CAR_Public/040915.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 15, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 183

                           Headlines

A.C.L.N. LIMITED: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 15, 2004
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: OH Judge Dismisses Lawsuits "With Prejudice"
ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: ANCA Hails Senate Bill 1689 Signing Into Law
AUSTRALIA: Restaurant To Pay 90 Diners For Salmonella Outbreak
BELL ATLANTIC: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 15, 2004

BROADCOM CORPORATION: CA Court Issues Pendency of Action Notice
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Boston Archdiocese Faces New Sex Abuse Claims
CONNECTICUT: Uninsured Patients Lodge Suits V. YNHH, YNHHS, AHA
CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: FL Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
EMULEX CORPORATION: Gets Arbitration Award From Its Two Insurers

FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Hearing Set October 27
FORD MOTOR: Jury Selection Begins in IL Crown Victoria Lawsuit
GLOBAL HEALTH: CA Judge Grants SEC Motion For Restraining Order
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Continues To Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Continues To Face TX Consumer Fraud Suits

HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in CT Court
HMO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Upholds RICO Lawsuit Certification
LOCKFORMER COMPANY: Judge Mulls $16.9 IL Pollution Settlement
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Court Cuts Law Firm Awards in CA Suit
NEW YORK: Worby Groner Lodges First Lawsuit V. WTC Head Honchos

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: ND Judge Dismisses Suit Over Passenger Data
OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Executes Settlement For NY Stock Lawsuit
PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Enters Final Judgments V. NICA, Officers
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Former CEO To Face Possible Civil Charges
RIGGS BANK: Motley Rice Lodges Suit Over September 11 Attacks

ROADHOUSE GRILL: FL Court Dismisses Amended Securities Lawsuit
SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Judge Green-Lights NJ's Securities Suit
SUTTER HEALTH: Faces More Uninsured Patients Suits in CA Court
TRADEWINDS LLC: Investment Manager Confesses Fraud on Videotape
TNT DBS: NC Court Orders Halt To Prerecorded Telemarketing Calls

VIXEL CORPORATION: Approves NY Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
VIXEL CORPORATION: WA Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
WISCONSIN: Groups File Breach of Settlement Motion V. Sheriffs

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
FLIGHT SAFETY: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Fraud Lawsuit in CT
GOLDEN STATE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges TX Securities Suit
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges TX Securities Suit

INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in TX
KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in NY
QUOVADX INC.: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
ZIX CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges TX Securities Suit

                          *********

A.C.L.N. LIMITED: Suit Settlement Hearing Set October 15, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $6.75
million partial settlement in the matter In Re: A.C.L.N. Limited
Securities Litigation on behalf all Persons who purchased
A.C.L.N. common stock on the NYSE or other U.S. Exchanges during
the period beginning on June 29, 2000 through March 18, 2002,
inclusive and who were damaged thereby.

The hearing will be held on October 20, 2004 at 9:00 a.m. in
Courtroom 12A before the Honorable Loretta A. Preska, at the
United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007.

For more details, contact Daniel L. Berger, Esq. of BERNSTEIN
LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP by Mail: 1285 Avenue of the
Americas, New York, NY 10019 by Phone: (212) 554-1400 or visit
their Web site: http://www.blbglaw.comOR A.C.L.N. Limited
Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. by Mail:
P.O. Box 9000 #6204, Merrick, NY 11566-9000 by Phone:
1(866) 808-3563 or visit their Web site:
http://www.gardencitygroup.com/cases/pdf/ACL/ACLNotice2.pdf


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: OH Judge Dismisses Lawsuits "With Prejudice"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Algenon Marbley of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio dismissed "with prejudice" a series of
lawsuits claiming American Electric Power Company Inc. (AEP)
artificially inflated its stock price, the Columbus Business
First reports.

According to AEP, the federal judge stated in his ruling that he
found "no actionable misstatements or omissions" in AEP's
filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission or other
regulators.

The lawsuit, Albert Fadem Trust v. AEP, stems from a 2002
incident in which five of AEP's natural gas traders reported
inflated data to trade publications. AEP then fired the traders,
but the plaintiffs charged the misconduct artificially lifted
the company's stock price and that investors were damaged when
the misconduct came to light and the stock fell.

It also named as defendants several of AEP's current and former
executives, including E. Linn Draper, the company's former
chairman, president and chief executive officer; and Susan
Tomasky, AEP's executive vice president and chief financial
officer, all of whom were exonerated.

After the ruling was handed down, AEP spokesman Pat Hemlepp told
the Columbus Business First that the dismissal effectively ends
all known litigation around the issue. Eleven different law
firms filed suit on the case, but the judge consolidated them
into a single class action suit.


ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: ANCA Hails Senate Bill 1689 Signing Into Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Armenian National Committee of America - Western Region
(ANCA-WR) praised California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for
signing into law Senate Bill 1689, which will exempt Armenian
Genocide life insurance settlements from state taxation and
other calculations related to income.  SB 1689 was authored by
California State Senator Chuck Poochigian.

"Senator Poochigian's bill addresses an injustice that New York
Life insurance committed against its policy holders who were
massacred by the Turkish authorities," commented ANCA-WR
Executive Director Ardashes Kassakhian.  "The road to justice
for the victims of the Armenian Genocide has been long and
arduous.  The passage of SB 1689 is an important step in this
process."

The exemptions in this bill, which will now become law, are
similar to exemptions provided to recipients of the Holocaust.
This bill was crafted due to longstanding insurance policy
claims by survivors and descendants of the Armenian Genocide.
From the period of 1915 to 1923, Armenians were subjected to a
systematic genocide perpetrated by the Turkish Ottoman Empire.
The Armenian Genocide is currently and actively denied by the
Republic of Turkey and their lobbyists operating in the U.S.
Congress.

Prior to 1915, the New York Life Insurance Company wrote
thousands of life insurance policies to Armenians living on
historic Armenian lands in the Ottoman Empire.  New York Life
had refused to pay out many of the claims until a settlement was
reached last year as a result of a class action lawsuit.  SB
1689 allows the victims and their descendants to collect their
settlements without being subject to taxation by the State of
California.

SB 1689 was introduced by Senator Poochigian on February 20,
2004 and was subsequently referred to the committee on Revenue
and Tax.  The bill was passed by a unanimous 11-0 vote in
committee followed by a 37-0 vote by the entire State Senate.
SB 1689 secured strong support in the California State Assembly.
It was then sent to the Governor Schwarzenegger on September 2,
2004 and quickly signed into law on September 10th.

The Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA) is the largest
and most influential Armenian American grassroots political
organization. Working in coordination with a network of offices,
chapters, and supporters throughout the United States and
affiliated organizations around the world, the ANCA actively
advances the concerns of the Armenian American community on a
broad range of issues, the press release stated.


AUSTRALIA: Restaurant To Pay 90 Diners For Salmonella Outbreak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melbourne, Australia restaurant Sofia Pizza House agreed to
compensate up to 90 diners, who fell ill after eating
salmonella-infected pizzas last summer, news.com.au reports.

Several overseas tourists and local residents were affected by
the outbreak.  A newlywed couple had to cancel their honeymoon
and a woman fell so ill, her appendix was removed as a
precaution.  According to a Department of Human Services
inquiry, as many as 90 people were affected by salmonella traces
found in pizza mix.

The pizza place closed temporarily after the outbreak from
December 17,2003 and January 6,2004.  The restaurant was twice
closed by health authorities, and salmonella traces were found
in pizza mixes.

Law firm Slater and Gordon launched a class action on behalf of
46 victims.  The others have until October 11 to lodge a claim,
partner James Higgins said, according to news.com.au.  "If they
don't register by that date, they won't get the benefits."

Mr. Higgins estimated individual payments could be as high as
$20,000, depending on the circumstances.  Victims can claim for
medical expenses, lost wages, legal costs and pain and
suffering.

He added that many people were still recovering from the effects
of salmonella poisoning after eating at Sofia's.   "We've had
people who were hospitalized for significant periods of time,
we've unfortunately had children as young as two involved, who
suffered the brunt of it and continue to suffer," he told
news.com.au.

A Sofia's spokesman refused to comment.  As part of the
settlement, newspaper advertisements were published today to
inform victims of claim procedures.  A spokesman for the
Department of Human Services told news.com.au authorities
constantly watched for food poisoning outbreaks.  Doctors must
report cases of salmonella and, if a spate hit one area, the
department would launch an investigation.


BELL ATLANTIC: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 15, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland will hold
a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement for the class
action filed against Bell Atlantic - Maryland, Inc. (BA-MD) on
behalf of all current and former residential customers of
Verizon Maryland Inc. (formerly known as Bell Atlantic Maryland,
Inc., hereinafter "BA-MD"), excluding the Trial Court Judge and
members of his or her immediate family, who paid one or more
Late Fee(s) to BA-MD between January 1, 1996 and September 30,
2000, and all current and former business customers of BA-MD who
paid one or more Late Fee(s) to BA-MD between May 1, 1996 and
September 30, 2000 (hereinafter, the "Settlement Class").

The hearing will be held on November 15, 2004 at 9:00 a.m.
before the honorable Steven I. Platt in Courtroom No. 257M, the
Circuit Court for Prince George's County, 14735 Main Street,
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772.

For more details, contact Seth D. Goldberg, Esq. of Beins,
Goldberg & Gleiberman by Mail: 5335 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W.,
Suite 440, Washington, D.C. 20015 or by E-mail
settlement@bgglawfirm.com OR The Settlement Administrator -
Verizon Maryland Late Fee Class Action by Mail: P.O. Box 9000-
6052 Merrick, NY 11566-9000 or visit the settlement Web site:
http://md.latefeesettlement.com/


BROADCOM CORPORATION: CA Court Issues Pendency of Action Notice
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California issued a notice of pendency of class action in the
matter In Re Broadcom Corporation Securities Litigation on
behalf of all All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Broadcom Corporation,
and/or bought or sold options on Broadcom stock, during the
period July 31, 2000 through February 26, 2001, inclusive.

The purpose of the notice is to inform all parties of a class
action lawsuit that is now pending in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, Southern Division
(the "Court"). In this lawsuit (the "Action"), Lead Plaintiff
and Class Representative Minnesota State Board of Investment and
the certified Class (the "Plaintiffs") allege that Broadcom and
certain of its officers and directors violated federal law - the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") - by making
materially false and misleading statements and omissions
regarding the financial condition of Broadcom Corporation
("Broadcom" or the "Company") and the nature and impact of
certain purchase and warrant agreements entered into with
purported customers of five privately held companies acquired by
Broadcom during the period July 31, 2000 through and including
February 26, 2001 (the "Class Period"). Plaintiffs contend that
investors were misled by statements of Defendants, which
appeared in analyst reports, press releases, public statements,
and in documents filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission during the Class Period. The Defendants have denied
all of the allegations of wrongdoing asserted against them in
the Complaint and have asserted Affirmative Defenses. Defendants
contend that none of their statements was materially false or
misleading; that Defendants had no legal duty to disclose the
alleged omitted facts, that the alleged omitted facts were known
to investors; that Defendants acted in good faith and in
reliance on their professional advisors and had no intent to
defraud; and that Plaintiffs' alleged losses were caused by
market factors unrelated to the alleged fraud. Plaintiffs
dispute each of these defenses. At this stage of the litigation,
the Court has denied Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Second
Amended Consolidated Complaint (the "Complaint") and Defendants'
Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Court's denial of these
motions does not constitute a final judgment on the merits and
Defendants intend to file a number of additional motions for
total or partial summary judgment.

