---

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

             Thursday, November 4, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 219

                           Headlines

3M CO.: Tape Purchasers Lodge Antitrust Suits in Various Courts
3M CO.: MN, AL Launch Suits Over Perflourooctanyl Contamination
AT&T WIRELESS: Reaches Settlement in Suit V. "Digital One Rate"
CCC INFORMATION: Working To Settle IL Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
CCC INFORMATION: CA Court Strikes Claim in Consumer Fraud Suit

CCC INFORMATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in IL Suit
CCC INFORMATION: Consumer Fraud Suit Moved To VA Federal Court
CCC INFORMATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Filed in MS Court
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: NY Court Enters Final Judgments V. Officers
DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Reaches Accord To Settle NY Securities Suit

FREDERICK GILLILAND: NC Court Levies Fines in $29M Bank Scheme
LANDSTAR SYSTEM: OOIDA Seeks Certification For FL Leasing Suit
MARTHA STEWART: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Fraud Suit
MARTHA STEWART: Seeks To Resolve Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits
NORDSTROM INC.: Sales Staff Files CA Unfair Labor Practices Suit

NORTHERN TRUST: Reaches Settlement For Trust Accounts Suit in CA
NORTHERN TRUST: Trial in Enron Pension Plan Suit Set Fall 2006
ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS: Recalls 160,894 Devices Due To Fire Hazard
SPX CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
TITAN CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in CA SureBeam Stock Suit

TITAN CORPORATION: Faces Two Suits Over Iraqi Abuse in CA Court
TITAN INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
TITAN INC.: Officers Face Two FCPA Violations Suits in CA Court
TITAN INC.: Shareholder Derivative Suits Filed in DE, CA Courts
TOBACCO LITIGATION: FL, IL High Court To Hear Arguments in Suits

WYOMING: Workers Plan To Appeal Post-Retirement Benefits Ruling

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACE LIMITED: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
CHIRON CORORATION: Murray Frank Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
CHIRON CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CHIRON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files PA Stock Suit
CONVERIUM HOLDING: Zwerling Schachter Lodges NY Securities Suit

FANNIE MAE: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FANNIE MAE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CT
INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
INTELLIGROUP, INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in AZ

INTELLIGROUP INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
INTELLIGROUP INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
INTELLIGROUP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
INTERACTIVECORP: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MERCK & CO.: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ

NEW YORK: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
STAR GAS: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
STAR GAS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
SOURCECORP INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
SOURCECORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges TX Securities Suit

                          *********

3M CO.: Tape Purchasers Lodge Antitrust Suits in Various Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. continues to face several antitrust class actions filed
by certain direct and indirect tape purchasers in various state
and federal courts in California, Florida, Tennessee, New Jersey
and Pennsylvania.  During the third quarter of 2004, the New
Jersey court dismissed the action brought in that court.

Also during the quarter and in October 2004, certain alleged
indirect tape purchasers filed four additional purported class
actions against the Company in Wisconsin, California, Tennessee,
and Kansas and an alleged direct tape purchaser filed an
individual action in the federal court in Philadelphia where, as
previously disclosed, a purported class action has been pending.

In August 2004, that court certified a class consisting of all
3M customers who directly bought transparent and invisible tape
(but not private label tape) from October 1998 to the present.
In September 2004, an alleged direct purchaser filed a motion to
intervene in the Philadelphia class action on behalf of a
purported class of customers (branded and private label tape
purchasers) excluded from the August class certification order.


3M CO.: MN, AL Launch Suits Over Perflourooctanyl Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. faces two class actions alleging property damage over
perflourooctanyl contamination in Alabama and Minnesota.

The first suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Morgan County,
Alabama by three Morgan County residents.  The lawsuit seeks
unstated compensatory and punitive damages and alleges that the
plaintiffs suffered damage to their property from emissions of
perfluorooctanyl compounds from the Company's Decatur, Alabama
manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured those
compounds.  The purported class appears to be included in the
previously reported class action that was filed in the same
court in the spring of 2003.

On October 8, 2004, two residents of Washington County,
Minnesota filed a purported class action in the District Court
of Washington County on behalf of Washington county residents
whose property has allegedly been harmed by perfluorooctanyl
compounds and who have allegedly suffered personal injury from
such compounds from the Company's Cottage Grove, Minnesota
production facility that formerly manufactured those compounds
and other of its facilities nearby.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 per plaintiff and class
member.


AT&T WIRELESS: Reaches Settlement in Suit V. "Digital One Rate"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Colorado judge approved a multimillion-dollar settlement of a
class-action billing suit against AT&T Wireless Services Inc.,
which was recently acquired by Cingular Wireless L.L.C. acquired
for $41 billion, RCR Wireless News reports.

The suit alleged AT&T Wireless customers on the Digital One Rate
prior to March 1, 1999, were wrongly charged for roaming calls
made in one month but subsequently billed for in another month
as a result of delayed reporting between carriers. The
plaintiffs had argued that the billing practice was a breach of
contract.

The settlement would call for AT&T to entitle some subscribers
to extra airtime, a 20-percent discount coupon for wireless
accessories or a calling card-compensation averaging about
$10.50 per subscriber, while other subscribers receive a benefit
worth $3.

AT&T Wireless, which denied any wrongdoing, agreed to pay up to
$3 million in attorney's fees and $750,000 in expenses.
According to Ronald Wilcox, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, the
settlement could eventually end up totaling $10 million.


CCC INFORMATION: Working To Settle IL Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Services Group is working to settle the class
actions and individual actions filed against it, in which the
plaintiffs allege that their insurers, using valuation reports
prepared by the Company, offered them an inadequate amount for
their total loss vehicles.  The suits, filed against the Company
and certain of its insurance Company customers are filed in
Johnson County and Madison County Courts in Illinois.

As negotiations have progressed, the number of participants and
the cost to the Company of the proposed settlement have
fluctuated.  Based on recent developments in those negotiations,
the initial settlement has expanded and would resolve potential
claims arising out of approximately 29% of the Company's total
transaction volume (up from approximately 17%) for valuations
involving first party claims during the time period covered by
the lawsuits.

The Company anticipates that this settlement would eliminate the
viability of class claims in 7 of the 11 putative class actions
pending in the trial or appellate courts against the Company and
certain of its customers.   These settlement negotiations are
ongoing, but at this time, the Company and its customers
participating in the settlement have reached an agreement in
principle as to the Company's proposed contribution to the
proposed settlement.

Upon completion of the settlement negotiations, the Company
would agree to enter into the settlement for the purpose of
avoiding the expense and distraction of protracted litigation,
without any express or implied acknowledgement of any fault or
liability to the plaintiffs, the putative class or anyone else.


CCC INFORMATION: CA Court Strikes Claim in Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court sustained CCC Information
Services Group's demurrer and granted its motion to strike the
claims asserted against it in a suit styled "RIVERA v. STATE
FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY and CCC INFORMATION
SERVICES INC., Case No. BC200881," (filed October 31, 2001;
served on the Company on March 9, 2004).  Plaintiffs in the suit
allege that their insurers, using valuation reports prepared by
the Company, offered them an inadequate amount for their total
loss vehicles.

The Court also sustained the demurrer and granted the motion to
strike filed by the Company's insurance Company co-defendant,
State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and awarded
costs in favor of the Company and State Farm.


CCC INFORMATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in IL Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff appealed the Circuit Court of Johnson County,
Illinois' ruling granting summary judgment in favor of some of
the defendants in a class action styled ""SUSANNA COOK v.
DAIRYLAND INS. CO., SENTRY INS., and CCC INFORMATION SERVICES
INC., No. 2000 L-1."  Plaintiffs in the suit allege that their
insurers, using valuation reports prepared by the Company,
offered them an inadequate amount for their total loss vehicles.

On June 7, 2004, the Circuit Court granted the Company's motion
for summary judgment and dismissed all of plaintiff's claims
against it.  The Court also granted the summary judgment motions
of the Company's insurance Company co-defendants.  On July 23,
2004, the Court denied plaintiff's motion seeking
reconsideration of the Court's ruling.  On August 12, 2004,
plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal before the Clerk of the
Appellate Court of Illinois, Fifth Judicial District.


CCC INFORMATION: Consumer Fraud Suit Moved To VA Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit filed against CCC Information Services Group and
Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company has been moved to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of West
Virginia.

