---

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

             Tuesday, May 18, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 97

                         Headlines

AMEREN CORPORATION: IL Court Dismisses One Count in Retiree Suit
AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Property Lawsuit
BABY TREND: Recalls 11,300 Passport Strollers For Injury Hazard
CAPITAL ONE: Oral Arguments Held on Appeal of VA Suit Dismissal
CLARUS CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Lawsuit

COASTER CO.: Recalls 22,000 Bunk Beds For Strangulation Hazard
CONCORD EFS: TN Court Refuses To Block Vote on First Data Merger
DK PUBLISHING: Recalls 214,000 Board Books Due To Choking Hazard
EDELBROCK CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in DE Court
ELECTRONIC DATA: TX Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock, ERISA Suits

FIRST DATA: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Consumer Suit Pact
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in CA
GUIDANT CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
IBP INC.: SD Court Grants Final Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
JENKINS GILCHRIST: NY Court Approves $75M Tax Lawsuit Settlement

LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Proceeds in DE Securities Suit
NTL EUROPE: Suits For Securities Fraud Consolidated in S.D. NY
PEET'S COFFEE: CA Court Approves Settlement for Overtime Suits
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Store Managers File Overtime Suit in IL
RENT-WAY INC.: PA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement

SHERWIN WILLIAMS: RI To Re-Try Suit Filed Over Lead-Based Paint
SILICON IMAGE: Reaches Settlement For NY, FL Securities Lawsuits
SILICON IMAGE: Plaintiffs Drop Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
STEVEN MADDEN: NY Court To Hear Settlement Arguments May 19,2004
TULARIK INC.: Shareholders File Suit Over Amgen Merger in DE, CA

TYSON FOODS: Discovery Completed in Employees' Wage Suit in AL
TYSON FOODS: FLSA Violations Lawsuit Remanded To E.D. PA Court
TYSON FOODS: Current, Former Employees Opt-out of TN FLSA Suit
TYSON FOODS: Asks OK High Court To Review Lawsuit Certification
TYSON FOODS: Asks DE Court To Grant Summary Judgment in Lawsuit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ASCONI CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
ASCONI CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Lodges Lawsuit in M.D. FL
GENTA INC.: Squitieru & Fearon Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
GENTA INC.: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
GENTA INC.: Murray Frank Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ

KRISPY KREME: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Fraud Suit in M.D. NC
KRISPY KREME: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC
KRISPY KREME: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Anatoly Weiser Files Fraud Suit in CA
LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges CA Fraud Suit

MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Lawsuit in N.D. IL
NDC HEALTH: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA
NORTEL NETWORKS: Scott + Scott Updates NY Fraud Suit Complaint
NYFIX INC.: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
SPEAR & JACKSON: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in FL

SPSS INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
SPSS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
VASO ACTIVE: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
VASO ACTIVE: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA

                          *********

AMEREN CORPORATION: IL Court Dismisses One Count in Retiree Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois dismissed one count in the class action filed by 20
retirees and surviving spouses of retirees of various Ameren
Corporation companies.  The suit names as defendants the Company
and:

     (1) Union Electric Company,

     (2) Central Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS),

     (3) Ameren Energy Generating Co.,

     (4) Ameren Services, and

     (5) the Company's Retiree Medical Plan.

The retirees were members of various local labor unions of the
International Brotherhood of Electric Workers (IBEW) and the
International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE).  The
complaint, referred to as Barnett, et al. vs Ameren Corporation,
et al., alleges:

     (i) the labor organizations which represented the
         plaintiffs have historically negotiated retiree medical
         benefits with the defendants and that pursuant to the
         negotiated collective bargaining agreements and other
         negotiated documents, the plaintiffs are guaranteed
         medical benefits at no cost or at a fixed maximum cost
         during their retirement;

    (ii) Ameren has unilaterally announced that, beginning in
         2004, retirees must pay a portion of their own
         healthcare premiums and either an increasing portion of
         their dependents' premiums or newly imposed dependents'
         premiums, and that surviving spouses will be paying
         increased amounts for their medical benefits;

   (iii) the defendants' actions deprive the plaintiffs of
         vested benefits and thus violate the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor
         Management Relations Act of 1947, and constitute a
         breach of the defendants' fiduciary duties; and

    (iv) the defendants are estopped from changing the plan
         benefits.  This allegation was subsequently dropped
         from the amended complaints referred to below.

The plaintiffs filed the complaint on behalf of themselves,
other similarly situated former non-management employees and
their surviving spouses who retired from January 1, 1992 through
October 1, 2002, and on behalf of all subsequent non-management
retirees and their surviving spouses whose medical benefits are
reduced or are threatened with reduction.  The plaintiffs seek
to have this lawsuit certified as a class action, seek
injunctive relief and declaratory relief, seek actual damages
for any amounts they are made to pay as a result of the
defendants' actions, and seek payment of attorney fees and
costs.  An amended complaint that added three plaintiffs was
filed July 15, 2003.

In response to the Court's ruling on the defendants' motions to
dismiss various counts of the complaint, a second amended
complaint was filed on December 15, 2003, clarifying some of the
allegations, adding two and dropping two plaintiffs, and adding
the Ameren Group Medical Plan as a defendant.  On April 27,
2004, the Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss one of
the counts brought in connection with the amended complaint,
which alleges the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
under ERISA.


AVALONBAY COMMUNITIES: Plaintiffs File Amended Property Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against AvalonBay
Communities, Inc. in California Superior Court for Los Angeles
County, styled "Julie E. Ko v. AvalonBay Communities, Inc. and
Does 1 through 100."

The suit purports to be brought on behalf of all of the
Company's former California residents who, during the four-year
period prior to the filing of the suit, paid a security deposit
to the Company for the rental of residential property in
California and had a portion of the deposit withheld by the
Company in excess of the damages actually sustained by the
Company.  The plaintiff seeks compensatory and statutory damages
in unspecified amounts as well as injunctive relief,
restitution, and an award of attorneys' fees, expenses and costs
of suit.


BABY TREND: Recalls 11,300 Passport Strollers For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baby Trend, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 11,300 "Passport"
Strollers.  The fold joint can collapse unexpectedly, causing
the baby to fall.  Baby Trend has received four reports from
consumers of the stroller collapsing.  No injuries have been
reported.

These Baby Trend strollers have the word "Passport" written on
both sides of the canopy. Only "Passport" strollers with Model
Number 1514, SKN number 190554 and manufacturing dates between
July 10, 2003 and November 26, 2003 are being recalled. This
information is printed on the lower frame of "Passport"
strollers behind the seat.

Babies "R" Us sold these items nationwide from July 2003 through
February 2004 for about $29.

Consumers should stop using the stroller and contact Baby
Trends, Inc. immediately. Baby Trend will ask the consumer to
send a cut-out section of the seat with restraint strap
attached. Baby Trend will send the consumer a new replacement
stroller.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 328-7363
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit
their Website: http://www.babytrend.com


CAPITAL ONE: Oral Arguments Held on Appeal of VA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the
securities class action filed against Capital One Financial
Corporation was held on February 25,2004 in the United States
Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Beginning in July 2002, the Company was named as a defendant in
twelve putative class actions, filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  Each
complaint also named as "Individual Defendants" several of the
Company's executive officers.

On October 1, 2002, the Court consolidated these twelve cases.
Pursuant to the Court's order, Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on October 17, 2002, which alleged that the
Corporation and the Individual Defendants violated Section 10(b)
of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The amended complaint
asserted a class period of January 16, 2001, through July 16,
2002, inclusive.

The amended complaint alleged generally that, during the
asserted class period, the Company misrepresented the adequacy
of its capital levels and loan loss allowance relating to higher
risk assets.  In addition, the amended complaint alleged
generally that the Company failed to disclose that it was
experiencing serious infrastructure deficiencies and systemic
computer problems as a result of its growth.

On December 4, 2002, the Court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint with leave to amend.
Pursuant to that order, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on December 23, 2002, which asserted the same class
period and alleged violations of the same statutes and rule.
The second amended complaint also added a new Individual
Defendant and asserted violations of GAAP.  Defendants moved to
dismiss the second amended complaint on January 8, 2003, and
plaintiffs filed a motion on March 6, 2003, seeking leave to
amend their complaint.  On April 10, 2003, the Court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended
complaint, denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend, and
dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.  Plaintiffs
appealed the Court's order, opinion, and judgment to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May 8, 2003,
and briefing on the appeal concluded in September 2003.


CLARUS CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in GA Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Clarus Corporation and certain of its
directors and officers in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia.

The consolidated suit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of
Company common stock during the period beginning December 8,
1999 and ending on October 25, 2000.  Generally the amended
complaint alleges claims against the Company and the other
defendants for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  Generally, it is alleged that the
defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in
public filings made with the Securities and Exchange Commission
and in certain press releases and other public statements.

The amended complaint alleges that the market price of the
Company's common stock was artificially inflated during the
class periods.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages and costs (including attorneys' and expert fees),
expenses and other unspecified relief on behalf of the classes.
The Court denied a motion to dismiss brought by the defendants.