For more details, contact the law firm of Heins Mills & Olson,
P.L.C. by Mail: 3550 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street,
Minneapolis, MN 55402 or by E-mail:
broadcomlitigation@heinsmills.com OR Broadcom Corporation
Securities Litigation - Class Notice Administrator c/o Gilardi &
Co., LLC by Mail: P.O. Box 8040, San Rafael, CA 94912-8040 by
Phone: 1 (800) 654-5763 by Fax: 1 (415) 461-0412 by E-mail:
BroadcomLitigation@gilardi.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.gilardi.com/broadcomlitigation


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Boston Archdiocese Faces New Sex Abuse Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Archdiocese of Boston has received at least 140 new reports
of sexual abuse by priests, the Associated Press reports.
However, the archdiocese reiterated that it will not negotiate
the new claims until it resolves disputes with its insurers over
the payment of last year's $85 million settlement.

The new claims are allegedly about sexual abuse by priests from
the 1950s to the 1980s, the Boston Sunday Globe reported.  Of
the priests named, only one was not named in claims settled last
year.  Archdiocese spokesman Christopher J. Coyne told the Globe
his name was not available.

In December, the church borrowed $85 million to settle 541
claims.  The archdiocese has also sold the cardinal's residence
and surrounding land for $107 million and designated 82 parishes
for closure.

Rev. Coyne told the Globe that the Archdiocese could not afford
to settle the new claims, which legal analysts estimate to reach
about $20 million.  "We've been letting the lawyers know that we
would not be moving forward with negotiations until we have
settled with our insurance carriers," he told the Globe.

Mitchell Garabedian, an attorney for some of the plaintiffs in
the new round of claims, refused to believe the church's claims,
saying the church has enough resources to settle the claims
without insurance money, AP reports.  "They always seem to have
an excuse," he said. "I'm just preparing for trial."

Rev. Coyne reiterated that none of the money raised or saved
would be used to settle sex abuse claims.  The archdiocese is
suing Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co., which the church accused
of fraud and breach of contract after the company refused to pay
for more than $59 million in claims.


CONNECTICUT: Uninsured Patients Lodge Suits V. YNHH, YNHHS, AHA
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A. a class action lawsuit
by uninsured patients has been filed against Yale New Haven
Hospital, Inc., ("YNHH"); Yale-New Haven Hospital Services
Corp., d/b/a Yale-New Haven Health System ("YNHHS") and the
American Hospital Association ("AHA") in the United States
District Court, District of Connecticut. The suit charges the
defendants YNHH and YNHHS (collectively "Yale-New Haven
Defendants") with failing to provide healthcare services to all
Connecticut residents regardless of ability to pay. This failure
violates, among other things, the basis of Yale-New Haven's
federal and state tax exempt status as a non-profit. The AHA is
charged as a co-defendant for aiding and abetting Yale-New Haven
in its wrongful practices with respect to uninsured patients.

This class action lawsuit against Yale-New Haven Defendants and
the AHA marks the 47th lawsuit in the nationwide nonprofit class
action litigations, which commenced on June 17, 2004. The
defendant nonprofit hospital systems and hospitals advised by
the AHA in these litigations control well in excess of over 350
hospitals in aggregate. Yale-New Haven is a comprehensive health
care delivery system in Connecticut. Its Corporate Members are
Yale-New Haven Network, Bridgeport Network, and Greenwich
Network. Yale-New Haven is partner with Yale University School
of Medicine, in a specialty network, the Yale Cardiology
network.

According to the class action lawsuit filed against the Yale-New
Haven Defendants and the AHA: "YNHH and YNHHS enjoy enormous
Federal and State tax benefits as supposedly 'charitable'
organizations. In order to operate their hospitals free from
tax, the Yale-New Haven Defendants promise the government --
and, by extension, the patient population in Connecticut -- that
they do and will operate their hospitals on a non-profit basis
and provide health care services to all Connecticut residents
regardless of ability to pay."

"In addition to enjoying the benefits of federal, state and
local tax exempt status, the Yale-New Haven Defendants have also
received charity care subsidies from the State of Connecticut's
Uncompensated Care Pool as compensation for unpaid medical
bills. In its 2001 Form 990 for fiscal year 2002 ended September
30, 2002, YNHHS represents that its "Corporate Members provided
$101.7 million ... in free or under-compensated care."

"Moreover, Defendant YNNH represents to the public on its
website that it will 'provide sensitive, high quality, cost
effective health care services to all patients, regardless of
ability to pay'."

"In fact, the Yale-New Haven Defendants do not provide the
promised care to Connecticut's uninsured, but actually
discriminate against the very uninsured Connecticut residents
who are supposed to benefit most from the Yale-New Haven
Defendants' 'charity,' by engaging in a pattern and practice of
charging inordinately inflated rates for medical care to
patients who are uninsured such as Plaintiff and the Class he
seeks to represent."

"The Yale-New Haven Defendants, although enjoying the full tax
advantages of a non-profit hospital system, are actually quite
'profitable.' For fiscal year 2002, for example, YNHHS reported
net assets totaling approximately $534.0 million among 4 of its
5 tax-exempt hospitals, of which $394.6 million, or 74%, was
unrestricted. This profit was realized because the Yale-New
Haven Defendants avoided taxation while charging their patients
anything but charitable rates. Additionally, the Yale-New Haven
Defendants employed aggressive collection agents to collect on
outstanding and inflated bills."

"The Yale-New Haven Defendants charge Plaintiff and the Class
substantially more for medical services than they charge their
insured patients for the same services. The Yale-New Haven
Defendants also employ aggressive, abusive, and humiliating
practices, including lawsuits, liens, and garnishments, to
recover this inflated medical debt from Plaintiff and the Class.
The abusive billing and collection practices violate the Yale-
New Haven Defendants' tax exemption agreements with the United
States Government, the State of Connecticut, and the Cities of
New Haven and Bridgeport and the Town of Greenwich."

The lawsuit points out: "Additionally, Bernard W. Lane, Jr.,
Director, Patient Accounts at Yale-New Haven Hospital ("YNH
Hospital"), is quoted on CFS' website as follows: "Accounts
Receivable Management - As a result of Century Financial
Services' expertise in Accounts Receivable, Collections, Pending
Medicaid, and Workers' Compensation, Yale New Haven Hospital has
been able to maintain an outstanding accounts receivable despite
the many changes taking place in the healthcare industry.
[Emphasis added.']"

"Defendant AHA, through internal memos called "white papers" and
other publications it sponsors, provides substantial assistance
and guidance to YNHHS and the nonprofit hospital industry on
their billing and collection practices for uninsured patients
... the AHA encourages YNHHS and its nonprofit hospital members
to inflate their chargemaster prices, which only YNHHS' insured
patients are charged. These inflated chargemaster prices have
the intended effect of increasing YNHHS' outlier payment
reimbursements under the DSH and Medicare reimbursement
programs."

"The Yale-New Haven Defendants set their charges for medical
services at highly inflated rates that bear no connection to the
actual cost of providing the service (i.e., its "cost-to-charge
ratio"). While the Yale-New Haven Defendants give private
insurance companies and governmental third party payers like
Medicare and Medicaid large discounts off this gross or "sticker
price," these large discounts are not provided to their
uninsured patients. As a result, the Yale-New Haven Defendants'
uninsured patients can be charged as much as twice the amount
charged to the insured for the same service. The Yale-new Haven
Defendants have thus realized substantial revenues from this
discriminatory charging practice."

"For example, according to a June 2003 report by the Institute
for Health and Socio-Economic Policy (the "IHSP Report"),
Defendant YNHHS had an average charge-to-cost ratio of 192.41%,
exceeding the State average of 185.05%."

"The Yale-New Haven Defendants employ abusive collection
practices, directly and through collection agencies, often
hounding patients for payments on patently inflated bills ... In
January 2003, the Connecticut Center for a New Economy issued a
report/study entitled Uncharitable Care, Yale-New Haven
Hospital's Charity Care and Collections Practices, by Grace
Rollins (the "Uncharitable Care Report"). According to its
Executive Summary: "Yale-New Haven, a non-profit, charitable
teaching hospital, classifies most of its uncompensated service
to the uninsured and underinsured as "bad debt."  Even in
instances where patients are unable to pay and would have
qualified for the Hospital's free care programs, Yale-New
Haven's "bad debt" accounts become subject to extremely
aggressive collection tactics, including lawsuits, wage
garnishments, back executions, liens and foreclosures.
[Emphasis added.].... ...Further, according to the Uncharitable
Care Report: "Yale-New Haven does not simply write off and
abandon what it reports as "bad debts."  After a maximum of 120
days, any unpaid amount that the Hospital has billed to an
individual (a "self pay") balance, is turned over to either a
collections agency or collections attorneys, with few
exceptions.  Once turned over, the unpaid balance is tallied in
the Hospital's "bad debt" account for that fiscal year. However,
Yale-New Haven's professional collectors may continue to pursue
"bad debt" patients and their families for years, even
decades.""

Richard F. Scruggs, a lead attorney in the nationwide
litigation, stated, "The harm the defendant nonprofit hospital
systems and hospitals have created with their so called charity
care policies is more insidious in some ways than what the
tobacco and asbestos industries have caused with their products.
These hospital policies discourage patients who need medical
care from seeking treatment at the price of aggressive
collection practices. They've erected a bar to hospital beds.
Patients will delay and delay treatment until they can no longer
wait and the problem becomes most acute and far more expensive.
In many instances, the boards and administrations of these
nonprofits appear to have lost their moral compass."

The law firms representing the plaintiff are: Hurwitz, Sagarin &
Slossberg, LLC; Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP; and Vroon &
Crongeyer, LLP.

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


CYBERGUARD CORPORATION: FL Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against CyberGuard
Corporation and certain of its former officers and directors.

On August 24, 1998, the Company announced, among other things,
that due to a review of its revenue recognition practices
relating to distributors and resellers, it would restate prior
financial results.  After the August 24, 1998 announcement,
twenty-five purported class action lawsuits were filed by
alleged shareholders.  Pursuant to an order issued by the Court,
these actions have been consolidated into one action, styled
"Stephen Cheney, et al. v. CyberGuard Corporation, et al., Case
No. 98-6879-CIV-Gold," in the United States District Court,
Southern District of Florida.

