CAR_Public/041006.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, October 6, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 198

                          Headlines

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: To Face Possible SEC Securities Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Suit Filed V. South Australian Government Over Abuses
CALIFORNIA: Judge Certifies Bias Lawsuit V. Alhambra High School
CHATTEM INC.: WA Court To Approve PPA Products Suit Settlement
CHATTEM INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Re-file Dismissed Consumer Suit

CHATTEM INC.: CA Consumers Sue Over Bullfrog Sun Care Products
CINCINNATI BELL: Named As Defendant in Broadwing Securities Suit
CINCINNATI BELL: Asks OH Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
CINCINNATI BELL: Consumers Launch Lawsuit Over Billing Practices
CONCORD CAMERA: FL Court Dismisses Claims in Securities Lawsuit

CONCORD CAMERA: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in S.D. FL
CWN MANAGEMENT: CA Judge Certifies Employee Overtime Wage Suit
FIRST HORIZON: Court Dismisses Investors' Suit Without Prejudice
i2 TECHNOLOGIES: TX Court Approves $84.85M Lawsuit Settlement
JAGUAR: Lowest in Side-Impact Crash Safety According to Tests

JENKENS & GILCHRIST: Clients Opting Out Imperils $75M Settlement
MEDQUIST: Hospital, Greenberg Traurig Files CA Overcharging Suit
MERCK FROSST: Poyner Baxter Files Suit V. VIOXX in BC High Court
MORTON INTERNATIONAL: Reaches $550T Settlement in Douglas County
NEW YORK: Parties Mull Settlement For Suit Over Lobster Die-offs

ORKIN EXTERMINATION: Faces Consumer, Racketeering Lawsuits in FL
PALM INC.: DE Court Grants Final Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
PALM INC.: CA Court Hears Arguments For Suit Settlement Approval
PALM INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Third Amended Consumer Suit in IL
PALM INC.: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held in CA Court

PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Set To Decide Philadelphia Pension Plan Suit
PHILIP MORRIS: Files Final Legal Brief Over $10.1B IL Judgment
PRESSTEK INC.: NH Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
PROCOM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Pact
TALISMAN ENERGY: Group Files NY Suit Over Sudan Ethnic Cleansing

UNITED STATES: Accounting Practices Raises Prospects of D&O Risk
UNITED STATES: NRF Welcomes Court's Decision On Credit Card Case
VERMONT: ACLU Lodges Lawsuit To Block Security Searches on Ferry
VITALWORKS INC.: CT Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit

                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AQUILA INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in KS
CONVERIUM HOLDING: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Stock Suit
INTERACTIVECORP: Cohen Milstein Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit
LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Berman DeValerio Files OR Securities Suit

MERCK & CO.: Bernard M. Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA
STONEPATH GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Lodges PA Securities Fraud Suit
TOMMY HILFIGER: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY


                         *********


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: To Face Possible SEC Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. could face a civil action
over three of its press releases, for violations of federal
securities laws, the Associated Press.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) staff informed the
financial company that the agency is considering charges over
the Company's press releases dated January 30, 2002, September
21 and September 29, 2004.  The releases referred to financial
transactions the Company's AIG Financial Products Corporation
unit arranged for The PNC Financial Services Group Inc., a
Pittsburgh-based bank, more than three years ago.

In the January 30 release, the Company confirmed that it had
arranged the deals, and said they were consolidated on its own
financial statements.  It also said it had not entered into any
other transactions using this structure, AP reports.

In July 2002, PNC settled charges filed against it by the SEC
alleging that the Company improperly shifted $762 million of
underperforming loans and volatile venture-capital investments
to three off-balance-sheet structures arranged with the help of
the AIG unit.  The company entered the settlement without
admitting or denying wrongdoing.

The September 21 release announced that AIG received notice from
the SEC that the agency was considering civil action due to the
PNC deals.  The September 29 release announced that the Justice
Department is investigating possible violations of securities
laws at AIG.  The company said it believed the investigation
related to the same matter the SEC was investigating, AP
reports.

AIG said Monday that it "believes that any contention that the
three press releases are or may be false or misleading is
without merit and that any action by the SEC would be
unwarranted," AP reports.


AUSTRALIA: Suit Filed V. South Australian Government Over Abuses
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firm Duncan Basheer Hannon lodged a statement of claim
in District Court for a class action lawsuit that was filed
against the South Australian Government over allegations of
sexual assault against hundreds of children in state care over
four decades, the Daily Telegraph reports.

The class action is expected to involve several hundred male and
female victims.

Now 41, the victim, whom the firm represents in the statement of
claim, alleges that he was sexually abused while a ward of the
state at the Brookway Park home in Adelaide. The victim, who was
11 years old at the time, also stated that he was under the care
of the Minister of Community Welfare when he was repeatedly
abused over a six-week period in late 1973 or early 1974.

Among other things, the victim also alleges that he was taken
from his bed by a member of the staff and met two men who forced
him into penetrative sexual intercourse with other boys while
they took photographs and that he was anally raped by one of the
men.

As a result of the assaults, the unnamed individual now suffers
post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety, has poor
self-esteem and has difficulty forming intimate relationships.

The wider class action names 13 youth detention facilities and
alleges the state government was negligent in failing to
appropriately screen staff before they were hired, and seeks
unspecified damages.

According to Attorney Peter Humphries, the class action lawsuit
alleges that the state failed in its duty of care by not
ensuring proper controls and supervision were in place to
prevent predatory sexual activity during the years between 1960
and 2004.


CALIFORNIA: Judge Certifies Bias Lawsuit V. Alhambra High School
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal district court judge certified as a class action a
lawsuit that accuses the Alhambra High School of discriminating
against girls' softball players by denying them access to the
state-of-the-art fields the boys' baseball team uses to include
all of the school's female athletes as plaintiffs, the Pasadena
Star-News reports.

According to Claudia Center, a senior staff attorney with the
Legal Aid Society's Employment Law Center, which is representing
the plaintiffs along with the California Women's Law Center, the
class-action certification was a necessary step before the court
could consider remedies that would benefit all female students
and not just the four original plaintiffs.  Though refusing to
comment further, attorneys from both sides stated that they
would attempt to settle the lawsuit through mediation.

Originally filed by four female athletes under Title IX, which
prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded educational
programs, focuses on the alleged inequities between girls'
softball and boys' baseball at Alhambra High School.

The suit contends that the boys' team has played at Moor Field
since February 2003, which is owned by the school district and
was recently upgraded with new bleachers and electronic
scoreboards, and grass that is well maintained using money from
the city of Alhambra. The city is also named as a defendant in
the lawsuit.

On the other hand, the girls' team practices and plays at the
field at Alhambra High School, which is pitted and overgrown
with weeds.  The lawsuit also alleges that the girls' locker
room facilities are inferior to the boys' facilities and that
girls do not have equal access to the school's weight rooms,
gyms or coaching staff.


CHATTEM INC.: WA Court To Approve PPA Products Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Western District of
Washington indicated it will approve the settlement of the
consolidated federal class action against Chattem, Inc., styled
"IN RE PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE (PPA) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION,
MDL NO. 1407."

As of September 29, 2004, the Company was named as a defendant
in approximately 345 lawsuits alleging that the plaintiffs were
injured as a result of ingestion of products containing
phenylpropanolamine (PPA), which was an active ingredient in
most of the Company's DEXATRIM products until November 2000.
Most of the lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
and exemplary damages or punitive damages.

The lawsuits that are federal were transferred to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington
before United States District Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein.
The remaining cases are state court cases that have been filed
in a number of different states.

In an effort to achieve a global settlement of all DEXATRIM PPA
product liability claims, on December 19, 2003, the Company
entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Plaintiffs'
Steering Committee (PSC) in IN RE PHENYLPROPANOLAMINE ("PPA")
PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL 1407.  The Memorandum of
Understanding memorialized certain settlement terms concerning
lawsuits relating to the Company's DEXATRIM products containing
PPA.

On April 13, 2004, the Company entered into a class action
settlement agreement with representatives of the plaintiffs'
settlement class.  The class action settlement agreement was
generally consistent with the terms of and superseded the
Memorandum of Understanding and provided for a national class
action settlement of all DEXATRIM PPA claims.  The court granted
preliminary approval of the class action settlement on April 23,
2004.

On August 26, 2004, a fairness hearing to consider final
approval of the settlement was held before Judge Rothstein. At
the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Rothstein stated that the
court would prepare and enter an order certifying the class and
granting approval of the settlement.  The Company expects that
the order will be entered in October 2004.

