CAR_Public/040922.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

          Wednesday, September 22, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 188

                          Headlines

ANTIDEPRESSANTS: FDA Supports Advisory Panel Recommendations
CALIFORNIA: Smokers Dispute Firms' "Free Speech" Argument
CANADA: Attorneys Release Report in Suit V. Federal Government
CATHOLIC CHURCH: Arizona Diocese Files For Bankruptcy Protection
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Working On Settlement of Accounting Fraud

CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: DE Court Rules Favorably in Patent Case
ENCANA CORPORATION: Fairhaven Power Lodges Antitrust Suit in CA
ISHOPNOMARKUP.COM: SEC Commences Securities Complaint in E.D. NY
KENTUCKY: Former UK Recruiter Lodges Suit, Seeks $50M in Damages
MASSACHUSETTS: One Dead, Two Injured in Carnival Ride Accident

MENORAH GARDENS: FL Judge To Rule on Fees, Mulls Capping Damages
MUTUAL FUND LITIGATION: Progress On Settling Suits Slow, Bumpy
ORACLE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Reinstates CA Securities Suit
PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: FDA Warns V. Purchasing Generic Drugs Online
REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 140T Heaters Due To Choking Hazard

SECURITIES FRAUD: SEC Sanctions Ex-Castle Securities Executive
SERVICE CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set November 2, 2004
SINGAPORE: RTC Members Back in Court To Decide Damages For Suit
TOBACCO LITIGATION: Justice Dept To File Largest RICO Lawsuit
VACCINES: Report Denies Autism, Thimerosal or Vaccine Link


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Berger & Montague Lodges CA Securities Suit
INTERACTIVECORP: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
INTERACTIVECORP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
IMPAC MEDICAL: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Files NY Securities Suit

NETOPIA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SYNOPSYS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
TECO ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
THORATEC CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in CA
VISTACARE INC.: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit Fraud in AZ

VISTACARE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
WET SEAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
WET SEAL: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
WET SEAL: Robbins Umeda Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
WIRELESS FACILITIES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA

WORLD INFORMATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
ZIX CORPORATION: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
ZIX CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX
ZIX CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
ZIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX

                         *********

ANTIDEPRESSANTS: FDA Supports Advisory Panel Recommendations
------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) supported the
recommendations made to them by the Psychopharmacologic Drugs
and Pediatric Advisory Committees regarding reports of an
increased risk of suicidality (suicidal thoughts and actions)
associated with the use of certain antidepressants in pediatric
patients, the agency said in a press release.

In summary, the members of the advisory committees:

     (1) endorsed FDA's approach to classifying and analyzing
         the suicidal events and behaviors observed in
         controlled clinical trials and expressed their view
         that the new analyses increased their confidence in the
         results;

     (2) concluded that the finding of an increased risk of
         suicidality in pediatric patients applied to all the
         drugs studied (Prozac, Zoloft, Remeron, Paxil, Effexor,
         Celexa Wellbutrin, Luvox and Serzone) in controlled
         clinical trials;

     (3) recommended that any warning related to an increased
         risk of suicidality in pediatric patients should be
         applied to all antidepressant drugs, including those
         that have not been studied in controlled clinical
         trials in pediatric patients, since the available data
         are not adequate to exclude any single medication from
         an increased risk;

     (4) reached a split decision (15-yes, 8-no) regarding
         recommending a "black-box" warning related to an
         increased risk for suicidality in pediatric patients
         for all antidepressant drugs;

     (5) endorsed a patient information sheet ("Medication
         Guide") for this class of drugs to be provided to the
         patient or their caregiver with every prescription;

     (6) recommended that the products not be contraindicated in
         this country because the Committees thought access to
         these therapies was important for those who could
         benefit; and

     (7) recommended that the results of controlled pediatric
         trials of depression be included in the labeling for
         antidepressant drugs

"(The) FDA has begun working expeditiously to adopt new labeling
to enhance the warnings associated with the use of
antidepressants and to bolster the information provided to
patients when these drugs are dispensed," the statement
asserted.


CALIFORNIA: Smokers Dispute Firms' "Free Speech" Argument
---------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing Californians who began smoking as teen-
agers asked the Fourth District Court of Appeal to revive a
class action lawsuit dismissed in 2002 by San Diego Superior
Court Judge Ronald Prager, the Associated Press reports.

According to attorney David Markham the First Amendment should
not protect advertising that was deceptive and encouraged the
illegal use of tobacco by minors. One such advertisement Mr.
Markham cited was the once-popular "Joe Camel" campaign for R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Company of Winston-Salem, with its cartoon
camel, as a strategy intentionally designed to recruit underage
smokers.

Mr. Markham further argues that the campaign may appeal to some
smokers of legal age, but such advertisements should not be
allowed because they also widely appealed to children who cannot
legally smoke.

On behalf of the tobacco companies, attorney Daniel Collins
argued that Judge Prager correctly interpreted prior court
decisions to find that such advertisements were protected speech
and even cited an example about how alcohol companies have been
allowed to widely advertise in states where some counties ban
liquor.

The original lawsuit, which is titled Daniels, et al. vs. Philip
Morris, et al. D041356 was filed in 1998 and named Philip
Morris, R.J. Reynolds, Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., and
Lorillard Tobacco Co. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson merged
earlier this year.

It sought to have the companies forfeit between $700 million and
$2 billion that was allegedly earned from sales to about 1.5
million teen-age smokers in California between 1994 and 1999.

A ruling by the three-member panel is expected within 90 days.


CANADA: Attorneys Release Report in Suit V. Federal Government
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers representing thousands of disabled veterans suing the
federal government for decades of funds mismanagement will table
documents in the Ontario Superior Court outlining how the
failure to properly act as a trustee could represent a $1.6 B
liability for the Crown.

Among the documents is a report prepared by former federal
government economist Michael Charette, now a professor at the
University of Windsor, and Michael Barrasso, a Vice President at
the Royal Trust Corporation of Canada. Both experts undertook a
historical review of various rates of return as applied to a
variety of investment instruments. They did so in the context of
standard trustee practice over the last 85 years, the period
covered by the lawsuit.

The class action lawsuit, brought against the Federal Government
on behalf of thousands of veterans in October 1999, seeks
redress from the federal government for years of failure to
properly administer the funds of mentally and physically
disabled veterans who had been deemed incapable of managing
their money. The Auditor General of Canada noted in 1986 that
the government had failed in its duty to manage these funds, and
in subsequent court appearances the government has acknowledged
its role as a trustee. Following a decision in the Supreme Court
of Canada, in July 2003 which upheld the supremacy of Parliament
and a legislated attempt by the government to eliminate its
liability, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice ruled in
December 2003 that the case can continue, with the next vital
step in the lawsuit a hearing to determine the extent of the
government's financial obligation.

Also in that December 2003 ruling, the case management judge
Justice John H. Brockenshire ruled that the government's
liability - because of its failure to properly act as a trustee
of the veterans' funds over an 85-year period - appeared likely
to exceed $1 billion -- and possibly substantially so.

In a ruling made June 16, 2004, the Ontario Court of Appeal
denied a government request that its previously filed appeal be
taken out of order, and heard before Justice Brockenshire could
calculate the amount owing to the veterans.

David Greenaway, one of the veterans' lawyers, said, "This was
part of a desperate government strategy to bring the veterans'
lawsuit to an end before Justice Brockenshire c[an] finalize his
damage assessment in the case." The Court of Appeal ruled in the
veterans' favor and dismissed the government's request.

"On several occasions the federal government has tried to delay
the portion of the lawsuit where its indebtedness will be
determined. The veterans' day in court has now arrived, and
they, and the Canadian people, will soon know the full extent to
which the federal government is liable," added Greenaway.

