---

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

              Friday, June 11, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 115

                         Headlines

AMERICAN SPOON: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
AQUILA INC.: Reaches $37.95M Settlement in DE Appraisal Suit
ASBESTOS CORPORATION: Canada Court Suspends Shareholder Petition
ATLAS COLD: Canadian Investors Commence Negligence, Fraud Suit
AURIZON MINES: To Be Dropped As Defendant in CA Silica Tort Suit

BARRICK GOLD: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
BELL CANADA: Ontario Court To Hear Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal
BELL CANADA: Trial in Canada Debentures Suit Expected Late 2004
BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Pre-trial Discovery Continues in OK Suit
CIT GROUP: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NY

COUNTRYWIDE HOMES: Levy Angsreich Appointed Lead Counsel in Suit
CREDIT FIRMS: TX Attorney General Lodges Consumer Fraud Suit
DANIER LEATHER: Trial Completed in Suit Over Shareholder Fraud
DOMINION TELECOM: Reaches Settlement For Right-of-Way Suit in VA
ENBRIDGE GAS: Canada Court Orders Repayment of Late Payment Fees

FERRIS COFFEE: Recalls Raw Almond Products Due To Health Hazard
FIRST SAMCO: Recalls 3,200 Fobus Gun Holsters For Injury Hazard
FORT FUDGE: Recalls Fudge Due To Almonds, Possible Heath Hazard
GLOBAL TIMBER: CA Court Finds Execs Guilty of Securities Fraud
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Reaches $100M Securities Settlement

KELLOGG NORTH: Recalls Corn Flakes Due To Undeclared Milk, Wheat
KINROSS GOLD: Court Refuses Appeal of Employee Lawsuit Ruling
KINROSS GOLD: Plaintiffs File Amended Fiduciary Duty Suit in NV
MATTEL INC.: Briefing on Suit Settlement Appeal To Be Finished
MATTEL INC.: Consumer Fraud Suit Over Barbie Dolls Pending in IL

METROPOLITAN MARKETS: Expands Almond Recall Due To Health Risk
MR. NATURE: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: MN Court Dismisses Passenger Data Lawsuits
QLT INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of NY Suit Dismissal
SHELL OIL: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit Over Gasoline in FL

SBC ILLINOIS: Mails Out Notices, Claim Forms To Class Members
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Store Managers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in FL
SUN LIFE: Shareholders File Suits After MFS Settlement With SEC
SUPERIOR NUT: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches $139M Settlement in LA, FL Lawsuits
TELUS CORPORATION: Canada Court Refuses To Dismiss Two Lawsuits
TRAVELERS GROUP: CT Court Grants Certification To Consumer Suit
UMPQUA DAIRY: Recalls Ice Cream Due To Undeclared Ingredients
WACHOVIA CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Suit

WEYERHAUSER CO.: PA Linerboard Antitrust Settlement Deemed Final
XEROX CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CT Securities Lawsuit
XEROX CORPORATION: CA Court Coordinates 13 Environmental Suits
XEROX CORPORATION: Certification, Discovery Sought in ERISA Suit
XEROX CORPORATION: Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Apartheid Suit

XEROX CORPORATION: NY Court Certifies Race Discrimination Suit

                        Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIG Inc. Still Receiving Indemnity Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment in BGE Asbestos Lawsuit Affirmed
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doe Run Served Summons in PA Asbestos Case
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Energy Gulf Coast Cases Ongoing
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Discloses Asbestos-Related Costs

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MII Contends Claimants In Favor Of B&W Plan
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Releases New Actuarial Review
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met Pro Believes Claims Are Without Merit
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Reaches Accord With Creditors
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Raytech Claimants Own 82.86% Of Its Stock

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Valhi Inc. Says NL Industries In 465 Cases
ASBESTOS ALERT: Joy Global In Asbestos Cases, Does Not Elaborate
ASBESTOS ALERT: Vector Group Has Pending Third-Party Payor Cases

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

BEA SYSTEMS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
GENTA INC.: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Launches Securities Suit in NJ

                           *********

AMERICAN SPOON: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Spoon Foodsr is conducting a voluntary recall on its
distribution of Paramount Farms raw natural whole (or diced)
almonds packaged as Cherry Berry Nut Mix and American Spoon Bar
Mix due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella
Enteritidis.

The recalled almonds were packed in 6-oz and one-pound packages
of the Cherry Berry Nut Mix and 7-oz packages of American Spoon
Bar Mix. The recall includes any packages dated on or before
August 18, 2004.

The Company is taking this action because of a nationwide recall
implemented by Paramount Farms of Lost Hills, California that
supplied the almonds. ASF is working closely with the FDA to
assure the quality and safety of the products we distribute.

Salmonella is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e, infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

American Spoon Foods distributes this product through ASF retail
stores located in Michigan as well as our mail order catalog.

This recall is in follow-up to a voluntary recall announced in
mid-May by Paramount Farms of California of whole and diced raw
almonds based on over 20 possible cases of illnesses associated
with the almonds. The cases were reported in California,
Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Massachusetts and Michigan. We are working with FDA
to assure that all potentially contaminated almonds are removed
from the marketplace and that consumers are notified of the
recall.

The raw almonds should not be consumed but rather returned to
the store of purchase for a full refund. For further
information, call American Spoon Foods @ 1-800-222-5886 between
8:30am-5: 30pm Eastern Time.



AQUILA INC.: Reaches $37.95M Settlement in DE Appraisal Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery has approved the settlement
proposed by Aquila, Inc., in which it agreed to pay $37.95
million to shareholders who properly asserted their appraisal
rights in connection with the recombination of Aquila and its
former energy trading and merchant subsidiary, Aquila Merchant
Services Inc. (AMS).

When the company recombined with AMS in January 2002,
shareholders owning 1.684 million AMS shares challenged the
value they received for their AMS shares. The settlement
includes interest from 2002.

When the recombination procedure was complete, approximately 91
percent of AMS's outstanding shares were tendered. Shareholders
who received Aquila shares in the tender offer or subsequent
short-form merger were not part of this suit and, therefore, are
not eligible for payment. As a result of the settlement, Aquila
will record a charge to its second quarter earnings of
approximately $7.5 million, plus litigation costs.

For more details, contact Al Butkus or Neala Clark of Aquila
Inc. by Phone: 816-467-3616 or 816-467-3562 or visit their Web
Site: www.aquila.com


ASBESTOS CORPORATION: Canada Court Suspends Shareholder Petition
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action petition filed against Asbestos Corporation,
Limited and its parent Mazarin, Inc. before the Quebec Superior
Court in Canada has been suspended.  The petition makes claims
under Section 241 of the Canada Business Corporations Act,
asking the Court to reduce the Company's loans from the parent
company and that the Company redeems its shares held by its
parent company.

This recourse has been suspended until a final judgment
is rendered following procedures initiated before the
Quebec and Ontario Securities Commissions by the minority
shareholders of Asbestos Corporation Limited against the
Government of Quebec.


ATLAS COLD: Canadian Investors Commence Negligence, Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Cold Storage Holdings, Inc. faces a putative class action
filed by investors in the Atlas Cold Storage Income Trust
(Trust) in Canadian Court on behalf of all persons in Canada who
purchased or acquired Trust units in the period of August 11,
2000 to August 29, 2003 and held them at the close of business
on August 29, 2003, except for certain excepted persons.

The suit also names as defendants certain former directors and
officers of Atlas Holdings, certain current and former trustees
of the Trust, the Trust's auditors, and the lead underwriter of
various public equity offerings of Trust units between 2001 and
2002.

In the class action, the plaintiffs claim, on behalf of the
putative class, damages in the amount of $353.0 million, plus
$5.0 million in punitive damages, as well as other relief,
alleging negligent and fraudulent misrepresentations,
conspiracy, negligence, and statutory oppression relating to the
restatement of financial statements in respect of the Trust for
2002 and 2001.


AURIZON MINES: To Be Dropped As Defendant in CA Silica Tort Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs advised Aurizon Mines, Ltd. that they will drop the
Company as one of the defendants in the tort litigation class
action filed in California Superior Court by approximately 120
plaintiffs, based on the plaintiffs' alleged exposure to silica.

The suit names nearly 150 defendants in the State of California.
The Company asserted in a disclosure to the Canadian Securities
and Exchange Commission that it has never produced, manufactured
or sold silica or silica-based products.  Accordingly, the
Company is of the opinion that the allegations are without
foundation or merit.


BARRICK GOLD: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs opposed Barrick Gold Corporation's motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
several of its current or former officers in the US District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint is on behalf of Company shareholders who purchased
Company shares between February 14, 2002 and September 26, 2002.
It alleges that the Company and the individual defendants
violated US securities laws by making false and misleading
statements concerning Barrick's projected operating results and
earnings in 2002.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages.

On January 14, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The plaintiffs filed an opposition to Barrick's
motion to dismiss on March 12, 2004.  On April 2, 2004, Barrick
filed its reply to the plaintiff's opposition.


BELL CANADA: Ontario Court To Hear Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ontario Court of Appeals will hear plaintiff's appeal of the
dismissal of two lawsuits filed against Bell Canada
International (BCI) on behalf of all persons who owned BCI
common shares on December 3, 2001, on July 12, 2004.

Mr. Wilfred Shaw and Mr. Cameron Gillespie filed the suits, each
seeking $1 billion in damages from BCI and Bell Canada
Enterprises (BCE), in connection with the issuance of BCI common
shares on February 15, 2002 pursuant to the Recapitalization
Plan and the implementation of the Plan of Arrangement approved
by the Court on July 17, 2002.

The Shaw action was originally filed on September 27, 2002.  On
May 9, 2003 the Court dismissed the action and the motion for
certification as a class action.  Mr. Shaw did not appeal the
Court's decision.  On June 27, 2003, Mr. Shaw filed an amended
statement of claim, again intending to seek the Court's approval
to proceed by way of class action against BCI and BCE.

On August 30, 2003, Mr. Gillespie filed a lawsuit that was,
except with respect to the name of the plaintiff, substantially
identical to Shaw's amended statement of claim.  As such, BCI is
of the view that the filing of the Gillespie action does not
increase BCI's potential liability beyond that relating to the
initial filing of the Shaw action in September 2002.

On January 5, 2004, the Court issued an order dismissing each of
these lawsuits against BCI and BCE.  The Court dismissed both
lawsuits on the grounds that the actions abused the process
of the Court and disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and
ordered that neither plaintiff may amend his statement of claim
to again bring these suits before the Court.  On February 3,
2004, Mr. Shaw and Mr. Gillespie appealed this decision to the
Ontario Court of Appeal.


BELL CANADA: Trial in Canada Debentures Suit Expected Late 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Bell Canada
International (BCI) is expected to commence in late 2004 or
early 2005 in Canadian court.

On April 29, 2002, a lawsuit was filed by certain former
holders of the Company's $250 million 6.75% convertible
unsecured subordinated debentures.  The plaintiffs seek damages
from the Company, Bell Canada Enterprises (BCE) and certain
current and former members of the Company's Board of Directors,
for up to an amount of $250 million in connection with the
settlement, on February 15, 2002, of the debentures through the
issuance of common shares, in accordance with BCI's
recapitalization plan completed on February 15, 2002.

In accordance with an agreement reached among the parties to
this lawsuit in December 2002, the Court has ordered that this
lawsuit be certified as a class action within the meaning of
applicable legislation.  The certification order does not
constitute a decision on the merits of the class action, and the
Company continues to be of the view that the allegations
contained in the lawsuit are without merit and intends to
vigorously defend its position.

As part of the agreement among the parties, the plaintiffs in
the class action have abandoned their claim for punitive damages
(the statement of claim originating the lawsuit sought $30
million in punitive damages).  The plaintiffs have also agreed
to the dismissal of the class action against BMO Nesbitt Burns
Inc., one of the original defendants in the proceeding.  All of
the defendants filed statements of defense in the third quarter
of 2003.

