CAR_Public/041105.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Friday, November 5, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 220


                            Headlines


ADIDAS AMERICA: Recalls 187T Superstar Shoes Due To Injury Risk
CALIFORNIA: Proposition 64 Passes in November 2 Vote
CANADA: Quebec Superior Court To Consider Anti-Tobacco Lawsuits
CANADA: Saskatoon Judge Hears Arguments in Canola Farmer's Suit
CHIRON CORPORATION: Stock Suits Filed On Flu Vaccine Suspension

CITIGROUP INC.: Plans To Dispute NASD Arbitration Panel's Ruling
COLUMBIA NATURAL: Trial in WV Gas Royalties Suit Set July 2005
FLORIDA: Sick Smokers Urge High Court To Restore $145M Verdict
GEORGIA: Clinch County Jail Prisoners Lodge Suit V. $18 Jail Fee
GETANSWERS INC.: SEC Lodges Injunction V. VP Barrington Schneer

HENRY SCHEIN: Individual Claims Remain in TX Consumer Fraud Suit
HENRY SCHEIN: Asks NJ Court To Grant Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 20, 2004
MARATHON ASHLAND: WV Residents Lodge Suit Over Chemical Spill

MEDCO HEALTH: PA Court Refuses To Dismiss Drug Antitrust Lawsuit
MEDCO HEALTH: AL Court Refuses To Dismiss Drug Antitrust Lawsuit
MEDCO HEALTH: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Unfair Practices Lawsuit
MERCK-MEDCO MANAGED: Appeals Pending V. ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
NAVISITE INC.: NY Court Mulls Approval For Stock Suit Settlement

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Attains Favorable Rulings in OK Lawsuits
SCHNEIDER ELECTRONIC: Recalls 700T AFCIs Due To Fire Hazard
TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of HMO Lawsuit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: LA Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuits

TENET HEALTHCARE: FL Court Mulls Dismissal of Consumer Lawsuit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in SC Suit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks SC To Dismiss Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit
TENET HEALTHCARE: Opposes Amended Unfair Practices Lawsuit in PA
TENET HEALTHCARE: Patients Launch TX Unfair Trade Practices Suit

TENET HEALTHCARE: CA Court Mulls Securities Suit Certification
TEXAS: Houston City Council OKs $79.5M Overtime Suit Settlement
TOMMY HILFIGER: Responds to U.S. Attorney's Office Investigation
TROY GROUP: Orange County Court Dismisses Suits With Prejudice
WILSONART INTERNATIONAL: Remains As Defendant in Laminates Suit

                          Asbestos Alert

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Financial Faces Injury Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PolyOne Corp Faces Asbestos Injury Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star, Subsidiaries Named in Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prosecution Seeks Maximum Penalty for AAR
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lorillard Wins in Asbestos Cigarette Case

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wales to Run Out of Landfills Says Study
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Receives 15,400 New Claims, Down 61%
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Disputes Aqua-Chem Inc's Demands
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Georgia-Pacific Cites 3Q Asbestos Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 38,243 Plaintiffs

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Faces 295 Cases, 1,483 Plaintiffs
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Takes on Multi-party Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rohm & Haas Reaches Agreement with Insurers
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AK Agency Warns of Possible Health Hazards
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rise in UK Asbestos Claims to Cost Billions

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Cites $1.7Bln Liability in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: National Waterworks Inc. Denies Liability
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Posts $53.1M Asbestos Liability in 3Q
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Faces 147,836 Claims
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex International Named as Defendant

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Gypsum Named as Defendant in Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CT Court Approves Raytech's Settlement Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Faces 116,000 Asbestos-related Lawsuits
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AU Mesothelioma Victims Seek Drug Subsidy
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Endemol, Foilhope Breach Could Cost GBD45T

ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Target of Investigation
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Concern Raised Over Ireland Plant Proposal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: T&N Fund Trustees Entitled to Block Deal
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Discloses 3Q Expense Reserves
ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Seeks Support on Law Aimed at Hardie

ASBESTOS ALERT: Coroner Launches Probe of Central Heating System
ASBESTOS ALERT: Sisters Sue Canadian Govt for Asbestos Exposure
ASBESTOS ALERT: IA County Finds Asbestos Buried in Hotel Rubble
ASBESTOS ALERT: ATSDR Warns Omaha Plant Ex-Workers of Exposure
ASBESTOS ALERT: Sterling Sugars Inc. Named in 8 Injury Lawsuits

ASBESTOS ALERT: Shipyards Deny Claims of Pleural Plaques Victims
ASBESTOS ALERT: Markel Corp 3Q Review Recommended No Adjustments

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Stock Suit in NY
AON CORPORATION: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Suit in IL
CONCORD CAMERA: Vianale & Vianale Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
INTERACTIVECORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY

MERCK & CO.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges MN Securities Suit
STAR GAS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT


                            *********


ADIDAS AMERICA: Recalls 187T Superstar Shoes Due To Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Adidas America Inc., of Portland, Oregon is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling 187,000 Adidas Superstar Ultra and Pro Team Shoes.

A portion of the sole of the heel can separate or tear during
use, which can result in injuries. Adidas America has received
two reports of injuries involving these shoes, including one
sprained ankle and one strained Achilles tendon.

The adidas Pro Team and Superstar Ultra basketball shoes come in
various color combinations. The recalled shoes have a six-digit
article number on the inside part of the shoe tongue. A complete
list of the article numbers of the shoes involved in the recall
can be found at www.adidas.com/recall or by calling the firm's
recall hotline.

Manufactured in China, the shoes were sold at all adidas stores,
major athletic shoe stores, independent shoe stores nationwide,
and at thestore.adidas.com. The Superstar Ultra shoes were sold
between January 2004 and October 2004 for about $120. The Pro
Team shoes were sold between July 2004 and October 2004 for
about $80.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shoes, and
contact adidas America to receive a prepaid mailing label and a
refund or gift certificate.

Consumer Contact: For more information, call adidas America
toll-free at (877) 568-4632 anytime, or visit the adidas America
Web site: http://www.adidas.com/recall


CALIFORNIA: Proposition 64 Passes in November 2 Vote
----------------------------------------------------
California's Proposition 64, which limits private enforcement of
the state's unfair business practices law, won handily in
California's election on November 2, garnering 58.8 percent of
the "yes" vote, versus 41.2 percent for those opposed, the East
Bay Business Times reports.

Under present law, lawsuits can be filed against companies for
alleged unfair business practices on behalf of the public in
general. According to its supporters, Proposition 64 would only
allow individual or class action suits if there is actual harm
or financial loss claimed by a plaintiff and that only
government entities would be able to enforce these laws on the
public's behalf.

Supporters argued that many litigants demand money from
businesses under threat of a lawsuit and that many small
businesses pay the alleged damages because it would cost more
for them to defend the case in Court.

Opponents said the lawsuit restriction would deprive the public
of the right to sue companies to enforce the law, such as oil
companies for polluting land or water, or credit card companies
for violating the public's privacy rights.  Supporters of
Proposition 64 included car dealers, retailers, financial
institutions and oil companies, while opponents of it include
the Consumers Union and the League of Conservation Voters.


CANADA: Quebec Superior Court To Consider Anti-Tobacco Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quebec smokers Jean-Yves Blais of the Quebec Council on Tobacco
and Health, and Cecilia Letourneau, both of whom filed class
action lawsuits in 1998 against Canada's three largest tobacco
companies are attempting to win millions of dollars in damages.
Hearings will begin in Quebec Superior Court on behalf of
smokers and descendants of deceased smokers who suffered various
smoking-related ailments, the Canadian Press reports.

The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, which backs 17 groups,
including the Quebec Medical Association, the Quebec Cancer
Foundation and the professional organizations of Quebec
pharmacists and nurses, claims to represent some 40,000
Quebecers who "are or have been victims of lung, larynx or
throat cancer, or that suffer from emphysema, after inhaling
cigarette smoke over a prolonged period in Quebec."

Ms. Letourneau, on the other hand, is seeking to represent about
two million Quebecers who have been dependent on the nicotine
contained in cigarettes, and their heirs.

Both plaintiffs argue that Imperial Tobacco, Rothmans, Benson &
Hedges and JTI-MacDonald knew about the inherent risks of their
product yet sold it to Canadians, causing them to become
addicted.

In its statement of claim, the council also argued that the
tobacco manufacturers underestimated for many years evidence
about the harmful effects of tobacco, made false and misleading
information about it, and destroyed documents.

However, Christina Dona, a spokeswoman for Imperial Tobacco
stated in an interview with the Canadian Press that the suits
fail to meet the specific requirements under Quebec law. She
further states, "We feel it is unfounded and fails to meet the
criteria in order to justify it proceeding."

The suits are the first proposed class actions against Canadian
tobacco manufacturers to reach this stage in Quebec. A total of
six tobacco class action suits have been filed in Canada. Five
are before the Courts, including a case argued last week in a
British Columbia Court.


CANADA: Saskatoon Judge Hears Arguments in Canola Farmer's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A judge in Saskatoon is hearing arguments in a lawsuit by
Saskatchewan organic farmers who have lost access to the
European organic canola market, due to decline of organic canola
production in the area because of cross-pollination from
Monsanto and Bayer Crop Science's genetically modified (GM)
canola, CBC Saskatchewan reports.

The farmers are pushing to have their lawsuit against the
agricultural chemical companies certified as a class action,
claiming to represent all organic grain farmers.

However, Trish Jordan of Monsanto says the case doesn't meet the
criteria for a class action and that the evidence doesn't
support the claim of widespread hurt among organic farmers. She
adds, "They're trying to put the argument forward that if GM
canola hadn't been introduced, we would have grown more. I don't
really think the facts support that, either. All you have to do
is look at Europe where there were no GM crops under cultivation
and the acreage of organic canola is negligible. It's very
similar to what's here in Saskatchewan."

Legal experts predict arguments will likely wind up Wednesday,
but a decision isn't expected for several months.


CHIRON CORPORATION: Stock Suits Filed On Flu Vaccine Suspension
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chiron Corporation and certain of its officers face several
securities class actions alleging that they violated certain
provisions of the federal securities laws by making false
statements preceding the suspension of its license to distribute
Fluvirin, its vaccine against flu.

The U.K. regulatory body, the Medicines and Healthcare products
Regulatory Agency (the "MHRA"), sent the Company a letter
prohibiting it from releasing any Fluvirin doses manufactured at
the Company's Liverpool facility since March 2, 2004.  In that
letter, the MHRA asserted that the Company's manufacturing
process did not comply with U.K. good manufacturing practices
regulations.  In addition to prohibiting release of existing
Fluvirin doses, the MHRA letter also suspended its license to
manufacture influenza virus vaccine in the Company's Liverpool
facility for three months.  Following its own investigation, the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, announced that it
would not permit release of any Fluvirin from the Company's
Liverpool facility into the United States.

On October 12, 2004, Richard Gregory, on behalf of purchasers of
the publicly traded securities of Chiron between January 12,
2004 and October 4, 2004, filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
seeking damages.

On October 13, 2004, Raphael Nach, on behalf of purchasers of
publicly-traded Chiron securities between July 23, 2004 and
October 5, 2004, filed a class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.  The
suit also seeks damages.

On October 14, 2004, Jerome Fisher, on behalf of purchasers of
the publicly-traded securities of Chiron between January 12,
2004 and October 13, 2004, filed a class action in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,
making similar allegations as the above mentioned suits.  On
October 19, 2004, Gerald Kramer, on behalf of purchasers of the
publicly-traded securities of Chiron between July 23, 2003 and
October 5, 2004, filed a similar class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.


CITIGROUP INC.: Plans To Dispute NASD Arbitration Panel's Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. plans to challenge the decision of the
arbitration panel of the National Association of Securities
Dealers (NASD) that ordered one of its units to restore part of
the losses of a former WorldCom employee whose stock options
became worthless when the Company declared bankruptcy in 2002,
according to a story in the Wall Street Journal, the Associated
Press reports.

