CAR_Public/041027.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Wednesday, October 27, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 213

                          Headlines

AMAZON.COM: Continues To Face Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
AMAZON.COM: Continues To Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
AUSTRALIA: Soldiers To Sue Over Anti-Malaria Drug's Side Effects
CANADA: Association Seeks Certification of Light Cigarettes Suit
CITIGROUP INC.: To Pay $250T Fine Over Hedge Fund Sales Material

ELAN CORPORATION: Settles NY Consolidated Lawsuits, SEC Probe
ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. IN
MEDIA MAVERICK: Settles For $400T Deceptive Marketing Charges
MERCK & CO.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Lawsuit Over VIOXX Recalls
MERCK & CO.: Getty & Mayo Lodges Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in KY

MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Officials Apologize For Recall Cover-up Scam
ORGANON USA: IL Joins $36 Mil Remeron Antitrust Suit Settlement
ORGANON USA: KY To Participate in $36 Mil Remeron Antitrust Pact
PLATFORMS WIRELESS: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. Firm, Five Officers
PETCO PETROLEUM: IL A.G. Madigan Files Water Pollution Suit

STARLINK LITIGATION: NE Producers Receiving $11 Mil Settlement
SERVICE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement in Menorah Gardens Suit
UNIVERSAL LIFE: Intel Worker Lodges CA Suit Over Insurance-Fees
XCEL ENERGY: CO Judge Dismisses Lawsuit V. Transmission Lines

               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Stock Suit in NY
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Bull & Lifshitz Files NY Securities Suit
AON CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IL
APOLLO GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Shalov Stone Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY

BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges NY Stock Lawsuit
CONVERIUM HOLDING: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in OK
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges OK Stock Suit
FERRO CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH

INTELLIGROUP INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Emerson Poynter Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in NY
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in NY
NETOPIA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges VA Stock Suit

STAR GAS: Barrack Rodos Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
STAR GAS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
STAR GAS: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
STAR GAS: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
US UNWIRED: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in LA

VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges CA Stock Suit
VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Stock Suit in MI


                         *********


AMAZON.COM: Continues To Face Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, Inc., its directors and certain of its senior
officers continue to face a consolidated amended class action
filed in the in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington, alleging violations of the Securities
Act of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The suit alleges that the Company, together with certain of its
officers and directors, made false or misleading statements
during the period from October 29, 1998 through October 23, 2001
concerning its business, financial condition and results,
inventories, future prospects, and strategic alliance
transactions.

The complaint further alleges that the defendants made false or
misleading statements in connection with our February 2000
offering of the 6.875% PEACS.  The complaint seeks recissionary
and/or compensatory damages and injunctive relief against all
defendants.


AMAZON.COM: Continues To Face Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, Inc. and Borders.com face a class action filed on
behalf of its consumers in the United States who, during the
period from August 1, 2001 to the present, purchased books
online from them.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleges that the agreement
pursuant to which an affiliate of Amazon.com operates
Borders.com as a co-branded site violates federal anti-trust
laws, California statutory law, and the common law of unjust
enrichment.  The complaint seeks injunctive relief, damages,
including treble damages or statutory damages where applicable,
attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements, disgorgement of all
sums obtained by allegedly wrongful acts, interest, and
declaratory relief.


AUSTRALIA: Soldiers To Sue Over Anti-Malaria Drug's Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brisbane legal firm Quinn and Scattini is set to launch a class
action on behalf of Australian soldiers who took a controversial
anti-malaria drug while serving in East Timor, news.com.au
reports.

Larium, the brand name for mefloquine, is available under
prescription but comes with warnings of severe side effects.  It
has recently been the subject of an investigation by the United
States military, after two soldiers on the drug murdered their
wives within weeks of returning home from the Middle East in
2002.

Hundreds of Australian soldiers took the drug while serving in
East Timor.  The planned suit alleges that the drug turned
soldiers violent, paranoid and suicidal.  Members of the 2RAR
and 4RAR infantry battalions have told how they suffered family
breakdowns, paranoia and suicidal thoughts after taking Larium
under orders from army doctors keen to observe the drug's side
effects.  Some soldiers were marched on to the parade ground and
told to take the tablets, others were offered the choice between
Larium weekly or another drug daily.

The army's Director-General of Health, Tony Austin, admitted
using soldiers as guinea pigs in clinical trials but claimed
"dozens rather than hundreds" took part, news.com.au reports.
The Department of Defence refused to say how many soldiers were
involved and conceded Larium was still used as a back-up anti-
malarial medication.  It denied the drug had any side effects.

Australian Staff Sergeant Ronald Wallace, who was sent to East
Timor in late 2001, told how he began hearing voices three weeks
after leaving his base in Townsville, news.com.au reports.  A
20-year veteran, Sgt Wallace, 38, was diagnosed with "organic
brain disorder" and sent home weeks after he began a course of
Larium.

Speaking out for the first time, he said his life was on a
downhill slide from the time he took the first pill.  He has
tried to take his own life more than once and now lives close to
family in Victoria.  "It would have been two weeks into my tour.
I sort of started getting confused. I was losing weight and did
not want to eat," Sgt. Wallace told news.com.au.  "They got us
all together and said, 'This is a new drug we want to trial so
you can take this drug once a week or the other one daily.' No
one wants to worry about taking pills every day, so we all put
our hands up for the Larium."

Defense officials say Larium is the alternative to the first
choice malaria drug, doxycycline, news.com.au reports.

"The Australian Defence Force considers that the drug mefloquine
(Larium), a drug approved by the Australian Therapeutic Drug
Administration, is a suitable drug to use in the prevention and
treatment of malaria," said Rear-Admiral Brian Adams, head of
the Defence Personnel Executive in Canberra.  "We acknowledge
any drug taken by human beings may have some level of risk but
in this case we worked on the basis the likelihood and
consequences of malaria justified the controlled use of
mefloquine for people unable to tolerate doxycycline."


CANADA: Association Seeks Certification of Light Cigarettes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Knight of Roberts Creek, B.C. asked British Columbia
Court to grant class certification to a lawsuit over the "light"
and "mild" cigarette consumer fraud.

According to the Non-Smokers' Rights Association, Mr. Knight
will face formidable opponents with "the federal government
having decided to get into bed with Big Tobacco in an attempt to
block the suit from proceeding on behalf of all victims of the
fraud."

"The `light' and `mild' fraud is one of the most serious
deceptions in the sorry history of tobacco marketing," said
Garfield Mahood, the Association's Executive Director, in a
statement.  "It has contributed to the deaths of hundreds of
thousands of Canadians. And it will contribute to the deaths of
thousands more in the future. Yet the federal government does
not care enough about smokers, or about adolescent starters, to
stop the practice."

"Kids who are starting their cigarette addiction believe their
risks from tobacco are lower with 'light' and 'mild' cigarettes.
And addicted smokers stay in the market because they believe so-
called low-tar cigarettes are accompanied by decreased risks
when compared to their full-strength counterparts," Mr. Mahood
continued.

The Association compared the failure of Health Canada to address
the 'light' and 'mild' fraud with the department's failure to
remove defective blood products from the market during the
tainted blood affair.  "The tainted blood affair was an
horrendous saga in the history of public health and the
Association does not make this reference lightly. But the
federal government has been warned repeatedly that the 'light'
and 'mild' fraud is killing people.  Yet it sits on its hands
and lets the industry continue this deception," the Association
asserted in a statement.

The Knight suit was filed to address a problem which the federal
government refuses to tackle. The government was named as a
third party defendant by a tobacco Company which claims that the
government compelled it to market 'light' products and that it
was relying on the expertise of federal bureaucrats.

"It is hoped that Kenneth Knight will force a change in the
behavior of tobacco manufacturers that the federal government
refuses to demand.  The government's failure to act on 'light'
and 'mild' greatly exceeds its negligence in the tainted blood
affair, in terms of the illness and death that accompanies the
negligence," the Association said in a statement.