In August 2003, La Caisse de d‚p“t et placement du Qu‚bec (CDP)
filed a proof of claim with the Monitor and a Notice of Action
in the Court in connection with CDP's former holdings of a
portion of BCI's 6.5% convertible unsecured subordinated
debentures.  CDP is seeking up to $110 million in damages,
together with interest and costs, against BCI, BCE and
certain current and former members of BCI's board of directors.
CDP's claim contains allegations that are substantially similar
to those contained in the 6.75% Debenture Class Action.

On September 9, 2003, BCI, BCE and the other defendants in the
CDP Action entered into an agreement (modified November 28,
2003) with CDP with respect to the procedure to be followed
in connection with the CDP action.  Pursuant to the agreement,
the defendants agreed with CDP, after limited examinations of
CDP in October 2003 to determine whether the CDP Action raises
factual or legal issues or defenses different from those in the
6.75% Debenture Class Action, that (subject to the approval of
the Court) the prosecution of the CDP Action should be stayed
pending a final adjudication or settlement of the 6.75%
Debenture Class Action, and the resolution of the 6.75%
Debenture Class Action shall form the basis for the final
resolution of the CDP Action.

CDP has also agreed not to advance any claims as a holder of
6.75% debentures outside of the 6.75% Debenture Class Action,
nor any claims as a common shareholder of BCI outside of any
certified common shareholder class action of which it may be
found to be a member.  By order dated December 19, 2003, this
agreement was approved by the Court and the action was stayed
until final disposition of the 6.75% Debenture Class Action.


BURLINGTON RESOURCES: Pre-trial Discovery Continues in OK Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-trial discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class
actions filed against Burlington Resources, Inc. and its former
affiliate, El Paso Natural Gas Company, have in the District
Court of Washita County, State of Oklahoma.

Two suits, styled "Bank of America, et al. v. El Paso Natural
Gas Company, et al., Case No. CJ-97-68," and "Deane W. Moore, et
al. v. Burlington Northern, Inc., et. al., Case No. CJ-97-132,"
were initially filed and were subsequently consolidated by the
court.

Plaintiffs contend that defendants underpaid royalties from 1983
to the present on natural gas produced from specified wells in
Oklahoma through the use of below-market prices, improper
deductions and transactions with affiliated companies and in
other instances failed to pay or delayed in the payment of
royalties on certain gas sold from these wells.  The plaintiffs
seek an accounting and damages for alleged royalty
underpayments, plus interest from the time such amounts were
allegedly due.  Plaintiffs additionally seek the recovery of
punitive damages.

The plaintiffs have not specified in their pleadings the amount
of damages they seek from the Company. However, through pre-
trial discovery, plaintiffs have provided defendants with
alternative theories of recovery claiming monetary damages of up
to $263.6 million in principal, plus interest, punitive damages
and attorney's fees.

The Company and El Paso Natural Gas Company have asserted
contractual claims for indemnity against each other.  The court
has certified the plaintiff classes of royalty and overriding
royalty interest owners.  It is anticipated that this matter
will be scheduled for trial during 2004.


CIT GROUP: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against CIT Group, Inc., its chief executive officer and
its chief financial officer, asserting claims under the
Securities Act of 1933.

The lawsuit contained allegations that the registration
statement and prospectus prepared and filed in connection with
CIT's 2002 IPO were materially false and misleading, principally
with respect to the adequacy of CIT's telecommunications-related
loan loss reserves at the time.  The lawsuit purported to have
been brought on behalf of all those who purchased CIT common
stock in or traceable to the IPO, and sought, among other
relief, unspecified damages or rescission for those alleged
class members who still hold CIT stock and unspecified damages
for other alleged class members.

On June 25, 2003, by order of the United States District Court,
the lawsuit was consolidated with five other substantially
similar suits, all of which had been filed after April 10, 2003
and one of which named as defendants some of the underwriters in
the IPO and certain former directors of CIT.  Glickenhaus & Co.,
a privately held investment firm, has been named lead plaintiff
in the consolidated action.

Plaintiffs later filed an amended and consolidated complaint,
which contains substantially the same allegations as the
original complaints.  In addition to the foregoing, two similar
suits were brought by certain shareholders on behalf of CIT
against CIT and some of its present and former directors under
Delaware corporate law.


COUNTRYWIDE HOMES: Levy Angsreich Appointed Lead Counsel in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levy, Angstreich, Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein and Coren, P.C.'s
senior partners Steven Angstreich, Michael Coren and Carolyn
Lindheim were appointed class counsel in a consumer fraud class
action that could affect more than 10 thousand New Jersey
residents.

The case was brought against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., one
of the nation's largest providers of residential mortgages. The
statewide class action certified in Middlesex County Superior
Court claims that individual consumers in New Jersey were
illegally charged a $60.00 statement fee when requesting a
written payoff calculation required for closing.  The large fee
is allegedly a violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, one of the most protective
consumer laws in the nation, prohibits businesses from engaging
in unconscionable commercial practices, deception and fraud
aimed at consumers.

One of the attorneys representing the consumers, Carolyn
Lindheim, said, "The claim we make is that Countrywide Home
Loans, Inc. charged a customer $60.00 to fax them a written
payoff statement. The company's position is that they have a
right to charge this inflated fee because you could simply ask
for a payoff amount over the phone or via the Internet. But,
title companies will not accept a verbal or unofficial number
when they are conducting a closing on a home or a mortgage
payoff. So, the only way you can pay off your mortgage is to get
a written payoff statement and to get that the consumer had to
pay the $60.00."

For more details, contact the law firm of Levy, Angstreich,
Finney, Baldante, Rubenstein and Coren, P.C. by Phone:
800-601- 1616 or visit their Web Site:
http://www.levyangstreich.com


CREDIT FIRMS: TX Attorney General Lodges Consumer Fraud Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Attorney General's office initiated a lawsuit in
district court against Cross County Bank Inc. and Applied Card
Systems Inc. charging that the two companies have over the past
several years engaged in "a number of harassing and abusive debt
collection tactics," the Knight-Ridder/Tribune Business News
reports.

The lawsuit named the two companies and its founder, Boca Raton
resident Rocco Abessinio alleging that they harassed and
deceived Texas consumers who were trying to clean up their
credit. It asks for a court injunction to stop the alleged
practices and that each defendant pay at least $20,000. The suit
also charges the Defendants of telling consumers that they would
get a high credit limit and low percentage rates, but instead
received low limits and high rates.

At least five other states, including Florida, have also sued
the two companies.


DANIER LEATHER: Trial Completed in Suit Over Shareholder Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the statement of claim under the Class Proceedings Act
(Ontario) filed against Danier Leather, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors has been completed.

The Claim relates to subordinate voting shares purchased at the
time of the Company's initial public offering in May 1998.
Essentially, the suit seeks damages be paid equal to the alleged
diminution in value of the shares.  The plaintiff also brought a
motion to certify the action as a class action on behalf of
investors who purchased shares pursuant to the initial public
offering.

A motion to certify the action as a class action was heard in
July 2001, and in October 2001, the motion for certification was
granted.  The trial commenced in May 2003.  It is expected that
the Judge will take some time to write Reasons for Judgment and
render his determination.  No amounts have been provided in the
accounts of the Company in respect of any of the amounts being
claimed in this matter.


DOMINION TELECOM: Reaches Settlement For Right-of-Way Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominion Telecom, Inc. and Virginia Electric and Power Company
reached a settlement for the class action filed by Wiley Fisher,
Jr. and John Fisher in the U.S. District Court in Richmond,
Virginia.

The plaintiffs claim that Virginia Power and the Company strung
fiber-optic cable across their land, along a Virginia Power
electric transmission corridor, without paying compensation.
The Complaint seeks damages for trespass and "unjust
enrichment," as well as punitive damages from the defendants.
The named plaintiffs "represent a class consisting of all owners
of land in North Carolina and Virginia, other than public
streets or highways, that underlies Virginia Power's electric
transmission lines and on or in which fiber optic cable has been
installed."

The court granted a motion to add additional plaintiffs, Harmon
T. Tomlinson, Jr. and Linda D. Tomlinson.  In August 2003, the
federal district court issued an order granting the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit denied the Company's petitions for
interlocutory appeal on the class certification issue.

In April 2004, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
that is subject to approval by the court in formal proceedings.
Under the terms of the settlement, a fund of $20 million will be
established by defendants to pay claims of current and former
landowners as well as fees of lawyers for the class.  Costs of
notice to the class and administration of claims will be borne
separately by defendants.


ENBRIDGE GAS: Canada Court Orders Repayment of Late Payment Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in the class
action filed against Enbridge Gas Distribution (EGD) by a
customer with respect to late payment penalties.

The Supreme Court of Canada determined that EGD will be required
to repay a portion of amounts paid to it as late payment
penalties from April 1994.  The total amount of late payment
penalties billed, between April 1994 and February 2002 (when
EGD's late payment penalty was revised), was approximately $74
million of which a portion may be eligible for repayment.  The
amount payable is not determinable at this time.  The Supreme
Court has directed that a lower court determine the amount
payable.


FERRIS COFFEE: Recalls Raw Almond Products Due To Health Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ferris Coffee and Nut Co. of Grand Rapids, Michigan, is
conducting a voluntary recall of Ferris Brand raw almond
products due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella
Enteriditis. These raw almonds were distributed in Michigan.

The Company is taking this action as a result of a nationwide
recall being conducted by Paramount Farm of Lost Hills,
California, which supplied these almonds. While no Salmonella
has been found in any Ferris products or in any Paramount
products, our company is working with FDA to assure quality and
safety of our products.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e, infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

If you have any Ferris Coffee & Nut Company raw almond products,
do not eat them, but instead contact either Steve Pastoor or
Roger Oosterhouse at the company at 616 459-6257 for further
information about the recall.


FIRST SAMCO: Recalls 3,200 Fobus Gun Holsters For Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Samco, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 3,200 Fobus GLT
gun holsters.  A plastic or leather strap on the gun holster can
catch the trigger of the gun when inserting it into the holster
causing the gun to unintentionally discharge, posing an injury
hazard to the user.

There have been eight reports of the Glock handgun
unintentionally discharging when being inserted into the gun
holster, and one report of a user injuring his finger when a
Glock handgun unintentionally discharged while being inserted
into the gun holster.

The gun holsters are designed to hold a Series 17 and Series 19
Glock handgun fitted with a laser-sight light. "GL 2*EMZ" is
engraved in the top of the gun holster and "FOBUS" and "MADE IN
ISRAEL" is printed on the back of the gun holster. This recall
involves two early versions of the Fobus GLT gun holsters, one
with a plastic retention strap less than one inch wide and one
with a leather retention strap less than one inch wide. The new
design includes a strap that is more than one inch wide with a
plastic tip too wide to be caught inside the trigger guard.

Gun accessory retailers and distributors nationwide sold these
items, as well as on-line at www.fobusholster.com between March
2002 and March 2003 for about $40 to $45.

Consumers should stop using the gun holsters immediately and
bring the recalled gun holsters to an authorized Fobus USA
distributor for a free replacement gun holster or contact First
Samco Inc. for instructions on how to return the product for a
replacement item.  Consumers also may send their recalled gun
holsters by Mail: Fobus USA, 1300 B-3 Industrial Highway,
Southampton, PA 18966.  First Samco, Inc. will reimburse
consumers for return shipping.

For more details, contact the Company by Phone: toll-free at
(866) 508-3997 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through
Friday or visit Fobus USA's Web site:
http://www.fobusholster.com.


FORT FUDGE: Recalls Fudge Due To Almonds, Possible Heath Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Fudge Shop, Inc. is conducting a voluntary recall on its
distribution of Vanilla Nut Fudge that contains almonds
purchased between August 2003 and June 2, 2004 due to the
possibility of contamination with Salmonella Enteritidis. The
recalled fudge is packed in 6oz. packed under the Fort Dodge
Shop, Inc. label.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e, infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

Royal Fudge Shop, Inc. distributes this product in Michigan.

