CAR_Public/040916.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Thursday, September 16, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 184

                          Headlines

ACCREDO HEALTH: TN Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
AGL RESOURCES: Shareholder Lodges Suit V. NUI Corporation Merger
ALLIANCE GAMING: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in NV
AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit

AVANEX CORPORATION: Submits Stock Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
BALLY GAMING: Appeals Court Affirms Lawsuit Certification Denial
BAUSCH & LOMB: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 21, 2004
BIOPURE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Stock Lawsuit in MA
BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Submits Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court

CACI INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Iraq Abuse Lawsuit
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Five Iraqis Launch Personal Injury Lawsuit
CALPINE ENERGY: Faces NY Lawsuit Over Natural Gas Trading Fraud
CANADIAN NATIONAL: Tamaroa Derailment Case Goes To IL High Court
CHARLES SCHWAB: SEC Lodges Settled Proceedings Over Mutual Funds

CITIBANK: Japan Watchdog Seeks Sanctions V. Executives For Fraud
CKE RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suits
CORPORATE RELATIONS: SEC Issues Penny Stock Bar V. Ex-President
D&K HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in E.D. MO
ELOQUENT INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement

EMERSON POYNTER: Reminds Investors of Lead Plaintiff Deadlines
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Approves Suit Settlement Agreement
GLIATECH INC.: SEC Sues Ex-CEO, Ex-CFO For Nondisclosure of Data
JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Refund Anticipation Loans Lawsuits in CA
JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Refund Anticipation Loan Suit in NY Court

LEND LEASE: Construction Unit Faces NY Lawsuit Over 9/11 Cleanup
NIKU CORPORATION: Submits Suit Settlement Documents To NY Court
NORVERGENCE INC.: Plaintiffs File Injunction V. Lease Assignees
OHIO: Settlement Resolves Felons' Lawsuit V. Elections Officials
OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Accepts Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit

OREGON: Health Insurance Fraud Grows, Aided By High Health Costs
PIONEER CORPORATION: Handal & Associates Lodges CA Consumer Suit
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Submits Suit Settlement Documents to NY Court
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
PORTAL SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs To File Consolidated Derivative Suit

PUERTO RICO: College of Physicians, Surgeons Join Suit V. HMOs
REGAL LAGER: Recalls 49T Infant Carriers Due To Injury Hazard
SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC.: Investors Sue Over Adelphia Agreement
UNITED STATES: Report Warns of Antidepressants' Link to Suicide
UNITED STATES: NAMIC Applauds Passage of Lawsuit Reduction Bill

WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Reinstates Writers' Age Bias Lawsuit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BELO CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in TX
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Cohen Milstein Lodges NY Securities Suit
IMPAC MEDICAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Chitwood & Harley Lodges MN Securities Suit
TEAM TELECOM: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ


                            *********


ACCREDO HEALTH: TN Court Orders Securities Lawsuits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against Accredo Health, Inc.
and certain of its officers and directors have been ordered
consolidated in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Tennessee, Memphis Division.

The court also appointed co-Lead Plaintiffs on July 1, 2004.  A
Consolidated Complaint is currently due to be filed no later
than September 15, 2004.  The lawsuits filed to date also name
as defendants:

     (1) David D. Stevens,

     (3) Joel Kimbrough,

     (4) in one case, John R. Grow, and

     (5) in one case, Ernst & Young LLP

The lawsuits allege violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10(b)(5) promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Based on the lawsuits filed to date, the putative class
representatives seek to represent a class of individuals and
entities that purchased Company stock during the period June 16,
2002 through April 7, 2003 and who supposedly suffered damages
from the alleged violations of the securities laws.


AEROSONIC CORPORATION: Asks FL Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aerosonic Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and:

     (1) PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the Company's former
         independent accountant,

     (2) J. Mervyn Nabors, a former director and former
         President and CEO of the Company,

     (3) Eric J. McCracken, a former Chief Financial Officer of
         the Company, and

     (4) Michael T. Reed, a former Controller of the Company

Sebastian P. Gaeta filed the first suit on November 12, 2003,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated.  The
action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under
that act, including, among other things, that the Company made
materially false statements concerning the Company's financial
condition and its future prospects.

The plaintiff alleges that he suffered damages as the result of
his purchase and sale of the Company's Common Stock during the
asserted "Class Period" from November 13, 1998 through March 17,
2003.  The action seeks compensatory and other damages, and
costs and expenses associated with the litigation.

Shortly after the Gaeta Suit was filed, two other putative class
actions (the "Pratsch Suit" and "Suarez Suit") were filed
against the same defendants as in the Gaeta Suit and predicated
upon alleged violations of the same securities laws, asserting
that plaintiffs purchased the Company's stock at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period and have been damaged
thereby.  The Pratsch Suit and Suarez Suit assert a Class Period
from May 3, 1999 through March 17, 2003.

At a February 27, 2004 hearing, plaintiffs in the Suarez Suit
voluntarily withdrew their complaint.  On February 27, 2004, the
Court entered an order consolidating the Gaeta Suit and Pratsch
Suit into one case entitled "In re Aerosonic Corporation
Securities Litigation," appointing Lead Plaintiffs (the "Miville
Group"), and approving the selection of Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel
(Berger & Montague P.C.).

On April 27, 2004, Lead Plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated class action complaint that alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
including, among other things, that the Company made materially
false statements concerning the Company's financial condition
and its future prospects.  The amended complaint also added as a
defendant Andrew Nordstrud, a former employee of the company.

On June 28, 2004, the Company responded to the amended complaint
by filing a motion to dismiss, and each of the other defendants
also moved to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August 27,
2004, Lead Plaintiffs filed a memorandum of law as a
comprehensive opposition to the motion to dismiss.


AGL RESOURCES: Shareholder Lodges Suit V. NUI Corporation Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
AGL Resources faces a securities class action filed in New
Jersey over its impending $220 million acquisition of NUI
Corporation, the Bizjournals.com reports.

The complaint, which named as defendants all of the directors of
NUI and Atlanta-based AGL Resources Inc. (NYSE: ATG) alleges
that purported financial incentives in the form of change of
control payments and indemnification rights created a conflict
of interest on the part of certain of the individual defendants
in evaluating a possible sale of NUI.   The complaint further
alleges that the individual defendants, aided and abetted by AGL
Resources, breached fiduciary duties by deciding to sell NUI to
AGL Resources without purportedly making the requisite effort to
obtain the best share price, agreeing to an allegedly unfair and
inadequate cash sale price of $13.70 per share, entering into a
merger agreement with the company that provided for a $7.5
million break-up fee, and failing to disclose allegedly material
information in NUI's preliminary proxy statement filed on August
13.

The complaint seeks judgment declaring that the individual
defendants breached fiduciary duties, aided and abetted by AGL
Resources, enjoining the sale of NUI, or if consummated,
rescinding the sale, eliminating the $7.5 million break-up fee
agreed to with AGL Resources, awarding putative class
compensatory damages, awarding interest, attorney's fees, expert
fees and other costs.


ALLIANCE GAMING: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in NV
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Gaming Corporation faces two putative class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada.  The suit also names as defendants the Company's
officers:

     (1) Robert Miodunski,

     (2) Robert Saxton,

     (3) Mark Lerner, and

     (4) Steven Des Champs

The nearly identical complaints allege violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 stemming from revised earnings
guidance, declines in the stock price, and sales of stock by
insiders.  Plaintiffs have filed a motion to consolidate all of
the cases and appoint a lead plaintiff.  A hearing date has not
been scheduled.

In addition, in July 2004, two derivative lawsuits were filed in
Nevada state court against the members of the board of directors
and the officers listed above.  The Company is named as a
nominal defendant in the derivative lawsuits as the claims are
purportedly asserted for the benefit of the Company.  These
lawsuits assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty and waste of
corporate assets arising out of the same events as those giving
rise to the class actions described above.  These two cases have
been consolidated and plaintiffs have until September 20, 2004
to file a consolidated complaint.


AMERICREDIT CORPORATION: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriCredit Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas, Forth Worth Division to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its officers and directors.

In fiscal 2003, shareholders launched several complaints,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Additionally, a complaint was filed in fiscal 2003 against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors in the 48th
Judicial District Court in Tarrant County, Texas, alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
in connection with the Company's secondary public offering of
common stock on October 1, 2002.