"The government had ethical choices to make before deciding how
to defend itself in Court today," said Mr. Mahood.  "Based on
the facts of the case, it could have decided to simply fight off
the attempt by the tobacco Company to name the government as a
third party in the suit. The second choice - one we believe was
highly unethical, and the one the government took - was to try
to prevent certification of the lawsuit itself and to deny
justice to thousands of people who have been harmed by the
industry's predatory practice.  The government has a fundamental
responsibility to those affected by the fraud but it seems to
have forgotten this responsibility."

The Non-Smokers' Rights Association is a national tobacco
control association with members across Canada. It considers the
elimination of the entire family of 'light' and 'mild'
descriptors, including other deceptive examples like 'extra
light' and 'extra mild,' to be a priority of the health
community.

For further information, contact Garfield Mahood by Phone:
(416) 928-2900, (416) 964-6279 (residence), (416) 451-4285 (cell
phone)


CITIGROUP INC.: To Pay $250T Fine Over Hedge Fund Sales Material
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent financial services firm Citigroup, Inc. agreed to pay
$250,000 to settle charges that it used misleading sales
material on hedge funds, the National Association of Securities
Dealers (NASD) announced Monday, according to the Associated
Press.

The NASD said it was the largest enforcement action involving
sale of hedge funds by a brokerage fee, although the meted fine
was small.  The NASD alleged that more than 100 pieces of sales
literature the Company distributed between July 1, 2002 and June
30,2003 touted rates of return of 12 percent to 15 percent a
year, "without providing a sound basis for evaluating the
target" and failed to adequately disclose the potential risks of
the investments.

"As hedge funds and 'funds of hedge funds' are marketed more and
more aggressively to individual investors, ensuring that those
investors receive full and accurate information is critical,"
NASD vice chairman Mary Schapiro said in a statement, according
to AP.  "This enforcement action underscores our commitment to
making certain that firms provide the investing public with a
sound basis for evaluating hedge fund investments, and
adequately disclose all of the risks."

This week, the Securities and Exchange Commission is also
expected to mandate new oversight for hedge funds - largely
unregulated investment pools traditionally for the wealthy that
have become more popular with small investors.  The high-risk,
potentially high-return funds have an estimated $750 billion to
$1 trillion in assets and are growing, and oversight is needed
to head off potential blowups that could hurt ordinary
investors, SEC officials contend, according to AP.

Citigroup neither admitted to nor denied the allegations in its
settlement with the NASD.  Its brokerage subsidiary, Smith
Barney, issued a statement saying that the Company "took
immediate action and cooperated fully with the NASD to ensure
all materials comply with current NASD guidance."


ELAN CORPORATION: Settles NY Consolidated Lawsuits, SEC Probe
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elan Corporation, plc reached an agreement to settle the
previously disclosed consolidated class action pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The
class action, which consolidated several class actions filed in
early 2002, names the Company and certain of its former and
current officers and directors as defendants. The settlement was
submitted to the Court for preliminary approval today. Elan
expects that the Court, which reserved decision on the
settlement, will issue an order granting preliminary approval of
the settlement in due course.

Under the class action settlement, all claims against the
Company and the other named defendants will be dismissed with no
admission or finding of wrongdoing on the part of any defendant.
The principal terms of the settlement provide for an aggregate
cash payment to class members of $75 million, out of which the
Court will be asked to award attorneys' fees to plaintiffs'
counsel, and $35 million of which will be paid by the Company's
insurance carrier.

The terms of the settlement are subject to preliminary and final
Court approval and notice to class members. The Company expects
the Court to issue an order granting preliminary approval of the
settlement in due course.

The Company and the Staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "SEC") have also reached a provisional agreement
to settle the investigation by the SEC's Division of Enforcement
that commenced in February 2002. The provisional settlement,
which is subject to final approval by the Commissioners of the
SEC, will conclude all aspects of the investigation with respect
to Elan.

"This is an important step forward for Elan, its shareholders
and patients. Taking this step will enable us to focus all of
our energies on bringing innovative science to patients," said
Kelly Martin, Elan's president and chief executive officer.

Under the agreement provisionally reached with the SEC Staff,
the Company will neither admit nor deny the allegations
contained in the SEC's civil complaint, which will include
allegations of violations of certain provisions of the federal
securities laws, including Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The settlement
will contain a final judgment restraining and enjoining the
Company from future violations of these provisions. In addition,
under the final judgment, the Company will agree to pay a civil
penalty of $15 million. In connection with the settlement, the
Company will not be required to restate or adjust any of its
historical financial results or information. The terms of the
settlement are provisional and are subject to the final approval
of the Commissioners of the SEC. If approved, the settlement
will conclude all aspects of the investigation with respect to
Elan.

On October 4, 2004, the Company announced that it had included
in its financial statements a reserve of $55 million, net of
insurance coverage, to cover the Company's estimated liability
related to the shareholder class action and the SEC
investigation.


ITT EDUCATIONAL: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in S.D. IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
ITT Educational Services, Inc. and ten of its current and former
directors and officers face a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana, styled "City of Austin Police
Retirement System, Individually And On Behalf Of All Others
Similarly Situated v. ITT Educational Services, Inc., et al."

This action is a result of the Court's June 18, 2004 order to
consolidate 13 separate securities class action lawsuits filed
from February 26, 2004 through April 23, 2004.  The consolidated
complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by engaging in an
unlawful course of conduct, pursuant to which the defendants
knowingly or recklessly engaged in acts, transactions, practices
and courses of business to conceal adverse material information
about the Company's financial condition, and that this conduct
operated as a fraud and deceit upon the plaintiffs.

The complaint also alleges that the defendants made various
deceptive and untrue statements of material facts and omitted to
state material facts necessary in order to make the statements
made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made,
not misleading to the plaintiffs, causing the plaintiffs to
purchase our securities at artificially inflated prices.  The
putative class period in this action is from October 17, 2002
through March 8, 2004.  The plaintiffs seek, among other things,
an award of unspecified compensatory damages, interest, costs,
expenses and attorney's fees.


MEDIA MAVERICK: Settles For $400T Deceptive Marketing Charges
-------------------------------------------------------------
The marketers of the "Balance Bracelet," a purported pain relief
product, have agreed to pay $400,000 to settle charges that they
made deceptive pain relief claims about the bracelet, the
Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced in a statement.

In May 2004, the FTC filed a complaint in Federal District Court
in Los Angeles, California, against Media Maverick, Inc., and
its officers, Mark Jones and Charles Cody, alleging that they
violated the FTC Act by deceptively claiming that the Balance
Bracelet is a fast-acting, effective treatment for many types of
pain.  The defendants operated out of San Luis Obispo,
California.  A class action based on similar allegations was
pending in California State court at the time.

The settlement announced today is part of a global settlement
among the FTC, the defendants, and the class action plaintiffs.
The settlement requires the defendants to pay $400,000 in
monetary relief to a global settlement fund, a significant
portion of which will be used by the FTC for consumer redress.

The Balance Bracelet is a C-shaped metal bracelet that allegedly
is electro-polarized by an undisclosed process.  The defendants
marketed the Balance Bracelet through nationally disseminated
infomercials and over the Internet with advertising claims that
the Balance Bracelet relieves arthritis pain, joint pain, back
pain, and injury-related pain, among other things. Their
advertisements also claimed that pain is caused by "excess
static electricity" in the body, which comes from an "imbalance
of positive and negative energy," and that the Balance Bracelet
returns the body to its natural ionic balance.  The Commission
alleged that the defendants did not have scientific evidence to
support their claims.

The defendants agreed to separate settlements with the FTC and
the class action plaintiffs that cross-reference each other in
order to achieve a global settlement. The FTC's order sets forth
a $400,000 judgment against the defendants, which has been paid
into a global settlement fund pursuant to the terms of the
settlement reached in the state class action. A significant
portion of the judgment will be distributed back to the FTC for
consumer redress. The FTC's order contains an avalanche clause
that requires the defendants to pay $14 million, if the Court
finds that the defendants misrepresented their financial
condition.

