---

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

             Thursday, May 27, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 104

                         Headlines

ARMOR HOLDINGS: Policemen Lodge FL Suits Over Bullet-Proof Vests
BORLAND SOFTWARE: Motion for Summary Judgment in DE Suit Heard
CAPTARIS INC.: Named as Third-Party Defendant in TCPA Lawsuit
DUQUESNE LIGHT: Pre-trial Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit
DYNEGY INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit

DYNEGY INC.: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit in TX
DYNEGY INC.: To Seek Dismissal of CA Unfair Trade Practices Suit
DYNEGY INC.: Plaintiffs To Voluntarily Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit
FONDUE FACTORY: Recalls 500 Fondue Sets Because of Injury Hazard
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Lawsuit Dismissal

GOLD KIST: Faces Suit Over Member-Growers Contracts in N.D. AL
GOLF HOST: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling V. Resort Owners Lawsuit
GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: NJ Court Approves Antitrust Lawsuit Pact
HORSESHOE BOSSIER: Bossier Residents Lodge Taxpayer Fraud Suit
INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit

INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal of Stay on Suit Claims
INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Inks Settlement For Investor Derivative Suit
IONICS INC.: MA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
LB INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 1,500 Ladders For Defect, Injury Risk
MEDTRONIC INC.: Recalls Quick-set Infusion Sets Due To Defect

NET PERCEPTIONS: MN Court Refuses To Reconsider Suit Dismissal
NEW ENGLAND: Reaches Settlement For TCPA Violations Suit in SC
PARAMOUNT FARMS: Paramount Farms Expands Recall of Raw Almonds
REDDI BRAKE: Settlement of CA Investor Fraud Suit Deemed Final
RIO GRANDE: Recalls Cheese Products For Salmonella Contamination

RIVER RANCH: Recalls Complete Salad Kit Due to Undeclared Nuts
SIDE POCKET: Recalls Bloody Mary Mix For Undeclared Ingredients
SIMON MARKETING: Settlement of IL Fraud Lawsuit Deemed Effective
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
TIER TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court Drops Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit

UNITED STATES: FDA Files Alert on TX, IL Cyclosporiasis Outbreak
US ONCOLOGY: Shareholders File Suits V. Oiler Acquisition Merger
WELLMAN INC.: Nine Federal Antitrust Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
WELLMAN INC.: Faces 38 Antitrust, Unfair Competition Lawsuits
WELLMAN INC.: Faces 3 Polyester Fiber Antitrust Suits in Canada

WINN-DIXIE STORES: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Lawsuits in M.D. FL
WINN-DIXIE STORES: Faces Two ERISA Violations Suits in M.D. FL
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls 2,562 Motorhomes For Accident Risk
WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls 5,143 Motor Homes Due To Fire Risk
WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Lawsuits Over Fox Paine Acquisition Withdrawn

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ABATIX CORPORATION: Nix Patterson Lodges Securities Suit in TX
ABATIX CORPORATION: Murray Frank Launches Securities Suit in TX
ABATIX CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TX
AES CORPORATION: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. IN
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Brodksy & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CO

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in CO
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in CO
ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Murray Frank Files Securities Lawsuit in CO
ASCONI CORPORATION: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in FL
BISYS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY

BISYS GROUP: Murray, Frank Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CO
KRISPY KREME: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
MERRILL LYNCH: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. NY
SALTON INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
SPSS INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL

                            *********

ARMOR HOLDINGS: Policemen Lodge FL Suits Over Bullet-Proof Vests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armor Holdings, Inc. faces two class actions filed in Florida
state courts by police organizations and individual police
officers, alleging that the Company's vests do not have the
qualities and performance characteristics as warranted, thereby
breach in express warranty, implied warranty of merchantability,
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose and duty to
warn.

The Company said in a regulatory filing that it strenuously
disagrees with the allegations set forth in these complaints.
By letter dated April 14, 2004, an attorney representing the
Ohio State Troopers Association, Inc. wrote to the Company
demanding a full refund of the purchase price for vests
containing Zylon(R) purchased by Ohio Highway Patrol Troopers.
The Company has responded by denying his demand for a refund and
explaining that there have been no incidents of injury related
to its vests, that its vests meet the NIJ certification
standards and that there exists no reliable evidence to show
that its vests are sub-standard or inappropriate for their
intended use.


BORLAND SOFTWARE: Motion for Summary Judgment in DE Suit Heard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chancery Court for the State of Delaware heard Borland
Software Corporation's motion for summary judgment in the class
action filed against it, styled "Dieterich v. Harrer, et al.,
Case No. 024-N."

On November 27, 2002, a stockholder class action and derivative
lawsuit, "Dieterich v. Harrer, et al., Case No. 02CC00350," was
filed against Starbase Corporation, or Starbase, and five former
directors of Starbase in the Superior Court of the State of
California for Orange County, claiming that the former directors
had breached fiduciary duties owed to Starbase and stockholders
of Starbase.  The Company is paying the costs of defending this
litigation pursuant to indemnification obligations under the
merger agreement relating to its acquisition of Starbase.
Following a series of motions, the case was dismissed without
prejudice on August 20, 2003.

On October 28, 2003, a stockholder class action relating to the
same matter, Dieterich v. Harrer, et al, Case No. 024-N, was
filed against the former directors of Starbase in Chancery Court
of the State of Delaware, alleging breach of fiduciary duties.
The suit also names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Dale L. Fuller,

     (2) Keith E. Gottfried,

     (3) Frederick A. Ball, and

     (4) Doug Barre

On March 31, 2004, the Delaware Chancery Court held a hearing on
the Company's motion for summary judgment, but has not ruled on
the motion.


CAPTARIS INC.: Named as Third-Party Defendant in TCPA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Captaris, Inc. was named as a third-party defendant in the class
action filed against its wholly owned subsidiary, MediaTel
Corporation, on behalf of travel services providers.

One of the services provided by MediaTel was the transmission of
facsimiles to travel industry participants on behalf of travel
service providers.  MediaTel held a license to use a database
supplied by Northstar Travel Media that lists recipients for
these facsimiles.  All of the assets of MediaTel were sold to a
subsidiary of PTEK Holdings, Inc. (PTEK) on September 1, 2003.

On July 29, 2003, Travel 100 Group, Inc. filed two lawsuits in
Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois, one against
Mediterranean Shipping Company and another against The Melrose
Hotel Company.  The complaints are substantially identical in
form and allege violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act in connection with the receipt of facsimile advertisements
that were transmitted by MediaTel.  Each complaint seeks
injunctive relief and unspecified damages and certification as a
class action on behalf of Travel 100 and others similarly
situated that received the facsimile advertisements.

MediaTel contracted with a third party to provide facsimile
advertising services for Mediterranean.  The third party, in
turn, contracted with Mediterranean.  Melrose contracted
directly with MediaTel for transmission of the facsimiles, the
Company stated in a regulatory filing.

In its answer filed on September 23, 2003, Mediterranean named
Captaris as a third-party defendant and asserted that to the
extent that Mediterranean is liable, Captaris should be liable
under theories of indemnification or contribution for any
damages suffered by Mediterranean.

Similarly, in its answer filed on October 14, 2003, Melrose
named Captaris, as well as PTEK, as third-party defendants
based on allegations of breach of contract and claims for
contribution.  In response to Mediterranean's third-party
complaint, Captaris filed its answer on November 3, 2003,
denying the allegations filed by Mediterranean and further
answering by way of affirmative defenses that to the extent
Captaris is found liable for any damages allegedly suffered by
plaintiffs or any third-party plaintiffs in this action,
Captaris is entitled to indemnification and/or contribution from
other non-parties to this action.  The company filed a similar
answer to Melrose's complaint on November 20, 2003.


DUQUESNE LIGHT: Pre-trial Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expert witness discovery has begun in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Duquesne Light Holdings,
Inc. (formerly DQE, Inc.) in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania.  The suit also names
as defendant David Marshall, the Company's former chairman,
chief executive officer and president, and is styled "In re DQE,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. 01-1851."

The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint also alleges controlling person liability under
Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Section 15 of the
Securities Act.

The complaint alleges that between December 6, 2000 and April
30, 2001, the defendants issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements concerning investments made by the
Company's subsidiary, DQE Enterprises, and the impact that these
investments would have on its current and future financial
results.

More particularly, the complaint alleges that the Company and
Mr. Marshall stated their expectation that certain companies in
which DQE Enterprises had invested would undertake initial
public offerings of their shares, with the result that its
earnings would be positively impacted by the public market
valuation of DQE Enterprises' interests in these companies, but
failed to disclose allegedly adverse facts that made the
possibility of successful public offerings of the securities of
these companies unlikely.  The complaint seeks an award of
unspecified compensatory damages, and an order permitting class
members who purchased Company shares through a dividend
reinvestment plan to rescind those purchases, pre- and post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and expenses of litigation
and unspecified equitable and injunctive relief.

On May 20, 2003, the court certified a class to include
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
December 6, 2000 through April 30, 2001, and a sub-class to
include purchasers of the Company's common stock through its
dividend reinvestment and stock purchase plan during the same
period.

Since December 2002, the Company has been engaged in pre-trial
discovery.  Fact discovery concluded at the end of April 2004.
Expert witness discovery has since begun, and will continue
until August 2004.


DYNEGY INC.: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc. and Dynegy Holdings, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas to dismiss the
class action filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
publicly traded securities from January 2000 to July 2002
seeking unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The lawsuit principally asserts that the Company, Dynegy
Holdings and certain of Dynegy Holdings' current and former
officers and directors violated the federal securities laws in
connection with our disclosures, including accounting
disclosures, regarding Project Alpha (a structured natural gas
transaction entered into by Dynegy Holdings in April 2001),
round-trip trading, the submission of false trade reports to
publications that calculate natural gas index prices, the
alleged manipulation of the California power market and
financial restatements for 1999-2001.