These complaints have been consolidated into one action, styled
"Pierce v. AmeriCredit Corp., et al.," in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth
Division; the plaintiff in Pierce seeks class action status.  In
Pierce, the plaintiff claims, among other allegations, that
deferments were improperly granted by the Company to avoid
delinquency triggers in securitization transactions and enhance
cash flows to incorrectly report charge-offs and delinquency
percentages, thereby causing the Company to misrepresent its
financial performance throughout the alleged class period.

The plaintiff also alleges that the Company's registration
statement and prospectus for the offering contained untrue
statements of material facts and omitted to state material facts
necessary to make other statements in the registration statement
not misleading.

The Company believes that its granting of deferments, which is a
common practice within the auto finance industry, complied with
the covenants contained in its securitization and warehouse
financing documents, and that the Company's deferment activities
were properly disclosed to all constituents, including
shareholders, asset-backed investors, creditors and credit
enhancement providers, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Additionally, a class action complaint, styled "Lewis v.
AmeriCredit Corp.," was filed in fiscal 2003 against the Company
and certain of its officers and directors alleging violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection
with the Company's secondary public offering of common stock on
October 1, 2002.

In Lewis, also pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, the
plaintiff alleges that the Company's registration statement and
prospectus for the offering contained untrue statements of
material facts and omitted to state material facts necessary to
make other statements in the registration statement not
misleading.

In April 2004, two rulings were issued by the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth
Division, affecting the Pierce and Lewis lawsuits.  On April 1,
2004, the Court, in response to motions to dismiss filed by the
Company and the other defendants, ruled that the plaintiff's
complaint in the Pierce lawsuit was deficient and ordered the
plaintiff to cure such deficiencies or the case would be
dismissed.  On April 27, 2004, the Court issued an order
consolidating the Lewis case into the Pierce case.  In
connection with the order consolidating the Lewis and Pierce
cases, the Court granted the plaintiffs permission to file an
amended, consolidated complaint, which they have done.


AVANEX CORPORATION: Submits Stock Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avanex Corporation submitted to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York settlement documents for
the securities class action filed against it, certain of its
officers and directors, and various underwriters in its initial
public offering (IPO), styled "In re Avanex Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 01 Civ. 6890."

The consolidated amended complaint in the action generally
alleges that various investment bank underwriters engaged in
improper and undisclosed activities related to the allocation of
shares in Avanex's IPO.  Plaintiffs have brought claims for
violation of several provisions of the federal securities laws
against those underwriters, and also against Avanex and certain
of its directors and officers, seeking unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Avanex's common
stock between February 3, 2000, and December 6, 2000.

Various plaintiffs have filed similar actions asserting
virtually identical allegations against more than 40 investment
banks and 250 other companies.  All of these "IPO allocation"
securities class actions currently pending in the Southern
District of New York have been assigned to Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings as In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92.

On October 9, 2002, the claims against Avanex's directors and
officers were dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a tolling
agreement.  The issuer defendants filed a coordinated motion to
dismiss all common pleading issues, which the Court granted in
part and denied in part in an order dated February 19, 2003.
The Court's order did not dismiss the Section 10(b) or Section
11 claims against Avanex.

A stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer
defendants, including Avanex, has been submitted to the court.
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the court.


BALLY GAMING: Appeals Court Affirms Lawsuit Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower
court ruling denying class certification to the lawsuit filed
against Bally Gaming International, Inc. (BGII) and
approximately forty-five other defendants.

Plaintiff Larry Schreirer filed the suit in the United States
District Court in Nevada, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated.  Each defendant is involved in the gaming
business as a gaming machine manufacturer, distributor, or
casino operator.

The class action lawsuit arises out of alleged fraudulent
marketing and operation of casino video poker machines and
electronic slot machines.  The plaintiffs allege that the
defendants have engaged in a course of fraudulent and misleading
conduct intended to induce people into playing their gaming
machines based on a false belief concerning how those machines
actually operate as well as the extent to which there is
actually an opportunity to win on any given play.

The plaintiffs allege that the defendants' actions constitute
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) and give rise to claims of common law fraud and
unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages
in excess of $1.0 billion, and are asking that any damage awards
be trebled under applicable Federal law.  In June 2002, the
district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class action
certification.

Plaintiffs have until early November 2004 to ask the U.S.
Supreme Court to consider the case.


BAUSCH & LOMB: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set November 21, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of New
York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement
for the class action filed against Bausch & Lomb, Inc. on behalf
of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
the common stock of the Company during the period Junuary 27,
2000, through and including August 24, 2000.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Charles J.
Siragusa, United States District Judge, on November 5, 2004, at
2:00 p.m. in Courtroom 1560 of the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York, 100 State Street,
Rochester, NY 14614.

For more details, contact the Claims Administrator - In re
Bausch & Lomb, Inc. Securities Litigation c/o The Garden City
Group, Inc. by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6249, Merrick, New York
11566 OR Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP by Mail: 270
Madison Ave., 11th Floor, New York, NY 10016 or by Phone:
(212) 545-4600 by Phone: (800) 330-3565


BIOPURE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Amended Stock Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Biopure Corporation, its former Chief Executive Officer, its
Chief Technology Officer and its former Chief Financial Officer
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.

Alleged purchasers of Biopure's common stock initially filed
several suits between December 30, 2003 and January 28, 2004.
Those complaints have since been consolidated in a single action
and an amended complaint has been filed against the Company, the
previously named individuals and several of the Company's
current and former directors and officers.

The complaint claims that the Company violated the federal
securities laws by publicly disseminating materially false and
misleading statements regarding the status of its Hemopure BLA
with the FDA and of its trauma development program, resulting in
the artificial inflation of Biopure's common stock price during
the purported class period.  The complaint does not specify the
amount of alleged damages plaintiffs seek to recover.  The
complaint sets forth a class period of March 2003 through
December 24, 2003.


BROCADE COMMUNICATIONS: Submits Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. submitted a stipulation of
settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, certain of its officers and directors and certain of
the underwriters for the Company's initial public offering to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The consolidated suit, styled "Chae v. Brocade Communications
Systems, Inc. et al.," generally alleged that various
underwriters engaged in improper and undisclosed activities
related to the allocation of shares in the Company's initial
public offering.

On March 1, 2002, the Court entered an order dismissing without
prejudice all claims against the Company and its officers and
directors named in the consolidated proceeding.  On April 19,
2002, a consolidated amended class action captioned "In Re
Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation," was filed making claims against the
Brocade parties that are substantially similar to those alleged
in the earlier case.

The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of common stock from May 24, 1999 to
December 6, 2000.  The lawsuit against the Brocade parties is
one of a number of cases challenging underwriter practices in
the initial public offerings of more than 300 cases.  All of the
cases have been coordinated for pretrial proceedings as "In Re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92(SAS)."

In October 2002, the individual defendants were dismissed
without prejudice from the action, pursuant to a tolling
agreement.  On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion
and Order dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims against
Brocade.  Subsequently, the plaintiffs in all of the cases
presented a settlement proposal to all of the issuer defendants.

Under the proposed settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and
release all claims against participating issuer defendants in
exchange for a contingent payment guaranty by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuer
defendants in all of the related cases, and the assignment or
surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer
defendants may have against the underwriters.  The settlement is
subject to a number of conditions, including approval by the
Court.


CACI INTERNATIONAL: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Iraq Abuse Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
CACI International, Inc. asked California state court to dismiss
the twenty-six count class action filed against it and a number
of corporate defendants and individual corporate employees,
alleging that defendants formed a conspiracy to increase demand
for interrogation services in Iraq.  The complaint included
among the defendants:

     (1) CACI INC. FEDERAL,

     (2) CACI N.V., and

     (3) CACI employee Stephen A. Stefanowicz

Seven plaintiffs filed the suit, alleging that defendants
engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity, violated U.S.
domestic and international law and intentionally and negligently
committed a series of tortious acts against plaintiffs, who were
detainees at Abu Ghraib prison and elsewhere in Iraq.

The complaint alleges that instead of providing interrogation
and other related intelligence services in a lawful manner, the
defendants conspired with each other and with certain U.S.
government officials to direct and conduct a scheme to torture,
rape, and, in some instances, summarily execute plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' complaint seeks a permanent injunction, compensatory
and punitive damages, treble damages and attorney's fees under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
declaratory relief, and a permanent injunction against any
future contracting with the United States.

On June 30, 2004, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
adding an additional named plaintiff.  On July 30, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs seek to
have their action certified as a class action, including three
subclasses certified; a RICO Class, a Common Law Class, and a
Wrongful Death Class.