The suit, styled "GILKERSON V. NATIONWIDE MUT. INS. CO., and
CONSOLIDATED COLLATERAL CO., No. 04-C-2147, was initially filed
in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia.
Plaintiff alleges four counts against her purported insurer,
Nationwide Mutual and CCC arising from the total loss of her
vehicle:

     (1) breach of contract;

     (2) common law fraud and intentional infliction of
         emotional distress;

     (3) violation of common law duty of good faith and fair
         dealing; and

     (4) fraud in violation of the West Virginia Unfair Trade
         Practices Act.


CCC INFORMATION: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit Filed in MS Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
CCC Information Services, Inc. faces a class action filed in
Circuit Court of Tunica County, Mississippi, styled "TAYLOR V.
SOUTHERN FARM BUREAU CAS. INS. CO., and CCC INFO. SERVS., INC.,
No. 2004-0095."

Plaintiff alleges certain claims against her purported insurer,
Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company, and the Company
arising from the total loss of her vehicle.  Against the
Company, Plaintiff asserts claims for conspiracy to commit fraud
in violation of the Mississippi Consumer Protection Act and
conspiracy to commit common law fraud.


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: NY Court Enters Final Judgments V. Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained through the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, final
judgments on consent against David Rivard and David Kaplan,
former vice presidents of finance at Computer Associates
International, Inc., (CA), fully resolving the Commission's
litigation against those two defendants.

Mr. Rivard consented, without admitting or denying the
allegations against him, to a final judgment that requires him
to disgorge $83,700 in ill-gotten gains and interest and imposes
a $75,000 civil penalty.  Kaplan consented, without admitting or
denying the allegations against him, to a final judgment that
requires him to disgorge $128,770 in ill-gotten gains and
interest and imposes a  $100,000 civil penalty.

The final judgments also reincorporate equitable relief that
Rivard and Kaplan previously consented to in partial judgments
entered by the court at the time the Commission filed the
complaints.  The equitable relief includes permanent injunctions
prohibiting Rivard and Kaplan from violating Sections 10(b) and
13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5,
13b2-1, and 13b2-2 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting any
violations of Sections 10(b), 13(a) and 13(b)(2) of the Exchange
Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13.  In addition, the
court permanently barred both Rivard and Kaplan from serving as
an officer or director of a publicly held Company.

On April 8, 2004, the Commission filed complaints alleging that
Rivard and Kaplan participated in a widespread practice that
resulted in the improper recognition of revenue by CA, one of
the world's largest software companies. During at least CA's
fiscal year 2000, which ran from April 1, 1999, through March
31, 2000, CA prematurely recognized revenue from software
contracts that had not yet been consummated, in violation of
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

The Commission's complaints allege that, based on this conduct,
Rivard and Kaplan violated Sections 10(b) and 13(b)(5) of the
Exchange Act, and Rules 10b-5, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 thereunder. The
complaints further allege that Rivard and Kaplan are also liable
for aiding and abetting CA's violations of Sections 10(b),
13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act, and
Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1 and 13a-13 thereunder.

The actions are titled, SEC v. David Rivard, 04 Civ. 1464 (EDNY)
Glasser, IL and SEC v. David Kaplan, 04 Civ. 1465 (EDNY)
Glasser, IL.


DESCARTES SYSTEMS: Reaches Accord To Settle NY Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waterloo, Ontario-based Descartes Systems Group Inc. (TSX:DSG)
reached an agreement in principle to settle a securities class
action lawsuit begun in May in New York against Descartes and
some of its former executives, the CBC News reports.

The suit, filed by the Company's shareholders had, alleged that
violations of U.S. federal securities laws took place. News of
the settlement, as well as announcement by the software producer
that it had appointed a new chief executive, helped boost the
money-losing Company's share price by 40 cents to a close of
$1.75 on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Under the settlement, which is still subject to the signing of a
definitive agreement and final approval by the court, Descartes
would pay about $400,000 into a $1.5 million US fund to pay out
claims, while at the same time, the Company's insurers would
contribute the remaining $1.1 million.

As earlier mentioned, Descartes also named a new executive in
the form of interim Chief Executive Arthur Mesher, who the
Company appointed as the new CEO, effective immediately. Mr.
Mesher, who has been with the Company since 1998, was previously
executive vice-president for strategic development.


FREDERICK GILLILAND: NC Court Levies Fines in $29M Bank Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina entered final judgment against Frederick J. Gilliland,
enjoining him from further violations of antifraud, and
securities and broker-dealer registration provisions of the
federal securities laws, Sections 5 and 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder. The judgment
directs Gilliland to disgorge $9.4 million, representing
Gilliland's profits gained through the prime bank scheme, plus
$635,179 in prejudgment interest. The judgment also directs
Gilliland to pay a $110,000 civil penalty.

The Commission's complaint alleged that Frederick Gilliland sold
more than $29 million in interests in a succession of non-
existent prime bank trading programs to more than 200 investors
between at least mid-1997 through November 1998. In connection
with his scheme, the complaint alleged that Gilliland
misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning:

     (1) the existence of the trading programs;

     (2) the use of investor funds;

     (3) the promised return; and

     (4) the safety of the funds invested.

For example, the investment agreements that Gilliland's
investors typically signed referred to the investment programs
as a "high-yield banking transaction." Most of these programs
guaranteed rates of return ranging from 30% per month to as high
as 130% per 10 days. According to the Commission's complaint,
Gilliland also misrepresented that investments were safe because
they would be fully collateralized by U.S. Treasury bills.  The
action is titled, SEC v. Frederick J. Gilliland, et al., Case
No. 3:02-CV128 (WDNC) (LR-18953).


LANDSTAR SYSTEM: OOIDA Seeks Certification For FL Leasing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association, Inc.
(OOIDA) asked the United States District Court in Jacksonville,
Florida to certify as a class action a lawsuit it filed against
LandStar System, Inc.

The suit alleges that certain aspects of the Company's motor
carrier leases with independent truckers known as "owner
operators" violate the federal leasing regulations and seeks
injunctive relief, an unspecified amount of damages and
attorney's fees.

On March 8 and June4, 2004, the District Court dismissed all
claims of one of the six named individual plaintiffs on grounds
the ICC Termination ACT is not applicable to leases signed
before the Act's January 1, 1996, effective date, and dismissed
all claims of all remaining Plaintiffs against four of the seven
Company entities previously named as Defendants (Landstar
System, Inc., Landstar Express America, Inc., Landstar Gemini,
Inc. and Landstar Logistics, Inc.).

With respect to the remaining claims, the June 4, 2004 Order
held that the Act created a private right of action to which a
four-year statute of limitations applies.  On September 14,
2004, OOIDA filed a motion with the District Court to certify
the case as a class action.


MARTHA STEWART: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated amended securities
class action filed against Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, styled "In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
Securities Litigation, 02-CV-6273 (JES)."

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of persons who purchased
common stock in the Company between January 8, 2002 and October
2, 2002.  The complaint also names Martha Stewart and seven of
the Company's other present or former officers (Gregory R.
Blatt, Sharon L. Patrick, and five other Company officers
(collectively, the "Individual Defendants")) as defendants.  The
action consolidates seven class actions previously filed in the
Southern District of New York:

     (1) Semon v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
         August 6, 2002),

     (2) Rosen v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
         August 21, 2002),

     (3) MacKinnon v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
         (filed August 30, 2002),

     (4) Crnkovich v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
         (filed September 4, 2002),

     (5) Rahilly v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
         September 6, 2002),

     (6) Steele v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. (filed
         September 13, 2002), and

     (7) Hackbarth v Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
         (filed September 18, 2002)

The claims in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint arise out
of Ms. Stewart's sale of 3,928 shares of ImClone Systems stock
on December 27, 2001.  The plaintiffs assert violations of
Sections 10(b) (and rules promulgated thereunder), 20(a) and 20A
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs allege
that MSO, Ms. Stewart and the Individual Defendants made
statements about Ms. Stewart's sale that were materially false
and misleading.

The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of these false and
misleading statements, the market price of the Company's stock
was inflated during the putative class periods and dropped after
the alleged falsity of the statements became public.  The
plaintiffs further allege that the Individual Defendants traded
MSO stock while in possession of material non-public
information.  The Consolidated Class Action Complaint seeks
certification as a class action, damages, attorneys' fees and
costs, and further relief as determined by the court.