The Regents of the University of California have been appointed
as lead plaintiff and Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP
is class counsel.  The plaintiff filed an amended complaint in
January 2004 and, in March 2004, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss.


DYNEGY INC.: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding on the remaining claims in the class
action filed against Dynegy, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
participants holding Dynegy common stock in the Dynegy 401(k)
Savings Plan during the period from April 1999 to January 2003.

This complaint alleges violations of the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act in connection with the Company's 401(k)
Savings Plan, including claims that the Company's Board and
certain of its former and current officers, past and present
members of its Benefit Plans Committee, former employees who
served on a predecessor committee to its Benefit Plans
Committee, and Vanguard Fiduciary Trust Company and CG Trust
Company (trustees of the trust that held Plan assets for
portions of the putative class period) breached their fiduciary
duties to the Plan's participants and beneficiaries in
connection with the Plan's investment in Dynegy common stock; in
particular with respect to Dynegy's financial statements,
project Alpha, round-trip trades and the gas price index
investigation.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages for the
losses to the Plan, as well as attorney's fees and other costs.

In July 2003, Dynegy filed a motion to dismiss this action.  The
judge entered an order on this motion in March 2004, dismissing
several of the plaintiff's claims and all of the defendants
except the Company and the members of the Dynegy Benefit Plans
Committee from January 2002 to January 2003, the substantially
reduced class period established by the order.  An answer was
filed to the plaintiff's suit denying the remaining claims in
April 2004.


DYNEGY INC.: To Seek Dismissal of CA Unfair Trade Practices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynegy, Inc. intends to ask for the dismissal of the remaining
lawsuit of the nine putative class actions and/or representative
actions filed in state and federal court on behalf of business
and residential electricity consumers against it and/or Dynegy
Holdings, Inc. and numerous other power generators and marketers
between April and October 2002.

The complaints allege unfair, unlawful and deceptive practices
in violation of the California Unfair Business Practices Act and
seek to enjoin illegal conduct, restitution and unspecified
damages.  While some of the allegations in these lawsuits are
similar to the allegations in the eight lawsuits described
above, these lawsuits include additional allegations relating
to, among other things, the validity of the contracts between
these power generators and the California Department of Water
Resources (CDWR).

The court granted the Company's motion to dismiss eight of these
nine actions, although the plaintiffs have appealed and the
Company is awaiting a hearing date on their appeal.  The ninth
case was remanded to state court, where a newly added defendant
filed a motion in February 2004 to remove the case back to
federal court.  Once a decision is made on this motion, the
Company intends to file a motion to dismiss this case.


DYNEGY INC.: Plaintiffs To Voluntarily Dismiss Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to voluntarily dismiss the antitrust class
action filed against Dynegy Holdings, Inc., NiSource, Inc. and
other defendants.

In March 2003, Triad Energy Resources Corporation and five other
alleged representatives of two plaintiffs classes filed the suit
on behalf of classes of purchasers, marketers, wholesalers,
managers, sellers and shippers of natural gas that allegedly
were damaged by an illegal gas scheme devised by three federally
regulated interstate pipeline systems which are now owned by
NiSource, and certain shippers on these pipelines.

The suit alleges that the interstate pipelines provided
preferential storage and transportation services to their own
unregulated marketing affiliate, in violation of FERC
regulations, and in return for percentages of the profits reaped
by the marketing affiliate.  The complaint also alleges that
certain shippers, including the Company, having learned of these
preferential arrangements, demanded and received similar
preferential storage and transportation services that were
not available to all shippers.

Although this alleged scheme was the subject of an October 2000
FERC order, which required the Columbia companies to pay $27.5
million to certain customers of Columbia Gas and Columbia Gulf,
plaintiffs claim that the FERC order did not remedy the
competitive injury to plaintiffs caused by the scheme.  The
complaint seeks aggregate damages of approximately $1.716
billion, which damages are subject to trebling under federal
antitrust laws.

In October 2003, the court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction and allowed time for the plaintiffs to
amend their complaint.  The plaintiffs have since filed a motion
to voluntarily dismiss their complaint and indicated an intent
to refile in a proper jurisdiction, although plaintiffs have
not yet re-filed.

In November 2003, Atlantigas Corporation filed a suit similar to
Triad in Maryland against the Company and several other
defendants alleging certain conspiracies between natural gas
shippers and storage facilities.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.  In addition, the
defendants are alleged to have conspired with the other
defendants to receive preferential natural gas storage and
transportation services at off-tariff prices.

Defendants are currently challenging plaintiff on the threshold
issues of standing, statute of limitations and jurisdiction.
These issues were fully briefed in February 2004 and a hearing
date has been requested but not scheduled.


FONDUE FACTORY: Recalls 500 Fondue Sets Because of Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fondue Factory LLC is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
about 500 Fondue Sets: the Modern Set in White, Black, or
Stainless, the Classic Set in White or Black.

The top piece of glass that supports the fondue pot can shatter,
posing a burn and laceration hazard to consumers.  The Company
has received three reports of the glass breaking.  There have
been no injuries reported.

The recalled fondue sets include: the Modern Set I White (Item
#10201), the Modern Set in Black (item #10202), the Modern Set
in Stainless (Item # 10203), the Classic Set in White (Item #
10301), the Classic Set in Black (Item # 10302). The item number
is printed on the invoice and on the assembly directions for the
set.

These items were sold directly by The Fondue Factory LLC from
April 2003 through February 2004 for about $45 for all of the
sets except the Modern Set in stainless which sold for about
$47.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 8-Fondue
by E-mail: recall@fonduefactory.com or by Mail: P.O. Box 3736,
Boardman, OH 44513 for a replacement stand.  The Fondue Factory
LLC is directly contacting owners of these recalled products.


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Foundry Networks, Inc. and certain of
its officers, following its announcement of its anticipated
financial results for the fourth quarter ended December 31,2000.

The suit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under the caption "In re
Foundry Networks, Inc. Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-
00-4823-MMC."

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws and
purported to seek damages on behalf of a class of shareholders
who purchased the Company's common stock during the period from
September 7, 2000 to December 19, 2000.

The Company has brought four successful motions to dismiss the
complaint.  Although the Court granted each of the four
dismissal motions, it also provided plaintiffs leave to amend
the complaint.  On August 29, 2003, following the dismissal of
the four amended complaints, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case with prejudice and without leave to
amend.  On September 2, 2003, the court entered judgment in our
favor, dismissing the plaintiffs' fifth amended complaint.

On September 29, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On
January 15, 2004, the plaintiff/appellants filed their opening
brief with the Court of Appeals. On April 2, 2004, the Company
filed its responsive brief.  When the briefings are complete,
the Court of Appeals will schedule the oral argument.


GOLD KIST: Faces Suit Over Member-Growers Contracts in N.D. AL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Kist, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama alleging
that the Company's production contracts with its member-growers
constitute unfair practices or arrangements that have permitted
the Company to manipulate the prices of live poultry and have
damaged independent live poultry producers in violation of the
Federal Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.

The plaintiff's claims are premised on the existence of a
significant market for live poultry that does not exist within
the vertically integrated structure of the U.S. poultry
industry, the Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities
and Exchange Commission.  Further, the Company is a farmers'
cooperative, and the Company believes that the plaintiff, who is
a member of the cooperative, is obligated to arbitrate any
disputes with the Company on an individual basis and also
otherwise lacks standing to bring the claims in question.


GOLF HOST: Appeals Court Upholds Ruling V. Resort Owners Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Appeals Court upheld a ruling blocking the
lawsuit filed against Golf Host Resorts, Inc. and its corporate
parent Golf Hosts, Inc. from proceeding as a class action.

Certain of the resort's condominium owners filed the suit over
various aspects of an arrangement the owner/borrower of the
resort entered with many of the persons who own condominium
units at the Resort whereby the condominiums owned by these
persons are placed in a pool and rented as hotel rooms to guests
of the Innisbrook Resort arrangement.

The he condominium owners/plaintiffs are seeking to resolve
these issues, among others:

     (1) whether every condominium owner who is also a member of
         the Innisbrook Golf and Country Club has the right to
         participate in the lessor's rental pool, so long as
         there is a rental pool, by virtue of defendant's
         alleged marketing promises to all purchasers of
         condominiums at the Resort;

     (2) whether the condominium unit owners were coerced by
         economic pressure and duress to enter into the master
         lease agreement, or guaranteed lease agreement;

     (3) whether the guaranteed lease agreement is invalid by
         reason of such alleged coercion and economic duress
         and, if so, whether the condominium owners who entered
         into the guaranteed lease agreement are entitled to be
         reimbursed for the difference between the amount of
         income that was distributed to them under the
         guaranteed lease agreement and the amount of income
         that would have been distributed to them had they
         remained subject to the master lease agreement;

     (4) whether the unit owners who signed the guaranteed lease
         agreement have the right to return to the master lease
         agreement without penalty, and thereby be entitled to
         be reimbursed for the difference between the income
         that they received under the guaranteed lease agreement
         and the income they would have received under the
         master lease agreement; and

     (5) whether the defendant breached its contract with the
         unit owners by allowing members of the public upon the
         golf courses, thereby adversely affecting the "private
         golf course" concept of Innisbrook;

Deposition of class members and others, including depositions of
prior executives of Golf Host Resorts, Inc. have been taken and
additional discovery remains to be undertaken.  The previously
scheduled trial date of February 3, 2003 was postponed by the
Court and a new trial date has not yet been set.