The twenty -six claims allege violations of a variety of laws
including RICO, a Conspiracy to Violate RICO, the Alien Tort
Claims Act, the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution, and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  In
addition, the plaintiffs allege Assault and Battery, Sexual
Assault and Battery, Wrongful Death, False Imprisonment,
Negligent Hiring and Supervision, Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress,
Conversion, Unjust Enrichment, and violation of various federal
procurement laws and regulations.  Plaintiffs also request
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.

The Company said in a regulatory filing that it "absolutely
rejects the idea that it was ever a party to any kind of
conspiracy related to the actions of its personnel in Iraq and
intends to vigorously defend its hard earned reputation against
the malicious and damaging allegations of this suit."  The
Company notes that, although the complaint names it as a
"Torture Conspirator" and alleges that the "Torture
Conspirators" were responsible for plaintiffs' injuries, the
complaint fails to present any information linking any CACI
employee to any claimed injury.


CACI INTERNATIONAL: Five Iraqis Launch Personal Injury Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
CACI International, Inc. faces a lawsuit was filed on behalf of
five Iraqis who claim they were subjected to acts of murder,
torture, and other abuses while they or their family members
were held at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.  The lawsuit also names
as defendants CACI INC. FEDERAL, CACI N.V. and Titan
Corporation.

The plaintiffs allege that they suffered significant physical
injury, emotional distress, and/or wrongful death for which the
defendants are liable for compensatory and punitive damages.
Plaintiffs allege violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
Assault & Battery, Wrongful Death, False Imprisonment,
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, Negligence and
Violation of Federal procurement laws and regulations governing
contractors.

In a regulatory filing, the Company said "On the basis of both
its own internal investigation of the activities of its
personnel at Abu Ghraib and the results of government
investigations of actions at the prison, the Company believes
strongly that the allegations of the complaint are false and
intends to vigorously defend its hard earned reputation against
the malicious and damaging allegations of this suit."


CALPINE ENERGY: Faces NY Lawsuit Over Natural Gas Trading Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Energy Services, L.P. (CES) and other energy companies
face a class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges unlawful manipulation of natural gas
futures and options contracts traded on NYMEX during the period
January 21, 2000 through December 31, 2002.  The causes of
action alleged are fraudulent concealment and violations of the
Commodity Exchange Act.

This complaint was filed as a related action to another
consolidated class action complaint involving numerous other
defendants.  The court has not granted class action
certification for any of the matters at this time.  The Company
intends to ask for the dismissal of this suit.


CANADIAN NATIONAL: Tamaroa Derailment Case Goes To IL High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed against the Canadian National
Railroad by victims of a February 2003 derailment in a north
Perry County community has found its way to the Illinois State
Supreme Court after attorneys for the railroad petitioned for
what's known as a "leave to appeal" with the court on September
1, the DuQuoin Evening Call reports.

The suit was originally filed on behalf of approximately 375
Tamaroa citizens who contend that the railroad has failed to
make adequate reparations to residents affected by the February
9, 2003 derailment in the town.

At issue is a St. Clair County Court's earlier decision to
certify the case as a class action lawsuit against the railroad,
whose appeal by Canadian National before the 5th District
Appellate Court in Mt. Vernon questioning the certification was
denied.

Another issue in the lawsuit was the venue for the trial,
originally set for St. Clair County, which Canadian National
argued and successfully had it transferred to Perry County.

The September 1 filing missed the cut-off date for the Supreme
Court's September term and must therefore be approved or denied
during its November term.

Meanwhile, Joe Leberman of the law firm of Bryant & Kautz, which
is representing the Tamaroa residents, will file an objection to
the railroad's petition. According to Mr. Leberman this latest
development will not impede the discovery process currently
underway, at least not until the high court decides whether or
not to hear Canadian National's appeal. Mr. Leberman further
adds that around October 7, procedures should be approved in
circuit court for residents to become members of the class
action.

However, if the court grants the railroad's petition, the
discovery process including all interviews would be halted and
all proceedings in trial court would be stopped.


CHARLES SCHWAB: SEC Lodges Settled Proceedings Over Mutual Funds
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled
enforcement proceedings against San Francisco-based broker-
dealer Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. The Commission charged that
Schwab allowed investment adviser customers to change mutual
fund orders after the 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time market close,
creating the risk that such customers could unfairly capitalize
on late-breaking news at the expense of other mutual fund
investors. Without admitting or denying the Commission's
findings, Schwab consented to the entry of an order that it
cease and desist from such violations and pay a $350,000 civil
penalty.

The Commission found that, since at least January 2001, Schwab
engaged in a practice of allowing its investment adviser
customers to change mutual fund orders after market close under
certain circumstances and still receive that day's fund price.
This occurred when a customer's original pre-4:00 p.m. mutual
fund order was rejected by Schwab's computer system (such as
when the customer had been banned from trading in a particular
mutual fund or the mutual fund was closed to new investors).
Schwab permitted the adviser to submit a substitute order
in a different mutual fund.  According to the Commission's
Order, on hundreds of occasions since 2001, Schwab personnel
contacted customers after the 4:00 p.m. market close and allowed
the customer to submit a substitute order in a different fund
while still receiving the current day's price. Schwab's practice
of processing the substitute purchase order at the current day's
price violated Rule 22c-1(a) under the Investment Company Act,
which requires orders for mutual fund shares placed after 4:00
p.m. to receive the next day's fund price.

The Commission's Order does not find that Schwab personnel
entered into any improper agreements with customers allowing the
substitute orders, or that Schwab's customers engaged in any
scheme to exploit Schwab's order entry process or circumvent its
controls. However, Schwab's practice of allowing investment
advisers to substitute mutual fund orders created a risk that
investment advisers and their clients could capitalize on post-
market close information by trading after hours based on stale
fund prices. Schwab ceased the practice in October 2003,
following an inquiry by the Commission staff and the initiation
of an internal investigation by Schwab.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's findings, Schwab
consented to issuance of the Order, which orders Schwab to cease
and desist from committing or causing any violations and any
future violations of Rule 22c-1(a) and pay a $350,000 penalty,
and censures Schwab for its misconduct.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the New York Stock
Exchange in this matter.


CITIBANK: Japan Watchdog Seeks Sanctions V. Executives For Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
Japan's Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission asked
for sanctions against Citibank's Tokyo office and two senior
executives for allegedly misleading investors about private bond
sales, the Associated Press reports.

The stock market watchdog asked the Financial Securities Agency,
Japan's financial oversight body, for sanctions, after a four-
month inspection.  The Commission alleged that one vice
president at Citibank's downtown Tokyo office falsely told two
would-be investors that a structured bond could be sold at any
time before the maturity date at a fixed price when he pitched
the bond to them on June 4 and August 28 last year.

Another vice president allegedly told a would-be investor on
July 4 last year that a structured bond would accrue interest on
the principal investment.  The executive didn't explain that the
investment could be affected by currency fluctuations, the
Commission said, according to AP.  An official at the same
office also allegedly offered to boost a customer's loan if the
customer bought a structured bond, in violation of Japanese
securities law.

The FSA normally acts on the Commission's recommendations within
weeks of being notified. Similar cases in the past have led to
penalties ranging from orders to improve operations to a 30-day
suspension.

Citibank said in a statement that it "regrets the matter" and
the "bank will undertake all necessary corrective action," AP
reports.  A Commission official said the investors hadn't
suffered losses.


CKE RESTAURANTS: Reaches Settlement For CA Overtime Wage Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CKE Restaurants, Inc. reached a settlement for the class actions
filed in the Superior Court of the State of California, Los
Angeles County, alleging violations of California wage and hour
laws.

On October 3, 2001, an action was filed by Adam Huizar and
Michael Bolden, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated.  Similar actions were filed by Mary Jane
Amberson and James Bolin, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, in the same court, on April 5, 2002 and
November 26, 2002, respectively.

The complaints allege that salaried restaurant management
personnel at the Company's Carl's Jr. restaurants in California
were improperly classified as exempt from California overtime
laws, thereby depriving them of overtime pay.  The complaints
seek damages in an unspecified amount, injunctive relief,
prejudgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

During the quarter ended August 9, 2004, the Company announced
that it had reached a preliminary agreement to settle these
three lawsuits and fully resolve all complaints contained
therein, under which the Company will make a cash payment of up
to $9,000 to cover claims by eligible class members, plaintiff
attorneys' fees and costs, payments to the named plaintiffs, and
costs of a third-party administrator.