The FTC's order prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting
that the Balance Bracelet, or any other pain-relief product,
relieves pain and from misrepresenting any such product's
absolute or comparative health benefits, performance, or
efficacy. The order also requires the defendants to possess
substantiation to support future claims about the absolute or
comparative health benefits, performance, or efficacy of any
product. In addition, the defendants must recall all packaging
and labeling of the Balance Bracelet that includes the
prohibited pain-relief claims.

The order also bars the defendants from selling their customer
lists and imposes compliance reporting and record-keeping
requirements on the defendants to assist the FTC in monitoring
the defendants' compliance.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the proposed
stipulated final order for permanent injunction was 5-0. The
Stipulated Final Order for Permanent Injunction was filed in the
U.S. District Court, Central District of California, Western
Division, on October 8, 2004, and entered on October 18, 2004.
This Stipulated Final Order for Permanent Injunction is for
settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by
the defendants of a law violation. A stipulated final order for
permanent injunction has the force of law when signed by the
judge.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center by
Mail: Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20580, or visit the website: http://www.ftc.gov,or contact
Brenda Mack, Office of Public Affairs, by Phone: 202-326-2182 or
contact Heather Hippsley or Rielle Montague, Bureau of Consumer
Protection by Phone: 202-326-3285 or 202-326-2645.


MERCK & CO.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Lawsuit Over VIOXX Recalls
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP is
representing "Third-Party Payors" for reimbursements of costs
associated with the purchase of Vioxx.

On September 30, 2004, Merck pulled Vioxx off of pharmacy
shelves and instructed consumers to throw out the unused
portions of their prescriptions. The move was prompted by a
recent study, which showed that Vioxx lead to 'increased
vascular and thrombotic events.' The action alleges a Breach of
Implied Warranty of Merchantability, in that Merck knew, or
should have known, about the negative health effects of Vioxx
and breached its warranty of implied merchantability by selling
a product that was unfit for consumer use. The Plaintiffs also
request a disgorgement of Merck's substantial profits from Vioxx
under a Rescission/Unjust Enrichment theory. Merck earned more
that $2.5 billion for Vioxx sales in 2003.

"The primary questions here are whether third-party payors are
entitled to restitution for the costs associated with purchases,
reimbursements or other costs related to their purchases and
reimbursements of Vioxx in the wake of the recall which includes
costs of switching from Vioxx to alternative therapies. The
Company has said it will reimburse patients, an acknowledgement
that monies are owed, but what of the prescription benefit
providers? Where does that leave them?" stated Barbara J. Hart,
the attorney representing the class.

The action was brought on behalf of: Teamsters Local 237 Welfare
Fund; Local 237 Teamsters Retirees' Benefit Fund; Local 237
Teamsters-Plainview-Old Bethpage Central School District Health
and Welfare Trust Fund; Local 237 Teamsters-North Babylon School
District Health and Welfare Trust Fund; Local 237 Teamsters-
Brentwood School District Health and Welfare Trust Fund; and,
Local 237 Teamsters-Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting
Corporation Health and Welfare Trust Fund.

For more details, contact Jennifer Tetefsky or Barbara J. Hart
of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone:
(212) 907-0700 or (212) 907-0659 or (212) 818-0477 by E-mail:
jtetefsky@glrslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.glrslaw.com/index.cfm/hurl/SectionID=96/getGlobalID=2
3768


MERCK & CO.: Getty & Mayo Lodges Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in KY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Lexington-based law firm of Getty & Mayo initiated of the
nation's first class action lawsuits against Merck, the
manufacturer of the recently recalled arthritis drug, Vioxx. The
suit alleges that Merck deceived its customers by promoting
Vioxx in its advertising as a safe and reliable analgesic, when
it knew there were significant safety risks associated with the
use of the drug.

Studies dating back to 2001 have confirmed that Vioxx use
significantly increases the risk for developing blood clots,
experiencing kidney failure, heart attacks and strokes. In 2002,
the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) compelled Merck to alter
its labeling to indicate these significant side effects. While
agreeing to add a warning to its Vioxx labeling, Merck declined
to pull Vioxx from distribution at that time, and continued to
aggressively market and advertise the drug as a safe and
effective means for the reduction of the pain and inflammation
associated with osteoarthritis.

"In essence, you have a Company that knew of significant risks
and yet failed to clearly and effectively warn physicians and
consumers," stated Getty & Mayo's founder and partner Richard
Getty. "Adding some vague language to the labeling does not
constitute adequate disclosure in our opinion, especially when
Merck continued to invest over $100 million per year in
advertising touting the benefits and safety of Vioxx. You cannot
claim to have the best interest of patients in mind when you
downplay important health information while bombarding people
with claims about a drug's efficacy," he said.

Vioxx was pulled from the market by Merck voluntarily on
September 30, 2004. The move was precipitated by a study
conducted by Merck itself that showed people who used Vioxx had
at least twice the risk of heart attack or stroke as those who
did not use the drug. Following the withdrawal, the FDA issued a
Public Health Advisory, and Merck issued a press release both
encouraging Vioxx users to consult with a physician regarding
the discontinuance of the use of Vioxx and alternative
therapies.

"Not only did these people put themselves at risk, they also
invested their money in a dangerous drug and in doctor visits,"
noted Mason Miller, an attorney with Getty & Mayo. "We are not
seeking compensation for personal injury in this suit. However,
we are asking that Merck repay their patients for what they
spent on Vioxx and on visits to their doctors. We believe that
Merck defrauded the public and violated the Kentucky Consumer
Protection Act. They should be held accountable for their
decision to put sales ahead of safety," Mr. Miller said.

According to Mr. Getty, individuals who have used Vioxx, and
therefore may have claims against Merck, may learn more about
the lawsuit by calling Getty & Mayo.

For more details, contact Getty & Mayo by Mail: 1900 Lexington
Financial Center, 250 West Main St., Lexington, KY 40507 by
Phone: (859) 259-1900 by Fax: (859) 259-1909 or by E-mail:
lmentzer@gkm.net


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Officials Apologize For Recall Cover-up Scam
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mitsubishi Motors Corporation officials apologized for covering
up defects with their vehicles in a media event to unveil its
new Colt Plus passenger cars, the first vehicle to be launched
under new management, the Associated Press reports.

In the past few months, the Japanese automaker announced more
than 40 recalls after investigating the Company's systematic
recall cover-up scam spanning as far as 25 years ago.  In 2000,
the Company had already acknowledged a cover-up and promised to
fix it.

The news sent car sales plunging, and tarnished the Company's
image.  With the introduction of the Colt Plus, Mitsubishi
officials said they hoped to put the scandal behind them.  "We
have been bracing the cold wind, and we could barely keep
standing, but the Colt Plus is our first step forward," said
Hideyasu Tagaya, who became president in June to lead a
turnaround.

A vehicle launch is usually a celebratory event for other
automakers but the Company included an unusual, lengthy
explanation about how the new Colt Plus had gone through strict
monitoring for quality problems.  Mr. Tagaya bowed deeply at the
automaker's Tokyo headquarters during his presentation to
apologize for the scandal and acknowledged the launch of the
remodeled Colt had to be delayed for a month to take care of the
recall problems first, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Tagaya said the overall vehicle sales drop in Japan was not
as bad as the Company had expected, at slightly better than half
of last year's sales in recent months, AP reports.  He said the
Company will maintain its Japan sales target of 220,000 vehicles
for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2005, down 39 percent from
the previous year.  Mitsubishi Motors is planning to sell 4,000
of the Colt models a month in Japan.

The Company still faces other problems.  The former president of
Mitsubishi Motors and the former chairman of its truck unit have
been charged in two fatal accidents suspected of being caused by
defects in Mitsubishi trucks.  Their trials are ongoing, and
both have pleaded innocent.

In one accident, a wheel fell off a Mitsubishi truck and crushed
a pedestrian.  In another, the brakes failed on a Mitsubishi
truck and the driver died after crashing into an embankment.
Thousands of Mitsubishi trucks were recalled this year for
defects in the wheel design that caused cracks in wheel parts,
as well as in the clutch-system that the automaker said may
cause brake failure, AP reports.