In July 2003, the judge in the litigation against Golf Host
Resorts, Inc. reversed an earlier ruling and held that the case
could not proceed as a class action.  The judge also ruled that
the plaintiffs could not seek recovery from the individuals that
hold stock in Golf Host Resorts, Inc. and its affiliates
(rejecting plaintiffs' attempt to "pierce the corporate veil").

In October 2003, the judge ruled that the claims of the former
members of the class who were not named as plaintiffs in the
lawsuit were barred by the statute of limitations.  These
rulings leave approximately 80 individual plaintiffs in the
lawsuit.  Plaintiffs have appealed each of these rulings to the
court of appeals.  The court of appeals summarily affirmed the
lower court's ruling that the case could not proceed as a class
action and has affirmed the lower court's dismissal with
prejudice of the veil piercing case.  No decision on the
intervention appeal has been made.


GRAFTECH INTERNATIONAL: NJ Court Approves Antitrust Lawsuit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
antitrust class action filed against it and other producers of
bulk graphite.

Three complaints were initially filed.  The first complaint,
filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,
was entitled "Industrial Graphite Products, Inc. v. Carbone
Lorraine North America Corporation, et al."  Another complaint
was filed in the same court, styled "Ceradyne, Inc. v. Carbone
Lorraine North America Corporation, et al."  The third
complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was entitled "General
Refractories Company v. GrafTech International Ltd., et al."

Subsequently in early 2003, the third complaint was dismissed
without prejudice, and the Company and other producers of bulk
graphite were served with two additional complaints commencing
civil class action antitrust lawsuits.  The complaints were
filed in the New Jersey Court and were entitled "General
Refractories Company v. GrafTech International Ltd., et al."
and "Midwest Graphite Co., Inc. v. SGL Carbon, LLC, et al."

The lawsuits commenced by the first, second, fourth and fifth
complaints, along with a lawsuit commenced by a sixth complaint
filed only against SGL Carbon, LLC, SGL Carbon A.G. and SGI
Carbon GmbH, were subsequently consolidated into a single class
action lawsuit filed in April 2003, styled "In re: Bulk
[Extruded] Graphite Products Antitrust Litigation."

In the bulk graphite lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated U.S. federal antitrust law in connection
with the sale of bulk graphite and seek, among other things, an
award of treble damages resulting from such alleged violations.
In the 2003 first half, the Company reached an agreement to
settle the bulk graphite lawsuit.


HORSESHOE BOSSIER: Bossier Residents Lodge Taxpayer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Municipality of Bossier City, Louisiana and Horseshoe
Bossier City face a class action filed in the 26th Judicial
Court, Bossier Parish, filed by James Wellborn and Charles J.
Nickel.  The suit asks the Court to:

      (1) order the City to collect a $3.00 per person boarding
          fee from Horseshoe Bossier City,

      (2) invalidate a contract fixing the amount paid by
          Horseshoe Bossier City to Bossier Parish as opposed to
          a per person boarding fee and

      (3) certify the suit as a class action on behalf of all
          citizens and taxpayers of Bossier Parish.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and will dispute
the validity of the contract, the Company said in a regulatory
filing.


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. reached a settlement for
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its present and former directors and officers by a
purported class of purchasers of Interpublic stock shortly after
Interpublic's August 13, 2002 announcement regarding the
restatement of its previously reported earnings for the periods
January 1, 1997 through March 31, 2002.

The consolidated suit is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The purported
class consists of Company shareholders who purchased Interpublic
stock in the period from October 1997 to October 2002.

Specifically, the consolidated amended complaint alleges that
Interpublic and certain of its present and former directors and
officers allegedly made misleading statements to its
shareholders between October 1997 and October 2002, including
the alleged failure to disclose the existence of additional
charges that would need to be expensed and the lack of adequate
internal financial controls, which allegedly resulted in an
overstatement of Interpublic's financial results during those
periods.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that such false and
misleading statements constitute violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The consolidated amended complaint also alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
in connection with Interpublic's acquisition of True North on
behalf of a purported class of True North shareholders who
acquired Interpublic stock.  No amount of damages is specified
in the consolidated amended complaint.

On February 6, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On February 28,
2003, plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motion
and, on March 14, 2003, defendants filed their reply to
plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion.  On May 29, 2003,
the court denied the motion to dismiss as to Interpublic and
granted the motion, in part, as to the present and former
directors and officers named in the consolidated amended
complaint.  On June 30, 2003, defendants filed an answer to the
consolidated amended complaint.  On November 6, 2003, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of
persons who purchased Interpublic stock between October 28, 1997
and October 16, 2002 and a class consisting of persons who
acquired shares of Interpublic stock in exchange for shares of
True North stock.

On December 2, 2003, Interpublic reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated class action shareholder
suits currently pending in federal district court in New York.
The settlement is subject to the execution of a final settlement
agreement and to approval by the court.  Under the terms of the
proposed settlement, Interpublic will pay $115 million, of which
$20 million will be paid in cash and $95 million in shares of
its common stock at a value of $14.50 per share.  The Company
also agreed that, should the price of its common stock fall
below $8.70 per share before final approval of the settlement,
the Company will either, at its sole discretion, issue
additional shares of common stock or pay cash so that the
consideration for the stock portion of the settlement will have
a total value of $57 million.


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Plaintiffs Drop Appeal of Stay on Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their appeal of the stay of the
remaining claims in two state securities class actions filed
against Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. and and certain of
its present and former directors and officers by a purported
class of purchasers of Interpublic stock shortly after the
Company's November 13, 2002 announcement regarding the
restatement of its previously reported earnings for the periods
January 1, 1997 through March 31, 2002.

The purported classes consist of Company shareholders who
acquired Company stock on or about June 25, 2001 in connection
with the Company's acquisition of True North.  These lawsuits
allege that the Company and certain of its present and former
directors and officers allegedly made misleading statements in
connection with the filing of a registration statement on May 9,
2001 in which the Company issued 67,644,272 shares of its common
stock for the purpose of acquiring True North, including the
alleged failure to disclose the existence of additional charges
that would need to be expensed and the lack of adequate internal
financial controls, which allegedly resulted in an overstatement
of the Company's financial results at that time.  The suits
allege that such misleading statements constitute violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. No amount of
damages is specified in the complaints.

These actions were filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  On December 18, 2002, defendants removed these
actions from Illinois state court to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Thereafter, on
January 10, 2003, defendants moved to transfer these two actions
to the Southern District of New York.  Plaintiffs moved to
remand these actions.

On April 15, 2003, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois granted plaintiffs' motions to
remand these actions to Illinois state court and denied
defendants' motion to transfer.  On June 18, 2003, Interpublic
moved to dismiss and/or stay these actions.  In June 2003,
plaintiffs withdrew the complaint for one of these actions.  On
September 10, 2003, the Illinois state court stayed the
remaining action and on September 24, 2003, plaintiffs filed a
notice that they will appeal the stay.


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: Inks Settlement For Investor Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Interpublic Group of Companies, Inc. reached a settlement for
the shareholder derivative suit filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of the Company against the Board of Directors and against the
Company's auditors.  This suit alleged a breach of fiduciary
duties to the Company's shareholders.

On May 2, 2003, plaintiffs filed an Amended Derivative
Complaint.  The suit additionally asserts a claim for
contribution and forfeiture against two of the individual
defendants pursuant to Section 21D of the Exchange Act and
Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.  On July 11, 2003,
plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Derivative Complaint,
asserting the same claims.  The complaint does not state a
specific amount of damages.

On August 12, 2003, defendants moved to dismiss this action.  On
January 26, 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle this derivative action pending completion of the
settlement of the class action shareholder suits currently
pending in federal district court in New York. The settlement is
subject to the execution of a definitive settlement agreement
and to approval from the federal district court judge.


IONICS INC.: MA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts refused to dismiss the class action filed against
Ionics, Inc., its former Chief Executive Officer and its Chief
Financial Officer, styled "Jerome Deckler v. Ionics, Inc., et
al."

Plaintiff alleges violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the restatement of the Company's financial
statements for the first and second quarters of 2002 announced
in November 2002, and other material misrepresentations and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results.  The
plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and their costs and expenses, including legal fees.

The suit is in the early discovery stage.  While the Company
believes that this litigation will have no material adverse
impact on its financial condition, results of operations or
cash flows, the litigation process is inherently uncertain and
the Company can make no assurances as to the ultimate outcome of
this matter.


LB INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 1,500 Ladders For Defect, Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
LB International, Inc. is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
1,500 "Stow-Anywhere" Ladders.  A rung on these aluminum, multi-
purpose ladders can release or the side rail can bend
unexpectedly.  If that happens, the ladder can collapse, causing
the user to fall.  The Company has received a report of one
individual who fractured her leg while using the ladder.

The ladders were sold in three sizes. The 6-foot ladders that
extend to 10 feet have model number 99067. The 7-foot ladders
that extend to 12 feet have model number 99068. The 8-foot
ladders that extend to 14 feet have model number 99069. The
model number was listed in the firm's catalog and Web site, and
used for ordering. Model numbers are not written on the ladders.
Each ladder bears a label on the side rail that reads, "Multi-
Purpose Heavy Duty Ladder."

Hammacher Schlemmer stores, catalogs and Web site sold these
ladders nationwide from April 2003 through February 2004 for
between $140 and $200.

Hammacher Schlemmer is directly notifying consumers who
purchased these ladders and providing information to return the
ladders for a refund.  For more details, contact Hammacher
Schlemmer by Phone: (800) 233-4800 between 8 a.m. and midnight
ET seven days a week or by E-mail: LBRecall@hammacher.com.
"Ladder Return" must be placed in the subject line.