On August 23, 1999, the plaintiffs filed a Consolidated and
Amended Class Action Complaint.  This action seeks damages
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's common stock during various periods from
November 7, 1996 through August 24, 1998.  The complaint
alleges, among other things, that as a result of accounting
irregularities relating to the Company's revenue recognition
policies, the Company's previously issued financial statements
were materially false and misleading and that the defendants
knowingly or recklessly published these financial statements
which caused the Company's common stock prices to rise
artificially.   The action alleges violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

Subsequently, the defendants, including the Company, filed their
respective motions to dismiss the Consolidated and Amended Class
Action Complaint.  On July 31, 2000, the Court issued a ruling
denying the Company's and Robert L. Carberry's (the Company's
CEO from June 1996 through August 1998) motions to dismiss.  The
court granted the motions to dismiss with prejudice for
defendants William D. Murray (the Company's CFO from November
1997 through August 1998), Patrick O. Wheeler (the Company's CFO
from April 1996 through October 1997), C. Shelton James (the
Company's former Audit Committee Chairman), and KPMG Peat
Marwick LLP (KPMG).

On August 14, 2000, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration of that order.  The Company filed an answer to
the plaintiffs' Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint
on August 24, 2000.  On March 20, 2001, the Court ruled on the
plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration that the previously
dismissed defendants William D. Murray, Patrick O. Wheeler and
C. Shelton James should not have been dismissed from the action
and shall be defendants in this action under the control person
liability claims under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and
that the plaintiffs may amend the Consolidated and Amended Class
Action Complaint to bring claims against C. Shelton James
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On April 5, 2001, the plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
and Amended Class Action Complaint to include amended claims
against C. Shelton James.  On May 10, 2001, the Company filed an
answer and affirmative defenses to plaintiffs' Second
Consolidated and Amended Class Action Complaint.  On August 14,
2002, the Court granted the plaintiffs' Motion for Class
Certification and certified the class to include all investors
who acquired the Company's common stock between November 7, 1996
and August 24, 1998 and were damaged by the purchase of such
stock.

In July 2003, the Company entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle this lawsuit.  The settlement amount of
$10 million required the Company to incur a one-time charge of
$3.9 million in the fourth quarter of its fiscal year ending
June 30, 2003 for the amount in excess of the insurance coverage
and related costs.  The Company paid its portion of the
settlement amount in cash.  On October 9, 2003, the Company and
all other parties signed a Stipulation and Agreement of
Settlement and filed a Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of
Settlement of the lawsuit.  On November 6, 2003, a hearing was
held on the joint motion.  The court entered a preliminary order
approving the settlement and scheduled a final fairness hearing
for April 16, 2004.

On April 16, 2004, a fairness hearing was held before the
magistrate judge.  There were no objections raised to the
proposed settlement.  On April 19, 2004, the magistrate judge
issued a Report and Recommendation to the district judge
recommending that the settlement be approved.  On May 7, 2004,
the district judge entered an Order and Final Judgment approving
the settlement.  No one has appealed the Order and Final
Judgment and the time for appeal has expired.

Certain shareholders, owning approximately 40,000 shares, who
had opted out of the settlement, reconsidered their decision and
opted back into the settlement.  A settlement with these
shareholders was approved by the district court on August 11,
2004.  A shareholder who owns approximately 2,000 shares opted
out of the settlement.  To date, this shareholder has not
asserted a claim against the Company.


EMULEX CORPORATION: Gets Arbitration Award From Its Two Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corporation obtained an arbitration award against two of
its insurers relating to the settlement of the securities class
actions filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court, Central District
of California.

The plaintiffs in the actions represent purchasers of the
Company's common stock during various periods ranging from
January 18, 2001, through February 9, 2001.  The complaints
alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made misrepresentations and omissions in violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.  The complaints generally seek compensatory damages,
costs and attorney's fees in an unspecified amount.

On April 22, 2003, the Company entered into two Memoranda of
Understanding agreeing to terms of settlement for both the class
action and derivative litigation.  The settlement was approved
and $39.5 million held in escrow was paid to the plaintiffs.

The Company is currently seeking to recover a portion of this
amount from our insurance carriers.  The final amount collected
for the Company's receivable from its insurance carriers related
to the settlements of securities class action and derivative
lawsuits may be materially different from the receivable amount.

The Company has reached an agreement with one of its insurers,
under which it received $10.0 million less $2.0 million
previously paid by the insurer for the defense of the securities
class action lawsuits, resulting in a net payment to the Company
of $8.0 million during the three months ended March 28, 2004.

In July 2004, the Company obtained an arbitration award against
two of its insurers, and the amount of the award exceeded its
recorded litigation settlements receivable of $5.1 million by
approximately $4.0 to $5.0 million.


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: Settlement Hearing Set October 27
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $4.25
million partial settlement in the matter In Re Flextronics
International, Ltd. Securities Litigation on behalf of All
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Flextronics
International, Ltd. common stock during the period from and
including January 18, 2001, through and including June 4, 2002.

The hearing will be held on October 27, 2004, 9:00 a.m., at the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, United States Courthouse, Courtroom 3, 17th Floor,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California 94102.

For more details, contact Paul D. Young, Esq. of Milberg Weiss
Bershad & Schulman, LLP by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New
York, NY 10119 by Phone: (212) 594-5300 OR David Kessler, Esq.
and Benjamin J. Sweet, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by
Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: (610) 667-7706 OR Patrice L. Bishop, Esq., Stull, Stull &
Brody, 10940 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2350, Los Angeles, CA
90024 by Phone: (310) 209-2468 OR Flextronics International,
Ltd. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City Group, Inc. -
Claims Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6246, Merrick, NY
11566-9000 by Phone: (800) 326-5722


FORD MOTOR: Jury Selection Begins in IL Crown Victoria Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jury selection has started in the class action filed against
Ford Motor Co. in Illinois state court, over its Crown Victoria
police cars, the San Bernardino Sun reports.

More than a dozen law enforcement officers nationwide have been
killed in fiery crashes in Crown Victorias since 1983.  The
federal government investigated the Crown Victoria's safety
following fiery crashes in the 1990s.  In October 2002, the
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration released
findings that found no defect in the vehicle and that said the
Crown Victoria exceeded federal standards for fuel system
safety, the Sun stated.  After the report was released, the
Company promised to install shields around the gas tanks of the
350,000 Crown Victorias then used by police departments.

Crashes have yet to happen in Illinois, but the St. Clair County
Sheriff's Office and Centreville Police Department filed the
suit on behalf of all law enforcement agencies in the state,
seeking payment from the Company to retrofit its Crown Victoria
Police Interceptor with special safety gear to make the car
safer.

"We're just trying to get safe police cars for Illinois police
officers," plaintiffs' attorney David Perry of Corpus Christi,
Texas, told the Sun.

Dearborn, Michigan-based Ford contends the cars are as safe as
they can be, and that explosions were the result of high-speed
crashes, not a design flaw.  "Real world data show Crown
Victoria Police Interceptors to be a safe vehicle," Ford
spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes told the Sun.  "It is the vehicle of
choice of the majority of police departments in the nation."

The trial is expected to last five weeks, and opening statements
are expected to begin Wednesday, plaintiffs' lawyer Patricia
Murphy told the Sun.  Several similar lawsuits are pending in
other states.


GLOBAL HEALTH: CA Judge Grants SEC Motion For Restraining Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Jeffery T. Miller, U.S. District Judge for the
Southern District of California, granted the Securities and
Exchange Commission's application and issued a temporary
restraining order halting an ongoing securities fraud by Vince
Dory (Dory) and Joshua Adams (Adams), ages and residences
unknown, and four entities with which they are affiliated:
Global Health, Global Clearing, Global Strategies and Goldman
Quintero & Associates (Goldman). The court

     (1) granted the Commission's application for a temporary
         restraining order;

     (2) placed a freeze on the defendants' assets;

     (3) ordered the repatriation of funds;

     (4) prohibited the destruction of documents by the
         defendants;

     (5) ordered accountings from the defendants; and

     (6) granted expedited discovery.

Global Health purports to be a biotechnology company engaged in
the development of a cancer treatment, although it does not
appear to be organized or registered as any form of business in
any state. The other entities and individuals operate as
unregistered brokers.

The Commission's complaint, filed today in U.S. District Court
in San Diego, alleges that, since early 2003, the brokers have
cold called prospective investors and solicited investments in
Global Health, which, they represent, has developed a cancer
treatment that is on the verge of FDA approval and,
subsequently, has obtained FDA approval. To convince prospective
investors to invest in Global Health, or to induce existing
investors to add to their investment, the defendants have
disseminated letters on FDA letterhead that state that Global
Health's cancer treatment has been approved by the FDA and that
Global Health can soon begin marketing its product. The
defendants instruct investors to send their checks to one of two
San Diego-area addresses used by the brokers.

The complaint alleges that the FDA letters are forgeries, and
the statements contained therein are false. The letters were not
authored by any employee or representative of the FDA and, in
fact, the FDA has no record of Global Health or of any product
purportedly manufactured by it. Contrary to the representations
in the letters, Global Health does not have any cancer treatment
or other product that is undergoing the FDA's approval process.
Moreover, the addresses for the brokers are merely commercial
mail drops from which the proposed defendants take investors'
checks across the border to Mexico, where they cash or deposit
them in accounts at a Mexican bank in Tijuana.

The Commission obtained an order temporarily restraining
Global Clearing, Global Strategies, Goldman, Dory and Adams from
committing securities fraud in violation of Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and from violating the broker-dealer registration
provisions of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act. The order also
temporarily restrains all of the defendants from violating the
securities registration provisions of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of
the Securities Act.

The Court ordered the temporary restraining order and asset
freeze to remain in effect until Sept. 20, 2004, on which date
the Court will hold a hearing on the Commission's motion for a
preliminary injunction at 8:30 a.m. In addition to the interim
relief granted today, the Commission seeks a final judgment
against the defendants enjoining them from future violations of
the foregoing antifraud, broker-dealer registration and
securities registration provisions, ordering them to disgorge
all ill-gotten gains, and assessing civil penalties against
them.

The Commission would like to acknowledge the assistance of the
United States Postal Inspection Service in the investigation of
this matter. The action is titled, SEC v. Global Health; Global
Clearing; Global Strategies; Goldman Quintero & Associates;
Vince Dory; and Joshua Adams, Civil Action No. 04-CV-1802-JM
(BLM) (S.D. Cal.) (LR-18881).


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Continues To Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to face several consumer class
actions filed in 33 states, by various plaintiffs throughout the
country who claim to have purchased different models of HP
inkjet printers over the past four years.