This recall is in follow-up to a voluntary recall announced in
mid-May by Paramount Farms of California of whole and diced raw
almonds based on over 20 possible cases of illnesses associated
with the almonds. The cases were reported in California,
Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Massachusetts and Michigan. We are working with FDA
to assure that all potentially contaminated almonds are removed
from the marketplace and that consumers are notified of the
recall.

The raw almonds should not be consumed but rather returned to
the store of purchase for a full refund. For further information
call Fort Fudge Shop, Inc. 1-231-436-8931, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m.


GLOBAL TIMBER: CA Court Finds Execs Guilty of Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in San Diego, California, entered a Final
Judgment of Permanent Injunction and Other Relief against
defendants Jonathon Bentley-Stevens and David A. Kirk. The judge
entered the Final Judgment following a February 27, 2004,
unanimous jury verdict finding that Stevens and Kirk violated
the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint alleged that
Stevens and Kirk committed fraud in connection with the purchase
or sale of securities issued by Global Timber Corporation, a
public company. Specifically, the Commission alleged that, from
at least November 1995 through December 1996, Stevens and Kirk
misrepresented to the public that Global had the right to
harvest certain timber located in the Philippines. By this
misrepresentation, Stevens and Kirk grossly overstated Global's
financial condition. Stevens and Kirk incorporated these false
statements in documents submitted to market makers, the National
Association of Securities Dealers, and the Commission.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Global Timber Corporation, Stephen J.
Sand, Jose F. Garcia, Jonathon Bentley-Stevens, David A. Kirk,
and Pamela J. Vega, Civil Action No. 98 CV  1072 DMS, SDCA."


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Reaches $100M Securities Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, In. agreed to settle for $100 million
the securities class action filed against it, due to issues
surrounding its $14.8 billion merger with AlliedSignal Inc.  The
Class representatives in the class action were:

     (1) 1199 SEIU Greater New York Pension Fund ("1199 Fund")
         (formerly Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund) of New
         York City,

     (2) the City of Monroe (Michigan) Employees Retirement
         System, and

     (3) Jefferson Bank

The 1199 Fund has previously served as a lead plaintiff in the
MicroStrategy litigation and the Computer Associates litigation
where recoveries of $156 million and $145 million, respectively,
were obtained.

According to Court documents Honeywell International Inc. (HON)
will pay $15 million while the company's insurance company will
pay an additional $85 million, bringing the total settlement
amount up to $100 million.

The Lerach Coughlin litigation team that brought about this
recovery was led by William S. Lerach and included partners
Arthur C. Leahy and Kathleen A. Herkenhoff.

The settlement is subject to final documentation and court
approval. The recovery, less fees and expenses, will be
distributed to purchasers of Honeywell common stock between
December 1, 1999 and June 19, 2000 who timely file valid proofs
of claim under procedures to be implemented by the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, which is
overseeing the litigation.

For further details, contact William S. Lerach of Lerach
Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP by Phone: 619-338-4550 or
800-449-4900 or by E-Mail: wsl@lcsr.com


KELLOGG NORTH: Recalls Corn Flakes Due To Undeclared Milk, Wheat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kellogg North America Co. recalled in May 2004 a limited number
of packages of Kellogg's Corn Flakesr in 18-ounce cartons
because they contain undeclared milk and wheat. People who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk or wheat run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

Approximately 6,300 packages of 18 ounce Kellogg'sr Corn Flakes
with a UPC code of 381200 are affected by this recall. The only
cartons being recalled have a Better If Used Before Date of MAR
31 2005 KLB 009 stamped on the top of the package.

These packages were distributed through retail stores in Midwest
and Western U.S. This product was not distributed in Canada.

No illnesses or allergic reactions have been reported to date in
connection with this problem. This recall was initiated after an
investigation revealed that another Kellogg cereal, containing
milk and wheat ingredients, was inadvertently packed in Corn
Flakes cartons, not declaring the presence of milk or wheat.

Consumers who have purchased the recalled 18 ounce Kellogg's
Corn Flakesr cereal with a UPC code of 381200 and a Better If
Used Before Date of MAR 31 2005 KLB 009 can contact Kellogg
Consumer Affairs at 1-877-877-4494 for further information and
instructions.


KINROSS GOLD: Court Refuses Appeal of Employee Lawsuit Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada refused to allow plaintiffs to
appeal a lower court's decision setting aside an employee
lawsuit against Echo Bay Mines, Ltd., Kinross Gold Corporation's
subsidiary, on the basis that British Columbia does not have
jurisdiction in connection with the claim.

In November 2001, two former employees of Echo Bay brought a
claim against the Company pursuant to the Class Proceedings Act
(British Columbia) as a result of the temporary suspension of
operations at Echo Bay's Lupin mine in the spring of 1998 and
the layoff of employees at that time.

On August 12, 2002, the Supreme Court of British Columbia
dismissed the Company's application for a declaration that
British Columbia did not have jurisdiction in connection with
this claim or in the alternative, that the Court should decline
jurisdiction.  The Company appealed this decision.

On April 4, 2003, the appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal
for British Columbia.  On May 16, 2003, in a unanimous decision,
the Court of Appeal allowed the Company's appeal and service was
set aside on the basis that British Columbia does not have
jurisdiction in connection with this claim. In addition the
court ordered the former employees to reimburse Echo Bay for
costs associated with the appeal and the Supreme Court of
British Columbia proceedings.  On August 18, 2003, counsel for
the former employees filed an application for leave to appeal to
the Supreme Court of Canada.  On March 4, 2004, the application
for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was dismissed
with costs payable to Echo Bay.

The Company has been advised by counsel for the claimants that
they have initiated proceedings on behalf of 75 employees for
damages for wrongful dismissal in Nanavut and the Northwest
Territories.  They have requested that Echo Bay choose the
jurisdiction in which proceedings are to be pursued.  Echo Bay
has not yet been served with these proceedings nor is the amount
involved known at this time.


KINROSS GOLD: Plaintiffs File Amended Fiduciary Duty Suit in NV
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Kinross Gold
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District
of Nevada, syled "Robert A. Brown, et al. v. Kinross Gold
U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. CV-S-02-0605-KJD-RJJ."  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) the Company's subsidiaries,

     (2) Kinross Gold U.S.A., Inc.,

     (3) Kinam Gold, Inc., and

     (4) Robert M. Buchan, president and C.E.O. of Kinross

The complaint is brought on behalf of two potential classes,
those who tendered their Kinam preferred stock into the tender
offer for the Kinam $3.75 Series B Preferred Stock made by
Kinross Gold U.S.A. and those who did not.  Plaintiffs argue,
among other things, that:

     (i) amounts historically advanced by Kinross to Kinam
         should be treated as capital contributions rather than
         loans;

    (ii) the purchase of Kinam preferred stock from
         institutional investors in July 2001 was a
         constructive redemption of the preferred stock, an
         impermissible amendment to the conversion rights of
         the preferred stock, or constituted the commencement
         of a tender offer;

   (iii) Kinross and its subsidiaries have intentionally taken
         actions for the purpose of minimizing the value of the
         Kinam preferred stock; and

    (iv) the amount offered in the tender offer of $16.00 per
         share was not a fair valuation of the Kinam preferred
         stock

The complaint alleges breach of contract based on the governing
provisions of the Kinam preferred stock, breach of fiduciary
duties, violations of the "best price" rule under Section 13(e)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
.Exchange Act.), and the NYSE rules, violations of Section 10(b)
and 14(e) of the Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5 and 14c-6(a)
hereunder, common law fraud based on the acts taken and
information provided in connection with the tender offer,
violation of Nevada's anti-racketeering law, and control person
liability under Section 20A of the Exchange Act.

A second action seeking certification as a class action and
based on the same allegations was also filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Nevada on May 22,
2002.  It names the same parties as defendants.  This action has
been consolidated into the Brown case and the Brown plaintiffs
have been designated as lead plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs seek damages ranging from $9.80 per share, plus
accrued dividends, to $39.25 per share of Kinam preferred stock
or, in the alternative, the issuance of 26.875 to 80.625 Kinross
shares for each Kinam preferred share.  They also seek triple
damages under Nevada statutes.

The Company brought a motion for judgment on the pleadings with
respect to the federal securities claims based on fraud.
Discovery was stayed pending the resolution of this matter.  On
September 29, 2003, the Court ruled that plaintiffs had failed
to adequately state a federal securities fraud claim.  The
plaintiffs were given an opportunity to amend the complaint to
try and state a claim that would meet the pleading standards
established by the Court, but, if they are unable to do so,
these claims will be dismissed.


MATTEL INC.: Briefing on Suit Settlement Appeal To Be Finished
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing of plaintiffs' appeal of the settlement of the
consolidated securities class actions filed against Mattel, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California is expected to be finished on the first half of 2004.

Following the Company's announcement in October 1999 of the
expected results of its Learning Company division for the third
quarter of 1999, various Company stockholders filed purported
class action complaints naming the Company and certain of its
present and former officers and directors as defendants.

These shareholder complaints were consolidated into two lead
cases, one under 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("the Act"), and the other under 14(a) of the Act.  In November
2002, the United States District Court for the Central District
of California permitted the actions to proceed as class actions.

Several stockholders filed related derivative complaints
purportedly on behalf of Mattel.  Some of the derivative suits
were consolidated into one lawsuit in Los Angeles County
Superior Court in California, which was dismissed for the
plaintiff's failure to make pre-suit demand on the board of
directors.  An appeal from that decision was dismissed in July
2003 by stipulation of the parties.

Another derivative suit was filed in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, and was dismissed without prejudice in August 2002 in
deference to the then-ongoing California derivative case.  A
third derivative suit, filed in federal court in the Central
District of California, was dismissed in July 2002, and re-filed
in November 2002 as part of the settlement.

In November 2002, the parties to the federal cases negotiated
and thereafter memorialized in a final settlement agreement a
settlement of all the federal lawsuits in exchange for payment
of $122.0 million and Mattel's agreement to adopt certain
corporate governance procedures.  The court granted final
approval to the settlement in September 2003, and judgments were
entered accordingly.  On October 9, 2003, a group of persons
purporting to be members of the 14(a) class filed a notice of
appeal, challenging the manner in which the $122.0 million was
allocated between the 10(b) class and the 14(a) class.


MATTEL INC.: Consumer Fraud Suit Over Barbie Dolls Pending in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mattel, Inc. continues to face a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois, by two plaintiffs,
who purchased "limited edition" Barbier dolls.

The suit alleges that the Company's use of the term "limited
edition" on Barbier dolls was deceptive and fraudulent to
consumers (and that it constituted a breach of contract and
breach of express warranty) on the grounds that the dolls were
not "true" limited editions and thus are not as valuable as they
would be otherwise.

Originally, the plaintiffs claimed that use of the terms
"special edition," "collector's edition" and "exclusive" on
Barbier dolls was also deceptive and fraudulent to consumers and
constituted a breach of contract and breach of express warranty,
but these claims were dismissed during motion practice.

In August 2003, a nationwide class of "all persons who have
purchased limited edition Barbier dolls or Barbier dolls which
were described, promoted or packaged as available only in small,
limited amounts" was certified based on California Business and
Professions Code sections 17200 and 17500 et seq.  Plaintiffs'
claims under the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, as well as their
breach of contract and breach of express warranty claims,
have not been certified for class action status, and thus,
currently apply only to the two named representative
plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs claim that the class has suffered
compensatory damages of at least between $100 million and $200
million, and seek punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
injunctive relief.


METROPOLITAN MARKETS: Expands Almond Recall Due To Health Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Market is expanding its voluntary recall on its
distribution of raw whole (or diced) almonds packaged as Almonds
Whole Raw due to the possibility of contamination with
Salmonella Enteritidis. The recalled almonds are packed in 8 oz.
or 16 oz. clear, square clam shell containers packaged under the
Metropolitan Market White Scale Label, with the code of PLU #
4248 and "SELL BY" dates Feb. 01.04 through Aug. 29.04.