ORGANON USA: IL Joins $36 Mil Remeron Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Illinois joined proposed $36 million nationwide
settlement of allegations that a pharmaceutical Company violated
antitrust laws by delaying a less expensive generic anti-
depressant drug from coming on the market, state Attorney
General Lisa Madigan announced in a statement.

AG Madigan and Attorneys General from all 50 states, the
District of Columbia, and the five U.S. commonwealths and
territories filed a complaint and settlement papers in federal
Court in New Jersey alleging Organon USA, Inc., and its parent
Company Akzo Nobel N.V., violated antitrust laws by delaying
entry of generic competition for its anti-depressant drug
Remeron.

The complaint and proposed settlement follow a 10-month
investigation and resolve claims brought both by state attorneys
general and private class action plaintiffs. Subject to Court
approval, the $36 million settlement will focus on providing
restitution for consumers, state purchasers, and end-payers. The
settlement also will cover the cost of notice and claims
administration, and pay the private plaintiffs' and
investigating states' fees and costs.

"Pharmaceutical companies will pay the price when they break the
law," AG Madigan said.  "Attorneys General from across the
nation have united to fight any Company that attempts through
illegal means to keep less expensive medications from
consumers."

The states' complaint alleges Organon misled the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) about the scope of a new "combination
therapy" patent it had obtained to extend its monopoly. In
addition, the complaint alleges Organon delayed listing the
patent with the FDA in another effort to delay the availability
of lower-cost generic substitutes. These resulted in higher
prices for those who paid for the drug. With annual sales in
excess of $400 million at their peak, Remeron is Organon's top-
selling drug, but sales stood to decline substantially with the
onset of generic competition.

As part of the settlement, Organon has agreed to strong
injunctive relief that will require the Company to make timely
listing of patents and prohibits Organon from submitting false
or misleading listing information to the FDA.

Organon's settlement payments will partially compensate state
agencies and thousands of consumers for the overcharges they
paid. Illinois consumers will be among consumers nationwide who
can submit claims for reimbursement. If the Court approves the
settlement, the Attorneys General will implement a claims
administration process for consumers who purchased Remeron or
its generic equivalent between June 15, 2001, and the present.
Illinois also will be among states receiving monies for damages
incurred by certain governmental entities that purchased Remeron
or its generic equivalent.

Bureau Chief Robert Pratt and Assistant Attorney General Livia
Dobrev are handling the case for Madigan's Antitrust Bureau.


ORGANON USA: KY To Participate in $36 Mil Remeron Antitrust Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed $36 million nationwide settlement for consumers,
state purchasers, and other end payors with drug maker Organon
USA Inc. and its parent Company Akzo Nobel N.V. over the
antidepressant drug, Remeron, has been completed, Kentucky
Attorney General Greg Stumbo announced in a statement.

A multi-state complaint and preliminary settlement papers were
filed in New Jersey federal Court last week. Subject to Court
approval, Organon will pay monies that should bring financial
relief to state agencies and thousands of consumers. A ten month
state investigation, led by Texas, along with Florida and
Oregon, led to this settlement, which was joined by every U.S.
state and territory. The settlement resolves claims brought by
state attorneys general, as well as a private class action
brought on behalf of a class of end payors.

"The defendants in this case abused the regulatory scheme to
stifle competition and prevent consumers from having access to
low-cost generic equivalents of this drug," AG Stumbo said.
"This lawsuit represents another settlement by our office which
helps to lower the cost of prescription drugs."

In this case, the states' complaint alleged that Organon
unlawfully extended its monopoly by improperly listing a new
"combination therapy" patent with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. In addition, the complaint alleged that Organon
delayed listing the patent with the FDA in another effort to
delay the availability of lower-cost generic substitutes. This
resulted in higher prices to those who paid for the drug. With
annual sales in excess of $400 million at its peak, Remeron is
Organon's top-selling drug.

Organon has also agreed to strong injunctive relief that will
require the Company to make timely listing of patents and
prohibits Organon from submitting false or misleading listing
information to the FDA.

Kentucky consumers will be among consumers nationwide who can
submit claims for reimbursement. If the Court approves the
settlement, the Attorneys General will implement a claims
administration process for consumers who purchased Remeron or
its generic equivalent between June 15, 2001 and the present.
Kentucky will also be among states receiving monies for damages
incurred by certain governmental entities that purchased Remeron
or its generic equivalent.

For more information, please contact the Office of the Attorney
General by Mail: State Capitol, Suite 118, Frankfort, Kentucky
40601 or by Phone: (502) 696-5300.


PLATFORMS WIRELESS: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. Firm, Five Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil securities
fraud action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against Platforms Wireless International
Corp. and five of its current and former officers and directors,
including: William C. Martin, Chairman of the Board and Chief
Executive Officer; Charles B. Nelson, Chief Financial Officer;
Robert D. Perry, the former President; Francois M. Draper, the
former Chief Operations Officer; and Victor L. Ziller, the
former Vice President-Brazil (Defendants).

The Commission's complaint alleges that the Defendants violated
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 thereunder when they made materially false and/or
misleading public statements in an effort to manipulate the
public trading market for stock issued by Platforms. They issued
a series of fraudulent press releases as part of a scheme to
falsely portray Platforms' business activities and support its
stock price. Platforms claimed to have an aerial system for
transmitting cellular telephone calls and other types of
electronic data, using either fixed-wing aircraft or a blimp to
carry transmission equipment. In reality Platforms never had a
complete ARC System or the means to acquire one.

The Commission's complaint seeks injunctive relief, disgorgement
and civil penalties from the Defendants. It also seeks to have
the individuals permanently barred from serving as officers or
directors of public companies or from participating in the
offering of penny stock. The action is titled, SEC v. Platforms
Wireless International Corp., William C. Martin, Charles B.
Nelson, Robert D. Perry, Francois M. Draper, and Victor L.
Ziller, Civil Action No. 04 CV 2105 JM (AJB), USDC, SDCA] (LR-
18939).


PETCO PETROLEUM: IL A.G. Madigan Files Water Pollution Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan filed a complaint against
the state's largest independent oil producer for allowing salt
water to spill from corroded pipes at three Fayette County
drilling sites.  Spills at two of the sites allegedly killed
more than 2,000 fish after salt water flowed into nearby
streams.

AG Madigan's six-count complaint, filed Tuesday, October 12,
with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, against Petco
Petroleum Corporation, an Indiana corporation, alleges water
pollution and water quality violations.  Petco operates
approximately 1,400 oil and injection wells in Fayette and
Jefferson Counties through permits granted by the Illinois
Department of Natural Resources (IDNR).  The spills, including
one last May, allegedly took place at three production wells
near St. Elmo.

AG Madigan noted that Petco has been assessed previous penalties
of $40,000 by a Jefferson County Court in 1999 and $168,000 by a
Sangamon County Circuit Court earlier this yearbased on improper
disposal of oil field wastes and approximately 200 other spills.
"Unfortunately, Petco's track record shows that the Company has
not always taken all the actions required to prevent
environmental damage," AG Madigan said.

According to the complaint, Petco reported the release of
approximately 50 barrels of salt water from a corroded pipeline
at its R.T. Hopper site near St. Elmo on May 24.  The released
salt water flowed across the ground into a tributary of Big
Creek.  IDNR later estimated approximately 2,000 fish were
killed as a result of the salt water.  The Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) investigated the spill on
May 25 and found discolored water, unnatural bottom deposits and
elevated chloride levels in the stream leading to Big Creek.

Salt water is used in one of Petco's oil exploration processes
at many of its sites.  The complaint alleges the fluid contains
a large concentration of chlorides and varying amounts of
petroleum matter which can adversely affect public health,
agriculture and aquatic life if spills occur.

On August 21, Petco reported to environmental officials a second
release of approximately 200 barrels of salt water from a large
hole in a steel pipeline at its Hopper Cummins #3 well. IEPA
investigated and observed discolored water on the surface of
Little Moccasin Creek and approximately two dozen dead and dying
fish in the vicinity. Inspections on August 22 and 24 revealed
elevated levels of chlorides in the waters of both the creek and
nearby Big Creek.