MEDTRONIC INC.: Recalls Quick-set Infusion Sets Due To Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc.'s Diabetes division began notifying diabetic
patients, healthcare professionals and distributors that it is
conducting a nationwide recall of Quick-set r Plus infusion sets
because of problems that can interrupt insulin flow to diabetics
who use them. These problems have resulted in a number of
serious injuries, including some hospitalizations.

The company is asking patients to contact its 24-Hour Help Line
at (800) MINIMED (1-800-646-4633) to exchange any unused Quick-
set Plus infusion sets for replacement sets available currently
from Medtronic. In the event that it is necessary to continue
use of the Quick-set Plus while replacement sets are in transit,
Medtronic is recommending that patients monitor their blood
glucose levels frequently and be prepared to treat any elevated
glucose levels that may occur with injections. Patients are also
being instructed to contact their healthcare professional in the
event of excessively high or low glucose levels or with any
questions about their care. Information regarding the exchange
of Quick-set Plus infusion sets is available at
www.minimed.com/QSP.

This recall applies to all Paradigm Quick-Set Plus models (MMT-
359S6, MMT-359S9, MMT-359L6 and MMT-359L9) and lot numbers. This
action affects only the Quick-set Plus infusion set; no other
Medtronic devices or infusion sets are involved in this recall.

This notification is a follow-up to a voluntary action
undertaken by the company in March 2004 in response to an
increased number of complaints related to the use of the Quick-
set Plus infusion set, which delivers insulin from an infusion
pump to a patient's body. The complaints involved problems with
bending of the infusion set's cannula or unintentional
disconnection of the set at the insertion site. At that time,
customers were provided with a Quick-set Plus tips guide and
offered replacement infusion sets upon request. The company also
discontinued selling the Quick-set Plus infusion sets in
conjunction with this initial notification.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has classified this
voluntary action as a Class I recall. The FDA defines a Class I
recall as a situation in which there is a reasonable probability
that the use of the product will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death.


NET PERCEPTIONS: MN Court Refuses To Reconsider Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for the Fourth Judicial District of the State
of Minnesota, County of Hennepin refused plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration of the dismissal of the class action filed
against Net Perceptions, Inc., its current directors and unnamed
defendants, styled "Don Blakstad, on Behalf of Himself and All
others Similarly Situated, vs. Net Perceptions, Inc., John F.
Kennedy, Ann L. Winblad, John T. Riedl and Does 1-25, inclusive,
File No.03-17820."

The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendants
breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care,
independence, good faith and fair dealing and sought to enjoin
the proposed liquidation of the Company and to recover
reasonable attorneys' and experts' fees.

On November 24, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
lawsuit, and by order dated March 8, 2004, the court dismissed
the complaint with prejudice.  By letter dated March 9, 2004,
the plaintiff requested the court's permission to file a motion
to reconsider the decision dismissing the complaint with
prejudice.  On March 18, 2004, the court denied the plaintiff's
request.  On April 9, 2004, the plaintiff filed a notice of
appeal and statement of the case with the Court of Appeals of
the State of Minnesota and, on April 22, 2004, defendants filed
their statement of the case with the Court of Appeals.


NEW ENGLAND: Reaches Settlement For TCPA Violations Suit in SC
--------------------------------------------------------------
New England Business Service, Inc. reached a settlement for the
class action filed against it in the Court of Common Pleas of
the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Charleston County, South
Carolina, styled "OLDAPG, Inc. v. New England Business Service,
Inc."

The named plaintiff in the lawsuit sought to represent a class
consisting of all persons who allegedly received facsimiles
containing unsolicited advertising from the Company in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

The litigation was settled by agreement between the parties in
December 2003 on terms immaterial to the Company's consolidated
financial position or results of operations.


PARAMOUNT FARMS: Paramount Farms Expands Recall of Raw Almonds
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration is advising distributors,
wholesalers and consumers that a recall of raw almonds due to
reports of Salmonella Enteriditis that was announced by
Paramount Farms, Lost Hills, CA, on 5/18/04 has expanded. Before
eating any raw almonds having a "best before" date of 8/21/04 or
later, consumers are advised to check with the store where they
purchased the product to see if the almonds came from Paramount
Farms. FDA has learned that Paramount Farms distributed the
recalled almonds in bulk or packaged nationwide to brokers,
distributors and grocery store chains which in turn sold the
almonds to consumers in a variety of package sizes with a
variety brand names. The almonds were also distributed to
Mexico, Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, France, England and
Italy.

The almonds have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella Enteriditis, an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which
may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis. Consumers who are experiencing
symptoms that could be salmonellosis should consult their health
care providers or their local health department.

Paramount Farms announced a limited recall on 5/18/04 of whole
natural raw almonds sold under the Kirkland Signature, Trader
Joe's and Sunkist brands. FDA, the U.S. Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and state health and agriculture
departments are aware of approximately 18 reports of Salmonella
Enteriditis possibly related to the consumption of the almonds
now under recall. FDA continues to work with CDC and state and
local agencies to investigate the source of this outbreak.
Individuals who have purchased the recalled raw almonds should
not consume them but instead return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund.

The almonds may be sold under other unknown brand names.


REDDI BRAKE: Settlement of CA Investor Fraud Suit Deemed Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement for the class action filed against Reddi Brake
Supply Corporation in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County, styled "McCormick, et al., v. Reddi Brake Supply
Corporation, et al.," is deemed final after the time for appeal
has lapsed.

The suit was filed in November 1997 on behalf of all persons or
entities who bought common stock of the defendant prior to March
23, 1996, and/or who bought or sold any shares thereafter until
August 13, 1996, excluding defendants, their families,
employees, agents or assigns.  The complaint asserts causes of
action for breach of fiduciary duty by officers and directors
and conspiracy to manipulate the price of the common stock of
the defendant.

On December 22, 2003 the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles entered a final order
approving a settlement between the parties as fair, reasonable
and adequate to absent class members and entered a final
judgment.  The settlement became effective on February 23, 2004
sixty days after the December 22, 2003 order, which allowed for
an appeal of the courts final order and judgment.  The terms of
the settlement provides for payment of all settlement
considerations by the Company's insurance.


RIO GRANDE: Recalls Cheese Products For Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Grande Food Products, Inc. of Beltsville, Maryland is
recalling Queso Duro Viejo / Hard Cheese, Made in Central
America, because it has the possibility of being contaminated
with Salmonella, an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes-fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy people
infected with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea,
(which may be bloody) nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In
rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and produce more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The cheese products were distributed in MD, VA, District of
Columbia, NC, GA, NY, NJ, TX, CA, MN and AL, and were repacked
for distribution nationwide to retail stores and deli counters.

The cheese was sold in blocks ranging from 40 to 85 pounds under
the brand RIO GRANDE with the UPC 7 3852907012 3. The cheese was
also repackaged in one pound consumer packages and wrapped in
plastic stretch film under the brands:

     (1) RIO GRANDE-QUESO DURO VIEJO / HARD CHEESE with UPC
         738529070128,

     (2) QUESO DURO VIEJO / AGED HARD CHEESE, Dist. By La Ricura
         Ltda, with UPC 769087000678

     (3) EMANUEL DISTRIBUTORS, PRODUCT OF EL SALVADOR. ALL
         PACKAGES ARE BEING RECALLED. THE PRODUCT MAY HAVE BEEN
         DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT AN IDENTIFYING CODE.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a routine sampling program by the
FDA at the ports of entrance, which revealed that the cheese
contained Salmonella. Rio Grande Foods has requested its
suppliers to investigate the cause of the contamination.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-800-981-4991.


RIVER RANCH: Recalls Complete Salad Kit Due to Undeclared Nuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
River Ranch Fresh Foods, LLC of Salinas, CA is recalling 16 oz.
size Popeyer Caf‚ Parisian Complete Salad Kit, because it may
contain undeclared walnuts and pecans. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to walnuts and pecans run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products.

Popeyer Caf‚ Parisian Complete Salad Kit was distributed to 71
Costco Wholesale Warehouses in Washington, Oregon, Alaska,
Idaho, Montana, Utah, Nevada, New Mexico and Arizona.

The product is packaged in flexible plastic bags and can be
identified by Use By Code Date of June 2, 2004 or prior. The UPC
number is 0-45388-81023-0. No other Popeyer and/or River Ranch
products are affected by this recall.

This situation was identified by a consumer who had an allergic
reaction after eating the complete salad kit. No other illnesses
have been reported to date. The recall was initiated after it
was discovered that the product that may contain walnuts and
pecans was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the
presence of these nutmeats. Subsequent investigation indicates
the problem may have been caused by the supplier inadvertently
mixing walnuts and pecans with almonds (which was the only nut
labeled). This situation has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased Popeyer Caf‚ Parisian Complete
Salad Kit are urged to return it to the place of purchase for a
full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-866-446-6192.


SIDE POCKET: Recalls Bloody Mary Mix For Undeclared Ingredients
---------------------------------------------------------------
Side Pocket Foods Co., Cottage Grove, Oregon is recalling 631
cases of Baja Bob's Mean & Lean Low Carb Blood Mary Mix because
they contain undeclared anchovy paste present in the
Worcestershire Sauce used in it's production. People who have
allergies to anchovies run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recalled Baja Bob's Mean & Lean Low Carb Bloody Mary Mix was
distributed nationwide in retail stores.

The product comes in a 323 fl. oz. glass bottle. Product is
coded by lot #'s BBBM001SPF BEST USED by 2/11/05 and BBBM001SPF
BEST USED BY 2/14/05. Codes can be found on the neck of the
bottle above the label. The firm name Low Carb Living, Inc.,
Encinitas, California is declared on the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that anchovy-
containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of anchovies.

