---

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

             Thursday, June 10, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 114


                         Headlines

ALBERTSON'S INC.: Reaches Settlement For Employee Lawsuit in CA
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Court Orders Second Settlement Claims Process
ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Dismisses Grocery Antitrust Lawsuit
ALBERTSON'S INC.: Grocery Managers File Overtime Wage Suit in CA
COLE NATIONAL: OH Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement

DYNAMIC COOKING: Recalls 1,400 DCS Wall Ovens Due To Burn Hazard
FLORIDA: A.G. Crist Reaches Settlement With Destin Water Users
HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Court Allows Filing of Lawsuit V. Austria
JEWEL FOOD: IL Court Briefs Milk Pricing Suit Dismissal Appeal
LONG'S DRUG: Mediation in Wage Suit Set For Second Quarter 2005

MERRILL LYNCH: Trial in UK Gender Discrimination Suit Commences
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Appeals EU Order on Windows Media Player
OLD NAVY: Recalls 666T Children's Garments Due To Choking Hazard
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Lawsuit in DE
PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Faces Amended FL Shareholder Derivative Suit

POLO RALPH: Mediation Commences In CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
SAV-ON DRUG: CA High Court Hears Appeal on Suit De-certification
SBARRO INC.: To Appeal CA Court Ruling in Overtime Wage Lawsuit
SBARRO INC.: Working For Settlement of CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
SBARRO INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA

SPEED NET: NC A.G. Cooper Orders Illegal Loan Practices To Stop
TALX CORPORATION: MO Court Grants Approval To Stock Lawsuit Pact
TARGUS GROUP: Recalls All-in-One Plug Adapters For Fire Hazard
THINGS REMEMBERED: CA Court Grants Final Settlement To Wage Suit
TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Former PAS Shareholders Lodge CA Fraud Suit

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BALLY TOTAL: Squitieri & Fearon Files N.D. IL Securities Suit
BALLY TOTAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Brodsky & Smith Files S.D. CA Securities Suit

BUSINESS OBJECTS: Geller Rudman Commences Securities Suit in NY
GENTA INC.: Squitieri & Fearon Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
KRISPY KREME: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NC
POZEN INC.: Brodsky & Smith Launches Securities Suit in M.D. NC
POZEN INC.: Paskowitz & Associates Files Securities Suit in NC

POZEN INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC
POZEN INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC
POZEN INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
POZEN INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC
SMITH BARNEY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY

SPEAR & JACKSON: Scott + Scott Initiates Securities Suit in FL
TRICO MARINE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in LA


                         *********


ALBERTSON'S INC.: Reaches Settlement For Employee Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
class action filed in the Superior Court of Los Angeles,
California against it and its wholly-owned subsidiaries:

     (1) American Stores Company,

     (2) American Drug Stores, Inc.,

     (3) Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. and

     (4) Lucky Stores, Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of bonus-eligible managers seeking
recovery of additional bonus compensation based upon plaintiffs'
allegation that the calculation of profits on which their
bonuses were based improperly included expenses for workers'
compensation costs, cash shortages, premises liability and
"shrink" losses in violation of California law.

Two suits were initially filed, styled "Gardner, et al. v.
Albertson's, Inc., et al." and "Petersen, et al. v. Lucky
Stores, Inc., et al."  These suits were consolidated in June
2002 and in August 2002 a class action with respect to the
consolidated case was certified by the court.

On May 26, 2004, the Company entered into an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated case.  The settlement
agreement is subject to approval by the California Superior
Court.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: Court Orders Second Settlement Claims Process
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Boise, Idaho ordered a
second claims process in the settlement for the consolidated
class and/or collective actions filed against Albertson's, Inc.,
relating to various issues including "off-the-clock" work
allegations and allegations regarding certain salaried grocery
managers' exempt status.

Under the settlement agreement, current and former employees who
met eligibility criteria have been allowed to present their off-
the-clock work claims to a settlement administrator.
Additionally, current and former grocery managers employed in
the State of California have been allowed to present their
exempt status claims to a settlement administrator.

The Company mailed notices of the settlement and claims forms to
approximately 70,500 associates and former associates.
Approximately 6,000 claim forms were returned, of which
approximately 5,000 were deemed by the settlement administrator
to be incapable of valuation, presumed untimely, or both.  The
claims administrator was able to assign a value to approximately
1,000 claims, which amount to a total of approximately $14,
although the value of many of those claims is still subject to
challenge by the Company.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: CA Court Dismisses Grocery Antitrust Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court, Los Angeles County dismissed a
consumer class action filed against Albertson's, Inc. and other
grocery chains, namely:

     (1) Ralphs Grocery Company,

     (2) Safeway Inc., dba Vons,

The suit alleged that that certain provisions of the agreements
between the Company, The Kroger Co. and Safeway, Inc. which
provided for  "lock-outs" in the event that any Retailer was
struck at any or all of its southern California facilities when
the other Retailers were not and contained a provision designed
to prevent the union from placing disproportionate pressure on
one or more Retailer(s) by picketing such Retailer(s) but not
the other Retailer(s), violate California's Cartwright Act and
the Unfair Competition Law.  The lawsuit sought unspecified
monetary damages and injunctive relief.


ALBERTSON'S INC.: Grocery Managers File Overtime Wage Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Albertson's, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California in and for the County of
Alameda, styled "Dunbar, et al. v. Albertsons."  The suit was
filed by grocery managers seeking recovery including overtime
pay based upon plaintiffs' allegation that they were improperly
classified as exempt under California law.

This case is currently in discovery. However the Company has
strong defenses against this lawsuit, it said in a regulatory
filing.


COLE NATIONAL: OH Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Cole National
Corporation, alleging claims for various violations of federal
securities laws related to the Company's publicly reported
revenues and earnings.

The action, which pleaded claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and named the Company
and certain present and former officers and directors as
defendants, sought unspecified compensatory damages, punitive
damages "where appropriate," costs, expenses and attorneys'
fees.


DYNAMIC COOKING: Recalls 1,400 DCS Wall Ovens Due To Burn Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dynamic Cooking Systems, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
about 1,400 DCS Wall Ovens.

When the oven is in the self-cleaning mode, the oven's exterior
door temperature exceeds the allowable surface temperature
limits under the industry voluntary standard for household
electric ranges. Sustained contact with the door during self-
cleaning mode could cause burns.

These wall ovens come in single or double oven models in three
color options: stainless steel, black, or white. The Wall
Oven/Single (WOS) models have these serial numbers indicating
the date of manufacture in 2003 and 2004 (the blank can be any
of the letters A through L):

     (1) 03_00001A to 03_00155A

     (2) 04_00001A to 04_01093A

The Wall Oven/Double (WOSD) models have these serial numbers
(the blank can be any of the letters A through L): 04_00001A to
04_00210A

The serial numbers are located on the oven frame's left trim
post, approximately 12 inches from the bottom. Open the oven
door to read the serial number.

Appliance dealers nationwide sold these items from January 2003
through May 2004 for between $2,179 and $3,920.

Consumers should not use the oven in self-cleaning mode until
free replacement doors have been installed.  Call the company to
make arrangements for free replacement oven doors.  For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: (877) 446-1501 from 7
a.m. to 5 p.m. (PT), Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's
Website: http://www.dcsappliances.com/cust_serv/index.php.


FLORIDA: A.G. Crist Reaches Settlement With Destin Water Users
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Florida Attorney General's civil rights investigation of
Destin Water Users, a public water and sewer service provider in
Destin, has been resolved, Attorney General Charlie Crist
announced in a statement.

Two employees, Darrick Hall and Todd Oranje, reported that they
were exposed to a racially hostile workplace and retaliated
against for filing complaints with the Florida Commission on
Human Relations and with company management about racial
harassment.  The types of behavior included frequent and regular
racial slurs, the placement of a noose in the work area of an
African-American, and denial of work opportunities.  These
violations of Florida's Civil Rights Act allegedly occurred
between August and October 2002.

"Forcing individuals to tolerate racial slurs and then to
retaliate against them for making lawful complaints is
deplorable," said AG Crist in a statement.  "Thankfully, we have
resolved this matter in the best interests of all concerned."

The agreement provides for payment of $320,000 in damages to the
former employees and payment of $60,000 to the Attorney
General's Office for legal fees and costs.  In addition, Destin
Water Users has agreed to modify its personnel procedures for
employees filing discrimination complaints.  The new procedures
enable employees to "bypass" management and take their
complaints directly to a member of the Board of Directors.  The
procedures also make the use of racial slurs in the workplace a
disciplinary offense as serious as theft, intoxication at work,
or insubordination.

