---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, October 28, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 214


                            Headlines

AMERICAN AIRLINES: NTSB Says Pilot Error To Blame For 2001 Crash
ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: Three People Face Trial in Virginia Court
AT&T CORPORATION: Reaches $100M NJ Shareholder Suit Settlement
CANADA: Montreal Lawyer Lodges Suit V. Six Mutual Fund Companies
DYNEGY INC.: Securities Lawsuit Trial Set May 2005 in TX Court

FANAM CAPITAL: SEC Lodges IL Fraud Suit V. Michael G. Beckford
FLORIDA: GA Appeals Court Hears New Arguments Over Voter Policy
FLORIDA: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Voter Disenfranchisement
FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Judge Dismisses Insurer's Antitrust Lawsuit
HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit in C.D. CA

LINCOLN PARK: Mother Files RI Suit Over Failure To Deny Winnings
MERCK & CO.: Viles & Beckman Lodges Suit Over VIOXX Side Effects
MONTANA POWER: Goldman Sachs, Milbank Tweed Face Securities Suit
NEW HAMPSHIRE: State Study Says More MtBE Found Deep Underground
ORGANON USA: Wyoming Residents To Join Remeron Suit Settlement

ORGANON USA: WA Consumers To Participate in Remeron Settlement
ORGANON USA: Utah Consumers To Participate in Remeron Settlement
ORGANON USA: VA Consumers To Participate in Remeron Settlement
RIO BRANDS: Recalls 20,700 Lawn Chairs Because of Injury Hazard
RMS TITANIC: SEC Files Settled Civil Injunction V. Arnold Geller

SCHERING-PLOUGH: Reaches $1.8 Mil Claritin Settlement With Utah
SILICON LABORATORIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
SLOCUM GORDON: RI Court Enters Judgment For SEC Securities Suit
TIG LTD.: Settles WI Justice Department's Environmental Lawsuit
UNIVERSAL LIFE: Faces CA Civil Suit, Insurance Commission Probe

VALLEY VIEW: Doctor Faces Fine For Charging For Free Vaccines
WASHINGTON: WA A.G. Gregoire Warns V. Flu Vaccine Price-Gouging
WINN-DIXIE STORES: FL Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
WINN-DIXIE STORES: FL Court Orders ERISA Lawsuits Consolidated

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CONCORD CAMERA: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in FL
FLIGHT SAFETY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
INTERACTIVECORP: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
INTERACTIVECORP: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Emerson Poynter Launches ERISA Lawsuit in NY

RADIATION THERAPY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files FL Securities Suit
STAR GAS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
TECO ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL
ZIX CORPORATION: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in TX

                          *********

AMERICAN AIRLINES: NTSB Says Pilot Error To Blame For 2001 Crash
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) ruled that pilot
error caused the crash of American Airlines Flight 587 on
November 12, 2001, which killed 265 people, the Associated Press
reports.

The plane hit turbulence almost immediately after taking off
from the John F. Kennedy International Airport for the Dominican
Republic.  It crashed into a New York city neighborhood, killing
hundreds of people.

First Officer Sten Molin was at the controls, and allegedly
moved the plane's rudder back and forth.  According to
investigators, he tried to steady the aircraft using pedals that
control the rudder, a large flap on a plane's tail.  When his
initial movement failed, he tried again and again.  His actions
placed enormous stress on the tail, and caused it to break off.

Investigator Robert Benzon of the National Transportation Safety
Board said the copilot's response to turbulence, just seconds
after the Airbus A300-600 plane took off, was "unnecessary and
aggressive," AP reports.  He added that American Airlines
improperly trained its pilots to use the aircraft's rudder while
recovering from upsets and said the problem could have been
exacerbated by the airline's simulator training.

Both Airbus Industrie, the jetliner's manufacturer and American
Airlines, which trained Mr. Molin, agree that if he had taken
his foot off the rudder pedal, the tail wouldn't have broken
off, the plane wouldn't have plunged into a New York City
neighborhood and 265 people wouldn't have died, AP reports.

However, Mr. Molin apparently was unaware he was putting more
pressure on the tail than it could bear.  Airbus and American
Airlines disagree on who is to blame for the error.

American Airlines alleges that Airbus didn't wan it of how
dangerous sharp rudder movements are until after the crash.  The
airline, the only U.S. airline to use that type of Airbus plane
for passenger service, also contends the Airbus A300-600 has
uniquely sensitive flight controls that can cause more severe
rudder movements than the pilot intends.

"Airbus had the ability to truly red-flag the issue," American
spokesman Bruce Hicks said, AP reports.

Airbus disagreed with the airline's contention, saying it
informed the airline several times and in several ways that it
was improperly training pilots about how to use the rudder.  An
Airbus spokesman declined to comment on the investigation before
the hearing, AP reports.

The manufacturer has shown the NTSB a number of documents to
support its claim.  In a a letter dated August 20, 1997, warned
American chief pilot Cecil Ewing that rudders should not be
moved abruptly to right a jetliner or when a plane is flown at a
sharp angle.  The letter was signed by representatives from The
Boeing Co., the Federal Aviation Administration and Airbus.

Airbus contends that even people within American Airlines were
concerned about how the airline was training its pilots, AP
reports.  A letter to Airbus dated May 22, 1997, from American
technical pilot David Tribout expressed concern about the
airline's then-new training course on advanced maneuvers.

"I am very concerned that one aspect of the course is inaccurate
and potentially hazardous," Tribout wrote, according to AP.  His
concern: Pilots were being taught that the rudder should be used
to control a plane's rolling motion.

However, Mr. Hicks alleged that the manufacturer failed to
inform them of safety information about the rudder until a
problem surfaced with American Flight 903 in May 1997.  During
that incident, pilots used the rudder to steady an Airbus A300-
600 plane on approach to West Palm Beach airport.  The plane
nearly crashed and one person was seriously injured, AP reports.

Afterward, Airbus told the NTSB that it included a warning that
abrupt rudder movement in some circumstances "can lead to rapid
loss of controlled flight," and, in others, could break off the
tail.  Mr. Hicks said Airbus' comments didn't specifically say
the rudder movements on Flight 903 had exposed the tail to so
much pressure that it could have been ripped off, AP reports.

John David, a spokesman for American Airlines' pilots union,
said pilots had always thought that they could use rudders to
the full extent without hurting the airplane.  He also believes
Airbus didn't properly communicate what it knew, AP states.


ANTI-SPAM LITIGATION: Three People Face Trial in Virginia Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three people are facing trial in Virginia, for allegedly sending
millions of illegal junk e-mail messages to America Online
customers, promoting penny stocks and "Internet history
erasers," the Associated Press reports.

Jeremy Jaynes, his sister Jessica Degroot and Richard Rutkowski
all from the Raleigh, N.C., area, face three felony counts, and
could possibly face a maximum of fifteen years in prison if
convicted.  The three are on trial in Virginia because they
allegedly sent their spam to customers of AOL, which has its
servers at its Loudoun County headquarters.  The trial is the
nation's first felony prosecution for illegally sending bulk e-
mail, or spam, according to the Virginia attorney general's
Office, which is prosecuting the case under a law that took
effect July 2003.

In his opening statements, Assistant Attorney General Russell
McGuire stated that on one day alone in July 2003, Mr. Jaynes
sent or attempted to send 7.7 million e-mail messages to AOL
customers using false identities or bogus Company names to try
to sell software that would allow a person to work from home as
a "FedEx refund processor" or that would help them pick the
right penny stocks.

He asserted that the three used false identities to evade AOL's
spam filters.  "When you masquerade your identity, that's when
you have a problem" under Virginia law, he stated.