CORPORATE RELATIONS: SEC Issues Penny Stock Bar V. Ex-President
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) (Order)
against Roberto E. Veitia (Veitia) to determine whether it is
appropriate and in the public interest to bar Veitia from
participating in an offering of a penny stock. The Commission's
proceeding is based on a final judgment entered against Veitia
in SEC v. Corporate Relations Group (CRG), Inc., et al., (6:99-
cv-1222-Orl-28KRS) (M.D. Fl.). The Commission's complaint
alleged that Veitia, the former president and chairman of the
board of Corporate Relations Group, Inc. (CRG), a public
relations firm formerly located in Winter Park, Florida, engaged
in a fraudulent scheme to manipulate the stock of a number of
public companies and, by doing so, violated Sections 5(a), 5(c),
17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act),
and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-
5. The complaint also alleged that Veitia was liable for CRG's
violations as a controlling person under Section 20 of the
Exchange Act.

On May 13, 2003, the District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, among other things, entered a final judgment against
Veitia permanently enjoining him from violating Sections 5,
17(a) and 17(b) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5. The Court also found
that Veitia was a controlling person of CRG. On March 2, 2004,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
District Court's ruling.

In the Commission's Order, the Division of Enforcement
(Division) alleges that the securities of at least one of the
companies that Veitia and CRG promoted, Tracker Corporation of
America, constituted a penny stock within the meaning of Section
3(a)(51) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 3a51-1.
Further, the Division alleges that Veitia, both individually and
by virtue of his position as a controlling person of CRG,
participated in an offering of a penny stock.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, and in connection therewith, to afford Veitia an
opportunity to establish defenses to such allegations, and to
determine whether a penny stock bar is appropriate and in the
public interest.

The Commission directed that an administrative law judge shall
issue an initial decision in this matter within 210 days from
the date of service of this Order.


D&K HEALTHCARE: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in E.D. MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
D & K Healthcare Resources, Inc. and its chief executive,
operating and financial officers face a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

Plaintiff Gary Dutton filed the suit, asserting alleged breach
of fiduciary duties and violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The complaint alleges that the
Company's press releases and reports filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission between April 23, 2001 and September 16,
2002 were materially false and misleading in that they failed to
disclose that the Company's results were based, in material
part, on arrangements with a single supplier which the Company
allegedly knew could not be sustained.

The complaint also claims that as a result of the alleged
omissions, the market prices of the Company's common shares
during the period were artificially inflated.  The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages.


ELOQUENT INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eloquent, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the proposed settlement for the securities class actions filed
against it and certain of its officers and directors.   These
actions include

     (1) Pond Equities v. Eloquent, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-
         CV-6775;

     (2) Zitto Investments, Inc. v. Eloquent, Inc., et al., Case
         No. 01-CV-7591;

     (3) Bartula v. Eloquent, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-CV-7607;
         and

     (4) Holleran v. Eloquent, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-CV-
         7698

Similar complaints were filed in the same Court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted initial public
offerings (IPOs) of their common stock in the late 1990s.  In
each of these complaints, the plaintiffs allege that the
Company, certain of its officers and directors and its IPO
underwriters violated the federal securities laws because
Eloquent's IPO registration statement and prospectus contained
untrue statements of material fact or omitted material facts
regarding the compensation to be received by, and the stock
allocation practices of, the IPO underwriters.  The plaintiffs
sought unspecified monetary damages and other relief.

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.  In late 2002 and early 2003
the various plaintiffs and issuer defendants entered into
settlement discussions.  In June 2003, the Company's Board of
Directors agreed in principle to a settlement proposal as
described in a Memorandum of Understanding with the plaintiffs
and a Issuer-Insurer Agreement with the Company's insurers.

In May 2004, the plaintiffs and counsel for various defendants,
including the Company, reached agreement on a proposed form of
settlement agreement.  Under the proposed Settlement Agreement,
the issuers (including the Company, as successor to Eloquent)
are to be dismissed as parties from the litigation and will be
released from all claims by the plaintiffs without admission of
wrongdoing on behalf of the Company.  Under the proposed
Settlement Agreement, if the plaintiffs fail to obtain a minimum
settlement or judgment against certain underwriter defendants in
related cases, each of the settling issuer defendants will pay
their proportionate share of the difference.

Under the Issuer-Insurer Agreement, however, the Company and the
other settling issuers have agreed with their insurers that in
the event that the issuer defendants ultimately owe any payment
to the plaintiffs under the settlement, the issuers' insurers
will be responsible for making any such payment to the
plaintiffs subject to the applicable deductible ($250,000, in
the case of the Company) and up to the coverage amount of each
Issuers' insurance policy.  The Company believes that its
coverage is sufficient to cover its obligations, if any, under
the proposed Settlement Agreement.  Implementation of the
Settlement Proposal requires execution and delivery of the
proposed Settlement Agreement and Issuer-Insurer Agreement by
the Company and other parties, and approval by the court, which
is expected to occur in late 2004 or early 2005.

The settlement was finalized and executed in mid-June 2004.
Following submission to the court of the executed settlement
agreement, the plaintiffs filed a motion on June 25 for the
court's preliminary approval of the settlement.  Thereafter, on
July 14, 2004, the Underwriters filed an opposition to the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval.  Judge Scheindlin
has not, at this time scheduled a preliminary-approval.


EMERSON POYNTER: Reminds Investors of Lead Plaintiff Deadlines
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP reminds shareholders that
lead plaintiff deadlines are fast approaching in various cases
filed on behalf of investors.

For those who have purchased or otherwise acquired stock in any
of the companies listed below, you may already be a member of
the class and have until the dates specified to move the court
to become a lead plaintiff(s). You may contact Emerson Poynter
LLP to learn more about your rights and interests in these cases
and your ability to potentially recoup your losses, or you may
hire counsel of your choice.

Defendant(s); Symbol; Class Period; Lead Plaintiff Deadline

     (1) KVH Industries Inc.; KVHI; 1/6/04 - 7/2/04; 9/20/2004

     (2) Netflix Inc.; NFLX; 10/1/03 - 7/15/04; 9/20/2004

     (3) Baxter International Inc.; BAX; 4/19/01 - 7/21/04;
         9/27/2004

     (4) Cross Country Healthcare Inc.; CCRN; 10/25/01 - 8/6/02;
         10/5/2004

     (5) Vistacare Inc.; VSTA; 11/6/03 - 8/5/04; 10/11/2004

     (6) PetMed Express Inc.; PETS; 6/18/03 - 7/26/04;
         10/18/2004

     (7) Belo Corporation; BLC; 5/12/03 - 8/6/04; 10/22/2004

     (8) TELCO Energy Inc.; TE; 10/30/01 - 2/4/03; 10/25/2004

     (9) Wet Seal Inc.; WTSLA; 1/9/03 - 6/19/04; 10/25/2004

    (10) First Virtual Communications Inc.; FVCC.PK; 3/29/04 -
         8/23/04; 10/25/2004

    (11) Zix Corporation; ZIXI; 10/30/03 - 5/4/04; 11/2/2004

For more details, contact Investor Relations Department -
EMERSON POYNTER LLP by Mail: 2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100,
Little Rock, AR 72202 by Phone: 1-800-663-9817 by E-mail:
epllp@emersonpoynter.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.emersonpoynter.com


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Approves Suit Settlement Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gemstar-TV Guide International, Inc. (Nasdaq: GMST) received
final approval from the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against it.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the Gemstar, which is a
leading media and technology company that develops, licenses,
markets and distributes technologies, products and services
targeted at the television guidance and home entertainment needs
of consumers worldwide exercised its option to substitute cash
for 2,052,545 shares of common stock that were to be issued to
members of the class. The remaining 2,052,545 shares of common
stock, subject to adjustment, as well as the cash portion of the
settlement amount, will be distributed in accordance with the
settlement agreement.


GLIATECH INC.: SEC Sues Ex-CEO, Ex-CFO For Nondisclosure of Data
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against
Rodney E. Dausch (Dausch) a former Chief Financial Officer of
Gliatech, Inc. (Gliatech) and Thomas O. Oesterling
(Oesterling), a former Chief Executive Officer of Gliatech, a
pharmaceutical company. The complaint alleges that in the summer
of 2000, Oesterling and Dausch learned of material information
that they failed to disclose in Gliatech's Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2000, filed with the Commission.
Specifically, Dausch and Oesterling failed to disclose data
integrity problems with a clinical study relating to Gliatech's
primary product. These integrity problems played a significant
role in the collapse of merger discussions between Gliatech and
Guilford Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and in the resulting decline in
the price of Gliatech's stock. The complaint alleges that Dausch
and Oesterling violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5 thereunder and that
they aided and abetted Gliatech's violations of Section 13(a) of
the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder. The
Commission is seeking injunctions and civil penalties against
Dausch and Oesterling and a bar against Oesterling from serving
as an officer or director of any issuer required to file reports
with the Commission (officer and director bar).