The settlement includes claims against the Company involving
alleged injuries by DEXATRIM products containing PPA that were
alleged to have occurred after December 21, 1998, the date the
company acquired the DEXATRIM brand.  In accordance with the
terms of the class action settlement agreement, the Company
previously published notice of the settlement and details as to
the manner in which claims could be submitted.  The deadline for
submission of claims was July 7, 2004.

A total of 391 claims were submitted prior to the claims
deadline. Of these 391 claims, 173 alleged stroke as an injury
and 218 alleged other non-stroke injuries.  These claims will be
valued pursuant to the agreed upon settlement matrix that is
designed to evaluate and determine the settlement value of each
claim.  A total of 16 claimants elected to opt out of the class
settlement and may continue to pursue claims for damages against
the Company in separate lawsuits.


CHATTEM INC.: Plaintiffs Fail To Re-file Dismissed Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs failed to re-file the class action lodged against
Chattem, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York seeking certification of a class
consisting of New York residents who have purchased DEXATRIM
Results or DEXATRIM Natural since January 2000.

The class action lawsuit sought compensatory and punitive
damages arising out of allegedly false advertising in connection
with the sale of DEXATRIM Results and DEXATRIM Natural products.
None of the plaintiffs in this action alleged personal injury as
a result of the ingestion of a DEXATRIM product.

On March 29, 2004, a stipulation was submitted to the court
dismissing the case on jurisdictional grounds.  Pursuant to the
stipulation, the plaintiffs may re-file the class action in New
York state court.  These plaintiffs have not re-filed this
lawsuit as of September 29, 2004.


CHATTEM INC.: CA Consumers Sue Over Bullfrog Sun Care Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chattem, Inc. faces a putative class action suit filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles on behalf of residents of the United States, or
residents of the State of California, who have purchased the
Company's BULLFROG sun care products during the past four years.

The lawsuit seeks injunctive relief and compensatory damages
under the California Business and Professions Code against the
Company arising out of alleged deceptive, untrue or misleading
advertising, and breach of warranty, in connection with the
manufacturing, labeling, advertising, promotion and sale of
BULLFROG products.  The plaintiff has stipulated that the amount
in controversy with respect to plaintiffs' individual claim and
each member of the proposed class does not exceed $75.


CINCINNATI BELL: Named As Defendant in Broadwing Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. was added as a defendant in a shareholder
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, styled "In re Broadwing Inc.
Securities Class Action Lawsuits, (Gallow v. Broadwing
Inc., et al), Case No. C-1-02-795."

Between October and December 2002, five virtually identical
class action lawsuits were filed against Broadwing Inc. and two
of its former Chief Executive Officers.  These complaints were
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Broadwing's securities
between January 17, 2001 and May 20, 2002, inclusive.  The suits
alleged violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 by, inter alia, improperly recognizing
revenue associated with Indefeasible Right of Use (IRU)
agreements; and failing to write-down goodwill associated with
the Company's 1999 acquisition of IXC Communications, Inc.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorney's
fees, and expert expenses.

On December 30, 2002, the "Local 144 Group" filed a motion
seeking consolidation of the complaints and appointment as lead
plaintiff.  By order dated October 29, 2003, Local 144 Nursing
Home Pension Fund, Paul J. Brunner and Joseph Lask were named
lead plaintiffs in a putative consolidated class action.

The lead plaintiffs filed their amended consolidated complaint
on behalf of purchasers of Broadwing's securities between
January 17, 2001 and May 21, 2002, inclusive.  This amended
complaint contained a number of new allegations and defendants,
including the Company.  The Company's motion to dismiss was
filed on February 6, 2004.  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to
the Company's motion to dismiss on April 15, 2004, and the
Company filed its reply on June 1, 2004.


CINCINNATI BELL: Asks OH Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell, Inc. (formerly Broadwing, Inc.) asked the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
Western Division to dismiss the class action filed against it,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).  The suit is styled "In re Broadwing Inc. ERISA
Class Action Lawsuits, (Kurtz v. Broadwing Inc., et al), U.S
District Court, Southern District of Ohio, Western Division,
Case No. C-1-02-857."

Between November 18, 2002 and January 10, 2003, four putative
class action lawsuits were filed against Broadwing Inc. and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
Fidelity Management Investment Trust Company was also named as a
defendant in these actions.

These cases, which purport to be brought on behalf of the
Cincinnati Bell Inc. Savings and Security Plan, the Broadwing
Retirement Savings Plan, and a class of participants in the
Plans, generally allege that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duties under the ERISA by improperly encouraging the
Plan participant-plaintiffs to elect to invest in the Company
stock fund within the relevant Plan and by improperly continuing
to make employer contributions to the Company stock fund within
the relevant Plan.  The suits were later consolidated and on
October 22, 2003, a putative consolidated class action complaint
was filed.


CINCINNATI BELL: Consumers Launch Lawsuit Over Billing Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cincinnati Bell Wireless is facing a class action lawsuit for
alleged billing problems that have resulted in the wrongful
assessment local roaming charges to customers on behalf all the
company's subscribers, WCPO reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Court of Common Pleas in
Hamilton County, Ohio, claims that Cincinnati Bell Wireless
illegally charged its subscribers for wrongful roaming charges
in a scheme to defraud consumers through its billing practices.
Furthermore, the suit claims that Cincinnati Bell has known
about these roaming mistakes for more than a year.

According to one consumer of Cincinnati Bell Wireless Services,
Sandy Wynn, "I was shocked to learn that Cincinnati Bell
Wireless had charged me roaming on several occasions for cell
calls I made from Cincinnati to Cincinnati."

The law firm of Ulmer & Berne LLP is one of two law firms who
filed the class action lawsuit, which seeks unspecified damages.
For more details, visit http://www.checkyourcellbill.com/


CONCORD CAMERA: FL Court Dismisses Claims in Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida dismissed most of the claims in a class action filed
against Concord Camera Corporation and certain of its officers.

Individuals purporting to be shareholders of the Company filed
the suit.  On August 20, 2002, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint and in December 2002, the court granted
the Company's motion.

In January 2003, an amended class action complaint was filed
adding certain of the Company's current and former directors as
defendants.  The lead plaintiffs in the Amended Complaint sought
to act as representatives of a class consisting of all persons
who purchased the Company's Common Stock issued pursuant to the
Company's September 26, 2000 secondary offering (the "Secondary
Offering") or during the period from September 26, 2000 through
June 22, 2001, inclusive.

On April 18, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint and on August 27, 2004, the court:

     (1) dismissed all claims against the defendants related to
         the Secondary Offering and

     (2) dismissed all claims against the defendants related to
         allegations of misconduct occurring before February
         2001 or after April 2001 (the period February 2001
         through April 2001 hereinafter referred to as the
         "Shortened Class Period").

The allegations remaining in the Amended Complaint are centered
around claims that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic
reports it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) and in press releases it made to the public during the
Shortened Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, that a large portion of its accounts receivable was
represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance due from
then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc (KB Gear), and claims
that such failures artificially inflated the price of the Common
Stock.  The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other
and further relief from the court.  The lawsuit is in the
earliest stage and discovery has not yet commenced.


CONCORD CAMERA: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concord Camera Corporation faces three class action complaints
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida by individuals purporting to be shareholders
of the Company.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Martin Brustein v. Ira B. Lampert, Harlan Press,
         Richard M. Finkbeiner and Concord Camera Corp.;

     (2) Chalermchai Punya v. Concord Camera Corporation, Ira
         Lampert, Harlan Press and Richard Finkbeiner; and

     (3) Morris Akerman v. Ira B. Lampert, Harlan Press and
         Concord Camera Corp.

The claims in the three class actions are essentially the same.
The Company expects these lawsuits to be consolidated into one
case.  The plaintiffs in these complaints seek to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's Common Stock during the period from
August 14, 2003 through May 10, 2004, inclusive and who were
allegedly damaged thereby.

The allegations in the complaints are centered around claims
that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the SEC and in press releases it made to the public
during the Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, the full extent of the Company's excess, obsolete and
otherwise impaired inventory, and claims that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the Common Stock.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit and unspecified other and further relief from the
court.