On October 4, Petco again reported the release of approximately
300 barrels of salt water from a pipeline into the Benny Shaw
Water Flood Plant near St. Elmo. IEPA investigated the spill and
observed a black substance on the bottom of Little Creek
downstream from the spill.

Madigan's complaint seeks a hearing before the IPCB on each of
the pollution violations cited at the three spill locations, a
civil penalty of $50,000 per violation and an additional penalty
of $10,000 for each day the violations continue.  Bureau Chief
Thomas Davis is handling the case for Madigan's Environmental
Bureau.


STARLINK LITIGATION: NE Producers Receiving $11 Mil Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nebraska corn producers are set to receive within the next two
weeks nearly $11 million as part of the final step in the non-
StarLink litigation that began nearly three years ago, according
to the Nebraska Corn Board, the Grand Island Independent
reports.

The Nebraska amount is part of a $75 million settlement
involving the discovery of the StarLink gene in the food chain
from 1998 to 2002. StarLink, which was developed by Aventis, is
a corn gene approved for feed use, but not for human
consumption. When it was discovered in food, the resulting loss
of international markets for corn penalized U.S. producers who
did not plant StarLink corn by adversely affecting both markets
and price.

According to Don Hutchens, executive director of the Nebraska
Corn Board, the settlement marks the end of the class action
suit filed on behalf of Nebraska corn producers, who will
receive the biggest share of the settlement. He further adds
that around 44 percent of Nebraska's acres were approved for
payout as part of the settlement. He even points out that the
state had nearly 8,000 producers file claims for an average of
$1,235 per farmer that filed the claim compared to Illinois at
$1,162, Iowa at $850 and Minnesota at $892.

The Nebraska board also stated that starting this week,
claimants would receive a pre-notification letter that will
outline their individual portion of the settlement, estimated at
$2.75 per acre and that the payment will be in the form of a
prepaid Visa Direct Card. The card and a list of where it can be
redeemed will arrive approximately two weeks after the letter.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement in Menorah Gardens Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A settlement was reached in a civil lawsuit that was brought on
behalf of 72 families in Palm Beach County against the Menorah
Gardens cemetery chain and its parent corporation Service
Corporation International (SCI), the world's largest funeral
services firm, the Boca Raton News reports.

The 72 families had originally opted out of a larger class
action suit in Broward County involving thousands of families.
Both of the suits had included claims that Menorah Gardens
management oversold plots, failed to exercise reasonable care
when handling remains, and, in come cases, dug up remains to
make more room.

Under the terms of the agreement the amount of the settlement
could not be disclosed, but according to attorney Ted Leopold it
was a "broad" resolution that he hopes will help the affected
families to move forward and bring closure to the horrendous
situation they are in.

Mr. Leopold also adds that he did not believe the settlement
would excuse SCI or Menorah Gardens for their "egregious
behavior" or "the emotional devastation their acts caused
countless families."


UNIVERSAL LIFE: Intel Worker Lodges CA Suit Over Insurance-Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Scott Shirley, an Intel Corporation employee in Arizona
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in U.S. District
Court in San Diego against Universal Life Resources alleging
conspiracy in the sale of life insurance through employee-
benefit programs, the Arizona Republic reports.

The suit, which was filed by the law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP on behalf of Mr. Shirley accuses
Universal Life, a San Diego-based benefits-consulting firm of
conspiring to steer business to insurers with which it had
secret kickback deals, allowing the insurers to collect higher
premiums.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Shirley bought three types of
coverage through Intel's plan: a group life policy, a
supplemental accidental death/dismemberment policy, and a
dependent accidental death/dismemberment policy, but it didn't
say how much insurance he bought.

Also named as defendants in the suit are Doug Cox, president and
chief executive officer of Universal Life Resources, as well as
six big insurers: MetLife Inc., Prudential Financial Inc., Cigna
Corp., Life Insurance Co. of North America, Aetna Inc. and
UnumProvident Corporation. Intel though, which employs 10,000
people in Arizona, was not named as a defendant.

The first such action on behalf of individual customers that
alleges a conspiracy in the sale of life insurance, it raises
the possibility that tens of thousands of workers nationwide
could receive compensation as a result.


XCEL ENERGY: CO Judge Dismisses Lawsuit V. Transmission Lines
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit that was filed by about 300 people in
Highlands Ranch against Xcel Energy, which has been pending in
the Courts for the more than seven years was recently dismissed
by a Douglas County district judge, Rocky Mountain News reports.

In the suit, which was originally filed in December 1997,
homeowners complained about an Xcel-owned high-voltage
transmission line being too noisy and causing a nuisance. The
disputed line runs four miles from the Daniels Park substation
in Douglas County, south of Highlands Ranch, into Arapahoe
County and was upgraded in 1997 to a 230-kilovolt line from a
115-kilovolt line.

In his ruling the judge stated that the homeowners did not
provide evidence of damage related to the noise from the
transmission line.

According to Tony Leffert, a partner at the Denver law firm
Robinson, Waters & -O'Dorisio, which represents the Highlands
Ranch homeowners, he would appeal the decision. He added though
that the homeowners would have presented evidence of damages in
a trial, if the judge had ordered a trial. He also said that the
case has already gone to the Colorado Supreme Court twice and
that the plaintiffs were prepared to pursue it further.

Commenting on the judge's decision, Xcel stated that it
reaffirms their earlier stance that they should not be held
liable for potential legal damages from transmission upgrades
that are approved by state utility regulators. Xcel spokesman
Mark Stutz even adds, "Those who decide to buy properties next
to transmission corridors must realize there is a potential for
upgrades as growth occurs in an area."


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Alfred G. Yates Jr. PC initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
American International Group, Inc. ("AIG") (NYSE:AIG) publicly
traded securities during the period between October 28, 1999 and
October 13, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AIG and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. AIG is a holding Company that, through its subsidiaries,
is engaged in a range of insurance and insurance-related
activities in the United States and abroad. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants disseminated
false and misleading financial statements to the investing
public. The true facts, which were known by each of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) that the Company was paying illegal and concealed
         "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
         "contingent commission agreements;"

     (2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements" the defendants
         violated applicable principles of fiduciary law,
         subjecting the Company to enormous fines and penalties
         totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions
         of dollars;

     (3) that defendants had concealed the fact that AIG had
         engaged in illegal transactions using PNC-style
         structures with at least five additional insurers (in
         addition to PNC), contrary to defendants' claims on
         January 30, 2002; and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's prior reported revenue
         and income was grossly overstated.

On October 14, 2004, Elliot Spitzer announced he had charged
several of the nation's largest insurance companies and the
largest broker with bid rigging and pay-offs he claimed violated
fraud and competition laws. On this news, AIG shares fell $6.80
to $60.19 on unusually heavy trading volume of approximately 50
million shares.

For more details, contact the law offices of Alfred G. Yates,
Jr. by Phone: 1-800-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Bull & Lifshitz Files NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of American International Group, Inc. ("AIG" or the
"Company")(NYSE:AIG), between October 28, 1999 and October 13,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendant violated the Securities
Exchange Act by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market, thereby artificially inflating the price of AIG
securities. Throughout the Class Period, AIG reported increased
sales and overall growth and profitability in publicly
disseminated press releases and SEC filings, and forecasted
positive earnings and revenue targets.

Defendants managed to report quarter after quarter of record
financial growth because, unbeknownst to investors, Defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following adverse
facts:

     (1) the Company had implemented and executed an
         unsustainable business practice whereby the Company
         participated in a business plan under which it entered
         into "placement service agreements" with Marsh &
         McLennan and agreed to pay them "contingent
         commissions" in return for steering it business and
         shielding it from competition;

     (2) the Company's illicit scheme exposed it to significant
         regulatory penalties and threatened loss of consumer
         goodwill jeopardizing the Company's ability to sustain
         any performance in its legitimate business practices;

     (3) the Company's revenues and earnings would have been
         significantly less had the Company not engaged in such
         unlawful practices.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. or Christine
A. Giovannelli, Esq. of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP by Phone:
(212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.nyclasslaw.com/infopackage.html


AON CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of purchasers of Aon Corp. ("AON") (NYSE:AOC) publicly
traded securities during the period between October 31, 2002 and
October 18, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Aon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Aon, through its various subsidiaries worldwide, serves
its clients through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance
Brokerage Services, Consulting and Insurance Underwriting.