Simultaneously with the filing of the Commission's complaint,
Oesterling consented, without admitting or denying the
allegations, to an injunction, a $25,000 civil penalty and a
two-year officer and director bar.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the National
Association of Securities Dealers and the Food and Drug
Administration in this matter. The action is titled, SEC v.
Rodney E. Dausch and Thomas O. Oesterling, N.D. Ohio, Civil
Action No. 1: 04 CV 1772 (LR-18883).


JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Refund Anticipation Loans Lawsuits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. and the Santa Barbara Bank &
Trust (SSB&T) face two class actions, in connection with the
provision of refund anticipation loans.

On April 4, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California
Seniors filed a purported class action in the Superior Court of
California (Santa Barbara), seeking declaratory relief as to the
lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, the
validity of Santa Barbara's cross-lender debt collection
provision and whether the method of disclosure to customers with
respect to the provision is unlawful or fraudulent.  The Company
was joined in the action for allegedly collaborating, and aiding
and abetting, in the actions of SBB& T.

The Company filed a demurrer to the complaint.  The Court denied
the demurrer and granted leave to plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.

Ms. Hood has also filed a separate suit against the Company and
Cendant on December 18, 2003 in the Ohio Court of Common Pleas
(Montgomery County) and is seeking to certify a class in the
action.  The allegations relate to the same set of facts as the
California action.

In January 2004, the Company filed a motion to remove this case
to federal court in Ohio and also moved the federal court to
stay, or dismiss, the Ohio action while permitting the
California action to proceed.  The case was remanded to state
court where the Company has filed its motion to stay or dismiss,
which is pending.


JACKSON HEWITT: Faces Refund Anticipation Loan Suit in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc. and Santa Barbara Bank & Trust
(SBB&T) face a class action filed in the Supreme Court of the
State of New York, County of New York in connection with
disclosures made in connection with the provision of refund
anticipation loans.

Myron Benton brought the purported class action, alleging the
disclosures and related practices are fraudulent and otherwise
unlawful, and seeking equitable and monetary relief.


LEND LEASE: Construction Unit Faces NY Lawsuit Over 9/11 Cleanup
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Lend Lease Corporation, its construction unit, Lend
Lease Bovis is facing a U.S. class action lawsuit by workers
employed to clean up the World Trade Center site after the
September 11 terrorist attacks in 2001, who claimed that they
were exposed to dust, diesel exhaust, pulverized cement, glass
fibers, asbestos and other airborne contaminants, The Financial
Standard reports.

However, Lend Lease believes that its construction unit Lend
Lease Bovis would not be hit by compensation claims if ever the
workers' class action lawsuit, which could run into billions of
dollars was successful.

Lend Lease group executive Roger Burrows points out that Bovis
can't be slapped with compensation claims since it was protected
by a captive insurance company, a company that insures all or
part of the risk of its parent, which was set up by the U.S.
federal government to cover any claims in the wake of the
September 11 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center.

The Lend Lease construction unit is one of four companies being
pursued by workers employed to clean up the World Trade Center
area after September 11.

The Australia-based company also stated that while Bovis was yet
to be served court papers relating to the claim, the issue was
being treated seriously.


NIKU CORPORATION: Submits Suit Settlement Documents To NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Niku Corporation submitted to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York settlement documents for
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its officers and directors and the managing
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering:

     (1) Goldman, Sachs and Co.,

     (2) Dain Rauscher Wessels,

     (3) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray and

     (4) Thomas Weisel Partners

The complaint alleged, among other things, that the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that the managing underwriters
allegedly:

     (i) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
         Company stock in connection with the IPO and

    (ii) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares
         of the Company in the aftermarket at pre-determined
         prices.

The Company believes that the claims asserted against it in
these cases are without merit. On August 8, 2001 the Court
ordered that these actions, along with hundreds of IPO
allocation cases against other issuers, underwriters and
directors and officers, be transferred to one judge for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings.

In July 2002, omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints based on
common legal issues were filed on behalf of all issuers,
underwriters and directors and officers.  By order dated October
8, 2002, the Court dismissed the Company's officers and
directors from the case without prejudice.  In an opinion issued
on February 19, 2003, the Court granted in part and denied in
part the motions to dismiss.

The complaints against the Company and the other issuers and
underwriters were not dismissed as a matter of law. The
plaintiffs and the issuer defendants (along with the individual
officer and director defendants of such issuers) have agreed to
settle the cases.  In June 2004, final settlement papers were
executed, submitted to the Court, and the parties are awaiting
approval by the Court.


NORVERGENCE INC.: Plaintiffs File Injunction V. Lease Assignees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman and the Law
Offices of Michael Scott Green, counsel for Plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit commenced against various
telecommunications leasing companies who were assignees of
leases and equipment rental agreements entered into between
individuals and businesses and the telecommunications company,
Norvergence, Inc. ("Norvergence") have moved for a preliminary
injunction against the Lease Assignees. The injunction seeks to
enjoin the lease assignees from enforcing any equipment rental
agreements assigned to them by Norvergence, or from commencing
suit against Norvergence customers for payments under the
leases. The lawsuit seeks to certify a nationwide class of those
persons and entities who leased telecommunication and/or network
computer equipment from Norvergence, which leases were then
assigned to various leasing companies. The motion, brought by
Order to Show Cause, is returnable on October 1, 2004.

The lawsuit alleges that the leases violated various state and
federal statutes including the Consumer Fraud Act, the FTC
Holder Rule, the Truth-in-Consumer Contracts, Warranty & Notice
Act, and that the leases constitute breaches of contract, and
breaches of implied and express warranty. The suit seeks
cancellation of the leases, disgorgement of lease payments and a
declaratory judgment concerning the unenforceability of the
leases.

The Amended Class Action Complaint suit names approximately 26
lease financing companies as defendants.

For more details, contact Gary S. Graifman, Esq. of Kantrowitz,
Goldhamer & Graifman by Mail: 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, NJ
07645 by Phone: 1-800-660-7843 by E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com
OR Michael S. Green, Esq. by Mail: 86 Washington Avenue,
Milltown, NJ 08850 by Phone: 732-390-0480 or by E-mail:
msgreen@lawmsg.com or visit the litigation Web site:
http://www.njnorvergenceclassaction.com


OHIO: Settlement Resolves Felons' Lawsuit V. Elections Officials
----------------------------------------------------------------
In an agreement that resolves a class action suit against the
State's elections officials, the Ohio Department of
Rehabilitation and Correction (ODRC) agreed to provide written
notice to felons currently on parole in the state advising them
of their eligibility to register to vote in the November 2, 2004
election, and that they must register by October 4, 2004 in
order to vote this fall, the Sydney Indymedia reports.

The class action suit was initiated by the Prison Reform
Advocacy Center (PRAC) on behalf of C.U.R.E. - Ohio, a grass-
roots membership organization, which conducts advocacy on issues
of importance to prisoners, ex-offenders, and their families and
the Racial Fairness Project, a Cleveland-based non-profit
organization that works to register felon ex-offenders to vote
in local, state and federal elections against the Ohio Secretary
of State and 21 boards of elections that erroneously advised
felons that they could not vote until finished with parole.

In their suit, PRAC pointed out in one of its studies that they
released and published at their web site
http://www.prisonreform.com,which revealed that Ohio elections
officials' knowledge an Ohio law that gives people with felony
convictions the right to vote once released from incarceration,
regardless of whether they are on parole, probation, or any
other form of community supervision varies widely by region.

According to the study, which prompted PRAC's filing of a
lawsuit seeking an order requiring the State to provide notice
of voting rights to released felons statewide, 21 boards of
elections, including Hamilton County, tell eligible voters that
they cannot vote while on probation or parole.

After the reaching the settlement, David Singleton, Executive
Director of the Prison Reform Advocacy Center expressed his
delight on behalf of the felons regarding the outcome of the
litigation and thanked the ODRC for voluntarily agreeing to
provide the notice.

The settlement also requires the defendant boards of elections
to take steps to prevent future violations of the law, including
distribution of memoranda to employees and the posting of
notices in the boards of elections reminding staff and visitors
that felons can vote if not incarcerated.


OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Accepts Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Openwave Systems, Inc. accepted the proposed settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "In
re Openwave Systems Inc. (sic) Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9744 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.),
related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)."

The suit was brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from June 11, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.  The defendants are the Company and five of
its present or former officers and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering and secondary public offering.  Three of the
individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice, subject
to a tolling of the statute of limitations.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statements for the offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued.  No specific damages are claimed.  Similar
allegations were made in over 300 other lawsuits challenging
public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, and the cases were
consolidated for pretrial purposes.

The Company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Plaintiffs will dismiss and release all
claims against the Openwave Defendants, in exchange for a
contingent payment by the insurance companies responsible for
insuring the issuers, and for the assignment or surrender of
control of certain claims the Company may have against the
underwriters.  The Openwave Defendants will not be required to
make any cash payment in the settlement, unless the pro rata
amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount
of insurance coverage, a circumstance which the Company does not
believe will occur.  The settlement will require approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured, after class members are given
the opportunity to object to or opt out of the settlement.


OREGON: Health Insurance Fraud Grows, Aided By High Health Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------
More and more Oregon residents have been victimized by insurance
fraud, according to a General Accounting Officer report.  The
state reportedly has received more than 40 consumer complaints
about fake health insurance in the past two years and has issued
two cease-and-desist orders against health insurers last year
for operating without a license, the Associated Press reports.

Soaring health costs have driven consumers to search for low-
cost coverage, making it easier for them to fall prey to schemes
causing them to get stuck with unpaid doctors' bills in
insurance fraud cases.  These plans collect premiums but fail to
pay claims.   Offers range from outrageous deals touting full
coverage for extraordinarily low rates to plans that appear more
legitimate but may not pay out all covered claims.

According to the report, unlicensed health insurers - including
between five and 14 in Oregon - covering more than 200,000
people nationwide between 2000 and 2002 resulted in at least
$252 million in unpaid claims. Since then, health care fraud
costs have increased by at least 3 percent a year, according to
the National Healthcare Anti-Fraud Association.

Regulators warn that buyers must beware in an insurance market
increasingly beset by scams targeting small businesses and the
elderly, AP reports.  They expect the trend to accelerate as the
cost of insurance coverage continues to climb by double-digit
percentages annually.

"I kick myself," Paul Savory, a co-owner of Portland-based
Southwest Office Supply and Interiors, who bought coverage from
such a plan for his employees and family two years ago, told AP.
His family alone has been left with about $16,000 in unpaid
bills. "In hindsight, it probably sounded too good to be true."

Oregon regulators launched a public-awareness campaign last
month to fight phony insurance.  The state is encouraging
consumers to call (503) 947-7984 or (888) 877-4894 to confirm
the legitimacy of an insurance seller.


PIONEER CORPORATION: Handal & Associates Lodges CA Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Handal & Associates initiated a class action
lawsuit against Pioneer North America Inc., a subsidiary of
Pioneer Corporation (NYSE: PIO) in the Superior Court of
California in and for the County of San Diego. The suit alleges
Pioneer actively promoted and sold to consumers its Pioneer
PROx30 Series Projection Television Sets which include models:
PRO-530HK, PRO-630HD, PRO-730HD, PRO-530HDI and PRO-730HDI,
while knowing it was defective.

The suit, brought by Jonathan Hartt, a consumer who purchased a
Pioneer PRO630 Projection Television Set, alleges that Pioneer
has violated the Consumer Legal Remedies Act as well as other
California State statutes amounting to unfair trade and
business. Included in the suit are claims that Pioneer made
false and misleading statements in advertising the quality and
clarity of the PROx30 Series Televisions and that Pioneer
actively promoted and sold a product it knew was defective. The
suit further charges that the design defect, among other things,
causes the television's picture to display a colored line across
it making it difficult for consumers to watch television.

The suit seeks an injunction, requiring Pioneer to stop selling
the PROx30 and to inform the public of the design defect in the
television model. The suit further seeks a monetary judgment
equal to a refund of the entire cost paid by consumers for the
allegedly defective television sets.

For more details, contact Anton N. Handal by Phone:
(619) 544-6400 by E-mail: ca@handal-litigation.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.handal-litigation.com


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Submits Suit Settlement Documents to NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Software, Inc. submitted to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York settlement documents
for the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its officers and several underwriters of Portal's
initial public offering (IPO).

The lawsuit alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising from alleged
improprieties by the underwriters in connection with the 1999
IPO and follow-on public offering, and claims to be on behalf of
all persons who purchased Portal Software shares from May 5,
1999 through December 6, 2000.

Specifically, the complaint alleges the underwriters charged
certain of their customers fees in excess of those disclosed in
the prospectus and engaged in certain allegedly improper
activities in connection with the distribution of the IPO
shares.  The complaint was subsequently amended to allege
similar claims with respect to the secondary public offering in
September 1999.

These actions are part of the litigation known as the "IPO
Securities Litigation," which has been brought against over 300
issuers and nearly 55 underwriters alleging claims virtually
identical to those alleged against the Company.  This action is
being coordinated with approximately three hundred other nearly
identical actions filed against other companies.  The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

A motion to dismiss addressing issues common to the companies
and individuals who have been sued in these actions has been
denied.  On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to
dismiss the complaint against the Company.   Portal has approved
a settlement agreement and related agreements, which set forth
the terms of a settlement between the Company, the Individual
Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately 300 issuer defendants and the individual
defendants currently or formerly associated with those
companies.

In this settlement, plaintiffs will release all claims against
Portal and its executive officers named in the suit, in exchange
for the assignment or surrender of control of certain claims
Portal may have against its underwriters.  It is anticipated
that any potential financial obligation of the Company to
plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement and
related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.
Therefore, the Company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by the Company.


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Portal Software, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
amended securities class action filed against it, and certain of
its officers and directors.

The lawsuit claims to be on behalf of all persons who purchased
Portal shares from May 20, 2003 through November 13, 2003.  A
lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel were appointed on
March 25, 2004.

On May 24, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, arising from
allegations that during the Class Period Portal recognized
revenue improperly and failed to disclose declining demand for
its products and services.  The consolidated amended complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The motion to dismiss hearing is currently scheduled for
September 30, 2004.


PORTAL SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs To File Consolidated Derivative Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to file a consolidated amended shareholder
derivative suit against the members of Portal Software, Inc.'s
board of directors and certain company officers in the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara.

On November 17, 2003, a stockholder derivative action was filed
alleging breach of fiduciary duty and other violations of state
law in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. A
similar action was filed in the same court on November 25, 2003.

These complaints are based on allegations that the defendants
misrepresented Portal's financial projections in connection with
the quarter ended October 31, 2003, and that certain of the
defendants violated state laws relating to insider trading.  The
actions seek damages in an unspecified amount, disgorgement of
improper profits and attorney's fees, among other forms of
relief.

In February 2004, both derivative actions were transferred to
Santa Clara County Superior Court.  The plaintiff in the second
action has agreed, and the Court has so ordered, that the
proceedings in the second action be stayed pending the
conclusion of the first filed action.  The plaintiff in the
first filed action is scheduled to file an amended complaint on
or about September 30, 2004.


PUERTO RICO: College of Physicians, Surgeons Join Suit V. HMOs
--------------------------------------------------------------
The College of Physicians and Surgeons in Puerto Rico has joined
a lawsuit against several health plans from the Blue Cross-Blue
Shield network, including Triple S and Blue Cross of Puerto
Rico, under the civil RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corruption
Act) laws. The College of Physicians and Surgeons, on behalf of
all Puerto Rican physicians, joins the lawsuit with over 700,000
physicians in Florida, Texas, California, Connecticut, Georgia,
Louisiana and other states. The lawsuit will be seen at a
Florida Court.

Class Action status for the RICO claims were affirmed in the
11th Circuit Court of Appeals on September 1, 2004. This is a
major victory for the physicians affirming their original
charges against health insures. Opponents to this suit long
claimed the 11th circuit would rule in favor of the defendants.

"Physicians of Puerto Rico are taking a stand," said Marissel
Velazquez, President of the College. "By joining this lawsuit we
are saying enough is enough. We are struggling every day to
provide the proper care for our patients under these conditions.
The only way to fight the large for-profit corporations is to
join this lawsuit that is challenging and seeking to fix the
exact problems plaguing the medical profession," said Velazquez.
"This lawsuit has already led to significant changes in the way
doctors are treated by two of the largest insurers in the U.S.
and has helped assure medical decisions are led to physicians to
make".