NASD, which is the brokerage industry's self-policing
organization, made the ruling last week against Citigroup Global
Markets, formerly called Salomon Smith Barney. Although there
was no award of punitive damages, the panel did order the
Citigroup division to pay the former employee, Linda Naples,
$75,000 of her $600,000 claim against it.

WorldCom, which had filed the largest corporate bankruptcy in
U.S. history on July 2002 amid revelations of accounting
irregularities, would later emerged from bankruptcy Court
protection in April under the name MCI Inc.

According to the Wall Street Journal story, the ruling could
have significant implications for thousands of Worldcom
employees who sustained similar losses and for future
arbitration proceedings involving other big companies embroiled
in accounting scandals and bankruptcies.

In its decision, the NASD panel stated that Citigroup Global
Markets breached its fiduciary duty to the WorldCom employee by
virtue of its problematically close ties with WorldCom and top
executives of the telecom giant and that in addition, Salomon
Smith Barney was the administrator of WorldCom's stock options
program.

Upon reaching the decision, Citigroup, which in May agreed to
pay $2.65 billion to settle a lawsuit by WorldCom investors in
one of the biggest class-action settlements to date, said it
planned a legal challenge in federal Court since Ms. Naples
didn't rely on Salomon Smith Barney for investment advice and
her WorldCom stock options were held in an account with Merrill
Lynch, not Salomon Smith Barney. The panel though rejected the
part of Ms. Naples' claim that was against Merrill Lynch.


COLUMBIA NATURAL: Trial in WV Gas Royalties Suit Set July 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Columbia Natural
Resources is set for July 5,2005 in West Virginia State Court.

The Plaintiffs, who are royalty owners, filed a lawsuit in early
2003 against the Company alleging that the Company underpaid
royalties by improperly deducting post-production costs and not
paying a fair value for the gas produced from their leases.
Plaintiffs seek the alleged royalty underpayment and punitive
damages claiming that the Company fraudulently concealed the
deduction of post-production charges.

In February 2004, the Court certified the case as a class action
that includes any person who, after January 1, 1980, received or
is due royalties from Columbia Natural Resources (and its
predecessors or successors) on lands lying within the boundary
of the State of West Virginia.  All individuals, corporations,
agencies, departments or instrumentalities of the United States
of America are excepted from the class.

The Company appealed the decision certifying the class and the
Supreme Court of West Virginia denied the appeal.  Members of
the class had until October 15, 2004 to opt out; the list of
class members is now being prepared by the Special Master.


FLORIDA: Sick Smokers Urge High Court To Restore $145M Verdict
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida's sick smokers, who were given a $145 billion class-
action award by an American jury urged the state's highest Court
to punish the tobacco industry for "fraud and deceit" by
restoring the said award, the Naples Daily News reports.

Stanley Rosenblatt, the smokers' lawyers told the Florida
Supreme Court that it should reduce the amount if the justices
think it is too large, as long as they also reverse an appellate
Court decision that overturned the Miami verdict and punitive
judgment. Mr. Rosenblatt along with his wife, Susan, shepherded
the case, which accused the tobacco industry of misleading
people about the dangers of smoking, through the two-year trial
and a pair of appeals to the 3rd District Court of Appeal in
Miami. The husband-and-wife legal team won the first appeal,
which certified the case as a class action on behalf of an
estimated 300,000 to 700,000 ill Floridians. However, after the
trial, the appellate Court ruled that certification was a
mistake and thus tossed the award.

In defense of the tobacco industry, attorney Elliott Scherker
told the justices, "This case exemplifies the chaos that can
result from improperly certified class actions." He further
argued that it was improper because every smoker is affected
differently and should have to file a separate lawsuit instead
of trying one case covering them all.

The Rosenblatts, however, pointed out that those differences
could be resolved without disturbing the class-action verdict by
holding short proceedings to determine medical costs and other
compensatory damages instead of retrying issues common to each
case thousands of times.

During the hearing only six of the seven justices heard the case
with Justice Raoul Cantero being the absentee for unknown
reasons. Legal experts explain that the high Court typically
takes several months to rule on a case so no immediate decision
on the case can be reached with in this year.


GEORGIA: Clinch County Jail Prisoners Lodge Suit V. $18 Jail Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two former prisoners at the Clinch County Jail in Georgia
initiated a federal lawsuit seeking class-action status against
the county's practice of charging people $18 a day for room and
board while they are incarcerated and awaiting trial, the
Associated Press reports.

According to the former prisoners, to be released, they must pay
the money or sign an agreement to pay over time. If they fail to
make the payments, they can be returned to jail.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Valdosta
on behalf of all current and former inmates who have had to pay
the jail fees, contends the southeast Georgia county's sheriff
has no authority to charge such fees to people who have yet to
be convicted of a crime. The suit also stated that most of the
inmates are too poor to pay the fees.

The suit, which was filed on the inmates' behalf by the Atlanta
law firm King & Spalding and the Southern Center for Human
Rights is also seeking to have the county return all room-and-
board fees it has collected from inmates.

Courtland Reichman, one of the inmates' lawyers described the
jail as being similar to a debtor's prison. He also stated,
"They charge people who have not been convicted of a crime and
are presumed innocent and threaten to throw them back in jail if
they don't pay. This is simply an abuse of authority and
something that needs to be stopped."

However, Sheriff Winston Peterson defended the county practice
by pointing out that it has been charging jail costs since
before he took office 16 years ago and that "It's not illegal,
or it shouldn't be. The taxpayer shouldn't have to cover the
costs of someone who done wrong. I don't think we're doing
anything wrong." The sheriff also said if inmates who had paid
jail costs were later acquitted or had the charges dismissed
against them, "we'd pay them back if we could find them."

The two plaintiffs in the case are Willie Floyd Williams Jr.,
41, of Homerville, Georgia, who was arrested in October 2003, on
charges of rape and aggravated child molestation and Mickle
Jermaine Jackson, 24, who was arrested on February 6 on charges
of rape and kidnapping.


GETANSWERS INC.: SEC Lodges Injunction V. VP Barrington Schneer
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated a civil
injunctive action against Barrington Schneer, the former vice-
president of corporate development of GetAnswers, Inc., an
Internet Company headquartered in Aventura, Florida.

The Commission's complaint alleges that from at least January
2001 through January 2003, Schneer and others raised
approximately $7.5 million from hundreds of investors
nationwide, primarily physicians, through an in-house boiler
room operation. The complaint further alleges that GetAnswers,
through its offering and marketing materials and/or sales
representatives, made numerous false representations and
omissions to investors relating to, among other things, the
experience of GetAnswers' president and chief executive officers
in starting successful Internet companies, GetAnswers'
affiliation with a college, the use of investor proceeds, the
safety and profitability of an investment in the Company, and
its compliance with all securities laws. The complaint charges
Schneer with violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c), and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

Previously, on Jan. 10, 2003, the Commission filed an emergency
civil injunctive action against GetAnswers and others (SEC v.
GetAnswers, Inc., et al., Case No. 03-20048-KING-O'SULLIVAN.
[FL-2888]). [SEC v. Barrington Schneer, Case No. 04-22743-CIV-
UNGARO-BENAGES/BROWN (S.D. Fla.] (LR-18955)


HENRY SCHEIN: Individual Claims Remain in TX Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Only individual claims remain in the lawsuit filed against Henry
Schein, Inc. and one of its subsidiaries in the District Court
in Travis County, Texas, styled "Shelly E. Stromboe and Jeanne
Taylor, on Behalf of Themselves and all others Similarly
Situated vs. Henry Schein, Inc., Easy Dental Systems, Inc. and
Dentisoft, Inc., Case No. 98-00886."

The petition alleges, among other things, negligence, breach of
contract, fraud, and violations of certain Texas commercial
statutes involving the sale of certain practice management
software products sold prior to 1998 under the Easy Dental name.

In October 1999, the trial Court, on motion, certified both a
Windows sub-class and a DOS sub-class to proceed as a class
action pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 42.  It is estimated that
approximately 5,000 Windows customers and approximately 10,000
DOS customers were covered by the class action that was
certified by the trial Court.

On September 14, 2000, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial
Court's certification order.  On January 5, 2001, the Company
filed a Petition for Review in the Texas Supreme Court.  On
October 31, 2002, the Texas Supreme Court issued an opinion in
the case finding that the trial Court's certification of the
case as a class action was improper.  The Texas Supreme Court
reversed the Court of Appeals' judgment in its entirety, and
remanded the case to the trial Court for further proceedings
consistent with its opinion.

On August 29, 2003, class counsel filed amended papers seeking
certification of an amended Windows class and an amended DOS
class.  The only claim asserted for class certification by the
Windows class was for the alleged breach of the implied warranty
of merchantability.  The only claims asserted for class
certification by the DOS class were for alleged violations of
the Texas Unsolicited Goods Statute and the Federal Unordered
Merchandise Act.

By Order dated December 10, 2003, the trial Court granted
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on the DOS Class
claims.  By granting summary judgment on the claims asserted on
behalf of the DOS class, the DOS motion for class certification
became moot because certain class claims asserted by the named
class representatives for the DOS class were found to be without
merit.

By Order dated January 13, 2004, the trial Court denied the
amended motion for class certification filed by the Windows
Class in its entirety.  The deadline for the Windows Class to
file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of the amended motion
for class certification was February 2, 2004.  No appeal was
filed on or before that date.  As a result of the favorable
rulings obtained in the trial Court, only certain individual
claims asserted on behalf of the named plaintiffs remain pending
in this case.  The remaining individual claims are currently set
for trial on February 28, 2005.


HENRY SCHEIN: Asks NJ Court To Grant Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. asked the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division, Morris County to grant summary judgment in its favor
in the class action styled "West Morris Pediatrics, P.A. and
Avenel-Iselin Medical Group, P.A. vs. Henry Schein, Inc., doing
business as Caligor, Case No. MRS-L-421-02."

The plaintiffs complaint purported to be on behalf of a class of
all physicians, hospitals and other healthcare providers
throughout New Jersey and across the United States who purchased
influenza vaccine from Caligor in 2001.  This complaint, as
amended in August 2002, alleges, among other things:

     (1) breach of oral contract,

     (2) breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
         dealing,

     (3) violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,

     (4) unjust enrichment,

     (5) conversion, and

     (6) promissory estoppel

In September 2004, the Court issued a decision denying
certification of a class and striking the class allegations from
the complaint.  As a result, only the two named plaintiffs'
claims, which are de minimis, remain for adjudication.  The
Company filed motions for summary judgment dismissing those
claims, which motions are now pending.  It is possible that the
plaintiffs will appeal the denial of class certification and any
judgment in our favor on the summary judgment motions, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


JUNIPER NETWORKS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California's dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action against Juniper Networks, Inc. and
certain of its officers and former officers purportedly on
behalf of those stockholders who purchased the Company's
publicly traded securities between April 12, 2001 and June 7,
2001.

The Court has appointed the lead plaintiffs and approved their
selection of lead counsel and a consolidated complaint was filed
in August 2002.  The plaintiffs allege that the defendants made
false and misleading statements, assert claims for violations of
the federal securities laws and seek unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

In September 2002, the defendants moved to dismiss the
consolidated complaint.  In March 2003, the Court granted
defendants motion to dismiss with leave to amend.  The
plaintiffs filed their amended complaint in April 2003 and the
defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint in May 2003.
The hearing on defendants' motion to dismiss was held in
September 2003.

In March 2004, the Court granted defendants motion to dismiss,
without leave to amend.  In April 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal.  Plaintiffs' opening appellate brief was filed
in August 2004.  Defendant's opposition brief is due in
November 2004.