The basic factual allegation of these actions is that affected
consumers who purchased HP printers received half-full or
"economy" ink cartridges instead of full cartridges.  Plaintiffs
claim that the Company's advertising, packaging and marketing
representations for the printers led the consumers to believe
they would receive full cartridges.  These actions seek
injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits, compensatory
damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees under various
state unfair business practices statutes and common law claims
of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

The first suit, styled "Stevens v. HP," (renamed as "Erickson v.
HP") was an unfair business practices consumer class action
filed in the Superior Court of California in Riverside County on
July 31, 2000.  In the initial California matter, the court
granted summary judgment in the Company's favor and denied class
certification.

In October 2003, the California appellate court affirmed the
lower court's decisions and dismissed plaintiff's appeal.  The
matter was certified as a class action, however, in North
Carolina state court, where it was filed as "Hughes v. Hewlett-
Packard Company."  The Company prevailed at the trial of this
case, which concluded in September 2003.

The litigation is not in trial in other jurisdictions.  In
total, twenty of the consumer class actions have been dismissed,
and in two states plaintiffs' motions for class certification
have been denied.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Continues To Face TX Consumer Fraud Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. continues to work toward the settlement of
several consumer class actions, alleging the Company and Compaq
Computers sold computer containing floppy disk controllers that
fail to alert the user to certain floppy disk controller errors.
That failure is alleged to result in data loss or data
corruption.

The first suit, styled "Alvis v. HP," is a nationwide defective
product consumer class action that was filed in state court in
Jefferson County, Texas by a resident of Eastern Texas in April
2001.  In February 2000, a similar suit captioned "LaPray v.
Compaq," was filed in state court in Jefferson County, Texas.
The plaintiffs in Alvis and LaPray seek injunctive relief,
declaratory relief, damages and attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002.
In May 2004, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification
of the nationwide class in the LaPray case and remanded to the
trial court.  The trial court has scheduled a new class
certification hearing in November 2004.

A class certification hearing was held on July 1, 2003 in the
Alvis case, and the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify
a nationwide class action.  The Company filed an appeal of that
certification with the 9th Court of Appeals in Beaumont, Texas,
which heard oral arguments on HP's appeal and received a
supplemental briefing based upon the LaPray opinion from the
Texas Supreme Court.  On August 31, 2004 the 9th Court of
Appeals in Texas reversed the lower court's decision certifying
a nationwide class and remanded the case to the trial court.

On June 4, 2003, "Barrett v. HP" and "Grider v. Compaq" were
each filed in state court in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with
factual allegations similar to those in Alvis and LaPray,
respectively.  The plaintiffs in Barrett and Grider seek, among
other things, specific performance, declaratory relief, damages
and attorneys' fees.

On November 5, 2003, the court heard HP's motion to dismiss
Barrett v. HP and Grider v. Compaq, which motion was
subsequently denied.  On December22, 2003, the court entered an
order staying both the Barrett and Grider cases until the
conclusions of the Alvis and LaPray actions.  On July 28, 2004,
the Court lifted the stay in Grider, but took under advisement
the plaintiff's motion to lift the stay in Barrett.


HEWLETT-PACKARD CO.: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in CT Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard Co. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, styled
"Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Company and Carleton Fiorina."

The suit was filed on behalf of a putative class of persons who
sold common stock of the Company during the period from
September 4, 2001 through November 5, 2001.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages and generally alleges that HP and Ms.
Fiorina violated the federal securities laws by making
statements during this period which were misleading in failing
to disclose that Walter B. Hewlett would oppose the proposed
acquisition of Compaq by HP prior to Mr. Hewlett's disclosure of
his opposition to the proposed transaction.

A motion to transfer the action to federal court in California
is pending, and no lead plaintiff has yet been appointed.


HMO LITIGATION: Appeals Court Upholds RICO Lawsuit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta,
Georgia upheld class certification for a lawsuit filed against
several major health insurers, namely:

     (1) Health Net,

     (2) Humana,

     (3) PacifiCare Health Systems,

     (4) Prudential Insurance Co. of America,

     (5) UnitedHealthcare and

     (6) Wellpoint Health Networks

The suit was filed on behalf of 900,000 physicians, who allege
the insurers systematically overpaid them, amednews.com reports.
The suit makes claims under the federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

The decision is a huge victory for physicians, according to
legal experts.  Without such status, the 900,000 active and
retired physicians represented would have had to pursue their
claims individually.

Archie Lamb, co-lead counsel representing the physicians and
medical societies, was pleased.  "Five years ago when we first
filed, the ripple of laughter was fairly loud," he told
amednews.com.  ". The vindication that is evident in this ruling
is something that all the medical society leaders and doctors
ought to be extremely proud of."

Aetna and CIGNA Corporation previously reached settlements with
physicians for $120 million and $85 million respectively.  The
decision heightens pressure on the others to settle, legal
experts said.

A March 2005 court date has been set for the lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in Miami.

Kent Jarrell, health plan spokesman, said insurers had not
decided whether to appeal, but they felt being tried under the
RICO statute would work to their advantage.  "There's a higher
burden of proof with RICO, and that's why we feel confident
about the merits of our case," he told amednews.com.

The impact of the class action on the insurance industry could
be massive.  The insurers' appeal claimed a negative verdict
could bankrupt the industry, but Appellate Court Judge Gerald B.
Tjoflat dismissed this concern in the court's ruling,
amednews.com reports.

"If their fears are truly justified, the defendants can blame no
one but themselves," he wrote.  "It would be unjust to allow
corporations to engage in rampant and systematic wrongdoing, and
then allow them to avoid a class action because the consequences
of being held accountable for their misdeeds would be
financially ruinous."


LOCKFORMER COMPANY: Judge Mulls $16.9 IL Pollution Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge is contemplating whether to approve or not a
$16.9 million settlement proposal for up to 1,400 families
living in west suburban Lisle in Chicago, Illinois whose wells
were believed to have been contaminated with a cancer-causing
toxin, leaked into the ground by the Lockformer Company, the
WBBM, IL reports.

According to Dan and Terry Mejdrech, lead clients in a class
action lawsuit against Lockformer, their family has been
drinking the well water from their property for the last 15
year, but since the alleged contamination the water is only good
for the flowers in the yard around that well.

The couple claims that the water flowing from their tap, which
they have also used for baths during the hot months is
contaminated with Trichloroethylene (TCE), a chemical used to
strip clean metals.

In their suit, the couple alleges that the Lisle plant has been
leaking the toxic TCE since the 1960s, which has contaminated an
area roughly 2.25 miles long and a half-mile wide and that the
company told no one of the dangers, except for the Illinois EPA
in 1994 just six years before residents were notified.

With regards to the settlement terms, Plaintiffs' attorney Shawn
Collins explains that once approved by the judge it could give
up to $42,000 for each family were $12,000 will be used to get
them hooked up to clean city water and rest as compensation for
the loss to their property values.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Court Cuts Law Firm Awards in CA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court in California granted lower
legal fees to the law firms involved in the $1.1 billion
consumer class action filed against Microsoft Corporation,
law.com reports.

Townsend and Townsend and Crew filed the first suit, which
alleged that the Company's illegal conduct denied consumers
competitive prices and free choice among software products.  27
similar consumer suits were filed soon after and later
consolidated.

In January 2003, the Company settled the suit for $1.1 billion
in a voucher offer to 14 million Californians who indirectly
purchased Microsoft software from 1995 to 2001.  State court
judge Paul Alvarado granted final approval of the settlement
agreement in July.

Townsend and Townsend and Crew sought for $92.5 million in fees.
Other firms in the suit requested a total of $177.5 million,
bringing the total to $270 million.  Judge Alvarado granted the
firms only $112.4 million, saying the requested amount was
unwarranted, given the relatively low level of risk it faced in
pursuing the case.

Judge Alvarado also noted that more than 170 class members
submitted written objections to class counsel's proposed fee,
arguing that it was excessive.  One class member objected to the
allocation of fees to Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, but
Alvarado found that the firm provided some assistance in the
case and should be compensated.

Judge Alvarado agreed with Microsoft that attorneys had relied
on evidence and theories put forth in the U.S. Department of
Justice case and other private litigation against Microsoft,
law.com reports.  "These earlier actions provided class counsel
with detailed roadmaps to the theories they borrowed from those
actions," Judge Alvarado wrote.  "By definition, claims that are
based on earlier actions and investigations are not novel or
pioneering. They are also less complex and easier to pursue when
plaintiffs' counsel has access to vast quantities of work
product, analysis and evidence, as was the case here."

Attorney fees in class actions are determined either as a
percentage of the plaintiff award or by a lodestar method.  The
lodestar is the number of hours expended multiplied by counsel's
hourly rate, which the court may enhance by a multiplier.
Lawyers for the class had requested a blended multiplier of 5.05
times the lodestar for a total of $270 million in attorney fees.
That would have included multipliers for some firms, including
Townsend, as high as 5.75.  Microsoft proposed a multiplier of
1.5, which would have resulted in about $76 million in attorney
fees for the firms, law.com reports.

Judge Alvarado set the multiplier at 2.0. Consequently, Townsend
would collect about a third of the $92.5 million it had
requested.  "This case cannot fairly be characterized as 'truly
pioneering or high-risk,' the showing necessary to support a
multiplier above 2.0," Alvarado concluded.

Townsend partner Eugene Crew, lead attorney in the litigation,
said he and his colleagues had not decided whether they would
appeal the decision.  "Obviously we're disappointed, but I say
that with the greatest of respect for Judge Alvarado," Crew told
law.com.  "I do believe we undertook a substantial risk."

"We thought the judge did a careful and thoughtful job and
properly applied California law," said Microsoft attorney Robert
Rosenfeld, a partner at Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe.
"Plaintiffs got a significant multiplier and a fair result."


NEW YORK: Worby Groner Lodges First Lawsuit V. WTC Head Honchos
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Worby, Groner, Edelman, & Napoli, Bern, LLP
initiated the first major class action lawsuit on behalf of
Ground Zero cleanup workers and others against managers, owners,
controllers and leasors of the World Trade Center (WTC) complex.
"The unprecedented combination of lethal toxins present at the
World Trade Center site during search and rescue, demolition and
cleanup efforts in the months following September 11, 2001 have
affected not only the cleanup workers but potentially hundreds
of thousands of people living and working in the area with "WTC
Toxic Diseases," explains the complaint.

"The tragic reality is that so many of the brave heroes who
worked so tirelessly and unselfishly are becoming a second wave
of casualties of this horrific attack, and we are only seeing
the tip of the iceberg three years later in terms of the number
of victims as well as the variety and severity of their
illnesses," said David E. Worby; a senior partner of the law
firm. "In this action, as well as several others in development,
we are seeking compensation for victims and to establish funding
for a massive, decades-long protocol of medical testing for all
those exposed to these poisons, so that the variety of diseases
they may contract over the next 20 years or more can be
diagnosed and potentially treated as quickly as possible to
minimize their effects."

