---

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

            Tuesday, September 21, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 187

                          Headlines

3M CORPORATION: Publix Super Markets Lodges Antitrust Suit in PA
ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 5,193 Snowmobiles For Injury, Death Hazard
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Settlement Hearing Set November 9, 2004
DISCOVERY TOURS: Jury Rules Operator Responsible For 2002 Crash
EVERSTRUST FINANCIAL: Partnership Lodges Suit V. KeyCorp Merger

FLORIDA: Landowners Lose Appeal V. Collier County's Growth Plan
HOMESTORE INC.: Former Employee Lodges Overtime Wage Suit in CA
IBM CORPORATION: Ruling On Pension Case Delayed, Talks Continue
IMI CORNELLIUS: Recalls 990 Drink Dispensers For Injury Hazard
JCM LTD.: Recalls 972 Pesto Jars For Undeclared Walnuts, Wheat

JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
JDS UNIPHASE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit
KEYBANK NATIONAL: Judge Sets Trial Date For OH Investor's Suit
MEDIMMUNE INC.: SEC Reaches Settlement With Former Executive
NETFLIX INC.: Scott + Scott Aims To File Lead Plaintiff Motion

NEW ZEALAND: Claims of Abuse in Psychiatric Hospitals Increasing
NEWSDAY: Refunds Ignored, Advertisers Object To Settlement Terms
PHILADELPHIA: Waiting List For Health Insurance Growing Longer
PHILIP MORRIS: Suffers Setbacks in "Lights" Litigation in OH, MO
SALTON INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. IL

SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Executive Testifies in Distributor Suit in NY
TUCSON CITIZEN: To Appeal Ruling On Controversial Letter Suit
UNITED STATES: Bill Targets Attorneys Who File "Frivolous" Suits

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ALLIED WASTE: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in AZ
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CONCORD CAMERA: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in FL
FLIGHT SAFETY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in NY

LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges OR Stock Suit
LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
NETFLIX INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
NETOPIA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
PETMED EXPRESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in FL

PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges VA Stock Suit
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNCATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in VA
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNCATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges VA Stock Suit
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in VA
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges MN Stock Suit

ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in MN
ZIX CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX

                            *********


3M CORPORATION: Publix Super Markets Lodges Antitrust Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Publix Super Markets, one of the nation's biggest supermarket
companies, filed an antitrust lawsuit in Pennsylvania against
Scotch tape-maker 3M Corporation, alleging that the company used
monopoly powers to drive up prices, the Associated Press
reports.

The suit claims that the company chased competitors from the
marketplace with a rebate program that tied the price for its
popular Scotch and Highland tape brands to the quantity of other
3M products the companies sold. In the rebate program stores
that didn't meet 3M sales goals in each of six different product
categories including stationery, home repair, and auto and
health care supplies would lose rebates on all 3M products.

Lakeland, Florida-based Publix, taking a page from LePage's Inc.
legal playbook, contends that even the possibility of losing
those discounts made it too risky to sell transparent and
invisible tape made by other companies, even if their prices
were much lower. LePage's, a Pittsburgh tape-maker originally
pursued a similar antitrust argument against 3M and won a
judgment of nearly $70 million in 1999.

Publix further contends that the verdict in the LePage's case
precluded St. Paul, Minnesota-based 3M from arguing that its
policies were legal, and asked a federal court in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania to award triple damages and permanently bar the
company from operating such rebate programs.


ARCTIC CAT: Recalls 5,193 Snowmobiles For Injury, Death Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arctic Cat, Inc. is cooperating with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling 5,193 Arctic Cat
Snowmobiles.  The red plastic skis used on certain 2004 Firecat
and Sabercat snowmobiles could crack or break as a result of
off-season exposure to ultraviolet sunlight.  Ski failure could
lead to loss of control that could result in severe injury or
death.

All 2004 Arctic Cat Firecat and Sabercat snowmobiles with red
plastic skis are included in this recall.  The recalled red
plastic skis are part number 1703-500.  The model name of the
snowmobile is located on either side of the hood.  Both the
model name and number are in the operator's manual and
registration materials.

Arctic Cat dealerships worldwide sold these items from June 2003
through September 2004 for between $5,500 and $8,500.  The red
plastic skis were made in Madison, South Dakota.

Consumers can avail of free repair at the local Arctic Cat
snowmobile dealer.  Registered owners have been notified about
this recall by mail.  For more details, contact the Company by
Phone: (800) 279-2281 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday
through Friday or visit the firm's Website: http://www.arctic-
cat.com.  Consumers are advised to have their snowmobile model
name and number with them when they call.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Settlement Hearing Set November 9, 2004
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Of New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter of In re Bristol-Myers Squibb
Securities Litigation on behalf of all persons who purchased
common stock of Bristol-Myers Squibb Company between October 19,
1999 and March 10, 2003.

The hearing will be held before the Honorable Loretta A. Preska,
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, Daniel Patrick Moynihan United States Courthouse, 500
Pearl Street, Courtroom 12A, New York, NY 10007-1312 at 9:00
a.m. on November 9, 2004.

For more details, contact Jeffrey C. Block, Esq., Leslie R.
Stern, Esq. or Julie A. Richmond, Esq. of BERMAN DEVALERIO PEASE
TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA
02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 or visit their Web site:
http://www.bermanesq.comOR Daniel L. Berger, Esq., J. Erik
Sandstedt, Esq. or Joseph A. Fonti, Esq. of BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP by Mail: 1285 Avenue of the Americas,
38th Floor New York, NY 10019 by Phone: (800) 380-8496 or visit
their Web site: http://www.blbglaw.comOR In re Bristol- Myers
Squibb Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.,
Claims Administrator by Mail: PO Box 9000 #6252, Merrick, NY
11566-9000 by Phone: (800) 326-4150 or visit the following Web
sites: http://www.bermanesq.comor http://www.blbglaw.comor
http://www.gardencitygroup.com


DISCOVERY TOURS: Jury Rules Operator Responsible For 2002 Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Dallas, Texas jury ruled that Discovery Tours of Texas was
negligent in a 2002 crash that killed four members of church
youth group and the driver, the Associated Press reports.

A bus owned by the Company slammed into a concrete pillar on the
Interstate 20 near Terrell, Texas on the way to a Louisiana
summer camp.  A state police investigation concluded that
cocaine and sedatives taken by the sleepy, inattentive driver,
Ernest Carter Jr., contributed to the crash.

Attorneys for the 17 injured youths and three parents filed the
suit, arguing that Discovery Tours owner Eric Rockmore should be
held responsible because he knowingly hired an unqualified
driver.

The jury ordered Mr. Rockmore to pay nearly $71 million to the
victims, including $36 million to Nick Stout, who suffered
severe brain damage from the crash, AP reports.