The lawyers representing the veterans are: Raymond Colautti and
David Greenaway, Partners, Raphael Partners Barristers and
Solicitors (Windsor, Ontario) and Peter Sengbusch of London,
Ontario.


CATHOLIC CHURCH: Arizona Diocese Files For Bankruptcy Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Roman Catholic Diocese of Tucson, Arizona filed for
bankruptcy protection early last week, due to debt and
litigation from clerical sexual abuse cases, most of which
occurred from the 1960s through the 1990s, the Associated Press
reports.

In 2002, the diocese reached a settlement for eleven lawsuits,
filed by 16 plaintiffs, including 10 victims who claim abuse by
four of its priests.  The settlement amount wasn't disclosed.
At the latest count, 22 more sexual abuse suits with 34
plaintiffs have been filed.

The diocese is the second to file for bankruptcy due to
continuing litigation over sexual abuse of children by parish
priests.  On July 6, 2002, the Portland archdiocese in Oregon
also filed for bankruptcy under similar reasons.

According to its financial statement, the Tucson diocese had
$4.65 million in long-term debt and a $7 million deficit in
unrestricted net assets as of June 30.  Tucson Bishop Gerald F.
Kicanas had signaled his intent in June, telling parishioners in
a letter that bankruptcy protection appeared to be the only
option remaining for the diocese, which serves some 350,000
Catholics in 75 parishes, the Associated Press reports.  The
decision will subject the Tucson Diocese's financial operations
to court scrutiny for the first time, and potentially open the
way for non-church interference.


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Working On Settlement of Accounting Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Associates International Inc. is moving close to a
settlement with the United States Department of Justice and the
Securities and Exchange Commission of accounting fraud charges,
the Associated Press reports.

In April, the New York-based firm restated two years of
earnings, admitting it wrongly booked $2.2 billion in revenue.
One accounting trick the board has acknowledged was called the
"35-day month," in which employees inflated revenue by closing
quarterly books a few days late.

As a result, the Justice Department and SEC started an
investigation into the company's accounting practices.  Four
executives, including its former chief financial officer, have
pleaded guilty to fraud or obstruction of justice.  The
company's former chief executive, Sanjay Kumar, left in June.
Earlier this year, the company said it had offered the
government $10 million to settle the investigations.

The possible settlement, which could include an infrequently
used form of probation called "deferred prosecution," could come
within days, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.  The
possible settlement being discussed could include a financial
penalty and the appointment of an independent monitor who will
oversee its accounting.

Deferred prosecution would give prosecutors a way to monitor the
company's behavior without filing criminal charges against it.
An indictment of the company would mean it could not do some
business with the federal government.  The possibility of a
deferred prosecution was reported by Newsday earlier this month.

The company has "no update on the investigation at this point"
and no comment on the Journal story, said Shannon Lapierre, a
Computer Associates spokeswoman.


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: DE Court Rules Favorably in Patent Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware
ruled in favor of CRYO-CELL International, Inc. (OTC Bulletin
Board: CCEL) (the "Company") on the post trial motions in last
fall's patent infringement case brought by PharmaStem
Therapeutics, Inc. ("PharmaStem") against the Company and three
other defendants.

On September 15, 2004, the Court rendered a decision in favor of
CRYO-CELL, rejecting PharmaStem's effort to prevent CRYO-CELL
and three other defendant cord blood banks from processing and
storing umbilical cord blood from newborns. The Court has now
vacated its judgment, overturning the jury's verdict for patent
infringement and damages previously entered against CRYO-CELL,
and has denied PharmaStem's request for an injunction and
enhanced damages against the defendants. The Court's Order can
be viewed at http://www.cryo-
cell.com/resources/pharmast_ruling.pdf

Reversing the jury's verdict, the Court has entered a new
judgment in favor of CRYO-CELL and the other defendant blood
banks with regard to PharmaStem's U.S. Patent No. 5,192,553 (the
'553 patent), holding that the cord blood banks are not, and
cannot be, liable for contributory infringement of the patent
because they do not sell, or offer for sale, umbilical cord
blood. Rather, the private blood banks provide a service of
processing and preservation of cord blood for families.

In communications that began in early June and pre-dated the
Court's recent ruling, PharmaStem incorrectly suggested that
obstetricians and other care providers may be subject to patent
infringement liability for certain actions. The clear
implication of this most recent ruling is that obstetricians and
other health care providers, who at the birth of a child simply
collect the umbilical cord blood for cryopreservation by the
blood banks, similarly cannot be liable for contributory
infringement of PharmaStem's '553 patent.

With regard to PharmaStem's original patent (U.S. Patent No.
5,004,681), the Court has granted CRYO-CELL and its co-
defendants a new trial on the issues of infringement and
damages, finding that the jury's earlier verdict of infringement
was "against the great weight of the evidence." Moreover, in a
separate action, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has
recently decided to reexamine the validity of both of the
PhamaStem patents that were the subject of the litigation in
Delaware, the '553 patent and the '681 patent.

Mercedes Walton, Chairman and interim CEO commented, "The
Court's recent rulings are a triumph for CRYO-CELL, the
practitioner community and the families we serve. CRYO-CELL
remains steadfast in our position that PharmaStem has not and
will not prove that the Company's preservation of umbilical cord
blood has infringed, or will in the future infringe, any valid
patent. We expect that this ruling will put an end, once and for
all, to PharmaStem's widespread campaign to confuse, threaten
and intimidate the clinical community with respect to cord blood
collection for expectant parents. Ultimately, we expect both of
the patents will be invalidated, and the present claims will be
unenforceable."


ENCANA CORPORATION: Fairhaven Power Lodges Antitrust Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eureka, California-based Fairhaven Power Company initiated a
class action lawsuit against the EnCana Corporation and its
marketing company, along with 16 other companies and
corporations on behalf of all other business entities in the
state that purchased natural gas between Jan. 1, 2000, and Dec.
31, 2001, the Fresno Bee reports.

The suit, the second of such that accuses Canada's largest
natural gas producer of participating in a scheme to inflate
prices and create a false shortage in California during the
energy crisis three years ago was filed in federal court in
Fresno. Fairhaven, according to the lawsuit, used natural gas to
power generators to produce electricity and did not resell the
gas.

It also names former energy giant Enron Corporation as a co-
conspirator in the scheme, which had collapsed in December 2001.
The other defendants in the lawsuit included W.D. Energy
Services, EnCana's marketing arm in the United States; AEP
Energy Services Inc. and American Electric Power Inc., both of
Columbus, Ohio; Centerpoint Energy Inc., Reliant Energy Services
Inc., Reliant Resources Inc., Coral Energy Resources Inc., Duke
Energy Trading and Marketing LLC, El Paso Corp., Dynegy Holding
Co. Inc., and West Coast Power LLC, all of Houston; The Williams
Companies Inc. of Tulsa, Okla.; CMS Energy Corp. of Jackson,
Mich.; Xcel Energy Inc. of Minneapolis; Sempra Energy Corp. of
San Diego; and Sempra Energy Trading Corp. of Stamford, Conn.

E&J Gallo Winery of Modesto, America's largest wine producer,
filed the first lawsuit last year also in Fresno, which charges
EnCana of manipulating prices and the flow of natural gas. That
suit sought in excess of $30 million in damages.

According to W. Timothy Needham, a Eureka attorney representing
Fairhaven, the lawsuit was filed in Fresno court because the
lawsuit by Gallo was in federal court here.

The 30-page Fairhaven complaint specifically charges violations
of U.S. antitrust laws in a massive scheme to control the flow
and prices of natural gas that was sold within the state at its
borders and describes a distribution plan in which the defendant
companies "derived hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue
from their natural gas business in California."

The complaint also describes a major effort to set prices and
control supplies sent from four primary interstate pipelines and
producing basins in Western Canada, the Rocky Mountains and the
Anadarko, Permian and San Juan basins in the southwestern United
States.