CWN MANAGEMENT: CA Judge Certifies Employee Overtime Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently released decision, Judge Ronald L. Bauer ruled
that a lawsuit for overtime wages brought by Assistant Kitchen
Managers against CWN Management, Inc. dba Claim Jumper
Restaurants can proceed as a class action. The class includes
all past and present Assistant Kitchen Managers who have worked
at Claim Jumper Restaurants in California since January 11, 1998
to present.

CWN Management, Inc. owns and operates 23 Claim Jumper
Restaurants in California. The lawsuit alleges that Claim Jumper
improperly failed to pay overtime to its Assistant Kitchen
Managers. "These are very dedicated, hardworking people," said
John Quisenberry, an attorney representing the class. "Claim
Jumper admits their employees must work 55 to 65 hours a week,
but refuses to pay them for more than 40 hours."

California law requires employers to pay overtime for all
employees, unless the employer can show that an exemption
applies. Claim Jumper contends that its Assistant Kitchen
Managers fall under the executive exemption because they spend
more than half their working hours managing the business and
performing managerial tasks. But the plaintiffs disagree. "These
employees are very skilled at their job, and are major
contributors to the success Claim Jumper enjoys. But their job
requires them to spend the majority of time on tasks which
entitle them to overtime pay under California law," said Susan
Abitanta, an attorney with The Quisenberry Law Firm in Los
Angeles which represents the plaintiffs in this case.

In this case against Claim Jumper, the company limited the
number of payroll hours that each restaurant had available to
pay hourly employees who would perform the non-managerial tasks
such as preparing food, cooking, cleaning, and monitoring the
quality of the food served. Since there were not enough payroll
hours in the budget, the complaint alleges, the Assistant
Kitchen Managers were forced to spend much of their time
performing the duties of the hourly employees and working
extremely long hours without extra pay.

"Claim Jumper has been in business for more than 27 years.
Hopefully this lawsuit will prompt the company to comply with
the law and pay overtime to the employees who deserve it most,"
stated John Quisenberry.

The court's ruling certifying the class does not decide whether
the class members are eligible for overtime or the amount of
overtime pay they will receive. The court will determine whether
Claim Jumper is liable, and if so, how much overtime pay is due
to the class members later in the suit.


FIRST HORIZON: Court Dismisses Investors' Suit Without Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
First Horizon Pharmaceutical Corporation (NASDAQ: FHRX), a
specialty pharmaceutical company, revealed that the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia has
dismissed, without prejudice, the class action law suit filed by
certain of the Company's investors against the Company and
certain former and current officers.

The dismissed class action law suit alleged in general terms
that the Company and certain former and current officers
violated Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and that they had made
materially false and misleading statements to the market in
connection with the Company's public offering on April 24, 2002
and thereafter relating to alleged "channel stuffing"
activities.

Although the class action lawsuit was dismissed, the Court
granted the plaintiffs the right to refile their class action
lawsuit provided that the plaintiffs pay all of the defendant's
fees and costs associated with filing the motions to dismiss the
class action lawsuit.


i2 TECHNOLOGIES: TX Court Approves $84.85M Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas entered an order and final judgment approving the
previously announced settlement of the consolidated shareholder
class action and derivative lawsuits filed against i2
Technologies, Inc.

The settlement, previously reported in the May 13, 2004 edition
of the CAR Newsletter, does not reflect any admission of
wrongdoing by i2 or its directors or officers.  The time to take
an appeal from the order expires on November 1, 2004.
Approximately 0.015 percent of potential class members who claim
to have purchased a total of approximately 0.3 percent of shares
of i2 stock eligible to participate in the class action excluded
themselves from the settlement.

Under the settlement agreement, the total settlement amount is
$84.85 million, which includes $43 million to be covered by i2
insurance policies and $41.85 million paid by i2 in the second
quarter of 2004. i2 established an accrual of $42 million
relating to the possible settlement of the lawsuits in the
fourth quarter of 2003.

To raise the necessary money, the company has also entered into
agreements providing for the issuance and sale by i2 of $22
million worth of common stock to certain individual defendants
in the lawsuits.


JAGUAR: Lowest in Side-Impact Crash Safety According to Tests
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released the results
of its side-impact crash tests on midsize sedans, with the 2004
Jaguar X-Type car getting the worst rating, the Associated Press
reports.

The institute's test measures the impact on dummies in the front
and back seats of a sedan that is struck in the side by a sport
utility vehicle traveling 31 mph.  The government's test mimics
a side-impact crash involving two cars.  Adrian Lund, the
institute's chief operating officer, said the Jaguar's side air
bags protected the dummies' heads, but the side of the vehicle
was crushed and could have caused severe injuries to the
driver's torso, AP reports.

The institute gave the highest rating to the 2005 Mitsubishi
Galant, the 2004 Saab 9-3, the 2004 Lexus ES 330 and the 2004
Acura TL.  The 2004 Saab 9-5, 2005 Mercedes C class and 2005
Volvo S40 earned the institute's second-highest rating,
"acceptable."  The Jaguar X-Type, which sells starting at
$31,000, fared worse than some less expensive cars.

The Saab 9-3 and the Toyota RAV4, a small sport utility vehicle,
are the only vehicles to earn the institute's best pick
designation on both side-impact and front-crash tests, Mr. Lund
said, according to AP.

The Mitsubishi Galant's top rating was a significant improvement
from 2004, when it was tested without side air bags and got the
institute's lowest rating.  In 2004, the vehicle had optional
side air bags.  The institute does not test vehicles with air
bags unless the safety devices are standard.  The 2005 Galant
has standard air bags that protect the chest and head.

Mr. Lund said the difference was dramatic, AP reports.
"Mitsubishi should be commended for making side air bags with
head protection standard in this relatively inexpensive car," he
said.  "The results for the Galant show that you don't have to
spend a lot of money to get good protection in side-impact
crashes.

The institute said all of the cars had head-protecting side air
bags, which have been shown to reduce deaths by about 45 percent
among drivers who are struck in the driver's side.  Twenty-seven
percent of 2004 vehicles offered head-protecting side air bags
as standard equipment.  An additional 21 percent offered them as
an option, the institute said, according to AP.


JENKENS & GILCHRIST: Clients Opting Out Imperils $75M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed $75 million class action settlement between Jenkens &
Gilchrist and some 1,100 disgruntled former clients who received
tax advice from the Dallas-based firm is in jeopardy, the NY
Lawyer reports.

The settlement has been jeopardized due to the filing of notices
by at least 40 former Jenkens clients that informs court-
appointed special masters of their intent to opt out of the
proposed class action settlement in Thomas Denney, et al. v.
Jenkens & Gilchrist, et al., which is pending in the Southern
District of New York before Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The opt-
out deadline for the former Jenkens clients was September 28.
The exact nature of the former clients decision to opt-out is
not known.

The former Jenkens clients are mostly wealthy individuals who
sought advice on how to shelter millions of dollars of income
from the Internal Revenue Service.  First revealed on March 5,
2004, Jenkens Chairman Thomas Cantrill embraced the deal as one
that "would have a positive effect in a lot of ways."

However, now that some of the class members have opted out,
Jenkens and the lawyers representing the class have 60 days to
persuade the opt-outs to rejoin the proposed settlement. If they
fail, Jenkens or its insurance companies could refuse to
participate in the proposed settlement.


MEDQUIST: Hospital, Greenberg Traurig Files CA Overcharging Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's South Broward Hospital District and international law
firm Greenberg Traurig LLP initiated a class action suit against
MedQuist (MEDQ.PK), a publicly-traded company based in Mt.
Laurel, New Jersey and the world's #1 vendor for electronic
medical transcription services, following an independent
investigation of MedQuist's billing procedures.

Delisted from NASDAQ June 16, MedQuist, which is the single
largest transcription company in the world, identified
accounting errors following the complaints of an employee. In
its public statements, in late July, the company detailed the
results of an independent audit by Debevoise & Plimpton LLP and
Pricewaterhouse Coopers which found some hospital clients were
over-billed for transcription services. As a result of the
investigation, MedQuist replaced their CEO and fired their chief
financial officer and chief legal officer. The Securities &
Exchange Commission has also launched an investigation of the
company.

SSI Advisors, a management consulting company headquartered in
New York, spent almost a year for one large hospital system
evaluating MedQuist's over billing problem. Based on invoices
reviewed, SSI Advisors' principal, Jeffrey Litvack, found
through their analysis that the MedQuist over bill rates reached
as high as 50% on some invoices and estimated a loss exceeding
ten (10) million dollars to the hospital system. Mr. Litvack can
be reached at jlitvack@ssiadvisors.com.

