CAR_Public/040913.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, September 13, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 181

                          Headlines

AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Consumer Launches Fraud Lawsuit in Arizona
APPLEWAY AUTOMOTIVE: Found Guilty of Sales Malpractices in WA
ASTRAZENECA PLC: FDA Reviews Exanta Drug, Toxic Side Effect Plan
AUSTRALIA: Court Dismisses DNA's Appeal Over Misleading Forms
AUSTRALIA: Pizzeria, 46 Diners Settle Salmonella Poisoning Case

BEA SYSTEMS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
CALIFORNIA: SEC Files Suit V. Firms, Principals For Ponzi Scheme
CRACKER BARREL: Reaches $8.7M Discrimination Suits Settlement
E.I. DUPONT: Reaches $343M C-8 Water Pollution Suit Settlement
FLOWERS FOODS: Settles NC Suit Over Kosher Status of Pie Shells

FORD MOTOR: CA Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in Manifolds Suit
H&R BLOCK: Directors Approve Settlement for MD Consumer Lawsuit
HASBRO INC.: Recalls 230T Monster Rockets Due To Injury Hazard
IDAHO: Resident Pleads Guilty To Grand Theft, Credit Card Fraud
ILLINOIS: Investors Lodge Fraud Lawsuit V. Charles L. Harris

MISSOURI: Judge Approves Notification Plans For Suit V. Con Man
PRE-PAID LEGAL: OK Court Denies Class Status For Securities Suit
UNITED PARCEL: Scott + Scott Lodges Disability Bias Suit in PA
UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Sue Agriculture Dept For Race Bias
UNITED STATES: FDA Charged With Obstructing Depressants Inquiry

WORLDCOM: Former CEO's Lawyers Seek Immunity For Two Witnesses

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MN
DECODE GENETICS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
DECODE GENETICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in MO
IMPAC MEDICAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA

LATICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Charles J. Piven Lodges OR Securities Suit
NASSDA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
NETFLIX INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files CA Securities Suit
SYNOPSYS INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA

TECO ENERGY: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit in FL
VISTACARE INC.: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit Fraud in AZ
WET SEAL: Robbins Umeda Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
WORLD INFORMATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
ZIX CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX


                         *********


AMERIQUEST MORTGAGE: Consumer Launches Fraud Lawsuit in Arizona
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameriquest Mortgage Company faces a consumer lawsuit for
spamming, false promises, misrepresentation and incompetence,
filed in Phoenix, Arizona Court as case number CIV-04-1192-PCT-
NVW.

Customer Christine Baker filed the suit after several requests
for her credit reports were ignored.  Prior to contracting to
purchase real estate, Ms. Baker wanted to know what type of loan
she qualified for and she responded to two mortgage spams.  On
April 20,2004, a Company loan agent Beatrice called in response
to the "internet" lead, no additional information was available
at the Scottsdale Ameriquest office.  Ameriquest Litigation
Manager Carol Melber states in her affidavit that Ameriquest
purchased the lead from "Lead Jungle."

To date, Ms. Baker has been unable to find any information about
Lead Jungle.  If it actually exists, it took measures to hide
its existence for good reason.  The mortgage spam violated many
provisions of the CAN-Spam Act.  Ms. Baker intends to submit her
complaint to the FTC and Arizona Attorney General for
enforcement.  It is extremely important to prosecute companies
like Ameriquest who pay the spammers.  After all, if Ameriquest
wouldn't pay for those illegally obtained leads, the spammers
would have no reason to spam, a press release by the law firm
Poli & Ball, LLC stated.

"Paying for illegally obtained leads is as criminal as
purchasing stolen goods.  The spammers are stealing our time and
resources," the release stated.  "Unfortunately, the spam
related aggravation pales in comparison to Ameriquest's
extraordinary incompetence encountered by Ms. Baker after she
applied for the mortgage.  Ms. Baker explained to loan agent
Beatrice that she was looking for prequalification to purchase
property and for information about suitable loan programs, as
she is self-employed."

According to Ms. Baker, Beatrice promised that she would mail
the credit reports and credit scores to Ms. Baker the next day.
Ameriquest ordered the credit reports on April 21,2004 and
prepared the initial disclosures with the 7.05% interest rate
and 2.855 points, a very high rate at that time.  On April 28,
2004, someone named Jonathan with Great SouthWest Mortgage left
a VM, stating that his friend Beatrice had provided him with Ms.
Baker's information and that he was offering a free purchase
consultation.  It appeared Beatrice had declined Ms. Baker's
application.

When nobody from Ameriquest contacted Ms. Baker, she sent e-mail
to Beatrice, inquiring about the strange call from SouthWest
Mortgage and the whereabouts of the promised credit reports.  On
May 7, 2004, Beatrice left a voice message apologizing for the
delay and she advised that she "couldn't put together the best
package" and that's why she provided Ms. Baker's phone number to
Jonathan at SouthWest Mortgage.

On May 12,2004, Ameriquest sent a Notice of Incompleteness,
advising that the loan would be declined if Ms. Baker didn't
supply paystubs and W-2s  - despite the fact that Beatrice had
known about Ms. Baker's self-employment.  As any loan agent
should know, self-employed applicants don't have W-2s and
paystubs, according to the statement.

Ameriquest also demanded proof of insurance for the commercial
property where Ms. Baker receives her mail.  Ms. Baker does not
own this property and has no intention to purchase it.  "Most
important, why would Ameriquest want any documentation for a
loan they already referred to another mortgage company weeks
earlier?" the statement asks.  On June 11,2004, Ameriquest
denied the application because Ms. Baker didn't provide it with
documentation that couldn't possibly exist.

In response to her lawsuit, Ms. Baker expected an apology from
Ameriquest along with the promised credit reports and assurances
that Ameriquest does not participate or condone SPAM and that it
will take immediate actions to ensure affiliate and vendor
compliance with the CAN-Spam Act as well as applicable state
laws.

Ameriquest instead filed a motion to dismiss and submitted an
Affidavit by Ameriquest Litigation Manager Carol Melber. She
insisted that the loan was declined because Ms. Baker didn't
supply the requested documentation.

Federal law requires that creditors notify consumers after
"adverse actions" such as declines, higher interest rates or
lower loan amounts due to credit. Consumers are entitled to free
credit reports and notices of their rights, including the right
to dispute inaccurate credit data.  Apparently Ameriquest will
resort to perjury to avoid having to inform consumers about
their credit rights.

To date, Ms. Baker has not received the credit reports with the
FICO scores Beatrice had promised and Equifax and Trans Union
have been refusing Ms. Baker's online credit reports orders.
Fortunately, Ms. Baker recorded all the phone calls and she is
able to document the false promises and the decline back in
April, as the documentation proves, due to credit.

The Phoenix Better Business Bureau website states that
Ameriquest's membership had been revoked due to the mortgage
company's failure to respond to complaints and due to an
unsatisfactory report with the BBB in Orange, California, where
Ameriquest is headquartered.  A Google search yielded entire
pages with links to consumer complaints about Ameriquest, the
statement asserted.