There are currently more than 800 plaintiffs participating in
this suit, with the firm fielding hundreds of new inquiries from
potential plaintiffs every day. The firm has already been
approached by groups representing thousands of potential
plaintiffs in this and other related actions, and the total
number of people who may eventually experience adverse health
effects from exposure to the toxins emanating from the site and
the Fresh Kills Landfill could be as many as 400,000. The law
firm of Worby, Groner, Edelman, & Napoli, Bern is initiating
thousands of individual lawsuits, notices of claims and other
filings against a variety of governmental entities and agencies
including New York City, The Port Authority of New York and New
Jersey, The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and The
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) on behalf
of their individual clients.

Mr. Worby added that the firm will also spearhead initiatives
with legislators at all appropriate levels of government to
facilitate the creation and funding of such medical testing
programs for current and future victims. The firm is working
with leading, expert medical and toxicological consultants to
create the proposed protocol for such testing, and expects to
announce these recommendations within the next 30 days. The firm
estimates the likely long-term cost of such testing could be
more than one billion dollars.

"The defendants in this case were aware that extreme safety
precautions and unusual care were necessary to protect the
rescue and cleanup workers from airborne contamination, toxins
and other harmful substances throughout the nine-month cleanup.
Thousands of brave people are now suffering the consequences of
this irresponsible behavior and potentially many thousands more
will," said Mr. Worby. "Other actions that we are undertaking
will focus on local and federal governmental entities that are
responsible for allowing rescue, recovery and cleanup workers to
be exposed to these lethal poisons without adequate testing or
protection," Mr. Worby added. "The bottom line is that there was
an unnecessary rush by elected officials to declare the area
safe for habitation and cleanup that exposed 400,000 people or
more to toxins that leave them vulnerable to serious, if not
fatal illnesses in the decades to come."

William R. Sawyer, Chief Toxicologist, Toxicology Consultants &
Assessment Specialists, Inc., is a leading national expert on
WTC site toxicity who conducted toxicological assessments on WTC
workers. "The initial collapse of the buildings and smoldering
fires released a dust and vapor cloud that hovered over the
immediate and surrounding areas," said Mr. Sawyer. "Building
materials continued to smolder, releasing a toxic mixture of
chemicals measured by EPA subcontractors in the air at levels in
great excess of those considered hazardous to human health."
These toxins included particulate matter composed of cement
dust, glass fibers, asbestos, lead, polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs),
organochlorine pesticides, and polychlorinated furans and
dioxins, which were released into the air for weeks and months
following September 11, 2001.

"I have conducted direct testing of the paper dust masks and
clothing worn by these workers during their first few weeks of
exposure," said Sawyer. "Certified analyses of the particulate
matter removed from this gear revealed high levels of several
different carcinogens which were far beyond the EPA- recommended
levels. The variety and seriousness of the likely resultant
illnesses are as unique and unprecedented as the combination of
deadly poisons to which these workers were exposed."

One plaintiff who participated in Monday's press conference is
John R. Walcott, a former New York City Police Detective who now
suffers from benzene- induced leukemia. He was among several
plaintiffs present representing employees of the New York City
Fire, Police, Transit and Sanitation Departments, Con Edison,
Verizon, construction and iron workers and a number of private
contractors who are currently suffering some form of illness as
a result of their onsite exposure. Walcott was diagnosed with
acute myeloid leukemia (AML) on May 20th, 2003. Not having a
suitable transplant donor, Mr. Walcott was approved for stem
cell transplant post cycle four chemotherapy. The firm is
currently representing him in a separate, individual suit, the
first such action it filed.

Mr. Walcott, 39, was a detective when assigned duty at the WTC
site on September 11, 2001. He said that he and other workers
were provided with simple paper masks, and that he wore the mask
for only a short period of time as it "just became too clogged
to breathe in or out". He added that he did not receive another
mask on 9/11 despite breathing difficulty, constant cough and
gagging, and that there was no post-duty decontamination
available that day or throughout the duration of the cleanup.
Walcott was assigned to various clean-up tasks over the next
several months, including to the pile and sifter at the Fresh
Kills Landfill on Staten Island.

Among those publishing studies or reports within the last week
that analyze current and potential illnesses resulting from
exposure to the WTC site are the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, The Government Accountability Office and
the journal Environmental Health Perspectives. The Sierra Club
has also released a recent, comprehensive report on these
subjects.

For more details, contact the law firm of Worby, Groner, Edelman
& Napoli, Bern, LLP by Phone: 877-WTC-HERO or visit their Web
site: http://www.877wtchero.com


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: ND Judge Dismisses Suit Over Passenger Data
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland, of Bismarck, N.D., dismissed
a class action privacy lawsuit filed against Northwest Airlines,
one of several that the Eagan-based carrier is facing over its
decision to supply NASA with passenger data for use in airline
security studies.

According to the suit the data included such facts as names,
flight numbers, credit card data, hotel reservations, car
rentals and traveling companies.

The federal judge's order followed the dismissal in June by U.S.
District Judge Paul Magnuson, of St. Paul, of seven similar
class action lawsuits filed in Minnesota that had been
consolidated into one case.

In his ruling Judge Hovland states that he rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that the carrier had violated the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, since the law is meant to
apply to companies such as Internet service providers and
telecommunications companies, not to businesses that sell
traditional products or services online. He also rejected the
plaintiffs' argument that Northwest breached a contract with
them by not following the privacy policy posted on its Web site.

Furthermore the judge ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to
show they had suffered any damages when Northwest in the wake of
the September 11 attacks provided passenger data from the last
three months of 2001 to the space agency.


OPLINK COMMUNICATIONS: Executes Settlement For NY Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oplink Communications, Inc. executed a settlement agreement with
parties in the securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, now
captioned, "In re Oplink Communications, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-9904."

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

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

Similar complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of
other public companies that went public in the late 1990s.  On
August 8, 2001, the IPO Lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial
purposes before United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the
Southern District of New York.

On July 15, 2002, the Company joined in a global motion to
dismiss the IPO Lawsuits filed by all of the Issuers (among
others).  On October 9, 2002, the Court entered an order
dismissing the Company's named officers and directors from the
IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant to an agreement tolling
the statute of limitations with respect to these officers and
directors until September 30, 2003.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the
motion to dismiss the Section 11 claims against the Company and
almost all of the Issuers, and granting the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claim against the Company.  The Section 10(b)
claim was dismissed without leave to amend.

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement and entered a memorandum of understanding,
providing for, among other things, a dismissal with prejudice
and full release of the Issuers and their officers and directors
from all further liability resulting from Plaintiffs' claims,
and the assignment to Plaintiffs of certain potential claims
that the Issuers may have against the Underwriters.

In addition, the tentative settlement guarantees that, in the
event that the Plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion in
settlement or judgment against the Underwriter defendants in the
IPO Lawsuits, the Plaintiffs would be entitled to payment by
each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata share of any
shortfall in the plaintiff's guaranteed recovery.  In such
event, the Company's obligation would be limited to
reimbursement of its insurer up to the amount remaining under
the deductible of its insurance policy.

In September 2003, in connection with the tentative settlement,
the Company's officers and directors who had entered tolling
agreements with the Plaintiffs agreed to extend those agreements
so that they would not expire prior to any settlement being
finalized.

In June 2004, Oplink executed a settlement agreement with the
Plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of a memorandum of
understanding.  The settlement is subject to a number of
conditions, including action by the Court certifying a class
action for settlement purposes and formally approving the
settlement.  The Underwriters have opposed both the
certification of the class and the judicial approval of the
settlement.


PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Enters Final Judgments V. NICA, Officers
------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Honorable Joy Flowers Conti, U.S. District Judge for the Western
District of Pennsylvania, entered final judgment orders that
permanently enjoining National Institute Companies of America,
Inc. (NICA), John A. D'Onofrio, Robert C. Walters, Dennis J.
Oslosky and Jason J. Riley from violations of certain provisions
of the federal securities laws. The orders also barred D'Onofrio
from serving as an officer or director of a public company; and
set disgorgement against NICA, D'Onofrio, Walters, Oslosky and
Riley, respectively, in the amounts of $1,600,000, $287,000,
$105,000, $38,875, and $23,000, in each instance together with
prejudgment interest. The Court waived payment of all but
$75,000 of payment and prejudgment interest owed by D'Onofrio
based on his demonstrated inability to pay. The Court also
waived payment of disgorgement and prejudgment interest by
Riley, and imposed no civil penalty on Riley, D'Onofrio, Walters
and Oslosky, based upon their demonstrated inability to pay.
All defendants consented to the entry of these judgments.

The Court also ordered defendant Raymond P. Sobieralski to pay
$198,000, together with prejudgment interest, but waived such
payment and did not impose a civil penalty based on his
demonstrated inability to pay. Sobieralski consented to the
entry of that judgment. Previously, on Dec. 14, 2001, the Court
entered an order, by default, enjoining Sobieralski from
violations of certain provisions of the federal securities laws.

The Commission's complaint, filed June 22, 2000, alleges that
from August 1996 to May 1998, the defendants violated the
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws through
their participation in three separate offerings of securities
issued by NICA's predecessor company, Mortgage Bankers Holding
Corp. and its subsidiary, Commonwealth Capital Investment Corp.
Those offerings, which generally targeted unsophisticated
investors, involved fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions
regarding, among other things, the risk of the investment, the
financial condition of the issuers, and the use of proceeds. In
addition, Sobieralski, D'Onofrio, Walters, and Oslosky violated
the registration provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act) by failing to register as brokers or dealers
before offering and selling those securities. The defendants
raised more than $2.3 million in these three offerings, and used
the money to benefit themselves, pay salaries and other business
and personal expenses, and pay existing investors. Little if any
of the money raised was used "to grow" the business of Mortgage
Bankers or Commonwealth Capital as the defendants had told
investors. No registration statement was on file or in effect
with the Commission at any time for any of the three securities
offerings.

As part of the settlement, D'Onofrio, Walters, Oslosky and Riley
each agreed to have the Commission impose orders barring them
from association with any broker or dealer, and from
participating in any offering of a penny stock. Sobieralski
previously agreed to the imposition of such an order, which the
Commission issued May 24, 2004. For more details, contact SEC v.
National Institute Companies, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 00-
CV-1216 (W.D.Pa.) (LR-18882).


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Former CEO To Face Possible Civil Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former Qwest Communications chief executive Joseph Nacchio
reportedly may soon face civil charges related to improper
accounting at the telecommunications company, the Wall Street
Journal reports.