LERNOUT & HAUSPIE: Suit Settlement Hearing Set December 20, 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts will hold a fairness hearing for the settlement of
the securities class action, In re Lernout & Hauspie Securities
Litigation, Case No. 00-CV-11589 (PBS) on behalf of all persons
or entities who purchased the common stock of Lernout & Hauspie
Speech Products N.V. ("L&H") on the NASDAQ Stock Market or
purchased L&H call options or sold L&H put options on any United
States-based options exchange between April 28, 1998 and
November 9, 2000, inclusive (the "Class Period") and who were
damaged thereby (the "Class").

The settlement fairness hearing is scheduled for December 20,
2004 at 4:00 p.m., before the Honorable John Joseph Moakley in
the United States Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA
02210.

For more details, contact Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. of BERMAN
DEVALERIO PEASE TABACCO BURT & PUCILLO by Mail: One Liberty
Square, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 516-9926 or visit their
Web site: http://www.bermanesq.comOR Patrick L. Rocco, Esq. of
SHALOV STONE & BONNER LLP by Mail: 485 Seventh Avenue, Suite
1000, New York, NY 10018 by Phone: (212) 239-4340 or visit their
Web site: http://www.lawssb.comOR S. Gene Cauley, Esq. of
CAULEY BOWMAN CARNEY & WILLIAMS, PLLC by Mail: P.O. Box 25438,
Little Rock, AR 72221 by Phone: (501) 312-8505 or visit their
Web site: http://www.cauleybowman.comOR visit the Settlement
Web site: http://www.lernouthauspiesettlement.com/


MARATHON ASHLAND: WV Residents Lodge Suit Over Chemical Spill
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four Huntington residents have initiated a lawsuit seeking class
action status in Wayne County Circuit Court against Marathon
Ashland Petroleum and TechSol Chemical Co. over last week's
chemical leak, which sought to have the two companies create a
reimbursement fund to pay for evacuation costs and to fund an
independent study to determine if their neighborhood is safe,
the Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed by Charleston lawyers Brian
Glasser, H.F. Salsbery and Deirdre Purdy on behalf of Gary
Beckett, Ronald Bush, Deborah Gavazzi and Michelle Hardwick,
alleges that both Companies have not taken the necessary steps
to protect the community from the chemicals that leaked, which
included oil, benzene, toluene, xylene, naphthalene, indene, and
z-methylnapthalene. The suit, which seeks to represent other
families forced to evacuate states that ingestion of the
chemicals or inhalation of the vapors can be hazardous to human
health.

The spill occurred last Thursday at TechSol Chemical, as workers
were about to transfer coal tar distillates containing toluene,
benzene, xylene and styrene to a railroad tanker for shipment to
a Marathon Ashland Petroleum Refinery near Catlettsburg,
Kentucky. According to one TechSol employee, an apparently
defective valve was the likely cause of the accident. As the
leak ensued, people living in about 500 homes were forced to
evacuate.

The lawsuit also alleges that the TechSol facility avoided
effective controls for transferring chemicals to save money, and
that Marathon Ashland officials allegedly were "aware of
TechSol's shoddy practices or inadequate facilities, but allowed
TechSol to continue to operate this way to enrich themselves at
the risk of the nearby community."

Furthermore, the suit is also asking the Court to force the
companies to "pay for independent experts to evaluate
alternative technologies that will make this operation safer,"
and it seeks punitive damages as well as damages to fund medical
monitoring.


MEDCO HEALTH: PA Court Refuses To Dismiss Drug Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania refused to dismiss the class action filed against
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., styled "Brady Enterprises, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al."

The plaintiffs, which seek to represent a national class of
retail pharmacies that have contracted with the Company, allege
that the Company has conspired with, acted as the common agent
for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to
restrain competition in the market for the dispensing and sale
of prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs allege that, through the
alleged conspiracy, the Company has engaged in various forms of
anticompetitive conduct, including, among other things, setting
artificially low reimbursement rates to such pharmacies. The
plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.


MEDCO HEALTH: AL Court Refuses To Dismiss Drug Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama refused to dismiss a class action filed against Medco
Health Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Co., styled "North Jackson
Pharmacy, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al."

The plaintiffs seek to represent a national class of independent
retail pharmacies that have contracted with the Company. In
February 2004, Merck and the Company filed motions to dismiss
the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  However, prior to ruling on
the motions, the Court granted the plaintiffs permission to file
a second amended complaint, which the plaintiffs filed on July
23, 2004.

In their Second Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
the plaintiffs allege that Merck and the Company have engaged in
price fixing and other unlawful concerted actions with others,
including other PBMs, to restrain trade in the dispensing and
sale of prescription drugs to customers of retail pharmacies who
participate in programs or plans that pay for all or part of the
drugs dispensed, and have conspired with, acted as the common
agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan
sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the
dispensing and sale of prescription drugs.

The plaintiffs allege that, through such concerted action, Merck
and the Company have engaged in various forms of anticompetitive
conduct, including, among other things, setting reimbursement
rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels.  The
plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.


MEDCO HEALTH: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Unfair Practices Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and Merck & Co. asked the Superior
Court of California to dismiss the class action filed against
them, styled "Alameda Drug Company, Inc., et al. v. Medco Health
Solutions, Inc., et al."

The plaintiffs, which seek to represent a class of all
California pharmacies that have contracted with the Company and
that have indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck,
allege, among other things, that since the expiration of a 1995
consent injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, if not earlier, the Company has
failed to maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the consent
injunction), and that the Company and Merck have failed to
prevent nonpublic information received from competitors of Merck
and the Company from being disclosed to each other.

The plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of these alleged
practices, the Company has been able to increase its market
share and artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the
retail pharmacy class members, and that the prices of
prescription drugs from Merck and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers that do business with the Company have been fixed
and raised above competitive levels.

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California
antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business
practices.  The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully
obtained profits, and injunctive relief.

In April 2004, Merck and the Company filed motions to dismiss
the complaint. On September 2, 2004, the Court ruled in Merck
and the Company's favor, but granted the plaintiff permission to
amend its complaint. On September 17, 2004, the plaintiff filed
its Amended Complaint. In its Amended Complaint, the plaintiff
repeats many of the same allegations made in the original
Complaint, and further alleges, among other things, that the
Company acts as a purchasing agent for its plan sponsor
customers, resulting in a system that serves to suppress
competition.  On October 22, 2004, Merck and the Company filed
motions to dismiss the Amended Complaint.


MERCK-MEDCO MANAGED: Appeals Pending V. ERISA Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two appeals are pending against the settlement of the
consolidated shareholder class actions filed against Merck-Medco
Managed Care, LLC in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.

On December 17, 1997, a lawsuit captioned "Gruer v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C." was filed, alleging that the Company
should be treated as a "fiduciary" under the provisions of
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and that the
Company has breached fiduciary obligations under ERISA in
connection with the Company's development and implementation of
formularies, preferred drug listings and intervention programs.

After the Gruer case was filed, six other cases were filed in
the same Court asserting similar claims; one of these cases was
voluntarily dismissed.  The plaintiffs in these cases, who are
individual plan members and claim to represent the interests of
six different pharmaceutical benefit plans for which the Company
is the pharmaceutical benefit manager (PBM), contend that, in
accepting and retaining certain rebates, the Company has failed
to make adequate disclosure and has acted in the Company's own
best interest and against the interests of the Company's
clients.

The plaintiffs also allege the Company was wrongly used to
increase the Company's market share, claiming that under ERISA
the Company's drug formulary choices and therapeutic interchange
programs were "prohibited transactions" that favor its products.
The plaintiffs have demanded that the Company turn over any
unlawfully obtained profits to a trust to be set up for the
benefit plans.

In December 2002, the Company agreed to settle the Gruer series
of lawsuits on a class action basis to avoid the significant
cost and distraction of protracted litigation.  The Company and
the plaintiffs in five of these six cases filed a proposed class
action settlement with the Court.  On May 25, 2004, the Court
granted final approval to the settlement, ruling, among other
things, that the settlement was fair, reasonable, and adequate
to members of the settlement class.  On June 28, 2004, the Court
entered a Final Judgment dismissing the class actions with
prejudice.

Under the settlement, Merck and the Company have agreed to pay
$42.5 million, and the Company has agreed to change or
to continue certain specified business practices for a period of
five years.  In September 2003, the Company paid $38.3 million
to an escrow account, representing the Company's portion, or
90%, of the proposed settlement.  If the settlement becomes
final, it would resolve litigation by pharmaceutical benefit
plans against Merck and the Company based on ERISA and similar
claims, except with respect to those plans that affirmatively
opt out of the settlement.

The plaintiff in the sixth case discussed above, Blumenthal v.
Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., et al. has elected to opt out
of the settlement.  The release of claims under the settlement
applies to plans for which the Company has administered a
pharmacy benefit at any time between December 17, 1994 and the
date of final approval.  It does not involve the release of any
potential antitrust claims.  The settlement becomes final only
after all appeals have been exhausted.

Similar ERISA-based complaints against the Company and Merck
were filed in eight additional actions by ERISA plan
participants, purportedly on behalf of their plans, and, in some
of the actions, similarly situated self-funded plans.  The
complaints in these actions relied on many of the same
allegations as the Gruer series of lawsuits discussed
above.  The ERISA plans themselves, which were not parties to
these lawsuits, have elected to participate in the settlement
discussed above. Under the Final Judgment discussed above, the
Court dismissed seven of these actions.

On May 21, 2004, however, the Court granted the plaintiff in the
other action, Betty Jo Jones v. Merck-Medco Managed Care,
L.L.C., et al. permission to file a second amended complaint.
In her Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiff in the Jones
action seeks to represent a class of all participants and
beneficiaries of ERISA plans that required such participants to
pay a percentage co-payment on prescription drugs.  The effect
of the release under the settlement discussed above on the Jones
action has not yet been litigated.

In addition, a proposed class action complaint against Merck and
the Company has been filed by trustees of another benefit plan,
the United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 1529 and
Employers Health and Welfare Plan Trust, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. This plan has
elected to opt out of the settlement.  The United Food action
has been transferred and consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York by order of the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

On April 2, 2003, a lawsuit captioned Peabody Energy Corporation
v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.  The
complaint, filed by one of the Company's former clients, relies
on allegations similar to those in the ERISA cases discussed
above, in addition to allegations relating specifically to
Peabody, which has elected to opt out of the settlement
described above.

The complaint asserts that the Company breached fiduciary duties
under ERISA, violated a New Jersey consumer protection law,
improperly induced the client into contracting with the Company,
and breached the resulting agreement.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory, punitive and treble damages, as well as rescission
and restitution of revenues that were allegedly improperly
received by the Company. On October 28, 2003, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to be
consolidated with the ERISA cases pending against the Company in
that Court.

On December 23, 2003, Peabody filed a similar action against
Merck in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri. The complaint relies on allegations similar to those
in the ERISA cases discussed above and in the case filed by
Peabody against the Company.  The complaint asserts claims that
Merck violated federal and state racketeering laws, tortiously
interfered with Peabody's contract with the Company, and was
unjustly enriched.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages of approximately $35 million, treble
damages, and restitution of revenues that were allegedly
improperly received by Merck.  On August 5, 2004, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to be
consolidated with the ERISA cases pending against Merck and the
Company in that Court.

On March 17, 2003, a lawsuit captioned American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees v. AdvancePCS et al. based
on allegations similar to those in the ERISA cases discussed
above, was filed against the Company and other major PBMs in the
Superior Court of California. The theory of liability in this
action is based on a California law prohibiting unfair business
practices. The plaintiff, which purports to sue on behalf of
itself, California non-ERISA health plans, and all individual
participants in such plans, seeks injunctive relief and
disgorgement of revenues that were allegedly improperly received
by the Company.