AG Crist said the company took the matter seriously and changed
the circumstances that lead to the problems.  This cooperation
contributed to the success of the investigation and settlement
process.


HOLOCAUST LITIGATION: Court Allows Filing of Lawsuit V. Austria
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court allowed a California woman to
file a suit against Austria to retrieve $150 million worth of
family paintings allegedly stolen by the Nazis, the Associated
Press reports.

The high court allowed 88-year-old Maria Altmann to pursue a
lawsuit filed in the United States District Court in Los
Angeles, seeking to force Austria to turn over six Gustav Klimt
paintings that include a picture of her aunt, Adele Bloch-Bauer.
Mr. Klimt, an Austrian impressionist who died in 1918, founded
the Vienna Secession art movement.

The Nazis seized the possessions of Altmann's wealthy Jewish
family, including the prized paintings that now hang in the
Austrian Gallery, soon after they came to power in Austria in
1938.  Ms. Altmann and her husband escaped to America after she
had been detained and her husband imprisoned in a labor camp.

The Austrian government has contended that it has rightful
ownership of the paintings, because Ms. Bloch-Bauer, asked that
the art be donated to the government gallery before her death in
1925.

The high court ruled 6-3 in favor of Ms. Altmann.  Justice John
Paul Stevens, writing for the majority, said courts have
jurisdiction of old property cases under a 1976 federal law that
spelled out when other countries can be sued in the United
States, AP reports.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy dissented, saying that the decision
was a broad one that "opens foreign nations worldwide to vast
and potential liability for expropriation claims in regards to
conduct that occurred generations ago, including claims that
have been the subject of international negotiation and
agreement."  Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Clarence
Thomas joined Judge Kennedy in his dissent.

The decision brought praise from Jewish leaders, who hope for
jury verdicts while some Holocaust survivors still are alive.
"The court has taken a major step forward to make possible
finally, 60 years after the war ended, some measure of redress
for victims of the Holocaust whose property was stolen and never
returned," Charles Moerdler, an attorney for The Austrian Jewish
Community, told AP.  "It is both symbolic and practical. It is
literally a godsend."

It is believed the ruling may encourage victims of wartime
atrocities to launch similar suits.  Cases already are pending
that involve women who claim they were used by the Japanese
during World War II as sex slaves and Holocaust survivors and
heirs who have sued the French national railroad for
transporting more than 70,000 Jews and others to Nazi
concentration camps, AP reports.  In addition, Austria faces a
separate class-action art lawsuit in federal court in New York,
and Poland is accused in a lawsuit of taking Jewish families'
land.

Austrian government spokesman Gottfried Toman told AP he was
disappointed with the ruling.  He said, however, "If we have to
conduct the trial in the United States, so be it. We will be
successful there."

Mr. Altmann's lawyer, E. Randol Schoenberg, told AP he will ask
for a quick trial because of her age.  Ms. Altmann said she
doubts it will come to that. The case could instead by settled
in arbitration, she said.

"The trial would bring out the real facts, which are pretty bad
for the Austrians. I think they will want to avoid it," she told
AP in a telephone interview.


JEWEL FOOD: IL Court Briefs Milk Pricing Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefs for the plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the milk
pricing antitrust suit filed against Jewel Food Stores, Inc.,
and Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc., styled "Maureen Baker et al.
v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc. and Dominick's Finer Foods, Inc.,
Case No. 00L 009664," are pending in Illinois Appellate Court.

The suit was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois.  In February 2003, the trial court found in
favor of the defendants and dismissed the case with prejudice.
Thereafter, the plaintiffs appealed.


LONG'S DRUG: Mediation in Wage Suit Set For Second Quarter 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Long's Drug Stores Corporation reached a tentative $1 million
settlement for the two class actions filed against it in two
California Superior Courts, styled:

     (1) Darien Goddard, et al v. Longs Drug Stores Corporation,
         et al., filed in the California Superior Court in
         Alameda County, and

     (2) David Robotnick v. Longs Drug Stores California, Inc.,
         filed in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles
         County

The lawsuits were filed by plaintiffs who are current or former
store managers or assistant managers on behalf of themselves and
other similarly situated California store managers and assistant
store managers.  The lawsuits allege that the Company improperly
classified such employees as exempt under California's wage and
hour and unfair business practice laws and seek damages,
penalties under California's wage and hour laws, restitution,
reclassification and attorneys' fees and costs.

Under the proposed settlement, Longs would pay $11 million to
cover claims by eligible class members, plaintiff attorneys'
fees and other costs. The company said it expects to incur
additional costs for its defense and employer payroll taxes,
Reuters reports.

"While the company denies all liability in these cases, it has
agreed to the settlement in order to resolve all of the
plaintiffs' claims without engaging in protracted litigation,"
General Counsel William Rainey said in a statement.


MERRILL LYNCH: Trial in UK Gender Discrimination Suit Commences
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the gender discrimination suit filed against Merrill
Lynch UK commenced this week before an employment tribunal at
Croydon, south London, Reuters reports.

Former top Merill Lynch banker Stephanie Villalba, 42, alleged
that she was "bullied, belittled and undermined" by her boss, a
man who had difficulty in accepting her in a senior role at the
U.S.-based investment bank.  Ms. Villalba is seeking around 7.5
million pounds ($13.8 million) from the investment firm for sex
discrimination, victimization, unfair dismissal and unequal pay.

Ms. Villalba, a mother of three who had a 17-year career at
Merrill, worked for the bank's global private client financial
advice business, which helps high net worth individuals manage
their wealth.  She was promoted to head the private client
business in Europe in May 2002.

Her co-worker Ausaf Abbas was brought in from Asia, where he had
been running the private client business from Japan, as a part
of new layer of management installed above Ms. Villalba.  Mr.
Abbas allegedly told her on a plane trip abroad that she should
sit where cabin crew sit and to serve drinks to the six male
colleagues present.

Additionally, Mr. Abbas described Villalba as "high maintenance"
in one email and when told by her how hard she worked at her
job, Mr. Abbas replied: "Stephanie, my maid works hard," lawyers
for Villalba said, Reuters reports.

Lawyers for Merrill denied accusations of sexual discrimination.
Nicholas Underhill, acting for Merrill, said that Mr. Abbas'
comments about serving drinks on the plane were not
discriminatory.  He also stated that the term "high maintenance"
was not gender-specific and that the maid comment only meant
that "working hard is not enough."

Ms. Villalba was replaced as her role in February 2003.  This
was "a judgment based on her performance at that time, it was
nothing to do with sex," Mr. Underhill told AP.  The "evidence
is overwhelming that she was doing badly" in this role, he
added.

The case could set a precedent for other sexual discrimination
cases in the City, London's traditionally male-dominated
financial district.  Merrill has paid out more than $100 million
to settle nearly 900 gender bias claims filed in recent years by
female employees who have alleged that the bank had a culture of
gender discrimination.  In April, Merrill was ordered by an
arbitration panel to pay $2.2 million in damages to Hydie
Sumner, a female broker at its office in San Antonio, Texas, in
a case which Chief Executive Officer Stan O'Neal called "an
embarrassing blot" on Merrill's reputation.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Appeals EU Order on Windows Media Player
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation appealed the European Union's (EU)
landmark antitrust decision against it relating to Windows Media
Player in the European Court of First Instance, alleging the
changes in business practices demanded by EU regulators would
undermine innovation and growth, the Associated Press reports.

After a five-year investigation, the European Commission found
Microsoft guilty of abusing its monopoly with Windows operating
system software to squeeze out rivals in related markets for
digital media players and low-end servers.

On March 24, 2004, the 20-member European Commission ordered the
software giant to offer a version of its Windows operating
system without Windows Media Player and to encourage computer
makers to provide other audiovisual software as it nears the end
of its ten-year antitrust investigation, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (March 25,2004) reports.

The decision will order the Company to change the way it does
business and fine it a record $612.7 million.  The decision will
also order Microsoft to license information to make the servers
of rivals more compatible with Windows desktop machines.
Windows runs more than 95 percent of all personal computers.

The appeal asks the European Court of First Instance in
Luxembourg to annul the European Commission's March 24 decision,
court and company officials told AP.

"We believe that the interest of consumers and other European
companies should be at the heart of this case," Microsoft's top
lawyer in Europe, Horacio Gutierrez, said in a statement.  "The
Commission's decision undermines the innovative efforts of
successful companies . (and) the legal standards . significantly
alter incentives for research and development that are important
to global economic growth."

Court President Bo Vesterdorf is expected to decide within days
whether to freeze the sanctions - due to start taking effect in
late June - pending a final ruling on that aspect later this
year.  The entire appeal process is expected to take several
years.