The class action has been filed in the United States Central
District of California by the international law firm Greenberg
Traurig LLP who charges that MedQuist "knowingly and
fraudulently overcharged for transcription services."

"MedQuist's fraud and over-billing was intentional and the
fraudulent invoicing was designed specifically so that it was
nearly impossible for the customers to trace the actual costs of
the services provided," said Mark Hogge of Greenberg Traurig's
Washington, D.C. office.

The class is expected to grow as it's anticipated that as many
as 4,600 hospitals nationwide and in Canada are clients of
MedQuist and that the losses due to MedQuist's fraud are
expected to be quite significant. The class action is expected
to be one of the largest ever taken by corporations and one of
the first to use consumer fraud laws by companies against
another company.

MedQuist has retained the law firm of Winston & Strawn LLP to
represent it in the matter.

For more details, visit the Greenberg Traurig LLP Web site:
http://www.gtlaw.com


MERCK FROSST: Poyner Baxter Files Suit V. VIOXX in BC High Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
British Columbians, who may have been put at risk because of the
drug VIOXX, will be represented in a class action lawsuit filed
October 1, 2004, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The suit against Merck Frosst Canada Ltd. and associated firms,
developers and promoters of VIOXX, was initiated by the law firm
of Poyner Baxter of North Vancouver, which works predominantly
in the field of class action suits. It will parallel similar
litigation worldwide.

VIOXX - also known as CEOXX in some countries - has been
prescribed for the relief of arthritic and other acute pain. It
was withdrawn from the market worldwide by Merck & Company on
September 28, 2004 after studies demonstrated a significantly
increased risk to patients of cardiovascular events, including
strokes and heart attacks. Trials, which commenced in 2000,
involved 2,600 patients. Conclusive results concerned those who
used the drug for 18 months or more, but Merck claimed evidence
did not indicate increased risk for those whose usage was of
less duration.

VIOXX, with annual sales of $US 2.5 billion worldwide, has been
used by 84 million patients since it was introduced in 1999. It
has been the 10th best selling drug in Canada with 2003 sales of
$200 million.

Under B.C.'s "Class Proceedings Act," a suit is brought in the
name of one individual as "representative of a class." The
Poyner Baxter action cites the case of one person, but if
certified by the Supreme Court, it will represent and
potentially benefit everyone in the province who has used VIOXX.

An excerpt from the statement of claim cites: "VIOXX has been
associated with an increased risk of serious, adverse
cardiovascular complications, including but not limited to,
heart attack, stroke, angina pectoris, atrial fibrillation,
bradycardia, hematoma, irregular heartbeat, palpitation,
premature ventricular contraction, tachycardia, venous
insufficiency, cerebrovascular accident, congestive heart
failure, deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, transient
ischemic attack, and unstable angina.

"Defendants knew or ought to have known at least as early as
2000 that there was a significant risk of serious adverse
cardiovascular complications from ingesting VIOXX. The
Defendants failed to apprise the Plaintiff or his physicians of
that risk.

The suit explains that information to physicians, pharmacists
and patients in Canada failed to warn of the serious adverse
cardiovascular risks associated with ingesting VIOXX, whereas in
the U.S., this side-effects advisory was standard:

"Heart attacks and other serious cardiovascular events, such as
blood clots in your body have been reported in patients taking
VIOXX . It is simply not good enough in the health field to say
'oops, we're sorry,' and then carry on as if it is business as
usual," said lawyer Jim Poyner.

"The essential point in an action like this is the phrase that
they 'knew or ought to have known' the dangers to patients. The
evidence is clear that Merck knew something was wrong as early
as 2000 and failed to inform Canadians, not even the cautionary
warning given to Americans," Mr. Poyner said.


MORTON INTERNATIONAL: Reaches $550T Settlement in Douglas County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morton International Inc. of Indiana has settled its part of a
Douglas County class action lawsuit for $500,000 cash, according
to an October 4 public notice, the Denver Business Journal
reports.

Merril F. and Mary Jean Rowe and other Colorado residents filed
the lawsuit in Douglas County District Court in Castle Rock in
1999.  Defendants in the legal action include Morton, Oldach
Window Corporation of Colorado, Outlook Windows Partnership
(doing business as Oldach Wood, Windows and Doors Corp.), Robert
Oldach and Sealrite Windows Inc. of Nebraska. Currently all the
Oldach entities mentioned are in bankruptcy in Nebraska.

The suit claims that the companies were involved in the
manufacture and sale of allegedly hazardous Tiltmaster 2000
windows that included an acrylic sealant called M-30, which was
made by Morton, as back bedding. The plaintiffs further claimed
that "certain damages" resulted from the use of M-30 in the
windows.  A Morton settlement hearing is scheduled for November
5, 2004 in Douglas County District Court in Castle Rock.


NEW YORK: Parties Mull Settlement For Suit Over Lobster Die-offs
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two of the pesticide companies named in lawsuit over the death
of lobsters in Long Island Sound five years ago have reached a
tentative settlement with the plaintiffs in the suit, a lawyer
for the plaintiffs announced, according to the Journal News.

Lobstermen filed the federal lawsuit, charging Agrevo
Environmental Health, Clarke Mosquito Control Products,
Cheminova and Zoecon Corporation for causing lobsters to die off
in 1999 and 2000.  The companies sprayed pesticide to kill West
Nile virus-carrying mosquitoes.  The pesticides were washed into
the Sound by Hurricane Floyd, causing the lobsters to be killed.

Gladstone Jones, a Louisiana-based lawyer for the lobstermen,
said they had reached a tentative settlement with two of the
companies - Agrevo Environmental Health and Clarke Mosquito
Control Products.  Claims that could reach in the hundreds of
millions of dollars remain against a third company, Cheminova,
over its pesticide malathion, he said.

"We think that the science pretty clearly implicates the
malathion pesticide as the killer of this lobster industry in
1999," he added, according to the Journal News.  Mr. Jones added
that the lobstermen dropped claims against Zoecon earlier.

The federal court granted certification for the suit on behalf
of hundreds of lobstermen that may have been affected, a
decision that the Companies appealed.  They asserted that the
lobsters began dying off before the spraying for West Nile
virus, and that the lobsters' deaths can't be pinned on the
chemicals because the Sound suffers from many environmental
problems.

Scientists from 17 research projects investigating the die-offs
met on October 4,2004 at Stony Brook University on Long Island
to present their findings.  The fourth annual Long Island Sound
Lobster Health Symposium is also the last one scheduled.  The
scientists' findings so far have looked at a combination of
factors that may have caused or contributed to the die-off: the
pesticides, as well as climate change and a parasitic amoeba.
The research was funded with $6.6 million allocated by Congress
in July 2000 and $1 million from Connecticut. An additional $7.3
million in federal funds was allocated for direct economic help
for the lobstermen.

A lawyer for Cheminova did not return a telephone call last
week.  Nor did a lawyer for Agrevo.  Laura McGowan, a
spokeswoman for Clarke, would not comment on the case, The
Journal News reports.


ORKIN EXTERMINATION: Faces Consumer, Racketeering Lawsuits in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pest control company Orkin Extermination faces several lawsuit
filed over its termite work in Florida, the Orlando Sentinel
reports.  The complaints include:

     (1) writing contracts with fine-print disclaimers on repair
         and retreatment guarantees;

     (3) not doing adequate treatments and inspections;

     (4) denying claims as a matter of policy, and

     (5) forcing subcontractors to make repairs without the
         required building permits, so the work could not be
         certified by inspectors

Recently, a federal judge upheld a multimillion-dollar
arbitration judgment in favor of Collier Black, a customer of
the Company from Ponte Vedra, the Associated Press reports.  Mr.
Black had documented termite repairs to his home over six years
in which subcontractors hadn't pulled the required building
permits.

At a 2003 arbitration hearing, he won a $4.25, which a federal
judge later upheld, but reduced to $2 million.   The arbitration
panel ruled in Mr. Black's favor, saying the practice was
"widespread."  Mr. Black's attorneys uncovered hundreds of
similar cases in north and central Florida.

Soon after, Florida Attorney General Charlie Crist started a
racketeering probe against the Company.  AG Crist subpoenaed
company records and documents in connection with the probe, AP
reports.  Company spokeswoman Martha Craft told the Orlando
Sentinel the Company is cooperating, but the company has filed a
lawsuit in Orange County seeking to block the state subpoena.