On May 19, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Class Action Complaint was denied, and discovery in
that action is ongoing.  By stipulation of the parties, and an
order of the court entered November 10, 2003, all claims
asserted in the Consolidated Class Action Complaint pursuant to
Section 20A (Insider Trading) of the Securities Exchange Act
against the Individual Defendants, and all remaining claims
against the Individual Defendants, other than Mr. Blatt and Ms.
Patrick, have been dismissed without prejudice.


MARTHA STEWART: Seeks To Resolve Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. is working to resolve the
shareholder derivative litigation filed against it (as a nominal
defendant) and Martha Stewart.  Four suits are currently
pending, namely:

     (1) "In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc.
         Shareholder Derivative Litigation (the "Shareholder
         Derivative Litigation"), filed on December 19, 2002 in
         New York State Supreme Court;

     (2) Beam v. Stewart, initially filed on August 15, 2002 and
         amended on September 6, 2002, in Delaware Chancery
         Court;

     (3) Richards v. Stewart, filed on November 1, 2002 in
         Connecticut Superior Court; and

     (4) Sargent v. Martinez, filed on September 29, 2003 in the
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York

Company directors Arthur Martinez, Sharon Patrick, Jeffrey Ubben
and former directors John Doerr, Darla Moore and Naomi Seligman,
are also named as defendants in Beam.  Mr. Martinez, Ms.
Patrick, Mr. Ubben, Mr. Doerr, Ms. Moore, Ms. Seligman, five of
the Company's present or former officers (Mr. Blatt, Ms.
Cardinale, Ms. Roach, Ms. Sobel, and Ms. Towey), and Kleiner
Perkins Caufield & Byers are also named as defendants in
Richards.  Mr. Martinez, Ms. Patrick, Mr. Ubben, Ms. Moore and
Ms. Seligman are also named as defendants in Sargent.

In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Shareholder
Derivative Litigation consolidates three previous derivative
complaints filed in New York State Supreme Court and Delaware
Chancery Court:

     (i) Beck v. Stewart, filed on August 13, 2002 in New York
         State Supreme Court,

    (ii) Kramer v. Stewart, filed on August 20, 2002 in New York
         State Supreme Court, and

   (iii) Alexis v. Stewart, filed on October 3, 2002 in Delaware
         Chancery Court

Sargent consolidates two derivative complaints previously filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District Court of
New York: Acosta v. Stewart, filed on October 10, 2002, and
Sargent v. Martinez, filed on May 30, 2003.

All four derivative actions allege that Ms. Stewart breached her
fiduciary duties to the Company by engaging in insider trading
in ImClone stock and making false and misleading statements
about such trading.  The plaintiffs allege that these actions
have diminished Ms. Stewart's reputation and injured the Company
through lost revenues, loss of reputation and good will,
decreased stock price, and increased costs.  The plaintiff in
Beam further alleges that:

     (a) Ms. Stewart's actions have jeopardized the Company's
         intellectual property;

     (b) the directors breached their fiduciary duties by
         failing to monitor Ms. Stewart's affairs to ensure she
         did not harm the Company;

     (c) Ms. Stewart and the other directors breached their
         fiduciary duties by failing to address the impropriety
         of the Company's payment of split-dollar insurance
         premiums; and

     (d) Ms. Stewart and Mr. Doerr usurped corporate
         opportunities by selling personally owned Company stock
         to an investment firm without first presenting the
         Company with the opportunity to sell its stock to the
         firm.

The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Derivative Litigation also
allege that Ms. Stewart breached the terms of her employment
agreement with the Company.  The plaintiff in Richards further
alleges intentional breach of fiduciary duty by, among other
things, acting in reckless disregard of, and failing to prevent,
Ms. Stewart's insider trading in ImClone stock, violating
federal securities laws by selling Company stock while in
possession of material, non-public information, misuse of
corporate information, and gross mismanagement of the Company.
The suit also alleges negligent breach of fiduciary duty; abuse
of control; constructive fraud; gross mismanagement; and waste.

The plaintiffs in Sargent further allege that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to take appropriate
action to address Ms. Stewart's wrongdoing; granting Ms. Stewart
a bonus for 2002; and endorsing an amendment to the Company's
agreement with Ms. Stewart for the rental of certain properties.

The derivative actions seek damages in favor of the Company,
attorneys' fees and costs, and further relief as determined by
the court.  Certain of the complaints also seek declaratory
relief.  The plaintiffs in the Shareholder Derivative Litigation
and Sargent further seek the creation of a committee or other
administrative mechanism to address the alleged "corporate
governance" issues raised in the complaints and to protect the
Company's "cornerstone assets."  The plaintiff in Richards
further seeks injunctive relief in the form of attachment
or other restriction of the proceeds of defendants' trading
activities or other assets.

On April, 17, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss the
Shareholder Derivative Litigation was granted to the extent that
the action has been stayed pending plaintiffs' submission of a
demand to initiate litigation on the Company's Board or a
determination by the Federal District Court in the Acosta action
(now the consolidated Sargent action) that such a demand is
excused.

On September 30, 2003, the Company's motion to dismiss the Beam
complaint was granted in its entirety.  The plaintiffs in Beam
appealed the dismissal of the complaint to the Delaware Supreme
Court. On March 31, 2004, the Delaware Supreme Court, sitting
en banc, unanimously affirmed the dismissal of the Beam
complaint.

The Sargent action had previously been stayed by order of the
court pending resolution of the Beam appeal by the Delaware
Supreme Court.  On April 22, 2004, the court lifted that stay
and ordered the plaintiffs to respond to MSO's and the MSO
directors' previously filed motions to dismiss.  In their
opposition brief and at oral argument, the plaintiffs did not
oppose the dismissal of the Sargent action, arguing only that
such dismissal should be without prejudice; MSO and the other
defendants seek a with prejudice dismissal.  Oral argument was
held July 23, 2004 and the court has not yet announced a
decision.

The Richards action had been stayed by agreement of the parties
pending resolution of the Beam appeal by the Delaware Supreme
Court. By motion filed June 4, 2004, the plaintiff in the
Richards action voluntarily sought an order dismissing the
Richards action with prejudice, and that dismissal with
prejudice was ordered by the court on June 9, 2004.


NORDSTROM INC.: Sales Staff Files CA Unfair Labor Practices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys in Redwood City, California are attempting to file a
class-action lawsuit against Nordstrom, Inc., which seeks to
close an alleged loophole in the department store's liberal
return policy that affects sales staff's commission, the San
Francisco Examiner reports.

According to the attorneys, Nordstrom's return policy allows
customers to seek a price adjustment if the item they purchased
later goes on sale. The alleged loophole, however, then allows
customers to return the reduced-priced item in exchange for a
refund of the original price.

The suit claims that this loophole unfairly burdens the sales
staff by lowering their commissions, while customers are
refunded more money than they actually paid after the price
adjustment, the salespeople involved are deducted more money
than they originally earned in commission, which the complaint
alleges to be an unfair labor practice that is in clear
violation of the California Labor Code.

The complaint further states, "Incredibly, [Nordstrom's]
customers returning merchandise can actually receive more than
the original purchase price paid for an item and under this
scenario, a portion of that cost of doing business by
[Nordstrom] is charged to and paid by ... commissioned sales
employees."

The original complaint, which was brought by Ernest Young, who
was employed at the Hillsdale Shopping Center Nordstrom in San
Mateo as a salesperson, alleges that when stolen merchandise is
exchanged for a similar item, salespersons' commissions are
deducted for the item's commission, despite having received no
original commission.

Just recently a request to treat the complaint as a class action
lawsuit was filed in San Mateo County Superior Court by three
Los Angeles-based law firms. According to the complaint, should
the request be granted, the suit would represent all Nordstrom
sales staff currently employed throughout California, which is
estimated to exceed 2,500 people in 45 stores. Furthermore, the
suit would also request compensatory damages and interest from
all wages and commissions deducted by Nordstrom store managers
from any affected sales staff within the last four years, as
well as an immediate halt to the practice as well as seek
unspecified punitive damages from the Washington-based
department store.