On June 11, 2002, a lawsuit captioned Miles v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C., based on allegations similar to those in
the ERISA cases discussed above, was filed against Merck and the
Company in the Superior Court of California. The theory of
liability in this action is based on a California law
prohibiting unfair business practices. The plaintiff, who
purports to sue on behalf of the general public of California,
seeks injunctive relief and disgorgement of the revenues that
were allegedly improperly received by Merck and the Company. The
Miles case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California and, pursuant to the
Multidistrict Litigation order discussed above, was later
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York and consolidated with the ERISA cases pending
against Merck and the Company in that Court.


NAVISITE INC.: NY Court Mulls Approval For Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has briefed the motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Navisite, Inc., certain of its officers and its
underwriters, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On June 13, 2001, Stuart Werman and Lynn McFarlane filed a
lawsuit against the Company, BancBoston Robertson Stephens, an
underwriter of its initial public offering in October 1999, Joel
B. Rosen, its then chief executive officer, and Kenneth W. Hale,
its then chief financial officer.  The suit generally alleged
that the defendants violated federal securities laws by not
disclosing certain actions allegedly taken by Robertson Stephens
in connection with the Company's initial public offering.

The suit further alleged specifically that Robertson Stephens,
in exchange for the allocation to its customers of shares of the
Company's common stock sold in its initial public offering,
solicited and received from its customers' agreements to
purchase additional shares of the Company's common stock in the
aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The suit seeks
unspecified monetary damages and certification of a plaintiff
class consisting of all persons who acquired shares of the
Company's common stock between October 22, 1999 and December 6,
2000.

Three other substantially similar lawsuits were filed between
June 15, 2001 and July 10, 2001 by Moses Mayer (filed June 15,
2001), Barry Feldman (filed June 19, 2001), and Binh Nguyen
(filed July 10, 2001).  Robert E. Eisenberg, the Company's
president at the time of the initial public offering in 1999,
also was named as a defendant in the Nguyen lawsuit.

On June 21, 2001, David Federico filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York a lawsuit
against the Company, Mr. Rosen, Mr. Hale, Robertson Stephens and
other underwriter defendants including J.P. Morgan Chase, First
Albany Companies, Inc., Bank of America Securities, LLC, Bear
Stearns & Co., Inc., B.T. Alex. Brown, Inc., Chase Securities,
Inc., CIBC World Markets, Credit Suisse First Boston
Corporation, Dain Rauscher, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities,
Inc., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., J.P. Morgan & Co., J.P.
Morgan Securities, Lehman Brothers, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith, Inc., Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., Robert
Fleming, Inc. and Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The suit generally alleges the defendants violated the anti-
trust laws and the federal securities laws by conspiring and
agreeing to raise and increase the compensation received by the
underwriter defendants by requiring those who received
allocation of initial public offering stock to agree to purchase
shares of manipulated securities in the after-market of the
initial public offering at escalating price levels designed to
inflate the price of the manipulated stock, thus artificially
creating an appearance of demand and high prices for that stock,
and initial public offering stock in general, leading to further
stock offerings.

The suit also alleges the defendants arranged for the
underwriter defendants to receive undisclosed and excessive
brokerage commissions and that, as a consequence, the
underwriter defendants successfully increased investor interest
in the manipulated initial public offering of securities and
increased the underwriter defendants' individual and collective
underwritings, compensation, and revenue.

The suit further alleges that the defendants violated the
federal securities laws by issuing and selling securities
pursuant to the initial public offering without disclosing to
investors that the underwriter defendants in the offering,
including the lead underwriters, had solicited and received
excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain investors.
The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages and certification of
a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who acquired shares
of the Company's common stock between October 22, 1999 and June
12, 2001.

Those five cases, along with lawsuits naming more than 300 other
issuers and over 50 investment banks which have been sued in
substantially similar lawsuits, have been assigned to the
Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin for all pretrial purposes.  On
September 6, 2001, the Court entered an order consolidating the
five individual cases involving the Company and designating
"Werman v. NaviSite, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-5374,"
as the lead case.  A consolidated, amended complaint was filed
thereafter on April 19, 2002 on behalf of plaintiffs Arvid
Brandstrom and Tony Tse against underwriter defendants Robertson
Stephens (as successor-in-interest to BancBoston), BancBoston,
J.P. Morgan (as successor-in-interest to Hambrecht & Quist),
Hambrecht & Quist and First Albany and against the Company and
Mr. Rosen, Mr. Hale and Mr. Eisenberg (collectively, the
"NaviSite Defendants").

Plaintiffs uniformly allege that all defendants, including the
NaviSite Defendants, violated the federal securities laws (i.e.,
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5) by issuing and selling
the Company's common stock pursuant to the October 22, 1999,
initial public offering, without disclosing to investors that
some of the underwriters of the offering, including the lead
underwriters, had solicited and received extensive and
undisclosed agreements from certain investors to purchase
aftermarket shares at pre-arranged, escalating prices and also
to receive additional commissions and/or other compensation from
those investors.  At this time, plaintiffs have not specified
the amount of damages they are seeking in the suit.

Between July and September 2002, the parties to the IPO
Securities Litigation briefed motions to dismiss filed by the
underwriter defendants and the issuer defendants, including
NaviSite.  On November 1, 2002, the Court held oral argument on
the motions to dismiss.  The plaintiffs have since agreed to
dismiss the claims against Mr. Rosen, Mr. Hale and Mr. Eisenberg
without prejudice, in return for their agreement to toll any
statute of limitations applicable to those claims.

By stipulation entered by the Court on November 18, 2002, Mr.
Rosen, Mr. Hale and Mr. Eisenberg were dismissed without
prejudice from the Class Action Litigation.  On February 19,
2003, an opinion and order was issued on defendants' motion to
dismiss the IPO Securities Litigation, essentially denying the
motions to dismiss of all 55 underwriter defendants and of 185
of the 301 issuer defendants, including NaviSite.

On June 30, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors considered
and authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the
pending Class Action Litigation substantially consistent with a
memorandum of understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs,
the issuer defendants and the insurers for such issuer
defendants.  Among other contingencies, any such settlement
would be subject to approval by the Court.

Plaintiffs filed on June 14, 2004, a motion for preliminary
approval of the Stipulation And Agreement Of Settlement With
Defendant Issuers And Individuals. As of August 13, 2004, the
Preliminary Approval Motion has been fully briefed but the Court
has not ruled upon or set a date for oral argument, if any, on
the Preliminary Approval Motion.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Attains Favorable Rulings in OK Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------
Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. (NYSE: PPD) acquired favorable
developments in two lawsuits filed against the Company and
certain of its executive officers.

On June 29, 2001, an action was filed against Pre-Paid in the
District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma. The action was
originally a putative class action brought by former and current
sales associates. The amended petition, filed in 2002, seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief, with other damages, for
alleged violations of the Oklahoma Uniform Consumer Credit Code
in connection with Pre-Paid's commission advances, and seeks
injunctive and declaratory relief regarding the enforcement of
certain contract provisions with sales associates, including a
request for the imposition of a constructive trust as to earned
commissions applied to the reduction of debit balances and
disgorgement of all earned renewal commissions applied to the
reduction of debit balances. On September 23, 2003 the trial
Court entered an order dismissing the class action allegations
upon the motion of the plaintiffs. On December 4, 2003, Pre-Paid
filed a motion for summary judgment. On November 2, 2004, the
trial Court issued a Memorandum Order finding Pre-Paid's motion
for summary judgment to be meritorious and granting judgment in
favor of Pre-Paid on all claims.

"Subject to plaintiffs' right to pursue an appeal, this order
ends this lawsuit," stated Pre-Paid Chairman and CEO Harland C.
Stonecipher.

Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit issued a ruling on October 26, 2004 denying an
Interlocutory Appeal filed by putative class action plaintiffs,
thereby affirming the trial Court's earlier ruling denying class
certification. On March 1, 2002, an action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma by five individuals against the Company and certain
executive officers. This action is a putative class action
seeking unspecified damages purportedly filed on behalf of sales
associates of the Company and alleges that the marketing plan
offered by the Company constitutes a security under the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks remedies for failure to
register the marketing plan as a security and for violations of
the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 in
connection with representations alleged to have been made in
connection with the marketing plan. The complaint also alleges
violations of the Oklahoma Securities Act, the Oklahoma Business
Opportunities Sales Act, unjust enrichment and violation of the
Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act. On September 8, 2004, the
trial Court issued its ruling denying class certification on
multiple grounds. "Although the case may still proceed in the
trial Court on the individual plaintiffs' claims, the appellate
Court's denial of the interlocutory appeal indicates the class
action case is closed," stated CEO Stonecipher.

"Pre-Paid is certainly pleased with these recent developments,"
stated Pre-Paid Chairman and CEO Harland C. Stonecipher. "These
rulings, along with other recent favorable litigation
developments in Mississippi, continue to set the tone for Pre-
Paid in litigation matters and will continue to push Pre-Paid
forward."


SCHNEIDER ELECTRONIC: Recalls 700T AFCIs Due To Fire Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------
Schneider Electric North American Division, of Palatine,
Illinois is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 700,000 Arc
Fault Circuit Interrupters (AFCI).

An AFCI is an electrical circuit protection device (circuit
breaker) that detects electrical arcs from cracked, broken or
damaged electrical insulation and shuts off power to the circuit
before the arcing leads to a fire. An electronic component
failure inside the AFCIs can cause the devices to not detect an
electrical arc. Although the AFCIs will function as regular
circuit breakers, they may not detect an arc fault, posing a
safety risk to consumers. Schneider Electric is investigating
one reported fire during a new home construction that may be
related to this problem. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled Square D QOr and Homeliner Arc Fault Interrupter
circuit breakers are used with 15- and 20-amp branch circuits.
They are required to be installed in bedroom circuits in
accordance with the 2002 National Electrical Code. The recalled
units were manufactured after March 1, 2004, and have a blue
test button. The AFCI circuit breakers have one of the following
date codes - CN, DN, EN, FN, GN, HN, or JN - stamped in red on
the breaker label located just above the wiring terminal. The
recalled units also have one of the following catalog numbers
printed on a label on the front of the breaker: QO115AFI,
QO115AFIC, QO120AFI, QO120AFIC, QOB115AFI, QOB120AFI, HOM115AFI,
HOM115AFIC, HOM120AFI, HOM120AFIC, QO115VHAFI, QO120VHAFI,
QOB115VHAFI, or QOB120VHAFI.

Manufactured in Mexico, the device were sold at all electrical
distributors and retailers between March 2004 and September 2004
for between $30 and $130.

Installed AFCIs will be replaced free of charge through
electrical contractors. Consumers can return uninstalled AFCIs
to the retailers or distributor from whom the unit was purchased
for a free replacement unit.

Consumer Contact: Consumer should call Schneider Electric toll-
free at (877) 202-9046 between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or log on to the Company's Website at
http://www.us.squared.com/recall/AFCI


TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Seek Certification of HMO Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff intends to ask the Los Angeles County Superior Court
in California to grant class certification to a coordinated
proceeding against Tenet Healthcare Corporation regarding the
pricing of pharmaceuticals and other products and services at
hospitals owned and operated by the Company's subsidiaries.  The
proceeding is entitled "Tenet Healthcare Cases II, J.C.C.P. No.
4289."