COASTER CO.: Recalls 22,000 Bunk Beds For Strangulation Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coaster Co. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling 22,000 Metal Twin/Twin and
Twin/Full Bunk Beds.  A gap between the step of the built-in
ladder and the top bunk allows enough room for a child's body to
slip through but will not allow for a child's head to pass
through.  This poses a serious strangulation risk.  Federal
standards for bunk beds are designed to protect children against
entrapment and strangulation.

The recall involves model 2008, 2056, 2256 and 2258 bunk beds.
The metal bunk beds were sold in twin/twin and twin/full sizes.
A Coaster Company of America label can be found on the bed frame
of the top bunk. The enamel finishes come in blue, black, red,
yellow, or white.

Furniture stores nationwide sold the bunk beds from June 2000
through February 2004 for between $150 and $250.

Consumers should stop using the bunk beds immediately and call
Coaster of America for a free repair kit.  For more information,
contact the Company by Phone: (800) 282-9362 between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.coastercompany.com


CONCORD EFS: TN Court Refuses To Block Vote on First Data Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Shelby County Circuit Court in Tennessee refused to enjoin
the shareholder vote for the merger between Concord EFS, Inc.
and a subsidiary of First Data Corporation.

On April 3 and 4, 2003 two purported class actions were filed on
behalf of the public holders of the Company's common stock
(excluding shareholders related to or affiliated with the
individual defendants). The defendants in those actions were
certain current and former officers and directors of Concord.
The complaints generally alleged breaches of the defendants'
duty of loyalty and due care in connection with the defendants'
alleged attempt to sell Concord without maximizing the value to
shareholders in order to advance the defendants' alleged
individual interests in obtaining indemnification agreements
related to the securities litigation discussed above and other
derivative litigation.  The complaints sought class
certification, injunctive relief directing the defendants'
conduct in connection with an alleged sale or auction of
Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other
costs and relief the Court deems just and proper.

On April 2, 2003 an additional purported class action complaint
was filed by Barton K. O'Brien.  The defendants were the
Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and First Data, which was subsequently dismissed from
the action.  This complaint contained allegations regarding the
individual defendants' alleged insider trading and alleged
violations of securities and other laws and asserted that this
alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered to our
shareholders in the proposed merger between the Company and a
subsidiary of First Data.  The complaint sought class
certification, attorneys' fees, experts' fees, costs and other
relief the Court deems just and proper.  Moreover, the complaint
also sought an order enjoining consummation of the merger,
rescinding the merger if it is consummated and setting it aside
or awarding rescissory damages to members of the putative class,
and directing the defendants to account to the putative class
members for unspecified damages.  These complaints were
consolidated in a second amended consolidated complaint filed
September 19, 2003 into one action, styled "In re Concord EFS,
Inc. Shareholder Litigation."

On October 15, 2003, the plaintiffs "In re Concord EFS, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation" moved for leave to file a third amended
consolidated complaint similar to the previous complaints but
also alleging that the proxy statement disclosures relating to
the antitrust regulatory approval process were inadequate.  On
October 17, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote on the proposed merger
and/or the merger itself.  The Court denied the plaintiffs'
motion on October 20, 2003 but ordered deposition discovery on
an expedited basis.  The plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to
enjoin the shareholder vote, which was denied by the Court the
same day.


DK PUBLISHING: Recalls 214,000 Board Books Due To Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
DK Publishing, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 214,000
Children's Board Books with Sound Maker.  The sound maker
mounted inside a plastic covering on the last page of the books
poses a choking hazard to young children if removed.

DK Publishing has received one report of a 22-month- old child
detaching the sound maker of one of the books and putting it in
his mouth.  The child was not injured.

The heavy cardboard books were sold under eight different titles
that feature photos or illustrations of the title theme:
Dinosaurs, Emergency! (with a fire truck on the cover), Kitty's
Adventure, On The Road (with a yellow Volkswagon Beetle on the
cover), Puppy's Busy Day, Tractors, Trains and Trucks. All the
books have a raised sound button in the lower right corner,
which features a sound relevant to the title. The "DK" logo is
in the lower left corner of the books.

Bookstores, gift stores, news stands, discount department stores
and warehouse clubs sold these items nationwide, and directly to
consumers by phone order from March 2001 through April 2004 for
about $8.

Consumers should take these books away from young children
immediately and contact DK Publishing to receive a replacement
book of equal value or a refund.  Consumers should contact DK
Publishing by Phone: (800) 505-4726 between 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.
ET Monday through Thursday and between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. ET on
Friday, or by E-mail: recall@dk.com.


EDELBROCK CORPORATION: Faces Securities Fraud Suits in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edelbrock Corporation faces three securities class actions filed
in the Court of Chancery for New Castle County, Delaware.  The
suits are:

     (1) Robert Garfield v. O. Victor Edelbrock, et al., No.
         374-N;

     (2) William Steiner v. Edelbrock Corporation, et al., No.
         377-N; and

     (3) Roger Delgado v. Edelbrock Corporation, et al., No.
         388-N

The suits were filed on behalf of a class of all the Company's
stockholders (other than the defendants) against the Company and
its directors.  The suits allege that terms of the proposal
presented by Mr. Edelbrock are unfair and inadequate and that
the defendants other than Mr. Edelbrock have responded to that
proposal in a manner that violates their fiduciary duties to the
plaintiff class.  The action seeks to enjoin consummation of the
transaction contemplated by the proposal or, if it has been
consummated, rescission of the transaction and/or damages.


ELECTRONIC DATA: TX Court Refuses To Dismiss Stock, ERISA Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas refused to dismiss the securities fraud class action and
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) violations suit
filed against Electronic Data Systems Corporation and certain of
its former officers.

Numerous purported shareholder class action suits were filed
from September through December 2002 in response to its
September 18, 2002 earnings pre-announcement, publicity about
certain equity hedging transactions that it had entered into,
and the drop in the price of the Company's common stock.   The
cases allege violations of various federal securities laws and
common law fraud based upon purported misstatements and/or
omissions of material facts regarding the Company's financial
condition.

In addition, five purported class actions were filed on behalf
of participants in the EDS 401(k) Plan against the Company,
certain of its current and former officers and, in some cases,
its directors, alleging the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties under ERISA and made misrepresentations to the class
regarding the value of EDS shares. The Company's motions to
centralize all of the foregoing cases in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas have been granted.


Representatives of two committees responsible for administering
the EDS 401(k) Plan notified the Company of their demand for
payment of amounts they believe are owing to plan participants
under Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act of 1933 as a result
of an alleged failure to register certain shares of EDS common
stock sold pursuant to the plan during a period of approximately
one year ending on November 18, 2002.  The committee
representatives have asserted that plan participants to whom
shares were sold during the applicable period are entitled to
receive a return of the amounts paid for the shares, plus
interest and less any income received, upon tender of the shares
to EDS.

On July 7, 2003, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
securities action and the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated
ERISA action each filed a consolidated class action complaint.
The amended consolidated complaint in the securities action
alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, Rule 10b5 thereunder and Section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain of its former officers made false and misleading
statements about the financial condition of EDS, particularly
with respect to the NMCI contract and the accounting for that
contract.  The class period is alleged to be from February 7,
2001 to September 18, 2002.

The consolidated complaint in the ERISA action alleges violation
of fiduciary duties under ERISA by some or all of the defendants
and violation of Section 12(a)(1) of the Securities Act by
selling unregistered EDS shares to plan participants.  The named
defendants are EDS and, with respect to the ERISA claims,
certain current and former officers of EDS, members of the
Compensation and Benefits Committee of its Board of Directors,
and certain current and former members of the two committees
responsible for administering the plan.

The Company's motions to dismiss the consolidated securities
action and the consolidated ERISA action were denied by the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on January 13,
2004 and February 3, 2004, respectively.  A trial commencement
date of September 26, 2005 has been established for the
consolidated securities action and the consolidated ERISA
action.


FIRST DATA: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Consumer Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York granted preliminary approval for the settlement proposed by
First Data Corporation for the consolidated class action filed
against the Company and its subsidiary, Western Union Financial
Services, Inc.

The suit asserts claims on behalf of a putative worldwide class
(excluding members of the settlement class of similar actions
previously filed against the Company and its subsidiaries).  The
plaintiffs claim that the Company, Western Union and Orlandi
Valuta impose an undisclosed "charge" when they transmit
consumers' money by wire either from the United States to
international locations or from international locations to the
United States, in that the exchange rate used in these
transactions is less favorable than the exchange rate that
Western Union and Orlandi Valuta receive when they trade
currency in the international money market.

Plaintiffs further assert that Western Union's failure to
disclose this "charge" in the transactions violates 18 U.S.C.
section 1961 et seq. and state deceptive trade practices
statutes, and also asserts claims for civil conspiracy.  The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages in an
amount to be proven at trial, treble damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.