EVERSTRUST FINANCIAL: Partnership Lodges Suit V. KeyCorp Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed EverTrust-KeyCorp merger is being challenged in
Washington court by a limited partnership that has been involved
in lawsuits over three other proposed corporate mergers this
year, the Everett Herald reports.

Freeport Partners LLC initiated a lawsuit seeking class action
status in Snohomish County Superior Court in a bid to block the
proposed merger between EverTrust Financial Group and KeyCorp on
the grounds that the bank's top officers failed in their duty to
shareholders by selling to KeyCorp without considering other
bids for the bank.

The suit, which was filed on August 19, 2004, alleges that the
shareholders pushed for this $190.5 million merger proposal,
which is expected to close in the fourth quarter, provided state
and federal regulators approve it, because they will receive
special consideration not available to public shareholders.

According to documents mailed to shareholders and filed with
federal regulators in August, EverTrust ran into trouble in late
2003, when profits were hurt by unexpected early payoffs of
large numbers of loans.

In January, the bank's board decided to bring in a consultant to
study long-term options, including a sale. Shortly thereafter,
numerous unidentified financial institutions approached the
board with a merger offer.

On May 21, KeyCorp made its initial offer - a cash and stock
combination of $180 million to $195 million. At that point,
EverTrust's board rejected the other proposals and soon entered
into exclusive talks with KeyCorp, which led to the final offer
of $194.7 million in cash that was finalized on June 24 when the
EverTrust board met and decided to accept the deal.

In the documents, EverTrust managers defend the sale by saying
that KeyCorp is paying slightly more than $25.60 a share for
EverTrust stock--20 percent higher than the highest-ever closing
price for stock prior to the merger announcement and 30 percent
higher than the average price of shares in the month leading up
to the sale.

However, Freeport Partners lawsuit claims that it might have
been higher had the bank's directors pushed harder for more
offers. Furthermore the partnership claims that EverTrust's
board could have worked a better sale price if it had sought an
"auction," bidding one suitor against another. The suit also
opposes EverTrust's agreement to pay KeyCorp $9.75 million if
the merger fails.


FLORIDA: Landowners Lose Appeal V. Collier County's Growth Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal by North Belle Meade landowners to fight Collier
County's rural growth plan was rejected after the 1st District
Court of Appeal in Tallahassee filed an opinion affirming a
state Department of Community Affairs' order upholding the
county plan, the Naple Daily News reports.

The 2003 order from the DCA was based on a recommendation from
an administrative law judge who heard days of testimony from
experts about whether the growth plan uses good science to
identify environmentally sensitive land.

The plan applies to some 93,000 acres on the edges of Golden
Gate Estates. The plan, which sets aside land for environmental
protection will also initiate a Transfer of Development Rights
(TDR) program to pay landowners for lost development rights. The
TDR program has yet to get off the ground, and a stakeholders
group is working on ways to jump-start the program.

Key Largo attorney Jim Mattson, who represents growth-plan
opponents, said he would not recommend further appeals, nut
reiterated that it's not the end of the opposition.

In July, a nonprofit group called The 15,000 Coalition filed a
$237 million claim against Collier County on behalf of some 600
landowners in North Belle Meade. A precursor to a possible
lawsuit, the claims seeks compensation for violating landowners'
property rights.

Opponents also have a class action lawsuit pending in Collier
Circuit Court that claims that a virtual moratorium in effect
while the county hashed out the new growth rules amounted to a
temporary taking of landowners' property and violated their
rights to due process.


HOMESTORE INC.: Former Employee Lodges Overtime Wage Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Hathaway, 45, a former Homestore, Inc. account
executive initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status and
unspecified damages against her employer, alleging that she and
other workers were improperly classified as managers so the
company could avoid paying them overtime, the Los Angeles Times
reports.

In her suit, filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Ms.
Hathaway alleges that Homestore, the Internet's largest provider
of real estate listings violated the state labor code, violated
business and professions codes and failed to pay overtime.

According to Ms. Hathaway's attorney Michael Parks of Schimmel &
Porter, the Westlake Village firm "misclassified an entire class
of employees to deprive them of overtime compensation they were
due." He also points out that state law requires that workers
who spend more than 50% of their time performing the duties of
hourly workers, even if they are classified as managers, be
eligible for overtime pay.

In recent years, a wave of class action suits seeking overtime
pay has swept the state of California, with suits filed against
Bank of America Corporation, Starbucks Corporation, Taco Bell
Corporation, United Parcel Service Incorporated and Los Angeles-
based insurer Farmers Insurance Exchange, which recently agreed
to pay $210 million for failing to pay overtime to 2,400 claims
adjusters, settling what some said was the nation's largest
white-collar overtime case.

Homestore, which operates Realtor.com, a free multiple-listing
service for the National Association of Realtors,
Homebuilder.com for the National Association of Home Builders
and an online apartment listing service has been plagued with a
spate of legal problems in recent years including one that
involves several executives and associates, who have been sued
by the Securities and Exchange Commission for allegedly
overstating revenue.


IBM CORPORATION: Ruling On Pension Case Delayed, Talks Continue
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable G. Patrick Murphy of the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Illinois agreed to a short delay in a
massive class action suit against IBM Corporation over its
pension plans, while settlement talks continue, the Associated
Press reports.

The suit contends that the "cash balance" pension plan the
company adopted in the 1990s discriminated against 140,000 older
workers. The pension plan, which gained popularity in the 1990s,
resembles 401(k) plans in that they let workers track the growth
of their money in a hypothetical individual "account." Unlike a
401(k), however, workers can't allot any of their own pay to the
plan or decide how it is invested.

Traditional pension plans reward workers for sticking with a
company over time, increasing their retirement benefits at a
much faster rate during their last years of service. Cash
balance plans are computed using a formula that awards benefits
at a steady rate through a worker's tenure.

Earlier this year, the judge overseeing the case ruled in favor
of the workers. According to its quarterly filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, if the computer hardware and
services company does not settle the case, a judgment could cost
it at least $6.5 billion, the largest pension judgment in
history.

The SEC filling further stated that IBM recently agreed to
settle part of the lawsuit involving 15,000 workers who were IBM
employees for less than five years when the company changed its
pension plan with both sides expected to present the proposed
settlement during the third week of October.

The presiding judge had been expected to announce damages soon,
but IBM made a preemptive strike by asking him to postpone the
decision on payments to other employees, saying the company is
"in discussions regarding a possible resolution of some of the
remedies, issues and/or claims in the suit."


IMI CORNELLIUS: Recalls 990 Drink Dispensers For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
IMI Cornelius is cooperating with the Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 990 frozen carbonate
drink dispensers.  The motor drive can overheat and cause the
liquid contents to become hot.  If this happens, the dispenser's
nozzle can break and expose consumers to the hot liquid, posing
a risk of burns.