He further stated that Mr. Jaynes regularly wrote checks to Ms.
DeGroot and Mr. Rutkowski for thousands of dollars a month as
compensation for their roles, saying Ms. DeGroot provided a
credit card account to register various business names on the
Web and Rutkowski served as a contact and provided a mailing
address in some cases, AP reports.

Lawyers for the defendants countered that sending spam is not
illegal under Virginia law.  They asserted that prosecutors have
to prove that the defendants intentionally masked its origin and
that the junk e-mail was unsolicited.

"Marketing via the Internet is not a crime," said Thomas
Mulrine, attorney for Jessica DeGroot, one of the three
defendants, AP reports.  "It may be annoying to you, but it's
not a crime to market on the Internet" unless you falsify
information to send the e-mails.

David Oblon, attorney for Jeremy Jaynes, who prosecutors said
was the center of the operation, said Virginia's law is
complicated and poorly written, and that prosecutors cannot
possibly prove all the elements necessary to make spam
transmission a crime, according to AP.


AT&T CORPORATION: Reaches $100M NJ Shareholder Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T Corporation reached an agreement to settle a shareholder
class action lawsuit underway in U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey just three weeks after the trial began.

The lawsuit sought damages of approximately $2.4 billion for
purchasers of AT&T common stock from December 6, 1999 to May 1,
2000. Under the settlement, AT&T has agreed to pay the class
$100 million, about four percent of the amount being sought at
trial. The payment will be shared equally by AT&T and its former
broadband subsidiary, which was spun off in 2002, under the
terms of the separation agreement between those entities. In
addition, AT&T intends to seek reimbursement from its insurers
for the amounts to be paid.

"As we have said all along, we categorically deny any wrongdoing
by AT&T or any of its officers and remain confident that we
would have been vindicated at the end of this trial," said
Edward R. Barillari, vice president-Law & Government Affairs.
"But, given the size of the claims compared to the relatively
low amount of the settlement, the inherent risk and uncertainty
of legal proceedings, and the very substantial expense of those
proceedings, this settlement is the prudent course for the
Company."

AT&T will take the steps necessary to determine and disclose the
effect of this settlement on its recently announced third-
quarter earnings.  The settlement is still subject to court
approval.


CANADA: Montreal Lawyer Lodges Suit V. Six Mutual Fund Companies
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norman Painchaud, a Montreal-based lawyer initiated a lawsuit in
Quebec Superior Court against six Canadian mutual fund companies
on behalf of plaintiff Paul Huneault, a financial planner
registered in Quebec accusing them of eroding investor returns
by allowing short-term trading in some of their funds, the
National Post reports.

Named as defendants are AGF Funds Inc., AIC Funds Ltd., CI
Mutual Funds Inc., Investors Group Ltd., CIBC Securities Inc.
and Franklin Templeton Investments Corp., who are all being sued
in an action that alleges they violated their fiduciary duty to
shareholders because they failed to stop market timing.  In an
interview with the National Post, Mr. Painchaud alleged market
timing has wiped out at least $400-million in returns for
investors across Canada.

According to Mr. Painchaud, the suit, which has just been filed
and needs to be certified by a judge as a class action before it
can proceed further, seeks a court order forcing the mutual fund
companies freeze fees for a two-year period and compensate
investors for what he estimates to be $400-million in lost
returns over the past four years.

Financial experts explain that market timing is the practice of
trading rapidly into and out of funds to exploit pricing
discrepancies between the fund price and the anticipated value
of securities held in the fund's portfolio, it has been used by
large investors in mutual funds that invest internationally.
Although not illegal, the practice can mean higher management
fees that erode returns for other holders of the fund's units.

The Quebec suit, considered to be the first class action to seek
redress for investors who may have been affected by market
timing, will be open to all Canadians except investors from
Ontario.


DYNEGY INC.: Securities Lawsuit Trial Set May 2005 in TX Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The securities class action filed against Dynegy, Inc. and
several of its former executives is scheduled to go to trial on
May 9,2005 in the United States District Court in Texas, the
Houston Chronicle reports.

The lawsuit is a consolidation of suits filed by Company
shareholders in 2002 who claim the Company, its executives,
accountants and bankers used various means to exaggerate the
Company's performance.

The shareholders initially focused on two transactions, Black
Thunder, an off-balance-sheet deal with Citigroup that
shareholders allege was an $850 million loan disguised as an
equity investment and Project Alpha, a transaction shareholders
allege was a $300 million loan from Citigroup disguised as cash
flow as well as a number of allegedly illegal accounting
maneuvers surrounding natural gas and power trades and
contracts, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October
12,2004) reports.

Earlier this month, Texas Judge Sim Lake narrowed the scope of
the case, dismissing all Black Thunder-related charges, as well
as claims relating to shareholders who invested in debt issued
in 2002.  However, the judge ruled that the Company will still
face civil claims that it issued new stock and debt in 2001
using material misstatements or omissions from financial
statements from 1999 through 2001. The order further decrees
that the Company must also will face claims it misled investors
about a deal called Project Alpha and improper accounting for
round-trip trades.


FANAM CAPITAL: SEC Lodges IL Fraud Suit V. Michael G. Beckford
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
against Michael G. Beckford, a former managing member of Fanam
Capital Management (Fanam). Fanam was an unregistered investment
adviser to Fanam Fund I (Fund), which held itself out as a hedge
fund.  The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least
February 2001 through April 2003, Beckford lost $776,344 of the
Fund's money from gambling related activities. The complaint
also alleges that he lost $3,876,775 by trading outside the
Fund's stated investment objectives and risk parameters, and
that he misappropriated $175,010 for other personal uses,
resulting in total investor losses of $4,828,129. Beckford
issued false documents to the Fund's investors to cover-up his
fraud.

The complaint alleges that Beckford violated Section 17(a) of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that he willfully aided
and abetted Fanam Capital Management's violations of Sections
206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act. The complaint
requests that the Court enter an order permanently enjoining
Beckford from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of
1933, Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, and Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment
Advisers Act. The complaint also requests that the Court enter
an order requiring Beckford to disgorge his ill-gotten gains and
to pay civil penalties. The action is titled, SEC v. Michael G.
Beckford, 04 C 6811, N.D. Ill.


FLORIDA: GA Appeals Court Hears New Arguments Over Voter Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta's Federal Appeals Court heard new arguments in a class
action suit seeking to end Florida's policy of stripping all
felons of their right to vote, the New York Times reports.

The suit, filed just before the 2000 election by the Brennan
Center for Justice at New York University, alleges that the
state's ban on felons' voting is racially discriminatory and
that according to its estimates the law strips blacks of voting
rights at more than twice the rate of whites.  According to the
Brennan Center, the plaintiffs in the suit are the 600,000
people with felony convictions who have finished serving their
time in Florida yet still cannot vote.

The plaintiffs allege that the ban, which has been in effect
since 1868, when Florida gave blacks the right to vote as a
condition of the state's being readmitted to the Union after the
Civil War and which was expanded following the creation of a new
State Constitution during the same year, is intended to affect
blacks disproportionately. They also charge that the
discriminatory intent persists, even though the provision was
re-enacted in 1968 as part of a new Constitution.

A federal judge in Miami had dismissed the suit in 2002, but in
December a three-judge panel of the appeals court reversed the
decision and ordered a trial, citing that the state had to prove
that it had re-enacted the provision for a "nondiscriminatory
purpose" and not just for the sake of continuity.

The defendant in the case, Governor Jeb Bush along with his
attorneys asked for a rehearing, which is what transpired before
the full appeals court in Atlanta.