Ms. Baker is not an attorney. Due to her lack of legal skills
and funds to pay a competent attorney, it is unlikely that she
will be able to prevail in court. She hopes that her online
publications, including http://ameriquest-mortgage-
incompetence.info , will at the very least deter consumers from
applying with Ameriquest and maybe even result in a class
action.

Ms. Baker also maintains http://bayhouse.com,
http://creditforum.org  and http://creditfactors.com. The 2004
Credit Suit blog with updates about credit litigation,
regulatory complaints, legislative efforts and credit news is
published at http://creditsuit.org.

For more details, contact attorney for Ameriquest Mortgage
Jeffrey Messing by Mail: Poli & Ball, P.L.C., 2999 North 44th
Street, Suite 500, Phoenix, Arizona 85018 by Phone: 602.840.1400
by Fax: 602.840.4411 or by E-mail: messing@poliball.com or
contact Public Relations for Ameriquest Mortgage Company: Joan
Gladstone, President and CEO, Gladstone International by Mail:
1278 Glenneyre Street, Laguna Beach, CA 92651 by Phone:
949-475-6979 x 204 by E-mail: jgladstone@gladstonepr.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://www.gladstoneper.com.


APPLEWAY AUTOMOTIVE: Found Guilty of Sales Malpractices in WA
-------------------------------------------------------------
A superior court judge found Appleway Automotive Group, one of
Spokane's largest car dealerships guilty of illegal sales
practices by charging car buyers a tax that the dealership was
supposed to pay itself, according to a lawsuit filed by one of
its customers, News 4 KXLY reports.

The customer, Herb Nelson noticed the Business and Occupation
Tax charge and filed a class action lawsuit against the
dealership.  Appleway's attorney produced a letter from the
Washington Department of Revenue that stated that the business
could collect the tax from car buyers.

However, the judge ruled against the dealership, clearing the
way for thousands of Appleway buyers to join a class action
suit.  In reaction to the judge's ruling, Appleway says it is
preparing motions for reconsideration and will appeal if
necessary.


ASTRAZENECA PLC: FDA Reviews Exanta Drug, Toxic Side Effect Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) questioned
AstraZeneca Plc's Exanta drug's effectiveness as a stroke
treatment in a review, Reuters reports.  The FDA also found
faults in the Company's plan to manage possible toxic side
effects.

The experimental drug Exanta is the first new anticoagulant pill
since warfarin was introduced 60 years ago.  A notoriously
difficult drug to use, it is marketed by Bristol-Myers Squibb
under the name Coumadin.

According to FDA staff comments posted online
(http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/2004-
4069b1.htm), the Company may have been "too liberal" in
assessing the effectiveness of Exanta against the standard anti-
clotting treatment warfarin.  Several reviewers expressed
concern over AstraZeneca's decision to compare Exanta to
warfarin rather than a placebo in some studies, saying the
comparison was "unfair."  The staff review will be considered by
the panel, whose recommendations are usually followed by federal
regulators.

The FDA announcement came a day before a panel of outside
experts will meet to discuss whether to recommend Exanta for FDA
approval.  The announcement sent share prices down and shook
widespread confidence among investors that the potential
blockbuster would pass muster.  Shares of the Anglo-Swedish drug
maker fell 4 percent to $45.13 in late morning trade on the New
York Stock Exchange shares and fell 3.8 percent to 25.19 pounds
on the London Stock Exchange.

Some industry analysts said the efficacy of the product had been
considered a given and the questions about its effectiveness
amounted to a setback for approval hopes, Reuters reports.
Prudential analyst Tim Anderson, who was already cautious about
Exanta prospects, said the review looked bad for AstraZeneca and
the odds for approval "may now be lower."  The consensus peak
annual sales forecast for Exanta is $3.7 billion, according to
pharmaceutical consulting firm Evaluate.

However, others said the panel would likely take into
consideration warfarin's problems, which include food
interactions, a need for constant monitoring and a delay before
warfarin starts working.  Five clinical trials tested Exanta in
nearly 18,000 patients and showed it takes effect more quickly
and requires less frequent testing, AstraZeneca officials have
said.  Company spokeswoman Rachel Bloom-Baglin said the studies
showed a "strong, positive balance of benefit to risk,"
according to Reuters.

The company's risk plan for the product did not address some
possible concerns, including risks of delayed liver toxicity
after short-term use, heart failure or excessive bleeding caused
by Exanta, the reviewers said.

Hamish Cameron, AstraZeneca's vice president of cardiovascular,
told Reuters the company had been open about the liver problem.
"We're happy to do more," he said in an interview earlier this
week.


AUSTRALIA: Court Dismisses DNA's Appeal Over Misleading Forms
-------------------------------------------------------------
Australian federal court dismissed an appeal by Domain Names
Australia (DNA) over an April ruling regarding letters it sent
out concerning the domain names of local businesses were
misleading and deceptive, the Australian IT reports.

The initial case was filed by the Australia Competition and
Consumer Commission (ACCC) and regulator of the ".au" country
code top level domain, .au Domain Administration (AuDA) against
DNA and its sole director, Charles Rafferty.

According to the ACCC and auDA the forms, which were sent to
hundreds of thousands of Australian businesses in June, July and
September last year by DNA that invites them to register
particular domain names relevant to their business had been made
to appear as if the companies had already registered the domains
being offered, and were therefore obliged to pay for them.
Furthermore the ACCC and auDA alleged that forms that was
contravening the Trade Practices Act.

Subsequently, Justice Finkelstein ruled in favor of the ACCC and
auDA, finding that the representations made in the letters were
"misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or decieve".

However, DNA lodged an appeal in August, contending that the
ruling "failed to prove that ordinary or reasonable recipients
would have been misled or deceived".

AuDA Chief Executive Chris Disspain welcomed the dismissal of
the appeal, saying his organization would move to secure refunds
from DNA through a class action.


AUSTRALIA: Pizzeria, 46 Diners Settle Salmonella Poisoning Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Diners suing Sofia's Pizza Restaurant, a popular Camberwell
pizzeria after suffering salmonella poisoning have settled their
legal case, the ABC Online reports.

Around 90 people among them a toddler contracted food poisoning
after eating at the Melbourne restaurant during the Christmas-
New Year period.

The restaurant's insurers have reached an out of court
settlement with 46 victims, who mounted a class action in what
Victoria's chief health officer, Robert Hall, confirmed as the
state's worst food poisoning outbreak since last year's pork
roll fiasco, which killed one man and felled more than 200
others.

Victims are set to receive compensation for medical expenses,
lost wages, pain and suffering, and legal costs. Patrons who
became ill but were not part of the class action, have until
mid-October to lodge a claim for compensation.


BEA SYSTEMS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bea Systems, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly-
traded securities from November 13, 2003 through May 13, 2004.
The suits also name as defendants several of the Company's
officers.

The complaints generally allege that defendants made false
statements about the Company's operating results and business,
while concealing material information.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

Beginning on June 15, 2004, several derivative lawsuits were
filed by purported Company shareholders in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and the
Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County. The complaints
name certain of the Company's present and former officers and
directors as defendants and name the Company as a nominal
defendant.

These complaints are based on the same facts and circumstances
as the class actions and generally allege that the named
directors and offices breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company.  Given the nature of derivative litigation, any
recovery in a derivative suit would be to the benefit of the
Company.


CALIFORNIA: SEC Files Suit V. Firms, Principals For Ponzi Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint against
two Southern California firms and their principals, alleging
securities fraud and securities registration violations in a
$6.7 million "prime bank" Ponzi scheme. Named in the complaint
are RC Investment Corp. of Westlake Village, Pinnacle Investment
Corp. of Westlake Village, Robert A. Coberly, Jr., 36, of
Westlake Village, and Curtis D. Somoza, 36, of Beverly Hills. As
alleged in the complaint, "prime bank" instruments are
supposedly high-yield, low-risk, and confidential investments.
One form of a "prime bank" scheme involves a supposed bank
trading program where investor funds are purportedly used to
trade high-grade bank notes. In fact, such bank notes do not
exist and are used to defraud investors.

The complaint alleges that, from September 2002 to May 2003, the
defendants offered and sold $6.7 million worth of notes to fifty
investors nationwide, claiming that the funds would be used to
finance a purported trading program that would buy and sell
high-grade AA and AAA-rated bank notes, which is a common form
of "prime bank" instrument. The complaint also alleges that the
defendants represented that investors would receive a
"guaranteed" 120% per year return. The complaint further alleges
that, contrary to their representations, the defendants instead
operated a Ponzi scheme, whereby they used $3.11 million in new
investor funds to pay existing investors. The complaint also
alleges that the defendants misappropriated another $2.61
million in investor funds to support their lavish lifestyles,
such as down payments on two luxury homes in Southern California
and weekends at posh resorts, and to finance other business
ventures. In addition, the complaint alleges that, contrary to
the defendants' representations, there was no bank note trading
program.

The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California - Western Division, alleges that each of
the defendants violated the securities registration and
antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Sections
5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
thereunder. The Commission seeks permanent injunctions and civil
penalties against each of the defendants.

The action is titled, SEC v. RC Investment Corp., Pinnacle
Investment Corp., Robert A. Coberly, Jr., and Curtis D. Somoza,
No. CV 04-7400 GHK (Ex) (C.D. Cal.)] (LR-18872).


CRACKER BARREL: Reaches $8.7M Discrimination Suits Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cracker Barrel reached an $8.7 million settlement for all
lawsuits filed or supported by the National Association for the
Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP), charging the restaurant
chain of racial discrimination, the Associated Press reports.

At least 42 plaintiffs, including the NAACP, charged the Company
of discriminating against blacks by segregating them to the
smoking section and refusing to serve them.  Black customers in
16 states also said they were subjected to racial slurs and
served food taken from the trash, while Cracker Barrel
management ignored or condoned such actions.


"This matter has been resolved to everyone's satisfaction and
the parties are now ready to move forward," said Donald Turner,
Cracker Barrel's president and chief operating officer,
according to AP.  "Cracker Barrel is very pleased with this
settlement."

Details of the settlement were not released, but the company's
fourth quarter earnings report said its results included $3.3
million, or a 7-cent per share, charge for costs associated with
the settlement.

Four months earlier, the Company settled a Justice Department
lawsuit charging it with similar discrimination claims at dozens
of restaurants, mainly in the Southeast.  That settlement found
that black customers at many of the company's restaurants were
seated in areas segregated from white patrons, frequently
received inferior service and often were made to wait longer for
tables. Blacks who complained about poor service also were
treated less favorably than whites, the settlement said.  At the
time, Cracker Barrel agreed to a number of operational changes
but did not acknowledge any wrongdoing and paid no fines or
penalties.


E.I. DUPONT: Reaches $343M C-8 Water Pollution Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (NYSE: DD) and attorneys
for local residents who filed a class action lawsuit in 2001
over releases from DuPont's Washington Works plant of the
chemical C-8, also known as PFOA, have reached an agreement in
principle to settle the suit.

Critical components of the proposed settlement include C-8 water
treatment facilities for area communities and creation of an
expert panel to conduct a community study to assist it in
evaluating whether there is a probable link between C-8 exposure
and any human disease.

The settlement, which is pending approval in Wood County Circuit
Court, calls for cash payments and expenditures valued at $85
million, plus attorneys' fees and expenses of $22.6 million. The
settlement also addresses contingent medical monitoring funding.

The settlement proceeds will be directed into the Ohio and West
Virginia communities in the vicinity of the Washington Works
plant that comprise the class bringing the suit. As part of the
settlement, DuPont has agreed to an initial cash payment of $70
million, $20 million of which will be used for health and
education projects.

In addition, DuPont will also offer to provide six area water
districts - Little Hocking, Lubeck, Belpre, Tuppers Plains,
Mason County and Pomeroy - a state-of-the-art water treatment
system designed to reduce the level of C-8 in the water supply
to the lowest practicable levels as specified by the water
districts. The company will offer the same technology or its
equivalent to residents of those districts whose sole source of
drinking water is a private well. The company estimates the cost
for water treatment at $10 million.

The other key component to the settlement is the creation of an
independent panel of experts to evaluate available scientific
evidence on the extent of any probable link between exposure to
PFOA and any human disease, including birth defects. Toward that
end, this independent panel will also design and conduct a
health study in the communities exposed to PFOA. DuPont will
fund this study at an estimated cost of $5 million.

If the independent panel concludes that a probable link exists
between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, DuPont will also fund
a medical monitoring program for up to $235 million, in $1
million intervals, to pay for such medical testing. In this
event, DuPont will not contest general causation between PFOA
and any such disease in any personal injury claims that
plaintiffs may pursue. If no such probable link is found,
plaintiffs' personal injury claims and related punitive damage
claims would be released at that point.

All of the plaintiffs' other claims for relief, including
medical monitoring, injunctive relief, property damage, and all
claims for punitive damage related to such claims, will be
released upon final court approval of the settlement. DuPont's
obligations for water treatment would cease only if the
scientific panel finds no probable link between PFOA exposure
and any disease.

"After two years of discussions, we are pleased to reach an
agreement that places our combined priorities where they belong
- on the community and not on lengthy and contentious legal
proceedings," said Stacey J. Mobley, DuPont general counsel. "We
want to make very clear that settling this lawsuit in no way
implies any admission of liability on DuPont's part.
Nevertheless, a settlement at this time provides benefit to both
parties by taking reasonable steps based on science and, at the
same time, contributing to the community."

"In addition to the clear benefit of removing C-8 from their
drinking water, addressing medical monitoring, and funding a
scientific study on the effects of PFOA exposure, this agreement
preserves people's rights to pursue any personal injury claims
they may have if their exposure to C-8 is found to be linked to
any disease or birth defects," said Robert A. Bilott of the
Cincinnati law firm of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP, one of
the class counsel for the plaintiffs.

The Charleston, W.Va. law firms of Hill, Peterson, Carper, Bee &
Deitzler, PLLC, and Winter Johnson & Hill, PLLC, also serve as
class counsel for the plaintiffs.


FLOWERS FOODS: Settles NC Suit Over Kosher Status of Pie Shells
---------------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods (NYSE: FLO), one of the nation's leading producers
and marketers of packaged bakery foods for retail and
foodservice customers reached an agreement to settle a
nationwide class action lawsuit, Schiller, et al. v. Flowers
Foods Inc., which was filed in Wake County, N.C. Plaintiffs
allege that Flowers failed to ensure the kosher status of
certain pie shells manufactured between 2000 and 2001 at a
former subsidiary of Flowers located in Pembroke, N.C. The
Pembroke plant ceased manufacturing in 2001. Tee Thomasville,
Georgia-headquartered company no longer manufactures pie shells.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, litigation will be
terminated and Flowers will donate $1 million in cash and $1.5
million in bread products to charitable organizations. The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
notice to class members and final court approval following
completion of a fairness hearing.

Flowers settled this matter to avoid further protracted
litigation, expense and distraction. The terms of the settlement
do not include admission of liability.


FORD MOTOR: CA Judge Denies Dismissal Motion in Manifolds Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to the law firm of Levy Ram & Olson, U.S. District
Court Judge Claudia Wilken denied a motion to dismiss a class
action lawsuit alleging that several recent models of cars
manufactured by the Ford Motor Company may contain inherently
defective engine intake manifolds, the Oakland Tribune reports.

The judge therefore upheld the plaintiffs' claims under the
California Legal Remedies Act and allowed the suit, which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California to go forward.

The lawsuit specifically alleges that the manifolds are
manufactured out of plastic and have an abnormal tendency to
crack, leading to overheating and in many cases complete engine
failure and/or damage to other parts of the engine. While Ford
has offered to replace these defective intake manifolds free of
charge for cars purchased by police forces and taxi cab
companies, they have yet to offer such a "recall" to individual
consumers who purchased the same cars. Consequently, consumers
must pay for their own repairs if the defective manifolds fail.

San Francisco-based Mike Ram, the lawyer for the plaintiff class
said that the following Ford automobiles equipped with Ford's
4.6 Liter SOHC engine may contain the allegedly defective engine
manifolds: Mercury Grand Marquis (1996-2001); Ford Mustang
(1996-2001); Ford Explorer (1996-2002); Ford Crown Victoria
(1996-2001); Lincoln Town Car (1996-2001); Mercury Cougar (1996-
1997); Ford Thunderbird (1996-1997), and all Mercury Grand
Marquis (1996-2001).

For more details, contact Maria Lopez of the law firm of Levy
Ram & Olson by E-mail: ml@lrolaw.com


H&R BLOCK: Directors Approve Settlement for MD Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
H&R Block, Inc.'s Board of Directors approved the settlement of
a class action filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City,
Maryland, styled "Joyce Green, et al. v. H&R Block, Inc., Block
Financial Corporation, et al., Case No. 97195023."

The settlement agreement provides for each class member to
receive a small cash payment and a one-time rebate coupon for
tax return preparation services and for the defendants to pay
settlement administration costs and court-approved legal fees of
class counsel.

The Company estimates the eventual cost of this settlement to
approximate $1.5 million, it stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.  The settlement agreement is
subject to, and will not be final until receipt of, approval
from the Circuit Court.


HASBRO INC.: Recalls 230T Monster Rockets Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hasbro Inc., of Pawtucket, Rhode Island is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 230,000 Super Soaker Monster Rocket.

The cap on the water tank can unexpectedly and forcibly project
off when it is quickly unscrewed from the tank, posing a risk of
impact injuries to users or bystanders. In addition, the
rocket's tail can strike a user or bystander on descent, if the
rocket is not fully launched, posing a risk of injury.

Hasbro has received four reports of the cap being unexpectedly
projected off the rocket, resulting in three injuries, including
a slight concussion and a cut requiring stitches. Additionally,
Hasbro has received four reports of children being struck by the
descending rocket, including three cuts that required stitches.

The Super Soaker Monster Rocket is composed of a 7-foot
inflatable mylar rocket with a plastic and foam fin section. The
rocket has a blue and orange launch base with a water pressure
tank attached to one leg of the base. The tank, which has an
orange cap, is connected to the pump mechanism, which launches
the rocket using pressurized air and water. The water toy has
the words "Monster Rocket" printed on the body of the rocket.

Manufactured in China, the rockets were sold at Toys `R' Us,
Wal-Mart, Target, KB Toys stores and other toy retailers
nationwide sold the rockets from January 2004 through August
2004 for about $30.

Consumers should stop using the rockets immediately and contact
Hasbro to receive a replacement product of equal value.

Consumer Contact: Consumers should contact toll-free Hasbro Inc.
at (866) 487-4737 anytime or log on to the company's Web site at
http://www.supersoaker.com


IDAHO: Resident Pleads Guilty To Grand Theft, Credit Card Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Boise, Idaho resident pled guilty to falsely obtaining credit
card account transaction numbers from his employer and
subsequently ordering merchandise via the Internet, Idaho
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said in a press release.

Travis L. Vansickle was ordered to pay $963.13 in restitution
for one felony count of grand theft.  Mr. Vansickle was earlier
sentenced by Fourth District Judge Michael Wetherell on June 24,
2004 to ten years probation.

Mr. Vansickle, a clerk working in a Boise retail business,
illegally copied customer names, addresses, credit card numbers
and the expiration date of the credit cards of nine customers of
his former employer.  He then used one credit card number to
purchase $936.13 in bicycle parts via the Internet.  He had the
other eight customer's credit card information in his possession
when he was arrested on April 22, 2003.

The Special Prosecutions Unit of the Attorney General's Criminal
Law Division prosecuted the case at the request of Ada County
Prosecuting Attorney Greg Bower.  Deputy Attorney General J.
Scott James prosecuted the case.

"This case is an example that identity theft is happening in
Idaho and we must be diligent in our efforts to guard against
it," Attorney General Wasden said.  "I encourage all Idahoans to
use precaution to safeguard against identity theft."

AG Wasden offered the following tips to avoid identity theft:

     (1) Review your monthly credit card and bank statements
         thoroughly and question any item that appears
         inaccurate.

     (2) Check your credit reports once a year.

     (3) Tear up or shred pre-approved credit card or loan
         offers before throwing them away.

     (4) Tear up or shred old bank and credit card statements,
         cancelled checks and other financial documents before
         disposal.

     (5) If your bank or credit card statements do not arrive on
         time, call the issuer to make sure they are being sent
         to the proper address. A thief may steal or divert your
         statements in order to hide illegal credit activity.

     (6) If you have several credit or debit cards, consider
         enrolling in a credit card registry service that will
         notify all of your creditors after one call from you.


ILLINOIS: Investors Lodge Fraud Lawsuit V. Charles L. Harris
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney James D. Wilson of Shefsky & Froelich on behalf of
Steven Gerbel along with Midd Cities Partners, LLC initiated a
class action lawsuit in Chicago against Charles L. Harris, a
Winnetka man accused of swindling at least $10 million from a
small pool of wealthy investors before fleeing the country in
July, the Pioneer Press Online reports.

Mr. Harris, 44, is accused of lying to 30 investors about the
performance of his hedge fund, Tradewinds International II, LP,
which was run from an office at 560 Green Bay Road. According to
the civil lawsuits, filed on September 1 by the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading
Commission, Harris told contributors in 2003 the fund's assets
ranged from $18 million to $23 million when in actuality its
holdings added up to a mere $1.1 million. By the end of 2003,
the fund had nearly bottomed out, though Harris continued to
take in investments until as recently as July, the agencies
charged. After illegally siphoning more than $1 million in
personal expenses, Harris left his home at 300 White Oak Lane in
late July and set off by boat to an offshore location.

According to Rosemary Hollinger, Chicago regional counsel for
the trading commission, Mr. Harris upon his departure sent a DVD
to three of his top investors on which he acknowledged that
profits had actually been down between 8 and 18 percent at the
time he was reporting 12-percent gains, said.

Mr. Wilson said he believed the number of investors Harris
defrauded was close to 60, double what federal authorities have
claimed. A federal court order was issued last week freezing
Harris's bank accounts and Tradewinds' assets. Harris's
whereabouts are unknown and his wife and three children are not
believed to be with him.

A search warrant was taped to the entrance of Harris's house
last week, which he bought in February 2001 for $1.5 million.


MISSOURI: Judge Approves Notification Plans For Suit V. Con Man
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County Circuit Judge Phillip J. Kardis approved a plan
to notify potential claimants in the class action suit against
Canadian con man James Blair Down, the St Louis Post Dispatch
reports.

Judge Kardis set a December 15 date for final approval of a
proposed $10 million settlement against Mr. Down, who is accused
of bilking 400,000 people worldwide, many of them elderly, out
of an estimated $200 million in a lottery scam in the 1990s. Mr.
Down had pleaded guilty in 1998 of conspiring to mail gambling
materials and subsequently served a six-month prison term and
paid about $12 million in restitution.

In Kardis' courtroom in Granite City, John W. Hoffman of the
class-action firm Korein Tillery and attorney for the victims,
promised, "the most comprehensive notice process ever,"
involving print advertising, a Web site and a toll-free
telephone help line.

However, Jody Pope, a New York lawyer representing class members
who object to the settlement proposal said he doubted that
Korein Tillery's notification campaign constituted a good-faith
effort to compensate Down's victims.

Madison County's role in what would become a circuitous legal
odyssey over the case started in 2000 when an Irish restitution
company, Interclaim Holdings, hired the powerhouse South
Carolina law firm of Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson and Pope
to pursue settlements from Mr. Down, who in turn retained Korein
Tillery to file the class action in Madison County.

Months later, Ness, Motley negotiated a deal with Mr. Down that
cut out Interclaim, the settlement was conditionally approved in
November 2001 in Madison County with Mr. Down paying the
plaintiffs' lawyers $2 million and his 400,000 victims would get
$6 million. Critics of the settlement argued that victims would
claim only a small portion of that amount because of a
complicated claim form.

Interclaim then sued Ness, Motley in federal court in Chicago
over the case and a jury promptly ordered the law firm to pay
$36 million, an award upheld on appeal.

In February, Judge Kardis gave preliminary approval to a
settlement that called for victims to get full reimbursement.

However, Mr. Pope, a New York lawyer representing several
objectors, complained that the settlement the judge approved was
virtually identical to one that Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron had
rejected. The only difference was that the February agreement
promised at least an extra $1 million, possibly much more, to
the class-action lawyers involved.

After the hearing, Mr. Hoffman, vowed to travel to Seattle to
examine documents in possession of a federal prosecutor there
that may contain more names of Mr. Down's victims, and possibly
financial data on the scam artist's net worth.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: OK Court Denies Class Status For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
According to Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (NYSE: PPD), a
significant favorable development in the litigation filed
against the Company and certain of its executive officers in
March 2002 has occurred.

On March 1, 2002, an action was filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma by Caroline
Sandler, Robert Schweikert, Sal Corrente, Richard Jarvis and
Vincent Jefferson against the Company and certain executive
officers. This action is a putative class action seeking
unspecified damages purportedly filed on behalf of sales
associates of the Company and alleges that the marketing plan
offered by the Company constitutes a security under the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks remedies for failure to
register the marketing plan as a security and for violations of
the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with representations alleged to have been made in
connection with the marketing plan. The complaint also alleges
violations of the Oklahoma Securities Act, the Oklahoma Business
Opportunities Sales Act, unjust enrichment and violation of the
Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act.

The case has been awaiting a ruling from the Court on whether it
should be certified as a class action. On September 8, 2004, the
Court issued its ruling denying class certification on multiple
grounds.

"Needless to say, we're very pleased with this favorable
ruling," stated Pre-Paid Chairman and CEO Harland C.
Stonecipher. "Subject to plaintiffs' right to pursue an interim
appeal, the ruling ends the case as a class action. This is a
very favorable development for Pre-Paid Legal Services and we
continue to believe very strongly the best is yet to come."

Pre-Paid Legal Services develops and markets legal service plans
across North America. The plans provide for legal service
benefits, including unlimited attorney consultation, will
preparation, traffic violation defense, automobile-related
criminal charges defense, letter writing, document preparation
and review and a general trial defense benefit.

For more details, visit http://www.prepaidlegal.com


UNITED PARCEL: Scott + Scott Lodges Disability Bias Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, initiated a nationwide class
action lawsuit in the United District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania on behalf of individuals who were
employees of United Parcel Service (NYSE: UPS) between March
2000 and the present.

The lawsuit charges UPS with systematic violations of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the federal law that
protects persons with disabilities from employment
discrimination. If proven, the claims could expose UPS to
millions of dollars in damages and eventually affect tens of
thousands of employees at UPS and other companies that follow
similar illegal policies.

According to one of the allegations in the lawsuit, filed in
federal court in Pittsburgh, UPS maintains a policy, pattern and
practice of requiring employees to provide a "full" or "100
percent" medical release, without restrictions, before
permitting employees to return to work following a medical leave
of absence. The lawsuit also charges that UPS refuses to meet in
good faith with its disabled employees to determine the extent
of their disabilities and what work the employees can perform at
UPS within the limits of their work restrictions, instead
conducting a sham investigation of the workers' medical
condition, which invariably results in a decision by UPS that
the individual is either too disabled to work at any job UPS has
or not disabled enough to warrant the protection of federal laws
that require UPS to assist the worker to return to work.  Either
way UPS puts the employee out of a job at the company.

Employees also contend that UPS refuses to reinstate permanently
disabled employees in a position that will accommodate their
medical restrictions in situations where reinstating them would
not impose an undue hardship on the company. Finally, the
lawsuit charges UPS retaliates against workers who have filed
workers compensation or discrimination claims by refusing to let
them return to work even if a 100% release is eventually
submitted, and in violation of the workers' seniority rights
under UPS' collective bargaining agreement with the
International Brotherhood of Teamsters.

"This case is about protecting workers' federally recognized
rights and ensuring that injured workers have a job to return
to," said Anita Laing, lead attorney for the plaintiffs. "These
hardworking employees give years of dedicated service to the
company, but when they get injured, the company turns its back
on them."

Plaintiffs are seeking a permanent injunction to enjoin UPS from
engaging in discriminatory employment practices in violation of
the ADA, as well as the implementation of policies that provide
equal employment opportunities for persons with present, past or
perceived disabilities.

"These practices are not just callous and dishonorable," Laing
said. "They also violate federal laws enacted to protect
American workers. These people want their jobs back."

Christian Bagin of the Pittsburgh firm of Wienand and Bagin, co-
counsel in the lawsuit, agrees.  "The ADA was intended precisely
to prevent big companies like UPS from slavishly working their
dedicated employees, then casting them off to unemployment or
disability when they become seriously sick or injured," he says.
"The ADA requires the company to honestly try to find an
alternative job or identify assistive devices or other
adjustments to the work environment that will allow these men
and women to continue to contribute to America's workforce. It's
not a choice.  It's the law."

Equal Justice Foundation of Columbus, Ohio, a nonprofit law firm
protecting the rights of the disabled, low-income and other
impact groups, has also joined in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit is Mark Hohider and Robert DiPaulo vs. United Parcel
Service, Inc., Civil Action No. 04-0363 (W.D. Pa.).


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Sue Agriculture Dept For Race Bias
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Agriculture faces a new class
action filed by black farmers, alleging that the agency
discriminated against them in loans and farm programs, the
Associated Press reports.  The suit seeks $20.5 billion on
behalf of 25,000 blacks who farmed or attempted to farm between
1997 and 2004.

A similar civil rights case was filed against the agency,
alleging that it systematically denied federal loans and
subsidies for years.  It was settled in 1999.  However, a report
filed by the Environmental Working Group and the National Black
Farmers Association revealed that many farmers' claims were
rejected.  The report said about 96,000 black farmers sought
restitution under the settlement; 72,438 of those claims were
rejected in arbitration; and 7,800 for failing to meet filing
deadlines, AP reports.

The Black Farmers and Agriculturalist Association and 11 other
plaintiffs filed the suit.  "The last thing in the world the
African-American should be denied is the right to farm - that is
the reason we were brought here. ... Farming should be an
entitlement to black folk. Our great-grandfathers and great-
grandmothers paid for that opportunity," Thomas Burrell,
president of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalist Association
told AP.

The Agriculture Department said it could not comment on pending
litigation.  However, USDA spokesman Ed Loyd said the agency's
record on implementing and observing civil rights laws during
the Bush Administration has been exemplary, AP reports.

"We have implemented numerous initiatives to improve our service
to all farmers and ranchers, especially minorities and women,"
he said. "That is something that has been a priority for us and
we have a very strong record of accomplishment on that."


UNITED STATES: FDA Charged With Obstructing Depressants Inquiry
---------------------------------------------------------------
Republican lawmakers accuse the United States Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) of obstructing a congressional inquiry
about the agency's possible suppression of evidence showing a
possible link between antidepressant use and suicidal behavior
in youth, Reuters reports.

Last year, questions about the link between depressants and
suicidal behavior arose, after regulators reviewed studies of
children who GlaxoSmithKline Plc's Paxil.  Only Eli Lilly and
Co.'s Prozac, sold generically as fluoxetine, is approved for
treating pediatric depression.

The FDA has not concluded if there is a link.  Last month, the
agency said it would update antidepressant labels to include
information from various studies.  A panel of outside experts
convened by the FDA meets next week to discuss the issue.

Rep. Joe Barton, of Texas, chairman of the U.S. House Energy and
Commerce Committee, said the FDA has been uncooperative during
the committee's seven-month inquiry.  "Unfortunately, over the
last several months, the committee has been met mostly with
stonewalling, slow-rolling and plain incompetence from the FDA,"
Rep. Barton said, according to Reuters.

The committee asked for all documents that raised questions
about antidepressant use in children, but an FDA employee
decided to limit the records sent, he added.  If necessary, "we
will send committee staff to the FDA with the (U.S.) Capitol
Police ... and we will go through the files ourselves," he said
at a committee hearing.

Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA's acting deputy commissioner for
operations, told Reuters the agency provided the requested
documents and "will make every effort to cooperate with the
committee."  She also said committee staff had declined
invitations to review records at the FDA but were still welcome
to do so.

According to lawmakers, the FDA and drug makers failed to
quickly warn the about potential links between antidepressants
and suicidal behavior in youth, and about studies that failed to
show most of the drugs worked in kids.

"Parents are frantic. Their children are depressed, and they are
under the illusion these drugs will work," said Rep. Diana
DeGette, a Colorado Democrat, according to Reuters.

An FDA letter to drug maker Wyeth, released by the House
committee, urged the company not to include a warning about
"hostility and suicide-related adverse events" to a section
about pediatric use on the label for antidepressant Effexor.
FDA officials allegedly felt that language would be confusing
and preferred a more general statement that was being added to
other antidepressant labels, Dr. Woodcock said. She added that
the FDA had released information it was legally permitted to
make public, Reuters reports.

Drug company executives told the panel they were making more
data public. Several firms have put data on their Web sites, and
an industry group is setting up a database.

Major medical journals said this week they would not publish
results from any clinical trials that were not registered in a
national database.  Some lawmakers are developing legislation to
make reporting of trial results mandatory.  "The industry should
make every effort, or Congress will come down with a registry,"
said Republican Rep. Cliff Stearns of Florida.


WORLDCOM: Former CEO's Lawyers Seek Immunity For Two Witnesses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for former WorldCom Chief Executive Bernard Ebbers asked
New York court to grant immunity to two witnesses who they
believe could clear Mr. Ebbers of fraud charges relating to the
Company's $11 billion accounting scandal, according to court
papers filed on Wednesday, Reuters reports.

The papers asked a judge to order the "the government to grant
immunity to two defense witnesses possessing exculpatory
evidence."  Court papers further stated that the witnesses,
identified as former Chief Operating Officer Ronald Beaumont and
former Head of Revenue Accounting Ronald Lomenzo, could testify
that Mr. Ebbers did not design the accounting policies at the
center of the scandal.   If granted immunity, the two former
executives could testify "whether former Chief Financial Officer
Scott Sullivan was the ultimate decision-maker on the accounting
decisions at issue in the indictment," according to the papers.

The papers also asked the court to dismiss the charges against
Mr. Ebbers.  In March, Mr. Ebbers pleaded not guilty, shortly
after the government reached a cooperation agreement with Mr.
Sullivan, his one-time top lieutenant at WorldCom, now known as
MCI (Nasdaq:MCIP).  Sullivan pleaded guilty to three criminal
charges related to the fraud as part of a deal with prosecutors
to cooperate in the case against Ebbers.

Mr. Ebbers faces up to five years in prison if convicted of
conspiracy. The counts of securities fraud and making false
statements in public filings each carry a maximum sentence of 10
years in prison and a $1 million fine, Reuters reports.  Mr.
Ebbers' trial is expected in early November, although his
lawyers asked that it be delayed until February 2005.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Ceridian Corporation. ("Ceridian" or the "Company") (NYSE:
CEN) between April 17, 2003 and July 19, 2004, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Minnesota, against defendants Ceridian, Ronald
L. Turner (President, CEO, Chairman), John R. Eickhoff (Chief
Financial Officer) and Loren D. Gross (Controller).

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
artificially inflated the price of Ceridian stock by issuing
financial statements that were materially false and misleading
for the following reasons:

     (1) the Company had been capitalizing software costs
         instead of expensing such costs at its U.S. Human
         Resource Solutions business;

     (2) as a result of inappropriately capitalizing costs,
         Ceridian's reported earnings and assets were
         artificially inflated;

     (3) contrary to defendants' express representations, the
         Company's reported financial statements were not made
         in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and did not fairly present the Company's
         results and financial condition; and

     (4) the Company's seeming success was, in fact,
         attributable in material part to defendants' accounting
         manipulations.

On July 19, 2004, Ceridian issued a press release announcing
that it had launched an internal investigation examining the
Company's capitalization and expensing of costs. According to
the press release, the Company would not issue financial results
until the review was completed, noting that the outcome may
impact Ceridian's financial statements for the second quarter of
2004 and prior periods. Ceridian's stock price declined sharply
in response to this disclosure, falling from $20.34 per share on
July 19, 2004 to $18.21 per share on July 20, 2004, a one day
drop of 10.4%, on unusually heavy trading volume of over 6.8
million shares. During the Class Period, defendants Eickhoff,
the Company's CFO, sold a total of 165,298 shares of Ceridian
common stock for proceeds of $2,961,607, while defendant Turner,
the Company's CEO, sold 51,000 shares for proceeds of
$1,014,560.

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


DECODE GENETICS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of deCODE genetics, Inc. ("deCODE")
(NASDAQ:DCGN) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 29, 2003 and August 26, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges deCODE and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. deCODE is a population genetics company developing drugs
and deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA)-based diagnostics, based upon
its discoveries in the inherited causes of common diseases.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused deCODE's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading statements,
including by concealing its continuing internal control
problems. As a result of this inflation, deCODE was able to
complete a public offering of $150 million worth of convertible
notes in April 2004, raising net proceeds of $144 million. Then,
on August 26, 2004, deCODE filed a Form 8-K with the SEC in
which it disclosed the resignation of its outside accountant and
disclosed a "reportable condition" with respect to deCODE's
closing procedures. On this news, deCODE's stock collapsed to
$5.70 per share, 58% below the Class Period high of $13.80 per
share.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 or by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/decode/


DECODE GENETICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of deCODE genetics, Inc. ("deCODE" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: DCGN) from October 29, 2003 through August 26, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants deCODE, Kari Stefansson,
and Lance Thibault 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 October 29, 2003 and August 26, 2004. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the defendants'
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse
facts, among others:

     (1) that Company's period-end financial closing procedures
         were materially deficient;

     (2) as such, deCODE, during the Class Period, improperly
         recognized revenue in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

On August 26, 2004, deCODE announced the filing of a Form 8-K
with the Securities and Exchange Commission relating to the
August 19, 2004 resignation of PricewaterhouseCoopers ("PwC") as
deCODE's independent registered public accounting firm. PwC had
acted as deCODE's independent registered public accounting firm
since deCODE's formation in 1996. In a letter to the SEC, PwC
stated that it could not comment on the following:

     (i) The current condition of any reportable conditions in
         internal controls or with regard to the implementation
         of procedures of any kind to mitigate such reportable
         conditions; and

    (ii) The disclosure indicating that the resignation of PwC
         was neither approved nor recommended by deCODE's Audit
         Committee.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of deCODE, on August 27,
2004, declined $0.60 per share, or 9.52 percent, to close at
$5.70 per share on unusually high trading volume.

For more details, 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


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in MO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Express Scripts, Inc. ("Express
Scripts" or the "Company") [Nasdaq: ESRX] between October 29,
2003 and August 3, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against
defendants Express Scripts and certain officers and directors of
the Company.

The case name is Childress v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that Express Scripts artificially inflated the cost of
         generic drugs;

     (2) that millions of dollars worth of rebates that belonged
         to its participating customers were diverted to the
         Company itself;

     (3) that the Company caused, through fraud and deception,
         physicians to replace patients' prescribed drug with
         another for which Express Scripts was rewarded with
         money from the substituted drug's manufacturer;

     (4) that the aforementioned deceitful practices were in
         violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles;

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (6) that as result of the foregoing, Express Scripts'
         financial results were materially inflated at all
         relevant times.

On July 28, 2004, Express Scripts announced second quarter net
income of $65.4 million. The Company announced that the Company
received a Notice of Proposed Litigation from the Office of the
Attorney General of the State of New York in that announcement,
in addition to discussing its fourth quarter financial results.
On August 4, 2004, New York Attorney General's office announced
that it filed a lawsuit against Express Scripts alleging that
the Company conducted elaborate schemes that inflated the costs
of prescription drugs by millions of dollars to New York State's
largest employee health plan, the Empire Plan.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Christopher
S. Hinton, Esq., George Peters or Derek Behnke of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-
mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.whafh.com/cases/expressscripts.htm


IMPAC MEDICAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 IMPAC
Medical Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:IMPCE) between November 20, 2002
and May 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

For more details, contact the law offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: 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


LATICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Charles J. Piven Lodges OR Securities 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 Lattice
Semiconductor Corp. (Nasdaq:LSCC) between April 22, 2003 and
April 19, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Oregon. 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 Phone: 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


NASSDA CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Files Stock Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of Nassda
Corporation (NASDAQ: NSDA) ("Nassda" or the "Company") between
December 13, 2001 and June 11, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), including those who acquired their shares pursuant to
its Initial Public Offering ("IPO").

The Complaint alleges that Nassda and certain of its officers
and directors issued materially false statements concerning
Nassda's business condition and seeks to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose that Nassda, whose
founders are all former employees of Synopsys Corporation
("Synopsys"), engaged in misappropriation of trade secrets and
infringement of a patent entitled "Hierarchical Power Network
Simulation and Analysis Tool for Reliability Testing of Deep
Submicron Designs" (the "'053 patent"). Synopsys has filed two
suits against Nassda alleging that Nassda has induced or
contributed to the infringement of the '053 patent by making
infringing products and creating source code for infringing
products and then selling, distributing, advertising and
marketing those infringing products to others.