Furthermore, the lawsuit accuses the defendants of falsely
reporting natural gas prices, of conducting "wash trades"
designed to boost trading volumes and conspiring to avoid
competing with each other in the pricing and sale of natural gas
in California.


ISHOPNOMARKUP.COM: SEC Commences Securities Complaint in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York against
iShopNoMarkup.com, Inc. (iShop), a company located on Long
Island, New York.

The Commission's complaint alleges that from the fall of 1999
through the summer of 2000, iShop conducted a fraudulent
offering scheme that defrauded over 350 investors who invested
approximately $2.3 million inunregistered iShop stock.

The complaint names as defendants:

     (1) Ishop, a Nevada corporation with its principal place
         of business on Long Island, New York.  It was
         purportedly developing a shopping mall on the Internet
         to sell products directly from manufacturers to
         customers at no markup;

     (2) Anthony M. Knight, age 38, a resident of Great Neck,
         New York.  Mr. Knight was the Chairman of iShop's Board
         of Directors, and he served at various times as
         Director of Planning, Secretary, and Chief Executive
         Officer;

     (3) Moussa Yeroushalmi, age 51, a resident of Great Neck,
         New York and iShop's President;

     (4) Scott W. Brockop, age 39, a resident of Edison, New
         Jersey, who also served as iShop's Vice President of
         Sales and Marketing.

From the fall of 1999 until the summer of 2000, iShop conducted
a series of fraudulent and unregistered securities offerings.
IShop distributed offering memoranda and other documents to
investors that misrepresented, and failed to disclose, material
information concerning iShop's business operations.

Mr. Knight, Mr. Yeroushalmi, and Mr. Brockop also made oral
misrepresentations to investors falsely indicating that iShop
had imminent plans to conduct an initial public offering of
stock, and that after the IPO, iShop's stock would dramatically
increase in value.  Mr. Knight also established a "boiler room"
operation at iShop, which Brockop supervised.  Through this
boiler room, employees cold-called potential investors, and made
material misrepresentations to induce them to purchase iShop
stock.

Through the offerings, iShop sold approximately 6,748,600 shares
of stock to over 350 investors, and obtained proceeds of
approximately $2.3 million.  IShop did not file a registration
statement for the sale of these securities, and there was no
registration statement otherwise in effect.

The Commission's complaint charges iShop, Mr. Knight, Mr.
Yeroushalmi, and Mr. Brockop with violating 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
complaint also charges Mr. Brockop with violating, and Mr.
Knight with aiding and abetting violations of, Section 15(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The complaint seeks permanent injunctions
against all defendants.  The complaint also seeks disgorgement
of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest, and the
imposition of civil monetary penalties, against Mr. Knight, Mr.
Yeroushalmi, and Mr. Brockop.  Finally, the complaint seeks
officer and director bars against Mr. Knight and Mr.
Yeroushalmi.

The suit is styled "SEC v. iShopNoMarkup.com, Inc., et al.,
Civil Action No. CV 04 4057 (HURLEY) (E.D.N.Y.)."


KENTUCKY: Former UK Recruiter Lodges Suit, Seeks $50M in Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Bassett, University of Kentucky's (UK) former recruiting
coordinator for football filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status in U.S. District Court in Covington against the
university's Athletic Association, the NCAA and the Southeastern
Conference, claiming that they conspired to keep him from
landing another college job, the Associated Press reports.

As the central figure in an NCAA investigation that led to major
sanctions, Mr. Bassett is asking for $50 million in damages. In
his suit, Mr. Basset claims to represent a class of present and
past college coaches that the NCAA has investigated or punished
for rules violations since 1992, when the NCAA adopted due
process protections for those accused of rules violations.

In November 2000, just before the NCAA began investigating
allegations of wrongdoing in the university's football program
Mr. Bassett resigned. Two years later the NCAA placed UK on
probation for more than three-dozen recruiting violations
committed between 1998 and 2000. In that investigation, Mr.
Bassett was found in violation of NCAA ethical conduct bylaws
and was banned from working for any NCAA school for eight years.

Furthermore, Mr. Bassett claims that the defendants committed
fraud and civil conspiracy against him by encouraging him to
take actions depriving him of due process and the NCAA has
"intentionally and improperly interfered" with his prospective
contract negotiations with NCAA-member institutions.

The suit says that by imposing the eight-year ban on Mr.
Bassett, the NCAA, the Southeastern Conference and university
"branded him a liar and cheat, rendering the coach unemployable
as a college coach even beyond the ban."

The suit has been transferred to the federal court in Lexington
and assigned to Judge Joseph Hood.


MASSACHUSETTS: One Dead, Two Injured in Carnival Ride Accident
--------------------------------------------------------------
One man died and two other people were injured as a carnival
ride in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts broke apart during a church
fair Sunday, the Associated Press reports.

The ride, called the "Sizzler," has three rotating arms, each
carrying four rotating sets of two-seat cars in the design of
classic 1950s automobiles.  The ride is about three feet off the
ground and does not lift into the air.

According to Shrewbury police, the ride came apart about 2 pm
near Saint Mary's Church and parochial school, AP reports.
Witnesses said they saw one of the men being thrown from the
ride and crashing to the ground.

"It was really just a nightmare, a lot of children crying,
mothers crying, more blood than I've ever seen," Kathleen
Madaus, 44, of Shrewsbury, told AP.

"I saw (one victim) about a foot off the ground and land on his
face," said Ms. Madaus' 11-year-old daughter, Elizabeth.  "There
were like 5-year-olds who had to see that and I feel bad for
them."

The three victims were residents of the Glavin Regional Center
in Shrewsbury, a state-run facility for the mentally retarded,
Dick Powers, a spokesman for the state Department of Mental
Retardation told AP.  "It's a terrible tragedy, our condolences
go out to the families and the friends of the victims," he said.
"We will begin grief counseling immediately."

Police Chief Wayne Sampson told AP two men were taken to UMass
Memorial Medical Center.  He said one of the men died at the
hospital and the other is in serious condition. A third person
suffered minor injuries and did not require hospitalization,
said Sampson, who did not immediately release the victims'
names.  A ride operator was taken to the police station and was
giving a statement to police, he said.

WCVB-TV reported that Jaro Amusements of Carlisle owns the ride.
A man who answered the company's cell phone but refused to
identify himself confirmed the company owns the ride, but said
the company would have no comment until the state investigation
is complete.


MENORAH GARDENS: FL Judge To Rule on Fees, Mulls Capping Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge is set to rule on lawyers' fees and whether or
not to cap punitive damages in a proposed $100 million
settlement that Menorah Gardens reached in December to resolve
claims of grave desecration at two South Florida cemeteries, the
Miami Herald reports.

Broward Circuit Judge J. Leonard Fleet is expected to rule on
the case, which involves a Service Corporation International-
owned Menorah Gardens cemetery in Southwest Ranches and one in
Palm Beach County.

In the original suit, Plaintiffs claim that relatives' bodies
were disinterred, in some instances desecrated and thrown into
brush just outside the cemetery, to make space for new burials.

Depending on the judges ruling, the total settlement could run
as high as $111 million. The class-action portion of the
agreement would total $76 million, with $25 million of this
marked as punitive damages. The plaintiff's lawyers are asking
the judge for $25 million in legal fees from that $76 million,
based on the complexity of the issues, the risk and the amount
of work they did.

Another $29 million would also be set-aside separate from the
aforementioned settlement for the 12 families with the most
serious grave desecration claims.  To settle non-desecration
claims, including company whistle-blowers' suits, company has
also set aside $6 million.

However, Lawyer Ted Leopold, representing 70 or so plaintiffs
that want to opt out of the class-action settlement, opposes the
proposed settlement calling it "woefully inadequate" and is now
fighting to place a cap on punitive damages.