NORTHERN TRUST: Reaches Settlement For Trust Accounts Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Northern Trust Bank of California N.A. reached a settlement for
the class action filed against it and Northern Trust
Corporation, seeking class-wide reimbursement, with interest and
punitive damages, for approximately 300 trust accounts that were
allegedly charged fees in excess of fee provisions in the
underlying trust documents.

Virtually all of the trust accounts in the putative class were
purchased in 1992 by the California bank from Trust Services of
America, Inc., then a subsidiary of CalFed.  Prior to the filing
of this class action, the California bank had begun to file
petitions seeking review and approval from the California
probate court of reimbursements to these accounts, and 79 such
petitions have already been approved with reimbursements for
those accounts totaling approximately $2.5 million.

During the second quarter 2004, the Court dismissed the Company
from the suit on jurisdictional grounds, but allowed most of the
claims to proceed against the California bank, including claims
challenging the previously approved petitions.  On August 10,
2004, the California bank had entered into a settlement in
principle to resolve the putative class action.

The settlement remains subject to negotiation of a final written
agreement and court approval.  Upon final approval of the
settlement, the California bank will pay approximately $21
million.


NORTHERN TRUST: Trial in Enron Pension Plan Suit Set Fall 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------
One of Northern Trust Corporation's subsidiaries has been named
as a defendant in several Enron-related class action suits that
have been consolidated under a single complaint in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(Houston).  Trial in the suit is scheduled for fall 2006.

Individual participants in the employee pension benefit plans
sponsored by Enron Corporation sued various corporate entities
and individuals, including The Northern Trust Company (Bank) in
its capacity as the former directed trustee of the Enron
Corporation Savings Plan and former service-provider for the
Enron Corporation Employee Stock Ownership Plan.

The lawsuit makes claims, inter alia, for breach of fiduciary
duty to the plan participants, and seeks equitable relief and
monetary damages in an unspecified amount against the
defendants.  On September 30, 2003, the court denied the Bank's
motion to dismiss the complaint as a matter of law.

In an Amended Consolidated Complaint filed on January 2, 2004,
plaintiffs continue to assert claims against the Bank and other
defendants under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 (ERISA), seeking a finding that defendants are liable to
restore to the benefit plans and the plaintiffs hundreds of
millions of dollars of losses allegedly caused by defendants'
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.


ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS: Recalls 160,894 Devices Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robertshaw Controls Company of Long Beach, California is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 123,544 Robertshaw TS-
11 Thermal Safety Control Gas Valves and the 37,350 magnet heads
"magnet head" on the gas valve

If the pilot light goes out, the gas valve can stick in an open
position, permitting gas to continue to flow. This can result in
a gas explosion and fire, which could result in severe personal
injury or property damage. The firm has received 12 reports of
flash fires, including 9 reports of injuries. The injuries
involved first, second, and - in one instance - third degree
burns.

The TS-11 Thermal Safety Control Gas Valves are installed in
commercial cooking equipment with pilot lights, including
ranges, griddles, fryers, and warming trays. The recalled gas
valves were produced between February 2003 and August 2004. The
"magnet heads" on the gas valves were made during the same range
of dates. The recalled products can be identified by date codes
0306 through and including 0432. The TS-11 gas valve with
different manufacturing dates and a different hazard was
recalled in 2002.

Assembled in Mexico, the devices were sold at original equipment
manufacturers and food service equipment dealers to commercial
food service providers (such as restaurants). The recalled
products were sold from February 2003 through August 2004.

Remedy: Free repair or replacement (if necessary). Robertshaw
Controls Company will arrange for free repair or replacement of
the recalled gas valves. If you smell gas near the appliance or
in the building, immediately leave the area and call your gas
Company or a certified gas technician to investigate the cause.
If you do not smell gas, check the pilot lights on your gas
appliances. If any pilot lights are out, do not attempt to
relight. Have the appliance examined by the gas Company or a
qualified technician. Have the date-code of your TS-11 gas valve
ready when you contact Robertshaw.

Consumer Contact: Commercial food service managers should call
Robertshaw toll-free at (800) 232-9389 from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. CT,
Monday through Friday, or visit http://www.robertshaw.com


SPX CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SPX Corporation asked the United States District Court for the
Western District of North Carolina to dismiss the consolidated
class action filed against it and certain of its current and
former executive officers.

The suit alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs generally
allege that the Company made false and misleading statements
regarding the forecast of its 2003 fiscal year business and
operating results in order to artificially inflate the price of
the Company's stock.

Additionally, on April 23, 2004, an additional class action
complaint was filed in the same court, alleging breaches of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 by the Company,
its general counsel and the Administration Committee regarding
one of its 401(k) defined contribution benefit plans arising
from the plan's holding of Company stock.


TITAN CORPORATION: Named as Defendant in CA SureBeam Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Corporation has been named as defendants in the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, styled
"In re SureBeam Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 03-CV-
001721-JM (POR)."  The suit also names as defendants certain
corporate officers of SureBeam Corporation, its former
subsidiary of Titan, Dr. Ray and Susan Golding, as SureBeam
directors, and certain investment banks that served as lead
underwriters for SureBeam's March 2001 initial public offering,

The SureBeam class action complaint alleges that each of the
defendants, including Titan, as a "control person" of SureBeam
within the meaning of Section 15 of the Securities Act, should
be held liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act because
the prospectus for SureBeam's initial public offering was
allegedly inaccurate and misleading, contained untrue statements
of material facts, and omitted to state other facts necessary to
make the statements made not misleading.

The SureBeam class action complaint also alleges that the
defendants, including Titan, as a control person of SureBeam
within the meaning of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, should
be held liable under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act for false
and misleading statements made during the period from March 16,
2001 to August 27, 2003.


TITAN CORPORATION: Faces Two Suits Over Iraqi Abuse in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Corporation and other companies face two lawsuits alleging
they either participated in, approved of or condoned the
mistreatment of prisoners by United States military officials in
certain prison facilities in Iraq in violation of federal, state
and international law.

The first of these cases, styled "Saleh v. Titan Corporation,
No. 04-CV-1143 R," was filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California against the Company,
CACI International, Inc., and CACI affiliates, and three
individuals (one formally employed by Titan and one employed by
a Titan subcontractor).  Plaintiffs in Saleh seek class
certification.

The second case, styled "Ibrahim v. Titan Corporation, NO. 04-
CV-1248," was filed on July 27, 2004, on behalf of five
individual plaintiffs against Titan, CACI and CACI affiliates,
and contains allegations similar to Saleh.  Class certification
has not been requested in Ibrahim.


TITAN INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
Titan Inc. and certain of its officers in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging
claims under the federal securities laws.  The suit is styled
"In re Titan Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 04-CV-0701-K(NLS)."

The suit was filed on behalf of all purchasers of Titan common
stock during the period from July 24, 2003 through and including
March 22, 2004.  The complaint seeks an unspecified amount of
damages.  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, as amended (the Exchange Act), and SEC Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act, by
issuing a series of press releases, public statements and
filings disclosing significant historical and future revenue
growth, but omitting to mention certain allegedly improper
payments involving international consultants in connection with
the Company's international operations, thereby artificially
inflating the trading price of Titan's common stock.


TITAN INC.: Officers Face Two FCPA Violations Suits in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Titan Corporation's officers were named as defendants
in two purported stockholder class action complaints, asserting
that these officers breached their fiduciary duties to Titan's
stockholders.  The complaints were filed in the Superior Court
for the State of California in and for San Diego County.  The
cases include "Paul Berger v. Gene W. Ray, et al., No. GIC
828346," and "Robert Garfield v. Mark W. Sopp, et. al, No. GIC
828345."

The fiduciary duty actions purport to be brought on behalf of
all holders of the Company's common stock as of April 7, 2004.
The fiduciary duty actions allege, among other things, that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties by acquiescing in or
condoning Titan's alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act (FCPA), by failing to establish adequate
procedures to prevent the alleged FCPA violations, and by
failing, in bad faith, to voluntarily report the alleged FCPA
violations to government officials.  The complaints seek
compensatory damages in respect of the loss of value sustained
by Company stockholders as a result of the reduction in merger
consideration payable to them under the terms of the amendment
to the merger agreement delivered on April 7, 2004.