On June 14, 2004, Nassda revealed that the California state
court had issued orders on June 11, against defendants in the
Synopsys litigation which limited Nassda's defenses and
established as fact that the first 60,000 lines of source code
of Nassda's Hierarchial Storage and Isomorphic Matching ("HSIM")
software product and all ideas and concepts reflected therein
were derived from Synopsys' code or other Synopsys materials
while the defendants were employed by Synopsys. The court also
ruled that the defendants acted in concert to intentionally
alter, destroy, lose or misplace items requested in discovery
and conceal evidence. On this news, Nassda plummeted to below
$4.00 per share.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: NSDA@bernlieb.com


NETFLIX INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of Netflix, Inc.
(NASDAQ: NFLX) ("Netflix" or the "Company") between October 1,
2003 through July 15, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint charges Netflix, Reed Hastings and W. Barry
McCarthy Jr. 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 knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company's growth was adversely affected
         by substantial customer attrition;

     (2) that in order to camouflage the high rate of customer
         attrition, defendants manipulated the Company's churn
         rate; and

     (3) 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 15, 2004, Netflix reported results for the second
quarter ended June 30, 2004. The press release disclosed the
true number of customer cancellations suffered by the Company.
Following the announcement, shares of Netflix fell $8.98 per
share or 28.06 percent, on July 16, 2004, to close at $23.02 per
share.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: NFLX@bernlieb.com


SALESFORCE.COM INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased or acquired securities of Salesforce.com, Inc. (NYSE:
CRM) ("Salesforce" or the "Company") between June 21, 2004
through July 21, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

The complaint charges that Salesforce, Marc R. Benioff, and
Steve Cakebread violated 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 knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its revenues and earnings per share were
         steadily declining;

     (2) that the defendants concealed the aforementioned facts
         from the investing public in order to boost the price
         of the IPO, which netted the Company $126 million; and

    (3) 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 21, 2004, Salesforce warned that profit and revenue for
the full year will be lower than expected, and the stock
promptly plunged. Shares of Salesforce fell $4.36 per share or
27.15 percent, on July 21, 2004, to close at $11.70 per share.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: CRM@bernlieb.com


SYNOPSYS INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. commenced a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Synopsys,
Inc. (Nasdaq:SNPS) between December 3, 2003 and August 18, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. 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


TECO ENERGY: Brian M. Felgoise Files Securities Fraud Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. commenced a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
TECO Energy, Inc. (NYSE: TE) securities between October 30, 2001
and February 4, 2003, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

The action charges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


VISTACARE INC.: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit Fraud in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit in the District of Arizona on behalf of its
client seeking class action status on behalf of persons who
purchased publicly traded securities of VistaCare, Inc.
("VistaCare") (Nasdaq:VSTA), between November 6, 2003, and
August 5, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period').

The Complaint alleges that VistaCare, a provider of hospice
services, and certain of its officers and directors, issued
materially false statements concerning the Company's financial
condition. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, VistaCare issued quarter after quarter of record
financial growth, but failed to disclose that these gains were
partially the result of failing to properly reserve for its
Medicare reimbursements cap in violation of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles.

On August 5, 2004, VistaCare issued a press release announcing
second quarter results for the quarter ending June 30. The
release stated that these results were impacted by the decision
to accrue $6.2 million in the quarter for VistaCare's annual
Medicare cap reserve. On this news, VistaCare's share price
declined from a closing price of $18.72 on August 5, 2004, to
$15.28 on August 6, 2004, a one-day decline of 18%.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Audrey Braccio
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005
by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 by E-mail:
abraccio@cmht.com or stolldc@cmht.com


WET SEAL: Robbins Umeda Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Firm of Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP announces that it has
filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of The Wet Seal, Inc. (Nasdaq:WTSLA) ("Wet
Seal" or the "Company") between January 9, 2003 and August 19,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Wet Seal, Peter D. Whitford, William B.
Langsdorf, Douglas C. Felderman, Irving Teitelbaum and La Senza
Corporation 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, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company was hemorrhaging cash at a material
         rate requiring that the Company liquidate its stores,
         close stores and/or file for protection under the
         United States bankruptcy laws;

     (2) that Teitelbaum and La Senza's claims for the
         divestiture of Wet Seal shares was not motivated by
         streaming La Senza, but rather because the two had
         inside knowledge that the Company's accounting was
         false, the projections were unattainable and that the
         Company's new 2004 back to school line was a disaster;
         and

     (3) that as a result of the above, the Company's
         projections, outlooks and positive statements were
         lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

On August 19, 2004, Wet Seal, after the market closed, shocked
the market by reporting net loss from continuing operations of
$3.20 per share for the second quarter ended July 31, 2004.
Following this post-market announcement, shares of Wet Seal shed
$1.25 per share, or 59.52 percent, to close at $0.85 per share
on unusually high trading volume on August 20, 2004.

For more details, contact Amanda Aguirre - Shareholder Relations
of ROBBINS UMEDA & FINK, LLP by Mail: 1010 Second Ave., Suite
2360, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: (800) 350-6003 or by E-mail:
aguirre@ruflaw.com


WORLD INFORMATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of World Information Technology Inc.
(OTC: WRLT) ("World Information Technology") between January 3,
2003 and March 16, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period World
Information Technology reported artificially inflated sales,
accounts receivable and net income. The truth was partially
revealed when their outside auditor, Beckstead & Watts, LLP,
resigned in January, 2004. Then, on March 16, 2004, the
Securities and Exchange Commission temporarily suspended trading
of World Information Technology securities due to the inaccuracy
and incompleteness of its financial statements.

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


ZIX CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of purchasers of Zix Corporation ("Zix") (NASDAQ:ZIXI)
common stock during the period between October 30, 2003 and May
4, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Zix and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Zix is a global provider of e-messaging protection and
transaction services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's business and prospects. The defendants
concealed from the investing public the following facts during
the Class Period:

     (1) the Company was experiencing sluggish doctor adoption
         to e-prescribing;

     (2) the Company's claim that it would achieve 1,000
         deployed active doctors by the end of Q4 2003 was false
         and misleading because physicians would be required to
         reconfigure their patient data, obtain wireless
         coverage and implement a wireless LAN, which were
         severely undercutting physician acceptance and
         deployment;

     (3) the Company's claim it had 4,000 deployments already on
         order was false because, at the time of claim, the
         physicians' sites had not even been surveyed to
         evaluate wireless/LAN needs, all of which would
         drastically impact not only the timing of these
         "ordered" deployments but also whether these so-called
         ordered deployments would ever be truthfully ordered
         and deployed; and

     (4) new offerings from its Elron acquisition were delayed
         as a result of integration problems.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Zix's stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $17.33 on April 12, 2004, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors sold more than $4.6 million worth of
their own shares and raised an additional $10 million through
the conversion of warrants.

On May 4, 2004, the Company announced its results for Q1 2004,
including larger loss than market expectations. On this news,
the Company's shares were sent into a freefall, tumbling 50% in
the following trading days to below $7 per share.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 by E-mail
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/zix/

                            *********


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  * * *