The parties to this action reached a proposed settlement of all
claims.  Western Union (and, with respect to money transfer
transactions from the U.S. other than California to Mexico,
Orlandi Valuta) will issue coupons for discounts on future
international money transfer transactions to customers who
transferred money from the U.S. to certain countries other than
Mexico between January 1, 1995 and approximately March 31, 2000
(for certain services, Western Union will issue coupons for
transactions conducted as late as December 31, 2001), from
anywhere in the U.S. other than California to Mexico between
September 1, 1999 and March 31, 2000 (again, for certain
services, Western Union will issue coupons for transactions
conducted as late as December 31, 2001), from countries other
than Canada to the U.S. between January 1, 1995 and March 31,
2000, and from Canada to the U.S. between January 1, 1995 and
approximately July 31, 2002.  The settlement also includes
injunctive relief requiring Western Union and Orlandi Valuta to
make additional disclosures regarding their foreign exchange
practices; and reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs as
well as the costs of settlement notice and administration.  A
small number of class members filed objections to or requests
for exclusion from the proposed settlement.  The Court has
granted preliminary approval of the proposed settlement, granted
approval of the proposed form and manner of class notice, and
held a Fairness Hearing on April 9, 2004.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corporation faces a consolidated class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California relating to its ANCURE ENDOGRAFT System for the
treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysms.

>On June 12, 2003, the Company announced that its subsidiary,
EndoVascular Technologies, Inc. (EVT), had entered into a plea
agreement with the US Department of Justice relating to a
previously disclosed investigation regarding the ANCURE
ENDOGRAFT System.  At the time of the EVT plea, the Company had
outstanding fourteen suits alleging product liability related
causes of action relating to the ANCURE System.  The Company
settled eleven of the suits that predated the EVT plea.

Subsequent to the EVT plea, the Company has been served with
approximately thirty-five additional individual complaints, and
more such suits are likely to be filed.  These cases generally
allege that plaintiffs died or suffered other injuries as a
result of purported defects in the device or the accompanying
warnings and labeling.  The complaints seek damages, including
punitive damages, and equitable relief.  An additional complaint
includes state-law allegations of unfair trade and business
practices relating to sales of the product.


GUIDANT CORPORATION: Asks IN Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Guidant Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana to dismiss the consolidated
class action filed against it, Endovascular Technologies, Inc.
and certain of their current and former officers.

The suit alleged that during all or a portion of the period from
June 23, 1999, through June 12, 2003, public statements by the
Company relating to the ANCURE System were false and misleading.
Damages are sought on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired Company shares during that period.


IBP INC.: SD Court Grants Final Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of South
Dakota granted final approval to the settlement proposed by IBP,
Inc. for the securities class action filed against it on behalf
of of all persons who purchased IBP, Inc. stock between February
7, 2000, and January 25, 2001.  The suit is styled "In re IBP,
inc. Securities Litigation."

The complaint, seeking unspecified compensatory damages, alleged
that IBP and certain members of management violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 thereunder, and claimed IBP issued materially false
statements about IBP's financial results in order to inflate its
stock price.  The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss on December
21, 2001, which was then fully briefed.

While the motion was awaiting decision, IBP and the plaintiffs
reached a tentative settlement of all claims, as reflected by a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that was executed on March 19,
2003.  In July 2003, a finalized Stipulation of Settlement
consistent with the MOU was executed and submitted to the court
for its preliminary approval.  In light of this tentative
settlement, IBP was permitted by the court to withdraw its
pending motion to dismiss, without prejudice.  On July 31, 2003,
the court issued an order preliminarily approving the
settlement, preliminarily certifying a Settlement Class of all
persons who purchased IBP common stock during the period from
February 7, 2000, through January 25, 2001, and approving
proposed notice to the Settlement Class members.  A class notice
was subsequently provided by plaintiffs to class members,
informing them, among other things, of the tentative settlement
and of their ability to file objections within a required
period.  No objections to the settlement were filed by class
members.  On February 24, 2004, the court granted final approval
to the settlement and issued a judgment order consistent with
its terms that, among other things, dismissed all of plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice.  No appeals from this judgment or any
other order were taken, and the time for any such appeal has
expired.


JENKINS GILCHRIST: NY Court Approves $75M Tax Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
New York Federal District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin granted
preliminary approval of the $75 million class action settlement
negotiated for former tax shelter clients of the national law
firm of Jenkens & Gilchrist.

In an order signed late Friday, Judge Scheindlin also granted
preliminary certification of the proposed plaintiffs class and
appointed the Dallas law firm of Shore Deary, LLP, as lead class
counsel.

"We're extremely pleased that the court has granted preliminary
approval of the settlement and the proposed class," says lead
plaintiffs' attorney David Deary, the chief negotiator of the
settlement that was announced March 5. "This settlement, for
many reasons, is in the best interest of all class members, and
allows the class members to continue to pursue their claims
against other parties that have significant liability and much
deeper pockets."

The proposed class includes more than 1,100 taxpayers in 41
states who participated in tax shelters designed, marketed and
implemented to the class members by Jenkens & Gilchrist and
others from January 1999 through December 2003. The Internal
Revenue Service has declared those shelters invalid, and is
seeking millions of dollars in back taxes, interest, and
penalties.

In addition to the $75 million payment, Jenkens & Gilchrist will
be providing the class members with documents and information as
to the roles of, and fees paid to, other parties that
participated in the design, marketing, implementation and sale
of the tax shelter transactions to the class members.

For more details, contact attorney David R. Deary by Phone:
214-292-2603 or 214-926-1399 or Bruce Vincent by Phone:
214-728-6747 or by Pager: 888-361-8452


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Discovery Proceeds in DE Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the securities class action filed
against Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Seragen, Inc., a
wholly-owned subsidiary, styled "Sergio M. Oliver, et al. v.
Boston University, et al., C.A. No. 16570NC," in the Court of
Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.
The suit also names as defendants Boston University and others,
including Seragen, its subsidiary Seragen Technology, Inc. and
former officers and directors of Seragen.

The complaint, as amended, alleged that the Company aided and
abetted purported breaches of fiduciary duty by the Seragen
related defendants in connection with the acquisition of Seragen
by Ligand and made certain misrepresentations in related proxy
materials and seeks compensatory and punitive damages of an
unspecified amount.

On July 25, 2000, the Court granted in part and denied in part
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  Seragen, Ligand, Seragen
Technology, Inc. and the Company's acquisition subsidiary,
Knight Acquisition Corporation, were dismissed from the action.
Claims of breach of fiduciary duty remain against the remaining
defendants, including the former officers and directors of
Seragen.  The hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification took place on February 26, 2001.  The court
certified a class consisting of shareholders as of the date of
the acquisition and on the date of an earlier business unit sale
by Seragen.


NTL EUROPE: Suits For Securities Fraud Consolidated in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class actions filed against NTL Europe, Inc. and
some of its former officers, including its former president and
chief executive officer Barclay Knapp were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

A number of purported securities class action lawsuits and one
individual action were filed by former NTL Europe, Inc
stockholders, alleging that the defendants failed to disclose
NTL Europe's financial condition, finances and future prospects
accurately in press releases and other communications with
investors prior to filing its Chapter 11 case in federal court.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the actions and, on July
31, 2003, the court entered an order dismissing the complaint in
the individual action without prejudice to filing an amended
complaint and deferred its decision on the complaint in the
class actions.  On August 20, 2003, the plaintiff in the
individual action filed an amended complaint.  The defendants
filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint in the individual
actions.  Accordingly the motions to dismiss all actions are now
currently pending.

While the Company has been released from personal monetary
liability in these actions as a result of the completion of the
Plan, the case remains pending against NTL Europe and the
individuals named as defendants.


PEET'S COFFEE: CA Court Approves Settlement for Overtime Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Orange
preliminarily approved the settlement proposed by Peet's Coffee
& Tea, Inc. to settle the class actions filed against it, styled
"Brian Taraz, et al vs. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc.," and "Tracy
Coffee, et al. vs. Peet's Coffee & Tea, Inc."

One former and one current store manager filed these suits
alleging misclassification of employment position and sought
damages, restitution, reclassification and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On March 4, 2004, the Superior Court granted preliminary
approval of a settlement of the suits and conditional
certification of the class for settlement purposes.  The
settlement is subject to the court's final approval, the
Company's right to terminate if more than 10% of the settlement
class opts out of the settlement and the plaintiffs' right to
terminate if claims by class members in the aggregate exceed
more than 10% of the number of work weeks specified in the
settlement agreement.  Subject to the court's final approval,
the Company expects to pay the claims during the second half of
2004.


RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Store Managers File Overtime Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
styled "Alphonse L. Perez, et al. v. RadioShack Corporation."
The suit alleges that the company misclassified certain
RadioShack store managers as exempt from overtime in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

While the alleged damages in this lawsuit are undetermined, they
could be substantial, the Company said in a regulatory filing.


RENT-WAY INC.: PA Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania granted final approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Rent-Way, Inc., its former
independent accountants, and certain of its current and former
officers.  The suit alleges violations of the securities laws
and seeking damages in unspecified amounts purportedly on behalf
of a class of shareholders.