TITAN INC.: Shareholder Derivative Suits Filed in DE, CA Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Titan Corporation (as a nominal defendant), its directors and
certain of its officers faces three shareholder derivative
lawsuits, namely:

     (1) Theodore Weisgerber v. Gene Ray, et al., No. 832018,
         which was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
         California, San Diego;

     (2) Robert Ridgeway v. Gene Ray, et al., No. 542-N, which
         was filed in Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle
         County; and

     (3) Bernd Bildstein v. Gene Ray, et al., No. 833701, which
         was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
         California, San Diego County

The derivative actions are brought for the benefit of the
nominal defendant, Titan, and allege that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to monitor and
supervise management in a way that would have either prevented
alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) violations or would
have detected the FCPA violations.  The plaintiffs seek to
recover the costs incurred in the internal and external
investigations.


TOBACCO LITIGATION: FL, IL High Court To Hear Arguments in Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Top courts in Florida and Illinois are scheduled to hear
arguments in two lawsuits against the tobacco industry involving
billions of dollars in damages that have left uncertainty
hanging over tobacco shares, the Reuters AlertNet reports.

This week, the Florida Supreme Court will hear arguments over
whether to reinstate a $145 billion class-action verdict against
several cigarette makers in the so-called Engle case, which was
filed by Miami Beach pediatrician Howard Engle as the first
smokers' lawsuit to be certified as a class action, saying
Florida's participation in a multi-state settlement with the
tobacco companies barred the awarding of punitive damages.

In 2000, a Miami jury ordered the companies to pay ailing
Florida smokers for deceiving them about the dangers of
cigarettes. However, in a 2003 victory for the tobacco
companies, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal overturned
the $145 billion verdict. It also decertified the class action,
which meant that smokers would have to sue individually, not as
a single group.

Defendants in the case include Philip Morris USA, a unit of
Altria Group Inc., R.J. Reynolds Tobacco and the U.S. business
of Brown & Williams, now units of Reynolds American Inc.,
Lorillard Tobacco Co., a unit of Loews Corp. and Vector Group
Ltd's Liggett.

Meanwhile, the Illinois Supreme Court will also be hearing
arguments in a case in which Philip Morris was found to have
deceived smokers into thinking "light" cigarettes were safer
than regular cigarettes and ordered to pay $10.1 billion in
damages, which is set to start next week. The controversial case
was the first class action case that argued deception in
marketing "light" cigarettes, and the Illinois Supreme Court
took the very unusual step of taking a direct appeal of the
case, bypassing the appellate court.

While the rulings in both cases are not expected until at least
the spring of 2005, questions the justices ask during arguments
could indicate which issues they are focusing on and could cause
some short-term movement in tobacco stocks, according to David
Adelman, tobacco industry analyst at Morgan Stanley.


WYOMING: Workers Plan To Appeal Post-Retirement Benefits Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
Employees of the Gillette City, Wyoming gave their Sheridan-
based attorney, H.W. Rasmussen, the green light to appeal to the
Wyoming Supreme Court in a case over post-retirement benefits,
the Gillette News Record reorts.

According to the Sheridan-based attorney, who recently met his
clients met with his clients named in the suit, "They
unanimously directed me to appeal." He has filed a class action
suit against the city that is "intended to address the rights of
all employees."

Initially filed in March as a response to the Gillette City
Council's decision to alter post-retirement benefits that had
been listed in city employees' handbooks, the case was dismissed
by Gillette's 6th District Court, because it had ruled that when
seeking a declaration of contractual rights, the plaintiffs must
comply with the Governmental Claims Act and the Wyoming
Constitution.

However, commenting on the lower court's decision, Mr. Rasmussen
stated that he disagrees follow both, since a specific dollar
amount has not been sought, so the constitutional requirements
are not necessary.

Meanwhile, Gillette City Attorney Charlie Anderson, in reaction
to the plaintiff's plans to appeal stated that he and others are
relying on two state Supreme Court decisions that detail how a
governmental claim is handled in suit.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ACE LIMITED: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of ACE Limited, ("ACE" or the "Company")
(NYSE:ACE), during the period between October 28, 2003 and
October 13, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled Barton v. ACE Limited, et al., Case No.
(not yet assigned), is pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, and names as
defendants, the Company, its President and Chief Executive
Officer, Evan Greenberg, its Chief Financial Officer, Philip V.
Bancroft, and its Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer,
Brian Duperreault.

The complaint charges defendants 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 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; and

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

On October 14, 2004, the Attorney General for the State of New
York, Eliot Spitzer, announced his office 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. On this news, the Company's shares plummeted
9%.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther, Wechsler Harwood
Shareholder Relations Department by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-
mail: clowther@whesq.com


CHIRON CORORATION: Murray Frank Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
Chiron Corporation securities ("Chiron") (Nasdaq:CHIR) during
the period between January 12, 2004 through October 13, 2004
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Chiron, Howard Pien, John Lambert, and
David Smith with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there
under. Chiron is a global pharmaceutical Company focused on
developing products for cancer and infectious diseases. It
commercializes its products through three business units: blood
testing, vaccines and biopharmaceuticals. Chiron Vaccines offers
more than 30 vaccines including flu, meningococcal, travel and
pediatric vaccines. 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 equipment and staff training at the Company's
         Liverpool plant were inadequate;

     (2) that the Company's vaccine manufacturing process was
         wrought with microbial and sterility issues;

     (3) that the Company's Liverpool plant had systemic
         quality-control issues which the Company failed to
         address in a timely manner;

     (4) that the Company's Liverpool plant was not in
         compliance with British health and safety regulations;
         and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
         statements about being able to supply 50 million
         vaccines to the United States was lacking in a
         reasonable basis when made.

On August 26, 2004, Chiron announced the following bombshell:
that, in conducting final internal release procedures for its
Fluvirin(r) influenza virus vaccine, the Company's quality
systems have identified a small number of lots that do not meet
product sterility specifications. Following this announcement,
defendant Pien reiterated Chiron's expectation that Chiron would
supply between 46 million and 48 million Fluvirin(r) influenza
virus vaccine doses to the U.S. market for the 2004-2005
influenza season, beginning in early October. Then on October 5,
2004, Chiron shocked the market when it announced "that the UK
regulatory body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulatory Agency ("MHRA"), has today temporarily suspended the
Company's license to manufacture Fluvirin(r) influenza virus
vaccine in its Liverpool facility, preventing the Company from
releasing any of the product during the 2004-2005 influenza
season. Chiron has not released any Fluvirin into any territory,
and therefore there is no requirement to recall or withdraw any
vaccine."

Following this revelation, shares of Chiron fell $7.44 per
share, or 16,38 percent, to close at $37.98 per share on
unusually high trading volume.

Thereafter, on October 11, 2004, The Wall Street Journal
reported U.S. regulators found "deviations" from good
manufacturing standards at Chiron's U.K.-based flu-vaccine plant
in June 2003. According to the article, the Food and Drug
Administration officials documented "deviations" from best
practices at Chiron's Liverpool plant in the middle of last
year, John Taylor, the FDA's associate commissioner for
regulatory affairs, told the Journal. The regulator said that
"systemic quality-control issues" led inspectors to conclude
that Chiron wouldn't necessarily be able to discover problems,
identify the root cause and take steps to prevent similar issues
from arising again.

Then on October 12, 2004, Chiron stated it had received a grand
jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York,
seeking documents related to the U.K. authorities' decision to
shut down the manufacturing of its flu vaccine Fluvirin.

The final blow to the Company occurred on October 13, 2004. At
about 12:00 noon, The Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC
was launching an informal probe into whether Chiron failed to
properly alert investors to on- going problems with British
regulators. The Company later confirmed that this was in fact
true.

News of this sent the stock further down. Shares of Chiron fell
$1.87 per share, or 5.54 percent, on unusually heavy trading
volume on October 13, 2004 to close at $31.87 per share.

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 by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com


CHIRON CORPORATION: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities 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 on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Chiron Corporation (Nasdaq: CHIR)
("Chiron") between July 23, 2003 and October 5, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

During the Class Period, Chiron reported revenue growth driven
in material part by sales of its flu vaccine during the 2003-
2004 flu season; Chiron represented that it would provide the
U.S. market with even more flu vaccine in 2004 than in 2003.
However, on October 5, 2004, Chiron announced that "the UK
regulatory body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulatory Agency has today temporarily suspended the Company's
license to manufacture Fluvirin(R) influenza virus vaccine in
its Liverpool facility, preventing the Company from releasing
any of the product during the 2004-2005 influenza season." In
response to this disclosure, the price of Chiron common stock
fell from a closing price of $45.42 per share on October 4,
2004, to a closing price of $37.98 per share on October 5, 2004,
a one day drop of 16.3%.