Consumers who have purchased Baja Bob's Mean & Lean Low Carob
Bloody Mary's containing these codes are urged to return them to
the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may contact Side
Pocket Foods Co. at 1-541-767-9146


SIMON MARKETING: Settlement of IL Fraud Lawsuit Deemed Effective
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the litigation against Simon Marketing, Inc.
as a result of the arrest of an employee found embezzling
winning game pieces from McDonald's promotional games
administered by the company is deemed effective.

In 2001, former employee Jerome P. Jacobson pleaded guilty to
embezzling the winning game pieces.  No other Company employee
was found or even alleged to have any knowledge of or complicity
in his illegal scheme.  As a result of the embezzlement,
numerous consumer class action and representative action
lawsuits were filed in Illinois, the headquarters of
McDonald's, and in multiple jurisdictions nationwide and in
Canada.  Plaintiffs in these actions asserted diverse causes of
action, including:

     (1) negligence,

     (2) breach of contract,

     (3) fraud,

     (4) restitution,

     (5) unjust enrichment,

     (6) misrepresentation,

     (7) false advertising,

     (8) breach of warranty,

     (9) unfair competition and

    (10) violation of various state consumer fraud statutes

Complaints filed in federal court in New Jersey also alleged a
pattern of racketeering.  Plaintiffs in many of these actions
alleged, among other things, that defendants, including the
Company, its subsidiary Simon Marketing, and McDonald's,
misrepresented that plaintiffs had a chance at winning certain
high-value prizes when in fact the prizes were stolen by Mr.
Jacobson.  Plaintiffs sought various forms of relief, including
restitution of monies paid for McDonald's food, disgorgement of
profits, recovery of the "stolen" game prizes, other
compensatory damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and
injunctive relief.

The class and/or representative actions filed in Illinois state
court were consolidated in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois (the "Boland" case).  Numerous class and representative
actions filed in California were consolidated in California
Superior Court for the County of Orange (the "California
Court").  Numerous class and representative actions filed in
federal courts nationwide were transferred by the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation (the "JPMDL Panel") to the federal
district court in Chicago, Illinois (the "JPMDL Proceedings").
Numerous of the class and representative actions filed in state
courts other than in Illinois and California were removed to
federal court and transferred by the JPMDL Panel to the JPMDL
Proceedings.

On April 19, 2002, McDonald's entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement (the "Boland Settlement") with certain plaintiffs in
the Boland case pending in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois (the "Illinois Circuit Court").  The Boland Settlement
purports to settle and release, among other things, all claims
related to the administration, execution and operation of the
McDonald's promotional games, or to "the theft, conversion,
misappropriation, seeding, dissemination, redemption or non-
redemption of a winning prize or winning game piece in any
McDonald's Promotional Game," including without limitation
claims brought under the consumer protection statutes or laws of
any jurisdiction, that have been or could or might have been
alleged by any class member in any forum in the United States of
America, subject to a right of class members to opt out on an
individual basis, and includes a full release of the Company and
Simon Marketing, as well as their officers, directors,
employees, agents, and vendors.

On April 8, 2003, the Illinois Circuit Court issued a final
order approving the Boland Settlement.  The Boland Settlement
was conditioned upon a final judgment being issued in the Boland
case and in the case before the California Court, both of which
have now occurred and, therefore, the Boland Settlement has
become effective.  While the Boland Settlement is enforceable to
bar claims of persons who have not opted out, individual claims
may be asserted by those persons who are determined to have
properly opted out of the Boland Settlement.  The Company
has been informed that approximately 250 persons in the United
States and Canada purport to have opted out of the Boland
Settlement.  Claims may also be asserted in Canada and elsewhere
if a court were to determine the claim to be distinguishable
from and not barred by the Boland Settlement.

The remaining cases in the JPMDL Proceedings were dismissed on
April 29, 2003, other than a case originally filed in federal
district court in Kentucky, in which the plaintiff has opted out
of the Boland Settlement.  The plaintiff in that case asserts
that McDonald's and Simon Marketing failed to redeem a purported
$1 million winning ticket.  This case had been ordered to
arbitration.


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed without prejudice the securities class
action filed against Tier Technologies, Inc., its former
chairman of the board who formerly was its chief executive
officer, another executive officer who formerly was its chief
financial officer and a former executive officer, styled
"Sperling v. Tier Technologies, Inc. et al, case no. C03-
05509VRW."

The complaint was brought as a purported shareholder class
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and sought
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of the shareholder class.


TIER TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court Drops Shareholder Derivative Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Contra Costa County dismissed
the shareholder derivative action filed against Tier
Technologies, Inc.'s former and current officers and directors,
styled "Scala V. Bildner et al, case no. C03-03077."

The derivative complaint named three officers, another current
officer, some of the Company's current directors and two former
directors as defendants and alleged:

     (1) breach of fiduciary duty,

     (2) abuse of control,

     (3) gross mismanagement,

     (4) waste of corporate assets,

     (5) unjust enrichment and

     (6) violations of the California Corporations Code.


UNITED STATES: FDA Files Alert on TX, IL Cyclosporiasis Outbreak
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration is issuing an
alert to consumers that two outbreak clusters of a
gastrointestinal illness known as cyclosporiasis may be
associated with raw basil and mesculin/spring mix salad served
in Texas and Illinois.  The agency is working with the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and state and other
health authorities to determine the cause and scope of the
problem.

Cyclosporiasis is caused by the ingestion of the Cyclospora
parasite and results in the infection of the small intestine. It
causes watery diarrhea with frequent, sometimes explosive, bowel
movements. Other symptoms include loss of appetite, substantial
weight loss, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, muscle aches,
low-grade fever and fatigue. Symptoms usually develop about a
week after consuming the contaminated food. Cyclospora infection
can be successfully treated with appropriate antibiotic therapy.
Individuals experiencing these symptoms after consuming basil
and mesculin/spring mix salad products are advised to consult
their physicians and notify their local health departments.

The two outbreak clusters to date are:

     (1) In February 2004, approximately 57 individuals in
         Wheaton, Illinois were reported sick after consuming
         food containing basil and mesculin prepared by a
         restaurant.  Twenty of these cases have been confirmed
         by laboratory testing to have been stricken with
         cyclosoriasis.

     (2) In that same month 38 people in Irving, Texas were also
         reported ill after eating basil and mesculin mix at a
         local restaurant.  Sixteen of these cases were later
         confirmed by laboratory testing as cyclosporiasis.

The FDA is actively working with the state and local departments
in tracing back the potentially contaminated product to
determine its source.


US ONCOLOGY: Shareholders File Suits V. Oiler Acquisition Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
US Oncology, Inc. faces seven purported class actions relating
to its proposed merger transaction with Oiler Acquisition
Corporation.  The suits also name each of the Company's
directors as defendants.  Four of the lawsuits also name Welsh
Carson as a defendant and two also name Oiler Acquisition
Corporation.

The complaints allege, among other things, that the defendants
have breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders by entering into the merger agreement.  Among other
things, the consideration offered in the merger is alleged to be
inadequate and a result of unfair dealings.  One of the lawsuits
alleges that two of the three directors on the special
committee, and several other directors, are not independent, and
that certain facts were not disclosed.  The complaints seek an
injunction against the proposed transaction or, if it is
consummated, rescission of the transaction and imposition of a
constructive trust, as well as money damages, attorneys' fees,
expenses and other relief.

Additional lawsuits could be filed in the future, the Company
stated in a regulatory filing.  The Company believes that these
lawsuits lack merit and intend to vigorously defend them.  Three
of the lawsuits were filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware and four of the lawsuits were filed in District
Courts in Harris County, Texas by purported stockholders of US
Oncology on behalf of all similarly situated stockholders.  Each
lawsuit alleges that a class should be certified and the
plaintiff be named as representative of the purported class. No
class has been certified at present and accordingly, the Company
regards all the actions to date as purported class actions.


WELLMAN INC.: Nine Federal Antitrust Suits Voluntarily Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nine of the thirty-four federal actions filed against Wellman,
Inc. and certain other companies on behalf of direct purchasers
of polyester staple fiber have been voluntarily dismissed by the
plaintiffs of the suits.

The thirty-four federal actions allege violation of U.S.
antitrust laws.  In each remaining lawsuit, the plaintiffs
allege that the defendants engaged in a conspiracy to fix the
price of polyester staple fiber in violation of the Sherman Act.

In ten of the cases, the plaintiff purports to represent a class
of all persons who directly purchased polyester staple fiber and
were similarly affected by such alleged conduct. Fifteen of the
cases are brought by plaintiffs who do not purport to represent
a class.  Certain of these cases name employees of Wellman and
other companies as defendants.

All of the federal plaintiffs seek damages of unspecified
amounts, attorney's fees and costs and unspecified relief.  In
addition, certain of the actions claim restitution, injunction
against alleged illegal conduct and other equitable relief.  The
federal suits were originally filed in:

     (1) U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama,

     (2) U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
         California,

     (3) U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia,

     (4) U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey,

     (5) U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North
         Carolina,

     (6) U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
         Carolina,

     (7) U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina
         and

     (8) U.S. District Court for the Western District of
         Virginia

The Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation ruled on April
22, 2003 to transfer all the federal cases to the Western
District of North Carolina for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.


WELLMAN INC.: Faces 38 Antitrust, Unfair Competition Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wellman, Inc. faces thirty-eight purported class actions
alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, state antitrust
or unfair competition laws and certain state consumer protection
acts have been filed in one federal court and various state
courts on behalf of purported classes of indirect purchasers of
polyester staple fiber products.

In each lawsuit, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices of polyester staple fiber
products.  In addition, certain of the actions claim
restitution, injunction against alleged illegal conduct and
other equitable relief.