The software giant contended that the order amounts to an
unjustified violation of its intellectual property rights and
will "restrict companies' ability to add innovative improvements
to their products," according to Gutierrez.

EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti expressed confidence
Monday that his decision would withstand Microsoft's appeal, AP
reports.


OLD NAVY: Recalls 666T Children's Garments Due To Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Navy LLC is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 666,000 Children's
Zippered Outerwear garments.  The plastic zipper pull can detach
from the zipper, posing a choking hazard to young children.  The
Company has received 13 reports of the zipper pulls detaching,
including one report of a child mouthing the object.  No
injuries have been reported.

This recall involves children's outerwear garments with a clear,
oval-shaped zipper pull. The garments were sold in sizes 6
months to 4T. Style numbers are printed on a white label sewn
into the garment. The label is located under the garment-care
tag.  Included in the recall are:

     (1) Style 210209 - Fur Trim Coat

     (2) Style 210210 - « zip mock neck fleece pullover

     (3) Style 210211 - « zip mock neck fleece pullover, floral

     (4) Style 210212 - « zip mock neck fleece pullover, striped

     (5) Style 210672 - frost free jacket

     (6) Style 210673 - quilted fur coat

     (7) Style 210228 - fleece jumper hoodie

Old Navy stores and oldnavy.com nationwide sold these items from
November 2003 through May 2004 from between $14 and $34.

Consumers should return the garments to any Old Navy store for a
refund and a complimentary $5 appreciation card.  For more
details, contact the Company by Phone: (866) 580-9930 from 9
a.m. to 9 p.m. Monday through Friday, 12 p.m. to 7 p.m.
Saturday, and 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. Sunday.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Plaintiffs Dismiss Securities Lawsuit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the shareholder class action
filed against Parlux Fragrances, Inc. in the Delaware Court of
Chancery.

Judy Altman filed the suit, purporting to act on behalf of
herself and other public stockholders of the Company.  The
complaint named the Company as a defendant along with all of the
Company's Board of Directors, except Mr. David Stone.  The June
Complaint sought to enjoin the defendants from consummating a
Tender Offer Proposal from Quality King Distributors, Inc. and
Ilia Lekach, the Company's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,
to acquire the Company's common stock, and sought to have the
acquisition rescinded if it was consummated.  In addition, the
June Complaint sought unspecified damages, plus the fees, costs
and disbursements of Ms. Altman's attorneys.


PARLUX FRAGRANCES: Faces Amended FL Shareholder Derivative Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parlux Fragrances, Inc. faces an amended shareholder derivative
action filed in the Circuit Court for the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in Miami-Dade County, in which the nominal plaintiffs,
the Macatee Family Limited Partnership and Chatham, Partners I,
LP, purport to be suing for the benefit of the Company itself
and all of its public shareholders.

The Complaint names the Company as the nominal defendant and all
of the current members of the Board of Directors as the
defendants.  It seeks unspecified damages allegedly arising out
of breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with transactions
involving the Company and Mr. Ilia Lekach, its Chief Executive
Officer or companies in which he has an ownership interest.  The
Complaint seeks to enjoin the Company from continuing to enter
into such transactions, seeks payment of costs and fees to
Plaintiffs' counsel and other unstated relief.


POLO RALPH: Mediation Commences In CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mediation has commenced between the parties of a class action
filed against Polo Ralph Lauren and its Polo Retail, LLC
subsidiary by an employee at one of its stores in the United
States District Court for the District of Northern California.

The suit alleges violations of California antitrust and labor
laws.  The plaintiff purports to represent a class of employees
who have allegedly been injured by a requirement that certain
retail employees purchase and wear Company apparel as a
condition of their employment.  The complaint, as amended, seeks
an unspecified amount of actual and punitive damages,
disgorgement of profits and injunctive and declaratory relief.

The Company answered the amended complaint on November 4, 2002.
A hearing on cross motions for summary judgment on the issue of
whether the Company's policies violated California law took
place on August 14, 2003.  The Court granted partial summary
judgment with respect to certain of the plaintiff's claims, but
concluded that more discovery was necessary before it could
decide the key issue as to whether the Company had maintained
for a period of time a dress code policy that violated
California law.  The Court ordered the parties to conduct
limited discovery to that end.  Discovery has been stayed
pending the outcome of voluntary mediation between the parties,
which commenced on May 12, 2004.

On April 14, 2003, a second putative class action was filed in
the San Francisco Superior Court.  This suit, brought by the
same attorneys, alleges near identical claims to these in the
federal class action.  The class representatives consist of
former employees and the plaintiff in the federal court action.
Defendants in this class action include the Company and its Polo
Retail, LLC, Fashions Outlet of America, Inc., Polo Retail, Inc.
and San Francisco Polo, Ltd. subsidiaries as well as a non-
affiliated corporate defendant and two current managers.

As in the federal action, the complaint seeks an unspecified
amount of action and punitive restitution of monies spent, and
declaratory relief.  The state court class action has been
stayed pending resolution of the federal class action.


SAV-ON DRUG: CA High Court Hears Appeal on Suit De-certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court heard oral arguments on plaintiffs'
appeal of a lower court ruling decertifying a lawsuit filed
against Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc.

The suit was filed on behalf of assistant managers and operating
managers who seek recovery of overtime pay based upon
plaintiffs' allegation that they were improperly classified as
exempt under California law.  The suit is styled "Rocher,
Dahlin, et al. v. Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc." and has already been
certified as a class action.

In April 2002, the Court of Appeal of the State of California
Second Appellate District reversed the Rocher class
certification, leaving only two plaintiffs.  The California
Supreme Court has accepted plaintiffs' request for review of
this class decertification.  The California Supreme Court heard
oral arguments on June 1, 2004.

Sav-on Drug Stores, Inc. was also named as defendant in a
similar class action, styled "Gardner, et al. v. American Stores
Company, et al."  The suit also names as defendants the
Company's parent Albertson's Inc., American Stores Company,
American Drug Stores, Inc., and Lucky Stores, Inc. and is
pending in the same court.  In May 2001, a class action with
respect to Sav-on Drug Stores assistant managers was certified
by the court.


SBARRO INC.: To Appeal CA Court Ruling in Overtime Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sbarro, Inc. intends to appeal an unfavorable ruling by the
California Superior Court for Orange County in the lawsuit filed
against it by Antonio Garcia and thirteen current and former
general managers of Sbarro restaurants in California.

The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were improperly
classified as exempt employees under the California wage and
hour law.  The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive
damages and costs of the lawsuit, including reasonable
attorney's fees, each in unspecified amounts.

Plaintiffs filed a motion to certify the lawsuit as a class
action, but the Court denied the motion.  The court issued a
ruling in December 2003, which was unfavorable to the Company
but did not set the amount of damages.  The Company is appealing
the ruling due to errors that it believes were made by the trial
judge.


SBARRO INC.: Working For Settlement of CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sbarro, Inc. is working to settle the lawsuit filed against it
by Manuel Jimenez and seven other current and former general
managers of Sbarro restaurants in California filed in the
Superior Court of California for Orange County, alleging that
the plaintiffs were improperly classified as exempt employees
under California wage and hour law.  The plaintiffs are seeking
actual damages, punitive damages and costs of the lawsuit,
including reasonable attorney's fees, each in unspecified
amounts.

Plaintiffs are represented by the same counsel who is
representing the plaintiffs in another case filed in Orange
County.  The Company has separately settled with two of the
managers for immaterial amounts.  The remaining parties to this
case have agreed that it will be settled upon the same terms and
conditions that the court orders in connection with its decision
in the other Orange County case.


SBARRO INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the complaint filed against Sbarro,
Inc. by five former general managers of Sbarro restaurants in
California in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles
County.  The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs were required
to perform labor services without proper premium overtime
compensation from at least May of 1999.

The plaintiffs are seeking actual damages, punitive damages and
attorney's fees and costs, each in unspecified amounts.  In
addition, plaintiffs have requested class action status for all
managerial employees who worked overtime and/or were not
otherwise paid regular wages due and owing from May 1999 to
present.


SPEED NET: NC A.G. Cooper Orders Illegal Loan Practices To Stop
---------------------------------------------------------------
North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and Commissioner of
Banks Joseph A. Smith announced that a payday lender operating
in western North Carolina that disguised its illegal loans as
rebates for Internet service contracts has been ordered to stop.

"This company used rebates as a disguise to stick consumers with
unfair loans that hit them particularly hard during tough
economic times," said AG Cooper.  "We won't allow illegal
lenders like this one to skirt the law and hurt consumers."

"North Carolina law protects borrowers from outrageous rates on
loans," said Commissioner Smith.  "This payday lender broke the
law and tried to cover it up by claiming it was providing
Internet access."