Salmonella is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e, infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

The expanded recall covers product that was distributed or sold
through the Admiral Metropolitan Market in West Seattle.

This recall is in follow-up to a voluntary recall announced in
mid-May by Paramount Farms of California of whole and diced raw
almonds based on over 20 possible cases of illnesses associated
with the almonds. The cases were reported in California,
Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Utah, New Mexico, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Massachusetts and Michigan. We are working with FDA
to assure that all potentially contaminated almonds are removed
from the marketplace and that consumers are notified of the
recall.

The raw almonds should not be consumed but rather returned to
the store of purchase for a full refund. For further
information, call: Admiral Metropolitan Market, 206.937.0551,
open 24 hours a day.


MR. NATURE: Recalls Raw Almonds Due To Salmonella Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nature is conducting a voluntary recall on its distribution
of raw whole almonds packaged as Mr. Nature due to the
possibility of contamination with Salmonella Enteritidis. The
recalled almonds are packed in 2.0 oz., 1.1 oz. and 3.5 oz.
packages under the Mr. Nature label, with products codes on
boxes and bags.  The products are:

     (1) 02230 Aloha Mix, 2.0 oz.

     (2) 01107 Energizer Mix, 2.0 oz.

     (3) 02009 Mix N Yogurt, 2.0 oz.

     (4) 02530 Trail Mix, 2.0 oz.

     (5) 02013 Trail Mix, 1.1 oz.

     (6) 60007 Trail Mix, 3.5 oz.

These products were distribute in the state of CA, TX, MO, MD,
MA, FL, GA, NC, IL, NJ, NY, and OH.

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infection with Salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and producing more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e., infected
aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

This recall is in follow-up to a voluntary recall announced in
mid-May by Paramount Farms of California of whole and diced raw
almonds based on over 20 possible cases of illnesses associated
with the almonds. The cases were reported in California,
Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Utah New Mexico, Arkansas,
Tennessee, Massachusetts and Michigan we are working with FDA to
assure that all potentially contaminated almonds are removed
from the market place and that consumers are notified of the
recall

The products listed above should not be consumed sold or
distribute but rather returned to the place of purchase for a
full refund.

For further information, call Mr. Nature 1-888-464-6887 7:00 am
- 3:30 pm PT.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: MN Court Dismisses Passenger Data Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Minnesota dismissed seven
class actions filed against Northwest Airlines by passengers
whose personal information was given to NASA for an aviation-
security research project, after the September 11 terrorist
attacks, the Associated Press reports.

After the terrorist attacks, Northwest Airlines provided NASA
with passenger data from the last three months of 2001,
including names, flight numbers, credit card data, hotel
reservations, car rentals and traveling companies.  The suit
alleges that the Company breached its own privacy contract, and
violated the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Judge Paul Magnuson dismissed these claims, saying that
attorneys failed to show that passengers were harmed by the data
sharing.  Judge Magnuson ruled that the release of passenger
information "would not be highly offensive to a reasonable
person."

"The disclosure here was not to the public at large, but rather
was to a government agency in the wake of a terrorist attack
that called into question the security of the nation's
transportation system. Northwest's motives in disclosing the
information cannot be questioned," the judge wrote in a ruling
signed Sunday, AP reports.

Northwest reacted to the ruling with a statement that said the
airline "acted appropriately and consistent with the company's
own privacy policy and all applicable federal laws, and the
court agreed," AP reports.


QLT INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Reconsideration of NY Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to reconsider its dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action filed against QLT, Inc. on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's common shares between
August 1, 2000 and December 14, 2000.

The complaint also names as defendants Julia Levy, former
President, Chief Executive Officer and a current Director of the
Company; and Kenneth Galbraith, the Company's former Executive
Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Corporate Secretary.
The plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The plaintiffs allege that on December 14, 2000 the Company
announced that it expected to miss its Visudyne sales estimates
for the fourth-quarter 2000, and that in response, the Company's
common share price dropped approximately 31%.  The plaintiffs
claim that the Company's December 14, 2000 statements
contradicted prior information issued by the defendants
concerning the demand for Visudyne and the Company's prospects.

The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants overstated the
demand for Visudyne, did not properly disclose reimbursement
issues relating to Visudyne and that the defendants had no basis
in the months preceding the December announcement for their
projections of fourth-quarter sales.  The plaintiffs further
allege that the intent of the individual defendants to
mislead investors can be inferred from their sale of a
substantial amount of the Company's common shares during the
months of August and September 2000.  The plaintiffs sought
injunctive relief, fees and expenses and compensatory
damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 31, 2004 the court issued an Opinion and Order
dismissing the complaint with prejudice.  The court also found
that the plaintiffs failed to state a valid claim for securities
fraud.


SHELL OIL: Consumers Commence Fraud Lawsuit Over Gasoline in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oil giant Shell Oil Co. and its refiner Motiva Enterprises LLC
faces a class action filed on behalf of two Florida drivers in
the United States District Court for the District of Florida,
the Sun Sentinel Online reports.

The law firm of William D. Tucker filed the suit on behalf of
Cynthia Chowdhury and Marilyn Fisher, who claim that fuel gauges
on their cars were damaged by high-sulfur gasoline from oil
giant.  The defendants allegedly violated Florida law by
engaging in unfair and deceptive trade practices.  The suit also
claims that the companies knew, or should have known, that
gasoline with high levels of sulfur would damage vehicles.

Aside from seeking class-action status, the Plaintiffs are also
asking that a court order be issued to force the companies to
inspect affected vehicles for up to a year and cover the cost of
any repairs.

As of Tuesday afternoon, Shell said it received about 15,000
calls from consumers in Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana about
the tainted gas.  Motiva for its part has said that the first
reimbursement checks for claims that have been resolved will go
out Friday. Shell officials have said the sulfur-tainted fuel
can corrode silver sensors in fuel gauges and can cost from $300
to $600 or more to repair.

For more details, contact the law offices of William D. Tucker
by Mail: Fort Lauderdale, FL by Phone: 954-560-8725 by Fax:
954-453-4507 or by E-Mail: badgaslawsuit@aol.com OR The Shell
Consumer Hotline by Phone: 888-502-7323 or visit their
reimbursement request site: www.interactclaims.com/shell OR The
Florida Department of Agriculture And Consumer Services by
Phone: 800-435-7352


SBC ILLINOIS: Mails Out Notices, Claim Forms To Class Members
-------------------------------------------------------------
SBC Illinois (NYSE:SBC) is currently mailing out a notice and
claim form to customers in connection with a class action
settlement agreement involving Ameritech/SBC Voicemail.

Customers who are members of the settlement class and are
therefore entitled to submit a claim for benefits include only
those present and former residential and business customers who
were not on an unlimited local calling plan and therefore
incurred local usage charges when using Ameritech Voicemail.

Also, in order to receive benefits, customers must be able to
certify that they were not aware of the usage charges and did
not understand the disclosures made in written documents mailed
to them at the time they subscribed to Voice Mail. The customer
must further be able to certify that they would not have
subscribed to Voice Mail had they been aware of the usage
charges.

SBC entered into the settlement in March of 2004 throughout its
Midwest region to put a swift end to further litigation and move
forward with business as usual. The company denies any
allegations of wrongdoing or liability and believes we have
fully complied with all laws and regulations. In fact, in
Illinois, we actually won the case.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: Store Managers Launch Overtime Wage Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Designer-coffee giant Starbucks faces a class action filed by
Attorney Dan Levine on behalf of two store managers in Florida
federal court, The Palm Beach Post reports.

Starbucks managers Sean Pendlebury and Laurel Overton filed the
suit alleging that they were forced to work unpaid overtime.
They claim that though there work is similar to baristas, the
coffee-brewing sales clerks, as store managers they also had to
do their managerial duties like ordering supplies and other such
tasks, which could not be completed during regular hours.  If
class action status is granted, other Starbucks managers around
the nation could also choose to join the suit.

For more details, contact attorney Dan Levine of Shapiro, Blasi
& Wasserman, P.A. by Mail: 7777 Glades Road, Suite 110 Boca
Raton, Florida 33434 (Palm Beach Co.) by Phone: 561-477-7800 by
Fax: 561-477-7722 or 561-483-3387 or visit their Web Site:
http://www.sbwlawfirm.com


SUN LIFE: Shareholders File Suits After MFS Settlement With SEC
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Massachusetts Financial
Services Company (MFS) face several class actions filed after
MFS announced in March 2004 a settlement with the United States
Securities and Exchange Commission of administrative proceedings
regarding disclosure by MFS of brokerage allocation practices in
connection with fund sales.  The suits also name as defendants
certain of the Company's officers, certain MFS funds and
trustees of these MFS funds.

The suits were filed on behalf of people who purchased, owned
and/or redeemed shares of MFS funds during specified periods and
participants in certain retirement plan accounts.  The suits
generally allege that certain defendants permitted or acquiesced
in the improper use of fund assets by MFS to support the
distribution of fund shares and inadequately disclosed MFS' use
of fund assets in this manner, which allegedly caused financial
injury to fund shareholders.  These lawsuits seek an unspecified
amount of damages.

The defendants are reviewing the allegations and will respond
appropriately.  Additional lawsuits based upon similar
allegations may be filed in the future, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Canadian Securities and Exchange Commission.
The Company cannot predict the outcome of these actions with
certainty and is accordingly unable to determine the total
potential impact that they may have on the Company's results of
operations, financial position and cash flows.


SUPERIOR NUT: Recalls Raw Almonds For Salmonella Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Superior Nut and Candy is conducting a voluntary recall on its
distribution of raw whole almonds and almond-containing products
due to the possibility of contamination with Salmonella
enteritidis. The recalled almonds and almond containing products
were packed for the following companies under the following
brands:

     (1) Superior Nut and Candy - Superior Nut & Candy Tropical
         Mix, 25 lb cases, 41404

     (2) International Foods - Jake's Trading Company Energy
         Mix, 16 oz, 4092

     (3) Imperial Foods - Imperial Foods Tropical Mix, 5 oz,
         120103

     (4) Figis - Figis California Fruit Mix, 25 lb cases, 032304

     (5) Caito Foods - Caito Foods Tropical Mix, 16 oz, 033104

     (6) Imperial Foods - Imperial Foods Tropical Mix, 5 oz,
         021104

     (7) Imperial Foods - Imperial Foods Tropical Mix, 5 oz,
         021204

     (8) Warner Candies - Warner Candies Whole Almonds, 2.25 oz,
         021104

Salmonella is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected
with Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be
bloody), nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare
circumstances, infections with salmonella can result in the
organism getting into the bloodstream and produce more severe
illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e, infected aneurysms),
endocarditis and arthritis.

Superior Nut and Candy distributed these products in Wisconsin,
Indiana, Missouri and Illinois.

This firm recall is in follow-up to a voluntary recall announced
in mid May by Paramount Farms of California of whole and diced
raw almonds based on over 20 possible cases of illnesses
associated with the almonds. The cases were reported to
California, Arizona, Oregon, Washington, Utah, New Mexico,
Arkansas, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and Michigan. We are working
with FDA to assure that all potentially contaminated almonds are
removed from the marketplace and consumers are notified of the
recall.

The raw almonds should not be consumed but rather returned to
the store of purchase for a full refund. For further
information, call Superior Nut and Candy, phone (773) 254-7900,
Monday to Friday from 8:00am to 5:00pm.


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: SEC Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Securities and Exchange Commission filed a
civil injunctive action in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York charging Symbol Technologies, Inc.
(Symbol), with securities fraud and related violations. The SEC
also charged eleven former Symbol executives in connection with
their roles in the fraud.  Symbol has agreed to settle the
Commission's charges by paying a $37 million penalty and
consenting to injunctive relief. The entire amount of the
penalty will be distributed to injured investors.