The Company also faces a class action filed in Hillsborough
County Circuit Court in Florida on behalf of 65,000 of its
customers.  The suit seeks class action status and charges the
Company of deceptive and unfair trade practices.  In 2003, the
Company settled a $6.7 million lawsuit over a termite damaged
apartment complex in Hillsborough County.  Terms of the
settlement were confidential.

Orkin, a $670-million, Atlanta-based company with nearly 8,000
employees, denied all the allegations, the Orlando Sentinel
stated.  "To put the general issue of lawsuits in perspective,
less than 1 percent of Orkin's termite customers file claims,"
said Orkin spokeswoman Martha Craft.  "Of these claims, well
over 98 percent are resolved to the customer's satisfaction
without setting one foot in a courtroom."

Former Orkin executive Wayne Cowart, now a consultant to pest-
control consumers, said he doesn't think Orkin is any worse than
its competition, AP reports.  "In many regards, Orkin has been
unfairly attacked," he said.  "They've had their problems, but
they probably have less claims per customer than any other
(large) pest-control company."


PALM INC.: DE Court Grants Final Approval To Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for the
County of New Castle granted final approval to the settlement of
the consolidated stockholder class actions filed against Palm,
Inc., Handspring, Inc. and various officers and directors of
Handspring.

Two cases were originally filed, styled "Goldhirsch v.
Handspring, Inc., et. al," and "Majarian v. Handspring, Inc.,
et. al."  The Majarian complaint was amended on or about June
23, 2003 to, among other things, delete certain previously named
officer defendants.

Both complaints allege that the officers and directors of
Handspring breached their fiduciary duties to Handspring
stockholders by, among other things, failing to undertake an
appropriate evaluation of Handspring's net worth as a merger or
acquisition candidate and failing to maximize Handspring
stockholder value by not engaging in a meaningful auction of
Handspring.  The Majarian complaint also alleges, among other
things, that the officers and directors of Handspring breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to act independently so that
the interests of Handspring's public stockholders would be
protected and enhanced.

Both complaints allege that Palm aided and abetted the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duty of Handspring's officers and
directors.  Both complaints seek, among other things, a
preliminary and permanent injunction against the transaction, a
rescission of the transaction if it is consummated and
unspecified damages.  The Goldhirsch complaint also requests,
among other things, that the Court order Handspring's officers
and directors to take all necessary steps to maximize
stockholder value, including open bidding and/or a market check.
The cases were consolidated and a tentative settlement was
reached in October 2003 subject to appropriate documentation,
confirmatory discovery and Court approval.


PALM INC.: CA Court Hears Arguments For Suit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in San Francisco heard arguments
for final approval of the settlement of a consumer class action
filed against Palm, Inc. and 3Com, entitled "Connelly v. Palm
and 3Com," on September 30,2004.

The suit alleges breach of warranty and violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law.  The suit, filed on behalf
of purchasers of Palm III, IIIc, V and Vx handhelds, alleges
that certain Palm handhelds may cause damage to PC motherboards
by permitting an electrical charge, or "floating voltage," from
either the handheld or the cradle to be introduced into the PC
via the serial and/or USB port on the PC due to a design defect
in the Palm products.  The complaint seeks restitution,
rescission, damages, an injunction mandating corrective measures
to protect against future damage as well as notifying users of
potential harm.

The parties engaged in mediation and reached settlement, which
received preliminary Court approval in December 2003.  The terms
of the settlement will result in a resolution that is not
material to palmOne's financial position, the Company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


PALM INC.: Plaintiffs Launch Third Amended Consumer Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a third amended consumer class action against
Palm, Inc. in Illinois Circuit Court, Cook County entitled
"Goldstein v. Palm."

The case alleges consumer fraud regarding Palm's representations
that its m100, III, V, and VII handheld personal digital
assistant, as sold, would provide wireless access to the
Internet and email accounts, and would perform common business
functions including data base management, custom form creation
and viewing Microsoft Word and Excel documents, among other
tasks.  The case seeks unspecified actual damages and
indemnification of certain costs.

Following two successful motions to dismiss filed by the Company
the Plaintiff filed a third amended complaint to which the
Company was scheduled to file an answer in September 2004.  No
further developments have yet occurred, according to a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


PALM INC.: Final Settlement Fairness Hearing Held in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Santa Clara County heard on
October 6,2004 arguments for the settlement of the consumer
class action filed against Palm, Inc. styled "Hemmingsen et al
v. Palm, Inc."

The complaint, filed on behalf of purchasers of Palm m515
handhelds, alleges that such handhelds fail at unacceptably high
rates, and in particular that instant updating and
synchronization of data with PCs often will not occur.  The
complaint further alleges that, upon learning of the problem,
Palm did not perform proper corrective measures for individual
customers as set forth in the product warranty, among other
things.

The complaint alleges that Palm's actions violate California's
Unfair Competition Law and constitute a breach of warranty.  The
complaint seeks restitution, disgorgement, damages, an
injunction mandating corrective measures including a full
replacement program for all allegedly defective m515s or,
alternatively mandating a refund to all purported class members
of the full purchase price for their m515s, and attorneys' fees.

The parties have reached a settlement to which the Court gave
preliminary approval in April 2004.


PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Set To Decide Philadelphia Pension Plan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Philadelphia judge is expected to decide a class action case
in which 12,000 Philadelphia municipal employees accused the
city of mismanaging their pension plan between 1984 and 1995,
the Philadelphia Inquirer reports.

The employees' suit, which was filed in 1994 and tried as a no
jury trial before Common Pleas Court Judge Stephen E. Levin in
July, seeks $11.6 million plus interest of up to $5 million in
compensation to the pension plan.

At issue are two contracts the city awarded to private companies
to manage the Philadelphia Employees' Deferred Compensation Plan
during the administrations of former Mayors W. Wilson Goode and
Edward G. Rendell.

Steven E. Angstreich, a lawyer representing the employees,
contends that the city was "grossly negligent" in overseeing the
management companies that received generous fees from the
pension plan while allegedly losing millions of dollars on
investments.  Chief deputy city solicitor Michael F. Eichert,
who is representing the city, denied the charges.

Furthermore, the employees' lawsuit also contends that the
Rendell administration made a bad investment in 1992,
transferring $27.4 million from a long-term security that would
have paid a fixed rate of 7.3 percent to shorter-term
investments paying lower rates, a transfer that led to a $3.5
million loss - in reduced income - over a two-year period.

However, the city's lawyers argue that the transfer was made to
diversify investments, trading a high return rate from a single
investment to a lower return rate for several investments
intended to be safer.

Mr. Angstreich also contends the city allowed both the two
management firms, the Public Employees Benefit Services Corp.
(Pebsco), of Columbus, Ohio, chosen by the Goode administration
in 1984, and Copeland Associates Inc., of New Brunswick, N.J. to
"gouge the plan with excessive administrative and investment
service fees."

The City also disputes the allegations, arguing that both
contracts were awarded properly to the lowest bidder.

The City Solicitor's Office sought unsuccessfully to have the
case dismissed on grounds that municipal governments were immune
from negligence claims, an argument which Judge Levin rejected
in 2002 that allowed the case to go to trial.


PHILIP MORRIS: Files Final Legal Brief Over $10.1B IL Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Morris USA filed its final legal brief in connection with
the appeal of a $10.1 billion judgment in the Price "Light"
cigarettes class action, setting the stage for oral argument
before the Illinois Supreme Court.  The Court has not yet set a
date for the argument, but the company expects it will occur
within the next few months.

"Philip Morris USA looks forward to the opportunity to convince
the Illinois Supreme Court that this case should never have been
certified as a class action, and that the judgment is
inconsistent with the facts presented at trial and with Illinois
law.

"The company is optimistic that, after considering all legal
issues, the Illinois Supreme Court will agree that the Madison
County court's decision should be overturned," said William S.
Ohlemeyer, Philip Morris USA vice president and associate
general counsel.

A summary of the company's appellate position, along with the
appellate briefs, can be found on the website of Philip Morris
USA's parent company: http://www.altria.com


PRESSTEK INC.: NH Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
The purported securities class action lawsuit brought against
the Presstek, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRST), together with its former
Chief Executive Officer Robert W. Hallman, and former Chief
Financial Officer Neil Rossen, has been dismissed. The suit,
claiming to be brought on behalf of purchasers of Presstek's
common stock during the period from December 10, 1999 through
July 16, 2001, was filed in June 2003 in the United States
District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

In a 47-page decision granting Presstek's motion to dismiss,
United States District Court Judge Steven J. McAuliffe found
that each of the claims brought by the plaintiffs failed to
allege a claim on which the Court could grant relief and ordered
that the Clerk of the Court enter judgment closing the case.