MUTUAL FUND LITIGATION: Progress On Settling Suits Slow, Bumpy
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to attorneys involved in the cases, efforts to settle
the numerous class action lawsuits filed against Putnam
Investments, MFS Investment Management, and other mutual fund
companies for their role in the market-timing scandals are
moving at an uneven pace, and any deal that may be worked out is
likely months away, the Boston Globe reports.

The attorneys pointed out that the reason for such delays are
the settlement talks, which only involves some of the 20 fund
companies that have been sued by plaintiffs, who contend the
firms defrauded shareholders by allowing certain privileged
investors to trade freely in and out of their funds, in
violation of fund rules. These talks involve swapping material
that could inform either side's decision to move forward with
offers to settle.

The consolidation of the hundreds of class-action lawsuits into
a proceeding known as multidistrict litigation in U.S. District
Court in Baltimore, in a way contributes to the delay of
settling the case. The attorneys stated that the sheer size of
the case would require up to four federal judges to track it and
a very huge venue to accommodate the scores of attorneys
present.

Though many of the Defendants named in the class action suits,
already settled fraud and other charges related to the market-
timing activities with federal and state securities regulators,
the refusal of other firms to settles could be also a factor in
the slow pace of settling the case.

Meanwhile, plaintiffs are required to file amended complaints
against the fund companies by the end of September, and the
judges in the case have scheduled hearings in February and March
on motions by the companies to dismiss the case.


ORACLE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Reinstates CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Oracle Corporation, its chief executive officer, its
chief financial officer (and currently, chairman of its board of
directors) and a former executive vice president.

The consolidated suit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from
December 15, 2000 through March 1, 2001.  Plaintiffs alleged
that the defendants made false and misleading statements about
the Company's actual and expected financial performance and the
performance of certain of its applications products, while
certain individual defendants were selling Oracle stock in
violation of Federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs further
alleged that certain individual defendants sold Oracle stock
while in possession of material non-public information.

On March 12, 2002, the court granted the Company's and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On April 10, 2002, plaintiffs filed a
first amended consolidated complaint, brought on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's stock during the period from
December 14, 2000 through March 1, 2001.

On September 11, 2002, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss that complaint.  On October 11, 2002, the plaintiffs
filed a second amended complaint.  In this second amended
complaint, the plaintiffs added allegations that the defendants
engaged in accounting violations and made misstatements about
the Company's financial performance, beginning on December 14,
2000 through March 1, 2001.

On March 24, 2003, the court dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed that dismissal.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
remanded the case for further proceedings.  No trial date has
been set for this case.  No class has been certified.


PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: FDA Warns V. Purchasing Generic Drugs Online
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration advised people
against buying prescription drugs online from unknown foreign
sources, saying it was "risky business," the FDA Consumer
reports.  A recent analysis of three commonly prescribed drugs
purchased by the FDA from a Canadian-advertised Web site showed
that the "generics" were fake, substandard, and potentially
dangerous.

"Consumers who believe they are getting equivalent products from
reputable sources are being misled and putting their health at
risk," Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA Commissioner, told the
FDA Consumer.  "This firm shipped drugs that were the wrong
strength, including some that were substantially super-potent
and that pose real health risks as a result, drugs that didn't
dissolve properly, drugs that contained contaminants, and drugs
that should not have been given because of potentially dangerous
drug interactions," he says.

According to the FDA Consumer, the agency purchased so-called
"generic" versions of Viagra (sildenafil), Lipitor
(atorvastatin), and Ambien (zolpidem).  None of the drugs has a
U.S.-approved generic version, so all of the purchased drugs
were unapproved.

The "generic" Ambien, a controlled substance approved for short-
term insomnia, contained too much active ingredient, including
one tablet that was nearly double the labeled potency.  Taking
super-potent Ambien puts patients at risk for central nervous
system depression, especially in elderly or debilitated
patients.

The "generic" Lipitor, a drug used for lowering cholesterol, was
subpotent and failed to dissolve, providing on average only 57
percent of the active ingredient claimed on the label.  It also
failed the FDA's purity testing.  Subpotent products could
present a long-term risk for the various complications of high
cholesterol, such as heart disease.  Further, the Lipitor
product was furnished to the FDA's online purchaser, even though
the purchaser said that he was taking the antibiotic
erythromycin. Lipitor's label warns against taking these two
drugs at the same time, FDA Consumer reports.

The "generic" Viagra, normally sold to treat impotence,
contained too little of the active ingredient, failed to
dissolve, and had an unacceptable level of impurities, the FDA
Consumer reports.

The FDA warns that, although a Web site may appear to be
reputable and may look similar to other retail pharmacy Web
sites, many of these are in fact operating from outside the
United States and are providing unapproved drugs from unreliable
sources. The National Association of Boards of Pharmacy (NABP)
has established a program called Verified Internet Pharmacy
Practice Sites (VIPPS), designed to certify Web sites that meet
industry standards. Consumers should look for the VIPPS
certification seal on the site or check with the NABP for a list
of VIPPS-certified pharmacies at www.nabp.net/vipps/ to help
minimize the risks of getting bad quality drugs from
disreputable sources.


REEBOK INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 140T Heaters Due To Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Reebok International Ltd., of Canton, Massachusetts is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 140,000 Reebok
"Iverson/Answer" toddler shoes.

The I-3 logo-tag on the tongue of the shoe can be peeled off,
posing a choking hazard to young children. Reebok has received a
report of an 8-month-old child mouthing the logo-tag. The tag
was removed without injury.

The recalled Reebok Iverson mid- and low-style athletic shoes
were sold in toddler sizes 2 through 10. The logo-tag on the
tongue of the shoe reads "I3/Answer," and on the rear and center
of the heel is an "I3" logo. The names "Iverson" and "The
Realist" are carved into the sole. The model number is printed
on a label on the underside of the tongue. Model numbers
included in the recall are: 99553, B99553, 99554, B99554,
105155, B105155, 105158, B105158, 108292, and B108292.

Manufactured in China, the shoes were sold by Reebok,
independent retailers, children's apparel and athletic shoe
stores nationwide from March 2004 through August 2004 for about
$35.

Consumers should immediately take these shoes away from young
children and contact Reebok to receive a refund.

Consumer Contact: Call Reebok at (800) 843-4444 anytime or visit
the firm's Web site at www.reebok.com OR Media Contact: Denise
Kaigler, (781) 401-5000.


SECURITIES FRAUD: SEC Sanctions Ex-Castle Securities Executive
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission has barred Michael T.
Studer of Freeport, New York from association with any broker or
dealer.  Mr. Studer was president of Castle Securities
Corporation, formerly a registered broker-dealer.

The Commission found that, in 2003, Mr. Studer was permanently
enjoined from further violations of antifraud and other
provisions of the securities laws.  The court found that Mr.
Studer and others engaged in a fraudulent blind pool offering
and a subsequent market manipulation, and that he was intimately
involved in all of the fraudulent transactions.

In imposing a bar, the Commission noted that it had previously
sustained NASD sanctions against Mr. Studer for other
misconduct.   The Commission reiterated that, when a respondent
has been enjoined from violations of antifraud provisions, it
"has especially serious implications for the public interest."


SERVICE CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set November 2, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas in will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter In re: Service Corporation
International, H-99-280 on behalf of those who:

     (1) Exchanged shares of common stock in Equity Corporation
         International, Inc. ("ECI") for shares of common stock
         in Service Corporation International, Inc. ("SCI"), on
         the merger of ECI into SCI on January 19, 1999;

     (2) Purchased shares of SCI common stock in the open market
         from July 17, 1998 through January 26, 1999 ("Class
         Period");

     (3) Purchased SCI call options in the open market during
         the Class Period;

     (4) Sold SCI put options in the open market during the
         Class Period; or,

     (5) Held employee options to purchase shares under an ECI
         stock plan that became options to purchase shares of
         SCI common stock on the merger.