On April 18, 2003, the Company entered into an agreement
settling the class action.  The settlement required the Company
to pay the class the sum of $25,000, with $21,000 in cash and
$4,000 in 6% unsecured subordinated notes payable in four equal
installments over two years commencing December 31, 2003. Of the
$21,000 payable in cash, $11,000 has been funded from available
insurance proceeds; the remaining $10,000 was funded into escrow
and was classified as restricted cash on the consolidated
balance sheet at September 30, 2003.  The settlement agreement
provided for the release of the Company and all other defendants
except the Company's former controller and the Company's former
independent accountants.


SHERWIN WILLIAMS: RI To Re-Try Suit Filed Over Lead-Based Paint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Rhode Island intends to re-try its lawsuit filed
against Sherwin Williams Co. along with other firms, over the
Company's manufacture and sale of lead-based paints and lead
pigments

The Company, along with other companies, were named in a number
of legal proceedings, including purported class actions,
separate actions brought by the State of Rhode Island, and
actions brought by various counties, cities, school districts
and other government-related entities.  The plaintiffs are
seeking recovery based upon various legal theories, including:

     (1) negligence,

     (2) strict liability,

     (3) breach of warranty,

     (4) negligent misrepresentations and omissions,

     (5) fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions,

     (6) concert of action,

     (7) civil conspiracy,

     (8) violations of unfair trade practices and consumer
         protection laws,

     (9) enterprise liability,

    (10) market share liability,

    (11) nuisance,

    (12) unjust enrichment and

    (13) other theories

The plaintiffs seek various damages and relief, including
personal injury and property damage, costs relating to the
detection and abatement of lead-based paint from buildings,
costs associated with a public education campaign, medical
monitoring costs and others.

The Company expects that additional lead pigment and lead-based
paint litigation may be filed against the Company in the future
asserting similar or different legal theories and seeking
similar or different types of damages and relief, it stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

During September 2002, a jury trial commenced in the first phase
of the action brought by the State of Rhode Island against the
Company and the other defendants.  The sole issue before the
court in this first phase was whether lead pigment in paint
constitutes a public nuisance under Rhode Island law.  This
first phase did not consider the issues of liability or damages,
if any, related to the public nuisance claim.  In October 2002,
the court declared a mistrial as the jury, which was split four
to two in favor of the defendants, was unable to reach a
unanimous decision.

This was the first legal proceeding against the Company to go to
trial relating to the Company's lead pigment and lead-based
paint litigation.  The State of Rhode Island has decided to
retry the case and a trial has been scheduled for April 2005.
The Company believes it is possible that additional legal
proceedings could be scheduled for trial during 2004 and
subsequent years.


SILICON IMAGE: Reaches Settlement For NY, FL Securities Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Image, Inc. proposed a settlement for the securities
class action filed against it, certain of its officers and
directors, and its underwriters in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, captioned Gonzales
v. Silicon Image, et al., No. 01 CV 10903 (SDNY 2001).

The lawsuit alleges that all defendants were part of a scheme to
manipulate the price of the Company's stock in the aftermarket
following the Company's initial public offering in October 1999.
Response to the complaint and discovery in this action on behalf
of Silicon Image and individual defendants has been stayed by
order of the court.

The lawsuit is proceeding as part of a coordinated action of
over 300 such cases brought by plaintiffs in the Southern
District of New York.  Pursuant to a tolling agreement,
individual defendants have been dropped from the suit for the
time being.  In February 2003, the Court denied the
underwriters' motion to dismiss and ordered that the case may
proceed against issuers including against the Company. A
proposed settlement has been negotiated that has yet to be
reviewed and approved by the Court.

The Company, certain officers and directors, and its
underwriters were named as defendants in a securities class
action lawsuit captioned Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston
Corp., et al., No. 03-20459 (S.D. Fla. 2003) pending in Federal
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  The
plaintiff filed an action on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased stock from some or all of
approximately 50 issuers whose public offerings were
underwritten by Credit Suisse First Boston.

The lawsuit alleges that Silicon Image and certain officers were
part of a scheme by Credit Suisse First Boston to artificially
inflate the price of Silicon Image's stock through the
dissemination of allegedly false analysts' reports.

The plaintiff in this matter has filed an amended complaint in
which Silicon Image, and the named officers, were dropped as
defendants.  The Company believes that the proposed settlement
described above, if approved, would encompass the claims in this
case.


SILICON IMAGE: Plaintiffs Drop Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dismissed the securities class action filed against
Silicon Image, Inc. and certain of its officers, captioned "In
re Silicon Image, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. C-03-5579 JW
PVT," pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Plaintiffs filed the action on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased Silicon Image stock between April 15,
2002 and November 15, 2003.  The lawsuit alleges that Silicon
Image had materially overstated its licensing revenue, net
income and financial results during this time period, and that
Silicon Image was being forced to restate its financial results.

Following the announcement by the Audit Committee of Silicon
Image's s Board of Directors that it has completed its
examination and that it has concluded that no changes to Silicon
Image's previously announced financial results are required, the
plaintiffs dismissed the lawsuit.


STEVEN MADDEN: NY Court To Hear Settlement Arguments May 19,2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York will hold a fairness hearing on May 19,2004 for the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Steven Madden, Ltd., Steven Madden, Rhonda J. Brown (the
former President and a former director of the Company) and
Arvind Dharia.

Eight suits were initially filed, namely:

     (1) Wilner v. Steven Madden, Ltd., et al., 00 CV 3676
         (filed June 21, 2000);

     (2) Connor v. Steven Madden, et al., 00 CV 3709 (filed June
         22, 2000);

     (3) Blumenthal v. Steven Madden, Ltd., et al., 00 CV 3709
         (filed June 23, 2000);

     (4) Curry v. Steven Madden, Ltd., et al., 00 CV 3766 (filed
         June 26, 2000);

     (5) Dempster v. Steven Madden Ltd., et al., 00 CV 3702
         (filed June 30, 2000);

     (6) Salafia v. Steven Madden, Ltd., et al., 00 CV 4289
         (filed July 24, 2000);

     (7) Fahey v. Steven Madden, Ltd., et al., 00 CV 4712 (filed
         August 11, 2000);

     (8) Process Engineering Services, Inc. v. Steven Madden,
         Ltd., et al., 00 CV 5002 (filed August 22, 2000)

By Order dated December 8, 2000, the Court consolidated these
eight actions, appointed Process Engineering, Inc., Michael
Fasci and Mark and Libby Adams as lead plaintiffs and approved
their selection of lead counsel.  A settlement of these actions
has been reached, subject to notice to the putative class
members, a hearing and approval by the court.


TULARIK INC.: Shareholders File Suit Over Amgen Merger in DE, CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tularik, Inc. faces three purported class actions filed in
connection with its proposed merger with Amgen, Inc.  The three
suits also named as defendants the Company's Board of Directors
and Amgen.  The suits were filed on behalf of all Company
stockholders except the defendants and those related to or
affiliated with any of the defendants.

On March 29, 2004, a lawsuit was filed by Janis Zvokel in the
Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New Castle
County.  In addition, on April 7, 2004, Zvokel served a First
Request for Production of Documents on all defendants.

On March 30, 2004, a second lawsuit containing class action
allegations was filed by Fred Zucker in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.  On April
7, 2004, Mary Kahler filed a third lawsuit containing class
action allegations in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo.

All of the complaints allege that the Company's Board of
Directors and Amgen breached fiduciary duties owed to Tularik
stockholders, or aided and abetted such breaches, and that the
consideration to be paid to the class members in the proposed
merger is unfair and inadequate because the intrinsic value of
our common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered
for those securities.  The complaints further allege that
conflicts exist between defendants' self-interests and their
fiduciary obligation to maximize stockholder value, and that
these conflicts have not been resolved in the best interests of
Tularik stockholders.  The lawsuits all seek injunctive relief
to prevent the closing of the merger, as well as compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.


TYSON FOODS: Discovery Completed in Employees' Wage Suit in AL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is largely completed in the class action filed against
Tyson Foods, Inc. by 11 current and former employees in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, styled "M.H. Fox, et al. v. Tyson Foods, Inc. (Fox v.
Tyson)."

The suit alleges that the Company violated requirements of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  The suit alleges the Company
failed to pay employees for all hours worked and/or improperly
paid them for overtime hours.  The suit specifically alleges
that employees should be paid for time taken to put on and take
off certain working supplies at the beginning and end of their
shifts and breaks and the use of "mastercard" or "line" time
fails to pay employees for all time actually worked.

Plaintiffs seek to represent themselves and all similarly
situated current and former employees of the Company, and
plaintiffs seek reimbursement for an unspecified amount of
unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney fees and costs.  At
filing, 159 current and/or former employees consented to join
the lawsuit and, to date, approximately 5,100 consents have been
filed with the court.  Plaintiff's motion for conditional
collective treatment and court-supervised notice to additional
putative class members was denied on February 27, 2004.  The
plaintiffs refiled their motion for conditional collective
treatment and court-supervised notice to additional putative
class members on April 2, 2004.  No trial date has been set.