In a ruling issued late Monday, Wake County Superior Court Judge
Stafford J. Bullock barred Speed Net LLC, which did business as
American Funding, from making loans to North Carolina consumers
in violation of state lending and consumer protection laws.  The
company, based in Knoxville, Tennessee, has locations in
Asheville, Hendersonville, Hickory, Morganton and Newton in
western North Carolina.

Under the judgment, consumers who took out loans disguised as
rebates for Internet service from American Funding are no longer
responsible for repaying them. American Funding is prohibited
from offering purported Internet service rebates to customers
and then requiring consumers to repay the rebate plus extra fees
and charges.  The company may not use any subterfuge to hide its
loans and must cancel all contracts with consumers.

The judgment resolves a suit brought by Cooper in February 2002,
alleging that American Funding made loans by getting consumers
to sign a one-year contract for Internet service.  Under the
contract, a consumer who received a $300 rebate had to make
payments of $60 every two weeks for a year.  The evidence showed
that consumers did not want the Internet service, which
consisted of a dial up number and a password.  In reality, the
rebate was a loan that consumers had to repay at annual interest
rates of more than 500 percent.  North Carolina's Consumer
Finance Act permits only a 36 percent interest rate on loans
under $600.

Rates charged by American Funding were significantly higher than
those permitted under a now-expired state law that governed
payday lending and the company's contracts also provided for
automatic rollover of the loans, a practice prohibited under the
former law.  State legislators allowed the payday lending law to
expire after four years on August 31, 2001.  Cooper and Smith
charge that American Funding continued to operate as a payday
lender despite sunset of the law.

"People need access to fair loans to deal with emergencies so
they won't fall victim to schemes like this one," AG Cooper
said.  "That's why North Carolina needs an effective short-term
lending law in place to protect consumers."

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


TALX CORPORATION: MO Court Grants Approval To Stock Lawsuit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri granted preliminary approval to the settlement of all
pending securities class actions filed against Talx Corporation
and certain of its executive officers and directors.

On December 26, 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
by Matt L. Brody, an alleged shareholder of the Company, against
the Company, certain of its executive officers and directors
(William W. Canfield, Craig N. Cohen and Richard F. Ford) and
two underwriters (Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated and
A.G. Edwards & Sons, Inc.) in the Company's August 2001
secondary common stock offering.

The case purportedly is brought on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the Company's common
stock between July 18, 2001 and October 1, 2001, including as
part of the Secondary Offering.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that certain statements in the registration
statement and prospectus for the Secondary Offering, as well as
other statements made by the Company and/or the Individual
Defendants during the Putative Class Period, were materially
false and misleading because they allegedly did not properly
account for certain software and inventory, did not reflect
certain write-offs, and did not accurately disclose certain
business prospects.

The complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder against the Company and the Individual Defendants,
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
the Company, the Individual Defendants and the underwriters, and
violation of Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 against
Mr. Canfield.

Three additional purported class action lawsuits were filed in
the same court, against the same defendants and making
substantially the same allegations:

     (1) on January 8, 2002 by Donald Metzger (Civil Action No.
         4:02CV00031DJS);

     (2) on January 9, 2002 by Anna Goodman (Civil Action No.
         4:02CV00033DJS); and

     (3) on January 30, 2002 by Al Hinton (Civil Action No.
         4:02CV00168DJS)

Each of the plaintiffs are allegedly shareholders of the Company
during the Putative Class Period.  On February 15, 2002, these
three lawsuits were consolidated with and into the Brody lawsuit
(Civil Action No. 4:01CV02014DJS) for all purposes.  On April
14, 2002, a Consolidated Complaint was filed.  In October 2002,
the case was transferred from the Honorable Donald J. Stohr,
United States District Judge, to the Honorable Henry E. Audrey,
United States District Judge.

The Consolidated Complaint seeks, among other things, an award
of unspecified money damages, including interest, for all losses
and injuries allegedly suffered by the putative class members as
a result of the defendants' alleged conduct and unspecified
equitable/injunctive relief as the Court deems proper.

On May 20, 2002, the Company and the Individual Defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the lawsuits, and the underwriter defendants
filed a separate motion to dismiss.  The plaintiffs filed their
opposition to the motions to dismiss on June 19, 2002. The
defendants' reply memoranda in support of the motions to dismiss
were filed on July 9, 2002. The District Court issued a
Memorandum and Order on March 31, 2003 granting in part and
denying in part the motion to dismiss.  The Court's Order
dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under Section 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs were granted leave
to file an amended Consolidated Complaint on or before May 30,
2003.

On May 29, 2003, plaintiffs in the several pending securities
lawsuits filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint.  The Amended
Complaint amends the original Complaint by adding allegations
pertaining to the Company's December 2002 restatement of
financials and expanding the Putative Class Period to include
all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the
company's common stock between April 25, 2001 and November 14,
2002.

The Amended Complaint alleges, among other things, that certain
statements in the registration statement and prospectus for our
August 2001 secondary common stock offering, as well as other
statements made by the Company and/or the Individual Defendants
during the Amended Putative Class Period, were materially false
and misleading because the Company:

     (i) capitalized instead of expensed $1.6 million related to
         a patent technology license agreement executed in March
         2001;

    (ii) expensed approximately $158,000 in bonus payments to
         executive officers in the first quarter of fiscal 2002
         instead of the fourth fiscal quarter of 2001;

   (iii) improperly recognized revenue and expenses during the
         Amended Putative Class Period; and

    (iv) miscalculated diluted earnings per share during the
         Amended Putative Class Period

All of these matters were the subject of the Company's 2002
restatement of financials described in the Company's Form 10-K/A
for the year ended March 31, 2002.  The Amended Complaint also
alleges, as did the original Complaint, that the Company did not
properly account for certain software and inventory, did not
reflect certain write-offs, and did not accurately disclose
certain business prospects.  The Amended Complaint seeks, among
other things, an award of unspecified money damages, including
interest, for all losses and injuries allegedly suffered by
the putative class members as a result of the defendants'
alleged conduct and unspecified equitable/injunctive relief as
the Court deems proper.

On July 30, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  On September 26, 2003, plaintiffs filed
their opposition to the motion to dismiss.  On October 29, 2003,
defendants filed their reply in support of the motion to
dismiss.  The Court has not yet ruled on the motion.

On May 5, 2004, the Company reached an agreement with the
plaintiffs to settle all pending class action lawsuits.  The
settlement calls for payment of $5.75 million, which will be
made by our insurance carriers and will not impact earnings.
There were, however, approximately $500,000 of additional legal
costs that were included in expenses for the fourth quarter of
the fiscal year 2004.

The agreement is subject to certain conditions, including
judicial approval, and a potential additional payment depending
on the amount of certain claims.  The Company believes that any
additional payment, if required, would not be material.
However, our expectations are subject to the risks that the
court will not approve its class action settlement, that
claimants request exclusion from the settlement that hold a
larger than anticipated number of shares, or that the claims
analysis on which the Company relied is inaccurate, and a larger
than expected number of claims is submitted which could require
us to make an additional payment.

On May 24, 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and setting October 6, 2004 as the date
for a hearing on final approval of the settlement.  In the
interim, notice of the settlement will be given to class
members, and they will have an opportunity to opt out or to file
objections to the settlement.


TARGUS GROUP: Recalls All-in-One Plug Adapters For Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Targus Group International, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S.
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
34,000 Universal All-in-One Plug Adapters, manufactured by Ahoku
Electronics Co., of Taipei, Taiwan.

The adapters may have an electrical wiring problem, posing a
shock and fire hazard to consumers.  The company has not
received any reports of incidents.  This recall is being
conducted to prevent the possibility of injuries.

The recall involves 110/220 volt All-in-One Universal Travel
Adapters. The black adapter unit provides four different types
of power connection based on the different electrical outlets
worldwide. The recalled adapters have the brand name "Targus"
printed on the front. On the side of the adapter is a switch to
allow the user to select one of the three country settings:
"USA/Aust/N.Z." or "Europe" or "U.K."

Retail stores nationwide and the Targus online store sold the
adapters between November 2002 and May 2004 for about $20.

Consumers should stop using the adapters immediately and contact
Targus to receive a full refund.  For more details, contact the
Company by Phone: (888) 577-4097 between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday or log on to the company's Web site:
http://www.targus.com/recall.


THINGS REMEMBERED: CA Court Grants Final Settlement To Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco Superior Court in California granted final
approval to the settlement of the class action filed against
Things Remembered, Inc., on behalf of the Company's employees
(alleged to include 200 members), who were improperly denied
overtime compensation in violation of California law.  The
action sought unspecified damages, interest, restitution, as
well as declaratory and injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

On February 3, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement to resolve the lawsuit for $562,500.  Preliminary
approval was received from the Court on August 1, 2003.  On
December 3, 2003, the Court approved final settlement of the
lawsuit.