The hearing will be held on November 4, 2004, 2:00 p.m. at
Courtroom 11C, Eleventh Floor, United States Courthouse, 515
Rusk Avenue, Houston, Texas 77002.

For more details, contact James A. Harrod by Phone:
(212) 451-9642 or by E-Mail: jharrod@wolfpopper.com OR SCI
Settlement c/o Complete Claim Solutions, Inc. by Mail: P.O. Box
24728, West Palm Beach, Florida 33416 by Phone: (866) 401-6803
or visit their Web site: http://www.CompleteClaimSolutions.com


SINGAPORE: RTC Members Back in Court To Decide Damages For Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In concluding a landmark legal battle, the disgruntled members
of the Raffles Town Club (RTC) will appear in a court hearing to
decide the amount of damages the club will have to pay them,
Channel News Asia reports.

The protracted battle dates back two years ago when some 5,000
RTC members filed a class action suit against the management
after learning the so-called "exclusive and premier" club
actually had almost 19,000 members.  The suit, which was the
largest class action suit in Singapore, accuses RTC of
misrepresentation and breach of contract.

Though they lost the initial case, the Court recently ruled in
favor of the members, saying there was no misrepresentation but
there was a substantial breach of contract.  Members, who
shelled out about $400 each to fight the case, are hoping to
claim between $17,000 and $22,000 each in damages.

Currently, lawyers for the RTC members are putting forward
expert witnesses to bolster their case. Their submissions should
be over in a week, after which the RTC will take over to give
its side of the picture.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: Justice Dept To File Largest RICO Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Department of Justice is set to file the
largest ever lawsuit against the tobacco industry, alleging
violations of the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) in the United States District Court in
Washington, the Associated Press reports.

The suit will primarily allege that the tobacco companies misled
the public over the past fifty years, by saying that there was
no evidence that smoking was linked to serious medical problems.
The suit seeks around $280 billion in past profits - an amount
that the industry says would drive it into bankruptcy and that
is slightly more than the industry agreed to pay states in their
1998 settlement with attorneys general.

In 1953, Perry Como appeared in advertisements for Chesterfield,
saying he was a two-pack-a-day smoker and that "a medical
specialist" found no nose, throat, or sinus problems among
people smoking its brand for 10 years.  That same year,
executives of the major tobacco companies allegedly met with the
public-relations firm of Hill & Knowlton to devise a strategy to
raise doubts about the growing evidence that smoking was linked
to serious medical problems.  As a result of the meeting, the
industry said it would conduct "independent research."

It took the new suit five years to get to court, as the Bush
administration initially tried to withhold funds from the
Department of Justice to pursue the case.  However, Attorney
General John Ashcroft changed his mind, and the lawsuit
continued.  "It was a unanimous decision by the lawyers who
looked at it," William Schultz, former US deputy attorney
general and part of the legal team that filed the lawsuit in
1999, told the Associated Press.

According to the Department of Justice, the case is one of the
most expensive ever litigated.  Already, it has spent around
$135 million on the litigation.  Much of the expense is from
managing and reviewing documents.  So far, the government has
made available to the defendants 80 million pages of documents
that it may use.  Philip Morris and R.J. Reynolds estimate they
have shown the government 42 million pages.

The suit further seeks new restrictions on the behavior of the
industry, potentially changing how tobacco is produced, sold,
and marketed.  "These other equitable remedies that the court
has available to it are very important because they directly
address the fundamental behavior of the tobacco industry that is
at issue," William Corr, executive director of the Campaign for
Tobacco-Free Kids, told AP.  "Through those remedies we believe
that thousands and millions of lives will be saved."

The tobacco industry believed the suit is "ill-founded," the
Associated Press reports.  They argue that the industry has
already changed its position on the subject, saying they now
regard cigarettes dangerous and addictive.

They stated as examples links on their own websites to
organizations that provide information on quitting.  They also
reiterated that after the master settlement agreement with 48
states was forged, the industry pulled ads from many youth-
oriented magazines, stopped distributing free T-shirts and hats,
and eliminated some sponsorships.

It even admits that secondhand smoke is dangerous.  "If you look
at the injunctive relief and stack it up against the Master
Settlement Agreement [the 1998 state settlement], all the issues
were taken care of," Mike Pfeil, vice president of corporate
communications at Altria, the parent of Philip Morris, the
nation's largest tobacco company said, AP reports.

Tobacco companies maintain that the government would be hard-
pressed to prove that every dollar they earned was the result of
fraud, especially since cigarette packs have had health warnings
on them since 1966.  "Not only were our actions completely
legal, but much of it was regulated over that period of time,"
Mr. Pfeil told AP.

However, the industry will also have to defend its actions,
which included raising doubts that cigarettes caused cancer. For
example, in 1987, Brennan Moran, a spokeswoman for the Tobacco
Institute, one of the non-company defendants in the case, told a
Monitor reporter that claims of health problems related to
secondhand smoke were "unsubstantiated."

Even as late as 1993, the industry was trying to raise doubts
about an EPA report on secondhand smoke, AP reports. "This is a
report which has been criticized by a number of scientists in a
number of disciplines," said Ms. Dawson (nee Moran).


VACCINES: Report Denies Autism, Thimerosal or Vaccine Link
----------------------------------------------------------
A new report released by the Institute of Medicine's (IOM)
Immunization Safety Review Committee asserted that there is no
link between autism and the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine
or the vaccine preservative thimerosal, the FDA Consumer
magazine reports.

Several advocacy groups have asserted that the vaccines caused
autism, which appears to be on the rise, although there are no
clear studies showing whether it is occurring more often, or
simply being recognized more as a disorder separate from mental
retardation or mental illness.  Because it is usually diagnosed
during the toddler years, when children receive many of the 18
or so early childhood shots, many groups believe vaccines are to
blame, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 11,2004)
states.

Autism is a complex set of severe developmental disorders
characterized by repetitive behavior and impaired social
interaction and communication abilities. Other concerns the
committee looked at include the use of thimerosal, a mercury-
based compound used as a vaccine preservative, because many
forms of mercury are known to damage the nervous system in high
doses.

A committee of independent experts established by the IOM in
2001 prepared the report at the request of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes
of Health (NIH) to evaluate evidence on potential links between
childhood vaccines and health problems. The agencies explored
the issue because of growing controversy and questions from the
public about vaccine safety.  The report was released in May
2004.

Two earlier reports were published in 2001, stating then that
the evidence did not show an association between the MMR vaccine
and autism, but that more evidence was needed regarding
thimerosal.  "The committee concluded that the evidence
available at that time was inadequate to accept or reject a
causal relationship between thimerosal and neurodevelopmental
disorders," Marie McCormick, M.D., Sc.D., chairwoman of the
immunization safety committee and a professor at the Harvard
School of Public Health, told FDA Consumer.

The committee decided to investigate the issues again after
several studies were published, exploring possible links between
vaccines and autism have been published.  Committee members
concluded that the hypothesis about how the MMR vaccine and
thimerosal could trigger autism lacks supporting evidence.
Their conclusions were based on a careful review of well-
designed studies and other information from researchers and
parents.

Five large studies in the United States, the United Kingdom,
Denmark, and Sweden done since 2001 found no evidence of a link
between autism and vaccines containing thimerosal. 14 large
studies consistently showed no link between the MMR vaccine and
autism. The committee also reviewed several studies that did
report associations between vaccines and autism and found that
these studies had limitations and lacked supporting evidence.

The committee reviewed potential biological links between
vaccines and autism and found them to be only theoretical.
Examples of some of the hypothesized links include a suggestion
that the measles virus in the MMR vaccine might lodge in the
intestines and trigger the release of toxins that could lead to
autism. Another hypothesis is that the MMR vaccine might
stimulate the release of immune factors that damage the central
nervous system. Yet another hypothesis is that thimerosal may
interfere with biochemical systems in the brain, thereby causing
autism, FDA Consumer states.