The complaint alleges that Aon and its top officers violated the
federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's results and operations. The
true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (1) that the Company was receiving illegal and concealed
         "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
         "contingent commission agreements";

     (2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants
         violated applicable principles of fiduciary law,
         subjecting the Company to enormous fines and penalties
         totaling potentially tens -- if not hundreds -- of
         millions of dollars; and

     (3) that as a result, Company's prior reported revenue and
         income was grossly overstated.

On October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
announced he had charged several of the nation's largest
insurance companies and the largest broker with bid rigging and
pay-offs that he claimed violated fraud and competition laws.
Upon revelation of these illegal acts, the Company's shares fell
to $23.03, a loss of 16%. Then on October 19, 2004, The Wall
Street Journal published an article on Spitzer's investigation
of Aon which stated that the reinsurance business, or insurance
policies for insurance companies, was the focus of the probe,
because Spitzer suspected Aon's insurance-buying clients may not
have received the best deal. On these revelations, the Company's
shares fell again, from $21.20 to $19.20, a drop of 9%.

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


APOLLO GROUP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Apollo Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: APOL)
("Apollo" or the "Company") from March 12, 2004 through
September 14, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

     (1) that the Company improperly based recruiter's
         compensation on enrollment figures, in violation of
         U.S. regulations that forbid schools whose students
         receive federal financial aid from tying pay directly
         to enrollments;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants were
         able to demonstrate dazzling growth at schools such as
         the University of Phoenix, even though recruiters
         bolstered their numbers by signing up unqualified
         students; and

     (3) that as a result of the illegal practices, the
         Company's earnings and net income were materially
         inflated at all relevant times.

On September 15, 2004, the Wall Street Journal published an
article entitled "Will Apollo's Bad Report Card Get Its Shares
Grounded?" The article stated that Apollo engaged in a "culture
of duplicity" in which supervisors improperly lavished money on
sales employees for signing up scores of new students, including
those unable to cut it. This news shocked the market. Shares of
Apollo fell $1.41 per share, or 1.76 percent on September 15,
2004, to close at $78.68 per share.

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


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Shalov Stone Files Stock Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP initiated a class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all persons including American
and Canadian investors who purchased the securities of Bennett
Environmental, Inc. (AMEX: BEL) (TSX: BEV) in the period from
June 2, 2003 to July 22, 2004. The firm cautions investors that
although many lawyers may advertise about participation in the
lawsuit, few of them have actually filed lawsuits.

"The Bennett lawsuit alleges that the Company and its ranking
executives polluted the market with misleading information for
more than a year about the Company's largest contract, which was
largely withdrawn immediately after Bennett announced it," said
Ralph M. Stone, a partner at the firm. "This enabled the
Company's insiders to unload tens of thousands of shares at an
enormous profit, leaving public investors holding the bag."

Following the publicity generated by Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP's
lawsuit, several lawyers will issue press releases about
lawsuits, even though they have not investigated them or filed
them, in an effort to solicit clients. The law firm has filed
the first lawsuit relating to Bennett Environmental, Inc. Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP is continuing to conduct a significant
investigation of Bennett Environmental, which is only available
to its clients and is not available to other law firms.

The law firm is continuing to investigate the Company and has
developed significant information concerning other contracts,
and numerous other disclosure violations committed by the
defendants.

For more details, contact Thomas G. Ciarlone, Jr., of Shalov
Stone & Bonner LLP by Mail: 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1000, New
York, NY 10018 by Phone: (212) 239-4340 or E-mail:
tciarlone@lawssb.com


BENNETT ENVIRONMENTAL: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges NY Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Bennett Environmental, Inc. (AMEX: BEL) securities between June
2, 2003 and July 22, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against the Company and certain
key officers and directors.

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

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


CONVERIUM HOLDING: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Converium Holding AG
("Converium" or the "Company") (NYSE:CHR and SWX:CHRN) between
December 11, 2001 and August 30, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Converium,
Zurich Financial Services Group and certain of Converium's
officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that Converium is a global reinsurer that
offers a range of traditional non-life and life reinsurance
products, as well as other products to help clients manage
capital and risk. The complaint further alleges that, during the
Class Period, defendants artificially inflated the price of
Converium securities by issuing press releases and other
statements touting the strength of the Company's business. The
statements were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that:

     (1) Converium maintained inadequate loss reserves;

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

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

Defendants were motivated to engage in this conduct because it
enabled the Company to sell $1.9 billion in stock and $200
million in notes at artificially inflated prices.

The truth began to emerge on July 20, 2004. On that date, the
Company announced that it had failed to properly and adequately
report reserves for losses and asset impairments and that the
Company would now be forced to record a charge of over $400
million to bring reserves up to their necessary and proper
levels. Immediately following publication of this release the
Company's ADSs fell more than US $10.87 to $14.15 per share in
New York, a decline of 43.4% in the single day's trading
session. On August 30, 2004, the Company further announced that
it anticipated making third-quarter reserve adjustments of
between US $50 million and US $100 million. On this news,
Converium ADSs fell $1.30, or 11.6%, from a closing price of
$11.20 on August 30, 2004 to a low of $9.90 on August 31, 2004,
and closed out the day at $10.10. Shares of the Company declined
in tandem on the Swiss exchange.

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


DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Stock Suit in OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Dobson Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: DCEL) securities between
May 19, 2003 and August 9, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma, against the Company and certain
key officers and directors.

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

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


DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges OK Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Dobson Communications Corporation (Nasdaq:
DCEL) ("Dobson" and the "Company") from May 19, 2003 through
August 9, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Dobson, Everett R. Dobson, Russell L.
Dobson, Stephen T. Dobson, Douglas B. Stephens, Bruce R.
Knooihuizen, and Richard D. Sewell, Jr. 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 defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company's growth in roaming minutes was
         eroding;

     (2) that the Company had been missing sales quotas, as its
         service, marketing and customer upgrade cots spiraled
         out of control;

     (3) that the Company's largest equity interest holders AT&T
         and Bank of American intended to dispose of their
         interests in Dobson; and

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
         ascertain the true financial condition of the Company.

On February 17, 2004, Dobson reported operating income of $48.6
million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2003. The
results were disappointing due to weak growth in roaming minutes
and very large reduction in 2004 guidance. This news shocked the
market. Shares of Dobson fell $2.65 per share, or 36.55 percent,
on February 18, 2004, to close at $4.60 per share. On August 9,
2004, Dobson reported a net loss applicable to common
shareholders of $15.9 million, or $0.12 per share, for the
second quarter ended June 30, 2004. On this news, shares of
Dobson fell an additional $1.30 per share, or 54.17 percent, on
August 10, 2004, to close at $1.10 per share.

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


FERRO CORPORATION: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a securities class
action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock of Ferro Corporation ("Ferro" or the "Company")
(NYSE:FOE), between October 28, 2003 and July 22, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio.

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

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 by
Phone: (866) 759-2275 or by E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com

INTELLIGROUP INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Intelligroup, Inc. ("Intelligroup" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:ITIG.PK) between May 1, 2001 and September
24, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Intelligroup and Arjun Valluripalli, Nicholas Visco and
David J. Distel ("Defendants.")

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
throughout the Class Period, Intelligroup publicly touted its
strong financial performance. In reality however, the complaint
alleges, that the Company's revenues, net income and earnings
were materially misstated as a direct result of Intelligroup's
improper accounting practices and inadequate internal controls.

On August 11, 2004, Intelligroup announced that its independent
auditors, Deloitte & Touche LLP had resigned from serving as the
Company's independent auditor. Then on September 24, 2004,
Intelligroup announced that it intended to restate its financial
results for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001.
Intelligroup shares reacted negatively to the news, falling 32%
to close at $1.13 per share.