The SEC's complaint alleges that from at least 1998 until early
2003, Symbol and the other defendants engaged in numerous
fraudulent accounting practices and other misconduct that had a
cumulative net impact of over $230 million on Symbol's reported
revenue and over $530 million on its pre-tax earnings.  Based in
Holtsville, New York, Symbol supplies mobile information systems
using bar code scanners and related technology and its stock is
publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

In addition to Symbol, the Commission's complaint names the
following individual defendants who worked at Symbol during the
relevant period:

     (1) Tomo Razmilovic, age 62, former President and CEO;

     (2) Kenneth Jaeggi, age 58, former CFO;

     (3) Leonard Goldner, age 56, former General Counsel;

     (4) Brian Burke, age 57, former Senior Vice President of
         Worldwide Operations and the former Chief Accounting
         Officer;

     (5) Michael DeGennaro, age 39, former Senior Vice President
         of Finance;

     (6) Frank Borghese, age 49, former Senior Vice President of
         Worldwide Sales and Service;

     (7) Christopher DeSantis, age 38, former Vice President of
         Sales Finance;

     (8) James Heuschneider, age 47, former Director of Customer
         Service Finance;

     (9) Gregory Mortenson, age 38, former Senior Director of
         Finance;

    (10) James Dean, age 34, former Manager and Director of
         Operations Finance; and

    (11) Robert Donlon, age 37, former Director of Sales
         Operations.

The complaint alleges that Symbol and other defendants engaged
in a fraudulent scheme to inflate revenue, earnings and other
measures of financial performance in order to create the false
appearance that Symbol had met or exceeded its financial
projections. Razmilovic and others fostered a "numbers driven"
corporate culture obsessed with meeting Wall Street estimates.

With no regard for generally accepted accounting principles or
their financial reporting obligations, defendants used the
following fraudulent schemes to align Symbol's reported
financial results with market expectations:

     (i) a "Tango sheet" process through which baseless
         accounting entries were made to conform the raw
         quarterly results to management's projections;

    (ii) the fabrication and misuse of restructuring and other
         non-recurring charges to artificially reduce operating
         expenses, create "cookie jar" reserves and further
         manage earnings;

   (iii) channel stuffing and other revenue recognition schemes,
         involving both product sales and customer services; and

    (iv) the manipulation of inventory levels and accounts
         receivable data to conceal the adverse side effects of
         the revenue recognition schemes.

Razmilovic, Jaeggi, Burke, DeGennaro and Borghese directed the
fraud, while DeSantis, Heuschneider, Mortenson, Dean and Donlon
implemented the schemes.

While the accounting fraud was occurring, Goldner manipulated
stock option exercise dates  to enable select senior
executives,  including himself, to profit unfairly at the
company's expense.

The Commission's complaint alleges that by engaging in this
conduct, the defendants violated antifraud provisions of the
federal securities laws, and also violated, or are secondarily
liable for Symbol's violations of, numerous reporting, record-
keeping, internal control and proxy solicitation provisions.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Symbol violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and
Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2) and 14(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20,
13a-1, 13a-13, 14a-3 and 14a-9. Each individual defendant is
alleged to have violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1. Razmilovic, Jaeggi,
Goldner and Burke are also alleged to have violated Section
17(a) of the Securities Act, and Goldner is alleged to have also
violated Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 16a-3. In
addition, the complaint alleges that Razmilovic, Jaeggi, Burke
and DeGennaro made, or directed others to make, false statements
to Symbol's accountants in violation of Exchange Act Rule 13b2-
2. The complaint seeks final judgments enjoining violations of
these provisions of the federal securities laws; ordering all
defendants to pay disgorgement and civil money penalties; and
barring defendants Razmilovic, Jaeggi, Goldner, Burke, DeGennaro
and Borghese from acting as an officer or director of any public
company.

With out admitting or denying the Commission's allegations,
Symbol has consented to a judgment requiring it to pay nominal
disgorgement and a $37 million penalty, all of which will be
distributed to injured investors, enjoining it from future
violations of the securities laws, and imposing other remedial
relief.

Dean has also agreed, without admitting or denying the
allegations, to the imposition of the injunctive relief sought
by the Commission.

The Commission's claims for disgorgement and civil penalties
against Dean, and all of its claims against the other individual
defendants, remain pending.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of
the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of New York
and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service in this matter. [SEC v.
Symbol Technologies, Inc., Tomo Razmilovic, Kenneth Jaeggi,
Leonard Goldner, Brian Burke, Michael DeGennaro, Frank Borghese,
Christopher DeSantis, James Heuschneider, Gregory Mortenson,
James Dean and Robert Donlon, 04 CV 2276 (LDW) EDNY] (LR-18734;
AAE Rel. 2029; Press Rel. 2004-74)


SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches $139M Settlement in LA, FL Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP and
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, representing the
Louisiana Municipal Police Employees' Retirement System,
Louisiana Sheriff's Pension & Relief Fund and City of Miami
General Employees' & Sanitation Employees' Retirement Trust
("Lead Plaintiffs") has announced that they have reached a
settlement with Symbol Technologies, Inc. ("Symbol") and certain
of its former directors and officers, on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased or acquired Symbol common stock from
February 15, 2000 to October 17, 2002 (the "Class Period"), that
will provide at least $139 million in stock and cash for class
members. Symbol, based in Holtsville, N.Y., develops,
manufactures, sells and services bar scanner-integrated mobile
and wireless information management systems and services.

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in In re Symbol
Technologies, Inc. Litigation, pending before the Honorable
Leonard D. Wexler in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, alleges that, during the Class
Period, Symbol and certain of its former officers and directors
intentionally inflated Symbol's quarterly and annual revenues
and profits by prematurely recognizing millions of dollars in
revenue through "channel stuffing," fabricated sales, and a
variety of other means.

The Complaint further alleges that Symbol and these individuals,
at the end of each fiscal quarter, would artificially
manufacture millions of dollars in last minute revenue by, among
other things, shipping product on consignment and recognizing
revenue months before products were constructed, configured or
shipped to its clients. On September 16, 2003, the Court denied
Defendants' motions to dismiss the Complaint.

If approved by the Court, the settlement will provide class
members with Symbol common stock worth at least $96,250,000 and
$5,750,000 in cash. In particular, Symbol has agreed to pay
shares of Symbol common stock worth at least $96,250,000 at the
time of distribution. If the value of the stock appreciates in
the meantime, that additional value will be passed on to
shareholders. The settlement also provides that the value of the
stock will be protected down to 70% of its value. Moreover,
Symbol has agreed to pay $1,750,000 in cash, and former CEO and
Co-Founder Jerome Swartz has agreed to pay $4,000,000 in cash.

In addition, as a direct result of the concurrent efforts of the
United States Government and its agencies and Lead Plaintiffs
and Lead Counsel, Symbol also agreed to pay an additional
$37,000,000 in cash into a Joint Compensation Fund, as payment
to the United States Government and its agencies and in
settlement of the class members' claims. The funds in the Joint
Compensation Fund will be used only to pay the claims of class
members.

Lead Plaintiffs are continuing to prosecute the claims against
defendants Tomo Razmilovic, Kenneth J. Jaeggi, Frank Borghese,
and Brian Burke, all of whom were officers of Symbol during the
Class Period. In addition, Symbol's former auditor, Deloitte &
Touche LLP, has been sued in a separate lawsuit.

For more details, contact Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann,
L.L.P., by Mail: 1285 Ave. of the Americas, New York, NY 10019
or by Phone: (212) 554-1400 OR Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco
Burt & Pucillo by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by
Phone: (617) 542-8300 or by E-Mail: law@bermanesq.com


TELUS CORPORATION: Canada Court Refuses To Dismiss Two Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Alberta Court of Queen's Bench of Canada refused to strike
out two statements of claim filed against TELUS Corporation on
December 31, 2001 and January 2, 2002 by plaintiffs alleging to
be either members or business agents of the Canadian
Telecommunications Workers Union (TWU).

In one action, the three plaintiffs alleged to be suing on
behalf of all current or future beneficiaries of the TELUS
Corporation Pension Plan (TCPP), and in the other action, the
two plaintiffs allege to be suing on behalf of all current or
future beneficiaries of the TELUS Edmonton Pension Plan
(TEPP).

The statement of claim in the TCPP-related action named the
Company, certain of its affiliates, including TELUS
Communications, Inc. (TCI), and certain present and former
trustees of the TCPP as defendants, and claims damages in the
sum of $445 million.  The statement of claim in the TEPP-related
action named the Company, certain of its affiliates, including
TCI, and certain individuals who are alleged to be trustees of
the TEPP and claims damages in the sum of $15.5 million.

On February 19, 2002, TELUS filed statements of defense to both
actions and also filed notices of motion for certain relief,
including an order striking out the actions as representative or
class actions.  On May 17, 2002, the statements of claim were
amended by the plaintiffs and include allegations, inter alia,
that benefits provided under the TCPP and TEPP are less
advantageous than the benefits provided under the respective
former pension plans, contrary to applicable legislation,
that insufficient contributions were made to the plans and
contribution holidays were taken and that the defendants
wrongfully used the diverted funds, and that administration fees
and expenses were improperly deducted.

The Company and certain named affiliates, including TCI, filed
statements of defense to the amended statements of claim on June
3, 2002.  An application for an order striking out the actions
as representative or class actions was dismissed.


TRAVELERS GROUP: CT Court Grants Certification To Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit that names the Travelers Group and several
subsidiaries as defendants, which charges them of corrupt or
unlawful business practices has been certified as a class action
by a Connecticut Superior Court judge.

Prior to the Connecticut Supreme Court's reinstatement of the
suit on charges of breach of contract, violation of the
Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, fraud and negligent misrepresentation in September
2002 had already been rejected by a trial court two and half
years before.

The suit alleges that the company's "rebating" practices in
conjunction with structured settlements funded by annuities were
not adequately disclosed, and the company further sought to
"short change" personal injury claimants.

The suit also alleges that Travelers Casualty developed rebating
arrangements with brokers Travelers Equity Sales, Inc. and
Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc., who were then-owned by
Travelers' parent company, that awarded them up to half of the
sales commissions of the annuities--most of which were
underwritten by Travelers Life and Annuity Co., currently a
subsidiary of Citigroup Inc.


UMPQUA DAIRY: Recalls Ice Cream Due To Undeclared Ingredients
-------------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Dairy of Roseburg, Oregon is recalling Umpqua brand Lite
Praline Pecan Ice Cream, Umpqua brand Pralines n' Cream Ice
Cream, and Pacific Crest Windigo Pass Pecan Ice Cream because
they may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies
to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

These products were distributed in Oregon, Washington and
Northern California through retail stores and ice cream dipping
shops between April 1 and June 1, 2004.

The recalled products include: Half-gallons of Umpqua Premium
Lite Praline Pecan Ice Cream with lot numbers 032605, 042005, or
052505; 3-gallon tubs of Umpqua Praline Pecan Lite Ice Cream
with product lot numbers 04086 or 04146; Half-gallon squares of
Pacific Crest Windigo Pass Pecan Ice Cream (any and all); and,
3-gallon tubs of Umpqua Pralines n' Cream Ice Cream with product
lot numbers 04111 or 04146. The lot numbers are located on the
bottom of the half-gallon containers and on the labels of the 3-
gallon tubs. All products are identified with plant number 41-
62.

No illness or allergic reactions have been reported to date.

Umpqua Dairy has voluntarily initiated this recall after it was
discovered that peanuts were mixed with pecans in the flavoring
used to produce these ice creams. The company is working with
its ingredient supplier to investigate the source of the
problem.


Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to
return the product to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact Umpqua Dairy at its toll
free number 1-888-672-MILK or at 541-672-2638.


WACHOVIA CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its executive officers on behalf of persons who
purchased shares of the Company's common stock from August 14,
1998, through May 24, 1999.

The suit alleges various violations of federal securities law,
including violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The suit alleged that the defendants made
materially misleading statements and/or material omissions which
artificially inflated prices for the Company's common stock and
that the Company failed to disclose integration problems in the
CoreStates Financial Corporation merger.

The suit further alleges the Company misstated the value of the
Company's interest in certain mortgage-backed securities of The
Money Store, Inc. (TMSI) acquired by First Union on June 30,
1998.  Plaintiffs request a judgment awarding damages and other
relief.