However, according to the IOM report, no evidence has shown that
the immune system or its activation play a direct role in
causing autism, and autism has not been documented as being a
result of exposure to high doses of mercury.

"There is no convincing evidence of serious harm from the low
doses of thimerosal in vaccines," Karen Midthun, M.D., deputy
director for medicine in the FDA's Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research (CBER), told the FDA Consumer.  CBER
regulates vaccines in the United States and works with the CDC
and the NIH to study and monitor vaccine safety and
effectiveness.

Since the 1930s, small amounts of thimerosal have been used as a
preservative in multi-dose vials of vaccines to prevent
bacterial contamination. The active ingredient in thimerosal is
ethylmercury.

Even though the risk of thimerosal is hypothetical, thimerosal
began to be removed from childhood vaccines in 1999. Thimerosal
is no longer found in childhood vaccines in the United States,
but remains in the influenza vaccine and in vaccines in other
countries.  The American Academy of Pediatrics and the U.S.
Public health Service recommended removing thimerosal from
childhood vaccines in 1999 as a precaution, an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (March 22,2004) states.

The FDA also encouraged companies to comply with this
recommendation.  Currently, all routinely recommended vaccines
manufactured for infants in the United States are either
thimerosal-free or contain only trace amounts.

"We moved in this direction to address public concern and
because it was feasible to eliminate mercury from vaccines," Dr.
Midthun told FDA Consumer.  "We could eliminate thimerosal in
vaccines as a way to reduce a child's total exposure to mercury,
whereas other environmental sources of exposure are more
difficult to eliminate."


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------

September 23, 2004
MOLD LITIGATION & MANAGEMENT UPDATE
BridgeportCE
Millennium Biltmore Hotel, Los Angeles, CA
Contact: (818) 505-1490; Fax:  (818) 505-1497

September 27-28, 2004
BAD FAITH CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27-28, 2004
REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

September 29-30, 2004
CONSUMER FINANCE CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

October 4-5, 2004
INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES CONCERNING CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Chicago River North, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 7-8, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, West Palm Beach
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 15, 2004
CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
ABA-CLE National Institute, New York, NY
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

October 15, 2004
TOXIC TORTS IN CALIFORNIA
BridgePortCE
Grand Hyatt San Francisco CA
Contact: (818) 505-1490; Fax:  (818) 505-1497

October 21, 2004
ADVANCED SKILLS FOR LITIGATION PARALEGALS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin Peachtree Plaza, Atlanta
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25-26, 2004
SILICA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 25-26, 2004
THE ADVANCED MEDICO-LEGAL GUIDE TO REDUCING THE
RISK OF OBSTETRIC MALPRACTICE
American Conferences
The Disney Grand Floridian Resort, FL
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

October 26, 2004
ADVANCED E-DISCOVERY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 29, 2004
CLASS ACTIONS
American Bar Association
ABA-CLE National Institute, New Orleans
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

November 1-2, 2004
REINSURANCE LAW & PRACTICE 2004: NEW LEGAL & BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENTS IN A CHANGING GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
PLI New York Center -- New York, NY
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 212-824-5865; sgreenblatt@pli.edu

November 4-5, 2004
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS: CURRENT
SECURITIES,
TAX, ERISA, AND STATE REGULATORY ISSUES
ALI-ABA
Washington, D.C.
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 8, 2004
ALL SUMS: REALLOCATION & SETTLEMENT CREDITS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 8, 2004
ZYPREXA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
SULFATE ATTACK ON CONCRETE LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ARTHRITIS DRUG LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 9, 2004
ANTI-SLAPP CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 11-12, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 15-16, 2004
THE STRATEGIC GUIDE TO INSURANCE INSOLVENCY
OVERCOMING BUSINESS, LEGAL AND REGULATORY HURDLES
American Conferences
The Park Central New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

December 2-3, 2004
TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
ALI-ABA
New York
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 6-7, 2004
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 6-7, 2004
MTBE & USTs LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
RETAIL LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
PERSONAL INJURY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-14, 2004
THE 9TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE FOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL & TRIAL
ATTORNEYS DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Plaza Hotel, New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

December 13-14, 2004
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin St. Francis, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 15-16, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
New Orleans
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

January 19-21, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614


January 24-25, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENCING OBESITY CLAIMS
THE LATEST INFORMATION ON LEGAL EXPOSURES, LEGISLATION
AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
American Conferences
St. Regis Hotel, Washington DC
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

February 10-11, 2005
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago Tuition $
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614



TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

September 01-28, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-28, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-28, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-28, 2004
AVOIDING MALPRACTICE CLAIMS: THINGS TO DO (AND NOT DO)
ON THE FIRST DAY YOU REPRESENT A CLIENT
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

September 01-28, 2004
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES
AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Berger & Montague Lodges CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
suit against Biolase Technology, Inc. ("Biolase" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: BLTI) and certain of its officers, in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
Biolase securities from October 29, 2003 through July 16, 2004
(the "Class Period").

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

More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented:

     (1) that demand for the Company's core product, Waterlase,
         was severely lagging because sales of the Company's
         newer lower-priced "entry level" laser not only
         confused the marketplace but cannibalized sales of
         Waterlase;

     (2) that international sales growth was severely slowing
         despite the Company's attempts to ramp it up;

     (3) that receivables were rising due to the Company's
         continual unloading of inventory unto wholesalers;

     (4) that as a consequence of the foregoing the Company was
         improperly recognizing revenue, in violation of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"); and

     (5) therefore, the Company's financial results were
         materially inflated at all relevant times.

As a result of this inflation, the Company was able to complete
a secondary stock offering of 2.8 million shares in February
2004 at $18.80 per share. Thereafter, on July 16, 2004, after
the close of the market, Biolase reported preliminary results
for the second quarter of 2004, which were below analysts'
expectations. As a result of this news, the Company's stock
declined to $8.78.

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


INTERACTIVECORP: 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 all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
IAC/InterActiveCorp ("IAC") (Nasdaq:IACI) publicly traded
securities during the period between March 19, 2003 and August
4, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges IAC and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. IAC largely acts as intermediary between suppliers and
consumers, aggregating large blocks of consumer goods and
services (primarily travel-related products such as hotel rooms
and airline tickets) from suppliers and selling them to
consumers over the Internet. IAC's Travel segment's business
model was built on the ability of the Company's majority-owned
subsidiaries, Expedia, Inc. and Hotels.com, to contract with the
major hotel chains for non-exclusive rights to sell hotel room
bookings for the major hotel chains in exchange for a fee.

The complaint alleges that beginning in early 2003, defendants
began to artificially inflate the price of the Company's common
stock in order to decrease the amount of stock IAC would
ultimately have to issue to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Expedia and Hotels.com that it did not already own,
permitting IAC to use inflated IAC stock as acquisition currency
which would not further dilute defendants' own interests in IAC.
Throughout the Class Period, defendants also caused IAC to spend
over $1.5 billion to repurchase over 47 million shares of its
own common stock to further prop-up the Company's stock price.