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


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Emerson Poynter Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a lawsuit pursuant
to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")
today, October 25, 2004. This action was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, in
the case styled, Laura Jordan, On Behalf of Herself and All
Other persons Similarly Situated vs. Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc., Patricia A. Agrello, and Benefits Administration
Committee, Civil Action No. 04-CV-8409. This action was filed as
a class action on behalf of all present and former participants
of the Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.'s Stock Investment Plan
that is subject to ERISA and that purchased or held, or
permitted Plan participants to purchase or hold through such
plan, equity, or debt securities issued by Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc. ("Marsh" or the "Company") (NYSE:MMC), or any
other subsidiary, including but not limited to, Marsh, Inc. or
Putnam Investments, during the period October 15, 2000 through
October 14, 2004, inclusive, and who suffered losses as a result
of the breaches of fiduciary duty or any other violations of
ERISA as alleged by plaintiff.

Plaintiff alleges that defendants, fiduciaries of the Plans,
breached their duties to Plaintiff and to the other Participants
in the Plans, in violation of ERISA, particularly with regard to
the Plans' holdings of Marsh stock. Each of the Marsh Plans
maintained significant holdings in Marsh stock and/or required
Participants' investments to be held, in whole or in part, in
Marsh stock. For example, in the Company's Stock Investment
Plan, Participants' investments were overwhelmingly limited to
Company stock, all matching funds were in Company stock, and
Participants were not permitted to meaningfully diversify their
investments. Where Participants were permitted to diversify,
they were substantially limited to investments in funds managed
by Putnam Investments, a wholly owned subsidiary of Marsh.

Plaintiff has alleged that the defendants' acts were especially
egregious given the Company's business practices. In order to
make customers believe that Marsh had received "bids" from
various insurance companies in an attempt to get the lowest
possible price and most favorable terms for the customer, Marsh
allegedly "rigged" bids by asking certain insurance companies to
bid higher than the Company to which Marsh had already
determined to steer the customer's business. Marsh's alleged
"bid rigging" schemes were not only in direct conflict of
interest with Marsh's customers, but were fraudulent and
illegal, and have opened the Company up to massive civil and
criminal liability, lost future revenues, tarnished reputation,
potential inability to borrow, and potential loss of customers.

Plaintiff's complaint also alleges that defendants knew or
should have known that Marsh stock was an imprudent investment
alternative for the Plans due to the improper business practices
at the Company and the overwhelming risk that the Plans assumed
by holding Company stock in such large, concentrated amounts.
Defendants are liable under ERISA to restore losses sustained by
the Plans and Participants as a result of defendants' breaching
their fiduciary obligations to

     (1) monitor the Company's administrators and to provide
         them with accurate information;

     (2) provide complete and accurate information to the
         Participants;

     (3) avoid conflicts of interest; and

     (4) diversify Participants' investments.

For more details, contact Mr. Charles Gastineau, Ms. Tanya Autry
or Ms. Michelle Raggio, Employee Retirement Plan Department of
the Emerson Poynter LLP by Phone: 1-800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
epllp@emersonpoynter.com


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges ERISA Lawsuit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind Ltd. initiated a class-action
lawsuit pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974 ("ERISA") on October 22, 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of persons who, as of October 14, 2004, were participants in or
beneficiaries of ("Participants") one or more of the retirement
plans offered by Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. ("Marsh" or
the "Company") (NYSE:MMC), including: Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc. Stock Investment Plan ("SIP" or "401(k)"), Marsh
& McLennan Companies, Inc. Stock Investment Supplemental Plan
("SISP"), and Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. Global Stock
Purchase Plan ("Stock Purchase Plan"), and Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc. U.S. Retirement Program, including the
Retirement Plan, Benefit Equalization Plan, and Supplemental
Retirement Plan ("Retirement Plan"), all of which are
collectively referred to herein as the "Plans". The lawsuit was
filed against Marsh and certain fiduciaries of the Plans
("defendants").

Plaintiff alleges that defendants, fiduciaries of the Plans,
breached their duties to Plaintiff and to the other Participants
in the Plans, in violation of ERISA, particularly with regard to
the Plans' holdings of Marsh stock. Each of the Plans maintained
significant holdings in Marsh stock and/or required
Participants' investments to be held, in whole or in part, in
Marsh stock. For example, in the Company's SIP, Participants'
investments were overwhelmingly limited to Company stock, all
matching funds were in Company stock, and Participants were not
permitted to meaningfully diversify their investments. Where
Participants were permitted to diversify, they were
substantially limited to investments in funds managed by Putnam
Investments, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Marsh.

The defendants acts were especially egregious given the
Company's business practices. In order to make customers believe
that Marsh had received "bids" from various insurance companies
in attempt to get the lowest possible price and most favorable
terms for the customer, Marsh "rigged" bids by asking certain
insurance companies to bid higher than the Company to which
Marsh had already determined to steer the customer's business.
Marsh's "bid rigging" schemes were not only in direct conflict
of interest with Marsh's customers, but were fraudulent and
illegal, and have opened the Company up to massive civil and
criminal liability, lost future revenues, tarnished reputation,
potential inability to borrow, and potential loss of customers.

For these reasons, defendants knew or should have known that
Marsh stock was an imprudent investment alternative for the
Plans due to the improper business practices at the Company and
the overwhelming risk that the Plans assumed by holding Company
stock in such large, concentrated amounts. Defendants are liable
under ERISA to restore losses sustained by the Plans and
Participants as a result of defendants' breaching their
fiduciary obligations to

     (1) monitor the Company's administrators and to provide
         them with accurate information;

     (2) provide complete and accurate information to the
         Participants;

     (3) avoid conflicts of interest; and

     (4) diversify Participants' investments.

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


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

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

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


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges VA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on
behalf of purchasers of PRIMUS Telecommunications Group, Inc.
("PRIMUS") (NASDAQ:PRTL) publicly traded securities during the
period between November 11, 2003 and July 29, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges PRIMUS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. PRIMUS is a global facilities-based telecommunications
services provider offering an integrated portfolio of
international and domestic voice, Internet, voice-over-Internet
protocol, data and hosting services to business and residential
retail customers and other carriers located primarily in the
United States, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and Europe.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, PRIMUS's
shares traded at inflated levels due to materially false and
misleading statements issued by defendants to the investing
public regarding the Company's business and prospects. The true
facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:

     (1) the Company was experiencing massive pricing pressures
         on its standalone international long distance business
         and the Company's minutes of use were not growing, but
         actually declining;

     (2) contrary to its projections, the Company, on a
         consolidated basis, would actually lose money for the
         second half of 2004 and even the Company's second
         quarter projections were grossly overstated;

     (3) the Company's business model was incredibly weak and,
         as a result, combined with the Company's second quarter
         2004 revelations and the fact that the Company was
         already highly leveraged ($580 million), its ability to
         raise the necessary monies for capital expenditures to
         achieve even the newly projected results was severely
         hampered if not taken away altogether;

     (4) contrary to defendants' statements, the Company was
         drowning in competition; and

     (5) as a result, the value of the Company as an enterprise
         was actually less than the Company's debt.

As a result of these false statements, PRIMUS's shares traded at
inflated prices during the Class Period, increasing to as high
as $13.15 on January 26, 2004, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors completed a $240 million note offering.