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: Former PAS Shareholders Lodge CA Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tyco International Ltd. faces a lawsuit filed by investors who
acquired shares in an earlier 2001 lawsuit settlement in Los
Angeles Superior Court in California, alleging that the
Company's purported financial misstatements caused the value of
its stock to plummet less than a year later, Reuters reports.
The suit names as defendants;

     (1) auditors PriceWaterhouseCoopers,

     (2) former chief executive Dennis Kozlowski,

     (3) former finance chief Mark Swartz,

     (4) other company officers and

     (5) a Merrill Lynch analyst who it alleges was paid
         indirectly to issue favorable reports on the company

Former shareholders of the medical devices equipment maker
Progressive Angioplasty Systems Inc. (PAS) launched the suit.
Tyco acquired PAS, along with its parent company U.S. Surgical
Corporation in 1998.  In the sale to U.S. Surgical, the PAS
shareholders received $75 million in cash and a promise of $75
million in deferred compensation if PAS met performance
guidelines.

The suit alleges that shortly after acquiring both companies,
the Company began dismantling PAS operations so that
shareholders could not earn the deferred compensation.  The
shareholders launch a suit, but later agreed to settle it for
$39 million, in Tyco common stock based on representations by
Tyco negotiator Irving Gutin, who assured them the stock would
rise to $100 per share.

The suit further alleged that the stock's price dropped from
about $43 in April 2001 when the plaintiffs received the shares,
to less than $7 in August 2002 on disclosures that the Company
had funded, and forgiven, millions in personal loans to its two
top officers, Mr. Kozlowski and Mr. Swartz.

The two executives were tried early this year for corporate
larceny in one of the biggest corporate corruption cases in US
history.  The litigation ended in a mistrial.

A Tyco spokesman and a PriceWaterhouseCoopers representative
could not be reached immediately for comment, Reuters stated.
It was not immediately clear who was representing Swartz and
Kozlowski in the California civil suit.  Their criminal
attorneys were not immediately available for comment.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


BALLY TOTAL: Squitieri & Fearon Files N.D. IL Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of Bally
Total Fitness Holding Corporation (NYSE:BFT) securities during
the period from August 3, 1999 through April 28, 2004.

The lawsuit charges Bally Total Fitness and certain of its
officers and directors with harming investors by misrepresenting
the Company's financial results. The claims are brought under
the federal securities laws, including sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, asserting that the
Company prematurely recognized revenues on prepaid membership
dues and took other improper actions which artificially inflated
the Company's financial results.

For more details, contact Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP by Mail: 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor, New York,
NY 10175 by Phone: (212) 421-6492 or by E-Mail:
Stephen@sfclasslaw.com


BALLY TOTAL: Berger & Montague Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. on June 4, 2004,
initiated a securities class action against Bally Total Fitness
Holding Corporation (NYSE: BFT) and certain of its officers, in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Bally securities from August 3, 1999 through April 28, 2004.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the SEC by issuing materially false
and misleading statements throughout the Class Period that had
the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities.

The complaint charges Bally, Paul A. Tobak, Lee S. Hillman, and
John W. Dwyer with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. As alleged in the complaint,
defendants made statements which were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

On April 28, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
that its Chief Financial Officer and Director, John W. Dwyer,
had resigned and that the Division of Enforcement of the
Securities & Exchange Commission had commenced an investigation
in connection with the Company's announced restatement regarding
the timing of recognition of certain prepaid dues. The Company
also stated that it had modified its existing internal controls
structure, which it believes is now effective. In response to
these disclosures, shares of the Company's stock fell
approximately 17%, to close at $4.50 per share, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas M.
Risen, Esq., Diane Werwinski, Investor Relations Manager by
Berger & Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by
Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-Mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit
their Web Site: http://www.bergermontague.com


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all security
purchasers, including purchasers of American Depository Receipts
of Business Objects S.A. (Nasdaq: BOBJ) from April 23, 2003
through May 5, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that Business Objects, Bernard Liautaud,
and James Tolonen 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 5, 2004, about the
Company's financial condition thereby artificially inflating the
price of Business Objects' shares. More specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's integration of Crystal Decisions was
         actually damaging its financial results, due to
         struggles with sales team consolidation, product
         integration and continued customer deferrals, who were
         delaying spending due to confusion surrounding the
         synchronization of pricing and new solution bundles;

     (2) that the Company's market share and demand for the
         Company's Enterprise 6 products was being eroded by
         Cognos and Microsoft, as Business Objects was unable to
         compete with companies who offer more tightly
         integrated products; and

     (3) that the Company's financial results were inflated due
         to improper recognition of deferred revenues, or
         backlog, from the acquisition of Crystal Decisions.

On April 29, 2004, Business Objects announced results for the
first quarter ended March 31, 2004. The Company's first quarter
revenues missed their mark. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Business Objects fell $6.66 or 23.3 percent per share,
on April 30, 2004, to close at $21.92. On May 5, 2004, Business
Objects, in its quarterly SEC filing, disclosed that the Company
was facing an informal inquiry by the SEC related to their
practices with respect to backlog. On the news of the SEC
investigation, shares of Business Objects fell an additional
$.76 or 3.37 percent per share to close at $21.76.

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 by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Business Objects
SA (Nasdaq: BOBJ) ("Business Objects") between April 23, 2003
and April 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also
included are all those who acquired Business Objects' shares
through its acquisition of Crystal Decisions.

The Complaint alleges that Business Objects, a worldwide
provider of business intelligence solutions, and certain of its
officers and directors issued materially false statements
concerning the Company's financial condition. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company's integration of Crystal Decisions was
         actually damaging its financial results;

     (2) many of the company's customers were confused about the
         synchronization of pricing and new solutions bundles
         and consequently, were delaying purchases or foregoing
         them entirely;

     (3) Business Objects' market share and demand for its
         Enterprise 6 products was being eroded by Cognos and
         Microsoft; and

     (4) Business Objects' financial results were inflated due
         to improper recognition of deferred revenues, or
         backlog, from the acquisition of Crystal Decisions.

On April 30, 2004, shares of Business Objects plunged as much as
22% after its first quarter profit fell missing analyst
forecasts.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone: (800) 797-
5499 by E-Mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web Site:
www.snlaw.net


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Brodsky & Smith Files S.D. CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Business Objects, S.A.
("Business Objects" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:BOBJ), between
April 23, 2003 and April 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California.

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 this stock.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Geller Rudman Commences Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of Business Objects
S.A. (Nasdaq: BOBJ) publicly traded securities, including
American Depository Receipts (ADRs) during the period between
April 23, 2003 and May 5, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges that defendants Business Objects, Bernard
Liautaud, and James Tolonen 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 5, 2004, about the
Company's financial condition, thereby artificially inflating
the price of Business Objects' shares. More specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's integration of Crystal Decisions was
         actually damaging its financial results, due to
         struggles with sales team consolidation, product
         integration and continued customer deferrals, who were
         delaying spending due to confusion surrounding the
         synchronization of pricing and new solution bundles;

     (2) that the Company's market share and demand for the
         Company's Enterprise 6 products were being eroded by
         Cognos and Microsoft, as Business Objects was unable to
         compete with companies who offered more tightly
         integrated products; and

     (3) that the Company's financial results were inflated due
         to improper recognition of deferred revenues, or
         backlog, from the acquisition of Crystal Decisions.

On April 29, 2004, Business Objects announced results for the
first quarter ended March 31, 2004, including the information
that the Company's first quarter revenues missed their mark.
News of this shocked the market. Shares of Business Objects fell
$6.66 or 23.3 percent per share, on April 30, 2004, to close at
$21.92. On May 5, 2004, Business Objects, in its quarterly SEC
filing, disclosed that the Company was facing an informal
inquiry by the SEC related to their practices with respect to
backlog. On the news of the SEC investigation, shares of
Business Objects fell an additional $.76 or 3.37 percent per
share to close at $21.76.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: Client Relations
Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by
E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com


GENTA INC.: Squitieri & Fearon Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The firm of Squitieri & Fearon, LLP initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Genta Inc. (Nasdaq:GNTA)
securities during the period September 10, 2003 through May 3,
2004.