Sources familiar with the litigation told the WSJ that the
Securities and Exchange Commission recently sent a so-called
Wells notice to Mr. Nacchio, indicating that its enforcement
staff plans to recommend the agency file civil charges against
the former CEO.  The notice comes right after Qwest has agreed
to a preliminary deal with the SEC to pay $250 million to settle
securities-fraud charges related to alleged accounting misdeeds.

The settlement is the second-largest fine in history against an
operating company, after the $750 million penalty against the
former WorldCom, now MCI, the Associated Press reports.


RIGGS BANK: Motley Rice Lodges Suit Over September 11 Attacks
-------------------------------------------------------------
The wealthy personal injury law firm of Motley Rice of Mount
Pleasant, South Carolina has initiated a lawsuit seeking class
action status against Riggs National Corporation-owned Riggs
Bank over the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, the Washington
Times reports.

According to a Wall Street Journal report, Motley Rice brought
the suit on behalf of Lawrence Silverstein as leaseholder of the
World Trade Center and its site, who has invested more than $10
million into the lawsuit to investigate the attacks.

The suit, which names as defendants Riggs National Corporation
(NASDAQ: RIGS) and its banking unit claims that the bank
constantly failed to comply with banking oversight laws,
resulting in funds being forwarded from high risk Saudi Embassy
accounts at Riggs Bank to at least two September 11 hijackers.

The Wall Street Journal report further states that the
Washington-based bank is being accused of overlooking tens of
millions of dollars in suspicious cash transactions.

The suit was one of several filed late last week before the
three-year deadline for filing lawsuits over the terror attacks
kicked in.


ROADHOUSE GRILL: FL Court Dismisses Amended Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida dismissed the second amended securities class action
filed against Roadhouse Grill, Inc., the then chairman of the
Company's board of directors and the Company's president and
chief executive officer.  This action, styled "Sears v.
Roadhouse Grill, Inc, et al., Case No. 02-CV-60493," alleges
violations of federal securities laws.

On April 4, 2003, the court heard arguments on a motion to
dismiss and dismissed the amended class action complaint.  The
plaintiffs filed a second amended class action complaint on May
5, 2003 naming only the individual defendants and not the
Company.  The individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended class action complaint on June 4, 2003, to
which plaintiffs responded.  The court heard oral arguments on
the matter on October 30, 2003.


SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Judge Green-Lights NJ's Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge ruled a securities class action filed by the
state of New Jersey against Sprint Corporation can go forward,
the Kansas City Star reports.

The lawsuit, filed in Kansas City, Kansas on February 2003
alleges that Sprint and its board of directors knew as early as
March 2001 that it was highly unlikely that then-Chief Executive
William T. Esrey and then-President Ronald T. LeMay would be
able to continue running Sprint.

The suit contends that Sprint should have disclosed to investors
that the two men's continued employment was in serious doubt
because they faced imminent financial ruin.

Sprint and its board moved to dismiss the case, but U.S.
District Judge John Lungstrum this month denied all but a part
of their request. Lungstrum ruled that, as a matter of law, he
was unable to say that New Jersey would be unable to prove its
allegations.

New Jersey, whose pension fund invested in Sprint stock filed
the suit on behalf of investors who bought Sprint FON or PCS
common stock between March 1, 2001, and Jan. 29, 2003, when Mr.
Esrey and Mr. LeMay were ousted.

According to one of Sprint's attorneys, the lawsuit boiled down
to a narrow factual issue: whether Sprint thought Mr. Esrey's
and Mr. LeMay's employment was in jeopardy when it issued
statements in March 2001 and March 2002 about their long-term
employment contracts, and whether it intended to deceive
investors.

Judge Lungstrum earlier this year dismissed many of New Jersey's
allegations against Sprint and its board and all of New Jersey's
allegations against Ernst & Young, Sprint's former auditor. He
however allowed the state to amend its complaint, which was the
subject of his most recent decision.


SUTTER HEALTH: Faces More Uninsured Patients Suits in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian
initiates class action lawsuits against Sutter Health on behalf
of uninsured patients who have been victims of overcharging and
aggressive debt collection practices.

Plaintiffs in two lawsuits against corporate giant Sutter Health
will hold a press conference on September 14 at 11 a.m. in the
Summit Medical Center, 350 Hawthorne at Webster, Oakland. The
two new class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of
patients without health insurance who were grossly overcharged
by Sutter and then victimized by "humiliating" and "abusive"
debt collection practices. One lawsuit was filed in Alameda
County State Superior Court and the other will be filed the
morning of September 14 in San Francisco County State Superior
Court.

The lawsuits claim that Sutter violated numerous laws by
"charging unfair, unreasonable and inflated prices for medical
care to its uninsured patients who are generally the least able
to pay." The suits also claim that Sutter "pursues aggressive
collection techniques that often result in lawsuits, judgments,
garnishments and bankruptcies against uninsured patients." The
suits seek to require Sutter to make restitution to uninsured
patients and for "injunctive relief" to prohibit such practices
in the future.

Jef Whitehead, one of the uninsured plaintiffs in the San
Francisco suit, was admitted into the emergency room at
California Pacific Medical Center (CPMC) and kept in the
hospital for 5 days. During his stay, he was not given the
opportunity to see a financial counselor, nor given any
information about payment options or eligibility for public aid
or charity care. He then received a bill for $17,000 and became
the target of a harassment campaign by a collection agency that
withdrew hundreds of dollars from Mr. Whitehead's bank account
without his permission. Crushing medical debt has lead to dire
financial hardship for Mr. Whitehead and many others.

The two suits, as well as another similar suit filed in federal
court against Sutter last month, come as the State Senate
approved SB 379 (Ortiz), designed to protect uninsured patients.
The bill is now headed to the Governor's desk. Also, the first
settlement in history of this type of suit was just reached for
$150 million in Mississippi last month.

The lawsuits argue that because Sutter receives hundreds of
millions of dollars in tax exemptions each year, it is required
to offer affordable care to the uninsured. For example, CPMC
received more than $61 million in tax benefits in fiscal year
2002, but spent just slightly more than $1.5 million on charity
care during the same period. In all, Sutter spent only 0.6% of
its revenues on charity care in 2002, substantially less than
the statewide average. Sutter owns 26 hospitals and made $465
million in profits 2003. The lawsuits allege that " ... members
of the public ... are likely to be deceived by Sutter's
advertising tag line that it is 'Community Based, Not for
Profit.' In reality, Sutter is making enormous profits on the
backs of the uninsured members of the community."

For more details, contact the law firm of Goldstein, Demchak,
Baller, Borgen & Dardarian by Mail: 300 Lakeside Drive - Suite
1000, Oakland, CA 94612 by Phone: (510) 763-9800 or by E-mail:
info@gdblegal.com


TRADEWINDS LLC: Investment Manager Confesses Fraud on Videotape
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winnetka, Illinois investment manager Charles L. Harris
apologized on videotape to Tradewinds investors, for lying to
them about how well their investments were doing, the Chicago
Sun-Times reports.

Mr. Harris was the general partner of Tradewinds International,
a hedge fund started in 1996.  He, then, started Tradewinds
L.L.C. and Tradewinds International II in 2001.  Mr. Harris
faces charges that he misrepresented the value of funds to
investors, saying the Tradewinds II fund was worth $20 million
to $25 million.

In reality, as of August 25, three accounts with Tradewinds II
had zero balances and Tradewinds International had one account
with $1,000 in it.  Yet another fund had a balance of 14 cents
and credits were not honored due to insufficient funds,
according to a criminal affidavit.

Following the revelations, shareholders launched a class action
against Mr. Harris.  The Securities and Exchange Commission also
filed a complaint, alleging that Mr. Harris used at least $2.4
million of investor funds for personal use and to repay
investors at artificially inflated rates to hide the funds'
loss.  Mr. Harris' assets were frozen soon after the SEC
complaint was filed.

A criminal investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) followed.  Mr. Harris is charged with defrauding at least
30 investors out of up to $25 million.  He was charged with
federal wire fraud and can face up to 30 years in prison and a
$1 million fine.

According to the criminal complaint, that at the same time the
funds performed poorly, Mr. Harris is alleged to have lived
handsomely.  His assets include a $481,000, 62-foot yacht; a
$2.2 million Winnetka home; $200,000 in investments; $280,000 in
property in Houston and North Carolina and five luxury vehicles,
including a $40,000 Porsche, the Chicago Sun-Times reported.

Sailing on a boat at an undisclosed location, Mr. Harris, 43,
told investors he had lied to them in double digit percentages
and millions of dollars.  He added that he had to go on the run
because, "I can't let my boys see Daddy in trouble like that,"
according to a federal complaint made public Friday, the Chicago
Sun-Times stated.

Mr. Harris said when he told them they were up by 12 percent, "I
ah, I knew we weren't up . and actually we ended up being down
about 8 percent," according to the criminal complaint.  Harris
ends that video by saying, "This is basically my confession."
He vowed he would make up the money by "trading off-shore," the
complaint said.

The confession was mailed to some investors and sent to others
through a Web site.

After some negotiation between his attorney and prosecutors,
Harris voluntarily flew Thursday night from the Caribbean to
Miami, where FBI agents escorted him to Chicago, the Chicago
Sun-Times states.  The FBI found Harris after he made an August
23 call to a Chicago bank where he allegedly told a worker he
planned to open an office in the Turks and Caicos, islands in
the Caribbean, and wanted to move offshore because there were
too many regulations in the U.S.  He also said he was selling
his Winnetka home and wanted to move his children to
Jacksonville, Florida, where they would be closer, according to
the affidavit.  The FBI traced the call to Netherlands Antilles,
islands in the Caribbean.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Bart Huff said investors were allegedly
defrauded nationwide.  "We're continuing our investigation and I
expect that we will find additional investors," Atty. Huff told
the Sun-Times.

Mr. Harris is scheduled to appear in federal court Thursday for
a bond hearing.  "There's two sides to every story and the facts
will come out in the courtroom," Harris' attorney, Steven J.
Weinberg told the Sun-Times.


TNT DBS: NC Court Orders Halt To Prerecorded Telemarketing Calls
----------------------------------------------------------------
A North Carolina federal court ordered a satellite television to
stop its prerecorded telemarketing pitches, after they tied up a
North Carolina hospital's phone lines, Attorney General Roy
Cooper said in a statement.  AG Cooper also announced a
settlement with another telemarketer that ran afoul of the
state's Do Not Call law.

"People who work in our hospitals have more important things to
worry about than answering calls from telemarketers," said AG
Cooper.  "It can be especially frustrating, and in this case
potentially dangerous, to have a telephone switchboard held
hostage by these prerecorded messages."