TYSON FOODS: FLSA Violations Lawsuit Remanded To E.D. PA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
lawsuit filed by seven employees of Tyson Foods, Inc., styled
"De Asencio v. Tyson Foods, Inc.," to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The employees claim violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) for allegedly failing to pay for time taken to put on,
take off and sanitize certain working supplies, and violations
of the Pennsylvania Wage Payment and Collection Law.  Plaintiffs
seek to represent themselves and all similarly situated current
and former employees of the poultry processing plant in New
Holland, Pennsylvania, and plaintiffs seek reimbursement for an
unspecified amount of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, attorney
fees and costs.

Currently, there are approximately 500 additional current or
former employees who have filed consents to join the lawsuit.
The court, on January 30, 2001, ordered that notice of the
lawsuit be issued to all potential plaintiffs at the New Holland
facilities.  On July 17, 2002, the court granted the plaintiffs'
motion to certify the state law claims.  On September 23, 2002,
the Third Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to hear the Company's
petition to review the court's decision to certify the state law
claims.

On September 8, 2003, the Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's certification of a class under the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment & Collection Law, ruling that those claims could not be
pursued in federal court.  The appellate court further ruled
that the Company must reissue notice of their potential FLSA
claims to approximately 1,500 employees who did not previously
receive notice.


TYSON FOODS: Current, Former Employees Opt-out of TN FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 500 current and former Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.
employees have opted out of the lawsuit filed against it
(formerly IBP, Inc.) and Tyson Foods, Inc., styled "Emily D.
Jordan, et al. v. IBP, Inc. and Tyson Foods, Inc."

The suit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee, was filed on behalf of "similarly
situated" employees, claiming that the defendants have violated
the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
To date, approximately 100 other current and/or former employees
have consented to the suit.

The suit alleges that the Company has failed to pay employees
for all hours worked from the plant's commencement of operations
under TFM's control in April 2001.  The Company acquired the
plant as part of its acquisition of TFM.  In particular, the
suit alleges that employees should be paid for the time it takes
to collect, assemble, and put on, take off and wash their
health, safety, and production gear at the beginning and end of
their shifts and during their meal period.  The suit also
alleges that the Company deducts 30 minutes per day from
employees' paychecks regardless of whether employees obtain a
full 30-minute period for their meal.

Plaintiffs are seeking a declaration that the defendants did not
comply with the FLSA, and an award for an unspecified amount of
back pay compensation and benefits, unpaid entitlements,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
attorney fees and costs.

On January 10, 2003, another 31 employees from Tennessee filed
consents to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs.  On January 15,
2003, the Company filed an answer to the complaint denying any
liability.  On January 14, 2003, the named plaintiffs filed a
motion for expedited court-supervised notice to prospective
class members.  The motion sought to conditionally certify a
class of similarly situated employees at all of TFM's non-
unionized facilities that have not been the subject of FLSA
litigation.  Plaintiffs then withdrew a request for conditional
certification of similarly situated employees at all of TFM's
non-unionized facilities and rather sought to include all non-
exempt employees that have worked at the Goodlettsville facility
since its opening on April 1, 2001.  On June 9, 2003, the
Company filed a Motion for Summary Judgment seeking the
applicability of the injunction entered by the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas and affirmed by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, which the Company contends
has a preclusive effect as to plaintiff's claims based on pre-
and post-shift activities.  The Plaintiffs are conducting
discovery limited to that issue in order to respond to said
Motion by June 18, 2004.

On November 17, 2003, the district court conditionally certified
a collective action composed of similarly situated current and
former employees at the Goodlettsville facility based upon
clothes changing and washing activities and unpaid production
work during meal periods, since the plant operations began in
April 2001.  Class Notices to approximately 4,500 prospective
class members were mailed on January 21, 2004.



TYSON FOODS: Asks OK High Court To Review Lawsuit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. asked the Oklahoma Supreme Court to review a
lower court's ruling granting class certification to the lawsuit
filed againt it by R. Lynn Thompson and Deborah S. Thompson on
behalf of all owners of Grand Lake O' the Cherokee's littoral
(lake front) property.

The suit, filed in the District Court for Mayes County,
Oklahoma, alleges that the Company "or entities over which it
has operational control" conduct operations in such a way as to
interfere with the putative class action plaintiffs' use and
enjoyment of their property, allegedly caused by diminished
water quality in the lake.  Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive
relief and an unspecified amount of compensatory damages,
punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.

Simmons Foods, Inc. and Peterson Farms, Inc. have been joined
as defendants.  The Company and Simmons are seeking leave to
file a third party complaint against entities that contribute
wastes and wastewater into Grand Lake.  The class certification
hearing was held in October 2003.  On December 11, 2003, the
trial court entered an order granting class certification.  On
January 12, 2004, the Company, Simmons and Peterson filed a
Petition in Error in the Oklahoma Supreme Court challenging and
requesting appellate level review of the trial court's
certification order.  The Oklahoma Supreme Court has not yet
scheduled proceedings on the Petition.


TYSON FOODS: Asks DE Court To Grant Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyson Foods, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware to grant summary judgment in the class
action filed against it, Don Tyson, John Tyson and Les Baledge
on behalf of a purported class of those who sold IBP stock from
March 29, 2001, when the Company announced its intention to
terminate its Merger Agreement with IBP, through June 15, 2001,
when a Delaware state court rendered its Post-Trial Opinion
ordering the merger to proceed.

Plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by making, causing or allowing to be made,
certain allegedly false and misleading statements in a March 29,
2001, press release issued in connection with the Company's
attempted termination of the Merger Agreement.  The plaintiffs
alleged that, as a result of the defendants' alleged conduct,
purported class members were harmed by an alleged artificial
deflation in the price of IBP's stock during the proposed class
period.   The suit is styled "In re Tyson Foods, Inc. Securities
Litigation."

On January 22, 2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint.  By memorandum order dated October
23, 2002, the court granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss.  On October 6, 2003, the court
certified a class consisting of those who purchased IBP
securities on or before March 29, 2001, and subsequently sold
such securities from March 30 through June 15, 2001, inclusive,
and sustained damages as a result of such transaction.
Discovery in the case has concluded.  Plaintiffs and defendants
have each filed motions for summary judgment, and oral arguments
on those motions is scheduled for May 27, 2004.  In the event
summary judgment is not granted, a jury trial date of August 11,
2004 has been set.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ASCONI CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Asconi Corporation securities (AMEX:ACD).

The complaint alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations and omissions of material facts concerning
the company's business performance during the relevant time.
According to the complaint, throughout the relevant time period,
defendants misrepresented the financial condition of Asconi and
failed to disclose certain related party transactions, thereby
overstating the financial condition of Asconi. The company has
delayed the filing of its annual Report on Form 10-K with the
SEC, its stock price has collapsed and the stock has ceased
trading.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron Patton at
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, Suite
801, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-Mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


ASCONI CORPORATION: Berman DeValerio Lodges Lawsuit in M.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo initiated a
securities class action on behalf of an investor who claimed
that Asconi Corporation (AMEX:ACD) and two of its top officers
issued misleading financial statements to the investing public.
The Suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Florida. The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of
federal securities laws on behalf of all investors who bought
Asconi common stock from June 11, 2001, through and including
March 23, 2004.  The complaint, Nacuta v. Asconi Corp., et. al.,
is filed as Civil Action No. 6:04-CV-721-ORL-28JGG.

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.
The complaint names as defendants: Asconi Corp.; Constantin
Jitaru, who was at all relevant times Asconi's president,
chairman and chief executive officer; and Anatolie Sirbu, who
was at all relevant times Asconi's chief financial officer,
treasurer and secretary.

The complaint alleges that Asconi issued materially false and
misleading information to the investing public during the Class
Period that artificially inflated the Company's stock price by
overstating earnings and failing to disclose related party
transactions.

On March 23, 2004, Asconi announced that it was the subject of
an SEC investigation and that the Company would be restating its
previously reported financial results, the complaint says.
Specifically, Asconi revealed that it would be required to take
a charge against earnings for the 2003 issuance of common stock
to Mr. Jitaru and Mr. Sirbu which was not disclosed until
December 2003, at the earliest. Asconi further disclosed that
certain of its other related party transactions were also
subject to regulatory scrutiny and may require additional
restatements, possibly involving financials for the previous
three years.

On this news, Asconi stock fell sharply, dropping from a closing
price of $6.64 per share on March 22, 2004 to $4.93 before
trading of the Company's common stock was halted on March 23,
2004.

On May 3, 2004, Asconi announced that its review and restatement
efforts would be extended to include the Company's financial
statements for all of fiscal years 2001, 2002 and 2003.

For more details, contact Michael J. Pucillo, Esq. or Jay W.
Eng, Esq. of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo by
Mail: Northbridge Centre, Suite 1701, 515 North Flagler Drive,
West Palm Beach, FL 33401 by Phone: (800) 349-4612 by E-Mail:
lawfla@bermanesq.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Asconicplt.pdf


GENTA INC.: Squitieru & Fearon Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Genta Inc.
(Nasdaq:GNTA) ("Genta" or the "Company") securities during the
period September 10, 2003 through May 3, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint charges Genta and certain of its officers and
directors with violating the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements that inflated the
price of the Company's securities. During the Class Period
defendants misrepresented the safety of the Company's drug,
Genasense, for advanced melanoma. Defendants falsely represented
to the investing public that Genasense did not appear to be
associated with serious adverse reactions in the Phase 3
clinical trial. In fact, defendants knew that the use of
Genasense was associated with increased toxicity and
discontinuation due to adverse events and that FDA approval of
the Genasense NDA was unlikely because the increased toxicity
and adverse events associated with the use of Genasense
outweighed its marginal benefits.