IMI Cornelius has received three reports of the nozzle
separating.  No injuries have been reported.

This recall includes IMI Cornelius Pinnacle FCB frozen carbonate
beverage dispensers manufactured between May 2002 and June 2004
with a specific motor drive system.  The units contain two or
four dispensing valves and come in various color combinations.
The names "Cornelius," "FCB," and "Pinnacle" are located on
identification plates on the unit's right side panel.  Cornelius
is notifying customers of the serial numbers of affected units
sold to them.

Fast-food restaurants, discount department and convenience
stores used these items nationwide between May 2002 and June
2004.

Owners of the drink dispensers should discontinue use and
contact IMI Cornelius.  The company will send a customer service
representative to repair the product free of charge or provide
the owners with a modification and instruction kit.

For more information, contact the Company by Phone:
(800) 464-4281 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or visit the firm's Website: http://www.cornelius.com.


JCM LTD.: Recalls 972 Pesto Jars For Undeclared Walnuts, Wheat
--------------------------------------------------------------
JCM, Ltd. of Melrose Park, IL, is recalling 972 jars of Pesto
bearing the World Classics brand label. The recalled product
contained walnuts and wheat meal, which are not declared on the
label. People who have allergies to walnuts or wheat run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products. The product is otherwise wholesome and
pure.

The jars of Pesto are identified as follows:

Brand: World Classics
UPC: 0 36800 18876 1
Product Description: Pesto
Size: 3 oz.
Code: Product of Italy 255183

The recalled jars of Pesto were distributed to Piggly-Wiggly
Stores located in South Carolina and Georgia and Big Y Stores
located in Massachusetts and Connecticut.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
walnuts and wheat meal were distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of walnuts or wheat meal as ingredients.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem. The problem has been corrected by JCM, Ltd and new
labeling has been printed, listing all of the ingredients used
to make the finished product.

Consumers with allergies to nuts or wheat, or any concern about
allergies to nuts and wheat, who have purchased the World
Classics brand Pesto in 3 oz. jars are urged to return them to
the place of purchase for an exchange or full refund or to
contact JCM, Ltd. to obtain a replacement label. Consumers with
questions may contact JCM, Ltd. at 708/865-8000.


JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard JDS Uniphase Corporation's motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its former and current officers and directors.

The suit purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting
of those who acquired the Company's securities from October 28,
1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of subclasses
consisting of those who acquired the Company's common stock
pursuant to its acquisitions of OCLI, E-TEK, and SDL.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 23,2004)
states.

The suit is styled "In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities
Litigation, C-02-1486 (N.D. Cal.)."  The court has not issued a
ruling on the motions yet.

No activity has occurred in "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No.
C-02-4656 (N.D. Cal.)," a related securities case.


JDS UNIPHASE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action against JDS
Uniphase Corporation and certain of its former and current
officers and directors in the District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The suit alleges violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on behalf of a
purported class of participants in the Company's 401(k) Plan.

Defendants completed a voluntary production of documents on July
19, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on
September 2, 2004, and Defendants' response to the consolidated
complaint is due by November 1, 2004.  Although Plaintiffs have
propounded a request for documents, Defendants have not produced
documents beyond those produced in connection with their
voluntary production of documents.  No trial date has been set.


KEYBANK NATIONAL: Judge Sets Trial Date For OH Investor's Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A 2006 trial date has been set in class action lawsuit initiated
by 531 investors, who were defrauded of their retirement savings
five years ago by missing Cyprus Fund, Inc. director, Eric
Bartoli against a local bank, the Akron Beacon Journal reports.

The case, Cyprus Funds investor Tina Hollinger, et. al vs.
Keybank National Association is scheduled for trial before
Summit County Common Pleas Judge Judy Hunter at 9 a.m. January
6, 2006 and is expected to last for about three weeks.

The complaint alleges that employees at a Stark County KeyBank
branch opened more than 15 accounts through which more than $19
million in Cyprus investor funds were diverted and that
personnel at a Barberton KeyBank branch are accused of promoting
and attending "pitch meetings" on a Cyprus-designed system to
avoid taxes. Between 1996 and 1998, the Cyprus investor account
at KeyBank averaged more than $1 million in deposits and
withdrawals on a monthly basis.

The complaint further alleges that investors lost an estimated
$34 million when the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
finally closed the fund in 1999.

Last September, a federal judge sentenced Cyprus Funds partners
Douglas R. Shisler and Peter J. Esposito Jr. to 21 and 24 months
in prison, respectively. Both men had pleaded guilty to charges
they sold unregistered securities and filed false tax returns.

In a Florida civil court in 2000, Mr. Bartoli was found liable
for defrauding investors. He was arrested and released after
federal prosecutors realized they could not compile their case
quickly enough to satisfy Bartoli's speedy trial rights.

Last October, a criminal arrest warrant was issued that accused
Mr. Bartoli of security, mail and wire fraud; conspiracy;
selling unsecured funds; money laundering; and attempted tax
evasion. He has been missing since his release.


MEDIMMUNE INC.: SEC Reaches Settlement With Former Executive
------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission reached a settlement of
its pending insider trading charges against Eric I. Tsao, a
former executive at MedImmune, Inc., a biotechnology company
based in Gaithersburg, Maryland.

The Commission's complaint, originally filed on June 2, 2003,
alleged that Mr. Tsao engaged in three separate episodes of
insider trading between September 1999 and December 2001, from
which he realized aggregate illicit profits of $146,850.00.  The
Commission's complaint also alleged that when Mr. Tsao testified
before the SEC staff during the investigation of this matter, he
falsely denied having placed or authorized any of the relevant
trades in two of the three separate instances of insider trading
- and provided a false alternative explanation for the trading.

Without admitting or denying the allegations of the complaint,
Mr. Tsao consented to the entry of a Final Judgment against him
that:

     (1) permanently enjoins him from future violations of
         Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
         and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,

     (2) bars him from acting as an officer or director of a
         public company,

     (3) requires him to disgorge $146,850.00 in illicit
         profits, and $24,758.30 in pre-judgment interest
         thereon, and

     (4) orders him to pay civil money penalties, pursuant to
         Section 21A of the Exchange Act, in the amount of
         $220,275.00 and a Remedies Act penalty, pursuant to
         Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act, of $110,000.00.

The Final Judgment permits Mr. Tsao to offset his payment of
disgorgement and civil penalty by the corresponding amounts, if
any, of restitution and criminal fine, respectively, he pays in
connection with the parallel criminal proceeding described
below.  The Final Judgment is subject to the approval of the
U.S. District Court.

In a related criminal proceeding, the U.S. Attorneys' offices
for the District of Maryland and for the District of Columbia
announced that Mr. Tsao -- in a proceeding held before the
Honorable Henry H. Kennedy, Jr., U.S. District Court Judge for
the District of Columbia -- has pled guilty to one felony count
of criminal insider trading and one felony count of perjury
arising from false statements that Tsao made to the SEC staff
during the investigation.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Eric I. Tsao, Civil Action No. AW-03-
1596 (D. Md.)."


NETFLIX INC.: Scott + Scott Aims To File Lead Plaintiff Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which filed the first class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against Netflix, Inc. ("Netflix"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq: NFLX), on behalf of common stock
purchasers during the period between October 1, 2003 and July
15, 2004 (the "Class Period"), inclusive, intends to file a
motion for Lead Plaintiff/s on September 20, 2004. Scott + Scott
has been retained by many shareholders in this case.

The complaint alleges that, between October 1, 2003, and July
15, 2004 (the Class Period), Netflix and its CEO Reed Hastings,
CFO Barry McCarthy and Chief Marketing Officer Leslie Kilgore
failed to disclose the number of subscriber cancellations being
suffered by the Company, even as they repeatedly touted the
large number of new subscribers being added to the Company's
subscriber base.

Moreover, it is alleged that the Company repeatedly made
statements throughout the Class Period that its churn rate (the
percentage of its subscribers that cancel per month) was
declining to "record lows," when in fact during some of these
quarters its churn rate was markedly rising. For example, in the
third quarter of 2003, Netflix claimed that its churn rate had
reached a new record low of 5.2% when in fact its churn rate had
risen from 7% to 7.7% during the quarter.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Phone: 800/404-7770
or 860/537-3818 (EDT) or 800/332-2259 or 619/233-4565 (PDT) or
by E-mail: NetflixSecuritiesAction@scott-scott.com or
nrothstein@scott-scott.com


NEW ZEALAND: Claims of Abuse in Psychiatric Hospitals Increasing
----------------------------------------------------------------
More patients are coming forward, seeking compensation for abuse
and mistreatment at psychiatric hospital in New Zealand during
the 1960s and 70s, www.tvnz.co.nz  reports.  According to the
Crown Law Office, 77 individual claims have been filed from
former patients - mostly from Porirua Hospital.

A probe started by TVNZ's Sunday program uncovered that children
as young as eight were placed in a psychiatric institution
because no one close to them knew how to control their behavior.
Many of the children were from broken homes and in the care of
child welfare and many ended up in Porirua Hospital - New
Zealand's largest psychiatric institution in the 1960s and 70s.

Now those children are adults and they say they are emotionally
scarred by their childhood experiences.  The former patients
told TVNZ they never suffered from mental illness as children
and were simply victims of circumstance and the social and
health systems of the day.

A group of former patients have filed a class action against the
government, seeking an inquiry and compensation.  The suit names
former staff of the hospital as defendants, alleging they
physically and mentally abused them when they were at their most
vulnerable.  Lawyer Sonja Cooper told tvnz.co.nz more than 100
former mental health patients claim they were physically and
sexually abused at the hospital during the 1960s and 70s.

Talks with the Crown on an out-of-court deal for them have
already begun, according to Roger Chapman, lawyer for the
plaintiffs.  He added many former patients do not want to re-
live their traumatic experiences in court and issues of
responsibility cannot be addressed through litigation.

The government says it is still developing alternative options
for those former patients who want to avoid court cases,
tvnz.co.nz reports.


NEWSDAY: Refunds Ignored, Advertisers Object To Settlement Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Newsday, recently offered refunds to its defrauded advertisers
after it was revealed that its circulation figures were
overstated, however some of the advertisers have expressed
sentiments of being unimpressed with the gesture, the New York
Post reports.

According to Joe Giaimo, who is representing small advertisers
seeking class action status in their circulation fraud suit,
"They are trying to flim-flam the public once again."

Mr. Giaimo complains that the settlements he has seen offer a
refund of about 5 percent, though Newsday restated circulation
by far more than that. He also complains that the offers are for
a limited period of time, while the fraud went as far back as
1995.

One settlement claim offers to refund money for a period
stretching back to Jan. 1, 2002 and the fine print asks the
advertiser to release Newsday from all past and current damage
claims.

Newsday spokesman Stuart Vincent acknowledged the paper's
settlement offers vary from advertiser to advertiser, but adds
this is because each offer is fine-tuned to reflect the missing
papers only on the days and editions that each advertisers
placed an ad.


PHILADELPHIA: Waiting List For Health Insurance Growing Longer
--------------------------------------------------------------
The number of Pennsylvania residents on the waiting list on the
state government-sponsored health insurance plan reached 100,000
people for the first time in July, the Associated Press reports.

In 2002, the Pennsylvania Insurance Department launched the
adultBasic insurance program to help cater to the needs of the
growing number of uninsured adults.  The program dwindled to
37,000 people in August, the lowest number since November 2002,
because of budget uncertainties earlier this year.

State officials said they expect the $117 million program to
stabilize at just under 40,000, AP reports.  About 10,000 more
apply for adultBasic each month.  The number of people in the
waiting list jumped by a third since February, before reaching
its highest in July.

Kate Sorensen, health organizer for the Philadelphia
Unemployment Project, called adultBasic a "Band-Aid" and said
"there has to be a more concerted effort to deal with health
care," AP reports

Qualified enrollees make too much money for the federal
government's medical assistance program, but their income is too
low to pay for private insurance. The insurance covers hospital
care, doctor visits and lab work, but does not pay for medicine.

Pat Stromberg, a Pennsylvania Insurance Department deputy
commissioner, called the growing waiting list for adultBasic
"very disturbing," according to AP

Experts attributed the surge to a further decline in health
insurance paid by businesses, which have been gradually cutting
back benefits and raising costs for workers for several years.


PHILIP MORRIS: Suffers Setbacks in "Lights" Litigation in OH, MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group Inc.'s Philip Morris USA suffered major setbacks in
two cases that seek refunds for smokers who claim the cigarette
maker misrepresented the health risks of light cigarette brands,
the Associated Press reports.

On of this setbacks was in Ohio, where the 9th District Court of
Appeals upheld the class certification in a case brought by
Catherine Marrone, which is seeking a refund of the money they
spent on Virginia Slim Lights and Marlboro Lights cigarettes as
well as legal fees under the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act.

In its ruling the Ohio court cited a recent decision by the
Massachusetts Supreme Court that restored the class-action
status of a consumer-fraud action known as Aspinall.

The other setback was the decision by Missouri Circuit Court
Judge Michael David in St. Louis reaffirming the class
certification on a case brought by Dayna Craft. In that case
though, the judge placed restrictions on the class that limit
eligibility in the case to Missouri residents who purchased and
smoked Marlboro Lights cigarettes in the state during an eight-
year time period.