Several suits were initially filed, namely:

     (1) Bishop v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. 2002-074408
         (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, filed
         December 2, 2002);

     (2) Castro v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. C03-00460
         (Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa,
          filed February 24, 2003);

     (3) Colon v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 290360
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed February 13, 2003);

     (4) Congress of California Seniors v. Tenet Healthcare
         Corp., Case No. BC 287130 (Superior Court of
         California, County of Los Angeles, filed December 17,
         2002);

     (5) Delgadillo v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC
         290056 (Superior Court of California, County of Los
         Angeles, filed February 7, 2003);

     (6) Geller v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 292641
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed March 21, 2003);

     (7) Jervis v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 289522
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed January 30, 2003);

     (8) Moran v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. CV 030070
         (Superior Court of California, County of San Luis
         Obispo, filed February 5, 2003);

     (9) Plocher v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 293236
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed April 2, 2003);

    (10) Vargas v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 291303
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed March 3, 2003);

    (11) Walker v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 03082281
         (Superior Court of California, County of Alameda, filed
         February 7, 2003);

    (12) Watson v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. 147593
         (Superior Court of California, County of Shasta, filed
         December 20, 2002); and

    (13) Yslas v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., Case No. BC 289356
         (Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
         filed January 28, 2003)

On December 24, 2003, after the Court overruled most of the
Company's demurrers to plaintiffs' First Amended and
Consolidated Complaint, plaintiffs in the coordinated California
action filed a Second Amended and Consolidated Class Action and
Representative Complaint against the Company and all of its
California hospitals on behalf of plaintiffs and a purported
class consisting of certain uninsured, self-insured and Medicare
patients who allegedly paid excessive or unfair prices for
prescription drugs or medical products or procedures at
hospitals or other medical facilities owned by the Company or
its subsidiaries.

The complaint asserts claims for violation of California's
unfair competition law, violation of California's Consumers'
Legal Remedies Act, breach of contract, breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment.
Plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Company from continuing the
alleged unfair pricing policies and practices, and to recover
all sums wrongfully obtained by those policies and practices,
including compensatory damages, punitive damages, restitution,
disgorgement of profits, treble damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On January 20, 2004, the Company answered the Second Amended and
Consolidated Complaint and filed counterclaims against the
majority of the named plaintiffs for failure to pay the
outstanding balances on their respective patient bills.  The
case is currently in the class discovery phase.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation intends to ask the Circuit Court in
Memphis Tennessee to dismiss the class action filed against it,
styled "Wade v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation, et al., No. Ct-
000250-03."

The complaint asserts claims for violation of the Tennessee
Consumer Protection Act, unjust enrichment, fraudulent
concealment, declaratory relief and breach of contract.  These
claims are based on allegations that the Company excessively
inflated its charges for medical products, medical services and
prescription drugs at the Company's hospitals.  Plaintiffs seek
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and
equitable and other relief.

On April 28, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On November 13, 2003, the Court accepted the
Company's challenges to the sufficiency of the complaint and
granted plaintiffs leave to amend to allege certain matters with
more specificity.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on
March 12, 2004.  The Company also plans to file a motion for
summary judgment for the amended suit.


TENET HEALTHCARE: LA Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana refused
to dismiss the consolidated class action filed against Tenet
Healthcare Corporation, alleging violations of state consumer
protection law.

The first suit was styled "Jordan, et al. v. Tenet Healthcare
Corp., et al., No 591 374."  The suit alleged that the seven
Louisiana hospitals owned by the Company's subsidiaries charged
excessive amounts for prescription drugs, medical services and
medical products.  The complaint asserted claims for violation
of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection
Law, and sought on behalf of the alleged class an accounting,
injunctive relief, restitution, compensatory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The Jordan action was dismissed with
prejudice by the Court due to statute of limitations grounds.

A nearly identical action, styled "Wright v. Tenet Healthcare
Corp., et al., No. 2003 6262, Civil District Court,
Orleans Parish," was filed on April 22, 2003.  The Court granted
defendant's exception to the Wright complaint for failure to
state a cause of action and gave plaintiff 30 days to amend her
petition.  On November 14, 2003, plaintiff filed an amended
petition, alleging claims against the Company under the
Louisiana Unfair Practices Act, as well as claims for unjust
enrichment, fraud and misrepresentation.

A third class action was filed in Louisiana on May 5, 2003,
entitled "Miranda v. Tenet Louisiana, Tenet Healthcare Corp.,
No. 03 6893," Civil District Court, Orleans Parish. The class
action complaint, filed on behalf of all uninsured and partially
insured residents of Louisiana who were treated at hospitals
affiliated with the Company in Louisiana since February 1, 1999,
alleges that the hospitals charged excessive prices for health
care and pharmaceuticals.  Plaintiff asserts claims for unjust
enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, fraud and
misrepresentation, and breach of contract, and seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
equitable, injunctive and other relief.

The Company filed exceptions seeking to have the complaint
dismissed.  Plaintiffs then moved to consolidate the remaining
two actions, and the Court granted the unopposed motion.


TENET HEALTHCARE: FL Court Mulls Dismissal of Consumer Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Broward County Court in Florida has yet to rule on Tenet
Healthcare Corporation's motion to dismiss the class action
filed against it, styled "Garcia v. Tenet Healthcare Corp., et
al., No. 03 008646 CA 18b, Broward County, Florida."

Plaintiffs allege, on behalf of themselves and a purported class
of uninsured and partially insured patients, that we and/or our
affiliated hospitals charged excessive and unlawful prices for
medical products, services and pharmaceuticals.  The complaint
alleges a violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act and also asserts claims for unfair competition and
unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, attorneys' fees, and
injunctive and other equitable relief.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, which was
heard on April 29, 2004.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Plaintiffs Appeal Summary Judgment in SC Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Court of Common Pleas, Sixth Judicial
Circuit, York County, South Carolina's ruling granting summary
judgment in favor of Tenet Healthcare Corporation in the class
action filed against it styled "Atherton v.
Tenet Healthcare Corp. & AMISUB of South Carolina, Case No.
03-CP-46-1688."

The amended complaint alleges, on behalf of plaintiffs and all
"uninsured or self-pay patients" treated at Piedmont Medical
Center in York County, South Carolina since January 1, 1997,
that the charges at Piedmont Medical Center are excessive and in
breach of a contract between York County and the defendant and
trustees of the hospital to limit charges at the hospital.  In
addition to this breach of contract claim, plaintiffs also have
alleged claims for unjust enrichment and implied contract for
value of goods and services received and seek compensatory and
punitive damages, injunctive and other relief.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims,
which was heard on March 1, 2004.  On March 29, 2004, the Court
granted the motion for summary judgment in its entirety as to
all claims asserted by plaintiff.  On May 10, 2004, plaintiffs
appealed the trial Court's summary judgment ruling to the Court
of Appeals of the State of South Carolina.  A decision in the
appeal is not expected until 2005.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Asks SC To Dismiss Uninsured Patients' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina to dismiss the class
action filed against it, styled "Grubb v. Tenet South Carolina,
Inc. d/b/a Hilton Head Regional Medical Center, East Cooper
Regional Medical Center and Piedmont Medical Center, No. 04-CP-
07-1660."

The suit was initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Fourteenth Judicial Circuit, Beaufort County on behalf of all
uninsured patients who received treatment from Tenet South
Carolina hospitals and were charged an undiscounted rate during
a period of three years prior to the commencement of the action,
and "uninsured patients who will receive medical treatment from
any of these hospitals in the future."

Plaintiff alleges three causes of action for breach of contract,
unjust enrichment, and declaratory and injunctive relief, and
seeks compensatory and other damages, restitution, an
injunction, attorneys' fees, and other relief.  The suit was
later removed to federal Court, where the Company filed a motion
to dismiss.

Two additional similar class actions were filed in the Court of
Common Pleas, Charleston County, South Carolina on October 7,
2004, entitled "Robert A. Singletary, Sr. v. Tenet HealthSystem
Medical, Inc., etc., No. 04-CP-10-4212," and "Allen Singletary,
Jr. v. Tenet HealthSystem Medical Inc., etc., No. 04-CP-10-
4211."

In each case, the plaintiffs purport to bring the action on
behalf of themselves and all other patients of the defendant who
did not receive a statutory discount to which plaintiffs and
class members were allegedly entitled under S.C. Code Ann. 38-
71-120.

More specifically, the "Allen Singletary" action is asserted on
behalf of uninsured patients who would be entitled to the
discount; the "Robert Singletary" case is asserted on behalf of
insured patients allegedly eligible for the discount.  These
lawsuits are virtually identical to actions that have been filed
against various hospitals throughout South Carolina.  The
construction of the state statute at issue will be a matter of
first impression.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Opposes Amended Unfair Practices Lawsuit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation filed preliminary objections to the
second amended class action filed against it in the Court of
Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, styled "Wright v. Tenet
Healthcare Corp., No. 002365."

The suit was filed on behalf of all Pennsylvania residents who
allegedly paid unlawful or unfair prices for prescription drugs
or medical products or procedures at hospitals or other medical
facilities owned by the Company and/or its subsidiaries.  The
complaint alleges causes of action for violation of the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of contract,
breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and
unjust enrichment, and seeks damages, restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the action on February 26,
2004.  In response, plaintiff filed an amended complaint and,
subsequently, filed a motion for leave to amend to add a new
plaintiff and several additional defendant entities.

Plaintiff's second amended complaint was filed on June 28, 2004.
The second amended complaint adds a new representative plaintiff
to the putative class and adds as defendants seven Philadelphia
hospitals that were affiliated with the Company during the
relevant time period and their parent corporation, Tenet
HealthSystem Philadelphia, Inc.  Plaintiffs voluntarily
dismissed from the case Tenet HealthSystem HealthCorp. and Tenet
HealthSystem Hospitals.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Patients Launch TX Unfair Trade Practices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation faces a class action filed in the
District Court of Harris County, Texas, styled "Fernandez v.
Park Plaza Hospital and Tenet Healthcare Corporation, No. 2004-
45486."

The suit was filed on behalf of a purported class of uninsured
patients and alleges causes of action for violation of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, breach of contract, unjust
enrichment, and breach of the duty of good faith and fair
dealing.  The complaint alleges that the defendants charge
uninsured patients unreasonable or unconscionable rates that are
significantly higher than those paid by insured patients for the
same services.  On behalf of the purported class, the plaintiff
seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, compensatory and
punitive damages, restitution and disgorgement, and attorneys'
fees.


TENET HEALTHCARE: CA Court Mulls Securities Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California will hear the motion for class certification of the
securities class action filed against Tenet Healthcare
Corporation and certain of its officers and directors on
November 22, 2004.

From November 2002 through January 2003, 20 securities class
action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California and the Southern District of New
York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
Company's securities during the various class periods specified
in the complaints.  All of these actions were later consolidated
under the above-listed case number in the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California.  The procedures of the
Private Securities Litigation Reform Act apply to these cases.

On February 10, 2003, the State of New Jersey was appointed lead
plaintiff in the consolidated actions and its counsel, the law
firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, was appointed as lead class
counsel.  On January 15, 2004, after the Court granted in
November 2003 defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first
amended complaint for failure to plead fraud with particularity,
plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint.

The named defendants are Tenet Healthcare Corporation, Jeffrey
Barbakow, David Dennis, Thomas Mackey, Raymond Mathiasen, Barry
Schochet and Christi Sulzbach.  The claims in the second amended
complaint are:

     (1) securities fraud under Section 10(b) of and Rule 10b-5
         under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,

     (2) control person liability pursuant to Section 20(a) of
         the Exchange Act,

     (3) insider trading under Section 10(b) of and Rule 10b-5
         under the Exchange Act,

     (4) making false statements in registration statements for
         the Company's debt offerings under Section 11 of the
         Securities Act of 1933, and

     (5) control person liability pursuant to Section 15 of the
         Securities Act.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company and the individual defendants
made or were responsible for false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's receipt of Medicare outlier payments
and allegedly medically unnecessary heart surgeries at its
hospital in Redding, California, Redding Medical Center.
Plaintiffs have not specified an amount of monetary damages.

Defendants' motions to dismiss were filed on March 1, 2004.  On
May 24, 2004, the Court heard, and denied, defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The matter will proceed with the following claims
against the following defendants:

     (i) securities fraud under Section 10(b) of and Rule 10b-5
         under the Exchange Act against the Company and
         defendants Barbakow, Dennis and Mackey,

    (ii) control person liability pursuant to Section 20(a) of
         the Exchange Act against defendants Barbakow, Dennis,
         Mackey, Mathiasen, Schochet and Sulzbach,

   (iii) insider trading under Section 10(b) of and Rule 10b-5
         under the Exchange Act against defendants Barbakow and
         Mackey, and

    (iv) making false statements in registration statements for
         the Company's debt offerings under Section 11 of the
         Securities Act and control person liability pursuant to
         Section 15 of the Securities Act against the Company
         and defendants Barbakow, Mackey, Dennis and Mathiasen.