The complaint alleges that defendants' statements made in
connection with the announcement of the acquisitions of Expedia,
Hotels.com and LearningTree.com, and with the Company's
financial reports and other statements made throughout the Class
Period, were materially false and misleading because they did
not disclose that:

     (1) certain of the Company's online customers were being
         double-billed for hotel rooms, leading to great
         customer dissatisfaction;

     (2) certain hotel chains were contesting the Company's slow
         payment for hotel room sales made on its Web site and
         were threatening to stop doing business with the
         Company;

     (3) certain of the Company's Web site customers were being
         charged rates exceeding the hotel's public prices,
         leading to further customer dissatisfaction;

     (4) certain IAC hotel customers were dissatisfied with the
         Company's practice of displaying a message on its Web
         sites that all of a particular hotel's rooms were sold
         out when the hotel was not actually sold out;

     (5) the Company had previously been selling a large number
         of hotel rooms and airline seats through more than
         24,000 affiliate Web sites, but since October 2002,
         many of these Web sites were either privately
         threatening and/or actually pursuing litigation against
         the Company, alleging among other things copyright
         infringement and predatory advertising;

     (6) one substantial business partner of Hotels.com,
         Metroguide, had commenced a lawsuit against Hotels.com
         alleging violations of federal copyright law and unfair
         business practices;

     (7) the Company was under-reporting its state and local
         sales tax expenses for some locations; and

     (8) certain hotels and airlines were decreasing the
         Company's allotment of rooms and seats because of the
         Company's bad business practices.

On August 4, 2004, the Company issued its Q2 2004 earnings
release disclosing that its Q2 2004 net income fell 24% from the
same quarter in 2003 and that it was cutting its forecast for
full-year operating profits, admitting that it was being
provided less airline seats and hotel rooms to sell. On this
news the Company's stock plummeted on extremely high volume of
almost 90 million shares. The Company's stock price dropped
precipitously from its Class Period high of $42.74 per share on
July 7, 2003 to close at $22.80 per share on August 4, 2004,
erasing over $10 billion in market capitalization.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/iac/


INTERACTIVECORP: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in S.D. 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 publicly traded securities of IAC/InterActiveCorp
(Nasdaq: IACI) ("IAC") between March 19, 2003 and August 4,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that IAC, an intermediary between
suppliers and consumers, which aggregates large blocks of
consumer goods and services (primarily travel-related products
such as hotel rooms and airline tickets) from suppliers and
sells them to consumers over the Internet, issued materially
false statements in connection with the acquisitions of Expedia,
Hotels.com and LearningTree.com, and with IAC's financial
reports and other statements. Specifically, in early 2003,
defendants began to artificially inflate the price of IAC's
common stock in order to decrease the amount of stock IAC would
ultimately have to issue to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Expedia and Hotels.com, permitting IAC to use its
inflated stock as acquisition currency. Throughout the Class
Period, defendants also caused IAC to spend over $1.5 billion to
repurchase over 47 million shares of its own common stock to
further prop-up the Company's stock price.

On August 4, 2004, IAC disclosed in its Q2 2004 earnings release
that its net income fell 24% from the same quarter in 2003 and
that it was cutting its forecast for full-year operating
profits, admitting that it was being provided less airline seats
and hotel rooms to sell. On this news, the Company's stock price
dropped from its Class Period high of $42.74 per share on July
7, 2003 to close at $22.80 per share on August 4, 2004.

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


IMPAC MEDICAL: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of IMPAC Medical Systems,
Inc. ("IMPAC" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:IMPCE) between November
20, 2002 and May 13, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against IMPAC and certain officers and
directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
Defendants caused IMPAC's shares to trade at artificially
inflated prices through the issuance of false and misleading
statements with respect to demand and order bookings as well as
financial statements.

On March 1, 2004 IMPAC announced that it intended to restate its
financial statements for several quarters in fiscal 2003. Then,
on May 13, 2004, IMPAC announced disappointing results for its
fiscal second quarter 2004 results and reduced its full-year
outlook. In reaction to this news, shares of IMPAC collapsed
from $24.85 to $14.62 per share. Then on June 4, 2004, IMPAC
announced that it had dismissed PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as
its auditor. Following that announcement, on August 17, 2004
IMPAC announced the resignation of Deloitte & Touche LLP "due to
a disagreement with management concerning its application of
Statement of Position (SOP) 97-2, "Software Revenue
Recognition," with respect to the timing of its recognition of
certain revenues in its restated financial statements for the
fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 through 2003 filed in
April 2004." Shares continued their fall after this news, to
trade at approximately $12 per share.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com


KONGZHONG CORPORATION: Goodkind Labaton Files NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the American Depository Shares
("ADSs") of KongZhong Corporation ("KongZhong" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: KONG) traceable to the Company's initial public
offering on or about July 9, 2004 through August 17, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
KongZhong, UBS Investment Bank, Banc of America Securities LLC,
CIBC World Markets, YunFan Zhou, Nick Yang and Richard Wei
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 11, 12,
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by issuing a materially
false and misleading prospectus (the "Prospectus") with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with
the initial public offering of KongZhong common stock, which
took place on or about July 9, 2004, selling 10 million shares
and raising approximately $100 million in proceeds. Specifically
the complaint alleges that the Prospectus failed to disclose and
misrepresented that in early June 2004, KongZhong had carried
inappropriate content on its interactive voice response system,
which was in violation of the agreement with China Mobile, and
that in response to such a violation, KongZhong would be subject
to violations that could materially impact its operations.

On August 9, 2004, KongZhong issued a press release announcing
its financial results for the second fiscal quarter of 2004. It
reported earnings of $0.19 per American Depository Shares
("ADS"). On August 18, 2004 KongZhong issued a press release
announcing that it had been notified by China Mobile of a
sanction imposed on the Company. China Mobile would suspend new
applications for new products and any applications to operate in
new platforms until June 30, 2005. In response to the news,
shares of KongZhong traded lower, falling 16.6% to $5.32 per
ADS.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 or visit their Web site:
http://www.glrs.com/get/?case=KongZhong


NETOPIA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Netopia, Inc. ("Netopia"
or the "Company") (NASDAQ:NTPAE) between November 5, 2003 and
August 16, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
was filed against Netopia and certain officers and directors
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants caused Netopia's shares to
trade at artificially inflated levels during the Class Period
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. Specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants
knew, but concealed that the Company was experiencing weaker
than stated gross margins due to higher component costs, that
the Company was selling its products at lower prices to key
carrier customers, that certain key customers were failing to
participate in its 802.11g product launch, that its largest
customers were altering their product mixes, and that several of
the Company's European customers changed their delivery
standards, pushing out revenues.

On August 17, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it would unable to file its form 10-Q in a
timely manner. As it previously announced on July 22, 2004, the
Company's audit committee had initiated an inquiry into its
accounting practices specifically focused on the appropriateness
and timing of revenue recognition of software license fees in
two transactions with a single software reseller customer. Then
on September 16, 2004, Netopia announced that its auditor KPMG
LLP resigned, and that it would restate two years of results and
revise the results for its most recent fiscal quarter. Netopia
shares fell 30% in response to this news.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com


SYNOPSYS INC.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Synopsys, Inc. (Nasdaq: SNPS) from December 3, 2003 through
August 18, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Synopsys, Aart J. de Geus, Steven K.
Shevick, and Richard T. Rowley 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 defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that renewals of up-front license bookings, which the
         Company 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 the Company required;

     (2) that the Company was not able to achieve substantial
         growth and was not able to capture market share gains
         through the technological advancements in the Company's
         products, which defendants touted as a means for
         achieving such an end;

     (3) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that demand for the Company's products would not
         continue to be strong despite a conservative spending
         environment; and

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

On August 2, 2004, Synopsys announced preliminary results for
its third fiscal quarter ended July 31, 2004. 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 August 18, 2004, Synopsys reported fiscal
third-quarter 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 Wall Street's
expectations. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Synopsys fell $6.63 per share, or 31.16 percent, to close at
$14.65 per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


TECO ENERGY: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the securities of TECO Energy, Inc.
("TECO" or the "Company") (NYSE: TE) between October 30, 2001
and February 4, 2003, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against
defendants TECO and certain officers and directors of the
Company.