"This is a great legal victory for Presstek," said Moosa E.
Moosa, Presstek's Vice President-Finance and CFO. "Our legal
team did a magnificent job with this case. Brian Pastuszenski of
the Boston law firm of Testa, Hurwitz & Thibeault, LLP
represented Presstek in the litigation. We have maintained all
along that the claims were without merit and we are happy to
have this behind us."

Presstek, Inc. is a leading developer of digital laser imaging
and chemistry-free plate technologies for the printing and
graphic arts industries. Marketed to world-leading press
manufacturers and directly to end users, Presstek's patented
DI(R), CTP and plate products eliminate photographic darkrooms,
film and toxic processing chemicals, reduce the printing
turnaround time and lower the production costs. The company's
Lasertel subsidiary supplies it with the valuable resources
necessary for its next generation laser imaging devices.

For more details, contact Moosa E. Moosa - Chief Financial
Officer by Phone: (603) 595-7000 or by E-mail:
investorrelations@presstek.com OR Jane Miller - Corporate
Relations Manager by Phone: (603) 594-8585 x 3346


PROCOM TECHNOLOGY: NY Court Grants Final Approval To Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against Procom Technology, Inc.

On September 20, 2002, a putative class action complaint styled
"Albert Ree v. Alex Aydin, Alex Razmjoo, and Procom Technology,
Inc." was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York as Case No.02 CV 7613.  Two weeks
later, on October 4, 2002, a putative class action complaint
styled "Gary Squires v Alex Aydin, Alex Razmjoo, and Procom
Technology, Inc." was also filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York as Case No.02 CV
7952.  The allegations of the two complaints are identical, and
the actions were consolidated.

On May 28, 2003, plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Class
Action Complaint.  The consolidated action, as amended, is
purportedly brought on behalf of all public investors who
purchased the Company's common stock from December 9, 1999 to
June 25, 2001.

The amended complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
20(a) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The
amended complaint includes allegations that, during the period
from December 9, 1999 to June 25, 2001, the Company falsely and
recklessly overstated revenues in violation of generally
accepted accounting principles.

The Company believes that the allegations stated in the amended
complaint are without merit.  Nevertheless, due to the
uncertainties of the litigation process and the continued
business distractions, which have and would likely continue, the
Company reached a tentative settlement agreement with the class
plaintiffs by executing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on
December 16, 2003.  The tentative settlement amount included in
the MOU is $2.7 million ($2.3 million to be paid by the
Company's insurance carrier and $0.4 million to be paid by the
Company).


TALISMAN ENERGY: Group Files NY Suit Over Sudan Ethnic Cleansing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Talisman Energy, Inc. faces a class action filed in U.S. court,
charging it with involvement in a "joint strategy" of ethnic
cleansing with the Sudanese government, The Herald reports.

The alleged human rights abuses in Sudan endangered the Scottish
Executive and Westminster funding for a joint offshore wind farm
project between Talisman Energy UK, the Canadian company's
British subsidiary, and Scottish & Southern Energy.

Filed in New York on November 2001 against Canadian parent
company Talisman Energy Inc., the suit is being brought by the
Presbyterian Church of Sudan and 15 other tribesmen and women
who claim they were forced from their homes in and around
Talisman oil fields of the Greater Nile Oil Project. They are
seeking more than ú1m for themselves and other Sudanese in
similar circumstances.

In their suit, the plaintiffs further accuse Talisman of
collaborating with the Sudanese government in a "joint strategy
to deploy military forces in a brutal ethnic cleansing campaign
against a civilian population . for the purpose of enhancing
defendants' ability to explore and extract oil from areas of
southern Sudan."

According to Carey D'Avino, counsel for the Presbyterian Church
of Sudan, "The government military drove these people out to
secure Talisman's oil fields in the same sort of attacks that
the world now is registering in Darfur. These allegations are
borne out by witness testimonies that we have elicited and by
documentary evidence."

A Human Rights Watch report published in 2003 claimed the
Sudanese government used roads, bridges, and airfields built by
the companies as a means to launch attacks on civilians and that
oil revenue was used to fund "scorched earth campaigns".

The report, which named Talisman Energy Inc as one of the main
culprits, said: "Oil companies operating in Sudan were aware of
the killing, bombing, and looting that took place in the south,
all in the name of opening up the oil fields."

A Christian Aid report, published in 2001 before Talisman pulled
out of Sudan, was similarly critical. "Tens of thousands of
civilians have been killed and displaced by a systematic policy
of depopulating the oil-rich areas . Talisman and other foreign
oil companies operating in Sudan should immediately suspend
operations."


UNITED STATES: Accounting Practices Raises Prospects of D&O Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
Advisen Ltd., the leading provider of analytics, benchmarking
and information for the commercial insurance industry, unveiled
new analysis of corporate accounting practices for over 9000
companies which, when combined with other analytics, offers
statistically significant indications on the probability of
securities class action suits and Directors and Officers (D&O)
liability risk.

The total accrual scoring system, called the Advisen Total
Accrual Measure (ATACm), leverages recent academic research into
aggressive accounting practices and applies it specifically to
the D&O insurance markets for the first time. It represents the
initial component in a series of new analytics currently under
development at Advisen. Total accrual scores, which quantify
overly-aggressive accounting practices, have been proven by
Advisen research to be a leading indicator of securities class
action suits.

The company is building a comprehensive management liability
risk assessment tool which combines total accrual scores, along
with other well-established tools to assess the risk of D&O
liability, such as the Z-score Bankruptcy Predictor and the
Kristie Score, and new leading indicators of management
liability claims based on proprietary Advisen research. These
analytics offer D&O underwriters, brokers and risk managers
increased ability to assess management liability risk and
predict the frequency of D&O claims.

"ATACm is the latest Advisen analytic, programmed and designed
to provide greater insight for insurance professionals assessing
risk," said Tom Ruggieri, CEO of Advisen. "Research has proven
that overly-aggressive accounting is at the heart of many
securities class action lawsuits. Now, with a tool to spot and
quantify these dangerous accounting practices, we can better
predict future securities litigation and D&O liability."

The New York-based company currently serves nearly 350 of the
leading insurers, insurance brokers and risk management
departments of major corporations, providing real-time analytics
on over 70 macro-industries and over 1.5 million companies
through a Web-based workstation, as well as daily alerts and
reports, and proprietary research.

"Advisen provides data and analytical tools to support the broad
spectrum of risk assessment methodologies used by D&O
underwriters today," said David K. Bradford, executive vice
president of Advisen. "Now we offer insurance professionals a
powerful new formula that puts more science into the art of
assessing risk. The correlation between high total accrual
scores, indicating exceedingly aggressive accounting, and an
increase in the frequency of securities class action suits is
very meaningful."

Advisen continues to enhance its creation of high-value
solutions dedicated exclusively to the commercial insurance
industry. Over the last three years, Advisen has introduced
critical data on business risk analysis and analytic tools
designed to enhance the efficiencies of insurance transactions.

Advisen is designed for professionals across the commercial
insurance industry. Advisen provides insurance underwriters with
a single, customizable information platform for assessing risk
exposure, which can be integrated into existing workflow and
systems. Brokers utilize Advisen to both service existing
clients and prospect new ones. Advisen offers risk managers a
unified resource for unbiased information and tools to help
drive better risk decisions, more efficiently manage insurance
programs, and provide insight into market conditions.


UNITED STATES: NRF Welcomes Court's Decision On Credit Card Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Retail Federation (NRF) welcomed the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision to deny an appeal of a lower-court ruling on
whether banks that issue Visa and MasterCard credit cards can
also issue competing cards.

"This decision clears the way for increased competition in the
credit card marketplace that should lead to lower costs for
retailers and the consumers we serve," NRF Senior Vice President
and General Counsel Mallory Duncan said. "NRF has been a long-
time leader in the drive for reasonable transaction and
interchange fees. The fees charged by credit card companies are
a hidden tax on American consumers that drives up the price of
products for everyone, even those who pay by cash or check.
Without competition, these fees have only gotten worse."

"As a follow-up to last year's settlement over Visa/MasterCard
debit card practices, this case is another victory in creating a
level playing field between retailers and credit/debit card
companies," Duncan said. "Visa and MasterCard should not be
allowed to dictate who gets into the market, and this case
further enhances the right of retailers and consumers to have a
choice."