On April 20, 2004, the staff of the Oncologic Drugs Advisory
Committee (ODAC) of the FDA stated that the Phase 3 clinical
trial of Genasense failed to demonstrate a survival benefit and
the staff also stated: "Survival was not improved and toxicity
was increased."

As a result of this announcement, the price of Genta shares
dropped $5.83 or 40.4% to close at $8.60 on the NASDAQ market on
unusually high volume of over 30 million shares traded.
On May 3, 2004, the ODAC ruled by a 13-3 vote that the evidence
presented did not provide substantial evidence of effectiveness
to outweigh the increased toxicity of Genasense. In response to
this announcement, the price of Genta shares fell more than $3
per share, to close at $5.11 on May 3, 2004 at a high volume of
over 17 million shares traded.

For more details, contact Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP by Phone: (212) 575-2092 or by E-Mail:
Stephen@sfclasslaw.com


GENTA INC.: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a securities class
action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Genta, Inc.
(Nasdaq:GNTA) between February 24, 2003 and May 3, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, against defendants Genta, Raymond P.
Warrell, Jr. (President, CEO, Director) and William P. Keane
(Chief Financial Officer).

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
artificially inflated the price of Genta stock by concealing
material information about the safety and efficacy of Genasense,
a potential blockbuster anticancer agent that was being reviewed
for approval by the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA"). The
complaint alleges that:

     (1) defendants did not maintain sufficient documentation to
         support the Company's repeated claims that Genasense
         could demonstrate an "overall survival benefit";

     (2) the Genasense data submitted by the Company to the FDA
         was unclear, and that much of the improvement noted by
         the Company in its studies was not documented and could
         not be isolated and identified;

     (3) defendants lacked a good faith basis to claim that
         approval of Genasense was reasonably foreseeable; and

     (4) as a result of the deficiencies in the Genasense FDA
         application, it was not foreseeable at any time during
         the Class Period that Genta would be able to achieve
         profitability in the near-term.

On April 30, 2004, Genta shareholders learned that the FDA
advisory panel had voted 13-3 in favor of recommending that the
FDA reject the Genasense application for Genta's failure to
demonstrate that Genasense's benefits outweighed its risks and
side effects. That day, the FDA issued a statement regarding
Genasense stating the advisory panel determined that Genta had
failed to demonstrate either that Genasense performed as
promised or that the Company maintained the data to support its
claims of efficacy.

In reaction to this announcement, the price of Genta common
stock plummeted, falling almost $6.00 per share, to below $8.45
per share. In the days that followed shares of the Company
continued to trade lower as investors digested the news, trading
to below $5.00 by May 4, 2004.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. or David R.
Buchanan, Esq. or Eric T. Chaffin, Esq. by Mail: One William
Street STE 1000, New York, NY, 10004 by Phone: (877) 539-4125 or
212-584-0700 by E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com or
dbuchanan@seegerweiss.com or echaffin@seegerweiss.com or visit
their Web Site: http://www.seegerweiss.com


GENTA INC.: Murray Frank Commences Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, initiated a securities class action
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired Genta Inc. securities (NASDAQ:GNTA) between
March 26, 2001 through May 3, 2004, inclusive.  The Complaint
names Raymond P. Warrell Jr., Loretta M. Itri, and the Company
as defendants.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In
particular, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that most patients enrolled in the Genasense Phase III
         study were asymptomatic and that 56% were "ECOG
         performance status 0" (fully active, able to carry on
         all pre-disease performance without restriction) at
         baseline;

     (2) that attempts to stratify and balance prognostic
         factors during the randomization of patients were
         unsuccessful, resulting in imbalances, including fewer
         patients with visceral disease-lactate dehydrogenase
         elevations (59% versus 67% in the DTIC alone arm);

     (3) that the majority of patients in both arms went off
         study after 6 weeks (two cycles) because of progressive
         disease;

     (4) that the study failed to show a survival benefit from
         the combination of Genasense plus DTIC using an
         unadjusted log rank analysis of survival time for the
         intention-to-treat population (p = 0.18, HR=0.89);

     (5) that as a result of "missing data," defendants employed
         a censoring procedure of "last observation carried
         forward" for analysis of secondary endpoints, to show a
         statistically significant benefit in progression-free
         survival;

     (6) that as a result of "missing data" and the questionable
         manner in which defendants arrived at their analysis of
         the secondary endpoints, defendants were required to
         perform a different procedure of censoring at last
         observation for missing data;

     (7) that as a result of these analyses and further
         simulations conducted by FDA reviewers, it was clear
         that defendants' study was biased and fundamentally
         flawed - flaws which make it impossible to rule out
         that the statistically significant differences observed
         by defendants were false positive;

     (8) that of the 5 complete responses reported to the FDA by
         defendants, none were verified by their blinded,
         independent review organization;

     (9) that for all 71 responders identified by defendants,
         there was concordance with their blinded, independent
         review organization for only 49% of the
         interpretations;

    (10) that since most patients were asymptomatic at study
         entry and were performance status zero, it was
         difficult to assess whether patients achieved any
         symptom benefit from combination therapy over single-
         agent therapy;

    (11) that the addition of Genasense correlated with serious
         and alarming toxicity to patients during the study,
         including increased toxicity and discontinuations due
         to adverse events, including 69 patients (18.6%) who
         discontinued therapy for adverse events on the
         Genasense arm versus 39 (10.8%) on the DTIC alone arm;

    (12) that the rate of serious adverse events was 40% on the
         Genasense arm versus 27% on DTIC alone;

    (13) that since the dosing of DTIC was identical on the two
         arms, toxicity increases were likely due to the
         addition of Genasense;

    (14) that at the May 3, 2004 meeting of the ODAC, FDA would
         provide an accurate and transparent report of the
         concealed facts;

    (15) that the FDA and the ODAC had previously rejected an
         application that sought approval based on facts similar
         to those concealed by defendants, and specifically
         small differences in progression-free survival, a
         situation worsened in the case of Genasense as a result
         of the unreliable nature of the clinical data and the
         observation of serious toxicities cased by Genasense
         when used in combination with DTIC; and

    (16) that FDA regulations require "substantial evidence of
         efficacy" for any NDA, including NDA 21-649, and that
         no such finding could be made for Genasense since
         survival was not improved and toxicity was increased
         over the existing therapy.

On April 30, 2004, Genta announced that the FDA had posted on
its website briefing documents for the ODAC meeting on Monday,
May 3, 2004. The briefing documents suggested that Genasense
will fail to win FDA approval. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Genta fell $5.83 per share or 40% on April 30, 2004 to
close at $8.60 per share. In fact, on May 3, 2004, Genta failed
to win FDA Panel support for Genasense. News of this sent shares
of Genta falling another $3.49 per share or 40.5% to close at
$5.11 on May 3, 2004.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron Patton at
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Mail: 275 Madison Avenue, Suite
801, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818, by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-Mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


KRISPY KREME: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Fraud Suit in M.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP lodges securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc., (NYSE: KKD) ("Krispy
Kreme" or the "Company") from August 21, 2003 through May 7,
2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Krispy Kreme, Randy S. Casstevens,
Scott Livengood, Michael Phalen, and John Tate, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between August 21,
2003 and May 7, 2004, about the Company's financial condition
thereby artificially inflating the price of Krispy Kreme's
stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Krispy Kreme's core businesses, despite the
         Company's unprecedented growth, actually underperformed
         because the Company's wholesale business is costly to
         operate, the wholesale business is also undermining the
         company's retail operations, by offering doughnuts of
         inferior quality to the doughnuts customers could get
         in a store and the Company's factory stores, and
         because the Company's factory stores are expensive and
         uneconomical in smaller markets;

     (2) that the Company expanded too quickly, and would now be
         forced to shut down six factory stores and three
         Doughnut and Coffee shops in an effort to improve
         productivity;

     (3) that the Company's future strategic development plans
         with respect to Montana Mills were flawed, as the
         Company now plans to divest the Montana Mills
         operations in order to focus on its core business;

     (4) that the Company would face stiff competition from the
         more ubiquitous Dunkin' Donuts, which sells high-
         quality coffee and a more diverse line of breakfast
         foods than Krispy Kreme;

     (5) that the Company ineptly accounted for how their bottom
         line would be affected by the popular low-carbohydrate
         diets; first by claiming that the trend would have no
         influence, and then by over-exaggerating the effect of
         the diet fad;

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.

On May 7, 2004, Krispy Kreme announced, based on recent category
dynamics, it expects fiscal 2005 diluted earnings per share from
continuing operations, excluding certain charges, to be 10%
lower than previously announced guidance. News of this shocked
the market. Shares of Krispy Kreme fell $9.29 per share or 29.21
percent on May 7, 2004 to close at $22.51 per share.