On July 6, 2004, all defendants filed answers to the second
amended complaint denying all allegations of wrongdoing, setting
forth various affirmative defenses and denying any liability for
any and all of the causes of action set forth.  On October 13,
2004, the State of New Jersey filed a motion to certify the
class, which motion is scheduled for hearing on November 22,
2004.  In the meantime, discovery has commenced, and the Court
has set May 2, 2006 as the date the jury trial will begin.


TEXAS: Houston City Council OKs $79.5M Overtime Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Houston City Council has formally approved a $79.5 million
settlement with the city's 2,600 paramedics, thus ending a nine-
year legal battle, the Houston Chronicle reports.

Announced in September by Mayor Bill White, who said that the
city would settle the lawsuit rather than continue to appeal
unfavorable Court decisions, the settlement would be paid within
two years, primarily by borrowing money through judgment-
obligation bonds. The mayor also stated that the city could have
been ordered to pay as much as $116 million if it lost future
appeals, thus it decided to reach a settlement with the
paramedics.

According to the lawyer for the 2,600 paramedics, who are
plaintiffs in the class-action suit, his clients would receive
sums ranging from $500 to tens of thousands of dollars,
depending on how much overtime they worked without proper
compensation.

The lawsuit had originally challenged the city's formula for
determining when paramedics qualified for overtime payments. The
city claimed paramedics should earn overtime on the same basis
as firefighters, which meant they were not entitled to overtime
unless they worked more than 46.7 hours per week. The paramedics
and emergency medical technicians claimed they should be paid
overtime for any hours beyond 40 per week.

U.S. District Judge Lynn Hughes initially agreed with the city's
position, and in March 2000 he threw out the paramedics' claims.
However, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the
40-hour-per-week standard applied to paramedics and thus sent
the case back to Judge Hughes to determine what the paramedics
were owed.


TOMMY HILFIGER: Responds to U.S. Attorney's Office Investigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tommy Hilfiger Corporation (NYSE: TOM) recently stated that the
Company is taking several actions as a result of the previously
announced investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York:

     (1) The Company is providing documents and other
         information to the U.S. Attorney's Office in response
         to the investigation.

     (2) The Board of Directors of the Company has formed a
         Special Committee of independent directors, consisting
         of Clinton Silver, Mario Baeza, and Jerri DeVard, to
         conduct an independent investigation into matters
         arising out of the governmental investigation. The
         Special Committee has retained Debevoise & Plimpton LLP
         as legal counsel, with a team headed by Mary Jo White,
         former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District
         of New York.

     (3) The Company has retained FTI Consulting, Inc. to review
         the buying office commission rates paid by the
         Company's subsidiaries over time, and to report to the
         Board and the Special Committee its conclusions.

     (4) Pending these findings, the Company is delaying the
         release of its after-tax results for its second quarter
         of its fiscal year ending March 31, 2005 and the filing
         of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q, which is due on
         November 9, 2004.  PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, the
         Company's independent public accountants, has advised
         the Company that its review of the second quarter
         financial statements cannot be completed until after
         the Special Committee has substantially completed its
         review.

     (5) The Company has issued a separate press release today
         on its pretax results for the second quarter of fiscal
         2005, which includes an update on the Company's
         guidance with respect to its estimated operating
         results for fiscal 2005.

The delay in filing the financial information required in a Form
10-Q may result in the Company not being in compliance with its
financial filing covenants in its public debt indenture. The
Company expects to cure any non- compliance in a timely fashion,
and consequently expects that these securities will not become
due as a result of the filing delay. However, if an acceleration
of its public debt were to occur, the Company expects to use its
available cash and possible alternative financing sources to
satisfy its obligations. As of September 30, 2004, the Company
had cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments totaling
$428.9 million, and total indebtedness of $343.2 million.

In addition, the Company has initiated discussions with the
banks for the Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A., Inc. ("THUSA") credit
facility to seek to obtain waivers relating to possible breaches
or defaults that could otherwise arise under that facility as a
result of the delay in furnishing quarterly financial
information. As of September 30, 2004, the Company had used
$87.6 million of the available borrowings under the THUSA credit
facility to open letters of credit, but did not have any direct
borrowings outstanding under that facility.

In light of the delay in the filing of the Company's 10-Q, the
Company is providing an update on certain litigation matters in
this release:

On September 24, 2004, THUSA announced that it had received a
grand jury subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Southern District of New York seeking documents generally
related to domestic and/or international buying office
commissions since 1990 and that certain of THUSA's current and
former employees had received subpoenas. Several domestic and
international subsidiaries of the Company pay buying office
commissions to Tommy Hilfiger (Eastern Hemisphere) Limited
("THEH"), a British Virgin Islands corporation which is a
wholly-owned and consolidated subsidiary of the Company,
pursuant to contracts to provide or otherwise secure through
sub-agents certain services, including product development,
sourcing, production scheduling and quality control functions.
The Company understands that the U.S. Attorney's Office
investigation is focused on the appropriateness of the
commission rate paid by the Company's subsidiaries to THEH, as
well as other related tax matters, although there can be no
assurance that the scope of the investigation will not be
expanded. At this point, the Company cannot predict the timing
or outcome of the investigation, which may include the
institution of administrative, civil or criminal proceedings,
claims for back taxes and interest, the imposition of fines and
penalties, or other remedies and sanctions. The Company also
cannot predict what impact the inquiry may have on its business,
financial condition, results of operations, cash flow or
historical financial statements.

Following the Company's September 24th announcement,
approximately ten purported shareholder class action lawsuits
were filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York against the Company, as well as certain
current and former officers and directors of the Company. The
complaints allege that the value of the Company's stock was
inflated artificially by allegedly understating the Company's
tax liability and misrepresenting the Company's true effective
tax rate. The complaints further allege violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The various plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased Company common
stock between November 3, 1999 and September 24, 2004. No
substantive action has yet taken place in these cases. The
Company intends to defend itself vigorously against these
claims.


TROY GROUP: Orange County Court Dismisses Suits With Prejudice
--------------------------------------------------------------
TROY Group, Inc. (Nasdaq:TROY) revealed that the Orange County
Superior Court has dismissed the class action lawsuits by Osmium
Partners LLC, Ralph Hamer, Tilson Growth Fund, L.P., and Ray
Stanley.

The dismissal was with prejudice and there was no payment of
money to any of these plaintiffs or their counsel. TROY had
previously announced that the lawsuit by Roy Liedtkie had been
dismissed with prejudice as well. The dismissed actions against
TROY and its directors were seeking to enjoin the proposed
merger between TROY and Dirk, Inc.

"We have always contended that these lawsuits were without
merit, and these dismissals are vindication of that," said
Patrick J. Dirk, TROY's Chairman.

On May 26, 2004, TROY announced that it had entered into a
merger agreement with Dirk, Inc., a Company controlled by
Patrick Dirk, the founder of TROY, and his family members,
pursuant to which Mr. Dirk and his family will acquire the
outstanding shares of TROY common stock that they do not already
own at a price of $3.06 per share. The merger is subject to
approval by TROY stockholders as required under applicable state
law, to completion of financing arrangements necessary to
accomplish the merger, and to certain other closing conditions.


WILSONART INTERNATIONAL: Remains As Defendant in Laminates Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wilsonart International, Inc. is the sole remaining defendant in
the consolidated class action lawsuit filed in June 2000 in the
United States District Court in White Plains, New York on behalf
of purchasers of high-pressure laminates.

The complaint initially alleged that the Company and other firms
participated in a conspiracy with competitors to fix, raise,
maintain or stabilize prices for high-pressure laminates between
January 1, 1994 and June 30, 2000, and seeks injunctive relief
as well as treble damages and other costs associated with the
litigation.

Indirect purchasers of high-pressure laminates filed similar
purported class action cases under various state antitrust and
consumer protection statutes in Arizona, California, the
District of Columbia, Florida, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New
Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee,
West Virginia and Wisconsin.  All of the state cases have been
stayed, and certain plaintiffs have opted not to participate in
the class litigation.

These lawsuits were brought following the commencement of a
federal grand jury investigation of price-fixing in the high-
pressure laminate industry, which investigation was subsequently
closed by the Department of Justice with no further proceedings
and with all documents returned to the parties involved.

On April 30, 2004, the Company presented and argued its motion
for summary judgment in the consolidated class action lawsuit.
That motion was denied on September 7, 2004.  No trial date has
been set and discovery is continuing.

On April 29, 2004, International Paper Company, one of the
defendants in the consolidated class action case, received
preliminary approval of a settlement agreement with the
plaintiffs.  That settlement agreement, dated as of April 23,
2004 received final Court approval on July 14, 2004 and,
provides, among other things, for the payment to the class
members in the consolidated class actions of $31,000,000.

In addition, on July 14, 2004 the plaintiffs sought preliminary
approval of a settlement with Panolam International, Inc.,
another defendant in the case, for $9,500,000, which
settlement was approved at a hearing on September 30, 2004. As a
result of the International Paper and Panolam settlements and
the discharge of Formica Corporation through bankruptcy,
Wilsonart is the sole remaining defendant in the consolidated
class action lawsuit.


                          Asbestos Alert


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Financial Faces Injury Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Financial Group Inc, including its insurance Company
subsidiaries, and American Premier Underwriters Inc are parties
to litigation. These companies received claims asserting alleged
injuries and damages from asbestos and other hazardous and toxic
substances and have established loss accruals for such potential
liabilities.

AFG, a major insurance and financial services provider, said
that the ultimate loss for these claims may vary materially from
amounts currently recorded as the conditions surrounding
resolution of these claims continue to change.

In addition to AFG's potential exposure for asbestos and
environmental claims, they are also subject to mass tort claims,
which include lead, silica and various chemical exposures. In
2002 and 2001, they increased property and casualty reserves
relating to prior year's asbestos and environmental claims by a
total of $157 million. As of December 31, 2003, the aggregate
net reserves held by their insurance Company subsidiaries for
asbestos, environmental and mass tort claims was $423 million.
However, the Company acknowledges that legal precedents
regarding potential asbestos liabilities continue to evolve, and
adverse developments could impact their financial results.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PolyOne Corp Faces Asbestos Injury Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
PolyOne Corp, the world's largest polymer services Company, has
been named in various lawsuits involving multiple claimants and
defendants relating to asbestos exposure of workers,
contractors, or their families at the plants and ships of the
Company and its predecessors.

PolyOne has established reserves of about $2 million as of
September 30, 2004 for asbestos-related claims that are probable
and estimable. The Company believes the probability is remote
that losses in excess of the amounts it has accrued could
greatly affect its financial condition, results of operations,
or liquidity. This belief is based upon its ongoing assessment
of the strengths and weaknesses of the specific claims, its
defenses and insurance coverages available, including the
probability and magnitude of anticipated future claims.

Such assessment includes:

     (1) Whether the pleadings allege exposure to asbestos,
         asbestos-containing products or premises exposure;

     (2) The severity of the plaintiffs' alleged injuries,
         length and certainty of exposure on its premises, to
         the extent disclosed in the pleadings or identified
         through discovery;

     (3) Whether the named defendant was related to the Company
         manufactured or sold asbestos-containing products; and

     (4) The outcomes of cases recently resolved and the
         historical pattern of the number of claims.

If the underlying facts and circumstances change in the future,
the Company stated that it would modify its reserves, as
appropriate.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lone Star, Subsidiaries Named in Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
During the last five years, Steel, one of the principal
operating companies of Lone Star Technologies Inc., has been
named as one of a number of defendants in 39 lawsuits alleging
that certain individuals were exposed to asbestos on the
defendants' premises.