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


CHIRON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files PA Stock Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Chiron Corporation (Nasdaq: CHIR) ("Chiron" or the
"Company") from January 12, 2004 through October 13, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Chiron, Howard Pien, John Lambert, and
David Smith with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated there
under. Chiron is a global pharmaceutical Company focused on
developing products for cancer and infectious diseases. It
commercializes its products through three business units: blood
testing, vaccines and biopharmaceuticals. Chiron Vaccines offers
more than 30 vaccines including flu, meningococcal, travel and
pediatric vaccines. According to the complaint, the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that equipment and staff training at the Company's
         Liverpool plant were inadequate;

     (2) that the Company's vaccine manufacturing process was
         wrought with microbial and sterility issues;

     (3) that the Company's Liverpool plant had systemic
         quality-control issues which the Company failed to
         address in a timely manner;

     (4) that the Company's Liverpool plant was not in
         compliance with British health and safety regulations;
         and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
         statements about being able to supply 50 million
         vaccines to the United States was lacking in a
         reasonable basis when made.

On August 26, 2004, Chiron announced the following bombshell:
that, in conducting final internal release procedures for its
Fluvirin(R) influenza virus vaccine, the Company's quality
systems have identified a small number of lots that do not meet
product sterility specifications. Following this announcement,
defendant Pien reiterated Chiron's expectation that Chiron would
supply between 46 million and 48 million Fluvirin(R) influenza
virus vaccine doses to the U.S. market for the 2004-2005
influenza season, beginning in early October. Then on October 5,
2004, Chiron shocked the market when it announced "that the UK
regulatory body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products
Regulatory Agency ("MHRA"), has today temporarily suspended the
Company's license to manufacture Fluvirin(R) influenza virus
vaccine in its Liverpool facility, preventing the Company from
releasing any of the product during the 2004-2005 influenza
season. Chiron has not released any Fluvirin into any territory,
and therefore there is no requirement to recall or withdraw any
vaccine."

Following this revelation, shares of Chiron fell $7.44 per
share, or 16,38 percent, to close at $37.98 per share on
unusually high trading volume.

Thereafter, on October 11, 2004, The Wall Street Journal
reported U.S. regulators found "deviations" from good
manufacturing standards at Chiron's U.K.-based flu-vaccine plant
in June 2003. According the article, the Food and Drug
Administration officials documented "deviations" from best
practices at Chiron's Liverpool plant in the middle of last
year, John Taylor, the FDA's associate commissioner for
regulatory affairs, told the Journal. The regulator said that
"systemic quality-control issues" led inspectors to conclude
that Chiron wouldn't necessarily be able to discover problems,
identify the root cause and take steps to prevent similar issues
from arising again.

Then on October 12, 2004, Chiron stated it had received a grand
jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York,
seeking documents related to the U.K. authorities' decision to
shut down the manufacturing of its flu vaccine Fluvirin.

The final blow to the Company occurred on October 13, 2004. At
about 12:00 noon, The Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC
was launching an informal probe into whether Chiron failed to
properly alert investors to on- going problems with British
regulators. The Company later confirmed that this was in fact
true.

News of this sent the stock further down. Shares of Chiron fell
$1.87 per share, or 5.54 percent, on unusually heavy trading
volume on October 13, 2004 to close at $31.87 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


CONVERIUM HOLDING: Zwerling Schachter Lodges NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP ("Zwerling
Schachter") initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased securities
(ADSs) of Converium Holding AG ("Converium" or the "Company")
(NYSE: CHR) between December 11, 2001 and July 20, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"). The deadline to file a motion
seeking to be appointed lead plaintiff is December 3, 2004.

The complaint charges that Converium and two of its officers,
Dirk Lohmann, and Martin Kauer, violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, it alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Converium maintained inadequate loss reserves in
         its Converium North America subsidiary;

     (2) that the Company did not, as it had announced,
         establish adequate loss reserves to cover claims by
         Converium North America policy holders;

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

     (4) as a consequence of the understatement of loss
         reserves, Converium's earnings and assets were
         materially overstated during the Class Period.

On July 20, 2004, the Company announced that its second quarter
results would be impacted by a reserve strengthening for US
casualty business and subsequent asset impairments on the
balance sheet of Converium North America. On this disclosure,
shares of Converium collapsed $11.12 per share, or approximately
44 percent, on July 20, 2004, to close at $13.90 per share.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn
of Zwerling Schachter by Phone: 1-800-721-3900 or by E-mail:
sfuchs@zsz.com or jnykolyn@zsz.com


FANNIE MAE: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law office of Alfred G. Yates Jr PC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia on behalf of purchasers of Federal National Mortgage
Association ("Fannie Mae" or the "Company") (NYSE:FNM) common
stock during the period between January 13, 2000 and September
22, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, defendants repeatedly presented Fannie Mae as a
conservative, stable and safe investment, and boasted of Fannie
Mae's steady quarter-over-quarter earnings increases, even in
times of market volatility. According to the complaint, the
Company presented the public with materially false and
misleading financial statements that created the illusion that
Fannie Mae was a safe and steady earner and largely immune to
interest rate fluctuations and other macro-economic factors
that, in comparable institutions, resulted in earnings
volatility.

The truth emerged on September 22, 2004. On that date, Fannie
Mae released a statement that the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight would release a report which stated in
relevant part that Fannie Mae:

     (1) applied accounting methods and practices that do not
         comply with GAAP in accounting for the enterprise's
         derivatives transactions and hedging activities;

     (2) employed an improper "cookie jar" reserve in accounting
         for amortization of deferred price adjustments under
         GAAP;

     (3) tolerated related internal control deficiencies;

     (4) in at least one instance deferred expenses apparently
         to achieve bonus compensation targets; and

     (5) maintained a corporate culture that emphasized stable
         earnings at the expense of accurate financial
         disclosures.

The report further stated that "the matters detailed in this
report are serious and raise doubts concerning the validity of
previously reported financial results, the adequacy of
regulatory capital, the quality of management supervision, and
the overall safety and soundness of the Enterprise."

After Fannie Mae released its statement, Fannie Mae shares,
which had opened at $74.18 that day, fell $4.18, or 5.6 percent,
to $70.00 and closed out the day at $70.69. After the close of
the market, the OFHEO issued its full 198-page report and,
subsequently, in a meeting with reporters, OFHEO officials
stated that the vast majority of Fannie Mae's $1 trillion
derivative portfolio was tainted, and that those hedge
relationships would likely get "unwound" if Fannie Mae restated
past earnings so that gains and losses that had previously been
recorded on Fannie Mae's balance sheet would be booked under
income. On release of the full OFHEO Report, Fannie Mae shares
fell another 5.9 percent to a low of $66.50 on September 23,
2004, for a two-day decline of $7.68, or 10.3 percent.

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


FANNIE MAE: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against Fannie Mae and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Federal Securities Laws
(Securities Exchange Act of 1934), on behalf of purchasers of
Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FNM) common stock during the period between
October 16, 2003 and September 22, 2004 (the "Class Period") .
Other firms have stated class periods back to January 13, 2000.
Anyone desiring information as to either class periods can
contact the firm.

Fannie Mae, the largest U.S. home funding Company, has said it
has sold $1 billion of two-year global callable notes due Nov.
22, 2006, said joint book-lead manager Credit Suisse First
Boston on Thursday. The 3.00 percent notes were priced at par.
The notes have a one-time European call feature on Nov. 22,
2005. HSBC Securities Inc. and Morgan Stanley were the other
joint lead managers on the sale. Settlement is Nov. 22.

The Complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false
and misleading statements in an effort to separate themselves
from the scandal that occurred at the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), a similar, but smaller version of
its rival -- Fannie Mae. In June 2003, Freddie Mac disclosed
that it had understated profits by some $4.5 billion for 2000-
2002. In an effort to smooth earnings and maintain its image on
Wall Street as a steady performer, the accounting crisis brought
the departure of several top Freddie Mac executives.
Investigations by the Justice Department and the SEC, and a
record $125 million fine in a settlement with the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ("OFHEO"), (the office that
regulates both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is responsible for
ensuring that they are adequately capitalized and operating
safely). Thereafter, OFHEO initiated an eight-month
investigation of Fannie Mae's accounting practices in which the
agency found a pattern of manipulation aimed at smoothing out
volatility in profits from quarter to quarter that was similar
to which occurred at rival Freddie Mac.