For more details, contact Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP (Marc A.
Topaz, Esq. or Stuart L. Berman, Esq.) by Mail: Three Bala Plaza
East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: at
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


KRISPY KREME: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) ("Krispy Kreme" or the
"Company") publicly traded securities during the period between
August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Krispy Kreme, Randy S. Casstevens,
Scott Livengood, Michael Phalen, and John Tate, violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market between August 21,
2003 and May 7, 2004, about the Company's financial condition
thereby artificially inflating the price of Krispy Kreme's
stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Krispy Kreme's core businesses, despite the
         Company's unprecedented growth, actually underperformed
         because the Company's wholesale business is costly to
         operate, the wholesale business is also undermining the
         company's retail operations, by offering doughnuts of
         inferior quality to the doughnuts customers could get
         in a store and the Company's factory stores, and
         because the Company's factory stores are expensive and
         uneconomical in smaller markets;

     (2) that the Company expanded too quickly, and would now be
         forced to shut down six factory stores and three
         Doughnut and Coffee shops in an effort to improve
         productivity;

     (3) that the Company's future strategic development plans
         with respect to Montana Mills were flawed, as the
         Company now plans to divest the Montana Mills
         operations in order to focus on its core business;

     (4) that the Company would face stiff competition from the
         more ubiquitous Dunkin' Donuts, which sells high-
         quality coffee and a more diverse line of breakfast
         foods than Krispy Kreme;

     (5) that the Company ineptly accounted for how their bottom
         line would be affected by the popular low-carbohydrate
         diets; first by claiming that the trend would have no
         influence, and then by over-exaggerating the effect of
         the diet fad;

     (6) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.

On May 7, 2004, Krispy Kreme announced, based on recent category
dynamics, it expects fiscal 2005 diluted earnings per share from
continuing operations, excluding certain charges, to be 10%
lower than previously announced guidance. News of this shocked
the market. Shares of Krispy Kreme fell $9.29 per share or 29.21
percent on May 7, 2004 to close at $22.51 per share.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: 200 Broadhollow,
Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by Phone: 631-367-7100 or
1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by E-mail:
info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web Site:
www.geller-rudman.com/view_case.asp?cID=287


KRISPY KREME: Anatoly Weiser Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Anatoly Weiser initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
of common stock of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE:KKD)
between August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period'). The lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The complaint alleges that Krispy Kreme and certain officers
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Anatoly Weiser by
Phone: (877) 736-5411 by Fax: (858) 225-0838 by E-Mail:
info@classlawsuit.com


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Anatoly Weiser Files Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Anatoly Weiser initiated a securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock
of common stock of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. ("Liquidmetal"
ot the "Company") (Nasdaq:LQMTE) between May 21, 2002 and March
30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The complaint alleges that Liquidmetal and certain officers
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Anatoly Weiser by
Phone: (877) 736-5411 by Fax: (858) 225-0838 by E-Mail:
info@classlawsuit.com


LIQUIDMETAL TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Lodges CA Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP has announced that a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers
of Liquidmetal Technologies, Inc. ("Liquidmetal") (NASDAQ:LQMTE)
common stock during the period between May 21, 2002 and March
30, 2004 (the "Class Period"), including those who acquired
shares pursuant to the Company's May 21, 2002 initial public
offering ("IPO").

The complaint charges Liquidmetal and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. Liquidmetal is in the
business of developing, manufacturing and marketing products
made from amorphous alloys.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Liquidmetal stock to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. The true facts which were known to each of the
defendants, but actively concealed from plaintiff, included the
following:

     (1) that the Company was recording revenue on "contingent"
         contracts where contingencies were unfulfilled;

     (2) that the Company lacked the proper internal controls
         and oversight to ensure the Company's subsidiary
         operations complied with applicable regulations;

     (3) that even prior to the IPO the Company was experiencing
         adverse trends in the Company's electronic casings
         business; and

     (4) that the Company was actually manufacturing its own
         revenue by infusing capital in customers in return for
         the customers' orders.

On February 20, 2004, the Company announced that it will be
required to restate its financial statements for 3Q 2002 to 1Q
2003 and reverse reported income attributable to one of its
former suppliers of alloy ingots, Growell Metal. Then on March
30, 2004, Liquidmetal announced it would delay the filing of its
2003 Form 10-K due to the additional time required to complete
the previously announced review and analysis relating to the
Company's restatement of results for prior periods.

On May 13, 2004, the Company filed a Form 8-K reporting that
Deloitte & Touche LLP had resigned as the Company's independent
auditors, effective May 6, 2004.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 800/449-4900 by E-
Mail: wsl@lcsr.com or visit their Web Site:
www.lcsr.com/cases/liquidmetal/


MCDONALD'S CORPORATION: Geller Rudman Lodges Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois, Eastern Division on behalf of purchasers
of McDonald's Corporation (NYSE: MCD) ("McDonald's" or the
"Company") publicly traded securities during the period between
December 14, 2001 and January 22, 2003, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges McDonald's and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act"). The complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants issued false and misleading statements
to the marketplace that artificially inflated the price of
McDonald's shares. In particular, the Company misrepresented its
business and future prospects by failing to disclose and
misrepresenting that hundreds of its restaurants were
underperforming and that the Company had incurred hundreds of
millions of dollars in unrecorded asset impairment and other
charges.

Defendants' scheme began to unravel when in September 2002, the
Company reported that "comparable sales" (i.e., year-over-year
sales comparisons for restaurants that had been open for more
than thirteen months) had continued to decline, especially in
U.S. and European markets, making it impossible for the Company
to meet its 2002 earnings guidance.

Then on January 23, 2003, defendants announced that the Company
had incurred losses of more than $810 million related,
primarily, to the closure of over 700 underperforming
restaurants and the write-off of hundreds of millions of dollars
of previously capitalized technology costs.

Prior to the disclosure of the adverse facts described above,
the Company completed fixed-rate debt offerings of at least $900
million at highly favorable interest rates. In addition, the
Individual Defendants, as well as other McDonald's insiders,
sold over 939,000 shares of McDonald's common shares, at or near
market highs, generating proceeds of more than $26 million.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: Client Relations
Department 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by
E-Mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit their Web Site:
http://www.geller-rudman.com/view_case.asp?cID=267


NDC HEALTH: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Georgia, on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of NDCHealth
Corporation ("NDCHealth" or the "Company") (NYSE:NDC) between
October 1, 2003 and March 31, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against NDCHealth and Walter M.
Hoff and Randolph L.M. Hutto.

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. During the Class Period, Defendants
failed to disclose that its stellar reported financial results
were made possible only through improper revenue recognition
practices involving the violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

On April 1, 2004, NDCHealth announced that it would delay the
release of its fiscal third quarter financial results as it
"reviews some aspects of how it records revenue." The review
relates to the timing of sales recognition in its value-added
reseller channel in its physician business unit. In response to
the concerning the Company's undisclosed accounting issues, NDC
shares responded dramatically, falling nearly 17% in heavy
volume.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 by E-Mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or
visit their Web Site: http://laskyrifkind.com/contact.htm


NORTEL NETWORKS: Scott + Scott Updates NY Fraud Suit Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC, filed an updated complaint and extended the
class period in a securities class action lawsuit against Nortel
Networks Corporation (NYSE: NT; TSX: NT). The case has been
brought in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. Scott + Scott, LLC announces it currently
represents shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired
Nortel securities during the period between April 24, 2003 and
April 27, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Nortel had shocked the market by announcing that it had fired
its CEO and two other top executives and stated that it would
restate 2003 earnings- cutting the year's profit in half and it
would delay reporting its first quarter results. CEO Frank Dunn,
CFO Douglas Beatty and controller Michael Gollogly were all
fired.

On March 29, 2004, the Company announced that due to the delay
in the filing of its 2003 financial statements, it would
postpone its Annual Shareholder' Meeting, scheduled for April
29, 2004, until after the filing of financial statements. On
April 5, 2004, Nortel announced that the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission had issued a formal order of investigation
into the company's previous restatement of financial results for
certain periods. Further, with more restatements likely to arise
at Nortel per their announcement in March 2004, Scott + Scott
welcomes any securities holder in Nortel to contact the firm for
additional information.

It is alleged in complaints during the period from April 24,
2003 and April 27, 2004 (the Scott + Scott complaint states a
class period from December 23, 2003 to April 27, 2004), Nortel
and certain of its officers and directors violated the
securities laws of the United States (the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934). Nortel supplies products and services that support
the Internet and other public and private data, voice and
multimedia communications networks using wire line and wireless
technologies.