The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages. To date several
of these lawsuits have been settled for about $100,000. Of the
39 lawsuits, thirteen have been settled or are pending
settlement and ten have been dismissed or are pending dismissal.

Steel did not manufacture or distribute any products containing
asbestos. Some or all of these claims may not be covered by the
Company's insurance. The Company has accrued for the estimated
exposure to known claims, but does not know the extent to which
future claims may be filed. Therefore, the Company cannot
estimate its exposure, if any, to unasserted claims.

Beginning in 2003, Lone Star's subsidiary Zinklahoma, Inc.,
inactive since 1989, has been named as one of a number of
defendants in six lawsuits alleging that the plaintiffs had
contracted mesothelioma as the result of exposure to asbestos in
products manufactured by the defendants and John Zink Company.
Two of these lawsuits have been dismissed.

Lone Star acquired the stock of Zink in 1987 and, in 1989, sold
the assets of the former Zink to Koch Industries, Inc. and
renamed the now-inactive subsidiary Zinklahoma, Inc. Lone Star
retained, and agreed to indemnify Koch against, certain pre-
closing liabilities of Zink. It is Lone Star's understanding
that Zink never manufactured asbestos and primarily used it only
in certain purchased gaskets that were encapsulated in copper
and contained in burners and flares made by Zink prior to 1984,
when Zink ceased using asbestos-containing products entirely.

Koch continues to operate the business as John Zink Company,
LLC. In addition, Zink LLC has been named in nine lawsuits in
which the plaintiffs, one of whom has mesothelioma, allege
exposure to asbestos in Zink's products and three personal
injury lawsuits resulting from a 2001 explosion and flash fire
at a flare stack and crude unit atmospheric heater. Koch is
seeking indemnification from Lone Star with respect to these
twelve lawsuits. The costs of defending and settling the
lawsuits alleging exposure to asbestos in Zink's products have
been borne by Zink's insurance carrier.

Steel's workers' compensation insurance was with one insurance
carrier from 1992 through 2001. In March 2002, that carrier was
declared insolvent and placed in receivership. Since then, the
Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association has
been paying the insolvent carrier's obligations under those
insurance policies, as required by Texas law. TPCIGA asserted
that it was entitled to recover from Steel what it has paid and
will pay under those policies. Steel paid TPCIGA $1.9 million on
October 4, 2004 in full settlement and release of all past,
present, and future claims paid by TPCIGA under those policies.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Prosecution Seeks Maximum Penalty for AAR
--------------------------------------------------------------
In what has been called the largest environmental prosecution in
U.S. history, Alex Salvagno, one of the owners of AAR Contractor
of Latham, faces 79 years in prison, plus a $3.25 million fine,
while his father, Raul, could get up to 35 years and a $750,000
fine.

During a sentencing hearing for Alex and Raul Salvagno, who were
convicted in March for directing the asbestos cleanup scam,
federal attorneys offered expert testimony to convince U.S.
District Judge Howard Munson that the pair deserves the maximum
sentence.

Last week, Dr. Stephen Levin testified that about 100 people,
who worked for more than four years for the Salvagnos, are at
greatest risk and could die from asbestos exposure suffered in
cleanup jobs rushed by the Company. Many of those workers were
Korean immigrants, prosecutors said.

The doctor, an associate professor at Mt Sinai School of
Medicine, said, "Not to find significant asbestos-related
injuries among them 15, 20 or 25 years down the road would be a
great surprise."

AAR employees testified they were ordered to clean up as quickly
as possible, often by ripping out the insulating material from
ceilings, boiler rooms and around pipes without first wetting
it. That sent clouds of the dangerous material floating into the
air. These employees also said that they were discouraged from
wearing respiratory equipment.

To aggravate matters, it became known that Alex Salvagno was
said to secretly co-own the laboratory, Analytical Laboratories
of Albany, which was responsible to test the job sites but
instead faked up to 75,000 air samples.  Defense attorneys
argued that the doctor's estimation of the risk of working for
the Salvagnos is based on speculative science.

Dr. Levin carefully had laid out a formula during his testimony
to show how he arrived at the conclusion that nearly all of the
Company's asbestos workers will get sick. His analysis relied in
large part on a single study of 800 workers who toiled for a
year or two during World War II at an asbestos factory in New
Jersey.

That study showed that even workers who were at the factory less
than one month had a lung cancer rate twice that of the general
population. By extrapolating from that study of short-term
exposure, and by coming up with a conservative estimate of how
much asbestos the Salvagnos' workers inhaled, he reached his
conclusion that the 100 workers will almost certainly get sick.

The Salvagnos' attorney, Russell Gioiella hotly disputed that
conclusion and pushed Dr. Levin to acknowledge the limitations
of the New Jersey factory study. It looked at factory workers,
not cleanup employees, and studied men who were exposed 40 years
earlier, in a different location, eating different foods;
factors that Mr. Gioiella argued made it a bad study to
extrapolate from.

The defense attorney also attacked the estimate of how much
asbestos was inhaled by the Salvagnos workers, which the doctor
acknowledged was an educated guess.  Dr. Levin replied that he
would have preferred actual data about air quality during the
cleanups but unfortunately the Salvagnos' lab had faked those
tests.

The Salvagnos were convicted of racketeering and conspiracy to
violate environmental laws for doing rushed cleanup jobs at
1,555 buildings, most of them in the Capital Region, including
14 cleanups at 12 churches, 63 cleanups in 54 area schools and
at least 130 cleanups at eight area colleges.

Since much of the work was done in boiler rooms, attics and
crawl spaces not open to the public, users of those buildings,
such as school children, are unlikely to face significant health
risks, Dr. Levin testified. Testing at many of those locations,
to see if any asbestos remains, are under way.

Testimony in the sentencing hearing continues in the coming
days. Judge Munson is likely to issue his sentencing ruling in
November.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lorillard Wins in Asbestos Cigarette Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loews' Lorillard Inc. won a New York case in which a smoker
claimed his lung cancer was caused by asbestos in the filter of
an original Kent brand cigarette in the 1950s.

In a recent press release, Lorillard said a Manhattan state
Court's jury unanimously rejected the claim that Frank
Gadaleta's lung cancer was caused by decades of smoking Kent
brand cigarettes. The original Kents, which had asbestos in the
filter, were only sold for four years in the 1950s, according to
the tobacco Company.

"The plaintiff failed to prove that tobacco smoke was a factor
in causing his injury, because he quit smoking many years before
he developed lung cancer," commented Ronald S. Milstein,
Lorillard's Vice President and General Counsel.

The jury, Lorillard said, found that Mr. Gadaleta's lung cancer
was not caused by a lifetime of smoking but of an occupational
exposure to asbestos. Mr. Gadaleta, who was diagnosed with lung
cancer in 2000, was exposed to asbestos both in the army and in
his career in the construction industry.

Mr. Gadaleta had previously sued and settled with several
asbestos producers, claiming that long-term occupational
exposure to asbestos in the military and in the construction
industry led to his lung cancer diagnosis in 2000.

Lorillard said it has successfully defended itself against 13
lawsuits that claimed injury from the original Kent cigarettes.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Wales to Run Out of Landfills Says Study
-------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest environmental problem faced by Wales is where to
dump a rising volume of rubbish, according to a new report from
the National Audit Office. It also warns that the nation will
run out of places to handle waste by 2010 unless action is
taken.

The study found that the problem of not having enough capacity
to dump rubbish was most acute in southwest Wales. Wales
produced nearly 26 million tons of waste last year, up by more
than 10% on the figure two years ago. Illegal dumping of rubbish
has almost doubled since 2001.

"The fines imposed on criminals so far have not been a
sufficient deterrent," said James Verity of the NAO.

Most of the waste is dumped in landfill sites, but the present
capacity will have run out by 2010, recommending that more than
500 new waste management facilities are needed. Full capacity
will be reached by August 2005 at one of the largest landfill
sites in the area, Pwllfawatkin, near Swansea, which accepts
waste from all over south Wales and Bristol. The problem is
exacerbated by the fact that the nearby Crymlyn Burrows
materials recovery and energy center, which would take some of
this waste, is not yet operational.

Commenting on cases of illegal dumping highlighted by the
report, Mr. Verity, said, "The report makes a number of
recommendations aimed at tackling the issue. For example, we
recommend that local authorities use 'fly capture,' which is a
database designed to capture essential information about fly
tipping throughout the country."

The report also urges for that the magistrates and judiciary to
be more aware of the serious impact of environmental crime.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: EnPro Receives 15,400 New Claims, Down 61%
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the first nine months of 2004, EnPro Industries Inc, a
leading manufacturer of engineered products, received 15,400 new
asbestos claims, down 61 percent from 39,499 filed during the
first three quarters of last year.

Payments for asbestos claims in 2004, net of insurance proceeds,
were about the same as in the first nine months of 2003. EnPro
remains in arbitration with certain other London market
insurers, who continue to delay their payments.

"We are confident our dispute with these insurers will be
resolved and anticipate we will collect more than $20 million in
payment of past due receivables," said Ernie Schaub, EnPro chief
executive.

When the Company was spun off from Charlotte-based Goodrich
Corp. in 2002, it received almost all of the assets and
liabilities, including asbestos claims, of Goodrich's
industrial-parts businesses.

EnPro Industries Inc. reports third-quarter net income of $10.1
million, or 47 cents per diluted share, up from earnings of $7.3
million, or 35 cents per diluted share, in the same period last
year. Sales rose to $192.1 million from $168.8 million. One-time
gains increased earnings by $2.7 million, or 12 cents per
diluted share, in the latest quarter.

Operating income for the latest quarter was $4.2 million, down
from $11.5 million in the third quarter of last year. Operating
costs increased to $187.9 million from $157.3 million.

"The performance of the majority of our operations in the third
quarter continued the year-over-year improvement that began in
the first half of 2004," says Mr. Schaub.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Coca-Cola Disputes Aqua-Chem Inc's Demands
---------------------------------------------------------------
Coca-Cola Co. is disputing Aqua-Chem Inc.'s demands for
reimbursement incurred from litigation expenses related to
asbestos-containing products Aqua-Chem manufactured in the past.

During the period from 1970 to 1981, Coca-Cola owned Aqua-Chem.
A division of Aqua-Chem manufactured certain boilers that
contained gaskets that Aqua-Chem purchased from outside
suppliers. Several years after the Company sold this entity,
Aqua-Chem received its first lawsuit relating to asbestos, a
component of some of the gaskets.

Aqua-Chem believes that Coca-Cola is obligated to them for
certain costs and expenses associated with the litigation. Aqua-
Chem has demanded that Coca-Cola reimburse it for about $10
million for out-of-pocket litigation-related expenses incurred
over the last 18 years and indemnify Aqua-Chem against any
future liabilities and expenses for which there is no insurance.

Coca-Cola believes it has no obligation to Aqua-Chem for any of
its past, present or future liabilities, costs or expenses. It
also believes it has substantial legal and factual defenses to
Aqua-Chem's claims. The parties entered into litigation to
resolve this dispute and have now agreed to stay that litigation
pending resolution of insurance coverage issues.

Coca-Cola believes Aqua-Chem has substantial insurance coverage
to pay Aqua-Chem's asbestos claimants. In connection with such
insurance coverage, however, five plaintiff insurance companies
have filed an action against Coca-cola, Aqua-Chem and sixteen
insurance companies. Several of the policies that are the
subject of this action were issued to the Company during the
period when Coca-Cola owned Aqua-Chem.

The complaint seeks a determination of the respective rights and
obligations under the insurance policies issued by the insurance
companies with regard to asbestos-related claims against Aqua-
Chem. The five plaintiffs issued insurance policies with
aggregate remaining limits of coverage of around $145 million.