FLORIDA: Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Over Voter Disenfranchisement
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge James Lawrence King of Florida dismissed a
lawsuit that was filed on behalf of more than 10,000 new voters
whose registration forms had been rejected as incomplete, the
New York Times reports.

In his ruling, the federal judge wrote that the labor unions,
which brought the case had no standing, since they had not
proved that any of their members were affected and that the
several other plaintiffs, who had turned in incomplete
registration forms, could not blame their local elections
supervisors, who were named as defendants.  He also pointed out
that no federal or state statute prescribes a time period within
which a supervisor must notify an applicant that her application
is incomplete.

However, Sheila Thomas, a lawyer for the Advancement Project, a
rights group that represented the plaintiffs, believes that the
ruling is incorrect as a matter of law, and stated that she her
clients are considering appealing it.

The suit, which was brought against elections supervisors in
Broward, Miami-Dade and several other counties, alleges that
that the rejected registration forms had come disproportionately
from blacks and Hispanics and that in some cases, the applicants
did not check a box indicating that they were American citizens,
though they signed an oath on the form affirming that they were,
nut were still rejected. The suit also alleges that some
registrants corrected their incomplete forms before the October
4 registration deadline, but elections officials did not always
process them in time, and did not let other registrants know
that their forms were flawed.  The suit is among several
charging voter disenfranchisement that are being fought by the
administration of Governor Jeb Bush.


FLORIDA HOSPITAL: Judge Dismisses Insurer's Antitrust Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge John Steele dismissed an antitrust
case that was filed by Indianapolis-based Medical Savings
Insurance Co., which sells medical savings accounts, against the
Florida Hospital Association and several Florida hospitals, the
Orlando Business Journal reports.

The firm's antitrust suit was filed in March against several
hospitals, including HCA Inc., owner of Osceola Regional Medical
Center in Kissimmee and Central Florida Regional Hospital in
Sanford. It alleged that the Florida Hospital Association and
several hospitals had conspired to fix prices and boycott the
insurance Company, and that they allegedly charged patients up
to 300 percent more than the national average for hospital fees.

In his ruling, Judge Steele wrote that he had dismissed the suit
due to a lack of antitrust standing. He pointed out that in
order to establish antitrust standing, a plaintiff must show
that he has suffered the type of injury recognized by the
antitrust laws, and that he is an efficient enforcer of the
antitrust laws. The court found that Medical Savings Insurance,
which insures about 16,000 Floridians, had not sufficiently
established either prong of the test.

Bill Bell, FHA general counsel, in a prepared statement said, "
We are delighted by the judge's decision, since it permits our
hospitals to reduce litigation costs and use those funds instead
to invest in our patients and communities."

Earlier this year, a class action suit was filed by several
Florida hospitals accusing Medical Savings Insurance of not
paying the full amount it owed for hospital services provided to
its members, which was later dismissed in February.

The Tallahassee-based Florida Hospital Association represents
190 hospitals and health systems in Florida.


HIENERGY TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Suit in C.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
HiEnergy Technologies, Inc. (the "Company", OTC Bulletin Board:
HIET) faces a class action filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California, seeking unspecified damages
on behalf of an alleged class of investors.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from February 22, 2002 through
July 8, 2004, inclusive.  The Rosen Law Firm filed the suit,
which alleges that the Company certain of its current and former
officers and directors violated Section 10b of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by failing to disclose material information
concerning the background of certain of its officers and
directors, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (October
26,2004) reports.

Although the Company has not yet been served, its Board of
Directors has authorized the engagement of counsel to represent
it in this matter and assess the impact of the pending lawsuit.
The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, it said in
a statement.  According to Dr. Bogdan C. Maglich, CEO, "We have
reviewed the complaint and will defend it aggressively. The
Company views the lawsuit as being without merit."


LINCOLN PARK: Mother Files RI Suit Over Failure To Deny Winnings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paula A. Duffy, a Cranston police detective and a mother who is
owed $41,000 in child support initiated a lawsuit in Rhode
Island Superior Court against betting parlor Lincoln Park,
claiming that it should have withheld prize money when the
father of her son won thousands of dollars at video lottery
terminals, the Providence Journal reports.

According to Ms. Duffy's lawyer, Thomas L. Mirza, his client
decided to pursue the suit after a friend saw Frank E. Bianco,
the father of her 11-year-old son, cashing in at Lincoln Park.
Mr. Mirza further stated that the friend spotted Mr. Bianco, a
Lincoln barber, heading towards a winnings window repeatedly on
September 12, and on occasions a flashing sign indicated that he
had just won $1,600.

At issue is whether Lincoln Park is obligated by law to withhold
winnings of more than $600 whenever the winner owes more than
$500 in child support.

Lincoln Park contends it has no such responsibility, but Mr.
Mirza points out that a 1995 state law requires that both
Lincoln Park and Newport Grand withhold such winnings from their
video slot machines.

Mr. Mirza told the Providence Journal that a class action suit
is possible "if Lincoln Park hasn't incorporated any policies
and procedures for our client, then they haven't made any
attempts for any of the other 72,000 child-support cases in
Rhode Island."

However, in recently filed legal papers, Lincoln Park described
Ms. Duffy's lawsuit "insufficient on its face," and sought
sanctions for the filing of a "frivolous motion." According to
Lincoln Park lawyer Daniel V. McKinnon, there is no legal
requirement that Lincoln Park withhold money from people who owe
child support. He also stated that this is the first time this
issue has arisen since he began representing Lincoln Park in
1992, and no lawsuit has ever made such a claim.

Ms. Duffy's lawsuit accuses Lincoln Park of breach of contract,
breach of fiduciary duty and negligence, which Lincoln Park
rejects, since according to them, "no contract existed between
the parties."

Asked about how many other people might be included in a class
action suit against Lincoln Park, Mr. Mirza stated that his not
sure, but quickly added that "it's difficult to believe this
hasn't happened in many other cases over the past nine years."


MERCK & CO.: Viles & Beckman Lodges Suit Over VIOXX Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Viles & Beckman, P.A. initiated a class action
lawsuit in Lee County Circuit Court, Florida challenging Merck &
Co., Inc., the manufacturer of Vioxx. Their filing alleges that
Vioxx's approval by the FDA in April, 1999 may have been based
solely on information provided by Merck. The pharmaceutical
Company failed to reveal the potential dangers of Vioxx in its
marketing.

The pills were on a fast-track, 6-month approval process in
order to remain competitive with other anti-inflammatory drugs
just entering the market. Not long after Vioxx was released,
Merck started getting warning letters from the FDA.

One letter from the FDA, dated November 17, 2001, charged that
Merck had "engaged in a promotional campaign for Vioxx that
minimizes the potentially serious cardiovascular findings that
were observed in the Vioxx Gastrointestinal Outcomes Research
(VIGOR) study and, thus, misrepresents the safety profile for
Vioxx. Specifically, [Merck's] promotional campaign discounts
the fact that in the VIGOR study, patients on Vioxx were
observed to have a four- to five-fold increase in myocardial
infarctions."

The class action asks Merck for free ongoing health monitoring
and care for those who have taken Vioxx, in addition to monetary
compensation for medical bills, punitive damages, and pain and
suffering.

For more details, contact Viles & Beckman, P.A. by Phone: 2075
West First Street, Fort Myers, FL 33901 by Phone: 800-648-4537
or by Fax: 239-334-7105


MONTANA POWER: Goldman Sachs, Milbank Tweed Face Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plan Trust of Touch America Holdings Inc. initiated a lawsuit in
Montana District Court before District Judge John Whelan that
accuses a New York investment bank and a Wall Street law firm of
conspiring with Montana Power Co. officials to push for passage
of an electric utility deregulation law in 1997 so it could sell
its energy assets later, the Billings Gazette reports.