Philip Morris has said it will appeal both the Marrone and Craft
ruling to the Ohio and Missouri high courts, respectively.

In these cases, the tobacco companies have argued lights
cigarettes contained health warnings and were sold at the same
price as full-flavored cigarettes. However, attorneys for the
plaintiffs allege the cigarettes promised to deliver lower
levels of tar and nicotine than they would receive with regular
cigarettes.


SALTON INC.: Shareholders File Securities Fraud Suits in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. and certain of its executives face two securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, namely "Mariss Partners, LLP v.
Salton, Inc., Leonhard Dreimann and David M. Mulder" and "Warren
Beeler v. Salton, Inc., Leonhard Dreimann and David Mulder."

The complaints allege the defendants violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities
and Exchange Commission, by making certain alleged false and
misleading statements.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the Company's
securities during the period from November 11, 2002 through May
11, 2004.


SNAPPLE BEVERAGE: Executive Testifies in Distributor Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Snapple Beverage Corporation submitted to the United States
District Court in New York, testimony from an executive who said
the Company tries to prevent distributors from encroaching on
each other's sales regions, even going to the extent of fining
its own subsidiary Snapple Distributors, Inc., The Journal News
reports.

Plaintiff Mitchell Camarda filed the suit, alleging that the
Company tried to wreck his distribution business by letting
others sell juice in his territory.  He alleges that the
potential plaintiffs took out loans to buy equipment to go into
business, believing that they would have the sole rights to sell
in certain territories.

He further alleges that the Company, after signing agreements
with them, began giving other distributors - called
"transshippers" - the right to sell juice anywhere they wanted,
including in his territory.  He is seeking to bring dozens of
other distributors who have exclusive routes into the lawsuit as
plaintiffs.  The suit asks for $225 million and other
unspecified damages.

This week, lawyers for both sides agreed to delay arguments on
whether the lawsuit should be a class action.  Howard Cohen, one
of Mr. Camarda's lawyers, told U.S. District Court Judge Charles
L. Brieant that the sides would like to appear before him next
Friday instead of last Friday as originally planned.

The company has lodged several legal arguments as to why the
lawsuit should not be a class action.  It presented the
testimony of executive Joseph Poli, who stated that the Company
fines distributors who sell in territory where others have
exclusive contracts.  He added that the company usually learns
of transshipping when a distributor reports it believes product
has been transshipped into its territory.

Mr. Poli, who has been either president or vice president of
Snapple Distributors since 1993, further stated that the company
uses codes on the Snapple cases to identify which distributor
bought the product from Snapple Beverage first.  The Company
holds the initial purchaser accountable for any sale of product
outside that purchaser's territory and even hires a private
investigator to look into complaints of transshipping, Mr. Poli
told the court.

"However, no policy could ever completely eliminate
transshipping in an area as densely populated and price-
competitive as the New York City metropolitan area, where
approximately 23 million cases of Snapple beverages are consumed
annually," he said, according to the Journal News.  He said
transshipping "obviously is not in (Snapple Distributors')
interest," since it could mean its own distributors will sell
fewer cases of juice.

Mr. Poli further testified that in July 2001 Gary Lyons, the
general counsel for Snapple, wrote to him to inform him of a
number of transshipping violations by distributors who had
contracts with Snapple Distributors.  He said in January 2002,
Lyons told him Snapple Beverage was fining Mr. Natural Inc.
(Snapple Distributors' corporate predecessor) $4,540.  A month
later Mr. Natural was fined $5,310 due to transshipping
violations.  Mr. Poli also said that while Snapple Beverage can
try to prevent transshipping by distributors that have contracts
with the company it cannot control what others in the
distribution chain do, the Journal News reports.

Lawyers for Camarda could not be reached yesterday, the Journal
News states.


TUCSON CITIZEN: To Appeal Ruling On Controversial Letter Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Gannett Company-owned Tucson Citizen intends to appeal a
ruling allowing a lawsuit filed against them relating to a
December 2, 2003 letter to the editor suggesting how to end "the
horror" of American soldiers being killed in Iraq. The letter's
effects still reverberate throughout the state of Arizona, the
Associated Press reports.

The letter, which made a suggestion about "going to the nearest
mosque and killing five Muslims," terrified Muslims, who in
response to the letter kept their children from going to
religious school.

The controversial decision to print the letter, written by Dr.
Emory Metz Wright, Jr., elicited numerous protest letters from
readers. The newspaper immediately issued an apology and sent
staff members to meet with members of a local mosque in a bid to
diffuse tensions.

On January 13, 2004, two men initiated a class action lawsuit
against the newspaper on behalf of Islamic-Americans, and the
Arizona Supreme Court is being asked to decide whether to
overturn a trial judge's ruling allowing the newspaper to be
sued for alleged distress caused by what it printed.

According to the newspaper its First Amendment rights protect it
from such lawsuits and that the most fundamental of this rights,
the right to engage in robust political debate, is at stake, but
the plaintiffs contend that the newspaper, by deciding to
publish the letter, crossed the line.

Aly Elleithee, an accountant and immigrant from Egypt, who is
one of plaintiffs in the case points out, "You can express your
opinion but not - especially with what's going on in the Middle
East - if you put some people's lives at risk. Somebody has to
be accountable for what they did."

Plaintiffs' attorney Herbert Beigel further adds that publishing
the letter was not constitutionally protected because the letter
"was a direct call to violence against innocent Islamic-
Americans."

On May 10, 2004, Judge Leslie Miller of Pima County Superior
Court in Tucson dismissed an assault count in the original
lawsuit, but allowed the suit's claim of intentional infliction
of emotional distress to stand. A pretrial fact-finding is
currently on hold while the ruling is appealed.

An administrator of the Islamic Center of Tucson said many
members of the mosque were alarmed when the letter was published
but since have been satisfied with the newspaper's response.


UNITED STATES: Bill Targets Attorneys Who File "Frivolous" Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The House of Representatives recently passed a bill that would
require federal judges to impose financial sanctions against
attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits or motions, the Washington
Post reports.

The House bill known as H.R. 4571 or Lawsuit Abuse Reduction
Act, which was sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas would
provide the following provisions:

     (1) Federal judges would be required to impose penalties
         against attorneys who file frivolous lawsuits.

     (2) Penalties also would be mandatory for frivolous
         lawsuits filed in state courts if the relief sought
         would affect interstate commerce.

     (3) Personal injury lawsuits could be filed only in the
         state where the plaintiff resides, the defendant's
         business is located or the injury occurred.

According to supporters, the House bill also gets rid of a
federal rule that exempts attorneys from penalties if they
withdraw frivolous lawsuits within 21 days after a motion to
impose sanctions against them is filed.