In January 2001, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the litigation for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.  Although the plaintiffs did not appeal
this ruling, they sought, and received permission to file an
amended complaint.  In August 2001, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that abandoned their previous allegations concerning
the CoreStates Financial Corporation merger and primarily raised
new allegations of irregularities at TMSI prior to its
acquisition by First Union.

In October 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
securities litigation consolidated in the court.  In September
2002, the court granted the motion in part, limiting any new
complaint to claims regarding alleged misstatements or omissions
pled in earlier complaints.  The plaintiffs filed a third
consolidated and amended complaint in October 2002, purportedly
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from March 4, 1998 to May 24, 1999.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that First Union
disregarded problems at TMSI and did not write down goodwill
from the TMSI acquisition soon enough.  In December 2003, the
court denied the Company's motion to strike portions of this
complaint.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: PA Linerboard Antitrust Settlement Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the two civil antitrust class actions filed
against Weyerhauser Co. in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Pennsylvania is deemed final.  The two suits
also named as defendants several other major containerboard and
packaging producers.

The complaint in the first case alleged the defendants conspired
to fix the price of linerboard and that the alleged conspiracy
had the effect of increasing the price of corrugated containers.
The suit requested class certification for purchasers of
corrugated containers during the period from October 1993
through November 1995.

The complaint in the second case alleged that the company
conspired to manipulate the price of linerboard and thereby the
price of corrugated sheets.  The suit requested class
certification for purchasers of corrugated sheets during the
period from October 1993 through November 1995.

Both suits sought damages, including treble damages, under the
antitrust laws.  In September 2001, the district court certified
both classes.  Class certification was upheld on appeal and
class members were given until June 9, 2003, to opt out of the
class.  Approximately 165 members of the classes opted out and
filed lawsuits against the company and other producers.  Two of
the thirteen opt-out lawsuits against the company were filed in
state court and the other eleven were filed in federal court.
It is possible that additional class members that opted out may
file lawsuits against the company in the future.

In September 2003, the company, Georgia-Pacific and
International Paper filed a motion with the court requesting
preliminary approval of a $68 million settlement of the class
action litigation.  The court granted final approval of the
settlement in December 2003.  Since no objections were filed,
the settlement is final and binding on the companies and class
members, other than class members who have opted out.


XEROX CORPORATION: Discovery Proceeds in CT Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery continues in the consolidated securities class action
filed against Xerox Corporation in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, styled "In re Xerox
Corporation Securities Litigation."  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Barry Romeril,

     (2) Paul Allaire and

     (3) G. Richard Thoman

The consolidated action purports to be a class action on behalf
of the named plaintiffs and all other purchasers of common stock
of the Company during the period between October 22, 1998
through October 7, 1999.  The amended consolidated complaint in
the action alleges that in violation of Section 10(b) and/or
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended ("1934
Act"), and SEC Rule 10b-5 thereunder, each of the defendants is
liable as a participant in a fraudulent scheme and course of
business that operated as a fraud or deceit on purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the Class Period by disseminating
materially false and misleading statements and/or concealing
material facts relating to the defendants' alleged failure to
disclose the material negative impact that the April 1998
restructuring had on the Company's operations and revenues.

The amended complaint further alleges that the alleged scheme:

     (i) deceived the investing public regarding the economic
         capabilities, sales proficiencies, growth, operations
         and the intrinsic value of the Company's common stock;

    (ii) allowed several corporate insiders, such as the named
         individual defendants, to sell shares of privately held
         common stock of the Company while in possession of
         materially adverse, non-public information; and

   (iii) caused the individual plaintiffs and the other members
         of the purported class to purchase common stock of the
         Company at inflated prices

The amended consolidated complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiffs and the other
members of the purported class against all defendants, jointly
and severally, for all damages sustained as a result of
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including interest thereon,
together with reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the
action, including counsel fees and expert fees.

On September 28, 2001, the court denied the defendants' motion
for dismissal of the complaint.  On November 5, 2001, the
defendants answered the complaint.  On January 7, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.  That motion
has not yet been fully briefed or argued before the court.


XEROX CORPORATION: CA Court Coordinates 13 Environmental Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles ordered coordinated several lawsuits filed against
Xerox Corporation, claiming damages as a result of the Company's
alleged disposal and/or release of hazardous substances into the
soil and groundwater.

On June 24, 1999, the Company was served with a summons and
complaint filed on behalf of 681 individual plaintiffs.
Subsequently, six additional complaints were filed in the same
court on behalf of another 459 plaintiffs, with the same claims
for damages as the June 1999 action.

All seven cases have been served on the Company.  Currently
there are approximately 540 plaintiffs remaining in the case, as
many plaintiffs have been dismissed from the litigation.
Plaintiffs in all seven cases allege that hazardous substances
from the Company's operations entered the municipal drinking
water supplied by the City of Pomona and the Southern California
Water Company, and as a result they were exposed to the
substances by inhalation, ingestion and dermal contact.
Plaintiffs' claims against the Company include:

     (1) personal injury,

     (2) wrongful death,

     (3) property damage,

     (4) negligence,

     (5) trespass,

     (6) nuisance, and

     (7) violation of the California Unfair Trade Practices Act

Damages are unspecified.  The seven cases against the Company
have been coordinated with approximately 13 unrelated cases
against other defendants which involve alleged contaminated
groundwater and drinking water in the San Gabriel Valley area of
Los Angeles County.  In all of those cases, plaintiffs have sued
both the providers of drinking water and the industrial
defendants who they contend contaminated the water.

The body of groundwater involved in the Abarca cases, and
allegedly contaminated by the Company, is separate and distinct
from the body of groundwater that is involved in the San Gabriel
Valley cases, and there is no allegation that the Company is
involved in the San Gabriel Valley cases.  Nonetheless, the
court ordered both groups of cases to be coordinated because
both groups concern allegations of groundwater and drinking
water contamination, have similar theories of liability alleged
against the defendants, and involve a number of similar legal
issues, thus apparently making it more efficient, in the view of
the court, for all of them to be handled by one judge.

Discovery has begun and no trial date has been set.  The Company
denies any wrongdoing and is vigorously defending the actions.
Based on the stage of the litigation, it is not possible to
estimate the amount of loss or range of possible loss that might
result from an adverse judgment or a settlement of this matter.


XEROX CORPORATION: Certification, Discovery Sought in ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and a motion
to commence discovery in the lawsuit filed against Xerox
Corporation in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut, styled "In Re Xerox Corporation ERISA
Litigation."

The purported class includes all persons who invested or
maintained investments in the Xerox Stock Fund in the Xerox
401(k) Plans (either salaried or union) during the proposed
class period, May 12, 1997 through November 15, 2002, and
allegedly exceeds 50,000 persons.  The defendants include Xerox
Corporation and the following individuals or groups of
individuals during the proposed class period:

     (1) the Plan Administrator,

     (2) the Board of Directors,

     (3) the Fiduciary Investment Review Committee,

     (4) the Joint Administrative Board,

     (5) the Finance Committee of the Board of Directors, and

     (6) the Treasurer

The complaint claims that all the foregoing defendants were
fiduciaries of the Plan under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) and, as such, were obligated to protect the
Plan's assets and act in the interest of Plan participants.  The
complaint alleges that the defendants failed to do so and
thereby breached their fiduciary duties.

Specifically, plaintiffs claim that the defendants failed to
provide accurate and complete material information to
participants concerning Xerox stock, including accounting
practices which allegedly artificially inflated the value of
the stock, and misled participants regarding the soundness of
the stock and the prudence of investing their retirement assets
in Xerox stock.  Plaintiffs also claim that defendants failed to
invest Plan assets prudently, to monitor the other fiduciaries
and to disregard Plan directives they knew or should have known
were imprudent, and failed to avoid conflicts of interest.  The
complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.

However, it asks that the losses to the Plan be restored, which
it describes as "millions of dollars."  It also seeks other
legal and equitable relief, as appropriate, to remedy the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, as well as interest, costs
and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  The
plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for class certification
and a motion to commence discovery.  Defendants have opposed
both motions, contending that both are premature before there is
a decision on their motion to dismiss.


XEROX CORPORATION: Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Apartheid Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York heard oral arguments on Xerox Corporation and other
defendants' motion to dismiss the class action field against
them, styled "Digwamaje et al. v. IBM et al."

The defendants include the Company and a number of other
corporate defendants who are accused of providing material
assistance to the apartheid government in South Africa from 1948
to 1994, by engaging in commerce in South Africa and with the
South African government and by employing forced labor, thereby
violating both international and common law.  Specifically,
plaintiffs claim violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
Torture Victims Protection Act and the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  They also assert human rights
violations and crimes against humanity.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages in excess of $200 billion and punitive
damages in excess of $200 billion. The foregoing damages are
being sought from all defendants, jointly and severally.


XEROX CORPORATION: NY Court Certifies Race Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York entered an order certifying a nationwide class of all black
salespersons employed by Xerox Corporation from February 1, 1997
to the present under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
as amended, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871.

The suit, styled "Warren, et al. v. Xerox Corporation," was
commenced on May 9, 2001 by six African-American sales
representatives.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company has
engaged in a pattern or practice of race discrimination against
them and other black sales representatives by assigning them to
less desirable sales territories, denying them promotional
opportunities, and paying them less than their white
counterparts.

Although the complaint does not specify the amount of damages
sought, plaintiffs do seek, on behalf of themselves and the
classes they seek to represent, front and back pay, compensatory
and punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.



                        Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AIG Inc. Still Receiving Indemnity Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group Inc. said it continues to receive
indemnity claims asserting injuries from asbestos.  The vast
majority of these claims emanate from policies written in 1984
and prior years.  Beginning in 1985, standard policies contained
an absolute exclusion for pollution related damage and an
absolute asbestos exclusion was also implemented.  However, AIG
currently underwrites environmental impairment liability
insurance on a claims made basis and has excluded such claims
from this analysis.

The majority of AIG's exposures for asbestos claims are excess
casualty coverages, not primary coverages.  Thus, the litigation
costs are treated in the same manner as indemnity reserves.
That is, litigation expenses are included within the limits of
the liability AIG incurs.  Individual significant claim
liabilities, where future litigation costs are reasonably
determinable, are established on a case basis.

With respect to known asbestos claims, AIG established over a
decade ago specialized toxic tort and environmental claims
units, which investigate and adjust all such asbestos and
environmental claims.  These units evaluate these asbestos and
environmental claims utilizing a comprehensive ground up
approach on a claim-by-claim basis.  The asbestos and
environmental claims are reserved to ultimate probable loss
based upon known facts, current law, jurisdiction, policy
language and other factors.  Each claim is reviewed at least
semi-annually utilizing the aforementioned approach and adjusted
as necessary to reflect the current information.  In both the
specialized and dedicated asbestos and environmental claims
units, AIG actively manages and pursues early settlement with
respect to these claims thereby reducing its exposure to the
unpredictable development of these claims.

With respect to asbestos claims reserves, AIG has resolved all
claims with respect to miners and major manufacturers (Tier 1),
and payments have been completed or reserves are established to
cover future payment obligations. Asbestos claims with respect
to products containing asbestos (Tier 2), are generally very
mature losses, and have been appropriately recognized and
reserved by AIG's asbestos claims operation.  AIG believes that
the vast majority of the incoming claims with respect to
products containing small amounts of asbestos, companies in the
distribution chain and parties with remote, ill-defined
involvement with asbestos (Tier 3 and 4), should not impact its
coverage.

AIG believes the majority of its known long tail environmental
exposures have been resolved utilizing a combination of pro-
active claim-handling techniques including policy buybacks,
complete environmental releases, compromise settlements, and,
where indicated, litigation.  Current and new claims are
generally cases of declining severity.  Strong coverage defenses
(including late notice) and stronger liability defenses are
among the factors contributing to declining severity.