One indirect purchaser case is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina and is subject
to the order issued by the Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation for coordination or consolidation with the other
federal cases.  The rest of the indirect purchaser cases were
filed in Arizona, California, the District of Columbia, Florida,
Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, North Carolina,
South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The case filed in West Virginia was removed to federal court and
subsequently remanded to the Circuit Court of Hancock County,
West Virginia.  The case filed in Wisconsin was removed to
federal court and subsequently remanded to the Circuit Court for
Dane County, Wisconsin.

In all of these cases, the plaintiffs seek damages of
unspecified amounts, attorney's fees and costs and unspecified
relief.


WELLMAN INC.: Faces 3 Polyester Fiber Antitrust Suits in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wellman, Inc. and certain other companies face three class
actions in Canada, on behalf of indirect and indirect purchasers
of polyester staple fiber.

The first suit was filed in the Superior Court of Justice for
Ontario, Canada, by a plaintiff purporting to represent a class
of direct and indirect purchasers of polyester staple fiber.
This complaint asserts claims under Canadian law.  It contains
three counts that ask for compensatory damages of CDN$50 each.
The extent to which these three counts are duplicative and
overlapping is unclear.  The complaint also contains one count
asking for punitive damages of CDN$10.

Additionally, the Company and certain other companies were also
named in an action filed in the Supreme Court of British
Columbia, Canada, by a plaintiff purporting to represent a class
of direct and indirect purchasers of polyester staple fiber.
This complaint also asserts claims under Canadian law and
requests compensatory, punitive and special damages, but does
not allege a specific dollar amount in damages.

Finally, Wellman and certain other corporations were named in an
action filed in the Superior Court for Quebec, Canada.  This
complaint asserts claims under Canadian law seeking compensatory
damages of CDN $15 and punitive damages of CDN $5.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Lawsuits in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from October 9, 2002
through and including January 29, 2004.  The suits also name as
defendants three of the Company's current and former officers.

The complaints allege claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
complaints generally allege that, during the Class Period, the
defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's marketing and competitive situation, self-insurance
reserves, impairment of assets, and other matters.  The
complaints seek certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.

The Company expects that these various actions will be
consolidated and will proceed as a single action.  The Company
believes that the claims are without merit.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Faces Two ERISA Violations Suits in M.D. FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. faces two putative class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on behalf of the Company's Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan
and participants and beneficiaries under the Plan that held
shares through accounts under the Plan during the period from
May 6, 2002 through and including January 29, 2004.  The suits
also name as defendants three of the Company's present and
former executive officers and certain employees who serve on the
administrative committee of the Plan.

The two complaints are nearly identical, and the actions likely
will be consolidated and then proceed as a single action.  The
complaints allege claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA).

More specifically, the complaints generally allege that, during
the Class Period, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to the Plan, its participants and its beneficiaries under ERISA
by:

     (1) failing to exercise prudent discretion in deciding
         whether to sell Company stock to the Plan trustee for
         investment by the Plan,

     (2) failing to provide timely, accurate and complete
         information to Plan participants,

     (3) failing to adequately monitor and review Company stock
         performance as a prudent investment option,

     (4) failing to manage Plan assets with reasonable care,
         skill, prudence and diligence and other matters

The complaints seek certification as a class action, a
declaration that defendants violated fiduciary duties under
ERISA, unspecified equitable and remedial damages, attorneys'
fees and costs, and other relief.


WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls 2,562 Motorhomes For Accident Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winnebago Industries, Inc./Volkswagen of America, Inc. is
recalling 2,562 Winnebago Rialta motor homes, model 1998 to
2000, manufactured from March 1998 to June 2001.

On certain motor homes built on a Volkswagen Eurovan chassis,
the engine cooling fans could fracture and break apart. If the
fan fractures or breaks, this could increase the risk of
personal injury or damage to the vehicle.

Volkswagen dealers will replace the engine cooling fans. The
manufacturer has reported that owner notification was expected
to begin during April 2004. Owners may contact Volkswagen at
1-800-822-8987 or Winnebago at 1-641-585-6939.


WINNEBAGO INDUSTRIES: Recalls 5,143 Motor Homes Due To Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Winnebago Industries, Inc. is recalling 5,143 motor homes,
models:

     (1) Winnebago Journey, model 2000 to 2004

     (2) Itasca Horizon, model 2000 to 2004

     (3) Itasca Meridian, model 2000 to 2004

These motor homes were made from April 1999 to September 2003.
On certain motor homes, the liquid propane (LP) tank can crack
where the mounting brackets are welded to the tank. This could
lead to an LP leak, increasing the risk of a fire.

Dealers will re-install a cradle-style carrier and, if
necessary, replace the LP tank. The manufacturer has reported
that owner notification was expected to begin during April 2004.
Owners may contact Winnebago at 1-641-585-6939.


WJ COMMUNICATIONS: Lawsuits Over Fox Paine Acquisition Withdrawn
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuits filed against WJ Communications, Inc. over Fox
Paine's proposal to acquire all of the shares held by
unaffiliated stockholders were voluntarily dismissed after Fox
Paine withdrew their offer on March 27, 2003.

Prior to the proposal withdrawal, four lawsuits, three of which
were purported class actions, were filed against the Company and
Fox Paine in connection with such proposal.  Among other things,
these lawsuits sought an injunction against the consummation of
the proposal and an award of unspecified compensatory damages.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ABATIX CORPORATION: Nix Patterson Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP filed a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas against Abatix Corporation and certain of its
senior officers on behalf of all persons or entities, other than
defendants, who purchased the securities of Abatix Corporation
(Nasdaq:ABIX), between 5:05 p.m. EST on April 14, 2004 and 9:26
a.m. EST on April 16, 2004, inclusive and who suffered damages
thereby.

The complaint, filed in case number 5:04-CV-116, alleges that as
a result of the announcement on April 14, 2004, at 5:05 p.m.
EST, that Abatix had entered into an agreement with Goodwin
Group LLC ("Goodwin LLC") for the exclusive rights to distribute
Goodwin LLC's RapidCoolT line of products worldwide, the price
of Abatix common stock skyrocketed from $5.31 to $16.70.
However, the NASDAQ Stock Market halted the trading of Abatix
common stock as of 9:26 a.m. EST on April 16, 2004, while NASDAQ
investigated Abatix's agreement with Goodwin LLC.

On April 21, 2004, Abatix issued a press release at 8:24 a.m.
EST. In the press release, Abatix disclosed that Abatix had not
verified that:

     (1) the proprietary nature of the products in the
         RapidCoolT line;

     (2) whether any patents relating to RapidCoolT products in
         the name of another party have been assigned to Goodwin
         LLC and

     (3) whether any patent applications had been filed with
         respect to the product line.

Claims in the April 14, 2004 release as to the efficacy and
uniqueness of the products were based on representations made by
Goodwin LLC and had not been verified by Abatix. Prior to its
agreement with Goodwin LLC, the Company was able to perform only
limited due diligence and had not been able to perform an in-
depth analysis of the sales potential of the products, pricing,
marketing strategy, and competitive products. As of April 14,
2004, there had been no sales of the product by either Abatix or
by Goodwin LLC. Therefore, on April 21, 2004, once trading of
Abatix stock resumed, the price of Abatix stock plummeted from
$16.70 per share to close at $9.77.

For more details, contact Brad Beckworth or Jeff Angelovich by
Mail: NIX, PATTERSON & ROACH, L.L.P. 205 Linda Drive
Daingerfield, Texas 75638 by Phone: 903-645-7333 by Fax:
903-645-4415 or visit their Web Site: www.nixlawfirm.com


ABATIX CORPORATION: Murray Frank Launches Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court in
the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Abatix Corporation
securities (Nasdaq:ABIX). Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP reminds
investors that there is only one month left to file their
certification forms.  The lead plaintiff deadline is June 22,
2004.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making a series of materially false and
misleading statements concerning the Abatix's business agreement
with Goodwin Group LLC during the Class Period. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Abatix knew but failed to disclose
certain material facts, including that:

     (1) the Company had not verified the proprietary nature of
         RapidCool or that the Company had in fact, obtained the
         "exclusive worldwide rights to distribute RapidCool;"

     (2) that Abatix had not verified that Goodwin Group LLC was
         the assignee of patents relating to RapidCool products,
         nor had defendants verified the ownership of any patent
         applications filed with respect to the product line;
         and

     (3) defendants knew but failed to disclose that they had
         only been permitted to perform limited due diligence on
         the proprietary nature of RapidCool products before
         signing the distributorship agreement.

As a result, the price of the Company's securities was
artificially inflated during the Class Period. On April 21,
2004, the Company admitted that Abatix's April 14, 2004 press
release announcing the signing of an agreement with Goodwin
Group LLC to distribute the RapidCool (TM) product line created
a significant increase in the price and volume of shares traded,
"which Abatix believes was not warranted by Company
developments."

As a result of defendants' false and misleading statements the
price of Abatix securities was artificially inflated throughout
the Class Period, causing plaintiff and the other members of the
Class to suffer damages.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
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


ABATIX CORPORATION: Kaplan Fox Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP filed a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas, Texarkana Division, against Abatix
Corporation (NASDAQ: ABIX) and Terry Shaver, the President of
the Company, on behalf of all persons or entities, other than
defendants, who purchased the securities of Abatix Corp.,
between 5:05 p.m. EST on April 14, 2004 and 9:26 a.m. EST on
April 16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period") and who suffered
damages thereby.

The case number for the action is 5:04-CV-116. The complaint
alleges that as a result of the announcement on April 14, 2004,
at 5:05 p.m. EST that Abatix had entered into an agreement with
Goodwin Group LLC ("Goodwin LLC") for the exclusive rights to
distribute Goodwin LLC's RapidCoolT line of products worldwide,
the price of Abatix common stock skyrocketed from $5.31 to
$16.70. However, the NASDAQ Stock Market halted the trading of
Abatix common stock as of 9:26 a.m. EST on April 16, 2004, while
NASDAQ investigated Abatix's agreement with Goodwin LLC.

On April 21, 2004, Abatix disclosed that it had not verified,
among other things that:

     (1) the proprietary nature of the products in the
         RapidCoolT line;

     (2) whether any patents relating to RapidCoolT products in
         the name of another party have been assigned to Goodwin
         LLC and

     (3) whether any patent applications had been filed with
         respect to the product line.

Claims in the April 14, 2004 release as to the efficacy and
uniqueness of the products were based on representations made by
Goodwin LLC and had not been verified by Abatix. Prior to its
agreement with Goodwin LLC, the Company was able to perform only
limited due diligence and had not been able to perform an in-
depth analysis of the sales potential of the products, pricing,
marketing strategy, and competitive products. Therefore, on
April 21, 2004, once trading of Abatix stock resumed, the price
of Abatix stock plummeted from $16.70 per share to close at
$9.77.

For more details, contact Frederic S. Fox, Esq., Laurence D.
King, Esq., Hae Sung Nam, Esq. or Matthew McCahill, Esq. of
KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP by Mail: 555 Montgomery Street,
Suite 1501, San Francisco, CA 94111 or 805 Third Avenue, 22nd
Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (CA) (415) 772-4700 or (NY)
(800) 290-1952 or (NY) (212) 687-1980 by Fax: 415-772-4707 or
(212) 687-7714 or by E-Mail: mail@kaplanfox.com


AES CORPORATION: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky initiated a
securities class action against AES Corporation and its officers
on behalf of all persons who purchased securities of AES,
including those who engaged in option transactions concerning
AES securities, between July 27, 2000 and November 8, 2002,
inclusive and were damaged thereby, excluding defendants and
certain others.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division (the
"Court"), Consolidated Cause No. 1:03-cv-0284-LJM-WTL, and names
as defendants, in addition to AES, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W.
Sant and Barry J. Sharp, who were officers and/or directors of
the Company during part or all of the applicable time period.

The named plaintiffs are Stanley L. Moskal and Barbara A.
Moskal. The Moskal plaintiffs' Amended Complaint alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements and omissions regarding the California
energy market. The Amended Complaint further alleges that as a
result of these materially false and misleading statements and
omissions the price at which AES' securities were traded in the
public market was artificially inflated.

Specifically, the Amended Complaint alleges, among other things,
that AES and others were manipulating California's electricity
market by withholding supply, causing prices for electricity in
California to skyrocket; that AES's reported revenues from its
sale of electric power during the Class Period were inflated, in
part, from AES's role in manipulating the California energy
market and were not sustainable; and that AES was, and is,
exposed to substantial contingent legal liabilities as a result
of the foregoing.

The Moskal plaintiffs' action was consolidated with another
action (AFI v. AES, Corp., No. 1:03-cv-00746-DFH-TAB) also
alleging materially false and misleading statements and
omissions in connection with the California energy market, and
these two cases were separately consolidated by the Court from
other actions alleging violations of the federal securities laws
arising from misrepresentations or omissions in connection with
the United Kingdom energy market.

Specifically, the allegations of the lawsuits that were
separately consolidated by the Court, which have been styled
Imler v. AES Corp., No. 1:03-cv-00194-LJM-WTL, originally
asserted claims arising from the adoption by the United Kingdom
of a new framework for the pricing of energy that exerted
downward pressure on prices and adversely affected the Company's
ability to be profitable in the United Kingdom, particularly in
connection with AES' Fifoots Point Power Plant in Wales, which
began operations during the Spring of 2001. The amended
complaint in Imler v. AES Corp., No. 1:03-cv-00194-LJM-WTL, in
addition to the allegations related to AES's United Kingdom
businesses, also alleges that AES and certain individual
defendants violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based on statements or omissions concerning
AES's role in alleged manipulation of the California electricity
market, the effect thereof on AES's reported revenues, and AES's
alleged contingent liabilities as a result thereof.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Lawrence D.
Levit, Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky by Mail: One Penn
Plaza, Suite 1910, New York, New York 10119 by Phone:
(212) 279-5050 or (212) 714-2444 or (800) 938-0015 by Fax:
(212) 279-3655 or by E-Mail: Jfruchter@FruchterTwersky.com or
LarryL@Abrahamlaw.com


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Brodksy & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Allos Therapeutics, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ALTH), between April 23, 2003 and April 29, 2004
inclusive.  The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Allos securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Allos Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: ALTH) from April 23,
2003 through May 3, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Allos and Michael Hart 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 April 23, 2003
and May 3, 2004, about its cancer drug RSR13, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Allos's 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 study failed to demonstrate benefits of RSR13
         plus WBRT over WBRT alone for patients with brain
         metastases;

     (2) that the Company conducted only one pivotal efficacy
         study, where according to the usual requirement of the
         Agency for approval and marketing a new drug, the
         sponsor needs to demonstrate the efficacy of the new
         drug in at least two independent well-controlled
         clinical trials;

     (3) that observed apparent survival advantage in a single
         small subgroup of patients with primary breast cancer
         based on post-hoc analysis is attributable solely to
         the treatment effect and not due to imbalances in known
         and unknown prognostic factors;

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the statements made
         by the Company about RSR13 were materially false or
         misleading.

On May 3, 2004, Allos announced that the FDA Oncologic Drugs
Advisory Committee ("ODAC") did not recommend approval of the
company's investigational radiation sensitizer RSR13
(efaproxiral) as an adjunct to whole brain radiation therapy for
the treatment of patients with brain metastases originating from
breast cancer. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Allos
fell $5.83 per share or 40% on April 30, 2004 to close at $8.60
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: 1-888-299-7706
or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Allos Therapeutics, Inc.
(Nasdaq: ALTH) publicly traded securities during the period
between April 23, 2003 and May 3, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Allos and Michael Hart 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 April 23, 2003
and May 3, 2004, about its cancer drug RSR13, thereby
artificially inflating the price of Allos' 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 study failed to demonstrate benefits of RSR13
         plus WBRT over WBRT alone for patients with brain
         metastases;

     (2) that the Company conducted only one pivotal efficacy
         study, where according to the usual requirement of the
         Agency for approval and marketing a new drug, the
         sponsor needs to demonstrate the efficacy of the new
         drug in at least two independent well-controlled
         clinical trials;

     (3) that observed apparent survival advantage in a single
         small subgroup of patients with primary breast cancer
         based on post-hoc analysis is attributable solely to
         the treatment effect and not due to imbalances in known
         and unknown prognostic factors;

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the statements made
         by the Company about RSR13 were materially false or
         misleading.

On May 3, 2004, Allos announced that the FDA Oncologic Drugs
Advisory Committee ("ODAC") did not recommend approval of the
company's investigational radiation sensitizer RSR13
(efaproxiral) as an adjunct to whole brain radiation therapy for
the treatment of patients with brain metastases originating from
breast cancer. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Allos
fell $5.83 per share or 40% on April 30, 2004 to close at $8.60
per share.

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 or
by E-Mail: info@geller-rudman.com


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Murray Frank Files Securities Lawsuit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court
District of Colorado, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired Allos Therapeutics Inc.
securities (Nasdaq:ALTH) between May 29, 2003 and May 3, 2004,
inclusive.  The deadline for filing a certification as a
shareholder is July 18, 2004.

The complaint alleges defendants misled the investing public by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
highlighting the purported efficacy of the Company's radiation
sensitizer RSR13 ("Efaproxiral") for the treatment of brain
metastases in patients with breast cancer, as well as the
likelihood that this drug would receive approval from me U.S.
Food and Drug Administration ("FDA").

On April 30 and May 3, 2004, however, it was announced that the
Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee ("ODAC") of the FDA
concluded, by a 16-1 vote, to recommend that the FDA not approve
Efaproxiral. In recommending rejection of Efaproxiral, the ODAC
found that "the evidence of drug efficacy needs to be much
stronger to be convincing." Perhaps even more disconcerting to
investors was the ODAC's further comment that the purported
efficacy of the Efaproxiral in breast cancer patients with brain
metastases could be to other causes, strongly calling into
question the viability of Efaproxiral.

As a result of this announcement, the price of Allos shares fell
$2.09, or 45%, to close at $2.55, where it was the top
percentage loser, on extraordinary volume.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. 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: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Asconi Corporation (AMEX:ACD),
between May 15, 2003 and March 23, 2004 inclusive.  The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Asconi securities.

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


BISYS GROUP: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of BISYS Group, Inc. (NYSE:BSG),
between October 23, 2000 and May 17, 2004 inclusive.  The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of BISYS securities.

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


BISYS GROUP: Murray, Frank Commences Securities Fraud Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court
District of Colorado, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired BISYS Group Inc. securities
(NYSE:BSG) between October 23, 2000 to May 17, 2004, inclusive.
The deadline for filing a certification as a shareholder is July
18, 2004.

The complaint alleges defendants caused BISYS's shares to trade
at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false
and misleading financial statements that underrepresented
anticipated adjustments to its commissions receivables. As a
result of this inflation, BISYS was able to raise $250 million
in a convertible note offering while the individual defendants
were able to reap more than $25 million in insider trading
proceeds. On May 17, 2004, the Company issued a press release
that stated, in pertinent part:

"Based upon a continuing review and analysis of commissions
receivable in its Life Insurance division, BISYS has determined
that the previously reported adjustment of $24.7 million ($15.5
million net of tax) to commissions receivable in its Life
Insurance division will be increased to approximately $70
million to $80 million (approximately $44 million to $50 million
net of tax)."

The stock price fell 10%, to below $13 per share, on this news.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. 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: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc.
(NYSE:KKD), between August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004 inclusive.
The class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Krispy Kreme
securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


MERRILL LYNCH: Charles Piven Lodges Securities Suit In S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares or other ownership units
of any of the mutual funds carrying the "Merrill Lynch" brand
name (the "MLIM Funds") through Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner &
Smith Incorporated ("MLPF&S") acting as broker between May 20,
1999 to the present (the "Class Period") and who were damaged
thereby, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The MLIM Funds, and the symbols for the respective MLIM Funds
named below, are as follows:

     (1) ML Aggregate Bond Index Fund (Sym:  MDABX, MAABX)

     (2) ML Balanced Capital Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDCPX, MBCPX,
         MCCPX)

     (3) ML Basic Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDBAX, MBBAX, MCBAX)

     (4) ML Bond Fund, Inc. -- Core Bond Portfolio (Sym:  MDHQX,
         MBHQX, MCHQX)

     (5) ML Bond Fund, Inc. -- High Income Portfolio (Sym:
         MDHIX, BHIX, MCHIX, MAHIX)

     (6) ML Bond Fund, Inc. -- Intermediate Term (Sym:  MDCTX,
         MBCTX, MCCTX, MACTX)

     (7) ML California Insured Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDCMX,
         MBCMX, MCCMX, MACMX)

     (8) ML Developing Capital Markets Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDDCX,
         MBDCX, MCDCX, MADCX)

     (9) ML Disciplined Equity Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDDGX, MBDGX,
         MCDGX, MADGX)

    (10) ML Dragon Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDDRX, MBDRX, MCDRX, MADRX)

    (11) ML Equity Dividend Fund (Sym:  MDDVX, MBDVX, MCDVX,
         MADVX)

    (12) ML EuroFund  (Sym:  MDEFX, MBEFX, MCEFX, MAEFX)

    (13) ML Florida Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDFMX, MBFMX,
         MAFMX)

    (14) ML Focus Twenty Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDFOX, MBFOX, MCFOX,
         MAFOX)

    (15) ML Focus Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDPNX, MBPNX, MCPNX,
         MAPNX)

    (16) ML Fundamental Growth Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDFGX, MBFGX,
         MCFGX, MAFGX)

    (17) ML Global Allocation Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDLOX, MBLOX,
         MCLOX, MALOX)

    (18) ML Global Balanced Fund (Sym:  MDGNX, MBGNX, MCGNX,
         MAGNX)

    (19) ML Global Financial Services Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDFNX,
         MBFNX, MCFNX, MAFNX)

    (20) ML Global Growth Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDGGX, MBGGX, MCGGX,
         MAGGX)

    (21) ML Global SmallCap Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDGCX, MBGCX,
         MCGCX, MAGCX)

    (22) ML Global Technology Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDGTX, MBGTX,
         MCGTX, MAGTX)

    (23) ML Global Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDVLX, MBVLX, MCVLX,
         MAVLX)

    (24) ML Healthcare Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDHCX, MBHCX, MCHCX,
         MAHCX)

    (25) ML International Equity Fund (Sym:  MDIEX, MBIEX,
         MCIEX, MAIEX)

    (26) ML International Fund (Sym:  MDILX, MBILX, MCILX,
         MAILX)

    (27) ML International Index Fund (Sym:  MAIIX)

    (28) ML International Value Fund (Sym:  MDIVX, MBIVX, MCIVX,
         MAIVX)

    (29) ML Internet Strategies Fund (Sym:  MANTX, MBNTX, MCNTX,
         MDNTX)

    (30) ML Large Cap Core Fund (Sym:  MDLRX, MBLRX, MCLRX,
         MALRX)

    (31) ML Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym:  MDLHX, MBLHX, MCLHX,
         MALHX)

    (32) ML Large Cap Value Fund (Sym:  MDLVX, MBLVX, MCLVX,
         MALVX)

    (33) ML Latin America Fund, Inc.  (Sym:  MDLTX, MBLTX,
         MCLTX, MALTX)

    (34) ML Low Duration Fund (Sym:  MDDUX, MBDUX, MCDUX, MADUX)

    (35) ML Mid Cap Value Fund (Sym:  MDRFX, MBRFX, MCRFX,
         MARFX)

    (36) ML Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. -- Insured  (Sym:  MDMIX,
         MBMIX, MCMIX, MAMIX)

    (37) ML Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. -- Limited Maturity (Sym:
         MDLMX, MBLMX, MCLMX, MALMX)

    (38) ML Municipal Bond Fund, Inc. -- National  (Sym:  MDNLX,
         MBNLX, MCNLX, MANLX)

    (39) ML Municipal Intermediate Term Fund  (Sym:  MDMTX,
         MBMTX, MCMTX, MAMTX)

    (40) ML Resources Trust  (Sym:  MDGRX, MBGRX, MCGRX, MAGRX)

    (41) ML New Jersey Municipal Bond Fund  (Sym:  MDNJX, MBNJX,
         MCNJX, MANJX)

    (42) ML New York Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDNKX, MBNKX,
         MCNKX, MANKX)

    (43) ML Pacific Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDPCX, MBPCX, MCPCX,
         MAPCX)

    (44) ML Pan-European Growth Fund (Sym:  MDPEX, MBPEX, MCPEX,
         MAPEX)

    (45) ML Pennsylvania Municipal Bond Fund (Sym:  MDPYX,
         MBPYX, MCPYX, MAPYX)

    (46) ML S&P 500 Index Fund MDSRX  (Sym:  MASRX, MDUGX)

    (47) ML Short Term U.S. Government Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDAJX,
         MBUGX, MBAJX, MCUGX, MCAJX)

    (48) ML Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym:  MRUSX, MBSWX, MCSWX,
         MASWX)

    (49) ML Small Cap Index Fund (Sym:  MDSKX, MASKX)

    (50) ML Small Cap Value Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDSPX, MBSPX,
         MCSPX, MASPX)

    (51) ML Strategy All-Equity Fund  (Sym:  MDAEX, MBAEX,
         MCAEX, MAAEX)

    (52) ML Strategy Growth and Income Fund (Sym:  MDTGX, MBTGX,
         MCTGX, MATGX)

    (53) ML Strategy Long-Term Growth Fund (Sym:  MDYLX, MBYLX,
         MCYLX, MAYLX)

    (54) ML U.S. Government Mortgage Fund  (Sym:  MDFSX, MBFSX,
         MCFSX, MAFSX)

    (55) ML U.S. High Yield Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDCHX, MBCHX,
         MCCHX, MACHX)

    (56) ML Utilities and Telecommunications Fund (Sym:  MDGUX,
         MBGUX, MCGUX, MAGUX)

    (57) ML World Income Fund, Inc. (Sym:  MDWIX, MBWIX, MCWIX,
         MAWIX)

The action, numbered 04-cv-3759, is pending before the Honorable
Richard Owen in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendants Merrill Lynch &
Co. ("ML&Co.") (NYSE: MER), Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner & Smith
Incorporated ("MLPF&S") and Merrill Lynch Investment Managers
L.P ("MLIM LP").

The action charges defendants with engaging in an unlawful and
deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly financially
advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiffs and other
members of the Class. As part and parcel of defendants' unlawful
conduct, defendants, in contravention of their disclosure
obligations, fiduciary responsibilities and National Association
of Securities Dealers ("NASD") Rules, failed to properly
disclose that defendants systematically applied incentives and
demerits to induce and compel MLPF&S's mid-level managers to
maximize sales of mutual funds carrying the MLIM brand name. In
turn, these mid-level managers --- Regional Directors, Directors
and Resident Managers --- brought intense pressure to bear on
the Financial Advisors under their supervision to steer the
Financial Advisors' clients away from mutual funds owned and
managed by other entities and into MLIM Funds. By investing in
the MLIM Funds, plaintiffs and other members of the Class
received a return on their investment that was substantially
less than the return on investment that they would have received
had they invested the same dollars in a comparable fund.

MLPF&S's undisclosed plan and scheme has operated as a wrongful
and deceptive exploitation of the misplaced trust of its
clients.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:
410/986-0036 by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


SALTON INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
securities class action, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Salton, Inc. (NYSE: SFP) between November 11, 2002
and May 11, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, against
defendants Salton, Leonhard Dreimann (CEO, Director) and David
M. Mulder (Chief Administrative and Senior Financial Officer).
The complaint charges defendants with violations of the Exchange
Act. More specifically, the complaint alleges that Salton's
Class Period press releases and quarterly and annual reports
filed with the SEC were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose the following adverse factors (among
others particularized in the complaint) that were having a
materially negative impact on Salton's business:

     (1) at the inception of the Class Period, the Company's
         main revenue and growth driver, the Foreman grill, had
         saturated the market such that it was entirely
         foreseeable that sales had stalled and would continue
         to stall and/or could not be counted on for continued
         and sustainable revenues in the near term;

     (2) without the Company's illegal price support scheme,
         ended immediately prior to the Class Period by the
         aggressive efforts of many State Attorneys General,
         Salton could not maintain its market position or profit
         margin; and

     (3) throughout much of the Class Period, Salton was either
         in violation of the Company's debt agreements or was
         foreseeably going to be in breach of those agreements.

On May 10, 2004, after the close of trading, defendants issued a
release announcing that Salton was performing much worse than
the Company had led investors to believe, that the Company was
in violation of its senior secured revolving credit facility for
the month ended March 27, 2004, and that defendants anticipated
near-term non-compliance with certain financial covenants. In
response to this announcement, the price of Salton common stock
plummeted, from $6.69 per share on May 10, 2004, to $3.35 per
share on May 11, 2004, a one day drop of 50% on unusually large
trading volume.

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


SPSS INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common
stock and other securities of SPSS Inc. (Nasdaq:SPSSE), between
May 2, 2001 and March 30, 2004 inclusive.  The class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

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

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