The complaint also alleges that each of the defendants that the
Company employed accounting practices in violation of GAAP in
order to maintain the appearance of stable earnings; and that
the Company's officers, including the Individual Defendants,
committed these violations in order to achieve performance
bonuses. It is further alleged that the Company lacked adequate
internal controls and was therefore unable to ascertain the true
financial condition of the Company; and that as a result, the
value of the Company's net income and financial results were
materially misstated at all relevant times.

On September 22, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that OFHEO had finished their special examination of
Fannie Mae's accounting policies and practices and described
that Fannie Mae had engaged in improper accounting activities in
violation of GAAP. In reaction to the news of the accounting
improprieties, the price of Fannie Mae stock dropped
precipitously falling from $75.65 per share on September 22,
2004, to as low as $66.50 per share on September 23, 2004, on
extremely heavy volume.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Phone: 800/404-7770
or 800/332-2259 or by E-mail: fanniemaelitigation@scott-
scott.com or nrothstein@scott-scott.com


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Connecticut on behalf of all securities purchasers
of The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: HIG) ("The
Hartford" or the "Company") from November 5, 2003 through
October 13, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges The Hartford, Ramani Ayer, David M.
Johnson, David K. Zwiener, Robert J. Price and Thomas M. Marra
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More
specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company entered into and concealed illegal
         contingent commission agreements that it entered into
         with other insurance companies, including Marsh, Inc.,
         a subsidiary of Marsh & McLennan, Inc.;

     (2) that the Company engaged in bid-rigging whereby the
         Company agreed to provide brokers with artificial
         quotes which were not justified by underwriting
         analysis;

     (3) that as a result of the bid-rigging, the defendants
         guaranteed The Hartford material amounts of business;

     (4) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements" the defendants
         violated applicable principles of fiduciary law; and

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

On October 14, 2004, Attorney General Eliot Spitzer ("Spitzer")
filed a suit against Marsh & McLennan, Inc., alleging that it
steered unsuspecting clients to insurers with whom it had
lucrative payoff agreements, and that the firm solicited rigged
bids for insurance contracts. Spitzer's complaint also named The
Hartford as an alleged participant in bid-rigging. On these
revelations, the Company's shares fell $3.78 per share, or 6.08
percent, to close at $58.40 per share on unusually high trading
volume on October 14, 2004. By October 15, 2004, shares of The
Hartford fell another $2.10 per share, or 3.60 percent, to close
at $56.30 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


INFINEON TECHNOLOGIES: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of Infineon Technologies AG ("Infineon" or
the "Company") (NYSE:IFX) from March 13, 2000 through September
15, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled Vendittis v. Infineon Technologies AG, et
al., Case No. (not yet assigned), is pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
and names as defendants, the Company, its Chairman, President
and Chief Executive Officer (until his resignation on March 30,
2004), Ulrich Schumacher, its Executive Vice President of Sales
and Marketing, Peter Bauer, and its Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer, Peter J. Fischl. A copy of the
complaint can be obtained from the Court or can be viewed on
Wechsler Harwood web site at: www.whesq.com.

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


     (1) that the Company entered into and engaged in a
         combination and conspiracy in the United States and
         elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by
         fixing the prices of Dynamic Random Access Memory
         ("DRAM") to be sold to original manufacturers of
         personal computers and servers;

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Craig Lowther, Wechsler Harwood
Shareholder Relations Department by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-
mail: clowther@whesq.com


INTELLIGROUP, INC.: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of
Intelligroup, Inc. (NASDAQ:ITIGE) between May 1, 2001 and
September 24, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


INTELLIGROUP INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of Intelligroup Inc. (Nasdaq: ITIGE)
("Intelligroup") between May 1, 2001 and September 24, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

On August 11, 2004, Intelligroup announced that Deloitte &
Touche LLP was resigning as the Company's independent auditor.
Thereafter, on August 17, 2004, Intelligroup announced that it
was delaying the filing of its second quarter 2004 Form 10-Q.
Finally, on September 24, 2004, Intelligroup announced that it
was restating its previously issued financial statements for the
years 2001, 2002 and 2003. On this news, Intelligroup shares
fell 32% to close at $1.13 per share. The Complaint alleges that
Intelligroup and certain of its key officers violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeks to recover damages on
behalf of purchasers of Intelligroup securities during the Class
Period.

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


INTELLIGROUP INC.: Berman DeValerio Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action in the U.S. District Court for the
District of New Jersey against Intelligroup, Inc.
("Intelligroup" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:ITIGE), claiming the
Company misled the investing public about its finances.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Intelligroup common
stock from May 1, 2001 through and including September 24, 2004
(the "Class Period").

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

The complaint names as defendants: Intelligroup; Arjun
Valluripalli a.k.a. Arjun Valluri, who was at all relevant times
the Company's chairman and chief executive officer; Nicholas
Visco, who served as Intelligroup's senior vice president of
finance and administration and chief financial officer from the
beginning of the Class Period until November 2003; Edward Carr,
who served as chief financial officer from November 2003 to
April 2004; and David J. Distel, who was the Company's chief
financial officer from April 2004 to the end of the Class
Period.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
Intelligroup publicly touted its strong financial performance.
In reality, however, 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, the lawsuit says.

On August 11, 2004, Intelligroup stunned the investing public
when the Company announced that its independent auditors,
Deloitte & Touche LLP, had resigned from serving as
Intelligroup's independent registered accounting firm effective
following the conclusion of its review of the Company's interim
financial information for the second quarter of 2004.

On September 24, 2004, after the market closed, Intelligroup
further shocked investors when the Company announced that it
intended to restate its previously issued financial statements
filed on Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002
and 2001 and filed on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods
beginning January 1, 2001 to date.

In response to the news, the value of Intelligroup's stock
declined 32% to close at $1.13 on September 27, 2004, the
following trading day.

For more details, contact Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. or Colleen M.
Conners, Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by
Phone: (800) 516-9926 by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Intelligroup-
Cplt.pdf


INTELLIGROUP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Intelligroup, Inc. (Nasdaq: ITIGE) ("Intelligroup"
or the "Company") from May 1, 2001 through September 24, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Intelligroup, Arjun Valluripalli, Nicholas
Visco, Edward Carr and David J. Distel with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company engaged in improper accounting
         practices;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company
         materially overstated its financial results in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         ("GAAP");

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (4) that as result of the above, the Company's net income
         and revenues, among other things, were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

On September 24, 2004, Intelligroup announced that it expected
to restate its previously issued financial statements filed on
Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001
and filed on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods beginning
January 1, 2001 to date. The news shocked the market. Shares of
Intelligroup fell $.08 or 4.62 percent per share, to close at
$1.65 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


INTERACTIVECORP: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against IAC/InterActiveCorp ("IACI" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:IACI) and five of the Company's senior
officers, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of IACI during the period between March 19, 2003
through August 4, 2004, (the "Class Period").

On August 4, 2004, the Company issued its second quarter 2004
earnings release disclosing that net income had fallen 24% from
the same quarter in 2003 and that the Company was cutting its
forecast for full-year operating profits due to increased
Internet competition, which was impacting the Company's
performance. As a result of this news, shares of IACI fell
dramatically from the 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 shareholder value.

IACI owns Expedia, Hotels.com, Hotwire, Home Shopping Network,
Ticketmaster, Match.com, and LendingTree.com. The complaint
alleges that the Company and its Chairman Barry Diller, CFO Dara
Khosrowshahi, Executive Vice President Julius Genachowski,
Director Richard N. Barton, and Vice Chairman Victor Kaufman
violated the federal securities laws by issuing false and
misleading statements concerning the Company's operations,
business model, financial results and growth prospects.