NRF was a lead plaintiff in a federal class action antitrust
lawsuit against Visa and MasterCard debit card practices settled
last year. Under the settlement, Visa and MasterCard agreed to
end their "honor all card" rules that required merchants who
accepted their credit cards to also accept their debit cards.
The ruling made it possible for retailers to choose whether to
accept signature debit transactions and opened the possibility
of negotiating more reasonable fees for those transactions.

The Supreme Court today let stand a 2003 ruling by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that Visa USA Inc. and
MasterCard International Inc. violated federal antitrust law by
barring member banks from issuing credit cards from competitors.
The court rejected without comment separate appeals of the
ruling. The decision will allow banks to begin issuing multiple
brands of credit cards.

The National Retail Federation is the world's largest retail
trade association, with membership that comprises all retail
formats and channels of distribution including department,
specialty, discount, catalog, Internet and independent stores as
well as the industry's key trading partners of retail goods and
services. NRF represents an industry with more than 1.4 million
U.S. retail establishments, more than 23 million employees --
about one in five American workers -- and 2003 sales of $3.8
trillion. As the industry umbrella group, NRF also represents
more than 100 state, national and international retail
associations.

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


VERMONT: ACLU Lodges Lawsuit To Block Security Searches on Ferry
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union asked the United States
District Court in Vermont to stop security searches of vehicles
and luggage on ferries crossing Lake Champlain between Vermont
and New York, asserting that the searches violate constitutional
protection against unreasonable searches, the Associated Press
reports.

The Department of Homeland Security and the Coast Guard mandated
the searches under federal law.  Lake Champlain Transportation
Co. operates nine ferries that carry 150 to 375 people across
the lake.  With Coast Guard approval, ferry company employees
search the trunks of randomly chosen vehicles and the carry-on
baggage of walk-on passengers, according to the suit.

The suit was filed on behalf of an attorney from Colchester who
commutes by ferry four times a week to work in Plattsburgh,
N.Y., and allowed his vehicle to be searched only after he was
told he would not be allowed to board the vessel if he did not,
the complaint said.  A one-way trip from Colchester to
Plattsburgh by ferry is about 10 to 20 minutes, but on land it
would take about two hours longer.

Although random searches of airline passengers are warranted by
a real threat, there is no such threat to passengers on the Lake
Champlain ferries, said Allen Gilbert, director of the Vermont
chapter of the ACLU, according to AP.  "This one strikes us as a
suspicionless search, an unnecessary and real intrusion," he
said.

Acting U.S. Attorney David Kirby did not immediately return a
call seeking comment, AP reports.


VITALWORKS INC.: CT Judge Dismisses Consolidated Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Judge Janet Bond Arterton dismissed with
prejudice the consolidated class action complaint filed against
VitalWorks Inc. (NASDAQ: VWKS), a leader in radiology and
medical image and information technology solutions and three of
its individual officers and directors.

The complaint, captioned Bernard Frazier, et al. v. VitalWorks
Inc., et al., was filed on or about July 31, 2003 in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf
of behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted, exchanged or
otherwise acquired the common stock of VitalWorks, Inc. between
April 24, 2002 and October 23, 2002, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges, among other things, violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and breach of fiduciary duties. The
complaint alleges that the defendants made misleading statements
and omissions regarding our business and operations, principally
in press releases and public conference calls in April 2002 and
July 2002, which allegedly had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of our common stock during the Class
Period, and that six of our officers, including the defendant
officers, sold shares of our common stock during the Class
Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants issued
false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
increasing revenues and future prospects. On October 23, 2002,
VitalWorks announced that it had failed to achieve pre-
announced third quarter 2002 revenues and was lowering revenue
guidance for the remainder of fiscal year 2002; additionally,
the Company reported that it was lowering revenue guidance for
fiscal year 2003 by over 10%. Market reaction to defendants'
belated disclosures was swift and severe. On October 24, 2002,
the first day of trading following VitalWorks announcements, the
price of VitalWorks common shares fell over 56% in value to
close at $3.13 per share on record trading volume of over 14
million shares.



                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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 25-26, 2004
FRAUD AND ABUSE IN THE SALES AND MARKETING OF DRUGS
American Conferences
Philadelphia
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
VIOXX 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 8, 2004
EPHEDRA UPDATE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9, 2004
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.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

January 24-25, 2005
THIRD ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP TEN
ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com
January 31-February 01, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL
LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 31-February 01, 2005
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

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

February 14-15, 2005
REINSURANCE 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 14-15, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 28, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 1, 2005
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION E&0
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

March 7-8, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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
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
------------------------

October 2-31, 2004
TLIE PRESENTS: "LAW AND DISORDER: SUE-- LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL
MALPRACTICE ISSUES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 2-31, 2004
TLIE PRESENTS: "DODGING THE BULLET": LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL
MALPRACTICE ISSUES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 2-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 2-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 2-31, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

October 2-31, 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

October 2-31, 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

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

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


AQUILA INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in KS
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a class
action lawsuit against Aquila, Inc. (NYSE:ILA) for violations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") on
behalf of former and current employees.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Kansas in Kansas City against Aquila's top
executives and its board of directors. The action charges that
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to provide complete
and accurate information that would have enabled employees to
make informed investment decisions for investment in their
401(k) investment accounts.

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


CONVERIUM HOLDING: Schiffrin & Barroway Files NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Converium Holding AG (NYSE: CHR) ("Converium" or
the "Company") from December 11, 2001 through July 20, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Converium, Dirk Lohmann, and Martin Kauer
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 Converium maintained inadequate loss reserves in
         its Converium North America subsidiary;

     (2) that the Company, contrary to representations, did not
         establish adequate loss reserves to cover claims by
         Converium North America policy holders;

     (3) that reserve increases announced by the Company during
         the Class Period were materially insufficient; and

     (4) as a consequence of the understatement of loss
         reserves, Converium's earnings and assets were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On July 20, 2004, Converium announced that second quarter
results would be impacted by a reserve strengthening for US
casualty business and subsequent asset impairments on the
balance sheet of Converium Reinsurance. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Converium fell $11.12 per share, or 44.44
percent, on July 20, 2004, to close at $13.90 per share. On
August 31, 2004, Converium announced that the Company had
completed external actuarial review of Converium's reserves. On
September 2, 2004, Converium announced that following the
announcement of the external reserve review's outcome and
resulting capital measures, Standard & Poor's and A.M. Best have
lowered their ratings on Converium and its subsidiaries. On this
news, shares of Converium fell an additional $1.04 per share, or
10.51 percent, to close at $8.86 per share.

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


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Infineon Technologies AG (NYSE: IFX) ("Infineon"
or the "Company") from March 13, 2000 through September 15, 2004
inclusive (the "Class Period").


The complaint charges Infineon, Ulrich Schumacher, Peter Bauer,
and Peter J. Fischl 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 entered into and engaged in a
         combination and conspiracy in the United States and
         elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by
         fixing the prices of Dynamic Random Access Memory
         ("DRAM") to be sold to original manufacturers of
         personal computers and servers;

     (2) that as a result of the price fixing, the Company was
         able to maintain higher profit margins;

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         announced financial results were in violation of
         generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"); and

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

On September 15, 2004, Infineon announced that it had reached an
agreement with the United States Department of Justice -
Antitrust Division ("DoJ") to plead guilty to a single and
limited charge related to the violation of US antitrust laws in
connection with the pricing in its DRAM business between July 1,
1999 and June 15, 2002. Under the terms of the agreement,
Infineon had agreed to pay a fine of $160 million, an amount
fully covered by the Company's recent third quarter accrual. On
this news, shares of Infineon fell $.21 per share, or 2.04
percent, on September 15, 2004, to close at $10.07 per share.

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


INTERACTIVECORP: Cohen Milstein Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC initiated
lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of other similarly
situated purchasers of the securities of IAC / InterActiveCorp
(NASDAQ: IACI - News) ("IAC" or "The Company") between March 19,
2003 and August 4, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint charges IAC and certain executive officers of IAC
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Among
other things, the complaint alleges that Defendants' financial
reports were false and misleading because they did not disclose
that

     (1) the Company was improperly recognizing revenue with
         respect to hotel room sales in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles because it was
         recognizing the entire price for online hotel sales
         when, in fact, IAC was only entitled to fees (either
         commissions or markups) on such transactions; and

     (2) certain hotels were decreasing the Company's allotment
         of rooms or refusing to work with IAC because of the
         Company's improper business practices.