It also aims to limit the ability of plaintiff's attorneys to
pick the court jurisdiction most favorable to them by requiring
that lawsuits be filed only where the plaintiff resides, where
the defendant is located or where the alleged injury occurred.

Brad Close, a lobbyist for the National Federation of
Independent Business, says the bill "helps get rid of all the
little nuisance suits that are designed to nickel and dime small
businesses."

However, opponents of the bill, claim that the new bill has
little to do with protecting innocent small businesses and more
to do with protecting corporate wrongdoers.

Carlton Carl, vice president of the Association of Trial Lawyers
of America points out that under the bill, a plaintiff might
have to pay the defendant's legal fees if a judge rules the
lawsuit lacks merit, thus "making it harder and harder for
average Americans to get justice when going up against the
Enrons and Firestones of the world."

He further adds that there is no evidence that frivolous
lawsuits are a problem and that the number of personal-injury
lawsuits and other tort cases has declined over the past decade.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ALLIED WASTE: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of purchasers of Allied Waste Industries Inc.
securities ("Allied Waste") (NYSE:AW) during the period between
February 10, 2004 and July 27, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Allied Waste and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Allied Waste's operations and
prospects artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. Allied Waste provides
collection, transfer, recycling and disposal services for non-
hazardous solid waste. The Complaint alleges defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded material adverse facts including:

     (1) the Company's internal growth, which defendants touted
         as strong, actually was lagging due to poor management
         execution and the loss of a large contract;

     (2) defendants had failed to successfully implement the
         Company's "best practices" initiatives because the
         Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (3) defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the
         much-anticipated cyclical volume pickup of trash was
         not materializing; and

     (4) as a result of the above, defendants' statements about
         the Company were lacking in any reasonable basis when
         made.

On July 27, 2004, Allied Waste posted earnings below analysts'
expectations, and a net loss of 7 cents per share. This news
caused Allied Waste shares to plummet $2.55 per share, or 20.83
percent, on unusually high trading volume, to close at $9.69 per
share on July 28, 2004. This was Allied Waste's biggest drop in
five years.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of Bennett Environmental, Inc. ("Bennett" or the "Company")
(Amex: BEL) between June 2, 2003 and July 22, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The Complaint names as defendants
Bennett, John Bennett, Alan Bulckaert, Danny Ponn, Richard Stern
and Robert Griffiths. According to the complaint, throughout the
Class Period, defendants misrepresented the financial condition
of the company by stating that the largest contract in the
company's history, the Phase III Contract to treat soil, was in
full force and effect when, in fact, the contract had been
substantially withdrawn almost immediately after its execution.
The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its Phase III Contract had been repudiated by
         the U.S. Army;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         backlog was artificially inflated in the amount of $200
         million or the amount of the repudiated contract; and

     (3) therefore, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for
         their positive statements about the Company's growth
         and progress.

On July 22, 2004, Bennett reported on the status of its contract
to treat soil contaminated with wood treatment chemicals from
Phase III of the Federal Creosote Superfund Site ("FC Site") in
Manville, New Jersey. The U.S. Army Engineering Corps purported
to withdraw its consent to the Phase III Contract but consented
to ship up to 10,000 tons for treatment under the Phase III
Contract. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Bennett
fell $2.13 on July 22, 2004, to close at $7.80 per share.

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


CONCORD CAMERA: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Concord Camera Corporation (Nasdaq: LENS)
("Concord" or the "Company") from August 14, 2003 through May
10, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Notice of this action
was originally published in "Investors Business Daily" on
September 7, 2004. Therein, members of the class were given
until November 1, 2004, to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class. That deadline appears to be incorrect,
because notice appears to be calculated 60 days from the day the
complaint was filed instead of 50 days from the issuance of the
notice. Given this, if you are a member of the class described
above, you may, not later than November 8, 2004, move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.

The complaint charges Concord, Ira Lampert, Harlan Press, and
Richard Finkbeiner with violations of Sections 10(b)-5 and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)-5
promulgated thereunder. Concord designs, develops, manufactures
and sells easy-to-use image capture products on a worldwide
basis. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's inventory levels were materially
         inflated;

     (2) the Company's financial results were materially
         impacted by the significant inventory provisions,
         ranging from $6 to $7 million;

     (3) the Company's net loss was artificially deflated
         through the application of manufacturing labor and
         overhead costs to inventory; and

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

On May 11, 2004, Concord announced that it would file Form 12b-
25 with the SEC extending the Company's time to file a Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 27, 2004. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Concord fell $1.58 per share or 34.20 percent,
on May 11, 2004, to close at $3.04 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com


FLIGHT SAFETY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action complaint in the District of Connecticut against Flight
Safety Technologies, Inc. ("Flight Safety") (AMEX:FLT) for
alleged acts in violation of U.S. securities fraud laws.

The complaint alleges that, from January 14, 2003 through July
16, 2004 (the Class Period), Flight Safety and its CEO and
Chairman Samuel A. Kovnant and its President William B. Cotton
issued a series of false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's wake vortex sensor technology. In particular,
defendants' false and misleading statements caused Class members
to believe incorrectly that the wake vortex sensor technology
worked, that a market existed for it, that the Company's
technology had the support and imprimatur of certain agencies of
the United States government and that the Company was "poised to
finalize development and enter the US and world marketplace." In
reality, the sensor had been severely criticized in an unbiased
agency evaluation as being incapable of commercial
implementation. Moreover, the evaluation made clear that the
Company was more than ten years away from finalizing development
of the sensor and much further away from actually marketing it
to its customers.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York action on behalf of purchasers of KongZhong
Corporation securities ("KONG") (Nasdaq:KONG) (XETRA:KONGy)
(BERLIN:KONGy) (FRANK:KONGy) during the period between July 9,
2004 through August 17, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges KongZhong, Yunfan Zhou, Nick Yang, and
Richard Wei with violations of Sections 11, 12(a) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that one of KongZhong's interactive voice response
         ("IVR") services in early June 2004 contained
         inappropriate content, which was in violation of the
         Company's various agreements with China Mobile;

     (2) that this violation of the Company's agreement with
         China Mobile caused the Company to incur sanctions and
         penalties; and

     (3) that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's
         relationship with China Mobile was negatively impacted
         because China Mobile suspended the approval of the
         Company's applications.

On August 18, 2004, KongZhong issued a press release announcing
that it had been notified by China Mobile of a sanction imposed
on the Company. News of this shocked the market. KongZhong's
ADRs fell $1.061 per share, or 16.6 percent, to close at $5.329
per share on August 18, 2004.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges OR Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Oregon on
behalf of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the common
stock of Lattice Semiconductor Corp. ("Lattice" or the
"Company")(NasdaqNM: LSCC) between April 22, 2003 and April 19,
2004 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint names the following
Defendants: Lattice, Cyrus Y. Tsui and Stephen A. Skaggs.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that, as part of their ongoing efforts to
create and continue the illusion of Lattice's growth in the
semiconductor industry, Defendants knowingly or recklessly
issued and/or participated in the issuance of materially false
and misleading statements and financial information.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, during the Class
Period, Defendants materially understated its accounts payable
balance; materially overstated earnings, and falsely represented
that the Company's financial results during the Class Period had
complied with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles
("GAAP'").