On July 29, 2004, after the market closed, PRIMUS issued a press
release announcing its second quarter results, posting a loss of
$14.9 million, or $0.17 per share, which reversed the year-ago
profit of $18.7 million, or $0.21 per share. The numbers fell
far short of Wall Street's expectations. Defendants had forecast
earnings of $.10 per share on revenue of $348 million. The
Company blamed the industry-wide price war for its troubles and
said it would push to roll out more integrated services in an
effort to defend its turf. PRIMUS shares dropped $1.70 to $1.52
per share -- a 50% drop in a single day.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins 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/primus/


STAR GAS: Barrack Rodos Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded
securities of Star Gas Partners, L.P. (NYSE: SGU, SGH) ("Star
Gas" or the "Company") between April 30, 2003 and October 18,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Star Gas, Irik P. Sevin, and Ami Trauber
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
complaint alleges that Star Gas failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Star Gas was unable to pass costs of rising
         heating oil prices on to its customers because it had
         earlier acquired heating oil at a much lower cost;

     (2) that as a result of this, defendants were unable to
         increase or maintain profit margins in its heating oil
         segment;

     (3) that Star Gas was experiencing massive customer
         attrition; and

     (4) that the operational restructuring of the Company's
         Petro heating oil division, undertaken at the beginning
         of the Class Period, was a failure because of delays in
         the centralization of its dispatch system.

On October 18, 2004, TheStreet.com issued an article, entitled
"Stocks In Motion: Star Gas," which stated: "Earnings at Star
Gas' heating oil unit are expected to decline substantially, the
Company said, which will not permit it to meet the borrowing
conditions under its working capital line. Star is currently in
talks with lenders to modify conditions and other terms that
would allow its business unit to operate through the winter. If
lenders do not agree, however, to offer modified terms, Star
said it could be forced to seek alternative financing on
``extremely disadvantageous' terms or even be forced to seek
bankruptcy protection." On this news, Star Gas's stock price
dropped to $4.32 per share from a closing price of $21.60 on the
previous trading day, a decline of 80%, on unusually high
trading volume.

For more details, contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder
Relations Manager of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine by Mail: 3300 Two
Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-963-0600 by Fax: 215-963-0838 or by E-mail:
mgoldman@barrack.com


STAR GAS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Star Gas Partners, L.P. (NYSE: SGU) securities between December
4, 2003 and October 18, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

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

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


STAR GAS: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of Star Gas Partners, L.P. ("Star Gas" or the
"Company") (NYSE:SGU, SGH) between December 4, 2003 and October
18, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Star Gas and certain officers and directors
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
Defendants, during the Class Period caused Star Gas's shares to
trade at artificially inflated prices because it issued
materially false and misleading statements. More specifically,
Defendants concealed from investors that the Company was
experiencing extensive delays in centralizing its dispatch
system, causing customers to flock to competitors, that the
Company's Petro heating oil division's process improvement
program was not delivering the benefits claimed by Defendants,
and that contrary to prior indications the Company could not
maintain profit margins in its heating oil segment.

On October 18, 2004, the Company indicated that results at its
heating oil unit were expected to decline significantly, which
would inhibit it from meeting borrowing conditions under its
working capital credit line. In reaction to this news, shares of
Star Gas collapsed, falling from $21.60 per share to close at
$4.32 the following day.

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


STAR GAS: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of all purchasers of the stock
and other publicly-traded securities of Star Gas Partners, L.P.
(NYSE: SGH - News; "Star Gas" or the "Company") from April 30,
2003 through October 15, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Star Gas, Irik P. Sevin, and Ami Trauber
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. A
copy of the Complaint filed in this action can be obtained from
the Court (Case No. 3:04-cv-1785-SRU), you can call our offices
toll free at either 866/540-5505 or 877/891-9880 to speak with
an attorney regarding this matter and obtain a copy of the
Complaint or you can e-mail us (jmiller@classactioncounsel.com)
and we will send you a copy of the Complaint.

The Complaint specifically alleges that Star Gas failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Partnership was unable to pass costs of rising
         heating oil prices on to its customers because the
         Partnership had earlier acquired heating oil at a much
         lower cost;

     (2) that, as a result, Defendants were unable to increase
         or maintain profit margins in its heating oil segment;

     (3) that the Partnership was experiencing massive customer
         attrition; and

     (4) that the Partnership's Petro heating oil division's
         operational restructuring, undertaken at the beginning
         of the Class Period, was a complete and utter failure
         because of delays in the centralization of Star Gas'
         dispatch system.

On October 18, 2004, Star Gas issued a press release with the
headline: "STAR GAS PARTNERS, L.P. ANNOUNCES SUSPENSION OF
COMMON UNIT DISTRIBUTION." Therein, the Partnership stated that
it had recently advised its Petro heating oil division bank
lenders of a substantial expected decline in earnings for this
division for the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2004,
and a further projected decline in earnings for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 2005, which would not permit Petro to meet
the borrowing conditions under its working capital line.
According to Star, the source of the problem was a combination
of the inability to pass on the full impact of record heating
oil prices to customers, and the effects of unusually high
customer attrition principally related to its operational
restructuring undertaken in the past 18 months. Petro was
continuing to submit borrowing requests under its working
capital line. Star was in discussions with the lenders to modify
conditions and other terms necessary to assure that Petro would
have sufficient liquidity to operate through the winter. Star
anticipated that, because of the requirements of Star's current
and potential lenders, it would not be permitted to make any
distributions on its Common Units. Star believed that with the
support of its existing lenders, which cannot yet be assured, it
could manage the extraordinary challenges arising from current
energy prices and other factors. However, without that support,
Star Gas may be forced to seek interim financing on extremely
disadvantageous terms or even to seek to restructure its debts
under the protection of the bankruptcy Courts.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of Star Gas fell $17.28
per share, or 80 percent, to close at $4.32 per share on
unusually high trading volume on October 18, 2004.

For more details, contact Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,
LLC attorneys; James E. Miller, Esq. by Phone: 866/540-5505 or
by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or James C. Shah, Esq.
by Phone: 877/891-9880 by E-mail: jshah@classactioncounsel.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.classactioncounsel.com


US UNWIRED: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in LA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Louisiana on behalf of all securities purchasers of
US Unwired, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: UNWR) ("US Unwired" or the
"Company") from May 23, 2000 through August 13, 2002, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges US Unwired, William L. Henning Jr., Robert
W. Piper, and Jerry E. Vaughn with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. US Unwired holds direct or indirect
ownership interests in five Sprint PCS affiliates: Louisiana
Unwired, Texas Unwired, Georgia PCS, IWO Holdings and Gulf Coast
Wireless. 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) the Company was increasing its subscriber base by
         signing up high-credit-risk customers;

     (2) that accounting changes implemented by the Company were
         done in order to conceal the Company's declining
         revenues;

     (3) that the Company had been experiencing high involuntary
         disconnections related to its high-credit- risk
         customers;

     (4) that the Company experienced lower subscription growth
         as a result of its policy that required credit-
         challenged customers to pay substantial deposits upon
         the initiation of services; and

     (5) that the Company was engaged in a dispute with Sprint
         PCS regarding its business relationship with Sprint PCS
         and Sprint PCS was pressuring the Company.

On August 13, 2002, US Unwired announced in a press release the
financial results for the second quarter period ended June 30,
2002. The Company revealed that it experienced lower
subscription growth as a result of its policy that required
credit-challenged customers to pay substantial deposits upon the
initiation of services. In response to this string of negative
announcements, on August 13, 2002, the price of US Unwired
common stock closed at $.90 per share, down 94.8% from its Class
Period high of $17.25 per share.

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


VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges CA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Valassis Communications, Inc. (NYSE: VCI) securities between
April 25, 2002 and October 23, 2002, inclusive (the Class
Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan, against the Company and certain
key officers and directors.

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

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


VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Stock Suit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Valassis Communications,
Inc. ("Valassis" or the "Company") (NYSE:VCI) between April 25,
2002 and October 23, 2002, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Valassis and certain officers and
directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements. The complaint alleges that
these statements were false and misleading because Defendants
failed to disclose that the price increase implemented by the
Company in 2001 in its Free Standing Inserts business and then
retracted in February 2002 was negatively impacting its ability
to win business, and that the Company was experiencing increased
competition from News America who was offering customers lower
prices and longer contracts.

On October 24, 2002, Valassis reported financial results for the
third quarter ended September 30, 2002, dramatically reducing
its guidance for 2003 to $2.22 per share, below the then
consensus of $2.70 per share. Shares reacted negatively to the
news, falling approximately 25%, to close at $26.01 in heavy
trading volume.

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