The lawsuit is not requesting a determined amount of dollars for
compensation, rather the amount of dollars will be determined by
the Court of Law. A similar lawsuit was filed in the U.S.
against several major HMOs, such as Cigna, Aetna, United
Healthcare, Humana Health Plans, Coventry, Wellpoint, Pacificare
Health Systems, Inc, and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield. Aetna
settled with the physicians on May 21, 2003 for over $500
million. Cigna settled on September 4, 2003 for $600 million.
Both Aetna and Cigna have committed many millions of dollars to
a foundation dedicated to improving healthcare.

"It is important to emphasize that The College of Physicians and
Surgeons, on behalf of all doctors in Puerto Rico, is not
seeking monetary compensation to doctors as a result of this
lawsuit. What we are seeking is some balance to the system and
to protect the physician-patient relationship and provide
adequate healthcare to patients. It is also probable that many
millions of dollars may be committed to improving healthcare in
Puerto Rico as well," said Dr. Velazquez.

For many years profit driven health plans have taken advantage
of physicians by forcing upon them unfair contracts and business
practices, victimizing physicians and their patients. In Puerto
Rico, the unfair business practices are even more egregious and
blatant than in the continental U.S. These practices affect
general practitioners, specialists and sub specialists as well.

The College of Physicians and Surgeons seeks to stop many of the
health plans in Puerto Rico from using coercive, unfair and
fraudulent means to dominate and control physician-patient
relationships for their own financial gain to the detriment of
physicians and their patients. "The quality of health care in
Puerto Rico is being challenged by a health care system
controlled by for-profit health-plans, which aims to reduce
costs and increase profits on the backs of physicians and
patients, which is going to cause the system to crumble." added
Dr. Velazquez.

"The for-profit HMOs have engaged in a scheme that included
lying to the employers about their benefits, lying to physicians
about commitment to payment for quality health care and
fraudulently promising patients that they would be there in the
time of greatest need. And so, we stand here today to expand
this fight into all corners of the United States, until patients
can once again trust that their doctor can provide them with the
care they need, free of interference by companies driven only by
greed," said Archie Lamb, co-lead counsel for the physicians.


REGAL LAGER: Recalls 49T Infant Carriers Due To Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Regal Lager Inc., of Kennesaw, Georgia is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 49,000 Baby Bj”rn Baby Carrier Active

The back support buckle can detach from the shoulder straps,
posing a fall hazard to the baby. The firm has received 93
reports of the back support buckle detaching from the shoulder
straps on the infant carrier. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled infant carriers were sold under brand name "Baby
Bj”rn" which is printed on the front of the carriers and on the
black molded plastic back support buckle. Model number 1-260 is
printed on the care label on the strap of the carrier. The
carriers are made of a cotton polyester blend fabric in black
with red piping and blue with white piping. "Baby Carrier
Active" is written on the packaging and above the warning label
on the carrier.

Manufactured in Sweden the infant carriers were sold at
specialty retail stores, catalogs and Internet sites from
September 2003 through August 15, 2004 for about $120.

Consumers should stop using the carrier immediately and contact
Regal Lager for instructions on returning the carriers for
repair.

Consumer Contact: Consumers should contact Regal Lager Inc. at
(877) 962-8400 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.regallager.com


SCIENTIFIC-ATLANTA INC.: Investors Sue Over Adelphia Agreement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. faces several class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, over its marketing support agreement with Adelphia
Communications.

The Company is a co-defendant in two individual actions and one
putative class action.  Motorola has also been named as a
defendant in these suits.  The suits allege that Scientific-
Atlanta should be liable to investors in Adelphia's securities
based on the marketing support agreement and Adelphia's
accounting treatment for that arrangement.  These actions do not
allege any impropriety as to the Company's financial statements
or statements made to the Company's investors.  The damages
sought in these actions are in an unspecified amount.

In July 2004, a putative securities class action was filed by
Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund L.P., et al.
purportedly on behalf of investors in securities of Adelphia
Communications Corporation.  The suit names Scientific-Atlanta
and two of its officers, and alleges that Scientific-Atlanta
violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and that the officers
violated Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act.

The Company intends to file a motion to dismiss the Argent suit,
it stated in a disclosure to the United States Securities and
Exchange Commission.


UNITED STATES: Report Warns of Antidepressants' Link to Suicide
---------------------------------------------------------------
There is a definite link between antidepressants and the
worsening suicidal fixations of children taking them,
independent experts, working with Columbia University,
discovered, according to the Associated Press reports.

According to the study, antidepressants taken by children will
cause an extra 2% to 3% to have increased suicidal thoughts.
Relative risks of suicidal behavior were highest among youths
taking Luvox, Effexor and Paxil and lower among youths taking
Celexa and Zoloft.  Prozac, earlier thought to be the most
benign antidepressant for youth, also increases the odds of
suicidal thoughts and actions.

The report forms the core of the data that United States Food
and Drug Administration advisers were studying Tuesday, during a
second day of hearings on antidepressants.  Two FDA advisory
committees, meeting jointly, spent Monday listening to summaries
of the current science.

Last week, critics testified during congressional hearing that
the FDA and drug companies failed to provide enough information
of the pediatric clinical trials for antidepressants.  Paxil
manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline currently faces a lawsuit accusing
it of suppressing studies indicating the drug might increase
suicidal tendencies in children.
For hours parents described the heartbreak of suicides they
blamed on antidepressants, AP reports.  Tom Woodward, whose 17-
year-old daughter Julie hanged herself while she was on Zoloft,
said, "Drug companies have purposely deceived the public about
the safety and efficacy of their drugs."

However, drug company representatives testified Monday that the
industry's studies had limitations.  The studies weren't
designed to test whether they made patients suicidal and
included no direct drug-to-drug comparisons, AP reports.

Two FDA advisory panels are considering whether agency action -
including stronger warning labels - is needed on nine
antidepressants linked to heightened suicidal tendencies among
children.

Dr. Robert Temple, director of the FDA's office of drug
evaluation, told APthe panel could decide the benefits derived
from drugs like Prozac are worth the increased risk. Labels
could warn doctors and families to watch closest during the most
treacherous time: when children first begin therapy.


UNITED STATES: NAMIC Applauds Passage of Lawsuit Reduction Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC)
applauded the House of Representatives for the passage of H.R.
4571 otherwise known as the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2004
by a vote of 229-174, a bill that would require judges to fine
lawyers who file cases that are dismissed as "frivolous," the
Insurance Journal reports.

According to Marliss Browder, NAMIC federal affairs director,
"This bill would restore mandatory sanctions against those
filing such suits that were eliminated in 1993. Due to the
dramatic increase in filing class action lawsuits in the United
States in the last decade - many of which would be considered
frivolous - our member companies, as well as businesses in many
other industries, have been forced to use more of their valuable
financial and human resources that would otherwise be available
to grow their business and employ more American workers."

The bill, which was introduced in June by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-
TX, and currently backed by 24 co-sponsors, would amend Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to penalize attorneys
who file frivolous lawsuits. It will also limit forum shopping
by restricting plaintiffs to file lawsuits only in the
jurisdiction where the plaintiff was injured, where the
plaintiff resides, or the jurisdiction in which the defendant's
company is domiciled.

Meanwhile, an amendment for the bill offered by Rep. Jim Turner,
D-Texas that would impose mandatory sanctions on attorneys that
file frivolous suits failed by a vote of 177 to 226.
Affectionately called, "Three Strikes and You're Out" amendment
reportedly sought to make it more difficult for court records to
be sealed.

Upon the passage of the bill, Mr. Bowder further commented that
NAMIC remains committed to passing class action reform
legislation and are cautiously optimistic that the Senate will
follow suit and pass this important piece of legislation.


WASHINGTON: Appeals Court Reinstates Writers' Age Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Second District Court of Appeals in Washington reinstated
the 23 class actions filed against television networks,
Hollywood studios and talent agencies by more than 150 writers,
alleging discrimination against those over the age 40, the
Canadian Press reports.

The discrimination suits were originally filed in the United
States District Court in Los Angeles, alleging pervasive age
discrimination since the early 1980s, and violations of U.S. and
state employment laws.  The suits named as defendants six
television networks, including CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox, 12
production companies and 11 talent agencies, including the
William Morris Agency and Creative Arts Agency.  The federal
court ruled that it could not maintain the case as a class
action there and the plaintiffs re-filed in state court.

The appeals court ruled that the law did not preclude the
writers from filing their claims in state court after they had
been dismissed in federal court.  The court also sated that the
writers "have properly alleged class-wide claims of a pattern or
practice of age discrimination in violation" of the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act.  The court said the plaintiffs
do not have to file individual claims as a Superior Court judge
ruled when he dismissed the class actions in January 2003.