In order to test the overall reasonableness of the asbestos
reserves established using the ground up approach, AIG uses
primarily two methods, the market share method and the
frequency/severity method.  The market share method produces
indicated asbestos and environmental reserves needs by applying
the appropriate AIG company market share to estimated potential
industry ultimate loss and loss expenses based on the latest
estimates from A.M. Best and Tillinghast.  The second method,
the frequency/severity approach, utilizes current information as
the basis of an analysis that predicts for each of the next
twenty years a number with respect to future asbestos claims
(IBNR) and the average severity of each.

Based on the mean indication of reserve needs with respect to
the market share method and based on the median indication of
reserve needs with respect to the frequency/severity approach,
AIG's net carried reserves were within about $25,000,000 and
around $50,000,000, respectively, of the indicated reserve
needs.  Hence, each of these methodologies indicated that the
reserves carried were reasonable as at December 31, 2003.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Judgment in BGE Asbestos Lawsuit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case entitled Anthony A. Wajer, et ux. v. Baltimore Gas
and Electric Company, No. 697, Sept. Term, 2003, the Court of
Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the judgment of the circuit
court, which the plaintiffs appealed.  On July 25, 2001, Anthony
A. Wajer and Frances Wajer filed a complaint in the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City against Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company (BGE) and twenty-nine other defendants, seeking damages
for loss of consortium and injuries associated with alleged
contraction of mesothelioma, a form of cancer linked to asbestos
exposure.  The Wajers brought their action under the theories of
negligence, strict liability, and premises liability - with BGE
identified as the property owner where appellant allegedly
sustained his injuries.

On April 7, 2003, BGE filed a motion for summary judgment,
arguing that it was a premises owner and that it did not owe a
duty to appellant because he was the employee of an independent
contractor when the alleged injuries occurred.  BGE's motion for
summary judgment was granted on May 16, 2003.

Appellants filed their timely notice of appeal on May 29, 2003.
Judges Davis, Adkins, Krauser, Yates, Pittman, and Thompson
ruled that the trial court did not err by granting summary
judgment with regard to appellants' claim under section 414 of
the Restatement (Second) of Torts, or under section 343.  Thus,
they affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Doe Run Served Summons in PA Asbestos Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Doe Run Resources Corporation has been named in asbestos injury
suits by two individuals against numerous companies, alleging
that they were exposed to asbestos, including at the St. Joe
Minerals Corp. (Doe Run's predecessor) premises.  Doe Run was
served a Writ of Summons in a third case filed in Pennsylvania
in May 2003 but has not yet been served with a complaint, so few
details of the case are known, including the alleged location of
the exposure.

The Doe Run Resources Corporation is a producer of base and
precious metals with operations in the United States and Peru.
The Company is the largest integrated lead producer in North
America and the largest primary lead producer in the western
world.  In Peru, the Company operates the La Oroya smelter (La
Oroya), one of the largest polymetallic processing facilities in
the world offering an extensive product mix of non-ferrous and
precious metals, including silver, copper, zinc, lead and gold.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CenterPoint Energy Gulf Coast Cases Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
CenterPoint Energy Electric LLC reported that it has been named,
along with numerous others, as a defendant in a large number of
lawsuits filed by a number of individuals who claim injury due
to exposure to asbestos while working at sites along the Texas
Gulf Coast.  The Company anticipates that additional claims like
those received may be asserted in the future, and it intends to
continue its practice of vigorously contesting claims that we do
not consider to have merit.  The involvement of CenterPoint
Energy Inc. in Texas Gulf Coast asbestos lawsuits was previously
mentioned in the October 25, 2002 edition of the CAR newsletter.

As a result of their age, many of the Company's facilities
contain significant amounts of asbestos insulation, other
asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint.  Existing
state and federal rules require the proper management and
disposal of these potentially toxic materials.  The Company has
planned for the proper management, abatement and disposal of
asbestos and lead-based paint at its facilities.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Hercules Discloses Asbestos-Related Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hercules Inc. noted that its net other (income) expense for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 includes a $26,000,000 gain on
the Company's sale of its minority interest in CP Kelco ApS
(which was partially offset by, among other things, $2,000,000
of asbestos-related litigation costs).  With respect to total
claims pending, as of March 31, 2004, there were around 32,700
unresolved claims, of which around 1,000 were premises claims
and the rest were products claims.  There were also around 1,545
unpaid claims that have been settled or are subject to the terms
of a settlement agreement.  In addition, there were around
11,912 claims (including the 3,175 claims noted) which have
either been dismissed without payment or are in the process of
being dismissed without payment, but with plaintiffs retaining
the right to re-file should they be able to establish exposure
to an asbestos-containing product for which the Company bears
liability.

At March 31, 2004, the consolidated balance sheet reflects a
long-term liability of about $165,000,000 for litigation and
claims, including asbestos-related claims.  The amount
represents management's best estimate of the probable and
reasonably estimable losses related to asbestos claims.  The
extent of the liability and recovery is evaluated quarterly.

Hercules has established reserves for asbestos-related personal
injury lawsuits and claims.  At March 31, 2004, the Company had
recorded a gross accrued liability of $209,000,000, after
recognizing cash settlement payments of $12,000,000 during the
quarter, for present and future potential asbestos claims before
anticipated insurance recoveries.  The Company believes that it
is probable that $169,000,000 of the $209,000,000 accrual will
be funded by or recovered from insurance carriers.  The Company
projects asbestos-related payments of about $40,000,000 to
$45,000,000 in 2004 before consideration of any insurance
coverage or reimbursement, if any, and any potential legislative
resolution to this matter.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: MII Contends Claimants In Favor Of B&W Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
McDermott International Inc. (MII) said in a regulatory filing
that Babcock & Wilcox Co. and its subsidiaries Americon Inc.,
Babcock & Wilcox Construction Co. Inc. and Diamond Power
International Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors") filed a
voluntary petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana in New Orleans on February 22, 2000 to
reorganize under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, as a
means to determine and comprehensively resolve their asbestos
liability.  B&W's operations have been subject to the
jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court since February 22, 2000
and, as a result, McDermott's access to cash flows of B&W and
its subsidiaries is restricted.  As a result of asbestos-
containing commercial boilers and other products B&W and certain
of its subsidiaries sold, installed or serviced in prior
decades, B&W is subject to a substantial volume of non-employee
liability claims asserting asbestos-related injuries.  All of
the personal injury claims are similar in nature, the primary
difference being the type of alleged injury or illness suffered
by the plaintiff as a result of the exposure to asbestos fibers
(e.g., mesothelioma, lung cancer and other types of cancer,
asbestosis or pleural changes).

Due to the bankruptcy filing, McDermott stopped consolidating
the results of operations of B&W and its subsidiaries in its
condensed consolidated financial statements, and began
presenting its investment in B&W on the cost method.  During the
year ended December 31, 2002, due to increased uncertainty with
respect to the amounts, means and timing of the ultimate
settlement of asbestos claims and the recovery of McDermott's
investment in B&W, the Company wrote off its net investment in
B&W.

At a special meeting on December 17, 2003, the Company's
shareholders voted on and approved a resolution relating to a
proposed settlement agreement that would resolve the B&W Chapter
11 proceedings.  The shareholders' approval of the resolution is
conditioned on the subsequent approval of the proposed
settlement by MII's Board of Directors.  The Company would
become bound to the settlement agreement only when the plan of
reorganization becomes effective, and the plan of reorganization
cannot become effective without the approval of the Board within
30 days prior to the effective time of the plan.  The Board's
decision will be made after consideration of any developments
that might occur prior to the effective date, including any
changes in the status of the Fairness in Asbestos Injury
Resolution legislation pending in the U.S. Senate.  According to
documents filed with the Bankruptcy Court, the asbestos personal
injury claimants have voted in favor of the proposed B&W plan of
reorganization.

The injunction preventing asbestos suits from being brought
against non-filing affiliates of B&W, including McDermott Inc.,
J. Ray McDermott Inc. and MII, and B&W subsidiaries not involved
in the Chapter 11 extends through July 12, 2004.  The Company
intends to seek extensions of the preliminary injunction
periodically through the pendancy of the B&W Chapter 11
proceeding and believe that extensions will continue to be
granted by the Bankruptcy Court while the confirmation and
settlement process continues.

On December 9, 2002, a proceeding entitled Doug Benoit, et al.
v. J. Ray McDermott, Inc. et al. was initiated against one of
JRM's subsidiaries and numerous third-party defendants in the
58th Judicial District Court of Jefferson County, Texas.  This
proceeding involves around 110 plaintiffs who have asserted
claims under the Jones Act for alleged injuries as a result of
exposures to asbestos and welding fumes while working onboard
JRM's marine construction vessels or in JRM's fabrication
facilities.  Discovery is ongoing and trial of some of these
claims is set for July 5, 2004.  The plaintiffs have recently
amended their pleadings, dismissing the welding rod manufacturer
defendants.  To the Company's knowledge JRM is the only employer
defendant.  McDermott believes this matter is enjoined from
proceeding at this time under the preliminary injunction in the
B&W Chapter 11 proceeding and the Company intends to vigorously
oppose any further pre-trial and trial activity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: James Hardie Releases New Actuarial Review
---------------------------------------------------------------
On June 7, 2004 James Hardie provided to the Special Commission
of Inquiry into the Establishment of the Medical Research and
Compensation Foundation (MRCF), and the ASX, an independent
actuarial review of future asbestos liabilities of the former
James Hardie subsidiaries Amaca and Amaba, now held by the MRCF.
The review was prepared by KPMG Actuaries (KPMG) for James
Hardie and ABN 60 Pty Limited (formerly James Hardie Industries
Limited) and assesses actuarial advice provided by Trowbridge
Consulting between 1996 and 2003.

The report was commissioned to assist the Commissioner to
determine the situation facing the MRCF and the former James
Hardie subsidiary companies and to provide KPMG's view of
historical and current projections with which to address many of
the issues being considered by him.

The figures produced by KPMG highlight "an unforeseeable upward
trend" in claims numbers and average claimant costs in recent
years.  Based on information that would have been available to
Trowbridge at the time it prepared its actuarial report for ABN
60 Pty Limited in February 2001 (and upon which the funding for
the MRCF was based), KPMG believes their best estimate would
have been in the order of $694,000,000.  The equivalent
Trowbridge figure was $323,000,000.

The estimate produced by KPMG for future liabilities as at June
2003 is $1,573,000,000, which compares to the Trowbridge
estimate of $1,090,000,000.  The KPMG figures include some
$432,000,000 in legal costs.  Among a number of differences,
KPMG has included an additional $356,000,000 for superimposed
inflation that was not included by Trowbridge.  Superimposed
inflation is inflation above the underlying rate of inflation
and is sometimes called judicial inflation.  In this sense, it
reflects that the rate of increase in court awards can increase
at a higher rate than underlying inflation.

James Hardie's CEO Mr. Peter Macdonald said the different
figures were extremely concerning to the directors of the
company who believed that the funding set aside at the time the
Foundation was created would meet the most likely estimate of
future anticipated claims.  Directors are considering the
implications of the KPMG report.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Met Pro Believes Claims Are Without Merit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning in 2002, Met Pro Corp. began to be named as one of
many defendants in a number of asbestos-related litigation
claims against companies in the pump and fluid handling
industries, predominantly in Mississippi.  The allegations
against the Company allege in general that the Company, along
with the numerous other defendants, sold asbestos-containing
products that caused injuries and loss to the plaintiffs.  Most
of these cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of
discovery, and none of the Company's products have been
determined to be a cause of any alleged injuries.

The Company's insurers have hired attorneys who together with
the Company are defending these cases.  The Company believes
that these cases are without merit and that none of its products
were a cause of any injury or loss to any of the plaintiffs.
Given the current status of these cases, the Company does not
presently believe that these proceedings will have a material
adverse impact upon the Company's results of operations,
liquidity or financial condition.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Owens Corning Reaches Accord With Creditors
----------------------------------------------------------------
Owens Corning (OTC: OWENQ) announced in Toledo, Ohio on June 7,
2004 that an agreement in principle has been reached with the
company's asbestos creditors and the official representatives of
the company's pre-petition bondholders and trade creditors.
Through this agreement in principle, Owens Corning has now
gained support for its Plan of Reorganization from all of its
major creditor groups with the exception of the holders of its
pre-petition bank debt, who continue to oppose the Plan.  The
company's current Plan of Reorganization, which has been
supported by the company's asbestos creditors, will be amended
to reflect the terms of this agreement.