According to the Complaint, the Company failed to disclose
material adverse facts, including:

     (1) that profits were being adversely impacted by the
         decrease in available discounted hotel rooms and
         airline tickets;

     (2) that IACI 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 Expedia and the
         Hotels.com division were largely dependent on the
         Company's improper recognition of revenue; and

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

For more details, contact ROY JACOBS & ASSOCIATES by Phone:
1-888-884-4490 or by E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com


MERCK & CO.: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C. initiated a shareholder lawsuit against Merck & Co., Inc.
("Merck" or the "Company") (NYSE:MRK) and certain of its
officers and directors, in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons and entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Merck &
Co., Inc. on the open market and/or through Merck's Stock
Investment Plan between October 22, 2003 and September 29, 2004,
inclusive ("Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Merck and its Chairman and CEO,
Raymond V. Gilmartin, violated the federal securities laws by
issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements
to the market in connection with the safety of its drug Vioxx.
These misstatements have had the effect of materially
overstating Merck's actual and projected revenues and earnings,
and as result they artificially inflated the market price of
Merck's common stock during the class period.

Specifically, the Complaint alleges that defendants failed to
disclose material information during the Class Period concerning
the safety profile of its arthritis drug Vioxx, and that a
growing body of evidence demonstrated that patients who used the
drug for more than 18 months were exposed to an increased risk
of heart attack. Despite their knowledge that there were serious
issues concerning the safety profile of Vioxx and of the
mounting adverse data from trials worldwide supporting the
conclusion that long term use of Vioxx increased significantly
the risk of heart attack, defendants failed to take appropriate
financial steps and as a result, throughout the class period,
reported false financial results and continued to issue false
and misleading projected revenues and earnings, in press
releases and filings with the SEC. Merck's actual and projected
revenues and earnings disseminated by defendants were
artificially inflated because:

     (1) Merck failed to record appropriate reserves for legal
         claims arising out of heart damage suffered by users of
         Vioxx;

     (2) Merck failed to take appropriate reserves for the
         inventories of Vioxx already sold to wholesalers and
         others which would have to be repurchased by Merck in
         light of the heart safety concerns attached to Vioxx
         and the probable withdrawal of the drug from the
         market;

     (3) defendants lacked any reasonable basis in fact for
         their statements that for 2004, Vioxx would contribute
         approximately $2.5 billion in annual revenues and
         significant operating profit in light of the known
         heart safety concerns associated with long term use of
         Vioxx and the probable withdrawal of the drug from the
         market.

On September 30, 2004, the Company announced that it was
immediately withdrawing Vioxx from world markets after a data
safety monitoring board, overseeing a long-term study of the
drug, recommended that the study be halted because of an
increased risk of serious cardiovascular events among members of
the study group. The Company's sudden decision to withdraw Vioxx
was in stark contrast to its prior public announcements during
the Class Period touting the safety of Vioxx and other public
disclosures by the Company and its representatives that
specifically refuted criticism of the drug lodged by respected
clinicians. In response to the announcement, on September 30,
2004 the price of Merck's common stock plunged to end down over
27% from the previous day's close.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden, Melinda J. Morales,
or Conor R. Crowley of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament &
Rubenstein, P.C. by Phone: 1-800-470-6824 or by E-mail:
investorhelp@muchshelist.com


NEW YORK: Weiss & Yourman Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Weiss & Yourman initiated a class action lawsuit
against New York Community Bancorp, Inc. ("NYB" or the
"Company") (NYSE:NYB) and its officers in the United States
District Court, Eastern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of NYB securities between June 27, 2003 and May 9,
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.

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


STAR GAS: Chitwood & Harley Files Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for Connecticut, against Star Gas, L.P., ("Star Gas" or the
"Company") (NYSE: SGU; SGH), Irik P. Sevin, Ami Trauber, and the
General Partner of the Company, Star Gas, L.L.C., on behalf of
purchasers of Star Gas securities, during the period between
July 25, 2000 and October 18, 2004 (the "Class Period"). The
civil action number is 04CV1832(MRK).

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

     (7) 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 Josh M. Wilson or Lauren S. Antonino,
Esq. of Chitwood & Harley LLP by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 ext. 4861
or by E-mail: jmw@classlaw.com or lsa@classlaw.com or visit
their Web site:
http://www.classlaw.com/FSL5CS/Custom/TOCCasesDisplay.asp?id=105


STAR GAS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities
complaint in the United States District Court for the District
of Connecticut on behalf of all purchasers of securities from
December 4, 2003 to October 18, 2004 (the "Class Period")
inclusive. The firm has now filed a complaint on behalf of
purchasers from July 25, 2000 to October 18, 2004. Star Gas
Partners, Inc. ("Star or the Company") (NYSE:SGU) (NYSE:SGH).
The civil action number on the most recent complaint is 04CV1832
(MRK).

This is an action on behalf of purchasers of Star Gas Partners,
L.P. publicly traded securities. Star Gas is a diversified home
energy distributor and service provider, specializing in heating
oil, propane, natural gas and electricity. During the Class
Period, defendants caused Star Gas's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and
misleading statements.

As a result of this inflation, Star Gas was able to complete a
secondary public offering of 1.3 million common units and two
note offerings totaling $65 million, raising net proceeds of $95
million during the Class Period. On October 18, 2004,
TheStreet.com issued an article entitled "Stocks In Motion: Star
Gas." The article stated in part: 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 dropped to $4.32 per share from a
closing price of $21.60 on the previous trading day. The true
facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were that the
Company was experiencing massive delays in the centralization of
its dispatch system and causing its customers to flee to
competitors; that the Company's Petro heating oil division's
business process improvement program was faltering and not
generating the benefits claimed by defendants; that contrary to
defendants' earlier indications, the Company was not able to
increase or even maintain profit margins in its heating oil
segment; and that the Company's second quarter 2004 claimed
profit margins were an aberration and not indicative of the
Company's success or ability to pass on the heating oil price
increase because the Company had earlier acquired heating oil
(sold in the second quarter) at a much lower cost.

As a result, defendants were facing imminent bankruptcy and
would no longer be able to service the Company's debt, all of
which would halt the Company's ability to maintain the Company's
credit rating and/or obtain future financing. Star Senior Notes:
Star has $265 million in principal amount of unsecured senior
notes due February 13, 2013 at the parent Company level. Star
has retained Peter J. Solomon Company, LP, an independent
investment banking firm, to advise Star on possible
restructuring alternatives and other strategic options.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Phone: 800/404-7770
or 800/332-2259 or by E-mail: StarGasSecuritiesLitigation@scott-
scott.com or nrothstein@scott-scott.com


SOURCECORP INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of SOURCECORP, Inc. (Nasdaq: SRCP)
("SOURCECORP") between May 7, 2003 and October 27, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, SOURCECORP
violated federal securities laws by making materially false or
misleading public statements. On October 27, 2004, SOURCECORP
announced that it was restating previously-issued financial
statements for 2003 and the first two quarters of 2004.
SOURCECORP disclosed that the Information Management Division of
its Information Management and Distribution segment had
improperly and prematurely recognized revenue prior to the
delivery of contractually required output, and for services
which were performed and delivered in excess of the volume and
revenue limits set by contract. SOURCECORP will have to adjust
its revenues and diluted earnings per share for 2003 by at least
$5.4 million and $0.19, respectively, and for the six months
ended June 30, 2004, it may have to adjust revenues and diluted
earnings per share by at least $2.8 million and $0.10,
respectively. On this news, SOURCECORP stock fell from a close
of $22.21 per share on October 26, 2004 to close at $16.25 per
share on October 27, 2004.

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


SOURCECORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of all securities
purchasers of the SOURCECORP Incorporated (Nasdaq: SRCP)
("SOURCECORP" or the "Company") from May 7, 2003 through October
26, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges SOURCECORP, Ed H. Bowman, Jr. and Barry L.
Edwards with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that defendants prematurely recognized revenue in its
         Information Management and Distribution Division;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On October 27, 2004, SOURCECORP announced that based on
information provided by, and the recommendation of, corporate
management, the Company's Audit Committee concluded on October
25, 2004 that the Company's previously issued financial
statements and related independent auditors' report for the year
ended December 31, 2003, as well as its previously issued
financial statements for the 2004 quarterly periods ended March
31, 2004 and June 30, 2004, should no longer be relied upon. The
Company, under the guidance of the Audit Committee, had
initiated an investigation of the financial results of one of
the Company's operating subsidiaries in the Information
Management Division of the Company's Information Management and
Distribution reportable segment. Following this announcement,
shares of SOURCECORP fell $6.59 per share, or 29.67 percent.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *