CAR_Public/040914.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, September 14, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 182

                          Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: NY Suit Dismissal Reargument Motion Denied
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Wardrobing Lawsuits Still in Various Courts
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Two Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA, OH
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Third Amended Race Bias Lawsuit Filed in CA
ALLOY INC.: Starts Settlement Process for NY Securities Lawsuit

ALLOY INC.: Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set November 4
BLUE COAT: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
BROOKSTONE INC.: Plaintiff Appeals Overtime Settlement Approval
CALIFORNIA: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of WA Utility Suit
dELiA*s INC.: NY Stock Suit Settlement Effective August 23,2004

DOLLAR TREE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
EATON VANCE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Mutual Fund Suit in NY
FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
FIRST YEARS: Settles MA Stockholders' Lawsuit Over RC2 Merger
FLORIDA: Sprint, AT&T To Pay $1.5M in Credit Reports Settlement

HALLIBURTON COMPANY: TX Judge Refuses To Approve $6M Settlement
IDENTIX INC.: Oregon Resident Lodges Suit Over Mistaken Identity
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
INTERMUNE INC.: Shareholders Launch New Securities Lawsuit in CA
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: IN Judge Hears Fraud Case, No Ruling Issued

KIA MOTORS: Recalls 125T SUVs For Electricity Generator Defects
LOEHMANNS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated DE Stock Suit
MANDALAY RESORT: Appeals Court Appeals Suit Certification Denial
MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Consumers Launch Suit Over Credit Cards in CA

NEW YORK: 600 People Lodge Suit V. Health Effects of WTC Cleanup
NEW ZEALAND: Citizens Urged To Join Action V. Tobacco Companies
NORDSTROM INC.: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 2004 in CA
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in CA
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Tentative $250M SEC Settlement

SECURITIY LIFE: Agrees To Pay $26.4M To Policyholders in CO Suit
SPORTS AUTHORITY: CA Court Approves Overtime Lawsuit Settlement
SUMMIT MEDICAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set December 3, 2004
SYNOPSYS INC.: Shareholders Lodge Second Securities Suit in MN
TORO INC.: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Lawnmowers in IL Court

TRAMITES NOTARIOS: TX Jury Metes $1M Fine For Immigration Fraud
TSA STORES: IL High Court Yet To Rule on Suit Dismissal Appeal
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Reaches $9.95M Co-pay Suit Settlement in MN
WASHINGTON: LAW Fund Receives $228T "Cy-Pres" Award From Lawsuit
WELLS FARGO: NY Appeals Court Reinstates Suit V. Excessive Fees

WET SEAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in C.D. CA

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

TECO ENERGY: Shepherd Finkelman Files Securities Suit in M.D. FL



                           *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: NY Suit Dismissal Reargument Motion Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York will not reconsider its refusal to dismiss a
consolidated securities class action filed against Abercrombie &
Fitch Co. and certain of its officers and directors.  The suit
was filed on behalf of a purported, but as yet uncertified,
class of shareholders who purchased the Company's Class A Common
Stock between October 8, 1999 and October 13, 1999.

Twenty actions were initially filed in the United States
District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, alleging violations
of the federal securities laws and seeking unspecified damages.
On April 12, 2000, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued a Transfer Order transferring the 20 pending
actions to the Southern District of New York for consolidated
pretrial proceedings under the caption "In re Abercrombie &
Fitch Securities Litigation."

On November 16, 2000, the Court signed an Order appointing the
Hicks Group, a group of seven unrelated investors in A&F's
securities, as lead plaintiff, and appointing lead counsel in
the consolidated action.  On December 14, 2000, plaintiffs filed
a Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint in which they did
not name as defendants Lazard Freres & Co. and Todd Slater, who
had formerly been named as defendants in certain of the 20
complaints.

The Company and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
Amended Complaint on February 14, 2001.  On November 14, 2003,
the motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint were denied.  On
December 2, 2003, the Company moved for reconsideration or re-
argument of the November 14, 2003 order denying the motions to
dismiss.  The motions for reconsideration or reargument were
fully briefed and submitted to the Court on January 9, 2004.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Wardrobing Lawsuits Still in Various Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. continues to face six actions been filed
on behalf of purported classes of employees and former employees
of the Company alleging that the Company required its associates
to wear and pay for a "uniform" in violation of applicable law.
In each case, the plaintiff, on behalf of his or her purported
class, seeks injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of
economic and liquidated damages.

Two of these cases, "Jennifer M. Solis v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc." and "A&F California, LLC and Sarah Stevenson v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.," allege violations of California law
and were filed on February 10, 2003 and February 4, 2003 in the
California Superior Courts for Los Angeles County and San
Francisco County, respectively.  An answer was filed in the
Solis case on March 26, 2003.  Pursuant to a Petition for
Coordination, the Solis and the Stevenson cases were coordinated
by order issued November 17, 2003.

Another suit, styled "Shelby Port v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,
Inc.," which alleges violations of Washington law, was filed on
July 18, 2003 in the Washington Superior Court of King County.
The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the
Port case on September 5, 2003.  Plaintiff since filed an
amended complaint on August 9, 2004, adding three new named
plaintiffs.  The defendant intends to re-file its motion to
dismiss.

"Jadii Mohme v. Abercrombie & Fitch," which alleges violations
of Illinois law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in the Illinois
Circuit Court of St. Clair County.  A first amended complaint
was filed in the Mohme case on September 10, 2003 to change the
defendant to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." from
"Abercrombie & Fitch."  An answer to the first amended complaint
was filed in the Mohme case on September 26, 2003.

"Holly Zemany v. Abercrombie & Fitch," which alleges violations
of Pennsylvania law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.  A first
amended complaint was filed in the Zemany case on September 9,
2003 to change the defendant to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,
Inc." from "Abercrombie & Fitch."  A second amended complaint
was filed November 10, 2003, adding some factual allegations.
Defendant filed an answer to the second amended complaint on
January 22, 2004.

In "Michael Gualano v. Abercrombie & Fitch," which was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on March 14, 2003, the plaintiff alleges that the
"uniform," when purchased, drove associates' wages below the
federal minimum wage.  The complaint purports to state a
collective action on behalf of part-time associates under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  A first amended complaint was filed
in the Gualano case on September 9, 2003, to change the
defendant to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." from
"Abercrombie & Fitch."  An answer to the first amended complaint
was filed in the Gualano case on September 24, 2003.

Jadii Mohme and Holly Zemany have stayed their claims in state
court and joined their claims with Michael Gualano along with
four other named plaintiffs in four other states in a second
amended complaint, which the defendant has answered.  The
parties are in the process of settling these claims.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Faces Two Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA, OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. continues to face two actions filed
against it, involving overtime compensation.  In each action,
the plaintiffs, on behalf of their respective purported class,
seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic and
liquidated damages.

In "Bryan T. Kimbell, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated and on Behalf of the Public v. Abercrombie &
Fitch Stores, Inc.," which was filed on July 10, 2002 in the
California Superior Court for Los Angeles County, the plaintiffs
allege that California general and store managers were entitled
to receive overtime pay as "non-exempt" employees under
California wage and hour laws.

An answer was filed in the Kimbell case on September 4, 2002 and
the parties are in the process of discovery.  Plaintiff has
filed, and the defendant has opposed, a motion to certify a
class of store managers in California.  That motion is pending.

In "Melissa Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," which was filed on June 13,
2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, the plaintiffs allege that assistant managers
and store managers were not paid overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.  The
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Mitchell case on July
28, 2003.  The case was transferred from the Western Division to
the Eastern Division of the Southern District of Ohio on April
21, 2004.  The defendants subsequently renewed their motion to
dismiss, which is pending.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Third Amended Race Bias Lawsuit Filed in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a third amended race discrimination class
action against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

The suit alleges that the Company discriminated against the
class in hiring or employment decisions due to race and/or
national origin.  The suit, styled "Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.," was subsequently amended to add A&F
California, LLC, Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. and A&F Ohio,
Inc. as defendants.

The plaintiffs allege, on behalf of their purported class that
they were discriminated against in hiring and employment
decisions due to their race and/or national origin.  The
plaintiffs seek, on behalf of their purported class, injunctive
relief and unspecified amounts of economic, compensatory and
punitive damages.

A second amended complaint, which added two additional
plaintiffs, was filed on or about January 9, 2004.  Defendants
filed an answer to the second amended complaint on January 26,
2004.  A third amended complaint was filed June 10, 2004,
restating the original claims and adding two individual, but not
class, claims of gender discrimination.  The defendants filed an
answer on June 21, 2004.


ALLOY INC.: Starts Settlement Process for NY Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alloy, Inc. has started the process of obtaining approval for
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against it in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) James K. Johnson, Jr.,

     (2) Matthew C. Diamond,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (4) Volpe Brown Whelan and Company,

     (5) Dain Rauscher Wessel and

     (6) Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc.

The complaint purportedly was filed on behalf of persons
purchasing the Company's common stock between May 14, 1999 and
December 6, 2000 and alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriters of
the initial public offering.  The amended complaint asserts
violations of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and mirrors
allegations asserted against scores of other issuers sued by
plaintiffs' counsel.

Pursuant to an omnibus agreement negotiated with representatives
of the plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Diamond and Mr. Johnson have
been dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.  In
accordance with the court's case management instructions, the
Company joined in a global motion to dismiss the amended
complaints, which was filed by the issuers' liaison counsel.

By opinion and order dated February 19, 2003, the District Court
denied in part and granted in part the global motion to dismiss.
With respect to the Company, the District Court dismissed the
Section 10(b) claim and let the plaintiffs proceed on the
Section 11 claim.  Accordingly, the remaining claim against the
Company will focus solely on whether the registration statement
filed in connection with the Company's initial public offering
contained an untrue statement of a material fact or omitted to
state a material fact required to be stated therein or necessary
to make the statement therein not misleading.

Although the Company has not retained a damages expert at this
time, the dismissal of the Section 10(b) claim likely will
reduce the potential damages that plaintiffs can claim, the
Company stated in a regulatory filing.

The Company and the individual defendants have retained Mintz,
Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC in connection with
this matter.  The Company participated in the court-ordered
mediation with the other issuer defendants, the issuers'
insurers and plaintiffs to explore whether a global resolution
of the claims against the issuers could be reached.  To this
end, a memorandum of understanding setting forth the proposed
terms of a settlement was signed by counsel to several issuers,
including the Company's counsel, which is not binding upon it.
The memorandum of understanding had been signed, and that the
process of obtaining the approval of all parties to the
settlement was underway.  Any definitive settlement, however,
will require final approval by the court after notice to all
class members and a fairness hearing.


ALLOY INC.: Suit Settlement Fairness Hearing Set November 4
------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Alloy, Inc. is set for
November 4,2004 in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company and:

     (1) James K. Johnson, Jr.,

     (2) Matthew C. Diamond and

     (3) Samuel A. Gradess

The complaints purportedly were filed on behalf of persons who
purchased the Company's common stock between August 1, 2002 and
January 23, 2003, and, among other things, allege violations of
Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder stemming from a series of allegedly false
and misleading statements made by the Company to the market
between August 1, 2002 and January 23, 2003.

At a conference held on May 30, 2003, the court consolidated the
actions.  On August 5, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated
class action complaint naming the same defendants, which
supersedes the initial complaint.  Relying in part on
information allegedly obtained from former employees, the
Consolidated Complaint alleges, among other things,
misrepresentations of the Company's business and financial
condition and the results of operations during the period from
March 16, 2001 through January 23, 2003, which artificially
inflated the price of Company stock, including without
limitation, improper acceleration of revenue, misrepresentation
of expense treatment, failure to properly account for and
disclose consignment transactions, and improper deferral of
expense recognition.

The Consolidated Complaint further alleges that during the class
period the individual defendants and the Company sold stock and
completed acquisitions using the Company's stock.  The parties
have entered into a stipulation providing for the settlement of
the claims against all defendants including the Company, for
$6.75 million.  That amount, which was paid by the Company's
insurers, is being held in escrow pending the fairness hearing.


BLUE COAT: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Coat Systems, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the securities class action filed
against it, certain of its officers and directors and the firms
that underwrote the Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated suit, styled "In re CacheFlow, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation., Civil Action No. 1-01-
CV-5143," alleges that the underwriters obtained excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of
shares of common stock in the Company's initial public offering,
and maintained artificially high market prices through tie-in
arrangements which required customers to buy shares in the
after-market at pre-determined prices.

The complaint alleges that the Company and its current and
former officers and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, by making material false and misleading statements in
the prospectus incorporated in the Company's Form S-1
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in November 1999.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock between November 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

A lead plaintiff has been appointed for the consolidated cases
pending in New York.  On April 19, 2002 plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  Various plaintiffs have filed similar
actions asserting virtually identical allegations against over
300 other public companies, their underwriters, and their
officers and directors arising out of each company's public
offering.  The lawsuits against the Company, along with these
other related securities class actions currently pending in the
Southern District of New York, have been assigned to Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings and are
collectively captioned "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92."

Defendants in these cases have filed omnibus motions to dismiss.
On February 19, 2003, the Court denied in part and granted in
part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants,
including the Company.  The Court's order did not dismiss any
claims against the Company.  As a result, discovery may now
proceed.  The Company's officers and directors have been
dismissed without prejudice in this litigation.

Under the settlement, the plaintiffs would dismiss and release
all claims against participating defendants, including the
Company, in exchange for a contingent payment undertaking by the
insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the
issuer defendants in the coordinated action, and assignment or
surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer
defendants may have against the underwriters.  Pursuant to the
undertaking, the insurers would be required to pay the amount,
if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the total amount ultimately
collected by the plaintiffs from the non-settling defendants
in the coordinated action.   The settlement is subject to a
number of conditions, including Court approval.


BROOKSTONE INC.: Plaintiff Appeals Overtime Settlement Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the plaintiffs appealed the California Superior Court in
Los Angeles' approval of the settlement of the class action
filed against Brookstone, Inc. on behalf of current and former
managers and assistant managers of the Company's California
stores.  The suit alleges that the plaintiffs were improperly
classified as exempt employees.  The lawsuit sought damages
including overtime pay, restitution and attorneys fees.

On August 15, 2003, a settlement agreement was finalized with a
maximum amount of $1.5 million for this matter.  On April 16,
2004 and April 29, 2004, the Los Angeles Superior Court held
hearings to determine whether the Class Action Settlement and
Release Agreement negotiated between the Company and various
named Plaintiffs should be granted final approval.

On April 29, 2004, the Court ruled that the Agreement was fair,
reasonable, and adequate to the class members, certified a class
for settlement purposes only, and overruled the one objection to
the Agreement filed by one class member.  On May 5, 2004, the
Court entered an order granting final approval to the Agreement;
and entered judgment dismissing the wage and hour class actions
filed in Los Angeles County (Berry, et al. v. Brookstone) and
Santa Barbara (Charbonnea v. Brookstone) against Brookstone with
prejudice as to all class members, with the exception of the
four class members who opted out of the Agreement.

On July 6, 2004, one class member appealed the final order of
the Court.  Settlement funds will be distributed, if at all, on
terms ordered by the Court only after the appeal is resolved.


CALIFORNIA: Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of WA Utility Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco refused
to reinstate Washington-based Snohomish Public Utility
District's class-action lawsuit that claimed power companies
illegally drove up electricity prices during California's energy
crisis four years ago, the Associated Press reports.

The federal appeals court ruled that the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), not a court, should handle the
Washington state public utility's complaint thus upholding a
lower-court judge's decision on the case.

FERC also ruled against the utility, which accuses the power
companies of violating California's antitrust and unfair-
competition laws and manipulated Western wholesale power
markets.

Judge Mary M. Schroeder on behalf of the unanimous three-judge
panel wrote, "FERC has exclusive jurisdiction over interstate
sales of wholesale electricity." She added that the commission's
jurisdiction includes California wholesale power markets and
that "if the prices in those markets were not just and
reasonable, Snohomish's only option is to seek a remedy before
FERC."  Judge Schroeder also noted that FERC had already
punished many wholesalers for manipulating markets.


dELiA*s INC.: NY Stock Suit Settlement Effective August 23,2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against dELiA*s, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York became effective on August
23,2004.  The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's officers and directors.

The consolidated complaint alleges, among other things, that the
Defendants violated Rule 10b-5 under the 1934 Act by making
material misstatements and by failing to disclose certain
allegedly material information regarding trends in the business
during part of 1998.


DOLLAR TREE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Tree Stores, Inc. faces a complaint filed in California
state court by several current and former employees who allege
that the Company's store managers and assistant managers in
California should have been classified as non-exempt, hourly
employees under California law.

The suit further alleges that these employees should have
received overtime compensation and should have taken rest and
meal period breaks.  The suit seeks to have the court certify
the case as a class action on behalf of all California store
employees who were misclassified as exempt, salaried employees,
were denied rest and meal period breaks, or were required to
work off the clock and, among other things, award overtime
compensation to these employees and compensatory and punitive
damages.


EATON VANCE: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Mutual Fund Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eaton Vance Corporation faces a consolidated amended complaint
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, captioned "In Re Eaton Vance Mutual Funds
Fee Litigation."  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Eaton Vance Management,

     (2) Boston Management and Research,

     (3) Lloyd George Investment Management (Bermuda) Limited,


     (4) Orbimed Advisors LLC,

     (5) Eaton Vance, Inc.,

     (6) Eaton Vance Distributors, Inc.,

     (7) Lloyd George Investment Management (B.V.I.) Limited,

     (8) nine current or past trustees of 81 Eaton Vance funds
         named as nominal defendants (the "Funds"), and

     (9) twelve current or past officers and portfolio managers
         of the Funds

The plaintiffs named in the Complaint are six alleged
shareholders of three of the 81 Funds.  The Complaint, framed as
a class action and as a derivative suit on behalf of the Funds,
consolidates and amends six substantially identical complaints
previously brought against most of the named defendants by the
six plaintiffs.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants improperly used assets
of the Funds to influence brokers to encourage sales of Fund
shares and failed to disclose this use to investors.  Based on
these allegations, the Complaint charges that the defendants
violated the Investment Company Act of 1940 and New York law and
breached their fiduciary duties to the Funds and their
shareholders, and that the Investment Advisers violated the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940.  The Complaint seeks
unspecified damages and rescission by the Funds of their
contracts with the Investment Advisers.


FEDERATED DEPARTMENT: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Federated Department Stores, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the second amended class action filed against it and certain
members of its senior management.

Five substantially identical purported class action complaints
were initially filed on behalf of persons who purchased shares
of the Company's Common Stock between February 23, 2000 and July
20, 2000.  Originally filed in August, September and October
2000, in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, the actions were consolidated into a
single case, styled "In Re Federated Department Stores, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No. 00-CV-6362 (RCC)."  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The Complaint alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder,
on the basis of claims that the Company, among other things,
made false and misleading statements regarding its financial
condition and results of operations and failed to disclose
material information relating to the credit delinquency problem
at the Company's former subsidiary, Fingerhut Companies, Inc.
("Fingerhut").  The plaintiffs sought unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages and costs, including legal fees.

The Company filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint on January
22, 2002, and on March 11, 2004, the court dismissed the
Complaint without prejudice.  On May 18, 2004, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint, asserting the same claims as
in the earlier versions of the Complaint.


FIRST YEARS: Settles MA Stockholders' Lawsuit Over RC2 Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
The First Years Inc. (Nasdaq: KIDD), a leading marketer of
parenting products for infants and toddlers, reached an
agreement in principle to settle the stockholder litigation
related to its proposed merger with RC2 Corporation (Nasdaq:
RCRC). The lawsuit was filed on June 30, 2004 as a putative
class action complaint in the Superior Court Department of the
Trial Court Civil Action Business Litigation Session of The
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Suffolk County, naming as
defendants The First Years and each member of its Board of
Directors.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, The First Years
directors' and officers' liability insurer will pay a total of
$100,000 to plaintiff's counsel for their reasonable attorneys'
fees and expenses. There can be no assurance, however, that the
court will approve the proposed settlement or that the final
settlement will be under the same terms as those contemplated.

The proposed merger remains subject to the satisfaction of
closing conditions, including the approval of the stockholders
of The First Years. As previously announced, a special meeting
of the stockholders of The First Years to vote upon the merger
agreement is scheduled for September 14, 2004. If stockholder
approval is obtained, and all other conditions are met, the
parties anticipate that the closing of the merger will occur
shortly after the special meeting.


FLORIDA: Sprint, AT&T To Pay $1.5M in Credit Reports Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation (NYSE: FON) and AT&T Corporation (NYSE: T)
agreed to pay approximately $1.5 million in civil penalties to
settle government claims that the companies violated federal
credit laws, denying service to prospective customers or placing
conditions on service because of their credit reports, the Miami
Herald reports.  According to the Federal Trade Commission, the
settlement requires Sprint to pay $1.1 million and AT&T another
$365,000.

The FTC's lead attorney on these cases, Ronald Isaac, said that
the complaint against Sprint involved 546,000 consumers while
the AT&T case involved roughly 175,000 consumers. The Sprint
case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Florida in Tallahassee since a class-action lawsuit,
with the same allegations against Sprint, had been filed in
court.


HALLIBURTON COMPANY: TX Judge Refuses To Approve $6M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Barbara Lynn of U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Texas rejected the settlement proposal in a
securities class action lawsuit against the Halliburton Co.,
saying that the $6 million settlement in investors' class action
suit was neither fair nor adequate, the NY Times News Service
reports.

Halliburton and three of the four lead plaintiffs in the case
agreed upon the settlement in June.  If approved, it would have
concluded a suit filed by investors who contended that
questionable accounting practices from 1998 to 2001 artificially
inflated the company's shares.

The judge wrote in her ruling that "since the court is not
satisfied that the settlement proposed is fair, reasonable and
adequate and since the court has concerns both about the manner
in which settlement was reached, and the terms of the proposed
settlement, the court will not approve it at this time."  The
judge directed the participants to try to resolve the case by
December 3, 2004.

Attorney Neil Rothstein of Scott & Scott, who represents the
Archdiocese of Milwaukee Supporting Fund, a Halliburton
shareholder and the lead plaintiff that did not agree to the
settlement expressed his and that of his clients satisfaction at
the judges recognition of the fiduciary duty due to the class.

According to the NY Times, Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall
said in a prepared statement, "We believe that we offered a fair
amount of money to settle claims that, in our opinion, have no
merit. We intend to get this resolved in the judge's ordered
mediation and if that does not happen, we are prepared to go
forward with the trial and fully expect our position to be
vindicated."

Judge Lynn further wrote in her ruling that the settlement,
negotiated by the lead counsel Schiffrin & Barroway, was agreed
upon deficiently, citing that Richard Schiffrin, a partner at
the firm, conducted negotiations to settle the case without
informing the Archdiocese Fund. The judge further cited that the
lead counsel also met in secret with the counsel for Halliburton
without the knowledge of all the lead plaintiffs or the
executive committee overseeing the case.

The judge also noted in her ruling that the proposed $6 million
settlement would have been reduced by administrative costs of
$1.5 million, lawyers' fees of $1.5 million and expenses of
$117,239 thus leaving the more than 800,000 potential claimants
a settlement share of less than $3 million. The court calculated
that with that kind of amount left for the claimants, an
investor for example with 100 shares could recover only an
estimated $0.62.


IDENTIX INC.: Oregon Resident Lodges Suit Over Mistaken Identity
----------------------------------------------------------------
Computer integrated system design firm Identix, Inc. faces a
class action filed by an Oregon resident who was denied a liquor
license for his business on August 1,2002, after being
misidentified as a convicted felon.

Plaintiff Miguel Espinoza alleges the misidentification was a
result of duplicate fingerprint identification number also held
by a convicted felon, and that the duplicate number was
generated by a live scan system manufactured by Digital
Biometrics, Inc. (DBI) and operated by a Sheriff's office in
the State of Oregon.

The complaint alleges liability under strict product liability,
failure to warn, breach of implied warranty, negligence, product
misrepresentation and 42 U.S.C Section 167, 1983 among other
theories of liability.

While the case is in its earliest stages, based on currently
available information, the Company believes that the issuance of
any duplicate fingerprint numbers was not the result of any
design, manufacturing or product defect or malfunction, or any
other error, omission or fault on the part the Company or
affiliated defendants, the Company said in a regulatory filing.


INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inrange Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the securities class action filed
against it, certain of its officers and directors and the
various underwriters that participated in its initial public
offering (IPO).

A shareholder class action was filed on November 30, 2001,
seeking recovery of damages caused by Inrange's alleged
violation of securities laws, including section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaint is identical to hundreds of shareholder
class actions pending in this court in connection with other
recent IPOs and is generally referred to as In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation.

The complaint alleges, in essence that the underwriters combined
and conspired to increase their respective compensation in
connection with the IPO by receiving excessive, undisclosed
commissions in exchange for lucrative allocations of IPO shares,
and trading in Inrange's stock after creating artificially high
prices for the stock post-IPO through "tie-in" or "laddering"
arrangements (whereby recipients of allocations of IPO shares
agreed to purchase shares in the aftermarket for more than the
public offering price for Inrange shares) and dissemination of
misleading market analysis on Inrange's prospects.  The suit
further alleges that Inrange violated federal securities laws by
not disclosing these underwriting arrangements in its
prospectus.

The defense has been tendered to the carriers of Inrange's
director and officer liability insurance, and a request for
indemnification has been made to the various underwriters in the
IPO.  At this point the insurers have issued a reservation of
rights letter and the underwriters have refused indemnification.
The court has granted Inrange's motion to dismiss claims under
section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 because of
the absence of a pleading of intent to defraud.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to replead these claims, but
no further amended complaint has been filed. The court also
denied Inrange's motion to dismiss claims under section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The court has also dismissed
Inrange's individual officers without prejudice, after they
entered into a tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.

On July 25, 2003, the Company's board of directors conditionally
approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in
this matter.  The settlement would provide, among other things,
a release of Inrange and of the individual defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful in the complaint.

Inrange would agree to undertake other responsibilities under
the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not
assert, or release certain potential claims Inrange may have
against its underwriters.  Any direct financial impact of the
proposed settlement will likely be borne by Inrange's insurers.
The settlement was approved subject to a number of
conditions, including the participation of a substantial number
of other issuer defendants in the proposed settlement, the
consent of Inrange's insurers to the settlement, and the
completion of acceptable final settlement documentation.
Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the court overseeing the IPO litigations.


INTERMUNE INC.: Shareholders Launch New Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
InterMune, Inc. faces a securities class action filed against it
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, styled "Adler v. Harkonen and InterMune Inc., No. C
03-3710 MJJ (filed on August 3, 2004)."

The suit is similar to three other class actions filed in the
same court, styled "Johnson v. Harkonen and InterMune, Inc., No.
C 03-2954-MEJ," "Lombardi v. InterMune, Inc., Harkonen and
Surrey-Barbari, No. C 03 3068 MJJ (filed on July 1, 2003);" and
"Mahoney Jr. v. InterMune Inc., Harkonen and Surrey-Barbari, No.
C 03-3273 SI (filed on July 14, 2003)."

The suits make identical or similar allegations against the
Company, its former chief executive officer and its current
chief financial officer.  On November 6, 2003, the various
complaints were consolidated by order of the court, and on
November 26, 2003, a lead plaintiff, Lance A. Johnson, was
appointed.

The first three suits were consolidated in a complaint entitled
"In re Intermune Securities Litigation, No. C 03-2954 SI," filed
on January 30, 2004.  The consolidated amended complaint named
the Company and its former chief executive officer as defendants
and alleges that the defendants made certain false and
misleading statements in violation of the federal securities
laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5.  The lead plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from January 7,
2003 through June 11, 2003. No motions directed at the
consolidated amended complaint have yet been filed.  No trial
date has been scheduled.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: IN Judge Hears Fraud Case, No Ruling Issued
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge David Hamilton listened to oral arguments
during a hearing in Downtown Indianapolis for a class-action
lawsuit filed by workers alleging that IPALCO Enterprises, Inc.
enticed them to invest while top executives dumped the stock,
the Indianapolis Star reports.

The suit, which was filed in 2002 by former employees Joseph
Nelson, Michael Wycoff, Tony Medvescek and Margarie Young,
arises from an estimated $150 million in losses in the value of
the workers' 401(k) and retirement plans. A ruling late last
year from Hamilton allowed other workers to join the case. The
judge, however did not rule during the hearing.

The suit lists the defendants as IPALCO Enterprises, the
Employees Pension Committee for Employees' Thrift Plan and
former IPALCO executives John R. Hodowal, Ramon Humke, Bryan G.
Tabler, Max Califar, Steve Plunkett, Tom Steiner, Gerald Waltz
and John Wilson.

During the hearing attorneys for the workers, John Price one of
them asked the federal judge to order IPALCO, which is parent
company of Indianapolis Power & Light Co. to compensate nearly
2,400 current and former employees who claim the power company
defrauded them of their life savings that they had "skimped and
saved" their whole lives.

The Company denied any wrongdoing.  "There was no abuse of
discretion," Hack Weigmann, one of IPALCO's lawyers, told the
Indianapolis Star.

The problems regarding IPALCO stock surfaced after Virginia-
based AES acquired the company in March 2001 through a stock
swap, exchanging its stock for ownership of the company.  After
the deal was completed, the value of IPALCO employees' stock
investments fell more than 90 percent when most of their
portfolios were converted to AES stock resulting in workers like
Mr. Nelson and Mrs. Young losing close to all of their life
savings.  The suit, however, points out that it wasn't the same
for IPALCO's former executives, who after the merger was
completed resigned and then received $30 million in "termination
benefits."


KIA MOTORS: Recalls 125T SUVs For Electricity Generator Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Ministry of Construction and Transportation,
South Korean automaker, Kia Motors Corporation (KSE:000270),
will recall over 125,000 Sorento sports utility vehicles because
of defects linked to the electricity generator, the Asia Pulse
Businesswire reports.  The ministry also added that Kia's
affiliate Hyundai Motor Company (KSE:005380), would also recall
its Starex minivans and Libero trucks due to the same defects.

The second largest automaker in South Korea said a pulley
connected to the generator can easily fall out of place and may
cause a gas leak or braking problems.  The recall will affect
125,290 Sorentos built between February 4, 2002 and December 30,
2003, 30,105 Starex vans assembled between August 1, 2001 and
December 30, 2003 and 63 Liberos made in December 2003.   In
June, Kia recalled 21,850 Sorentos built in 2004 to fix faulty
five-speed transmissions.

The automaker currently faces a class-action lawsuit filed by
326 Sorento owners seeking damages.


LOEHMANNS HOLDINGS: Plaintiffs Lodge Consolidated DE Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated shareholder class action against
Loehmanns Holdings, Inc. and its directors in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware, In and for New Castle
County.

On April 27, 2004, a complaint was filed by Davidco Investments
on behalf of the Company's stockholders.  The complaint alleges,
among other things, that the members of the board of directors
of the Company breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's
stockholders by approving the terms of the proposed sale of the
Company for $23.00 per share.  The complaint seeks, among other
things, injunctive relief (including enjoining the proposed sale
or rescission if the proposed sale is consummated) and
compensatory and/or rescissory damages.

On April 29, 2004, a complaint was filed by Bernard Shatz in the
same court.  The second complaint is substantially similar to
the first complaint but also names Crescent Capital Investments
Inc. as a defendant.

On June 10, 2004, plaintiffs in both cases filed a Proposed
Order of Consolidation in the Delaware Court of Chancery.  The
Proposed Order of Consolidation was entered on July 29, 2004.
The Order of Consolidation provides that:

     (1) both actions shall be consolidated for all purposes;

     (2) plaintiffs will cause a consolidated amended complaint
         to be filed as soon as practicable; and

     (3) defendants need not respond to the complaints or
         discovery previously filed in the constituent actions.


MANDALAY RESORT: Appeals Court Appeals Suit Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a
lower court ruling denying class certification to a lawsuit
filed against Mandalay Resort Group, Inc. and other
manufacturers, distributors and casino operators of video poker
and electronic slot machines.

On April 26, 1994, William H. Poulos brought the class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division captioned "William H. Poulos, et al. v. Caesars
World, Inc. et al."  On May 10, 1994, another plaintiff filed a
class action complaint in the same court, styled "William
Ahearn, et al. v. Caesars World, Inc. et al.," alleging
substantially the same allegations against 48 defendants,
including the Company.  On September 26, 1995, a third action
was filed against 45 defendants, including Mandalay, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada, styled "Larry
Schreier, et al. v.  Caesars World, Inc. et al."  The court
consolidated the three cases in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Nevada under the case captioned "William H. Poulos,
et al. v. Caesars World, Inc. et al."

The consolidated complaints allege that the defendants are
involved in a scheme to induce people to play electronic video
poker and slot machines based on false beliefs regarding how
such machines operate and the extent to which a player is likely
to win on any given play.  The actions included claims under the
Federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
as well as claims of common law fraud, unjust enrichment and
negligent misrepresentation, and seek unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

A motion for class certification was filed in March 1998.  On
June 26, 2002, the Motion for Class Certification was denied.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs sought permission from the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the issue of class
certification.  The Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs'
motion.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group Ltd. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to approve the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, certain of its directors and officers and the
investment banks that participated in the underwriting of the
Company's initial public offering (IPO).

Initially, a putative class action suit was filed against the
underwriters on June 29, 2000. That lawsuit did not name the
Company or any of its officers or directors as defendants.
Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received "excessive" and
undisclosed commissions and entered into unlawful "tie-in"
agreements with certain of their clients in violation of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action
was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to the
Company's IPO.  In this second action, plaintiffs named three
underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants the
Company and two of its officers, one of whom is also a director.

Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial
complaint in which the Company was not named as a defendant,
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among
other items, unspecified damages, pre-judgment interest and
reimbursement of attorneys' and experts' fees.  These two
actions relating to the Company's IPO have been consolidated
with hundreds of other lawsuits filed by plaintiffs against
approximately 55 underwriters and approximately 300 issuers
across the United States.

A consolidated amended class action complaint against the
Company and its two officers was filed on April 19, 2002.
Subsequently, defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved
to dismiss the actions.

In February 2003, the trial court issued its ruling on the
motions, granting the motions in part, and denying them in part.
Thus, the cases may proceed against the underwriters and the
Company as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Claims against the individual officers have been
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by agreement with
plaintiffs.  On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a
settlement among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their
directors and officers, and their insurers had been structured,
a part of which the insurers for all issuer defendants would
guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members,
depending upon plaintiffs' success against non-settling parties.

The Company's board of directors has approved the proposed
settlement, which will result in the plaintiffs' dismissing the
case against the Company and granting releases that extend to
all of its officers and directors.  Definitive settlement
documentation was completed in early July 2004 and first
presented to the court on June 14, 2004.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Consumers Launch Suit Over Credit Cards in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case
No. BC313038.  The suit alleges two causes of action, each based
on the factual allegation that the Company requests or requires,
in conjunction with a customer's use of his or her credit card,
the customer to provide personal identification information
which is recorded upon the credit card transaction form.

The Suit seeks:

     (1) civil penalties pursuant to the California Civil Code;

     (2) an order enjoining the Company from requesting or
         requiring that a customer provide personal
         identification information which is then recorded on
         the transaction form;

     (3) permanent and preliminary injunctions against the
         Company requesting or requiring that a customer provide
         personal identification information which is then
         recorded on the transaction form;

     (4) restitution of all funds allegedly acquired by means of
         any act or practice declared by the Court to be
         unlawful or fraudulent or to constitute a violation of
         the California Business and Professions Code;

     (5) attorney's fees; and

     (6) costs of suit


NEW YORK: 600 People Lodge Suit V. Health Effects of WTC Cleanup
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just after the federal three-year statute of limitations for
filing lawsuits related to the 9/11 terror attacks expired,
about 600 people initiated a billion-dollar federal class action
lawsuit contending they suffer health problems from the cleanup
of the World Trade Center, New York Daily News reports.

A new release from the unnamed plaintiffs states, that the suit,
which seeks money for medical testing and screening, cites the
effects of "WTC toxic diseases." The complaint itself names a
number of defendants who owned, managed, controlled and leased
the various buildings within the WTC complex. Though unclear on
who the defendants are it seems likely to include twin towers
leaseholder Larry Silverstein, the Port Authority, which owns
the site, and the city.

The lead lawyer in the case is David Worby, who could not be
reached for comment yesterday. His firm, Worby, Groner, Edelman
& Napoli, represents two NYPD detectives who sued the city in
June claiming that the city didn't protect them from the
chemical plume at Ground Zero and the fumes at the Staten Island
landfill, where tons of debris from the September 11, 2001,
terror attack were taken.


NEW ZEALAND: Citizens Urged To Join Action V. Tobacco Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to Attorney Neil Francey, a lawyer for Ms. Myriam
Cauvin who is claiming compensation from the tobacco industry
across the Tasman, the law allowed his client and others
adversely affected by misleading or deceptive conduct by
Australian tobacco companies to claim compensation, the
Stuff.co.nz reports.

Mr. Francey also states that even New Zealanders who had spent
time in Australia from the mid 1970s until now and had or was
likely to contract a smoking-related disease is also included.
He further adds in a statement from Action on Smoking and Health
(ASH) that the New Zealand Government also had an opportunity to
be a party to a participation agreement to help in the
prosecution of the case and that the resulting compensation
received by claimants would reduce reliance on government for
medical services and orders could be made to establish support
centers to prevent and reduce loss or damage resulting from
smoking."

ASH director Becky Freeman said the class action court case in
Australia was a good opportunity for New Zealanders to gain
compensation for damages from misleading and deceptive conduct
by the tobacco industry in Australia and that here was also no
reason why a class action should not be tried in the country.

Australian case plaintiff Ms. Cauvin, 40, suffered from
emphysema and was a lung transplant recipient after smoking
regularly since she her early teens, ASH said.


NORDSTROM INC.: Antitrust Settlement Hearing Set Nov. 2004 in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the antitrust class
action filed against Nordstrom, Inc. and other department store
and specialty retailers is set for November 16,2004 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The Company was originally named as a defendant along with other
department store and specialty retailers in nine separate but
virtually identical class action lawsuits filed in various
Superior Courts of the State of California in May, June and July
1998 that were later consolidated in Marin County Superior
Court.  In May 2000, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming a number of manufacturers of cosmetics and fragrances and
two other retailers as additional defendants.

Plaintiffs' amended complaint alleges that the retail price of
the "prestige" or "Department Store" cosmetics sold in
department and specialty stores was collusively controlled by
the retailer and manufacturer defendants in violation of the
Cartwright Act and the California Unfair Competition Act.
Plaintiffs seek treble damages and restitution in an unspecified
amount, attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest, on behalf of a
class of all California residents who purchased cosmetics and
fragrances for personal use from any of the defendants during
the four years prior to the filing of the amended complaint.

Defendants, including the Company, have answered the amended
complaint denying the allegations.  The defendants have produced
documents and responded to plaintiffs' other discovery requests,
including providing witnesses for depositions.  The Company
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs and the
other defendants on July 13, 2003.  In furtherance of the
settlement agreement, the case was refiled in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of a class of all persons who currently reside in the United
States and who purchased "Department Store" cosmetics from the
defendants during the period May 29, 1994 through July 16, 2003.

The Court has given preliminary approval to the settlement.  A
summary notice of class certification and the terms of the
settlement has been disseminated to class members. If approved
by the Court, the settlement will result in the plaintiffs'
claims and the claims of all class members being dismissed, with
prejudice, in their entirety.  In connection with the settlement
agreement, the defendants will provide class members with
certain free products and pay the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees,
awarded by the Court up to $24 million.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
OmniVision Technologies, Inc. faces a consolidated securities
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The suit also names as
defendants certain of its present and former directors and
officers.

The suit, filed on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock at various times from February 2003
through June 9, 2004, generally claims that defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
by allegedly engaging in improper accounting practices that
purportedly led to the Company's financial restatement.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages.  Lead plaintiff and counsel
have not been appointed yet.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Reaches Tentative $250M SEC Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
According to John Thompson, a Communications Workers of America
vice president, Qwest Communications International Inc. has
tentatively agreed to pay $250 million to settle fraud
allegations by federal regulators, The Associated Press reports.
Mr. Thompson also stated that a company official notified him of
the tentative settlement with the Securities and Exchange
Commission, but added that did not have specifics.

The SEC settlement helps the Denver-based company put to rest a
turbulent period during which it has been under investigation
for everything from how it booked revenue to deals that it made
with other telecommunications companies.

Analysts said that an SEC settlement could help clear the way
for the sale of the company, its somewhat small size and lack of
a wireless division might make it an attractive acquisition
because of its regional customer base with operations in 14
Western and Midwestern states.

However, telecommunications consultant Tom Friedberg, who
monitors Qwest points out that a key to any settlement would be
the scope, whether it was broad enough to cover all the pending
allegations and issues.

The SEC began investigating Qwest in March 2002, looking
specifically at swaps in which Qwest sold items to customers
around the same time those customers sold items back to Qwest;
changes in publication dates for its phone directories that
allowed revenue from the directory unit to be booked in a
certain quarter; and when revenue was booked on long-term
transactions involving optical capacity assets.

To date, about a dozen former Qwest executives either have
settled allegations or have been targeted in civil or criminal
cases.  Qwest Communications itself is also facing class action
shareholder lawsuits that are still is pending in U.S. District
Court.


SECURITIY LIFE: Agrees To Pay $26.4M To Policyholders in CO Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Security Life of Denver Insurance Co., an affiliate of the ING
Group of Amsterdam, Netherlands agreed to pay $26.4 million to
191 policyholders to settle claims that the company inflated
their premiums, The Denver Post reports.

Additionally, the company also agreed to pay $7.5 million to
lawyers in the class-action lawsuit. Policyholders in the suit
and a judge in U.S. District Court in Denver though must still
approve the settlement.

The settlement agreement requires Denver life insurer to pay the
191 policyholders, who live in 34 states a payment that is
proportionate to the amount of their overcharge. When split
equally, the awards would be about $138,000 per policyholder.

The most recent suit is loosely based on a comparable suit filed
in 1999 by former Adolph Coors Co. chairman Bill Coors, who
claimed that Security Life inflated premiums on his $5.2 million
life insurance policy in violation of the Colorado Consumer
Protection Act. He eventually won a $1.1 million judgment
against the company in Jefferson County District Court in 2002,
but the award was reduced on appeal and is now before the
Colorado Supreme Court.  During that litigation, Security Life
revealed that 227 customers had been overcharged because of a
recurring printing error on their monthly statements between
1987 and 1997.

The customers included such firms as Weider Health and Fitness
Inc., a California company owned by famed muscle man Joe Weider
and his family, who filed a similar suit in May 2003. The family
of the late Gene Dixon Jr., who owned a Virginia mining company,
followed suit by filing a class-action suit in September, which
was later joined by other policyholders.  The suits accused the
company not only of the overcharges but also of concealing them.

Attorneys for both sides confirmed the agreement but said they
could offer little more comment. One attorney, Richard Podoll of
Greenwood Village, who is representing the policyholders said,
"The parties agree that all aspects of the settlement are fair
and reasonable to the policyholders and to Security Life."


SPORTS AUTHORITY: CA Court Approves Overtime Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court granted final approval to the
settlement of several overtime wage suits filed against Sports
Authority, Inc.

In June 2000, a former employee of Sportmart brought two class
action complaints in California against the Company, alleging
certain wage and hour claims in violation of the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professional Code section
17200 and other related matters.

One complaint alleges that the Company classified certain
managers in its California stores as exempt from overtime pay
when they would have been classified as non-exempt and paid
overtime.  The second complaint alleges that the Company failed
to pay hourly employees in its California stores for all hours
worked.

In March 2001, a third class action complaint was filed in the
same court in California alleging the same wage and hour
violations regarding classification of certain managers as
exempt from overtime pay.  In July 2001, a fourth complaint was
filed alleging that store managers should also not be classified
as employees exempt from overtime pay.