The defendants that were named in the lawsuit were Goldman Sachs
& Co., the investment banking firm, and Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy, the Wall Street law firm, both of which advised Montana
Power's executives and directors for many years. The plaintiffs
also included in their suit 10 unnamed "John Doe" defendants,
presumably former Montana Power Co. executives, including former
Chief Executive Officer Bob Gannon.

The lawsuit accused the two New York firms of making false and
misleading statements to Montana Power and concealing other
information about selling its energy assets, deals from which
the two firms would make millions of dollars. The lawsuit
contends that Montana Power, at the same time, was ignorant of
the true facts or it never would have made the decisions it did.
It charges that Goldman Sachs, Milbank Tweed and Gannon breached
their fiduciary duties.

The suit was filed by the San Francisco law firm of Cotchett,
Pitre, Simon and McCarthy and by Helena lawyer Mark Baker on
behalf of Plan Trust of Touch America Holdings Inc., which is
the creditors committee in the bankruptcy of Touch America
Holdings Inc. Among the Montana creditors that are included in
Plan Trust of Touch America Holdings are Jode Corp., Rocky
Mountain Contractors, now a subsidiary of MDU Resources, and
Oasis Telecom.

According to John Harp, who is chairman of the creditors
committee and owner of Jode Corp., the lawsuit will seek
undisclosed millions of dollars, plus punitive damages.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: State Study Says More MtBE Found Deep Underground
----------------------------------------------------------------
Higher concentrations of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary
butyl ether (MtBE) have been found hundreds of feet below the
surface than in shallow wells, scientists in Rockingham County,
New Hampshire revealed, the Associated Press reports.

Researchers from the U.S. Geological Survery sampled water
flowing from 120 public and 103 private wells in southeast New
Hampshire for MtBE, which was added to combat air pollution
following the Clean Air Act in 1990.  The study focused on
Rockingham County, which is the most densely populated area in
the state.  75% percent of its residents - an unusually large
number - get their drinking water from groundwater.  The
remaining 25% use public wells as their primary water source.  A
dwindling water supply has forced communities to drill deeper
and deeper bedrock public supply wells.

Scientists found that, with a few exceptions, the deeper the
well, the more MtBE was found, although in very small
concentrations.  The scientists, however, differ on how serious
the problem is.

"It was very surprising; we did expect to see a correlation, but
not a positive one," said Joseph Ayotte, hydrologist at the U.S.
Geological Survey, according to AP.

Bruce Bauman, soil and groundwater research coordinator at the
American Petroleum Institute, found the finding "curious," AP
reports.  Rockingham County, he said, might represent a "worst-
case scenario" as the groundwater system is intersected by
fractured bedrock, more susceptible to contaminants than other
areas.  However, he feels that New Hampshire wells face a far
greater threat from arsenic and radon, which unlike MtBE, will
not disappear over time.

Mr. Ayotte said the study "found no apparent correlation
whatsoever" between depth and MtBE in private wells.  "The high
rate of detection of MtBE is the bad news," said Mr. Ayotte as
he summarized a presentation of the study at a recent conference
on soils, sediments and water at the University of Massachusetts
in Amherst, according to AP.

"The good news is the low concentration. But unfortunately there
is more bad news - the wells in Rockingham County are
increasingly being drilled deeper in search of adequate supply
and it may have implications for the contamination of future
wells," he continued.

Depending on the outcome of a new statewide study on MtBE by the
U.S. Geological Survey, the state may change the guidelines for
well drilling to encourage contractors to look for shallow wells
at other locations rather than to keep drilling for hundreds of
feet.  Deeper wells generally yield less water.  Mr. Ayotte said
this is a possible explanation for the higher concentrations of
MtBE.

Laboratory tests have linked high exposures of the gasoline
additive to kidney and liver cancer in animals. However, nowhere
in the environment will people face the same amount of exposure,
and the levels of MtBE considered hazardous to humans are set a
thousand times lower than the levels that saw effects in the
lab, said toxicologist Andrew Smith at the Bureau of Health at
the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, AP reports.

In New Hampshire, any water source with levels equal to or above
13 parts of MtBE per billion calls for treatment. The limit is
based upon a cancer risk of one in a million and runs below the
20 to 40 parts per billion recommended as the upper limit by the
Environmental Protection Agency.

"If you drink two liters of that water per day over a 70-year
life, then you'd have an increased chance of cancer of one in a
million," said Frederick McGarry, chief engineer for remediation
programs at the Waste Management Division of DES, AP reports.

"It's not a huge risk but frequently people call about two parts
per billion and ask if they'll get cancer tomorrow. I explain
the facts to them but they still don't want any MtBE, and
obviously I can't blame them," he said.


ORGANON USA: Wyoming Residents To Join Remeron Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wyoming Attorney General Pat Crank announced the completion of a
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.

A multi-state complaint and preliminary settlement papers were
filed in New Jersey federal court.  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 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.  This lawsuit
represented a way for us to help lower prescription drug costs
for consumers," AG Crank said in a statement.

The states' complaint alleged that Organon misled the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration about the scope of a new "combination
therapy" patent it had obtained in order to extend its monopoly.
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.

Wyoming 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.
Wyoming will also be among states receiving monies for damages
incurred by certain governmental entities that purchased Remeron
or its generic equivalent.

For more details, contact Administration Chief Deputy Attorney
General Dave Freudenthal by Mail: 123 State Capitol Elizabeth C.
Gagen Cheyenne, Wyoming 82002 by Phone: 307-777-7841 or by Fax:
307-777-6869.


ORGANON USA: WA Consumers To Participate in Remeron Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington consumers who used the antidepressant drug Remeron
could receive part of a $36 million multi-state settlement with
its manufacturer, Organon USA Inc, Attorney General Christine
Gregoire announced in a statement.

Remeron is a mental health drug primarily used to treat
depression. Attorneys General from 50 states sued Organon for
improperly trying to keep Remeron's generic equivalent off the
market in order to maintain profitability on sales of the drug.
With annual sales over $400 million at its peak, Remeron is
Organon's top-selling drug.

In the settlement, filed in U.S. District Court in New Jersey,
Organon has agreed to pay a total of $36 million to consumers,
states and insurance companies. Nationwide, consumers will
receive approximately $7.5 million, with Washington consumers
receiving up to $200,000. Washington state programs such as
Medicaid and state hospitals could receive up to $100,000.

Organon has also agreed to follow all laws regarding the filing
of patents, including timely listing of patents, and the
settlement prohibits the Company from submitting false or
misleading information to the Food and Drug Administration.

The court will have to approve the settlement before Washington
consumers can submit claims for reimbursement. The Attorneys
General will implement a claims administration process for those
who purchased Remeron or its generic equivalent between June 15,
2001 and the present.


ORGANON USA: Utah Consumers To Participate in Remeron Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Utah consumers may be eligible to take part in a $36 million
nationwide settlement with the maker of the antidepressant
Remeron, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff announced in a
statement.  A preliminary settlement has been reached after a
ten-month investigation into Organon USA Inc. and its parent
Company Akzo Nobel N.V.  If the proposed settlement is approved
by a federal judge, the money will go to state agencies and
thousands of consumers.

"What this drug Company did was wrong. Now it's time for Organon
to pay up for deceiving the government and preventing consumers
from getting lower-cost drugs," said AG Shurtleff.

Organon allegedly misled the Food and Drug Administration about
the scope of a new "combination therapy" patent in order to
extend its monopoly for the drug. The drug Company also
allegedly 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.

Utah consumers will be among consumers nationwide who can submit
claims for reimbursement. If the settlement is approved, a
claims process will be set up for consumers who purchased
Remeron or its generic equivalents between June 15, 2001 and the
present. Utah will also receive money to compensate state
agencies that purchased Remeron or its generic equivalent.
Assistant Attorney General Ronald Ockey represented Utah during
settlement discussions.

For more details, contact the Attorney General by Phone:
801-366-0260 or visit the Website:
http://www.attygen.state.ut.us


ORGANON USA: VA Consumers To Participate in Remeron Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A proposed $36 million nationwide settlement for consumers,
state purchasers and other end purchasers with drug maker
Organon USA Inc. and its parent Company Akzo Nobel N.V. over the
antidepressant drug, Remeron has been completed, Virginia
Attorney General Jerry Kilgore announced in a statement.

The suit alleges that Organon acted improperly and caused higher
prices for those who paid for the drug. The settlement affects
those consumers who purchased the drug or its generic equivalent
between June 15, 2001 and the present.

"These companies abused the regulatory system to stifle
competition and prevent consumers from having access to low-cost
generic equivalents of this drug," AG Kilgore said.  "This
lawsuit represented a way for us to help lower prescription drug
costs for consumers."

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.

A multi-state complaint and preliminary settlement papers were
filed in New Jersey federal court.  Subject to court approval,
the agreement with Organon will bring financial relief to state
agencies and thousands of consumers.  All fifty states and every
U.S. territory joined in the suit.  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.
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.

Virginians will be among consumers nationwide who can submit
claims for reimbursement. If the court approves the settlement,
there will be a claims administration process for consumers who
purchased Remeron or its generic equivalent between June 15,
2001 and the present. Virginia will also be among states
receiving monies for damages incurred by certain governmental
entities that purchased Remeron or its generic equivalent. The
amount of money due to the Commonwealth and affected consumers
is yet to be determined.


RIO BRANDS: Recalls 20,700 Lawn Chairs Because of Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rio Brands, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is cooperating with
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 20,700 Mainstays Garden Folding Lawn
Chairs.

The chair arms can break, posing a fall hazard to consumers.
Wal-Mart has received 26 incident reports involving broken
plastic arms. In 17 of these incidents, consumers have reported
injuries such as a fractured wrist, torn ligament, minor back
injuries, bruises and abrasions.

The recalled folding lawn chairs have green plastic arms with
green steel folding frames or blue plastic arms with blue
folding steel frames. They are constructed of matching vinyl
webbing. The chairs measure 31-inches high and 22.5-inches wide.
The left hand arm of the chairs has the word "RIO" on it. Only
the chairs with green or blue plastic arms are included in this
recall.

Manufactured in China, the lawn chairs were sold at all Wal-Mart
stores nationwide from January 2004 through March 2004 for about
$8.

Consumers should immediately stop using the product and return
the chairs to Wal-Mart for a refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, call Rio Brands
customer service at (800) 866-8520 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m.
ET Monday through Friday or visit their Web site at
http://www.riobrands.comor visit Wal-Mart's Web site at
http://www.walmartstores.com



RMS TITANIC: SEC Files Settled Civil Injunction V. Arnold Geller
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled civil
injunctive action against Arnold Geller (Geller), current
president and director of RMS Titanic, Inc. (RMS), and G.
Michael Harris (Harris), a former officer and director of RMS.
The Commission also instituted and simultaneously settled
administrative and cease-and-desist proceedings against John
Joslyn (Joslyn), Joseph Marsh (Marsh), P. David Lucas (Lucas),
Steven Sybesma (Sybesma) Jon Thompson (Thompson) and Stanley
Thomas (Thomas), all of whom were shareholders of RMS. According
to the Commission's complaint and Order Instituting Proceedings
(Order), between May and November 1999, the defendants and
respondents were members of a group of insurgent shareholders
that, among other things, made materially false and misleading
statements in Schedule 13D filings, failed to file and timely
amend Schedule 13D filings and failed to comply with certain
proxy rules in an effort to acquire control of RMS and remove
certain members of its then current management.

Without admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint, Geller and Harris have consented to the entry of
final judgments enjoining them from violating Sections 13(d)(1),
13(d)(2) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act) and Exchange Act Rules 12b-20, 13d-1(a), 13d-2(a)
and 14a-3 through 14a-6. Geller also has consented to pay a
civil penalty of $85,000. The final judgment as to Harris does
not order him to pay a civil penalty based on his sworn
representations and other documents and information submitted to
the Commission concerning his financial condition.

Without admitting or denying the findings in the Commission's
Order, the respondents agreed to settle the charges against them
by consenting to the Order which directs Joslyn, Marsh, Lucas,
Sybesma, Thompson and Thomas to cease and desist from committing
or causing any violations, and any future violations, of
Sections 13(d)(1) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act
Rules 12b-20, 13d-1(a) and 14a-3 through 14a-6 and, additionally
as to Joslyn, Marsh and Thompson, Section 13(d)(2) of the
Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 13d-2(a). The Order also
directs Marsh, Lucas and Sybesma to pay disgorgement and
prejudgment interest in the total amounts of $35,000, $20,000
and $20,000, respectively, and directs Thomas to pay a civil
money penalty of $20,000. Finally, the Order suspends Thomas,
who was a registered representative during the relevant time,
from association with any broker or dealer for a period of nine
months.

In a related civil action, Joslyn, Marsh, Lucas, Sybesma and
Thompson, without admitting or denying the allegations of the
Commission's complaint, have consented to pay civil penalties in
the following amounts: Joslyn, $75,000; Marsh, $75,000; Lucas,
$30,000; Sybesma, $30,000; and Thompson, $15,000. The actions
are titled, SEC v. Arnold Geller, et al., Civil Action
No.1:04CV01858 (EGS) D.D.C. and SEC v. John Joslyn, et al.,
Civil Action No.1:04CV01857 (EGS) D.D.C.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Reaches $1.8 Mil Claritin Settlement With Utah
---------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corporation, the manufacturer of Claritan
antihistamine, will pay Utah $1.8 million for overcharging the
state's Medicaid program, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff
announced in a statement.  The Company also agreed to pay $282.3
million in civil fines and penalties and $52.5 million in
criminal fines to settle claims with the federal government and
state Medicaid programs.

Drug manufacturers are required by law to sell prescription
drugs to Medicaid programs at the lowest available price.  From
1998 to 2002, Schering Plough lowered the price for Claritan for
the CIGNA and PacificCare health care plans but did not report
the price change to the government.

"This settlement demonstrates that we will aggressively pursue
drug manufacturers and any other companies that try to take
advantage of taxpayers and consumers," said Attorney General
Shurtleff.

According to court papers, this is how Schering Plough broke the
law:

     (1) Discounts were disguised by labeling annual $2.5
         million cash payments as "data processing fees."

     (2) Health care plans received pre-paid rebates, interest-
         free loans and deep discounts on other drugs and
         services.

     (3) Physicians were directed to prescribe Claritan Reditabs
         instead of the regular Claritan tablets in exchange for
         a $3 million discount.

"With the rising cost of health care, particularly the rise in
drug prices, it is important to protect taxpayers by making sure
the state gets the best price. It is unfortunate that some drug
companies are getting so greedy at the same time they are
already legitimately making record profits," said Wade Farraway,
director of the Medicaid Fraud Unit at the Attorney General's
Office.
The Utah Attorney General's Office oversees the Medicaid Fraud
Control Unit to protect the integrity of Utah's Medicaid
program. The public can learn more about Medicaid fraud or
report abuse at this website:
http://attorneygeneral.utah.gov/medicaidfraud.htmor by Phone:
(800) 244-4636.


SILICON LABORATORIES: Reaches Settlement For NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Laboratories, Inc. has reached an agreement to settle
the consolidated amended securities class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York against it, four officers individually and the three
investment banking firms who served as representatives of the
underwriters in connection with the Company's initial public
offering of common stock.

The suit alleges that the registration statement and prospectus
for the Company's initial public offering did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters solicited and received additional,
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors, and

     (2) the underwriters had agreed to allocate shares of the
         offering in exchange for a commitment from the
         customers to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices.

The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  A court order dated
October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice the four officers of
the Company who had been named individually.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements between the plaintiff class and the Company and the
vast majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants.
Under the proposed settlement, the insurers of all settling
issuers would guarantee that the plaintiffs recover the
difference between $1 billion and the amount of recovery
eventually obtained from non-settling defendants, including the
investment banks who acted as underwriters in those offerings.

The proposed settlement requires settling defendants to assign
to plaintiffs certain claims that the settling defendants may
have against the underwriters. The settlement agreement has been
submitted to the Court for approval.


SLOCUM GORDON: RI Court Enters Judgment For SEC Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Following a bench trial held in July 2003, the federal district
court for Rhode Island entered judgment in SEC v. Slocum,
Gordon, & Co., et al., a civil action that the Securities and
Exchange Commission filed in August 2002.

The Commission 's complaint had alleged various securities law
violations against defendants Slocum, Gordon, & Co. (SGC), a
Newport, Rhode Island-based registered investment adviser, and
its two founding partners, John J. Slocum, Jr. and Jeffrey L.
Gordon. The court found that SGC improperly commingled client
funds and securities with firm funds and securities, in
violation of Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of
1940 (Advisers Act) and Rule 206(4)-2(a)(2) thereunder. The
court also found that SGC, in failing to disclose its practice
of commingling firm and client assets, a potential conflict of
interest, engaged in a course of business, which operated as a
fraud upon its clients, in violation of Section 206(2) of the
Advisers Act. As a result of these violations, the court ordered
defendant SGC to pay a civil penalty of $3,000.

With respect to the remaining claims of federal securities laws
violations, however, the court entered judgment in favor of the
defendants, finding insufficient evidence to establish that the
defendants engaged in "cherry-picking scheme," whereby certain
stocks were allegedly re-allocated from client accounts to the
firm's own account after showing a profit.

The action is titled, SEC v. Slocum, Gordon & Co., et al., USDC
for the District of Rhode Island, Civil Action No. 02-367L.


TIG LTD.: Settles WI Justice Department's Environmental Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wisconsin Department of Justice settled an environmental
enforcement lawsuit in Columbia County against TIG, Ltd., and
Converters / PrePress, Inc., located in Columbus, Wisconsin.
TIG will pay $4,500 in forfeitures, surcharges, and costs for
hazardous waste violations, Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager
announced in a statement.

The case was brought for past hazardous waste violations at 210
Commercial Drive in Columbus.  Converters / PrePress operates an
electroplating business there, and TIG owns the underlying real
property.

"Spent stripping waste and spent copper plating solution, which
are both hazardous wastes, were unlawfully stored at the
Commercial Drive plant in Columbus," AG Lautenschlager said.
"No one had a license to store that hazardous waste there.  The
spent stripping waste and spent copper plating solution have now
been disposed of lawfully."

Columbia County Circuit Court Judge Daniel S. George approved
the settlement.  The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
referred the case to the Attorney General's Office.  Assistant
Attorney General Philip Peterson represented the state.

For More Information, contact Brian Rieselman by Phone:
608/266-1220.


UNIVERSAL LIFE: Faces CA Civil Suit, Insurance Commission Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Life Resources and six of the nation's largest
insurers face a private civil racketeering suit, charging them
with cheating employee benefits plans through a hidden
compensation scheme, USA Today reports.

Atty. John Stoia filed the suit, alleging that the Company
accepted secret payments from a handful of insurers "to make
sure that they, and not their competitors, got the business."
Employees paid increased premiums to offset the undisclosed
kickbacks, he told USA Today.  The suit was filed on behalf of
an employee of Intel in Arizona.

The suit is similar to the civil suit filed by New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer against Marsh & McLennan, and is part of
the widening assault by plaintiffs attorneys and regulators on
longstanding compensation practices in the insurance industry.

Insurers might also have to face Mr. Stoia in the regulatory
area, as California Insurance Commissioner John Garamendi has
retained him to investigate and prosecute insurance fraud for
the state.  Last week, Commissioner Garamendi labeled secret
broker commissions "a serious problem that betrays the public's
trust" and proposed rules to prompt disclosures, backed by fines
up to $10,000 per offense, USA Today reports.

Universal Life President Doug Cox told USA Today the insurance
brokerage "categorically denies" paying kickbacks to insurance
carriers. Its alleged partners, although not named as co-
defendants, are identified in the lawsuit as Aetna, Cigna,
MetLife, Prudential Financial and UnumProvident.  They denied
wrongdoing or declined comment.

"We do not believe there is a factual basis for any claims that
we violated the law," said Cigna Vice President Wendell Potter,
according to USA Today.

MetLife spokesman John Calagna told USA Today the insurer "plans
to vigorously defend itself against this action."


VALLEY VIEW: Doctor Faces Fine For Charging For Free Vaccines
-------------------------------------------------------------
A Cedar City doctor paid back $81,354 for charging patients for
vaccines that were supposed to be offered free to needy
children.  Dr. Kourosh Ghaffari and Valley View Pediatrics paid
the money as part of a settlement with the Utah Attorney
General's Office, U.S. Attorney's Office and the Utah Department
of Health.

"The money belongs to taxpayers and the vaccines are only
supposed to go to children from families who cannot afford to
pay.  This settlement puts the program back in order," said
Attorney General Mark Shurtleff in a statement.  The money will
go back into the Vaccines for Children program-a federally-
funded program administered by the Utah Department of Health.

"This is just another example of how taxpayers are protected
when everyone works together to stop fraud," said Paul M.
Warner, U.S. Attorney for the District of Utah.

From 1995 to 2000, Valley View Pediatrics and Dr. Ghaffari
allegedly charged private insurance companies for the free
vaccine.  The settlement does not require the doctor or the
clinic to admit any wrongdoing.

"Medical providers need to understand that it is improper to
make money from something they are supposed to give away for
free," said Wade Farraway, director of the Medicaid Fraud Unit
at the Utah Attorney General's Office.

In June, Community Health Care Centers agreed to pay $267,323 to
settle allegations that the health care provider was billing
insurance companies for the free vaccines.


WASHINGTON: WA A.G. Gregoire Warns V. Flu Vaccine Price-Gouging
---------------------------------------------------------------
Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire urged consumers,
businesses and health care providers to be on alert and
immediately report suspected price gouging or
counterfeit/diluted flu vaccine by either distributors or
providers.  The office has already received at least two reports
from Grant and Pierce counties about overpriced flu vaccine and
is concerned there may be more.

An administrator at the Grant County Health District told the
state she was offered the flu vaccine at a price of $400 to $600
per vial from pharmaceutical distributor Meds- Stat, also known
as ASAP Meds in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. The Kansas Attorney
General filed a price-gouging suit against the same Company this
week, claiming one Kansas City pharmacy was charged $900 for a
10-dose vial (more than 10 times the original market value).  On
October 1, the price for the same vial was listed at $85.  The
Grant County Health District in Washington normally pays between
$67- $85 per vial.  Such pricing may violate Washington's
Consumer Protection Act.

During a similar shortage last year in King County, a
counterfeit flu vaccine appeared on the market. A suspect was
criminally investigated and charged by King County prosecutors.

Flu vaccine is in short supply this year because British
regulators unexpectedly shut down a major U.S. vaccine supplier,
Chiron Corp. As a result, a shipment of 48 million expected flu
shots was lost.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services this week urged
state attorneys general across the nation to thoroughly
investigate reports of price gouging on flu vaccine. The
department's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is
collecting reports on price gouging and sharing it with the
National Association of Attorneys General and state prosecutors.

The CDC is in close contact with the Washington Attorney
General's Office to report any known violations of price
gouging. Anyone with knowledge of a fake or diluted vaccine
should contact the Department of Health and police. Those with
knowledge of theft of the vaccine should contact police.

Washington consumers or retailers who suspect they are being
overcharged for flu vaccine are encouraged to report it to the
AG's office by Phone: 1-800-551-4636 or by visiting the Website:
http://www.atg.wa.gov.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: FL Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed
against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. and three of its present and
former executive officers.

This action purports to be brought on behalf of a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
October 9, 2002, through and including January 29, 2004.  The
complaint alleges claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint generally alleges that, during the Class Period,
the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding
the Company's marketing and competitive situation, self-
insurance reserves, impairment of assets and other matters.  The
complaint seeks certification as a class action, unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.

Several similar suits were initially filed.  By Order entered
August 31, 2004, these various actions were consolidated as a
single action styled In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-71-J-HES-MCR, United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville
Division.  The Company expects that plaintiffs in the
consolidated action will file an amended and consolidated
complaint that will assert most, if not all, of the claims
asserted in the various individual actions, the Company said in
a regulatory filing.


WINN-DIXIE STORES: FL Court Orders ERISA Lawsuits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida ordered consolidated the putative class actions filed
against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., three of its present and former
executive officers and certain employees who serve on the
administrative committee that administers the Company's Profit
Sharing/401(k) Plan.

The actions purport to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of the Plan and participants and beneficiaries under
the Plan whose individual accounts held shares in the Winn-Dixie
Stock Fund during the period from May 6, 2002, through and
including January 29, 2004.  The complaints allege claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
(ERISA).

More specifically, the complaints generally allege that, during
the Class Period, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to the Plan, its participants and its beneficiaries under ERISA
by failing to exercise prudent discretion in deciding whether to
sell Company stock to the Plan trustee for investment by the
Plan, failing to provide timely, accurate and complete
information to Plan participants, failing to adequately monitor
and review Company stock performance as a prudent investment
option, failing to manage Plan assets with reasonable care,
skill, prudence and diligence and other matters.  The complaints
seek certification as a class action, a declaration that
defendants violated fiduciary duties under ERISA, unspecified
equitable and remedial damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief.

By Order entered August 31, 2004, these three actions were
consolidated as a single action styled In re: Winn-Dixie Stores,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, Civil Action No. 3:04-CV-194-J-20HTS,
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Jacksonville, Division.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


CONCORD CAMERA: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the Concord Camera Corporation (Nasdaq: LENS)
("Concord" or the "Company") from August 14, 2003 through May
10, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period"). Notice of this action
was originally published in "Investors Business Daily" on
September 7, 2004. Therein, members of the class were given
until November 1, 2004, to move the Court to serve as lead
plaintiff of the class. That deadline appears to be incorrect,
because notice appears to be calculated 60 days from the day the
complaint was filed instead of 50 days from the issuance of the
notice. Given this, if you are a member of the class described
above, you may, not later than November 8, 2004, move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff of the class, if you so choose.

The complaint charges Concord, Ira Lampert, Harlan Press, and
Richard Finkbeiner with violations of Sections 10(b)-5 and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10(b)-5
promulgated thereunder. Concord designs, develops, manufactures
and sells easy-to-use image capture products on a worldwide
basis. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's inventory levels were materially
         inflated;

     (2) the Company's financial results were materially
         impacted by the significant inventory provisions,
         ranging from $6 to $7 million;

     (3) the Company's net loss was artificially deflated
         through the application of manufacturing labor and
         overhead costs to inventory; and

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

On May 11, 2004, Concord announced that it would file Form 12b-
25 with the SEC extending the Company's time to file a Form 10-Q
for the period ended March 27, 2004. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Concord fell $1.58 per share or 34.20 percent,
on May 11, 2004, to close at $3.04 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


FLIGHT SAFETY: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action complaint in the District of Connecticut against Flight
Safety Technologies, Inc. ("Flight Safety") (AMEX:FLT) for
alleged acts in violation of U.S. securities fraud laws.

The complaint alleges that, from January 14, 2003 through July
16, 2004 (the Class Period), Flight Safety and its CEO and
Chairman Samuel A. Kovnant and its President William B. Cotton
issued a series of false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's wake vortex sensor technology. In particular,
defendants' false and misleading statements caused Class members
to believe incorrectly that the wake vortex sensor technology
worked, that a market existed for it, that the Company's
technology had the support and imprimatur of certain agencies of
the United States government and that the Company was "poised to
finalize development and enter the US and world marketplace." In
reality, the sensor had been severely criticized in an unbiased
agency evaluation as being incapable of commercial
implementation. Moreover, the evaluation made clear that the
Company was more than ten years away from finalizing development
of the sensor and much further away from actually marketing it
to its customers.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 or E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


INTERACTIVECORP: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
which has filed a class action lawsuit against IAC /
Interactivecorp ("IAC" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:IACI) and five
of the Company's senior officers, in the United States District
Court for Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the securities of IAC during the
period between March 19, 2003 through August 4, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), investors have until November 19, 2004 to
seek appointment by the Court as one of the lead plaintiffs in
this action.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's operations, business model,
financial results and growth prospects. In particular,
defendants allegedly failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's operations, prospects and financial
performance, including

(1) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded that
         its profits were being adversely impacted by the
         decreases in available discounted inventory, such as
         discount hotel rooms and airline tickets;

     (2) that IAC had to expend additional resources in order to
         market its products and brands in the maturing Internet
         industry and was facing increased Internet competition;

     (3) that the favorable performance of IAC's Expedia and the
         Hotels.com division were largely dependent on the
         Company's improper recognition of revenue; and

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

On August 4, 2004, the Company reported its second quarter 2004
earnings release disclosing that its Q2 2004 net income fell 24%
from the same quarter in 2003 and that it was cutting its
forecast for full-year operating profits dues to increased
Internet competition, which was impacting the Company's
performance. As a result of this news, shares of IAC fell
dramatically from its Class Period high of $42.74 per share on
July 7, 2003 to close at $22.80 per share on August 4, 2004,
erasing over $10 billion in market capitalization.

For more details, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (888) 476-6529
((888) 4-POMLAW) or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.com


INTERACTIVECORP: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Weiss & Yourman initiated a class action
lawsuit against IAC/Interactivecorp ("IAC" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:IACI) and its officers in the United States District
Court for Eastern District of New York, on behalf of purchasers
of IAC securities between March 19, 2003 and August 4, 2004.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants issued
false and misleading statements which artificially inflated
stock. The action seeks to recover damages on behalf of
defrauded investors who purchased IAC securities.

For more details, contact David C. Katz, Mark D. Smilow or James
E. Tullman of Weiss & Yourman by Phone: The French Building, 551
Fifth Avenue, Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176 by Phone:
(888) 593-4771 or (212) 682-3025 or by E-mail: info@wynyc.com


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Emerson Poynter Launches 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 of Employee Retirement Plan Department at
Emerson Poynter LLP by Phone: 1-800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
epllp@emersonpoynter.com


RADIATION THERAPY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files FL Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida who purchased the common stock of
Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: RTSX) ("Radiation
Therapy" or the "Company") between June 17, 2004 and September
8, 2004, (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Radiation Therapy, Daniel E. Dosoretz,
Howard M. Sheridan, David M. Koeninger, Joseph Biscardi, James
H. Rubenstein, and Michael J. Katin with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Radiation Therapy is a provider of
radiation therapy services to cancer patients. The Company owns,
operates and manages treatment centers, focused exclusively on
providing comprehensive radiation treatment alternatives ranging
from conventional external beam radiation to newer,
technologically advanced options. On June 18, 2004, the Company
announced that the underwritten initial public offering ("IPO")
of 5.5 million shares of its common stock had been priced at $13
per share. The shares of its common stock would trade on the
Nasdaq under the symbol "RTSX." The Company would offer 4
million newly issued shares of common stock in the initial
public offering, which would result in gross proceeds to the
Company of approximately $52 million. In addition, certain
shareholders would offer 1.5 million currently outstanding
shares of common stock in the initial public offering at the
same price.

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

     (1) that the Company's IPO was purely a liquidity event for
         management/owners - not a source of growth capital for
         the Company because 100% of the IPO proceeds went into
         the hands of the Company's primary shareholders;

     (2) that the numerous related party transactions by the
         Company increased the risk of its business model
         running afoul of State and Federal laws governing
         corporate practice of medicine, fee splitting and
         physician-referrals; and

     (3) that organic revenue growth had slowed dramatically and
         could be further disrupted in January due to changes in
         the way medical oncologists run their businesses.

On September 9, 2004, Banc of America Securities ("Banc of
America") initiated coverage of Radiation Therapy Services with
a "sell" rating and an $11 target price. Banc of America said
the Company's IPO "was purely a liquidity event for
management/owners - not a source of growth capital for the
Company." The research house noted that following the IPO
management "gifted itself another 5% of the Company via new
option grants." Banc of America also drew attention to the fact
that in 2003, Radiation Therapy paid $6.6 million to outside
companies controlled by senior management, underlining the
increased regulatory risk of a business model that could "run
afoul of State and Federal laws governing corporate practice of
medicine, fee splitting and physician-referrals." In addition,
Banc of America said that although revenue growth remained
"impressive," organic revenue growth had slowed "dramatically"
and could be further disrupted in January. In conclusion, the
research house said: "We simply cannot recommend purchasing the
stock until the Company's board structure (currently four
insiders, just three independent directors) and extensive
related party relationships are materially overhauled." News of
this shocked the market. Shares of Radiation Therapy fell $1.66
per share, or 11.98 percent, to close at $12.20 per share on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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


STAR GAS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Star Gas Partners, L.P. ("Star Gas" or the "Company") (NYSE:
SGU; SGH) between December 4, 2003, through October 15, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Connecticut against defendants Star Gas, Irik P.
Sevin (CEO, Chairman) and Ami Trauber (CFO).

The complaint alleges that defendants' publicly disseminated
Class Period statements, which portrayed the Company's business
as robust, even in the face of rising heating oil prices and a
significant restructuring, were materially false and misleading
for the following reasons:

     (1) Star Gas was experiencing serious problems as a result
         of its reorganization, particularly in the area of
         customer service, which was deteriorating rapidly,
         resulting in a migration of customers;

     (2) the purported cost savings from the restructuring in
         the heating oil division had not materialized and, in
         fact, had resulted in operating deficiencies that
         negatively impacted the Company;

     (3) the Company had not adequately hedged against a sharp
         rise in heating oil prices during the Class Period;

     (4) the Company was ill-equipped to handle the surge in
         heating oil prices during the Class Period and falsely
         comforted investors with representations that Star Gas
         would simply pass on high wholesale prices to retail
         customers;

     (5) the Company's problems and deteriorating business
         seriously threatened its ability to pay out its
         quarterly distribution, a major reason investors
         purchase the Company's units; and

     (6) the Company's business had deteriorated so sharply over
         the Class Period that it was in palpable danger of
         breaching financial and/or performance covenants in its
         loan agreements, thereby seriously jeopardizing its
         liquidity and viability.

Defendants engaged in the wrongdoing alleged in the complaint so
that the Company's units would trade at artificially inflated
prices, paving the way for several securities offerings during
the Class Period, totaling $96 million.

The truth was revealed on October 18, 2004, before the open of
ordinary trading, when Star Gas shocked the market by announcing
that the Company's Petro division had suffered a substantial
earnings decline in fiscal 2004, which was expected to continue
into fiscal 2005, due to an inability to pass on increased oil
prices to its customers and to problems with its restructuring,
forcing the Company to cut its Minimum Quarterly Distribution.
Moreover, the earnings shortfall breached covenants in the
Company's credit agreements, jeopardizing its liquidity and
raising the possibility of bankruptcy, according to the
Company's press release. In response to this announcement, the
price of Star Gas common units dropped precipitously, falling
80% in one day, from a closing price of $21.60 per unit on
October 15, 2004, to a closing price of $4.32 per share on
October 18, 2004 (the next trading day), on trading volume that
was many times its average daily trading volume.

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


TECO ENERGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of TECO Energy, Inc. ("TECO" or the "Company") (NYSE: TE)
between October 31, 2001 and February 4, 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 Middle District of Florida against defendants TECO Energy,
Inc, Robert D. Fagan (Chairman of the Board, President and Chief
Executive Officer) and Gordon L. Gillette (Chief Financial
Officer).

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants issued false and misleading statements in an effort
to conceal the problems the Company was having with several non-
regulated power production facility construction projects, as
well as its exposure to the Enron bankruptcy and the material
impact said bankruptcy would have on the Company's ability to
maintain its rewarding cash dividend. Since the foundation of
the Company's reputation with investors was the large and stable
dividend, any disruption or reduction to the dividend would have
a significant impact on the value of Company shares. Despite
this risk, Defendants continued to shift the Company's
operations away from its stable base of regulated energy markets
into the unregulated energy market without properly advising the
investing public that its large cash dividend could not be
maintained. While Defendants were maintaining the dividend
charade, TECO raised over $792 million selling securities to the
investing public while at the same time, Defendants sold $4.2
million of their personal TECO holdings. TECO took over a
billion dollars in impairment charges as a result, causing its
stock to fall from a Class Period high of over $28 per share, to
below $13 per share on February 4, 2003.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 or by E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com OR Maya
Saxena or Joseph E. White III by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road,
Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone: (561) 361-5000 by E-
mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


ZIX CORPORATION: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a
class action on behalf of all purchasers of the stock and other
publicly traded securities of Zix Corporation ("Zix" or "the
Company") (Nasdaq: ZIXI) between October 30, 2003 and May 4,
2004, inclusive ("the Class").

The lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Case No. 3:04-cv-2018-N) against
Zix and seven members of the Company's senior management,
including its Chief Executive Officer, its General Counsel, and
several vice presidents.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, Defendants
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, known or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Zix's recent expansion into e-prescription
         services was languishing;

     (2) that the Company seriously underestimated the hurdles
         of deploying e-prescription services in medical offices
         that lack up-to-date IT infrastructure;

     (3) as a result of these factors, the Company's deployment
         rate of 1,000 physicians a month was unattainable; and

     (4) as a consequence of the foregoing, Zix's projections
         lacked in any reasonable basis.

On May 4, 2004, Zix announced financial results for the first
quarter ended March 31, 2004. In the press release, the
Company's numbers were well below expectations. In response,
shares of Zix fell 15.58% on May 5, 2004, to close at $11.49 per
share. On the following day, shares of Zix fell an additional
22.63 % to close at $8.89 per share.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. Patrick A.
Klingman, Esq. or James C. Shah, Esquire by Phone: 866/540-5505
or 877/891-9880 by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or
pklingman@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.classactioncounsel.com


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel 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  * * *