The three-judge panel also ruled the claims of writers who did
not apply for television jobs because of well-known patterns of
discrimination are not barred by the state's one-year statute of
limitation, the Canadian Press reports.

Calls to the networks were not immediately returned Tuesday,
according to the Canadian Press.

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BELO CORPORATION: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Belo Corporation ("Belo" or the
"Company") (NYSE:BLC) between May 12, 2003 and August 6, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Belo and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
Defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud advertisers and
investors by intentionally overstating circulation at the Dallas
Morning News in order to reap incentive payments from the
paper's advertisers. The inflated circulation figures were
reported to investors on a regular basis and the incentive
payments inflated the Company's financial results.

On August 5, 2004, Belo reported that its circulation figures
for the Dallas Morning News were in fact overstated by 1.5% for
the daily paper and 5% for the Sunday paper. Belo also announced
the resignation of Barry Peckham, Executive Vice President for
circulation at the Dallas Morning News. The Company also
announced it had commenced an informal investigation and that it
would refund to advertisers the overcharged amounts. Belo's
shares reacted negatively to this news, falling from $23.21 on
August 5, 2004 to a low of $18 per share, finally closing at
$21.55 per share the following day on very heavy volume.

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


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Cohen Milstein Lodges NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Bennett Environmental, Inc. ("Bennett" or the
"Company") (AMEX:BEL) (TSE:BEV.TO) between June 2, 2003, and
July 22, 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 New York, against Bennett and
individual defendants, John Bennett (Chairman), Allan Bulckaert
(President and CEO), Danny Ponn (COO), Richard Stern (CFO), and
Robert Griffiths (VP of U.S. Sales and Marketing). According to
the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market during the Class
Period.

The complaint alleges that at the beginning of the Class Period,
Bennett announced that the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(the "U.S. Army") awarded the Company a lucrative $200 million
CDN contract to remediate at least 300,000 tons of soil
contaminated with wood treatment chemicals from Phase III of the
Federal Cresote Superfund Site in New Jersey ("Phase III
Contract"). According to defendants, the Phase III Contract was
one of the largest ever awarded to the Company. Throughout the
Class Period, defendants touted the Company's purportedly
positive financial results and contract backlog in press
releases and SEC filings, and attributed these results largely
to the federal contract. Unbeknownst to the Class, however, the
Company's purported success was the product of defendants'
deceptive and fraudulent scheme to conceal from the public that
the Contract was in serious jeopardy, a fact known to defendants
as early as August 2003.

On July 22, 2004, Bennett surprised investors when it announced
that shortly after it had been awarded the Phase III Contract,
the Contract was withdrawn by the U.S. Army, and that the U.S.
Army had decreased shipments of contaminated soil to Bennett,
pursuant to the Contract, from 300,000 tons to merely 10,000
tons. Defendants revealed that since August 2003, they were
uncertain of whether the Contract had, in fact, been cancelled,
especially in light of the fact that in May 2004, the U.S. Army
awarded new subcontracts for the same type of services covered
by the Phase III Contract. According to the release, Bennett
submitted bids and was awarded one of the subcontracts for a
maximum shipment of 100,000 tons of contaminated soil, which
defendants characterized as a contract "on less favorable
economic terms than the Phase III Contract" and "will remove $90
million from the contract backlog." In reaction to this news,
the price of Bennett stock plummeted, falling $2.13, or 21.4%,
from its previous trading day's closing price, to close on July
22, 2004, at $7.80 per share.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Mary Ann Fink
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005
by Phone: (888) 240-0775 or (202) 408-4600 or by E-mail:
stolldc@cmht.com or mfink@cmht.com


IMPAC MEDICAL: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of IMPAC Medical
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: IMPCE - News; "IMPAC") between November
20, 2002 and May 13, 2004 ("Class," or the "Class Period"),
including purchasers in the May 20, 2002 Initial Public Offering
("IPO") and purchasers in the May 12, 2003 stock offering.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, IMPAC
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading financial statements. On March 1, 2004, IMPAC
announced that it intended to restate its financial statements
for fiscal years 2003-2003. On May 13, 2004, IMPAC's stock fell
from $24.85 per share on May 12, 2004, to $14.62 per share after
reporting disappointing second quarter fiscal year 2004 results
and reducing its outlook for fiscal year 2004. On June 4, 2004,
IMPAC announced that it had dismissed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
as its independent auditor. Then, on August 17, 2004, its new
auditor, Deloitte & Touche LLP, resigned due to a disagreement
with management concerning the timing of the recognition of
certain revenues in its restated financial statements for the
fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 through 2003 that were
filed in April 2004.

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


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Chitwood & Harley Lodges MN Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota on behalf of all Travelers
Property Casualty Corp. ("Travelers") Class A and Class B
shareholders whose shares of Travelers were automatically
exchanged for shares of The St. Paul Travelers Companies, Inc.
on or about April 1, 2004 (NYSE: STA - News) ("St. Paul") (the
"Class"). The lawsuit was filed against Travelers, St. Paul, St.
Paul Travelers and its top executives, CEO Jay Fishman and CFO
Jay Benet; St. Paul's former CFO Thomas Bradley; and Travelers'
former CEO, Robert Lipps.

The action arises out of the merger ("the Merger") between
Travelers and St. Paul pursuant to which Travelers shareholders
received shares of St. Paul Travelers stock at a predetermined
exchange ratio. The merger was approved based on representations
contained in a joint Proxy Statement and Registration Statement
issued on February 13, 2004. The Complaint alleges that both
Travelers and St. Paul negligently failed to disclose in that
document that St. Paul utilized a markedly different method for
calculating insurance reserves than that utilized by Travelers
and that applying Travelers' methodology, as was required, would
result in the necessity of having to increase reserves on St.
Paul's insurance policies by over $1 billion - approximately 12
percent of the value of St. Paul as determined by the merger
consideration. On June 17, 2004, news regarding this issue began
to trickle out to shareholders, and St. Paul Travelers stock
began to decline, falling from $41.10 on that date to $35.66 on
July 23, 2004, the date the size of the needed reserve
adjustment - $1.6 billion - was first announced. Thus, in a
matter of weeks, St. Paul Travelers shares declined in market
value by an astounding $3.66 billion.

Defendants St. Paul and St. Paul Travelers (its successors in
interest due to the Merger) are alleged to have violated
Sections 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, which provides for
liability without fault for any material misrepresentations in
or omissions from the Registration Statement that harmed
shareholders. The Complaint asserts that defendants Fishman and
Bradley likewise violated Section 11 by failing to conduct a
reasonable investigation into the adequacy of the disclosures in
the Registration Statement concerning St. Paul's reserves. All
defendants are also charged with violations of Section 14 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which prohibits the
solicitation of proxies for a shareholder vote by means of a
materially false or misleading proxy statement containing
misrepresentations or omissions.

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


TEAM TELECOM: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated lawsuit
was in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Team
Telecom International Ltd. ("TTI" or the "Company")(Nasdaq:TTIL)
between May 15, 2001 and November 14, 2002, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint charges, among others, TTI and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws. Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and
material misrepresentations concerning TTI's operations and
performance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. TTI is an Israeli corporation
headquartered in Petach Tikvah, Israel, and a provider of
network management systems, operations support systems and
business support systems for communications service providers.
The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period TTI
engaged in a systematic scheme of accounting fraud to maintain
the facade of a steadily growing enterprise. In order to
facilitate this appearance, the Company engaged in a series of
flagrant violations of generally accepted accounting principals
("GAAP"), including, but not limited to, improperly classifying
assets and liabilities, improperly failing to report its
subsidiary's earnings on a consolidated basis and prematurely
and improperly recognizing revenues.

On November 12, 2002, a Company press release announced TTI's
third quarter 2002 financial results. The press release
announced revenues for the quarter of $10.3 million, compared
with $16.0 million for the third quarter of 2001, and an
operating loss of $6.8 million for the quarter, versus an
operating profit of $3.3 million in the year-ago quarter. Net
loss for the quarter was $6.1 million, or a loss of $0.51 per
diluted share, versus a net profit of $3.7 million, or $0.32 per
diluted share, in the prior year. This news shocked the market,
causing TTI shares to plummet more than 28% on the same day the
financial results were announced, November 12, 2002, and an
additional 7% on heavy trading for the two days following the
announcement.

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


                          *********


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  * * *