All the complaints seek compensatory damages, punitive damages
and penalties.  The amount of damages sought is unspecified.
The Company has entered into a settlement agreement relating to
the first two complaints that were filed, which received
preliminary approval by the court in February 2004.  With the
settlement of the first two complaints, the named plaintiffs in
the third and fourth actions will be included in the settlement
class although they may opt to proceed with their lawsuits on an
individual basis.

In June 2004, the settlement agreement received final approval
from the court and distributions have been made to the class
members who did not opt out of the class.  During the second
quarter of 2004, the Company settled this lawsuit for a total of
$1.3 million, including attorney fees and expenses.


SUMMIT MEDICAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set December 3, 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota -
Fourth Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter of In re Summit Medical Systems, Inc.
Securities Litigation on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities in Summit Medical Systems,
Inc. during the period August 4, 1995 through March 3, 1997.

The court will hold a fairness hearing on December 3, 2004 at
the United States Courthouse, Courtroom 15e, 300 South Fourth
Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55415, at 9:30am.

For more details, contact Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. by
Mail: 100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN
55401 OR Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Mail:
26th Floor, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017 OR Morris and
Morris LLC Counselors At Law by Mail: Suite 803, 1105 North
Market Street, Wilmington, DE 19801 OR Summit Medical Systems,
Inc. Securities Litigation, c/o The Garden City Group, Inc.,
Claims Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 9000 #6241, Merrick, NY
11566-9000.


SYNOPSYS INC.: Shareholders Lodge Second Securities Suit in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synopsys Inc. faces a second class action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf
of all persons who purchased Synopsys Inc. securities between
December 3, 2003, and August 18, 2004, the Electronic News
reports.

The suit charges Synopsys' Aart J. de Geus, chairman and CEO;
Steven K. Shevick, senior VP and CFO; and Richard T. Rowley,
corporate controller, with failing to disclose and
misrepresenting material adverse facts that were known to them
or recklessly disregarded by them.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that Synopsys knew or
recklessly disregarded the fact that renewals of up-front
license bookings, which it had touted as being strong, were not
materializing and were in fact becoming substantially more
averse to its customer base due to the large up-front cash
payments that Synopsys required; that Synopsys was not able to
achieve substantial growth and was not able to capture market
share gains through the technological advancements in its
products, which defendants touted as a means for achieving such
an end; that Synopsys knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
that demand for its products would not continue to be strong
despite a conservative spending environment; and that as a
result of the above, Synopsys executive's positive statements
about the company were lacking in any reasonable basis when
made.

On Aug. 2, Synopsys announced preliminary results for its Q3
ended July 31. The company expected total revenues to be $279
million to $283 million, compared to its previous target range
of $300 million to $320 million. Then on Aug. 18, Synopsys
reported fiscal Q3 earnings that were slightly ahead of reduced
estimates, and it also warned that results for the current
period and fiscal year would fall far short of expectations.

This news shocked many financial analysts and shares fell $6.63
per share, or 31.16 percent, to close at $14.65 per share on
Aug. 19. The stock climbed to $15.63 this morning, but has not
closed above $15.41 in the last week.


TORO INC.: Faces Consumer Fraud Suit Over Lawnmowers in IL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Toro, Inc. and other members of the lawnmower and lawnmower
engine industry face a class action filed by six individuals on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated in the
Circuit Court, Twentieth Judicial Circuit of St. Clair County,
Illinois.

The suit challenges the horsepower ratings of lawnmowers.  The
complaint seeks class action status, an injunction, compensatory
and punitive damages and attorney's fees on behalf of persons
who bought lawnmowers since June 1999 powered by gasoline
engines up to 20 horsepower.


TRAMITES NOTARIOS: TX Jury Metes $1M Fine For Immigration Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott's office won an unprecedented
verdict against a Weslaco business that offered unauthorized
legal services to immigrants, the Attorney General announced in
a press release.

A Hidalgo County, Texas jury award totaled over $1 million
against Ruth and John Thomas and their business, Tramites
Migratorios (Immigration Proceedings).  The verdict included
over $900,000 in restitution to consumers under the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), in addition to civil
penalties and attorney's fees.

"This jury verdict sends an unequivocal message to scam artists
operating in Texas," said Attorney General Abbott.  "I will
strictly enforce the law and will not tolerate anyone lining
their pockets at the expense of hardworking immigrants and their
families."

The jury determined that the business and its owners violated
the DTPA and a new law prohibiting notaries public from
representing themselves as attorneys and charging fees to
prepare and submit immigration documents.  In previous so-called
notario cases, Attorney General Abbott shut down similar
operations targeting immigrants.

Attorney General Abbott sued Tramites Migratorios and its owners
last February, claiming that they were unlawfully providing
legal services without authorization from federal immigration
officials or a license to practice law.  Ruth and John Thomas
consulted with immigrants about their cases and prepared and
submitted forms on their behalf before the U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Service (USCIS).  Tramites Migratorios routinely
charged families thousands of dollars for handling work permits,
permanent residency, and citizenship applications.

Federal law requires that companies offering immigration
consulting services be non-profit agencies accredited by the
Department of Justice's Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA).  The
defendants were neither properly accredited, nor are they
licensed attorneys, Attorney General Abbott said.

The Office of the Attorney General received numerous complaints
from consumers who claimed that the defendants provided
erroneous legal advice; improperly filled out and submitted
paperwork; and, in some cases, failed to do any work at all on
behalf of clients.

In addition, a criminal action is pending against Ruth Thomas
for allegedly misusing her license as a notary public. In Texas,
notary commissions allow the holder to witness the signing of
legal documents. Scam artists have long exploited the
misunderstanding between the term "notary" and the similar-
sounding Spanish term "notario," used in Latin America to
address highly experienced attorneys.  Texas law specifically
forbids notaries from providing immigration services unless they
hold a separate license to practice law.  The Office of the
Attorney General worked closely with Hidalgo County District
Attorney Renuerra and the Texas Department of Public Safety's
Special Crimes Unit to bring a criminal case against Ruth
Thomas.

Since assuming office, Attorney General Abbott has moved
aggressively to shut down similar operations throughout the
state. This week the Attorney General also filed suit and
secured a temporary restraining order against Aplicacione Oro of
Midland. That company is also alleged to be an unauthorized
provider of immigration services, since it is neither an
accredited non-profit entity, nor are its owners attorneys, the
press release stated.  A hearing on a temporary injunction in
that case is set for September 16 in Midland.

Any person believing he or she was scammed by similar businesses
should report it to the Office of the Attorney General at
1-800-252-8011.


TSA STORES: IL High Court Yet To Rule on Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court has yet to rule on TSA Stores, Inc.'s
motion for an appeal of a lower court ruling reversing the
dismissal of one of the claims in a lawsuit filed against the
Company and thirty-two named defendants, including firearm
manufacturers and retailers.

The suit, styled "City of Chicago and County of Cook v. Beretta
U.S.A. Corp. et al.," was initially filed in the Circuit Court
of Cook County, Illinois.  This suit was served on the Company
in November 1998.  The original complaint was based on legal
theories of public nuisance and negligent entrustment of
firearms and alleged that the defendants created a public
nuisance by distributing, marketing and selling firearms in the
portion of Cook County outside Chicago knowing or recklessly
disregarding that these guns would be illegally transferred and
used in Chicago to commit crimes.

The complaint sought damages allocated among the defendants
exceeding $433 million to compensate the City of Chicago and
Cook County for their alleged costs resulting from the alleged
public nuisance.  The complaint also sought punitive damages and
injunctive relief imposing additional regulations on the methods
the defendants use to distribute, market and sell firearms in
Cook County.

