CV02561, pending in the United States District
Court, Southern District of California, which is an alleged
class action complaint filed against the Company and certain of
its current and former directors and officers on behalf of a
purported class of persons who purchased the Company's Series A
Preferred Stock, as well as on behalf of a purported class of
persons who purchased and a purported class of persons who held
the Company's common stock during the relevant class periods.
Under the settlement, which is subject to Court approval, in
exchange for a release of claims brought on behalf of purchasers
of Series A Preferred Stock and a dismissal of the remainder of
the complaint without prejudice, the purchasers of the Series A
Preferred Stock will be offered the opportunity to participate
in the Series A Plaintiff Exchange. Defendants have agreed to
pay reasonable attorney's fees and expenses to plaintiffs.

The San Diego, California-headquartered Company settled the
shareholder derivative litigation, Paulsen v. Price et al., Case
No. GIC 822226, pending in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Diego, purportedly filed on
behalf of the Company by shareholder Greg Paulsen against
current and former officers and directors of the Company. As a
basis for the settlement of the lawsuit, the parties have agreed
that the pendency and prosecution of the lawsuit was a factor in
PriceSmart's agreement to seek to implement the Financial
Program. The defendants have agreed to pay reasonable attorney's
fees and expenses to plaintiff. The settlement is subject to
Court approval, which will occur following notice of the
settlement to the Company's stockholders.

Neither settlement described above will resolve the remaining
six federal class action complaints still pending against the
Company and certain of its current and former directors and
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California for alleged violations of federal
securities laws.


RIVERSTONE NETWORKS: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Riverstone Networks, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California.

The suit, filed on behalf of purported classes of persons who
purchased Riverstone's securities at various times between
August 10, 2001 and June 19, 2002, alleges that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making false and misleading
statements about the Company's business and seek unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.  The suit is styled "In
re Riverstone Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No.
C-02-3581 PJH."

The settlement calls for Riverstone to pay $18.5 million to the
plaintiff class, and is subject to final court approval, which
is expected to occur later this calendar year.



SEARS ROEBUCK: EEOC Launches Racial Discrimination Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
launched a lawsuit against retail giant Sears, Roebuck& Co,
after it allegedly fired a store manager because he was black,
Reuters reports.

In March 2003, the Company allegedly fired Edward Broadard, who
ran its Maple Shade, New Jersey store, for violating the
company's ethics policy.  Mr. Broadard allegedly failed to limit
mechanical repairs only to certified technicians and to follow
procedures for providing a free mechanical service to customers.

The EEOC complaint alleges that the Company discriminated
against Mr. Broadard, by "terminating his employment as a store
manager for alleged ethics policy violations, while similarly
situated white employees who engaged in similar or identical
conduct were not discharged."

Mr. Broadard allegedly had a strong performance record and
received an "exceptional" rating in his last two appraisals,
according to the complaint.  He had been working for Sears for
seven-and-one-half years, starting as a mechanic and receiving a
number of promotions, without previously violating company
policies.  The lawsuit seeks to force Sears to stop all
employment practices that discriminate on the basis of race and
to give Mr. Broadard back pay and punitive damages.

Sears, based in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, said it would
"vigorously" defend itself in the complaint, which was filed on
Wednesday with the U.S. District Court in Camden, New Jersey,
Reuters reports.

Sears spokesman Chris Brathwaite said Broadard was fired for
repeated violations of company policy.  "The termination had
absolutely nothing to do with his race," he said. "Sears has
very strict policies against discrimination of any kind and we
plan to defend the company vigorously in this matter."


TARGET CORPORATION: Reaches $1M Item-Pricing Settlement in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation agreed to pay $1 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit alleging it failed to stamp prices on
merchandise, the Boston Globe reports.

However, Robert J. Bonsignore, the attorney who has negotiated
the settlements, is drawing flak from a consumer group and one
of his former colleagues over his management the cases and his
distribution of the settlement money.

The Massachusetts Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG) and Mr.
Colman M. Herman, the activist who launched the item-pricing
litigation but has since had a bitter disagreement with Mr.
Bonsignore filed notices in Suffolk Superior Court that it plans
to object to a proposed $1.6 million settlement with Walgreens.

They objected to the $400,000 award going to charity groups that
have nothing to do with the alleged violations or with the
interests of consumers affected by the violations. They urged
Superior Court Judge Allan van Gestel to allot a portion of the
money to consumer groups like MPIRG, which "has specifically
played a leading role in addressing item pricing and closely
related consumer issues." Mr. Herman even claimed in his court
filing that the proposed attorneys fees of $550,000 in the
Walgreens case were excessive and that Mr. Bonsignore should be
removed as lead counsel since he is "incompetent," "uncivil,"
and preoccupied with his fees.

Mr. Herman also urged Judge van Gestel to take away the $100,000
awarded to Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly's office as part of
the settlement or restricting the use of the money for
enforcement of the current item-pricing regulation. He
originally launched his legal campaign on item pricing after the
attorney general refused to enforce the regulation, which
requires nonfood retailers to stamp prices on most items in
their stores. When class-action lawsuits against retailers began
to mount, Mr. Reilly amended the regulation to allow stores to
opt out of item pricing if they installed price scanners able to
spit out price stickers.

However, Mr. Bonsignore defended his legal fees and said the
awarding of money to charitable groups made perfect sense given
the difficulty in identifying consumers directly affected by a
retailer's failure to item price and that all of the awards will
benefit Massachusetts residents and most will directly benefit
consumers in innovative ways.

Filed in Suffolk County, the proposed Target settlement calls
for retailer to pay a total of $1 million for past violations of
the state's item-pricing regulation. It will also require the
retailer to pay attorneys fees of $300,000 and pay a total of
$400,000 to a variety of groups, including Reilly's office
($100,000), the San Francisco-based Foundation for Taxpayer and
Consumer Rights ($75,000), Public Citizen ($50,000), Suffolk
University ($75,000), and $100,000 for consumer education in
Massachusetts's schools. A third provision in the agreement
requires Target to donate $300,000 through its community-giving
program to whomever it pleases "for the benefit of Massachusetts
citizens."


TEXAS: Atty. Gen. Praises Performance of Medicaid Fraud Unit
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott lauded record performance in
criminal medicaid fraud enforcement in fiscal year 2004,
including a significant increase in the number of investigations
and criminal charges brought against those defrauding the
government's health care system for the needy.

Acting on legislative mandate, the Attorney General's Medicaid
Fraud Control Unit increased staffing levels from 36 to 110
currently, rising to 140 positions within two months, the Atty.
Gen. Announced in a statement.  The unit opened eight new field
offices in Dallas, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Houston, Lubbock,
McAllen, San Antonio and Tyler.  Investigators in those cities
have begun identifying criminal operators in various health care
fields.  Staffing levels are expected to increase to more than
200 by the end of fiscal year 2005.

"We are seeing the culmination of efforts on a number of fronts
to bring the full authority of the law to bear upon those who
rob taxpayers and deprive Medicaid of the funds necessary to
take care of the neediest Texans," said Attorney General Abbott.  
"We are committed to ferreting out fraud, seeking lengthy prison
terms for lawbreakers, and recovering funds that were wrongfully
taken."

The Attorney General said the Medicaid Control Fraud Unit
doubled the number of cases it opened in fiscal year 2004, the
number of cases presented for prosecution and the number of
cases in which criminal charges have been filed.

Identification of illegal overpayments made to fraudulent
operators has increased by 85 percent to over $27 million.  The
unit was also recognized by the U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services as recipient of the annual Inspector General's
State Fraud Award. The unit will accept the nation's top
Medicaid fraud-fighting award in Washington, D.C., on September
20.

The unit has also designated assistant attorneys general to
prosecute cases in U.S. Attorneys' Offices in all four federal
judicial districts in Texas.  It has also established task force
relationships with the FBI in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio to
broaden the fight against Medicaid fraud.


TOWER SEMICONDUCTOR: NY Court Dismisses Shareholders' Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit filed by shareholder against Migdal
Haemek, Israel-based Tower Semiconductor Ltd. on July 2003 has
been dismissed, the Electronic News reports.

The suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of the shareholders of the pure-
play independent wafer foundry, was against Tower and certain
directors and shareholders, and asserted claims under Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
14a-9. The suit was filed by the law firm of Abraham &
Associates on behalf of stockholders as of April 1, 2002,
against Tower, certain directors and the foundry's financial
backers, including SanDisk, Alliance Semiconductor and
QuickLogic.

The motion to dismiss was granted due to Tower's status as a
foreign private issuer, which exempts it from liability under
the proxy rules of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act.

For more details, visit http://www.reed-
electronics.com/electronicnews/article/CA309971


WISCONSIN: County Settles Strip-Search Suit, Suspends Jail Chief
----------------------------------------------------------------
After settling a class action lawsuit for $5.5 million over
alleged illegal strip searches at the at the county jail in
Wisconsin between 1996 and 2001, the St. Croix County has
suspended the jail's administrator, Jail Capt. Karen Humphrey,
who began a one-month suspension without pay last week, the
Associated Press reports.

According to Dennis Hillstead, St. Croix County sheriff, it
wasn't clear if Capt. Humphrey knew of the strip searches, but
she was in charge of the jail and oversaw its policies and
operations. He further adds that the searches began under then-
Sheriff Paul Burch and ended in February 2001, when he took over
and revised the policy.

Ultimately costing about $7 million, which was mostly covered by
the insurance company, the county still had to take out a $2.5
million loan for part of the cost, an action that would force
the annual tax levy to go up.

State law allows strip-searches for detainees who have been
convicted of weapons offenses or who are believed to be carrying
contraband.

Court documents reveal that County officials refused to
acknowledge it violated the law, but instead said that a
settlement would be less expensive than defending its policy in
court.

                     New Securities Fraud Cases  


ALLIED WASTE: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of all securities purchasers of Allied Waste
Industries, Inc. (NYSE: AW) from February 10, 2004 through July
27, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Allied Waste, Thomas H. Van Weelden, Peter
S. Hathaway, Thomas W. Ryan, and James E. Gray with violations
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Allied Waste is a non-
hazardous solid waste management company in the United States
that provides collection, transfer, recycling and disposal
services for approximately 10 million residential, commercial
and industrial customers.

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

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

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

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

On July 27, 2004, Allied Waste posted earnings, excluding
special items, of 15 cents a share on revenue of $1.36 billion.
Wall Street, on average, had expected earnings of 18 cents a
share on sales of $1.39 billion. Including costs related to
early retirement of debt, Allied Waste posted a net loss of 7
cents a share. Following this announcement, J.P. Morgan cut the
stock to "neutral" vs. "overweight" on the news. "AW's big new
focus on its `best practices' initiatives now makes the
investment story one primarily about management execution," said
analyst Amanda Tepper. News of this shocked the market. Shares
of Allied Waste fell $2.55 per share, or 20.83 percent, on
unusually high trading volume, to close at $9.69 per share. This
was Allied Waste's biggest drop in five years.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       


BALLY TOTAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of Bally Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE: BFT)
securities during the period between August 3, 1999 and April
28, 2004.

The complaint charges Bally and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Bally is a commercial operator of fitness centers, with
approximately four million members and 420 facilities located in
29 states, Canada, Asia, the Caribbean and Mexico.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly and annual reports with the SEC which described the
Company's increasing financial performance. These statements
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that the Company had violated Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and its own internal
         policies by prematurely recognizing revenue on certain
         non-obligatory prepaid membership dues;

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

     (3) that, as a result, the value of the Company's reported
         revenues during the Class Period was materially
         overstated.

On April 28, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
that its Chief Financial Officer and Director, John W. Dwyer,
had resigned and that the Division of Enforcement of the SEC had
commenced an investigation in connection with the Company's
announced restatement regarding the timing of recognition of
certain prepaid dues. The Company also stated that it had
modified its existing internal controls structure, which it
believes is now effective.

In response to these disclosures, shares of the Company's stock
fell approximately 17%, to close at $4.50 per share, on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       


BELO CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Belo Corp. (NYSE:
BLC) common stock during the period between May 12, 2003 and
August 6, 2004.

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

The complaint alleges that beginning as early as 2003,
defendants initiated and engaged in a scheme to defraud
advertisers at The Dallas Morning News as well as Belo's
investors by intentionally overstating the circulation of The
Dallas Morning News in order to fraudulently extract higher
incentive payments from the paper's advertisers.

These fraudulent inflated circulation numbers were reported to
investors and the market on a regular basis and the ill-gotten
gains from the scheme artificially inflated Belo's financial
results. As a result, defendants' scheme not only defrauded
advertisers, but artificially inflated the value of Belo's
stock, thus defrauding investors as well.

According to the complaint, the scheme involved creating an
incentive program for third-party vendors who sold The Dallas
Morning News to the public. The more newspapers these vendors
claimed to have to sold to the public, the larger the incentive
payment and the purported circulation of the newspaper. The
individuals who should have monitored this program for abuse
were the circulation managers at The Dallas Morning News.
Instead of encouraging the circulation managers to carefully
audit the third-party vendors, however, Belo created an
incentive program for the circulation managers as well. Thus,
when third-party vendors reported fraudulent circulation numbers
in order to receive incentive payments, the circulation managers
themselves had an incentive to turn a blind-eye to the scheme.

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       

  
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Bennett Environmental, Inc. (AMEX: BEL); (Toronto:
BEV.TO) in the period from June 2, 2003 to July 22, 2004.

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning
the company's business performance during the relevant time
period. According to the complaint, throughout the relevant time
period, defendants misrepresented the financial condition of the
company by stating that the largest contract in the company's
history was in full force and effect when, in fact, the contract
had been substantially withdrawn almost immediately after its
execution. The lawsuit includes American and Canadian investors.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Southern Division, on behalf of
purchasers of Biolase Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:BLTI) publicly
traded securities during the period between October 29, 2003 and
July 16, 2004.

The complaint charges Biolase and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Securities Act of 1933. Biolase is a medical technology
company that designs, manufacturers and markets proprietary
dental laser systems that allow dentists, oral surgeons and
other specialists to perform a broad range of common dental
procedures, including cosmetic applications.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Biolase's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. The Company recognized revenue in advance of earning
it and failed to record adequate reserves for returns, causing
the Company's financial results to be inflated. This inflation
was important to the Company as it was able to complete a
secondary stock offering of 2.8 million shares in February 2004
at $18.80 per share.

On July 16, 2004, after the markets closed, Biolase reported
preliminary results for the second quarter of 2004. On this
news, the Company's stock declined to $8.78 on volume of 4.8
million shares. Within two weeks the Company's CFO resigned.
According to the complaint, defendants knew that Biolase was not
performing nearly as well as represented. The true facts, which
defendants knew but concealed from the investing public during
the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) Waterlase was not gaining market share and demand for
         the product was not increasing at the rates represented
         by defendants;

     (2) Biolase had introduced a lower priced entry level laser
         which was cannibalizing sales such that Biolase's
         reported earnings were false and misleading;

     (3) defendants were concealing this decreasing demand by
         granting extended payment terms and price breaks; and

     (4) the Company would not achieve the earnings growth
         forecasted.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com     


CARDINAL HEALTH: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock
of Cardinal Health, Inc. (NYSE: CAH) from October 24, 2000
through June 30, 2004 inclusive.

The complaint charges that Cardinal, Robert D. Walter, and
Richard J. Miller violated 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 manipulated various aspects of its
         accounting practices to continuously portray
         profitability to market;

     (2) that the Company held inventory for an average of two
         months, and reaped exorbitant profits from price
         inflation;

     (3) that the Company 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;

     (4) that the Company's pharmaceutical distribution business
         improperly classified revenues by reporting the
         revenues as either operating revenue or revenues form
         bulk deliveries to consumer warehouses when revenues
         were not derived from such;

     (5) that as a consequence of the aforementioned practices,
         the Company's financial results were in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and
         the Company's own accounting interpretations on revenue
         recognition;

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

     (7) that the Company's earnings per share were materially
         inflated; and

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

On June 30, 2004, Cardinal announced earnings per share for its
fiscal year 2004 are expected to increase approximately 11
percent, which is below prior guidance of mid-teens or better
growth. Separately, the company announced that on June 21, as
part of the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) formal
investigation disclosed by the company on May 14, it received an
SEC subpoena. In addition, Cardinal Health has learned that the
U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York has
commenced an inquiry that the company understands relates to
this same subject. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Cardinal fell $17.19 per share or 24.54 percent on July 1, 2004
to close at $52.86 per share. More than 35.5 million Cardinal
shares were traded, more than 15 times the three-month daily
average.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com       
      

CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Ceridian Corporation
(NYSE:CEN) securities during the period between April 17, 2003
and July 19, 2004.

The complaint charges Ceridian and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Ceridian offers a broad range of managed human resource
solutions designed to help companies maximize the value of their
people by more effectively managing their work forces and the
information that is integral to human resource processes.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Ceridian's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements, which included the improper capitalization as assets
of certain costs which should have been expensed. 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 February 18, 2004, the Company announced it
would restate its 2000-2003 financials due to a revenue
recognition change within its Stored Value System business unit.
The Company's stock declined on this news. However, the stock
soon recovered due to defendants' assurances that the change was
limited in scope and would not materially impact futures
results.

On July 19, 2004, the Company announced the postponement of its
Q2 04 earnings release and investor call. According to the
complaint, the defendants were struggling to conceal that the
Company's capitalization and expensing of certain costs in its
U.S. Human Resource Solutions ("HR Solutions") business were
false. This false accounting will adversely impact the Company's
Q2 04 results as well as previously reported periods and
guidance. This was the second time in as many quarters that an
accounting issue had taken center stage for the Company. On this
news, Ceridian's stock price dropped to $18.20 per share, on
volume of 6.8 million shares.

The complaint alleges that defendants' revelations indicate that
the Company's comprehensive HR Solutions deals, which often
require upfront customization work during the implementation
process, were falsely accounted for. The Company had been
capitalizing these upfront costs rather than expensing them
immediately. As a result, the prior results need to be restated.
The Company capitalized approximately $30 million of internally
developed software expenses in its HR Solutions division in
2003. If expensed, this would reduce 2003 EPS by some $0.13.
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Ceridian publicly traded securities during the Class Period
(the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Reinhardt Wendorf
& Blanchfield which has expertise in prosecuting investor class
actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial
fraud.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.
       

COMMERCE BANCORP: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of the purchasers of Commerce
Bancorp (NYSE: CBH) securities between the period of June 1,
2002 and June 28, 2004, inclusive.  

Plaintiffs allege during this period, that Commerce and certain
of its officers and directors were in violation of the United
States Federal securities laws (Securities Exchange Act of
1934).  The complaint alleges that Commerce and certain of its
officers and directors engaged in improper, inherently
unsustainable, and potentially criminal bribery and bid-rigging
in order to win underwriting awards and gain government
deposits.

In recent indictments of two executives and a director of
Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, it is alleged that such practices
were used to procure over $50 million in government deposits and
$1.7 million in fees from the City of Philadelphia alone.
Moreover, the indictments indicate that the practices included
the direct participation of Commerce's chairman and chief
executive officer. Others involved have been indicted as well.

The complaint further alleges that Commerce, through massive
political campaign contributions to politicians in Pennsylvania
and New Jersey, regularly violated Municipal Securities
Rulemaking Board's rule G-37. This rule 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, as well as the bribery and bid-
rigging, were illegal, inherently unsustainable, and not
disclosed to investors during the Class Period. Had they been
disclosed, they would have called into question the massive
growth in municipal underwriting and government deposits
repeatedly touted by Commerce during the Class Period.

The complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants,
who include officers and directors of Commerce, had intimate
knowledge of FBI investigations and grand jury proceedings
delving into the actions of defendants Commerce, Ronald White
("White"), Glenn Holck ("Holck"), and Stephen Umbrell
("Umbrell"). The FBI raided the law offices of White, Director
of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, on October 16, 2003. Thereafter,
the attorneys representing Holck, president of Commerce
Bank/Pennsylvania, and Umbrell, regional vice-president of
Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, had access to the telephone tapes
that were at the center of the eventual criminal indictments. It
is alleged that these tapes clearly establish the culpability of
the three Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania defendants.

During the grand jury proceedings, various Commerce officers
testified, many of them with representation from attorneys from
the law firm of a member of the Board of Directors of Commerce.
In December 2003 and January 2004, a few months after the raid
on White's law offices, the Chairman and CEO sold Commerce
shares for insider sale proceeds of $5.9 million. Despite the
intimate knowledge of Commerce senior executives, including its
Chairman and CEO, of the investigation and criminal grand jury
proceedings, it is alleged that such information was never
disclosed to investors during the Class Period and only became
known on or about June 29, 2004.

On that, US Attorney Patrick Meehan announced that a Commerce
director and two executives had been indicted. White, Director
of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania until October 2003, has been
charged with conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, 22
counts of wire fraud, four counts of mail fraud, two counts of
extortion, and five counts of making false statements to the
FBI. If convicted on all counts, he faces a maximum sentence of
555 years imprisonment and an $8.25 million fine. Holck,
president of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, is charged with
conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, eight counts of wire
fraud, and one count of mail fraud. Umbrell, regional vice-
president of Commerce Bank/Pennsylvania, is charged with
conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, eight counts of wire
fraud, and one count of mail fraud. If convicted on all counts,
he faces a maximum sentence of 185 years imprisonment and a $2.5
million fine.

Currently, 18% of Commerce's deposits are from municipalities,
more than any of its rivals. Analysts have expressed concern
that such government deposits may shrink as a result of the
indictments. One analyst, Gerald Cassidy of RBC Capital Markets,
stated: "[The concern is that] those municipal treasurers and
county clerks may sit back and reassess: 'Are we all going to be
tainted with any kind of brush?'" The price of Commerce's common
stock has declined by approximately 20% since the day before the
indictments were officially announced. It closed Friday at
$54.00.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.       


CP SHIPS: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all securities purchasers of
CP Ships Limited (NYSE: TEU) from April 23, 2003 through August
6, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges CP Ships, Raymond Miles, Frank Halliwell,
and Ian Webber with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. 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.

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 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 Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.       


DECODE GENETICS: Brain M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
deCODE genetics, Inc. (NASDAQ: DCGN) securities between October
29, 2003 and August 26, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

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

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


DECODE GENETICS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of deCODE
genetics, Inc. (Nasdaq:DCGN) between October 29, 2003 and August
26, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


DECODE GENETICS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased the securities of deCODE genetics, Inc. (Nasdaq:
DCGN) ("deCODE") between October 29, 2003 and August 26, 2004
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period deCODE's
shares traded at artificially inflated levels as a result of
deCODE's false and misleading public statements. On August 26,
2004, deCODE filed a Form 8-K with the SEC in which it disclosed
the resignation of its outside accountant and disclosed a
"reportable condition" with respect to deCODE's closing
procedures. On this news, deCODE's stock fell to $5.70 per
share, almost 60% below the Class Period high of $13.80 per
share.

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

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. MO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of Express Scripts,
Inc. (NASDAQ: ESRX) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 29, 2003 and August 3, 2004.

The complaint charges Express Scripts and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Express Scripts is one of the largest
Pharmacy Benefit Management ("PBM") companies in North America
providing PBM services to members through facilities in eight
states and Canada. Express Scripts serves thousands of client
groups, including managed care organizations, insurance
carriers, third-party administrators, employers and union-
sponsored benefits plans.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Express Scripts' shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading statements
and other illegal practices, including its improper practice of
changing patients' medications. Ultimately, Express Scripts
disclosed a number of investigations into those improper
practices, recorded additional litigation reserves of $15
million and the Company was sued by the New York Attorney
General. The New York Attorney General lawsuit alleged that
Express Scripts conducted an elaborate scheme that inflated by
millions of dollars the costs of prescription drugs to New York
state's largest employee health plan, the Empire Plan.

The lawsuit alleged that Express Scripts "(e)nriched itself at
the expense of the Empire Plan and its members by inflating the
cost of generic drugs;" "diverted to itself millions of dollars
in manufacturer rebates that belonged to the Empire Plan;"
"(e)ngaged in fraud and deception to induce physicians to switch
a patient's prescription from one prescribed drug to another for
which Express Scripts received money from the second drug's
manufacturer;" "(s)old and licensed data belonging to the Empire
Plan to drug manufacturers, data collection services and others
without the permission of the Empire Plan and in violation of
the State's contract;" and "(i)nduced the State to enter into
the contract by misrepresenting the discounts the Empire Plan
was receiving for drugs purchased at retail pharmacies."

On the news of these investigations, Express Scripts stock fell
to $62.48 compared to a Class Period high of $79.81.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, by Phone: 610.660.8000
or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.       

NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barriway Files Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Nektar Therapeutics (Nasdaq: NKTR) ("Nektar" and
the "Company") from March 4, 2004 through August 4, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants Nektar, Ajit Gill, J.
Milton Harris, and Robert B. Chess violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between March 5, 2004 and
August 4, 2004. Nektar is a drug delivery products based company
that provides a portfolio of technologies that will enable it
and its pharmaceutical partners to improve drug performance
throughout the drug development process. More specifically, the
complaint alleges that the defendants' statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that Aventis, one of its main partners in Exubera,
         prematurely filed an application for marketing approval
         of Exubera in the European Union with the European
         Medicines Agency for the sole purpose of fending off a
         takeover bid;

     (2) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that Exubera was plagued by ongoing safety
         concerns, including decreases in lung function and
         build-up of antibodies that could potentially affect
         drug absorption;

     (3) that as a result of these safety concerns, the
         application for marketing approval of Exubera in the
         European Union was likely to be rejected; and

     (4) that despite knowing these facts, defendants approved
         of the filing because Nektar's revenues and growth
         prospectuses, which are largely based on royalties and
         manufacturing payments, are entirely dependent on the
         success of its partners, who are responsible for
         clinical development and marketing and because the
         Company was highly leveraged and needed the European
         Union filing in order to complete a $199.5 million
         offering.

On August 5, 2004, Reuters published an article entitled "EU
experts have concerns over Exubera drug-report." Citing a French
medical online news service, Reuters stated an unnamed source
heard that European regulatory officials wondered whether the
drug could win approval. The original story, from Agence de
Presse Medicale, also points to official notes from an April
meeting of British regulators that mentioned a certain unnamed
diabetes drug up for approval was being met with objections. It
is believed that drug is Exubera. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Nektar fell $6.14 per share or 37.01 percent
on August 5, 2004, to close at $10.45 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


WET SEAL: Robbins Umeda Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP announces that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of The Wet Seal, Inc. (Nasdaq:WTSLA) ("Wet
Seal" or the "Company") between January 9, 2003 and August 19,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Wet Seal, Peter D. Whitford, William B.
Langsdorf, Douglas C. Felderman, Irving Teitelbaum and La Senza
Corporation 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 was hemorrhaging cash at a material
         rate requiring that the Company liquidate its stores,
         close stores and/or file for protection under the
         United States bankruptcy laws;

     (2) that Teitelbaum and La Senza's claims for the
         divestiture of Wet Seal shares was not motivated by
         streaming La Senza, but rather because the two had
         inside knowledge that the Company's accounting was
         false, the projections were unattainable and that the
         Company's new 2004 back to school line was a disaster;
         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 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 Amanda Aguirre - Shareholder Relations
of ROBBINS UMEDA & FINK, LLP by Mail: 1010 Second Ave., Suite
2360, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: (800) 350-6003 or by E-mail:
aguirre@ruflaw.com


ZIX CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of Zix Corporation ("Zix") (NASDAQ:ZIXI)
common stock during the period between October 30, 2003 and May
4, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Zix and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Zix is a global provider of e-messaging protection and
transaction services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and prospects. The defendants
concealed from the investing public the following facts during
the Class Period:

     (1) the Company was experiencing sluggish doctor adoption
         to e-prescribing;

     (2) the Company's claim that it would achieve 1,000
         deployed active doctors by the end of Q4 2003 was false
         and misleading because physicians would be required to
         reconfigure their patient data, obtain wireless
         coverage and implement a wireless LAN, which were
         severely undercutting physician acceptance and
         deployment;

     (3) the Company's claim it had 4,000 deployments already on
         order was false because, at the time of claim, the
         physicians' sites had not even been surveyed to
         evaluate wireless/LAN needs, all of which would
         drastically impact not only the timing of these
         "ordered" deployments but also whether these so-called
         ordered deployments would ever be truthfully ordered
         and deployed; and

     (4) new offerings from its Elron acquisition were delayed
         as a result of integration problems.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Zix's stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $17.33 on April 12, 2004, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors sold more than $4.6 million worth of
their own shares and raised an additional $10 million through
the conversion of warrants.

On May 4, 2004, the Company announced its results for Q1 2004,
including larger loss than market expectations. On this news,
the Company's shares were sent into a freefall, tumbling 50% in
the following trading days to below $7 per share.

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

                            *********


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  * * *