Beginning on January 22, 2004, Lattice began to issue a series
of press releases reflecting that it had potentially overstated
its deferred income account. Lattice's shares began to tumble in
reaction to the news, falling from $12.36 on January 22, 2004 to
close at $11.73 the following day. Shares traded as low as $10
the following week. Then, on March 18, 2004, Lattice issued a
press release indicating that it anticipated restating its
first, second and third quarters of its 2003 financial
statements as it had likely overstated the Company's Deferred
Income Account, an account that represents the Company's
judgment as to the potential gross margin on inventory held by
the Company's distributors. On March 24, 2004, Lattice finally
released its financial results for the fourth quarter and year
ended December 31, 2003. The restatement reduced 2003 revenue by
approximately 7% over the nine-month period and increased the
Company's net loss by an additional $9 million. In a March 24,
2004 press release, the Company attributed the restatement to
"inappropriate accounting entries made, by an individual in the
Company's finance department and deficiencies in the design and
operation of internal accounting controls related to the
deferred income account." Shares of Lattice continued to sink,
falling to $8.95 on April 19, 2004 when it finally amended its
Form 10-Q, representing a decline of approximately 27.5% since
the overstatement was first announced.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. or James C.
Shah, Esq. by Phone: 866/540-5505 or 877/891-9880 or by E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com


LIGAND PHARMACEUTICALS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Ligand Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Ligand" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:LGND) between March 3, 2004 through August 2,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Ligand and David E. Robinson and Paul
V. Maier ("Defendants") violated the federal securities laws by
issuing materially false and misleading statements during the
Class Period. In violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented that inventory de-stocking at the
wholesale level was occurring because the Company was unloading
Avinza inventory which was about to expire, that the overall
demand of the Company's products was down due to inventory de-
stocking, and that Medicaid prescriptions were increasing,
causing the Company to pay large rebates to Medicaid and that in
fact the increase in rebates was not a one-time occurrence.

On August 3, 2004, Ligand announced that its second-quarter loss
increased, and that its outside auditor had resigned. Shares of
Ligand fell almost 40% or $5.40 per share to close at $8.18 per
share. If you purchased Ligand securities during the Class
Period, you may, no later than October 8, 2004, move to be
appointed as a Lead Plaintiff in this class action. A Lead
Plaintiff is a representative, chosen by the Court, that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. The
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 directs Courts
to assume that the class member(s) with the "largest financial
interest" in the outcome of the case will best serve the class
in this capacity. Courts have discretion in determining which
class member(s) have the "largest financial interest," and have
appointed Lead Plaintiffs with substantial losses in both
absolute terms and as a percentage of their net worth.

For more details, contact Wechsler Harwood Shareholder Relations
Department - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 ext. 257
by E-mail: clowther@whesq.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.whesq.com


NETFLIX INC.: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Netflix Inc. ("Netflix" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:NFLX) between October 1, 2003 and July 15, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Netflix and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Netflix' operations and
performance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. Netflix is the largest online
movie rental subscription service in the United States. The
complaint alleges that defendants deliberately understated the
Company's "churn" rate (the percentage of its subscribers that
cancelled per month) by utilizing a novel definition of churn
that artificially decreased the Company's reported churn rate
during quarters when the Company was adding large numbers of new
subscribers. Additionally, defendants repeatedly touted the
Company's impressive subscriber growth without any direct
disclosure in Netflix' earnings releases or SEC filings
concerning the large percentage of subscriber cancellations
during the respective quarters.

On July 15, 2004, after the close of trading, the Company for
the first time disclosed that while the Company had added
537,000 new subscribers during the second quarter, in the same
period it had suffered 422,000 subscriber cancellations, and
though the Company added 1,343,000 new subscribers during the
first half of 2004, in the same period it had suffered 737,000
subscriber cancellations. In response to this news, Netflix
shares plummeted 38% over the next two days.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr. of Shareholder
Relations Department - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400
vsoler@whesq.com or visit their Web site: http://www.whesq.com


NETOPIA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. filed a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (Case No. 04-3364RMW, before Judge Ronald
M. Whyte) on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Netopia, Inc. (Nasdaq: NTPAE) ("Netopia")
between November 6, 2003 and July 6, 2004, inclusive.

The Complaint alleges that Netopia and certain of its officers
and directors knowingly or recklessly made a series of material
misrepresentations concerning Netopia's earnings, product costs,
and sales to its largest customer. Moreover, Defendants and
employees of Netopia profited handsomely from those
misrepresentations, selling over $9 million of Netopia stock
during the Class Period. Netopia is a company that, among other
things, develops, markets and supports broadband and wireless
(Wi-Fi) products and services, as well as produces server
software products that enable remote support and centralized
management of installed broadband gateways.

On September 16, 2004, Netopia announced the resignation of its
auditor KPMG LLP, and that it will restate two years of results
and revise the results in its most recent fiscal quarter.
Netopia reported that the restatements will cover the two years
ended March 31, 2004 and the revision will cover the following
quarter. Netopia also reported that it is currently unable to
determine when the restatements and appropriate filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission will be completed, and that
it was "likely" the NASDAQ would delist its common stock in the
near future. KPMG's resignation was effective September 10,
2004.

For more details, contact Justin S. Kudler or Nancy A. Kulesa by
Phone: (800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.snlaw.net


PETMED EXPRESS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida on behalf of all securities
purchasers of PetMed Express, Inc. (Nasdaq: PETS) ("PetMed" or
the "Company") from June 18, 2003 through July 26, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges PetMed, Menderes Akdag, Marc Puleo, and
Bruce S. Rosenbloom with violations of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's business model enabled the company
         to experience sustained financial growth since the
         model shifted costs to veterinarians (who are the
         Company's competitors),

     (2) that the business model made the Company dependent on
         the cooperation of veterinarians to fill prescriptions,

     (3) that the defendants could not guarantee the quality,
         safety or efficacy of PetMed drugs because, as an
         unauthorized reseller of many products, the Company had
         to obtain such products through unauthorized channels,
         prompting veterinarians to refuse refilling
         prescriptions through PetMed, and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's financial results were
         not sustainable, causing the stock to trade at
         artificially high prices.

During the class period while PetMed's stock price was inflated,
Defendants and Company insiders sold almost $65 million in
privately held PetMed's stock.