Among other things, the agreement in principle provides that all
holders of bonds, bank debt and senior trade debt will receive a
recovery equal to 38.5 percent of their claims upon Owens
Corning's successful emergence from Chapter 11.  The recoveries
of all creditors are based on certain agreed and assumed values
and will be comprised of cash, debt and equity.  However, their
actual recovery may ultimately be higher or lower based on the
value of the equity to be issued by the company upon emergence
from Chapter 11 and other factors.  A copy of the term sheet,
which reflects the agreement in principle, has been filed with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.  A copy
of the Term Sheet is also available on the Company's web site at
http://www.ocplan.com.

"Although there continue to be significant challenges in our
Chapter 11 case, the negotiation of this agreement was a very
important step toward the company's emergence from Chapter
11," said Owens Corning General Counsel Steve Krull. "With this
settlement as a foundation, we are anxious to proceed with a
confirmation hearing before judges Fitzgerald and Fullam as we
work toward emerging from bankruptcy for the benefit of all of
our stakeholders."

Owens Corning is a world leader in building materials systems
and composites systems.  Founded in 1938, the company had sales
of $4,900,000,000 in 2003.  Additional information is available
on Owens Corning's Web site at http://www.owenscorning.comor by
calling the company's toll-free General Information line: 1-800-
GETPINK.

On October 5, 2000, Owens Corning and 17 United States
subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware.  The Debtors are currently
operating their businesses as debtors-in-possession in
accordance with provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.  The Chapter
11 cases of the Debtors are being jointly administered under
Case No. 00-3837 (JKF). The Chapter 11 cases do not include
other U.S. subsidiaries of Owens Corning or any of its foreign
subsidiaries.  The Debtors filed for relief under Chapter 11 to
address the growing demands on Owens Corning's cash flow
resulting from the substantial costs of asbestos personal injury
liability.

On October 24, 2003, the Debtors, together with the Official
Committee of Asbestos Claimants and the Legal Representative for
future asbestos personal injury claimants, filed an amended
Joint Plan of Reorganization in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware.  The Plan is subject to confirmation
by the Bankruptcy Court.  As filed, the Plan provides for
partial payment of all creditors' claims, in the form of
distributions of new common stock and notes of the reorganized
company, and cash.  Additional distributions from potential
insurance and other third-party claims may also be paid to
creditors, but it is expected that all classes of creditors will
be impaired.  Therefore, the Plan also provides that the
existing common stock of Owens Corning will be cancelled, and
that current shareholders will receive no distribution or other
consideration in exchange for their shares.  It is impossible to
predict at this time the terms and provisions of any plan of
reorganization that may ultimately be confirmed or the treatment
of creditors thereunder.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Raytech Claimants Own 82.86% Of Its Stock
--------------------------------------------------------------
Raytech Corporation reported that the Asbestos Personal Injury
Settlement Trust's beneficial ownership accounted for 34,584,432
shares or 82.86% of the outstanding shares of Raytech Common
Stock.  The owners of such stock have sole voting and investment
power with respect to shares beneficially owned by them.  In
connection with its Plan of Reorganization, in 2001, Raytech
entered into a Tax Benefits Assignment and Assumption Agreement
with the Raytech Corporation Asbestos Personal Injury Settlement
Trust (PI Trust), which was created in the reorganization to
represent the interests of asbestos-related claimants.  Pursuant
to the Tax Benefits Agreement, all tax benefits received by
Raytech due to the reorganization are to be passed onto the
PI Trust as received.

At December 28, 2003, Raytech had tax loss carryforwards of
$101,200,000 and tax credit carryforwards of $3,500,000.  The
net operating loss carry forwards are allocated between Raytech
and the PI Trust in the amounts of $21,200,000 and $80,000,000,
respectively.  The tax credit carryforwards all inure to the
benefit of the PI Trust.  Additionally, future payments to the
PI Trust and others will create additional tax deductions, which
will inure to the benefit of the PI Trust in accordance with the
Tax Benefits Agreement.  These include deductions for payments
to the PI Trust of tax benefits associated with the utilization
of the net operating losses created by the reorganization, and
contributions made to the Raymark Industries Inc. pension plans,
which Raytech has assumed.

With the majority of the creditors of both Raymark and of UFC
being asbestos-related claimants, it is anticipated that a
majority of the equity or the assets of Raymark and UFC will be
transferred to the PI Trust, a related party.  Raytech directors
Richard Lippe and Archie Dykes are trustees of the PI Trust and
director Robert Carter is the Legal Representative of the PI
Trust.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Valhi Inc. Says NL Industries In 465 Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valhi Inc. reported in a regulatory filing that NL Industries
Inc. (NYSE: NL), of which it owns 62% directly, has been named
as a defendant in various lawsuits in a variety of
jurisdictions, alleging personal injuries as a result of
occupational exposure to asbestos, silica and/or mixed dust in
connection with formerly owned operations.  Around 465 of these
cases involving a total of around 30,000 plaintiffs and their
spouses remain pending.  Of these plaintiffs, around 18,400 are
represented by eight cases pending in Mississippi state courts.
NL has not accrued any amounts for this litigation because
liability that may result to NL, if any, cannot be reasonably
estimated.

In addition, from time to time, NL has received notices
regarding asbestos or silica claims purporting to be brought
against former subsidiaries of NL, including notices provided to
insurers with which NL has entered into settlements
extinguishing certain insurance policies.  These insurers may
seek indemnification from NL.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Joy Global In Asbestos Cases, Does Not Elaborate
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joy Global Inc. and its subsidiaries are involved in various
unresolved legal matters that arise in the normal course of
their operations, the most prevalent of which relate to product
liability (including asbestos-related liability), employment and
commercial matters.  Although the outcome of these matters
cannot be predicted with certainty and favorable or unfavorable
resolutions may affect the results of operations on a quarter-
to-quarter basis, the Company believes that the results of the
litigation and other unresolved legal matters will not have a
materially adverse effect on its consolidated financial
position, results of operations or liquidity.


COMPANY PROFILE

Joy Global Inc. (NASDAQ: JOYG)
100 East Wisconsin Ave., Suite 2780
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Phone: 414-319-8500
Fax: 414-319-8510
http://www.joyglobal.com

Employees                  :           7,200
Revenue                    :$  1,216,000,000.00
Net Income                 :$     18,500,000.00
Assets                     :$  1,286,700,000.00
Liabilities                :$    916,400,000.00
(As of October 31, 2003)

Description: Joy Global Inc. (formerly Harnischfeger Industries)
makes heavy equipment for the mining industry through two
subsidiaries.  Its Joy Mining Machinery subsidiary makes
underground coal-mining equipment that includes roof supports,
longwall shearers, and shuttle cars.  Subsidiary P&H Mining
Equipment makes draglines, blasthole drills, and other equipment
used by surface miners.  Joy Global operates manufacturing and
service facilities worldwide.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Vector Group Has Pending Third-Party Payor Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a regulatory filing with the Securities Exchange Commission,
Vector Group Ltd. (the former conformed name of which is Brooke
Group Ltd.) reported the following material legal proceedings:

(1) Fibreboard Corporation, et al. v. The American Tobacco
Company, et al., Case No. 791919-8, Superior Court of
California, County of Alameda (case filed November 10,
1997)

(2) Kaiser Aluminum & Chemical Corporation, et al v. RJR
Nabisco, et al., Case No. 2000-615, Circuit Court of
Mississippi, Jefferson County (case filed December 15,
2000)

(3) Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company,
et al., Case No. 00-0077, Circuit Court, Mississippi,
Sharkey County (case filed April 9, 2001)

Third-party payor asbestos companies seek reimbursement for
damages paid to asbestos victims for medical and other relief,
which damages allegedly are attributable to the tobacco
companies.  These cases are reported as though having been
commenced against Liggett Group Inc. (without regard to whether
such cases were actually commenced against Brooke Group Holding
Inc., the Company's predecessor and a wholly-owned subsidiary of
VGR Holding, or Liggett).

The Company also included Parsons, et al. v. Liggett Group Inc.,
et al., Case No. 98-C-388, Circuit Court, State of West
Virginia, Kanawha County (case filed April 9, 1998).  This
personal injury class action is brought on behalf of plaintiff's
decedent and all West Virginia residents having claims for
personal injury arising from exposure to both cigarette smoke
and asbestos fibers.


COMPANY PROFILE

Vector Group Ltd. (NYSE: VGR)
100 S E Second St
Miami, FL 33131
Phone: 305-579-8000
Fax: 305-579-8001
http://www.vectorgroupltd.com

Employees                  :           1,143
Revenue                    :$    536,700,000.00
Net Income                 :$     15,600,000.00
Assets                     :$    682,200,000.00
Liabilities                :$    674,700,000.00
(As of December 31, 2003)

Description:  Vector Group is the smallest member of Big
Tobacco.  The holding company's Liggett unit makes Eve
cigarettes and other discount brands, OMNI "reduced-carcinogen"
cigarettes, as well as several generic.  Vector Group owned
58.1% of the common shares of New Valley Corp., a real estate
subsidiary, at March 31, 2004.  The company bought Medallion, a
discount cigarette maker, in 2002.  Vector Group has launched
QUEST, a genetically engineered nicotine-free cigarette.
Chairman and CEO Bennett LeBow owns 36% of Vector; investor Carl
Icahn and associates own 22%.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


BEA SYSTEMS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins LLP initiated a
securities class action in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of
BEA Systems, Inc. ("BEA") (NASDAQ:BEAS) publicly traded
securities during the period between November 13, 2003 and May
13, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges BEA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. BEA is a provider of application infrastructure software
and related services that help companies build distributed
systems that extend investments in existing computer systems and
provide the foundation for running an integrated business.
The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to the
investing public regarding BEA's business and prospects. As a
result of these false statements, BEA's stock price traded at
inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to as high
as $14 in early 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and
directors sold more than $13 million worth of their own shares.
Then on May 13, 2004, BEA reported disappointing first quarter
results, citing the difficult selling environment and sales
execution issues as the primary reasons. On this news, the
Company's shares fell 30% to $8 per share.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known to
the defendants but actively concealed from the public, were as
follows:

     (1) that the Company was experiencing material sales
         execution problems in its licensing division, resulting
         in license reserve being down in the comparable quarter
         and in the sequential quarter;

     (2) that during the preceding quarter, the Company's sales
         staff and management were attempting to reorganize;
         however, in doing so, the Company's sales were actually
         disrupted;

     (3) that the Company's WebLogic 8.1 Platform was far from
         "revolutionary" and was not selling as defendants
         claimed;

     (4) that the coverage of small and medium-sized businesses
         was transferred to the General Accounts Team, which
         disrupted the Company's North American reserves; and

     (5) that the Company was experiencing weakness in its
         telecom vertical business, not strength.

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


GENTA INC.: Kantrowitz Goldhamer Launches Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kantrowitz Goldhamer & Graifman has initiated a
class action lawsuit on June 7, 2004, in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all
purchasers of the publicly traded securities and/or sellers of
put options for Genta Inc. ("Genta" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
GNTA) between September 10, 2003 and May 3, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period") against Genta, Raymond P. Warrell, Jr. and
Loretta M. Itiri.

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 to the market between September 10, 2003 and
May 3, 2004.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of class members

For more details, contact Gary S. Graifman at Kantrowitz
Goldhamer & Graifman ny Mail: 210 Summit Avenue, Montvale, New
Jersey 07645 by Phone: 1-800-660-7843 by Fax: 845-356-4335 by E-
Mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com or visit their Web Site:
www.kgglaw.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  * * *