US District Court Judge N. Carlton Tilley, Jr. has agreed with
AG Cooper's request to temporarily bar TNT DBS Marketing Inc. of
Arlington, Texas from making illegal telemarketing calls to
North Carolina consumers.  AG Cooper is also asking the court to
require the company, which sells satellite television services
and equipment and does business as Digital World Satellite,
Satellite City, Sat Pro and Satellite Solutions, to pay civil
penalties and to permanently stop making unlawful calls in the
state.

As alleged in the complaint, TNT violated federal and state "Do
Not Call" laws by making illegal telemarketing calls using
prerecorded messages that flooded the switchboard at Davie
Regional Hospital in Mocksville, North Carolina.  TNT did not
use a live operator to ask recipients if they wanted to hear its
sales pitch offering satellite installation for $29.00, nor did
the company identify itself at the beginning of the message as
they are supposed to.

More than 40 consumers complained to AG Cooper's Consumer
Protection Division about TNT's telemarketing calls.  According
to complaints from the hospital, prerecorded calls from TNT came
into the hospital all at once and tied up telephone lines to the
Emergency Room as well as to patients.

On August 26, AG Cooper's office reached an agreement with
another telemarketer selling satellite services, EBN Financial,
Inc. of Orange, California.   The company has agreed to pay the
state $20,000 and to stop making illegal calls in North
Carolina.  EBN had made telemarketing calls to consumers whose
numbers appear on the Do Not Call list.  Some of these
prerecorded calls claimed that a satellite installation crew was
nearby and would offer consumers a special deal on satellite
installation.

To cut down on telemarketing calls, consumers can sign up for
the Do Not Call Registry by Phone: 1-888-382-1222 from the
number they wish to register or by visiting the Website:
http://www.nocallsnc.com. Approximately 2 million North
Carolina numbers have been placed on the list since it began
last year.  Consumers who have signed up can report
telemarketers who call them to AG Cooper's office by calling
1-877-5-NO-SCAM toll-free within the state or by going to the
website.

"If telemarketers are breaking the law and tying up your phone
lines, let my office know about it," said AG Cooper.  "With
consumers' help, we can put a stop to these unwelcome calls."

For more information, contact Noelle Talley, Public Information
Officer, N.C. Department of Justice by Phone: (919) 716-6484 or
(919) 716-6413 by Fax: (919) 716-0803 or by E-mail:
ntalley@ncdoj.com.


VIXEL CORPORATION: Approves NY Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vixel Corporation approved in principle the proposed settlement
for the consolidated securities class action filed in the United
States District Court in the Southern District of New York
against it, two of its officers and directors and certain
underwriters who participated in the Company's initial public
offering in late 1999.

The amended complaint alleges violations under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased Vixel
stock during the period October 1, 1999 through December 6,
2000.

In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to the Company's officers and directors
until September 30, 2003, and on the basis of this agreement,
Vixel's officers and directors were dismissed from the lawsuit
without prejudice.

During June 2003, Vixel and the other issuer defendants in the
action reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs that
would, among other things, result in the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the defendants and their
officers and directors.  In connection with the possible
settlement, those officers and directors who had entered tolling
agreements with the plaintiffs agreed to extend those agreements
so that they would not expire prior to any settlement being
finalized.  The settlement remains subject to a number of
procedural conditions, as well as formal approval by the court.


VIXEL CORPORATION: WA Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court of the State of Washington
granted final approval to the settlement of the class action
filed against Vixel Corporation and each of its directors and
certain unnamed individuals, entitled "Russell Fink v. Vixel
Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-2-37226-9SEA."

The complaint made general allegations that, among other things,
Vixel's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Vixel
stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger with
Emulex and sought to enjoin the tender offer and have the merger
agreement declared unlawful, among other forms of relief.

On November 7, 2003, the Vixel Parties entered into a memorandum
of understanding for a $0.7 million settlement with the
plaintiff in the class action suit pursuant to which the parties
have agreed to settle the action, subject to court approval.
Formal settlement documents were signed on May 5, 2004 and the
plaintiff has completed discovery as agreed to by the parties.


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the
consolidated amended securities class action filed against it
and certain of its current and former officers.

On February 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund, et al.
v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al., Case No. 04 C 1107," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former officers.  The complaint makes reference to
the litigation filed by Capital Factors, Inc. and to the
Company's November 21, 2003 announcement that it had discovered
violations of Company policy by the Company's Executive Vice
President, Merchandising, with respect to Company documentation
regarding the age of certain store inventory.

The complaint further makes reference to the Company's December
22, 2003 announcement that it would restate results for certain
prior periods.  The complaint purports to allege that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue and inventory during the
putative class period of November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003.
The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On February 18, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Michael Radigan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1196," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers,
charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue and inventory during the
putative class period of November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003.
The factual allegations of this complaint are similar to those
made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund
complaint.

On February 20, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Milton Pfeiffer, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1285," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers,
charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory,
and vendor allowances during the putative class period of
November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003.  The factual allegations
of this complaint are similar to those made in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund complaint.

On April 6, 2004, the District Court in the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters case, No. 04 C 1107 consolidated the Pfeiffer and
Radigan complaints with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
action, and dismissed the Radigan and Pfeiffer actions as
separate actions.  On April 14, 2004, the court granted the
plaintiffs up to 60 days to file an amended consolidated
complaint.  The Court also designated the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the action and
designated Greater Pennsylvania's counsel as lead counsel.

On June 10, 2004, a putative class action complaint captioned
"Joshua Kaplan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 04 C 3971," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former officers, charging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the Company and
its officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory, and vendor
allowances during the putative class period of November 19, 2001
to December 10, 2003.  The factual allegations of this complaint
are similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint.

On June 14, 2004, lead plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund in Case No. 04C 1107 filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  On July 14, 2004, the District Court in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters action consolidated the Kaplan complaint
with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters action, and dismissed
the Kaplan action as a separate action.  On August 2, 2004,
Whitehall filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint, and briefing on the motion is expected completed by
early October 2004.


WISCONSIN: Groups File Breach of Settlement Motion V. Sheriffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a motion filed against the Milwaukee County Sheriff's
Department in Milwaukee County Circuit Court, the American Civil
Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation and the Legal Aid
Society of Milwaukee accuses the department of illegally
detaining 13,000 people in the County Jail's booking room beyond
the 30-hour limit over the past several years, the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel reports.

The motion follows a 2001 class-action lawsuit settlement in
which the court prohibited the Sheriff's Department from holding
people in the booking room or without a bed for longer than 30
hours.

The groups also allege that too many people were held in the
booking room, which had no beds or showers, and that people held
there are not afforded privacy. They also alleged that the
department shifted detainees around before making daily head-
counts of the room.

In their statement, the groups filing the motion said they
believe the county and sheriff are in breach of their agreement
and ask that a hearing be scheduled "to determine the
appropriate compensation for the victims."


                   Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the Central District of California on behalf
of a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired the securities of Biolase Technology, Inc.
("Biolase" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BLTI) between October 29,
2003 and July 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Biolase and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Biolase's financial performance
artificially inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting
damages on investors. Biolase designs, manufactures and markets
proprietary dental laser systems to dentists, oral surgeons and
other specialists. On July 16, 2004, after the markets closed,
Biolase reported preliminary results, which were below analysts'
expectations for the second quarter of 2004, causing Biolase
shares to plummet 27 percent on July 19, 2004. Plaintiff alleges
the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented material
adverse facts during the Class Period, which defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded, including that:

     (1) Waterlase, the Company's best-selling laser system and
         primary product, 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 Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


FLIGHT SAFETY: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Fraud Lawsuit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Flight
Safety Technologies, Inc. ("Flight Safety" or the "Company")
(Amex: FLT) between January 14, 2003 and July 16, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants Flight Safety
and certain officers and directors of the Company.

The case name is Henzel v. Flight Safety Technologies, Inc., et
al. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The statements made by the defendants during the class period
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following adverse facts:

     (1) the technology behind the proprietary Socrates product
         had long been in the research and development stage and
         at no time during the Class Period was there an
         adequate basis for concluding that the technology was
         any closer to viability than it had been in the past;

     (2) prior tests of the Socrates technology, including the
         "proof of principle" test conducted by the Volpe
         Center, a research division of the U.S. Department of
         Transportation, at the JFK airport in 1998 found that
         the results of the Socrates were unsuccessful.  No
         subsequent advancement in Socrates technology or
         related study has demonstrated that the findings in the
         Volpe report still do not hold true today.  It is
         telling that Congress has funded the Socrates research
         against the advice of the FAA and NASA;

     (3) there is no clear demand or market that exists now, or
         that is foreseeable, for the Socrates technology.
         Whether there is such a need for such a sensor is still
         undetermined by the FAA;

    (4) even if Socrates had potential to be viable, the product
        and Company face significant competition from other,
        better understood sensors; and

    (5) Socrates is unlikely ever to be a viable commercial
        product given its unreliability, lack of development
        progress and competing technologies.

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


GOLDEN STATE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all persons who sold Golden State Vintners, Inc.
("Golden State") (Nasdaq:VINT) common stock between December 23,
2003 and April 23, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Golden State and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Golden State is a supplier of premium bulk wines, wine
processing and storage services and case goods in the United
States.

The complaint alleges that by the summer of 2003, Golden State
was beginning to emerge from a long history of losses coupled
with massive writedowns, and that defendants realized that
Golden State had not only turned around financially but had
begun to exhibit strong growth. Defendants knew that disclosing
the Company's profitability would send the Company's shares
higher, making the defendants' plans to acquire Golden State in
a reverse split/going private transaction (the "Reverse Split
Scheme") less profitable, if not impossible. As part of
defendants' Reverse Split Scheme, defendants disseminated to
shareholders a proxy statement dated December 23, 2003 (the
"Proxy") detailing the terms of the proposed transaction. The
Complaint alleges that the Proxy included false statements about
the value of Golden State's business and its prospects, which
false statements were included in the Proxy for the purpose of
inducing Golden State shareholders to approve the sale of Golden
State to the O'Neill Acquisition Co. LLC, a California limited
liability company associated with defendant Jeffrey B. O'Neill
(the "O'Neill Group") which would cash out all Golden State
shareholders holding less than 5,900 shares for $3.25 per share.

On January 7, 2004 the Reverse Split Scheme was thwarted when a
third party made an offer to buy the Company at a price which
trumped the O'Neill Group's $3.25 offer. Instead of disclosing
the third-party offer, the Complaint alleges that defendants
concealed this information from the Company's shareholders until
they could modify the terms of their plan to acquire the Company
via the management-led buyout.

According to the complaint, on January 20, 2004, after
concealing the third-party offer for two weeks, defendants
falsely stated that the O'Neill Group transaction had been
"indefinitely suspended ... in order to provide more time to
fully evaluate current conditions and the potential implications
for shareholder value." Defendants further stated that they were
terminating the sale to the O'Neill Group due to "recently
improved business and market conditions." Thereafter, the
Company executed an agreement to sell Golden State for a much
higher price and ultimately signed a definitive agreement to
sell the Company to The Wine Group for $8.25 per share.