On July 26, 2004, defendants shocked the market when they
belatedly disclosed that the Company was operating well below
defendants' previous guidance and that PetMed revenues and
earnings were well below plan. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of PetMed fell $2.07 per share or 29.70 percent, on July
26, 2004, to close at $4.90 per share.

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


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges VA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP filed a Federal Securities
fraud class-action suit on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Primus
Telecommunications Group (Nasdaq:PRTL) ("PRIMUS" or the
"Company") from August 5, 2003 through July 29, 2004, both dates
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled Sherman v. Primus Telecommunications, et
al., Case No. 3:04-cv-674, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and names as
defendants, the Company, its Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer, K. Paul Singh, and its Chief Operating and
Financial Officer, Neil L. Hazard. A copy of the complaint can
be obtained from the Court or can be viewed on Wechsler Harwood
web site at: www.whesq.com.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts, known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company was operating in a new
         competitive reality where major incumbent carriers used
         long distance offerings as a "loss leader" to encourage
         customers to subscribe to their bundled local, cellular
         and broadband services;

     (2) that the Company's core long distance and dial-up
         Internet service provider products ("ISP") were
         experiencing significant pricing pressures;

     (3) that the Company's wireline long distance usage was
         continuing to appreciably decline due to increased use
         of cellular phones and Internet services;

     (4) that the Company was forced to accelerate investment in
         voice-over-Internet protocol ("VoIP") and mobile
         virtual network operator ("MVNO") networks; and

     (5) and that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants
         lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
         about the Company's growth and progress.

On July 29, 2004, after the close of the market, PRIMUS
announced its results for the quarter ended June 30, 2004. The
Company reported a net loss for the quarter of $15 million
compared to net income of $20 million in the second quarter of
2003. News of this shocked the market. Shares of PRIMUS fell
$1.70 per share, or 50.75 percent, on July 29, 2004, to close at
$1.65 per share.

For more details, contact Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488
Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 or by Phone:
(877) 935-7400


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNCATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Files Stock Suit in VA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of shareholders who
purchased the common stock and other securities of Primus
Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("Primus" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:PRTL), between November 11, 2003 and July 29, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNCATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges VA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Primus
Telecommunications Group, Inc. ("Primus") (Nasdaq:PRTL) between
November 11, 2003 and July 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia against defendant Primus and/or one
or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

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


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files Stock Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Primus
Telecommunications Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRTL) ("Primus") between
November 11, 2003, and July 29, 2004 (the "Class Period"),
including all those who purchased securities in Primus' January
13, 2004 debt offering.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Primus -
- a global telecommunications provider -- misrepresented the
company's business prospects in regard to

     (1) pricing pressures on its standalone international long
         distance business,

     (2) revenue projections for the second half of 2004,

     (3) and Primus' ability to raise money for necessary
         capital expenditures.

On July 29, 2004, Primus posted a second quarter loss of $14.9
million, a $0.17 loss per share, falling short of Wall Street
expectations. Primus had forecast earnings of $.10 per share on
revenue of $348 million. On this news, Primus dropped $1.70 to
$1.52 per share -- a 50% decline.

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


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

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

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

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


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood today initiated a securities
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Minnesota against The St. Paul Travelers Companies,
Inc. (NYSE:STA) ("St. Paul Travelers") (formerly known as The
St. Paul Companies, Inc. or "St. Paul") and certain of its
current and former officers and directors, on behalf of former
shareholders of Travelers Property Casualty Corp.'s
("Travelers") Class A and Class B common stock who acquired St.
Paul's common stock pursuant to a St. Paul registration
statement filed with the SEC in connection with St. Paul's
stock-for stock merger with Travelers on April 1, 2004 (the
"Merger").

The Merger was billed as a "merger-of equals" between Travelers'
and St. Paul. The complaint alleges that the registration
statement issued in connection with the Merger was materially
false or misleading because it failed to disclose that

     (1) there were substantial differences between the
         accounting and actuarial methods of St. Paul and
         Travelers, necessitating St. Paul Travelers to increase
         its claims reserves by $1.171 billion to conform St.
         Paul's less conservative accounting and actuarial
         methods to that of Travelers;

     (2) St. Paul's then-existing exposure to certain adverse
         financial condition of a construction contractor, a
         reduction in reinsurance recoverables, and other
         similar conditions, required St. Paul Travelers to
         increase its claims reserves by an additional $466
         million; and

     (3) the aggregate $1.637 billion of required increase in
         claims reserves due to these existing but undisclosed
         facts relating to St. Paul would require St. Paul
         Travelers to record a significant charge to its income
         statement, adversely impacting earnings.

On July 23, 2004, St. Paul Travelers revealed that certain
conditions relating to St. Paul required the Company to increase
its claims reserves by $1.6 billion. On August 5, 2004, St. Paul
Travelers further announced that the required $1.6 billion
increase in claims reserves would result in an operating loss of
$310 million or $0.47 per basic and diluted share for the
quarter.

St. Paul common stock per-share closing price was $40.77 on
April 1, 2004, the date on which each share of Travelers' Class
A and Class B common stock was exchanged for 0.4334 share of St.
Paul common stock pursuant to the materially false or misleading
registration statement. When the true extent of required reserve
increase and its adverse impact to St. Paul Travelers was fully
disclosed to the investing public on August 5, 2004, the per
share price of St. Paul common stock had declined by $6.02 or
14.77% to close at $34.75 on August 5, 2004 -- causing massive
losses to former Travelers shareholders.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr. of Shareholder
Relations Department - Wechsler Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison
Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400
vsoler@whesq.com or visit their Web site: http://www.whesq.com


ZIX CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of all securities purchasers of the
Zix Corporation (Nasdaq:ZIXI) ("Zix" or the "Company") from
October 30, 2003 through May 4, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Zix, John A. Ryan, Steve M. York, Ronald
A. Woessner, Daniel S. Nutkis, Russell J. Morgan, Wael Mohamed,
and Dennis F. Heathcote with violations of Sections 10(b)-5 and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)-5
promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's deployment of e-prescription
         services was languishing;

     (2) that the Company seriously underestimated the hurdles
         of deploying e-prescription services in medical offices
         that lack up-to-date IT infrastructure;

     (3) as a result of these factors, the Company's deployment
         rate of 1,000 physicians a month was unattainable; and

     (4) as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         projections lacked in any reasonable basis.

On May 4, 2004, Zix announced financial results for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2004. In the press release, the
Company's numbers were well below expectations. This news
shocked the market. Shares of Zix fell $2.12 per share or 15.58
percent on May 5, 2004, to close at $11.49 per share. On the
following day, shares of Zix fell an additional $2.60 per share
or 22.63 percent to close at $8.89 per share.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or (212)
682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.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  * * *