The case name is Frank v. TECO Energy, 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 TECO concealed problems
with independent power plant construction ventures for which it
would ultimately be responsible, including exposure to the
demise of Enron Corporation and the vulnerability of its large
cash dividend, causing TECO securities to trade at artificially
inflated levels. The individual defendants sold over $4.2
million of their own stock and raised over $792 million selling
equity securities. In late 2002 and early 2003, several large
projects and their liabilities were "put" to TECO, moving
hundreds of millions of dollars of off-balance sheet debt onto
TECO's balance sheet. TECO took over a billion dollars in
impairment charges as a result, causing its stock to fall from a
Class Period high of over $28 per share, to below $13 per share
on February 4, 2003.

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


THORATEC CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit 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 Thoratec
Corporation (NASDAQ: THOR) ("Thoratec" or the "Company") between
April 28, 2004 and June 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint charges Thoratec, D. Keith Grossman, and M. Wayne
Boylston 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 defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that the Company significantly underestimated the time
         and the resources necessary to develop a stable market
         for its much touted Destination Therapy;

     (2) that the Company exaggerated the ultimate size of the
         market for the Destination Therapy, while underplaying
         the risk presented by competitive products and
         alternative therapies;

     (3) that the Company ignored the reluctance of the medical
         community to treat non-critical patients with the
         product, in order to take advantage of the higher
         reimbursement levels available from Medicare beginning
         October 1, 2004; and

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

On June 29, 2004, Thoratec provided an update on its business
activities and outlook for the balance of 2004. The Company
stated that it expected total Destination Therapy implants for
2004 will be approximately 200. The Company stated that it
expected revenues for all of 2004 will be approximately $175-
$180 million, with taxed cash earnings per share in the range of
$0.23-$0.26. These numbers were well below expectations. News of
this shocked the market, driving Thoratec shares down $3.69 or
25.52 percent, on June 30, 2004, to close at $10.74 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: THOR@bernlieb.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


VISTACARE INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of purchasers of VistaCare, Inc. (NASDAQ:
VSTA) publicly traded securities during the period between
November 6, 2003 and August 5, 2004.

The complaint charges VistaCare and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. VistaCare is a provider of hospice services in the United
States through interdisciplinary teams of physicians, nurses,
home healthcare aides, social workers, spiritual and other
counselors and volunteers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused VistaCare's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants
concealed the following material adverse facts from the
investing public during the Class Period, that the Company had
manipulated the Company's EPS during the Class Period by
understating the Company's Medicare reserves; and that the
Company's mix of patients requiring shorter hospital stays was
declining, forcing the Company to increase reserves beyond the
Medicare credit of $18,661 per patient, the equivalent of
approximately 150 days.

On August 5, 2004, after the close of trading, the Company
issued a press release announcing second quarter financial
results for the quarter ending June 30, 2004. The press release
stated that results for the quarter were impacted by the
Company's decision to accrue $6.2 million in the quarter for its
Medical annual per-beneficiary payment cap reserve. This news
caused a dramatic decline in VistaCare's share price, from a
closing price of $18.72 on August 5, 2004 to $15.28 on August 6,
2004, for a total one day decline of 18%.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


WET SEAL: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of The Wet Seal, Inc. ("Wet Seal")
(NASDAQ:WTSLA) publicly traded securities during the period
between January 9, 2003 and August 19, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Wet Seal and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Wet Seal is a specialty retailer operating stores selling
fashionable and contemporary apparel and accessory items
designed for female customers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. The true facts which were known by each
of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) 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) the Company's balance sheet was not "strong" as
         defendants claimed, but rather overstated;

     (3) the Company's gross margins were declining at a rate of
         nearly 200 basis points per month;

     (4) the Company's inventory was grossly overvalued and the
         Company's new product line had received disastrous
         reviews which defendants knew would result in declining
         margins and revenues in current and future quarters
         and/or bankruptcy for the Company;

     (5) the Company's point of sale operations transparently
         showed to defendants that their projections were
         grossly inflated and that the Company was teetering on
         the edge of bankruptcy unless it began to liquidate
         stores (as opposed to growing stores);

     (6) the Company's top creative personnel and merchants had
         fled the Company, leaving the Company in a state of
         decay;

     (7) the Company's liability exposure was far greater than
         defendants claimed because the Company had lease
         obligations which were well above market rates;

     (8) the Company had hidden for months the fact that the
         "carrying value" of its stores was materially impaired;

     (9) the Company's stated liabilities for Q1-Q3 2003 were
         understated by at least $1 million relating to the
         Company's failure to pay its employees overtime wages;
         and

    (10) the Company's earnings guidance of ($.53) to ($.57) was
         grossly understated for the Company's Q2 2004, and, in
         fact, the Company would ultimately reveal that its
         reported loss for Q2, alone, would be ($3.20) per
         share.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Wet Seal's
stock price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $12.99 on July 8, 2003, whereby the
Company's major shareholders, top officers and directors sold
more than $40 million worth of their own shares and obtained a
new "last minute" $50 million credit facility as the Company was
teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/wetseal/


WET SEAL: Marc Henzel Launches Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all securities purchasers of
The Wet Seal, Inc. (Nasdaq: WTSLA) from January 7, 2004 through
August 19, 2004 inclusive.

The complaint charges Wet Seal, Peter D. Whitford, Joseph E.
Deckop, and Irving Teitelbaum 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's strategic initiatives plan was not
         strengthening the Company's corporate standing.  In
         fact, the Company's strategic initiatives plan was a
         complete and total disaster that was leading the
         Company into financial ruin;

     (2) that demand for the Company's products was based on
         deep-discounting and that without deep-discounting its
         products, demand for such was at an all time low; 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 that 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 Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.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


WIRELESS FACILITIES: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Wireless Facilities Inc. from April 26, 2000 through
August 4, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Wireless, Masood Tayebi, Terry Ashwill,
Daniel Stokely, Eric DeMarco, and Thomas Munro 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 had materially underreported its
         burgeoning foreign tax burden;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company
         materially inflated its net income or loss by 3-8
         percent or $10-12 million;

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

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

On August 4, 2004, Wireless reported results for the second
quarter of fiscal year 2004.  In addition, the Company announced
that it intends to restate its financial statements filed on
Form 10-K for the years 2001 through 2003 to accrue for certain
foreign tax contingencies.  News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Wireless fell as much as, 30% and reached at one point
on August 5, 2004, its 52 week low of $4.61 per share on
unusually heavy trading volume.  At the end of the trading day,
shares of Wireless fell $1.96 per share or 28.08 percent to
close at $5.02 per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.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: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Zix Corporation (NASDAQ: ZIXI) securities between October 30,
2003 and May 4, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, 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 by E-mail: securitiesfraud@comcast.net


ZIX CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Zix
Corporation (Nasdaq:ZIXI) between October 30, 2003 and May 4,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


ZIX CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in N.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Zix Corporation (Nasdaq: ZIXI)
("Zix") between October 30, 2003 and May 4, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that Zix disseminated materially false and
misleading statements regarding its business and prospects. In
particular, the Complaint alleges that Zix concealed the fact
that it was experiencing sluggish doctor adoption to "e-
prescribing." The Complaint further alleges that claims that Zix
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 network, severely undercutting
physician acceptance and deployment. Furthermore, the Complaint
alleges that Zix's claim that it had 4,000 deployments already
on order was false because, at the time of claim, the
physicians' sites had not been surveyed to evaluate
wireless/LANseeds. Finally, the Complaint alleges that new
offerings from Zix's Elron acquisition were delayed as a result
of integration problems.

On May 4, 2004, Zix announced its results for Q1 2004 which
included a larger than expected loss. On this news, Zix shares
fell from an opening of $14.25 per share on May 4, 2004 to close
at $8.89 per share on May 6, 2004.

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


ZIX CORPORATION: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in N.D. TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Zix Corporation
(NASDAQ: ZIXI) common stock during the period between October
30, 2003 and May 4, 2004.

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 Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.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  * * *