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

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

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

For more details, contact Stephen J. Fearon, Jr. of Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP by Mail: 32 East 57th Street, 12th Floor, New York,
NY 10175 by Phone: (212) 421-6492 or by E-Mail:
Stephen@sfclasslaw.com


KRISPY KREME: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the common stock of Krispy Kreme
Doughnuts, Inc. ("Krispy Kreme" or the "Company") (NYSE: KKD)
between August 21, 2003 and May 7, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations during the Class Period thereby artificially
inflating the price of Krispy Kreme common stock. Specifically,
the complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts that were
known to, or recklessly disregarded by, them:

     (1) as a result of the trend toward low-fat, low-
         carbohydrate diets, Krispy Kreme had been suffering
         from increasingly poor sales performance;

     (2) after initial consumer excitement, sales at Krispy
         Kreme's newly-opened stores quickly tapered off;

     (3) the Company adopted a business model and strategy that
         was predicated on the perpetual addition of new stores
         and the hyping of the Company's entry into new markets
         -- a tactic that resulted in unsustainable surges in
         sales that fell once the novelty of the new store wore
         off; and

     (4) Krispy Kreme's "acquisition strategy," rather than
         executed to strengthen the Company's business, masked
         operational deficiencies that obscured the Company's
         true financial condition.

In fact, the Company was repurchasing franchises to prevent
store closures, which would damage Krispy Kreme's reputation for
ever-increasing growth, and as part of a scheme to wipe
franchisee accounts receivable off its books.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn
of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP by Phone: 1-800-721-3900
by E-Mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com


POZEN INC.: Brodsky & Smith Launches Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of POZEN, Inc. ("Pozen" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:POZN), between July 31, 2003 and May 28,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The firm is investigating
and expanding the class period to the initial public offering of
October 10, 2000.

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 this stock.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


POZEN INC.: Paskowitz & Associates Files Securities Suit in NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of POZEN, Inc. ("Pozen" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ: POZN - News) between July 31, 2003 and
May 28, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was
filed against Pozen and top executives, John R. Plachetka,
Matthew E. Czajkowski, and John R. Barnhardt.

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company issued alse and misleading statements concerning its
migraine drugs MT 100 and MT 300. More specifically, the Company
failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

     (1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that its drugs MT 100 and MT 300 were unsafe and
         ineffective;

     (2) that despite knowing these facts, the Company entered
         into various licensing agreements in order to book
         revenues and achieve positive cash flows;

     (3) that as a result of booking revenues and achieving
         positive cash flows, the defendants were able to
         manipulate the Company's stock price in order to attain
         large bonuses, which were tied to the Company's stock
         price, not the success of the Company's product
         pipeline;

     (4) with respect to the drug MT 300, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that the drug resulted
         in higher incidences of nausea and vomiting as compared
         to placebo in two Phase III trials and that the drug
         failed to show statistical superiority as compared with
         placebo with regard to controlling symptoms of
         migraines;

     (5) with respect to the drug MT 100, defendant knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that MT 100's chances
         of being approved by the FDA were less than 50% because
         of concerns about several primary end points,
         particularly pain response to migraines at two hours,
         lack of data showing consistent two-hour pain response
         and symptom relief, and worries about the drug's
         carcinogenicity; and

     (6) that MT 100's failed to show superiority to a placebo
         as measured by a two-hour response and two-hour symptom
         migraine relief.

For more details, contact Paskowitz & Associates by Phone:
800-705-9529 or by E-Mail: classattorney@aol.com


POZEN INC.: Geller Rudman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Geller Rudman, PLLC initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of POZEN,
Inc. (Nasdaq: POZN) publicly traded securities during the period
between July 31, 2003 and May 28, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges POZEN, John R. Plachetka, Matthew E.
Czajkowski, and John R. Barnhardt with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, POZEN
is a pharmaceutical development company focused on developing a
portfolio of drugs for the global migraine market. The Company's
lead product candidates included MT 100, a proprietary
formulation containing metoclopramide hydrochloride and naproxen
sodium; MT 300, a proprietary formulation of dihydroergotamine
mesylate in a pre- filled syringe; and MT 400, which is being
developed as a co-active acute migraine therapy.

The complaint charges the Company with issuing false and
misleading statements concerning its migraine drugs MT 100 and
MT 300. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

     (1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that its drugs MT 100 and MT 300 were unsafe and
         ineffective;

     (2) that despite knowing these facts, the Company entered
         into various licensing agreements in order to book
         revenues and achieve positive cash flows;

     (3) that as a result of booking revenues and achieving
         positive cash flows, the defendants were able to
         manipulate the Company's stock price in order to attain
         large bonuses, which were tied to the Company's stock
         price, not the success of the Company's product
         pipeline;

     (4) with respect to the drug MT 300, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that the drug resulted
         in higher incidences of nausea and vomiting as compared
         to placebo in two Phase III trials and that the drug
         failed to show statistical superiority as compared with
         placebo with regard to controlling symptoms of
         migraines;

     (5) with respect to the drug MT 100, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that MT 100's chances
         of being approved by the FDA were less than 50% because
         of concerns about several primary end points,
         particularly pain response to migraines at two hours,
         lack of data showing consistent two-hour pain response
         and symptom relief, and worries about the drug's
         carcinogenicity; and

     (6) that MT 100 failed to show superiority to a placebo as
         measured by a two-hour response and two-hour symptom
         migraine relief.

The blow to the Company occurred on October 20, 2003, when POZEN
announced that it had received a not-approvable letter from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") related to its New
Drug Application ("NDA") for MT 300. The letter was issued based
on the FDA's conclusion that while MT 300 achieved its primary
end point, it failed to achieve statistical significance versus
placebo for the relief at two hours of the secondary symptoms of
migraine (nausea, sensitivity to light, and sensitivity to
sound).

On news of this, shares of POZEN fell $5.83 per share, or 32.8
percent, to close at $11.94 per share on unusually high trading
volume on October 20, 2003.

The complaint alleges that the final blow to the Company's
manipulative scheme occurred on June 1, 2004. Then, POZEN
announced that the FDA issued a not-approvable letter on Friday,
May 28, 2004 concerning the Company's NDA for MT 100 for the
acute treatment of migraine. In the FDA letter, the FDA cited
the apparent lack of superiority of MT 100 over naproxen for
sustained pain relief, which was the primary end point for the
two component studies. Additionally, for the first time the FDA
raised an approvability issue concerning the risk of tardive
dyskinesia ("TD") presented by the use of metoclopramide, one of
the components of MT 100. In this regard, the FDA stated in
their letter, "given the number of patients exposed to MT 100
for at least one year in your database (about 300), the absence
of any detected cases is consistent with a true rate of TD of
about 1%, an unacceptably high risk in the absence of any
demonstrated advantage of the product." Further, the FDA
mentioned that based on animal studies, there may be a potential
risk of carcinogenicity, presumably due to metoclopramide.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of POZEN fell $3.69 per
share, or 37.2 percent, to close at $6.23 per share on unusually
high volume.

For more details, contact GELLER RUDMAN, PLLC (Samuel H. Rudman,
Esq. or David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.) by Mail: Client Relations
Department - 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747 by
Phone: 631-367-7100 or 1-877-992-2555 by Fax: 1-631-367-1173 by
E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com or visit the link:
http://www.geller-rudman.com/case_signup_sec.asp?cid=299


POZEN INC.: Brian Felgoise Lodges Securities Lawsuit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Pozen, Inc. (NASDAQ: POZN) securities between July 31, 2003 and
May 28, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina, against the company and
certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. by Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 by E-Mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com

POZEN INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. NC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of POZEN, Inc.
(Nasdaq:POZN) between July 31, 2003 and May 28, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of North Carolina against defendant POZEN and
one or more of its officers and/or directors.

The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


POZEN INC.: Schiffrin Barroway Files Securities Suit in M.D. NC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina on behalf of all securities
purchasers of POZEN, Inc. (Nasdaq: POZN) from July 31, 2003
through May 28, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges POZEN, John R. Plachetka, Matthew E.
Czajkowski, and John R. Barnhardt with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. According to the complaint, POZEN
is a pharmaceutical development company focused on developing a
portfolio of drugs for the global migraine market. The Company's
lead product candidates included MT 100, a proprietary
formulation containing metoclopramide hydrochloride and naproxen
sodium; MT 300, a proprietary formulation of dihydroergotamine
mesylate in a pre- filled syringe, and MT 400, which is being
developed as a co-active acute migraine therapy.

This action centers around the Company's false and misleading
statements concerning its migraine drugs MT 100 and MT 300. More
specifically, the Company failed to disclose the following
adverse facts:

     (1) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that its drugs MT 100 and MT 300 were unsafe and
         ineffective;

     (2) that despite knowing these facts, the Company entered
         into various licensing agreements in order to book
         revenues and achieve positive cash flows;

     (3) that as a result of booking revenues and achieving
         positive cash flows, the defendants were able to
         manipulate the Company's stock price in order to attain
         large bonuses, which were tied to the Company's stock
         price, not the success of the Company's product
         pipeline;

     (4) with respect to the drug MT 300, defendants knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that the drug resulted
         in higher incidences of nausea and vomiting as compared
         to placebo in two Phase III trials and that the drug
         failed to show statistical superiority as compared with
         placebo with regard to controlling symptoms of
         migraines;

     (5) with respect to the drug MT 100, defendant knew or
         recklessly disregarded the fact that MT 100's chances
         of being approved by the FDA were less than 50% because
         of concerns about several primary end points,
         particularly pain response to migraines at two hours,
         lack of data showing consistent two-hour pain response
         and symptom relief, and worries about the drug's
         carcinogenicity; and

     (6) that MT 100's failed to show superiority to a placebo
         as measured by a two-hour response and two-hour symptom
         migraine relief.

The blow to the Company occurred on October 20, 2003, when POZEN
announced that it had received a not-approvable letter from the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") related to its New
Drug Application ("NDA") for MT 300. The letter was issued based
on the FDA's conclusion that while MT 300 achieved its primary
end point, it failed to achieve statistical significance versus
placebo for the relief at two hours of the secondary symptoms of
migraine (nausea, sensitivity to light, and sensitivity to
sound).

On news of this, shares of POZEN fell $5.83 per share, or 32.8
percent, to close at $11.94 per share on unusually high trading
volume on October 20, 2003.

The final blow to the Company's manipulative scheme occurred on
June 1, 2004. Then, POZEN announced that the FDA issued a not-
approvable letter on Friday, May 28, 2004 concerning the
Company's NDA for MT 100 for the acute treatment of migraine. In
the FDA letter, the FDA cited the apparent lack of superiority
of MT 100 over naproxen for sustained pain relief, which was the
primary end point for the two component studies. Additionally,
for the first time the FDA raised an approvability issue
concerning the risk of tardive dyskinesia ("TD") presented by
the use of metoclopramide, one of the components of MT 100. In
this regard, the FDA stated in their letter, "given the number
of patients exposed to MT 100 for at least one year in your
database (about 300), the absence of any detected cases is
consistent with a true rate of TD of about 1%, an unacceptably
high risk in the absence of any demonstrated advantage of the
product." Further, the FDA mentioned that based on animal
studies, there may be a potential risk of carcinogenicity,
presumably due to metoclopramide.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of POZEN fell $3.69 per
share, or 37.2 percent, to close at $6.23 per share on unusually
high volume.

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 by E-Mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


SMITH BARNEY: Charles Piven Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a class
action and derivative lawsuit was on behalf of purchasers and
holders of the securities of the Smith Barney and Salomon
Brothers families of funds (the "Funds") owned and operated by
Citigroup, Inc., and certain of its subsidiaries and affiliates,
between March 22, 1999 and March 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period") and on behalf of the Funds, seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Act of 1934, the Investment Advisers Act of
1940, the Investment Company Act of 1940 and the common law.

The Funds, and the symbols for the respective Funds, that may be
the subject of the claims asserted in the Complaint are as
follows:

     (1) Salomon Brothers All Cap Value Fund (Sym: SUBAX, SUBBX,
         SUBZX)

     (2) Salomon Brothers Balanced Fund (Sym: STRAX, STRBX,
         STRCX)
     (3) Salomon Brothers California Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CCAIX, SCUBX, SCULX)

     (4) Salomon Brothers Capital Fund (Sym: SCCAX, SPABX,
         SACPX, SCCCX)

     (5) Salomon Brothers High Yield Bond (Sym: SAHYX, SBHYX,
         SHYOX, SHYCX)

     (6) Salomon Brothers International Equity Fund (Sym: SAIEX,
         SAIBX, SAICX)

     (7) Salomon Brothers Investors Value Fund (Sym: SINAX,
         SBINX, SAIFX, SINOX)

     (8) Salomon Brothers Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SLCAX,
         SALBX, SALCX)

     (9) Salomon Brothers Mid Cap Fund (Sym: SMDAX, SMDBX,
         SMDZX)

    (10) Salomon Brothers National Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CFNIX, SNABX, SNALX)

    (11) Salomon Brothers New York Tax Free Bond Fund (Sym:
         CFTNX, SNFBX, SNFLX)

    (12) Salomon Brothers SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
         SJRAX, SJRBX, SJRZX)

    (13) Salomon Brothers SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym:
         SOLAX, SOLBX, SOLZX)

    (14) Salomon Brothers SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SVEAX,
         SVEBX, SCEZX)

    (15) Salomon Brothers SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: SSWAX,
         SSWBX, SSWZX)

    (16) Salomon Brothers Short/Intermediate U.S. Government
         Fund (Sym: SUSAX, SUSBX, SUSCX)

    (17) Salomon Brothers Small Cap Growth (Sym: SASMX, SBSMX,
         SCSMX)

    (18) Salomon Brothers Strategic Bond Fund (Sym: SSTAX,
         SBSBX, SSTCX)

    (19) Smith Barney Aggressive Growth Fund (Sym: SHRAX, SAGBX,
         SAGCX)

    (20) Smith Barney All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym: SPAAX,
         SPBBX, SPBLX)

    (21) Smith Barney Appreciation Fund (Sym: SHAPX, SAPBX,
         SAPCX, SAPYX)

    (22) Smith Barney Arizona Municipals Fund (Sym: SLAZX,
         SAZBX, SAZLX)

    (11) Smith Barney Balanced Portfolio (Sym: SBBAX, SCBBX,
         SCBCX)

    (12) Smith Barney California Municipals Fund (Sym: SHRCX,
         SCABX, SCACX)

    (13) Smith Barney Classic Values Fund (Sym: SCLAX, SCLBX,
         SCLLX)

    (14) Smith Barney Conservative Portfolio (Sym: SBCPX, SBCBX,
         SBCLX)

    (15) Smith Barney Diversified Large Cap Growth Fund (Sym:
         CFLGX, CLCBX, SMDLX)

    (16) Smith Barney Diversified Strategic Income Fund (Sym:
         SDSAX, SLDSX, SDSIX)

    (17) Smith Barney Dividend and Income Fund (Sym: SUTAX,
         SLSUX, SBBLX)

    (18) Smith Barney Financial Services Fund (Sym: SBFAX,
         SBFBX, SFSLX)

    (19) Smith Barney Florida Portfolio (Sym: SBFLX, FLABX,
         SFLLX)

    (20) Smith Barney Fundamental Value Fund (Sym: SHFVX, SFVBX,
         SFVCX)

    (21) Smith Barney Georgia Portfolio (Sym: SBGAX, SBRBX,
         SGALX)

    (22) Smith Barney Global All Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
         SPGAX, SPGGX, SPGLX)

    (23) Smith Barney Global Government Bond Portfolio (Sym:
         SBGLX, SBGBX, SGGLX)

    (24) Smith Barney Global Portfolio (Sym: CAGAX, CAGBX,
         SGPLX)

    (25) Smith Barney Government Securities Fund (Sym: SGVAX,
         HGVSX, SGSLX)

    (26) Smith Barney Group Spectrum Fund (Sym: SGSAX, SGSBX,
         SFTLX)

    (27) Smith Barney Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCGRX, SGRBX,
         SCGCX)

    (28) Smith Barney Hansberger Global Value Fund (Sym: SGLAX,
         SGLBX, SGLCX)

    (29) Smith Barney Health Sciences Fund (Sym: SBIAX, SBHBX,
         SBHLX)

    (28) Smith Barney High Growth Portfolio (Sym: SCHAX, SCHBX,
         SCHCX)

    (29) Smith Barney High Income Fund (Sym: SHIAX, SHIBX,
         SHICX)

    (30) Smith Barney Income Portfolio (Sym: SCAAX, SCIAX,
         SCILX)

    (31) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity CA Municipals Fund
         (Sym: ITCAX, STDBX, SIMLX)

    (32) Smith Barney Intermediate Maturity NY Municipals Fund
         (Sym: IMNYX, SNMBX, SINLX)

    (33) Smith Barney International All Cap Growth Portfolio
         (Sym: SBIEX, SBIBX, SBICX)

    (34) Smith Barney International Large Cap Fund (Sym: CFIPX,
         SILCX, SILLX)

    (35) Smith Barney Investment Grade Bond Fund (Sym: SIGAX,
         HBDIX, SBILX)

    (36) Smith Barney Large Cap Core Fund (Sym: GROAX, GROBX,
         SCPLX)

    (37) Smith Barney Large Cap Growth and Value Fund (Sym:
         SPSAX, SPSBX, SPSLX)

    (38) Smith Barney Large Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBCIX, SBCCX,
         SBGCX)

    (39) Smith Barney Large Capitalization Growth Fund (Sym:
         SBLGX, SBLBX, SLCCX, SBLYX)

    (40) Smith Barney Limited Term Portfolio (Sym: SBLTX, STMBX,
         SMLLX)

    (41) Smith Barney Managed Governments Fund (Sym: SHMGX,
         MGVBX, SMGLX)

    (42) Smith Barney Managed Municipals Fund (Sym: SHMMX,
         SMMBX, SMMCX)

    (43) Smith Barney Massachusetts Municipals Fund (Sym: SLMMX,
         SMABX, SMALX)

    (44) Smith Barney Mid Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBMAX, SBMDX,
         SBMLX, SMBYX)

    (45) Smith Barney Municipal High Income Fund (Sym: STXAX,
         SXMT, SMHLX)

    (46) Smith Barney National Portfolio (Sym: SBBNX, SBNBX,
         SBNLX)

    (47) Smith Barney New Jersey Municipals Fund (Sym: SHNJX,
         SNJBX, SNJLX)

    (48) Smith Barney New York Portfolio (Sym: SBNYX, SMNBX,
         SBYLX)

    (49) Smith Barney Oregon Municipals Fund (Sym: SHORX, SORBX,
         SORLX)

    (50) Smith Barney Pennsylvania Portfolio (Sym: SBPAX, SBPBX,
         SPALX)

    (51) Smith Barney S & P 500 Index Fund (Sym: SBSPX)

    (52) Smith Barney SB Adjustable Rate Income Fund (Sym:
         ARMZX, ARMBX, ARMGX)

    (53) Smith Barney SB Capital and Income Fund (Sym: SOPAX,
         SOPTX, SBPLX)

    (54) Smith Barney SB Convertible Fund (Sym: SCRAX, SCVSX,
         SMCLX, SCVYX)

    (55) Smith Barney SB Growth & Income Fund (Sym: GRIAX,
         GRIBX, SGAIX)

    (56) Smith Barney Short Duration Municipal Income Fund (Sym:
         SHDAX, SHDBX, SHDLX)

    (57) Smith Barney Short-Term Investment Grade Bond Fund
         (Sym: SBSTX, SHBBX, SSTLX)

    (58) Smith Barney Small Cap Core Fund (Sym: SBDSX, SBDBX,
         SBDLX)

    (59) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Fund (Sym: SBSGX, SBYBX,
         SBSLX)

    (60) Smith Barney Small Cap Growth Opportunities Fund (Sym:
         CFSGX, SMOBX, SGOLX)

    (61) Smith Barney Small Cap Value Fund (Sym: SBVAX, SBVBX,
         SBVLX)

    (62) Smith Barney Social Awareness Fund (Sym: SSIAX, SESIX,
         SESLX)

    (63) Smith Barney Technology Fund (Sym: SBTAX, SBTBX, SBQLX)

    (64) Smith Barney Total Return Bond Fund (Sym: TRBAX, TRBBX,
         SBTLX)

    (65) Smith Barney U.S. Government Securities Fund (Sym:
         SBCGX, SBUBX, SBULX)

The action, numbered 04-CV-4055 is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
defendants Salomon Brothers Asset Management, Inc., Smith Barney
Fund Management LLC, Citigroup Asset Management, Citigroup
Global Markets, Inc. (f/k/a Salomon Smith Barney Inc.) ("SSB"),
Citigroup Global Markets Holdings Inc., Citigroup, Inc., R. Jay
Gerken, Dwight B. Crane, Joseph J. McCann, Burt N. Dorsett,
Cornelius C. Rose, Jr., Elliot S. Jaffe, each of the Funds and
the registrants of the Funds. The Honorable Naomi Reice Buchwald
is the Judge presiding over the action.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933; Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder; Sections 34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940; Section 206 of the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940; and the common law.

The Complaint charges that defendants engaged in an unlawful and
deceitful course of conduct designed to improperly financially
advantage defendants to the detriment of plaintiff and the other
members of the Class. The complaint alleges that defendants, in
clear contravention of their disclosure obligations and
fiduciary responsibilities, failed to properly disclose that SSB
had been aggressively pushing its sales personnel to sell Smith
Barney and Salomon Brothers funds by creating various
undisclosed incentives for brokers to sell the proprietary
funds.

In addition, according to the complaint, unbeknownst to
investors, the investment advisers to the Funds (Citigroup Asset
Management, SSB, Salomon Brothers Asset Management, Inc. and
Smith Barney Fund Management LLC) paid excessive commissions,
directly or indirectly, to SSB, the broker dealer, which came
directly out of the Funds' assets, as payments to SSB for its
steering clients towards the proprietary funds. The investment
advisers profited from this scheme by earning increased
management fees, while Citigroup Global Markets benefited from
increased commissions and Citigroup profited as the ultimate
parent of Citigroup Global Markets and the investment advisers.
The clear losers were plaintiff and the other members of the
Class, whose assets were diverted to line defendants' pockets
without any benefit to them whatsoever.

No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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 or by E-Mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com


SPEAR & JACKSON: Scott + Scott Initiates Securities Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC commenced a securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida behalf of purchasers of securities of Spear & Jackson,
Inc. (OTC: SJCK.OB) during the period between May 28, 2003 and
April 15, 2004.  This complaint also pleads claims against the
Spear & Jackson auditor, Sherb & Co. LLP.

The complaint charges Spear & Jackson, certain of its officers
and directors, PNC Tools Holdings LLC and auditors Sherb &
Company LLP with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Spear & Jackson manufactures and distributes tools, garden
tools, metrology equipment, woodworking tools and magnetic
equipment.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants

     (1) disseminated materially false and misleading
         information to the investing public that artificially
         inflated Spear & Jackson's share price.

     (2) During the class period Defendants implemented a scheme
         to manipulate the share price of stock by issuing false
         information to inflate the price of Spear & Jackson
         stock to registered representatives and broker-dealers

     (3) defendants used companies based in the British Virgin
         Islands to obtain over 1.2 million shares of Spear &
         Jackson stock during 2002, some of which was obtained
         through the filing of a fraudulent Form S-8
         registration statement

     (4) the Company's repurchase of shares was not in
         compliance with applicable rules,

     (5) Spear & Jackson never had any intention of making open
         market purchases as suggested in its January 16, 2004
         release, and

     (6) the Company was not on track to achieve earnings of
         $0.50 to $0.55 per share for 2004.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Spear &
Jackson's stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period, increasing to as high as $9.55 on July 15, 2003, whereby
the Company's top officers and directors sold more than $3
million worth of Spear & Jackson stock. On April 16, 2004, it
was announced that U.S. securities regulators had sued Spear &
Jackson Chief Executive Dennis Crowley, alleging he used false
information to boost the Company's stock price while secretly
selling millions in shares. Spear & Jackson shares fell $0.52 to
$1.85 on this news. Currently the stock is trading as low as
$1.24. Scott-Scott will be filing an updated Complaint next
week.

On April 16, 2004 The U.S. Securities Exchange Commission
announced it filed a complaint and obtained a temporary
restraining order against Spear & Jackson and Dennis Crowley. At
the request of the SEC, a federal court also issued an order
temporarily barring Crowley from serving as an officer or
director of any public company and replaced by a court-appointed
monitor. The Complaint includes allegations that Cowley engaged
in manipulative practices in transactions related to Spear &
Jackson common in additions to misrepresentations regarding the
status of his stock ownership in the Company. The Financial
Services Authority (FSA) also joined a U.S. fraud investigation
regarding the Company. The FSA is inquiring into the sale of $3
million shares in the group by Dennis Crowley. The FSA is
thought to be investigating Spear & Jackson's activity in the
UK.

For more details contact Neil Rothstein by Mail: 108 Norwich
Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone: 800/404-7770 (EDT) or
800/332-2259 (PDT) by Fax: 860/537-4432 or by E-Mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com


TRICO MARINE: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Securities Suit in LA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated the first
securities class action against Trico Marine Services, Inc.
(Nasdaq: TMAR) and certain of its officers and directors. The
action was filed on June 4, 2004, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana on behalf of all
purchasers of the common stock of Trico Marine Services, Inc.
(the "Company") between May 6, 2003 and May 10, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The action is pursuing remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that the Company issued false
and misleading representations thereby causing Company shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels. The lawsuit further
alleges that Trico continuously informed investors that, even
though the Company was sustaining losses each quarter, its
future earnings prospects were favorable. These favorable
prospects were touted even though the defendants were in
possession of information, which showed that the Company's
operations would continue to experience losses and their core
business was in an area of declining revenues.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-Mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web Site: www.federmanlaw.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  * * *