In February 2000, the Court dismissed the complaint's negligent
entrustment count.  The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
with the Court's permission in March 2000, which contained both
the public nuisance and negligent entrustment counts.  In
September 2000, the Court granted the motions of the defendants
to dismiss the amended complaint, in its entirety, with
prejudice.

In October 2000, the plaintiffs appealed to the Appellate Court
of Illinois, First Judicial District.  On November 4, 2002, the
Appellate Court reversed the dismissal of the amended complaint
and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings
on the public nuisance issue.  On November 25, 2002, TSA Stores
filed a petition for rehearing with the Appellate Court, which
was denied on March 7, 2003.

On March 27, 2003, TSA Stores joined in the petition by the
other defendants for leave to appeal to the Illinois Supreme
Court of the Appellate Court's decision reversing the trial
court's dismissal of the public nuisance claim, which was
granted on April 8, 2003.  The Illinois Supreme Court heard oral
arguments by the parties on September 10, 2003 and has yet to
render a decision.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Reaches $9.95M Co-pay Suit Settlement in MN
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to Minnetonka-based UnitedHealth Group, one of it
units agreed to pay $9.95 million to settle a class action
lawsuit over its prescription drug co-pays, The Associated Press
reports.

A Rhode Island woman and a Massachusetts man had sued in U.S.
District Court in Minnesota claiming that some pharmacies
collected higher co-payments than they should have under
UnitedHealthcare prescription drug plans.

Plaintiff's attorney Wood Foster Jr. said about 250,000 class
members will get payments generally ranging from $12 to $60,
with more money going to people who spent more on drugs. The
dispute involved customers in 1997, 1998, and 1999.

Under the terms settlement, UnitedHealth will be barred from
using the disputed contract language, which the company said it
no longer uses anyway.  A judge granted preliminary approval of
the settlement and a final fairness hearing was planned for
November 3, 2004 in St. Paul.


WASHINGTON: LAW Fund Receives $228T "Cy-Pres" Award From Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Legal Aid for Washington Fund (LAW Fund), a private fund-
raising group for legal-services programs received a $228,000
windfall from a consumer class action suit against Spokane-based
Ticket Track, which it had nothing to do with, the Seattle Times
reports.

The class action filed in 2002 was a consumer-protection claim
in which U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman found that Ticket
Track's collection practices were deceptive and misleading.

According to attorney Mark Griffin of the law firm of Keller
Rohrback, who represented plaintiffs in the consumer suit,
rather than locating affected consumers who were harmed by a
collection agency that would have resulted in nominal
reimbursement due to the cost of printing and mailing checks,
the money has gone instead to the LAW Fund. Known in legal
circles as cy-pres awards, such arrangements are relatively
unusual and is a legal doctrine giving courts and lawyers room
to interpret how best to distribute class-action money when
traditional means are unworkable.

The suit alleged that Ticket Track, acting on behalf of various
parking-lot owners, contacted people who were ticketed. But in
addition to collecting the parking-violation debt, Ticket Track
tacked on additional, unauthorized fees that it split with
parking-lot owners. According to the suit, those fees normally
amounted to $25, in some cases surpassing the actual ticket
debt.

The suit stated that state law bars collection fees unless they
are expressly authorized by statute, which Ticket Track's were
not. Court and state documents revealed that Ticket Track
operated as a collection agency in Washington State for 10 years
until last October, when it let its license expire.

Court records also revealed that during the roughly six-year
period covered by the lawsuit, Ticket Track took in more than
$1.5 million in fees. They also show that the company was in
"precarious financial circumstances" and that the only available
asset was $625,000 from an insurance company.

An elated LAW Fund President Bill Kinsel said the donation, is
the largest in the organization's 13-year history and that it's
an excellent fit since the 30 legal-aid programs his group
supports statewide take on consumer-protection issues.


WELLS FARGO: NY Appeals Court Reinstates Suit V. Excessive Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York reinstated a
lawsuit seeking class action status that accuses San Francisco-
based bank Wells Fargo & Co. of charging excessive fees on home
loans, Bloomberg News reports.

The suit, which was earlier dismissed by a trial judge claims
that Wells Fargo, the nation's biggest mortgage lender violated
federal law by requiring mortgage customers to pay excessive
fees for some services. The suit focuses on tax services,
document preparation, flood certifications and underwriting
during the home loan process.

The suit even contends that Wells Fargo subcontracts some of
those services and then makes customers pay the fees plus its
own markup, even though it doesn't perform additional work.

Michael C. Spencer of New York-based Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Schulman, who is representing homeowners suing the bank, said
that other lenders imposed similar fees and could be affected by
the ruling.

According to the appeals court the homeowners' claims, if true,
would be a violation of the U.S. Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act.

The court, however did not rule on the merits of the case,
saying only that the homeowners had alleged enough facts for the
suit to go forward.

Mr. Spencer though stated that the homeowners' claims were also
bolstered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development,
which filed a brief siding with the homeowners.


WET SEAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. faces several securities class action
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from January 7,
2004 through August 19, 2004.

The Company has not been served with any of the complaints
relating to these lawsuits.  Based on one publicly available
complaint, the lawsuit also names as defendants:

     (1) Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and
         Director Peter D. Whitford,

     (2) Executive Vice President Joseph E. Deckop, and

     (3) Director and former Chairman of the Board Irving
         Teitelbaum

The publicly available complaint alleges violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the
Exchange Act, on the grounds that, among other things, the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented material adverse
facts which were known to the defendants or disregarded by them.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


TECO ENERGY: Shepherd Finkelman Files Securities Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida on
behalf of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities
of TECO Energy, Inc. (NYSE: TE - News; "TECO") between October
30, 2001 and February 4, 2003 (the "Class Period"), including
anyone who purchased in the October 10, 2002 or June 5, 2002
equity offerings or the January 10, 2002, May 8, 2002 or January
10, 2002 debt offerings.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants,
TECO, Robert D. Fagan, and Gordon L. Gillette, violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that

     (1) TECO is a holding company for regulated utilities and
         other unregulated businesses;

     (2) TECO owns no operating assets but holds all of the
         common stock of Tampa Electric Company directly or
         indirectly;

     (3) Defendants concealed problems with several independent
         power plant construction ventures for which TECO would
         ultimately be fully responsible, including the
         Company's full exposure to the bankruptcy of Enron
         Corporation, causing TECO shares to trade at
         artificially inflated levels and permitting defendants
         to sell over $4.2 million of their own personally held
         stock and to raise over $792 million selling equity
         securities in the capital markets during the Class
         Period;

     (4) as a result of a series of events in late 2002 and
         early 2003, the complex financing scheme that the
         Company had developed began to unravel as several large
         projects and their liabilities were "put" to TECO,
         thereby moving hundreds of millions of dollars of off-
         balance sheet debt onto TECO's balance sheet and
         resulting in the Company taking over a billion dollars
         in impairment charges; and

     (5) these events and the others described in the Complaint
         caused the price of TECO's common stock to plummet from
         a Class Period high of over $28 per share on April 23,
         2002 to below $13 per share on February 4, 2003,
         erasing hundreds of millions of dollars in market
         capitalization.


For more details, contact Scott R. Shepherd, Esq. or James E.
Miller, Esq. by Phone: 877/891-9880 or 866/540-5505 by E-mail:
sshepherd@classactioncounsel.com or
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.classactioncounsel.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  * * *