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


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Integrated Electrical
Services, Inc. ("Integrated Electrical " or the "Company")
(NYSE:IES), between November 10, 2003 and August 13, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Integrated
Electrical securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J.
Smith, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
on behalf of purchasers of Integrated Electrical Services, Inc.
("Integrated Electrical") (NYSE:IES) common stock during the
period between November 10, 2003 and August 13, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Integrated Electrical and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. The Company provides electrical
contracting and maintenance services to the commercial,
industrial, residential, and power line markets. The Company
also provides data communication services, which include the
installation of wiring for computer networks and fiber optic
telecommunications systems.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused IES shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges:

     (1) that the Company failed to timely make appropriate
         adjustments for a series of large contracts that were
         accounted for on a percentage of completion basis in
         which the actual costs expected to be incurred already
         exceeded the original projected costs;

     (2) that the Company had improperly accounted for general
         and administrative costs in a particular contract for
         costs that did not relate to that contract;

     (3) that the Company had improperly recognized revenue on a
         particular contract;

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

     (5) that as a result, the values of the Company's net
         income and financial results were materially overstated
         at all relevant times.

On August 13, 2004, after the market closed for regular trading,
the Company announced that:

     (i) it would not be able to file its fiscal 2004 Third
         Quarter Report on Form 10-Q in a timely manner;

    (ii) 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;

   (iii) its independent auditors had identified two material
         weaknesses in the Company's internal controls;

    (iv) it was withdrawing its previously announced earnings
         estimates for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004; and

     (v) the Company may have to restate its previously reported
         financial results.

Following this announcement, shares of IES common stock fell
$2.65 per share, or 40%, to close at $3.93 per share, on
extremely high trading volume.

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


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that a class action lawsuit was filed on September 10, 2004, on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Integrated Electrical
Services, Inc. ("IES" or the "Company") (NYSE: IES) between
November 10, 2003 through August 13, 2004, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Texas, against defendants Integrated
Electrical, Herbert R. Allen (President, CEO) and William W.
Reynolds (CFO).

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
artificially inflated the price of IES securities by issuing
financial statements that were materially false and misleading
for the following reasons:

     (1) the Company inappropriately accounted for a series of
         contracts, accounted for using the percentage of
         completion method, by failing to adjust downward the
         profitability of the contracts after actual costs
         exceeded the projected costs;

     (2) the Company inappropriately assigned general and
         administrative expenses to particular contracts that
         were unrelated to such contracts, thus allowing the
         Company to inappropriately accelerate the recognition
         of revenue and income;

     (3) the Company's reported results were not prepared and
         reported in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and did not accurately present
         the Company's business and financial condition; and

     (4) the Company's internal accounting and disclosure
         controls were inadequate and suffered from material
         deficiencies that resulted in the false reporting of
         operating results.

On August 13, 2004, the Company announced a host of previously
undisclosed accounting and operational problems, including:

     (a) material weaknesses in its internal controls;

     (b) problems with a large project that would prevent the
         Company from timely filing its Form 10-Q for the third
         quarter of 2004; and

     (c) uncertainty surrounding its business and financial
         statements that led the Company to withdraw all
         previously issued 2004 guidance.

The price of IES common stock plummeted in response to this
announcement, falling 40.2% in one day, from $6.58 per share on
August 13, 2004 to $3.93 per share on August 14, 2004, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of American
Depositary Shares ("ADSs") of KongZhong Corporation ("KongZhong"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:KONG) between July 9, 2004 and August
17, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a) and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 by issuing a
false and misleading Prospectus in connection with the initial
public offering of KongZhong ADSs (the "IPO"). The Prospectus,
which forms part of the Registration Statement, became effective
on or about July 9, 2004, and 10,000,000 of KongZhong's ADSs
(with each ADS representing 40 ordinary shares) were sold to the
public, thereby raising approximately $100 million. Of the $100
million raised, approximately $20 million went to certain
selling shareholders. The Complaint names as Individual
Defendants Yunfan Zhou, Nick Yang and Richard Wei. Also named as
defendants are the underwriters of the IPO.

The complaint alleges that KhongZhong failed to disclose its
status with China Mobile in the Prospectus they had filed with
the Securities Exchange Commission for the IPO. In their
Prospectus, KongZhong describes itself as "the leading provider
of advanced second generation, or 2.5G, wireless interactive
entertainment, media and community services, in terms of
revenue, to customers of China Mobile Communications
Corporation, or China Mobile, which has the largest mobile
subscriber base in the world." The complaint alleges that the
Prospectus failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

On August 18, 2004, KongZhong announced that China Mobile had
notified the Company and will be imposing sanctions on the
Company. These sanctions include suspension of approval for
KongZhong's new applications for new products and services on
all platforms and joint promotions until the end of 2004 and
suspension of approval for KongZhong's applications to operate
in new platforms until June 30, 2005. News of this shocked the
market, and the price of KongZhong ADSs dropped to $5.59 per
ADS.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP by Mail: 212 East 39th Street, New York, NY
10016 by Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 or by E-mail:
slee@abbeygardy.com


QUOVADX INC.: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP initiated a class
action suit in the United States District Court for the District
of Colorado against Quovadx, Inc. ("Quovadx") and eight
individual defendants on behalf of all persons and entities,
other than defendants, who acquired Quovadx common stock in
connection with Quovadx's exchange offer for all of the
outstanding shares of Rogue Wave Software, Inc. ("Rogue Wave")
which became effective on or about December 19, 2003 and who
suffered damages thereby.

The complaint is entitled Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc., et al.,
04-M-1006 (OES). The case has been assigned to the Honorable
Richard P. Matsch whose courtroom is located at the Alfred A.
Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street, Denver,
Colorado 80294-3589.

The complaint alleges that Quovadx's Registration Statement on
Form S-4 relating to the exchange offer by Quovadx for Rogue
Wave, dated December 10, 2003, was materially false and
misleading and misrepresented material facts, including, among
other things, Quovadx's financial results for the third quarter
of 2003. The claims are brought pursuant to Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 against Quovadx, the issuer of the
exchange offer, and the Company's executive officers and
directors who signed the Registration Statement in connection
with the exchange offer. The complaint alleges only that the
Registration Statement misrepresented and omitted material
facts. On March 15, 2004, Quovadx announced that it would
restate its 2003 third quarter financial results and revise its
previously announced preliminary 2003 fourth quarter and
preliminary 2003 full-year financial results. As a result of
this announcement, the Company's stock price plummeted
approximately 30% from $5.03 per share to $3.58 per share.

Quovadx and defendants Jeffrey M. Krauss, Fred L. Brown, J.
Andrew Cowherd, James B. Hoover, Charles J. Roesslein and James
Gilbert have answered the complaint. Defendants Gary T.
Scherping and Lorine Sweeney have moved to dismiss the
complaint.

On September 8, 2004, Judge Matsch ordered that this Notice
should be issued to specifically inform all persons and entities
who exchanged Rogue Wave shares for Quovadx shares of the filing
of the Henderson complaint, of the nature of the claims alleged
in the Henderson complaint, and of the opportunity to move for
lead plaintiff.

For more details, contact Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP by Mail:
805 Third Avenue, NY, NY 10022 by Phone: (800) 290-1952 or
(212) 687-1980 or by E-mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a complaint
in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota against St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul
Travelers" or the "Company") (NYSE:STA) (formerly known as The
St. Paul Companies, Inc. or "St. Paul") on behalf of a class
(the "Class") consisting of former shareholders of Travelers
Property Casualty Corp.'s ("Travelers") Class A and Class B
common stock who acquired St. Paul's common stock pursuant to a
St. Paul registration statement filed with the SEC in connection
with St. Paul's stock-for-stock merger with Travelers on April
1, 2004.

The Complaint charges St. Paul and certain of the Company's
officers and directors with violations of federal securities
laws. Plaintiff claims that St. Paul's registration statement
was materially false or misleading because it failed to disclose
that:

     (1) there were significant disparities between the
         accounting and actuarial methods of St. Paul and
         Travelers, requiring St. Paul Travelers to increase its
         claims reserves by $1.171 billion to conform St. Paul's
         less conservative accounting and actuarial methods to
         that of Travelers;

     (2) St. Paul's then-existing exposure to certain adverse
         financial conditions of a construction contractor, a
         reduction in reinsurance recoverables, and other
         similar conditions, required St. Paul Travelers to
         increase its claims reserves by an additional $466
         million; and

     (3) the aggregate $1.637 billion of required increase in
         claims reserves due to these existing but undisclosed
         facts relating to St. Paul would require St. Paul
         Travelers to record a significant charge to its income
         statement, adversely impacting earnings.

The true facts were disclosed to the market on July 23, 2004,
when St. Paul Travelers revealed that certain conditions
relating to St. Paul required the Company to increase its claims
reserves by $1.6 billion. On August 5, 2004, St. Paul Travelers
further announced that the required $1.6 billion increase in
claims reserves would result in an operating loss of $310
million or $0.47 per basic and diluted share for the quarter.

The per share closing price of St. Paul common stock was $40.77
on April 1, 2004, the date on which each share of Travelers'
Class A and Class B common stock was exchanged for 0.4334 share
of St. Paul common stock pursuant to the materially false or
misleading registration statement. By the time the true extent
of the required reserve increase and its adverse effects against
St. Paul Travelers were fully disclosed to the market on August
5, 2004, the per share price of St. Paul common stock had
declined by $6.02 or 14.77% to close at $34.75 on August 5, 2004
-- causing massive losses to former Travelers shareholders.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


ZIX CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Zix Corporation (Nasdaq: ZIXI) ("Zix" or the
"Company") from October 30, 2003 through May 4, 2004 inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Zix, John A. Ryan, Steve M. York, Ronald
A. Woessner, Daniel S. Nutkis, Russell J. Morgan, Wael Mohamed,
and Dennis F. Heathcote with violations of Sections 10(b)-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)-5
promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's deployment of e-prescription
         services was languishing;

     (2) that the Company seriously underestimated the hurdles
         of deploying e-prescription services in medical offices
         that lack up-to-date IT infrastructure;

     (3) as a result of these factors, the Company's deployment
         rate of 1,000 physicians a month was unattainable; and

     (4) as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         projections lacked in any reasonable basis.

On May 4, 2004, Zix announced financial results for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2004. In the press release, the
Company's numbers were well below expectations. This news
shocked the market. Shares of Zix fell $2.12 per share or 15.58
percent on May 5, 2004, to close at $11.49 per share. On the
following day, shares of Zix fell an additional $2.60 per share
or 22.63 percent to close at $8.89 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


                            *********


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  * * *