IAC is a multi-brand interactive commerce company, consisting of
the following segments: IAC Travel, which includes Expedia,
Hotels.com, Hotwire, Interval International, and TV Travel Shop;
HSN, Ticketmaster, Match.com, LendingTree, Precision Response
Corporation, IAC Local and Media Services, and IAC Interactive
Development.

On August 3, 2004, the Company issued a press release announcing
that net income for the second quarter of 2004 fell by 24% from
the same period in 2003. Later in the same day, IAC held a
conference call during which Defendant Barry Diller, Chief
Executive Officer and Chairman of IAC, stated that the Company
would not be able to grow as fast as it had represented during
the class period and that a 30% growth it had discussed during
the Class Period was years away. The explanation cited for IAC's
underperformance was that the Company was being provided fewer
rooms to sell. In the wake of these disclosures, the price of
IAC common stock dropped sharply, falling 15.6% in one day, from
$27.03 per share on August 3, 2004, to $22.80 per share on
August 4, 2004.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 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 or by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com


LATTICE SEMICONDUCTOR: Berman DeValerio Files OR Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon against the Lattice Semiconductor Corp.
("Lattice" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:LSCC) claiming the Company
misled the investing public about its finances.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Lattice common stock
from April 22, 2003 through and including April 19, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

The complaint names as defendants: Lattice; Cyrus Y. Tsui, who
was at all relevant times the Company's chairman and chief
executive officer; and Stephen A. Skaggs, who was at all
relevant times Lattice's chief financial officer and became
president in December 2003.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Lattice
artificially inflated its stock price by issuing false and
misleading financial statements.

On January 22, 2004, after the close of trading, Lattice
announced a delay in the release of its fourth quarter and
fiscal year 2003 financial results as a result of an
overstatement of the Company's Deferred Income Account.

Then, on March 18, 2004, the Company said in a press release
that it had not completed its deferred income accounting review,
which was being conducted at the direction of the Company's
Audit Committee. The Company announced that it would restate its
first, second and third quarter 2003 financials and that the
restatement would result in a reduction of 2003 year-to-date
revenue of approximately $10 to $11 million, a reduction of 2003
year-to-date cost of sales of approximately $1.5 to $2 million
and an increase of 2003 year-to-date net loss of approximately
$8.5 to $9.5 million.

Lattice issued the restatement on March 24, 2004 and said that
the correction had "resulted from inappropriate accounting
entries made by an individual in the company's finance
department and deficiencies in the design and operation of
internal accounting controls." The Company reduced previously
reported 2003 revenue by approximately 7% and increased its net
loss by $9 million.

As a result of these revelations, the price of Lattice common
stock dropped from a high of $12.42 per share on January 20,
2004 to close at $8.50 on April 20, 2004.

For more details, contact Michael T. Matraia, Esq. or N. Nancy
Ghabai, Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by
Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Lattice-Cplt.pdf


MERCK & CO.: Bernard M. Gross Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Bernard M. Gross, P.C. initiated a class
action lawsuit, numbered 04cv4657, in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against
defendants Merck & Co., Inc., Raymond V. Gilmartin, Chairman of
the Board of Directors, President and Chief Executive Officer,
and Peter S. Kim, President of Merck Research Laboratories, on
behalf of all persons who purchased Merck common stock
(NYSE:MRK), between November 5, 2003 and September 29, 2004
seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"). The case has been assigned to Judge Harvey
Bartle, III. Merck and defendant Kim maintain offices in West
Point, Pennsylvania.

The Merck Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose
material information during the Class Period concerning the
safety profile of its arthritis drug Vioxx, and that a growing
body of evidence demonstrated that patients who used the drug
for more than 18 months were exposed to an increased risk of
heart attack. Specifically, on September 30, 2004, the Company
announced that it was immediately withdrawing Vioxx from world
markets after a data safety monitoring board, overseeing a long-
term study of the drug, recommended that the study be halted
because of an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events
among members of the study group. The Company's sudden decision
to withdraw Vioxx was in stark contrast to its prior public
announcements during the Class Period touting the safety of
Vioxx and other public disclosures by the Company and its
representatives that specifically refuted criticism of the drug
lodged by respected clinicians.

For more details, contact Susan R. Gross, Esq. or Deborah R.
Gross, Esq. of the Law Offices Bernard M. Gross, P.C. by Phone:
(866) 561-3600 or (215) 561-3600 by E-mail:
susang@bernardmgross.com or debbie@bernardmgross.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.bernardmgross.com


STONEPATH GROUP: Lerach Coughlin Lodges PA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on
behalf of purchasers of Stonepath Group, Inc. ("Stonepath" or
the "Company") (AMEX:STG) publicly traded securities during the
period between May 7, 2003 and September 20, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Stonepath and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Stonepath describes itself as a "growing logistics
services organization that integrates established logistics
companies with innovative technologies. Stonepath offers a full-
range of time-definite transportation and distribution solutions
to a wide range of global and local businesses."

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous statements and filed quarterly and
annual reports with the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission regarding the Company's current financial performance
and future earnings. As alleged in the complaint, these
statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants knew, but failed to disclose:

     (1) that Stonepath was materially overstating its financial
         results by engaging in improper accounting practices.
         As detailed herein, Stonepath has admitted that its
         prior financial reports are materially false and
         misleading as it announced that it is going to restate
         its results for 2003 and the first two quarters of
         2004;

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

     (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's net income and Earnings Before Interest,
         Taxes, Depreciation, and Amortization ("EBITDA") were
         materially overstated at all relevant times.

On September 20, 2004, Stonepath shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing its intention to restate 2003
and first and second quarter 2004 Financial statements. The
Company admitted that its Domestic Services division had
understated its accrued purchased transportation liability and
related costs of purchased transportation. The amount of the
under accrual was estimated to be in the range of $4.0-$6.0
million for 2003 and in the range of $500,000 to $1.0 million
for the first six months of 2004. After giving effect for these
estimated incremental expenses, the Company's reported EBITDA
would be reduced to the range of $2.6-$4.6 million for 2003 and
reduced to the range of $200,000-$700,000 for the first six
months of 2004. Upon this shocking news, shares of the Company's
stock fell $0.73 per share or almost 50% to close at $0.86 per
share, on unusually heavy trading volume.

Prior to disclosing these adverse facts to the investing public,
Stonepath:

     (a) acquired several companies using its overvalued shares
         as consideration;

     (b) increased its credit facilities by $10 million on more
         favorable terms;

     (c) completed a private placement of its common stock for
         gross proceeds of approximately $13 million; and

     (d) filed a shelf registration statement with the
         Securities and Exchange Commission for the potential
         offering of up to $50 million in equity securities.

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


TOMMY HILFIGER: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of securities
of Tommy Hilfiger Corporation ("Hilfiger" or the "Company")
(NYSE: TOM) between November 3, 1999 and September 24, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The Complaint names as defendants
Hilfiger, Silas K.F. Chou, David F. Dyer, Joel J. Horowitz, Joel
H. Newman, James P. Reilly, Joseph Scirocco and Lawrence S.
Stroll. The complaint alleges that the defendants misrepresented
Tommy Hilfiger's operating results and financial condition to
public investors by

     (1) improperly shifting the income of the Company's U.S.
         subsidiaries, disguised as buying office commissions,
         to the Company's non-U.S. subsidiaries in lower tax
         jurisdictions to evade over $100 million in U.S. taxes
         due on such income; and

     (2) improperly inflating the Company's reported after-tax
         net income and earnings per share, in contravention of
         Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP").

The Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts:

     (a) that the defendants shifted profits to lower-tax
         jurisdictions by paying buying-agency commissions to
         other Hilfiger subsidiaries;

     (b) more specifically, the defendants reported revenue
         generated in the United States thereby effectively
         lowering the Company's tax rate; and

     (c) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
         results were in violation of GAAP.

After the market closed on September 24, 2004, Hilfiger made an
announcement that a grand jury subpoena had been issued to Tommy
Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc. ("THUSA"), by the U.S. Attorney's Office
for the Southern District of New York. The subpoena asked for
documents generally relating to THUSA's domestic and/or
international buying office commissions since 1990. News of this
shocked the market. On September 27, 2004, Hilfiger shares fell
to $2.87 per share or 21.79%, to close at $10.30 per share on
unusually high trading volume.

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