The complaint alleges that defendants caused Nortel's shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of
false and misleading financial statements. Defendants had
formulated a plan to have the Company's credit rating on its
$4.1 billion debt raised from "B3" to "investment grade."
Defendants were advised by Moody's that if the Company could
improve its financial position, the Company's rating would be
raised. Not only would this rating change have a positive impact
on the Company's stock price but would further inflate the
Company's net income beyond the already inflated price due to
falsified accounting. By raising the Company rating, the Company
could refinance its debt at a preferable rate, and increase the
Company's margins. Defendants had hoped that the Company's
positive fourth quarter 2003 report would put pressure on
Moody's to raise its rating. It is further alleged that by
posting the false, positive fourth quarter results, defendants
and the Company's top executives were rewarded with $30 million
in bonuses. Then, as defendants' scheme began to unfold, Nortel
put its chief financial officer and controller on leave of
absence pending completion of an investigation into the
circumstances leading to the restatement.

On March 15, 2004, Nortel delayed filing its annual report and
admitted it may have to restate results for a second time in six
months while the timing of certain accruals and provisions in
2003 and earlier periods are re- examined. In response to this
delay in filing, the price of the Company's shares fell.
Defendants knew that as a result of their actions, Nortel's
lenders could demand early repayment of $3.6 billion of notes
and convertible bonds. The Company's shares reached over $8 per
share during this period and have declined to $5.19 previously.

Then on April 28, 2004, the Company fired its CEO, CFO and
Controller and disclosed that its previously announced
restatement would be worse than earlier planned. In addition,
the Company disclosed that its financial results for Q1 2004
would be indefinitely delayed. On this news, Nortel shares
plunged to below $4.00 per share. The amended complaint also
demands the executives return their ill-gotten bonuses for 2003.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott attorney Neil Rothstein
by Phone: 800/404-7770 or 860/537-3818 (EST) or 800/332-2259 or
619/233-4565 (PST) or by E-Mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com


NYFIX INC.: Abbey Gardy Commences Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a Class Action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut (04 CV
802) on behalf of all purchasers of securities of NYFIX, Inc.
("NYFIX" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:NYFXE) between March 30, 2000
and March 30, 2004, inclusive.

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.

The Complaint names as defendants NYFIX, Inc., Peter Kilbinger
Hansen, Richard A. Castillo, Mark R. Hahn, George O. Deehan,
William J. Lynch and Carl E. Warden. The Complaint alleges that
during the Class Period, the Defendants perpetrated a scheme to
artificially inflate NYFIX's stock price by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading financial statements and press
releases which, among other things, overstated the value of
NYFIX Millennium, L.L.C. ("Millennium"), a private company in
which the Company held a substantial ownership interest and
which represented a substantial portion of the Company's assets
during the Class Period.

More specifically, the Company's Form 10-K's filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") for 1999, 2000, 2001
and 2002 and the press releases announcing the financial and
business performance of the Company for the fiscal years 1999 -
2003, were materially false and misleading and omitted to state
material information because the Company:

     (1) improperly accounted for its 1999 original investment
         in, and 2002 acquisition of an additional interest of,
         Millennium;

     (2) failed to properly allocate losses incurred by
         Millennium to the Company;

     (3) overstated the value of Millennium on the Company's
         balance sheet; and

     (4) failed to properly write down Goodwill from the 2002
         acquisition of Millennium.

The Company failed to properly record $20.1 million in
accumulated losses for the years ended December 31, 1999, 2000,
and 2001, painting a much different financial picture of the
Company than had been disclosed. Defendants perpetrated this
scheme in order to enable the Company to raise over $60 million
in a public common stock offering and to use the Company's
artificially inflated stock (along with the cash raised in the
offering) to purchase other companies.

On March 30, 2004, NYFIX issued a press release which stated,
"Based on its discussions with the SEC staff, the Company will
restate its audited results for the years ended December 31,
1999 through 2002 to change the manner in which it accounted for
the 1999 original investment in, and 2002 acquisition of an
additional interest of, NYFIX Millennium." The market reacted
negatively to this news. On the first day of trading after the
announcement, the Company's stock traded on very heavy volume
and closed down over 7% at $5.16 per share.

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


SPEAR & JACKSON: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in FL
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Spear &
Jackson Inc. ("Spear & Jackson" or the "Company") (OTC Bulletin
Board: SJCK) between July 14, 2003 and April 15, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
Spear & Jackson and certain officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
Defendants made materially false and misleading statements to
the investing public that artificially inflated the Company's
share price. According to the Complaint, the true facts which
were known by Defendants, but concealed from investors, were
that Defendants had in fact orchestrated a "pump-and-dump"
scheme to manipulate the Company's share price by issuing false
information to tout Spear & Jackson stock to brokers around the
country; that Defendants used nominee companies located in the
British Virgin Islands to illegally obtain 1.2 million shares of
Spear stock in 2002, some of which was obtained through the
filing of a false registration statement; and that the Company
made false statements regarding its own repurchase of shares.

On April 16, 2004, it was announced that the Securities &
Exchange Commission had sued Spear & Jackson's Chief Executive
Officer, Dennis Crowley, alleging he used false information to
boost the Company's stock price, while secretly selling $3
million worth of his own shares. In response to this
announcement, the Company's stock price fell $0.52, to $1.85.
For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 by E-Mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or
visit their Web Site: http://laskyrifkind.com/contact.htm


SPSS INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of SPSS, Inc.
(Nasdaq: SPSSE) publicly traded securities during the period
between May 2, 2001 and March 30, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that SPSS, Jack Noonan, and Edward
Hamburg, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between May 2, 2001 and March 30, 2004, about the Company's
revenues, thereby artificially inflating the price of SPSS
common stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company overstated its revenue by between $3
         million and $6 million;

     (2) that the Company accomplished this through improper
         recognition of revenue in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and the
         Company's own accounting interpretations on revenue
         recognition;

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

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

On March 30, 2004, SPSS announced that it would delay the filing
of its annual report on Form 10-K with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission to complete an additional
review initiated by the Company. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of SPSS fell $2.55 per share or 12.17 percent on
March 31, 2004 to close at $18.40 per share.

For more details, contact Geller Rudman, PLLC by Mail: 197 South
Federal Highway, Suite 200, Boca Raton, FL 33432 by Phone:
(561) 750-3000 or (888) 262-3131 by Fax: (561) 750-3364 or visit
their Web Site: www.geller-rudman.com/view_case.asp?cID=288


SPSS INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all purchasers of
securities of SPSS Inc. (Nasdaq: SPSSE) from May 2, 2001 through
March 30, 2004 inclusive.

The complaint charges that SPSS, Jack Noonan, and Edward
Hamburg, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b- 5 promulgated thereunder, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
between May 2, 2001 and March 30, 2004, about the Company's
revenues, thereby artificially inflating the price of SPSS
common stock. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company overstated its revenue by between $3
         million and $6 million;

     (2) that the Company accomplished this through improper
         recognition of revenue in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and the
         Company's own accounting interpretations on revenue
         recognition;

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

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

On March 30, 2004, SPSS announced that it would delay the filing
of its annual report on Form 10-K with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission to complete an additional
review initiated by the company. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of SPSS fell $2.55 per share or 12.17 percent on
March 31, 2004 to close at $18.40 per share.

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


VASO ACTIVE: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of Vaso Active
Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Vaso" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:VAPH)
between December 11, 2003 and March 31, 2004, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Vaso and certain
officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
key products. Specifically, the defendants knew, but actively
concealed that the New England Medical Center in Boston, MA, had
nothing to do with the Company's "clinical trial" of its
"deFeet" product and was unable to draw any conclusions about
the product, that the trial was not supervised by "independent
physicians" but rather a hand picked podiatrist, and that a so-
called endorsement from the American Association of Medical Foot
Specialists was worth little in value to the Company's in its
marketing efforts.

On April 1, 2004, Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
regulators halted trading of Vaso Active stock due to questions
regarding the accuracy of assertions made in the Company's press
releases, annual report, registration statement and public
statements to investors.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 by E-Mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com or
visit their Web Site: http://laskyrifkind.com/contact.htm

VASO ACTIVE: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a securities Class Action
in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of
Vaso Active Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Vaso" or the "Company")
(Pink Sheets:VAPH) between December 11, 2003 and March 31, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Vaso and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Among other things, plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions
and material misrepresentations concerning Vaso's business and
financial prospects artificially inflated the Company's stock
price, inflicting damages on investors. Vaso commercializes,
markets and sells over-the-counter pharmaceutical products.
Plaintiff claims defendants misrepresented that the New England
Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts, had conducted
"independent" clinical trials confirming Vaso's Termin8 foot-
cream product was a "remarkably effective cure." The New England
Medical Center, in fact, only analyzed the study for a fee and
did not actually conduct it, and the sole researcher who
conducted the research was a lone podiatrist who was hand-picked
by Vaso's parent company, BioChemics.

On April 1, 2004, the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC")
suspended trading of Vaso stock due to questions concerning the
accuracy of assertions made in Vaso press releases, its annual
report, its registration statement and in public statements to
investors. On April 16, 2004, the SEC allowed Vaso to resume
trading. The stock resumed trading on the OTC Bulletin Board
exchange at $1.99, a 73.8% drop in share price.

For more details, contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP, by Mail:
1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, California
90067 by Mail: (310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 by E-Mail:
info@glancylaw.com or visit their website at www.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  * * *