The action also seeks a monetary judgment reimbursing any
amounts paid by the plaintiffs in excess of their obligations.
Coca-Cola believes that there are substantial legal and factual
arguments supporting the position that the insurance policies at
issue provide coverage for the asbestos-related claims against
Aqua-Chem, and both Coca-Cola and Aqua-Chem have asserted these
arguments in response to the complaint.  An estimate of possible
losses, if any, related to the Aqua-Chem matters cannot be made
at this time.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Georgia-Pacific Cites 3Q Asbestos Liability
----------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia-Pacific, the paper and building products giant, reported
its third quarter results and included a segment on its
liabilities. The segment reported third quarter 2004 expenses of
$122 million compared with expenses of $13 million for the same
period in 2003.

Third quarter 2003 results included a pretax credit of $118
million for the increase in asbestos liability insurance
receivables, a pretax charge of $21 million for costs to settle
a class action antitrust suit involving containerboard, and a
pretax charge of $12 million for pension settlement costs.

Included in third quarter 2004 results were a $24 million pretax
charge for stock-based compensation expenses (versus an $11
million charge a year ago), as well as higher variable
compensation expenses related to the Company's improved
financial performance and net foreign currency transaction
losses associated with foreign borrowings.

This quarter's results include a pretax charge of $24 million
($15 million after tax or 6 cents diluted loss per share) for
the expensing of stock-based compensation. Third quarter 2003
net income before unusual items was $158 million. Unusual items
included a pretax credit of $118 million ($74 million after tax
or 29 cents diluted earnings per share) to increase the
estimated amount that Georgia-Pacific will recover from its
asbestos liability insurance.

"Our third quarter results demonstrate the continuing success of
our business strategy to focus on profitability and product
improvement, especially in our consumer products business," said
Pete Correll, Georgia-Pacific chairman and chief executive
officer.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Lincoln Electric Faces 38,243 Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
As of September 30, 2004, Lincoln Electric Holdings Inc was a
co-defendant in cases alleging asbestos induced illness
involving claims by about 38,243 plaintiffs, which is a net
increase of 691 claims from those previously reported.

In each instance, the Company is one of a large number of
defendants. The asbestos claimants seek compensatory and
punitive damages, in most cases for unspecified sums.

Since January 1, 1995, the Company has been a co-defendant in
other similar cases that have been resolved as follows: 13,062
of those claims were dismissed, 9 were tried to defense
verdicts, 3 were tried to plaintiff verdicts and 270 were
decided in favor of the Company following summary judgment
motions.

The Company has appealed judgments based on verdicts against the
Company and believes it will prevail on the merits. Many of the
current cases are in preliminary procedural stages and
insufficient information exists upon which judgments can be made
as to the validity or ultimate disposition of such actions.
Therefore, a range of possible losses cannot be made at this
time.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Bucyrus Faces 295 Cases, 1,483 Plaintiffs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wisconsin-based Bucyrus International Inc. has been named as a
co-defendant in about 295 personal injury liability cases
alleging damages due to exposure to asbestos and other
substances, involving around 1,483 plaintiffs.

The Company, which offers products and services to the surface
mining industry, has pending cases in eleven states.  In all of
these cases, insurance carriers have accepted or are expected to
accept defense. These cases are in various pre-trial stages.

The Company does not believe that costs associated with these
matters will have a material effect on its financial position,
results of operations or cash flows, although no assurance to
that effect can be given.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Badger Meter Takes on Multi-party Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Badger Meter Inc. is a defendant in several multi-party asbestos
lawsuits pending in various state Courts. These lawsuits assert
claims alleging that certain industrial products were
manufactured by the defendants and were the cause of injury and
harm.

The Company, a leading marketer and manufacturer of products
using flow measurement and control technologies, is vigorously
defending itself against these alleged claims. Although it is
not possible to predict the ultimate outcome of these matters,
the Company does not believe the ultimate resolution of these
issues will have a material adverse effect on the Company's
financial position or results of operations, either from a cash
flow perspective or on the financial statements as a whole.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rohm & Haas Reaches Agreement with Insurers
----------------------------------------------------------------
In September 2004, specialty chemicals maker, Rohm & Haas Co.
reached an agreement with certain of its insolvent insurance
carriers to resolve the Company's environmental and other
claims.

The Company expects to receive about $11 million in 2004, with
smaller, future payments possible depending on the carriers'
financial circumstances. Similar to previous settlements reached
by the Company with solvent insurance carriers, the payments to
the Company are in exchange for the "buy back" of the policies.

The Philadelphia-based Company has previously declared that it
has reserved amounts for asbestos cases that it believes are
probable and estimable.  The Company however admits that it
cannot reasonably estimate what its future asbestos costs will
be if the current situation deteriorates and there is no tort
reform.

The Company is taking notice of the increased publicity
regarding asbestos liabilities faced by manufacturing companies.
As a result of the bankruptcy of asbestos producers, plaintiffs'
attorneys are increasing their focus on peripheral defendants,
including the Company, which had asbestos on its premises.

Historically, these premises cases have been dismissed or
settled for minimal amounts because of the minimal likelihood of
exposure at their facilities. As the asbestos producers are
bankrupted, the demands against companies with older
manufacturing facilities of any type in the United States, such
as the Company, are increasing.

There are also pending lawsuits filed against Morton related to
employee exposure to asbestos at a manufacturing facility in
Weeks Island, Louisiana with additional lawsuits expected. The
Company expects that most of these cases will be dismissed
because they are barred under worker's compensation laws;
however, cases involving asbestos-caused malignancies may not be
barred under Louisiana law.

Subsequent to the Morton acquisition, the Company commissioned
medical studies to estimate possible future claims and recorded
accruals based on the results. Morton has also been sued in
connection with asbestos related matters in the Friction
Division of the former Thiokol Corporation, which merged with
Morton in 1982.

Settlement amounts to date have been minimal and many cases have
closed with no payment. The Company estimates that all costs
associated with future claims, including defense costs, will be
well below the insurance limits.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AK Agency Warns of Possible Health Hazards
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several buildings along Wasilla-Fishhook Road have been vacated
and boarded up, with bright yellow signs tacked to the windows
and doors warning the public of possible asbestos hazards.

As part of its acquisition of property to improve and straighten
the Wasilla-Fishhook Road, the Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities quartered off around 20
structures, including several homes.

DOTPF spokesman Rick Feller said the vacated buildings have not
been inspected for asbestos but were quartered off for safety
reasons. Whenever the agency acquires property, it secures the
area until further investigation. Mr. Feller said the residents
of those homes have been relocated to other sites.

"Once acquisition is made, it becomes a relocation issue. We are
mandated by our own statutes to find equal or superior
replacement housing," added Mr. Feller.

At this point, it was uncertain whether the buildings would be
removed or turned over to be demolished.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Rise in UK Asbestos Claims to Cost Billions
----------------------------------------------------------------
The number of Britons dying from asbestos-related diseases is
set to peak at around 2,000 a year during the next decade and
cost the country GBD8-20 billion or $14.7-$36.7 billion over the
next 30 years.

The UK insurance industry, which has already paid around GBD1.5
billion in UK-based claims for asbestos-related diseases, faces
GBD4-10 billion of costs from asbestos claims over the next
three decades, according to a report by The Actuarial
Profession, which added that cost to the country is double that.

The researchers claim there is a risk of Britain mirroring the
U.S., which has in recent years seen an explosion in claims from
people who are not sick but are worried they could become ill -
bankrupting several large American firms in the process.

"Asbestos is certainly not yesterday's problem - its effects
will continue to affect insurance companies and healthcare
providers in the West for decades to come," said Julian Lowe of
the Actuarial Profession, the industry body for actuaries in the
UK.

The use of asbestos, a cancer-causing mineral fiber that was
used in a wide variety of products, has declined sharply in
Britain since the 1970s. But it takes 30 to 50 years for
mesothelioma, a fatal asbestos-related disease, to develop.

Industrial expansion in countries like China has proceeded
rapidly in recent years and asbestos consumption has increased
fivefold in Asia and some parts of Eastern Europe since 1960.
More asbestos is being used in Asia today than was ever consumed
at its peak in North America 35 years ago.

In Britain, the number of claims which related to exposure
rather than an asbestos-related illness had doubled in the past
three years, a development that may divert resources away from
claimants with serious injuries from asbestos. In the United
States, around three-quarters of all claims focus on the fear of
potentially catching an asbestos-related disease rather than an
actual illness.

The rising bill will also put pressure on local authorities that
have employed staff who worked with asbestos, companies which
manufactured and installed the heatproof material, and the state
compensation schemes that exist for people whose employers have
gone bankrupt or cannot be traced.

While the manufacture and use of asbestos has fallen in Western
Europe and North America in recent decades, it has continued to
expand in Asia and parts of Eastern Europe. The study said
urgent action was needed by the international community to help
these countries deal with the inevitable "appalling"
consequences of this activity.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Union Carbide Cites $1.7Bln Liability in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
The global chemical producer Union Carbide stated that as of
September 30, 2004, the Company's asbestos-related liability
reached $1.7 billion as compared to $1.9 billion as of December
31, 2003. Pending claims comprised about 37 percent of the
recorded liability while future claims covered 67 percent.

Union Carbide Corp. has been involved in a large number of
asbestos-related suits filed primarily in state Courts during
the past three decades. These suits principally allege personal
injury resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products
and frequently seek both actual and punitive damages.

The claims relate to products that the Company sold in the past,
exposure to asbestos-containing products located on its
premises, and the Company's responsibility for asbestos suits
filed against a former subsidiary, Amchem Products, Inc. In many
cases, plaintiffs were unable to demonstrate that they have
suffered any compensable loss as a result of such exposure, or
that injuries incurred in fact resulted from exposure to the
corporation's products.

Compared to $1.0 billion as of December 31, 2003, the receivable
for insurance recoveries related to asbestos liability was $749
million on September 30, 2004; $505 million of the receivable
was due from insurers that are not signatories to the Wellington
Agreement and do not otherwise have agreements in place
regarding their asbestos-related insurance coverage.

The pretax impact for defense and resolution costs, net of
insurance, was $19 million in the third quarter of 2004 and $92
million in the first nine months of 2004.

While it is not possible at this time to determine with
certainty the ultimate outcome of any of the legal proceedings
and claims referred to in this filing, management believes that
adequate provisions have been made for probable losses with
respect to pending claims and proceedings.

The annual average resolution payment per asbestos claimant and
the rate of new claim filings has fluctuated since the beginning
of 2001. Union Carbide's management expects such fluctuations to
continue in the future based upon the number and type of claims
settled in a particular period, the jurisdictions in which such
claims arose, and the extent to which any proposed legislative
reform related to asbestos litigation is being considered.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: National Waterworks Inc. Denies Liability
--------------------------------------------------------------
National Waterworks Inc., based in Texas, believes it has no
liability related to asbestos claims as of September 24, 2004.
As an acquirer of USFDG, a wholly owned subsidiary of U.S.
Filter, the Company said it did not assume any existing or
future asbestos-related liabilities relating to U.S. Filter or
its predecessors.

The Company, which is a major supplier to water facilities,
stated that certain of the Company's predecessors distributed
cement pipe containing asbestos. The cement pipe was primarily
used in water and sewage applications where the pipe was
typically buried underground. Management believes that the
nature of the asbestos-containing pipe distributed by the
predecessors and the uses of such pipe makes it unlikely that a
large number of plaintiffs would be exposed to friable asbestos
emanating from the pipe. They are not aware of any predecessor
manufacturing or fabricating asbestos containing products of any
type or assuming any product liability for such products.

On November 22, 2002, National Waterworks acquired substantially
all of the assets and certain liabilities of USFDG, a wholly
owned subsidiary of U.S. Filter, which is an indirect-wholly
owned subsidiary of Veolia.

Since the November 2002 acquisition was an asset purchase, U.S.
Filter and USFDG retained these liabilities and agreed to
indemnify and defend National Waterworks from and against these
liabilities on an unlimited basis with no termination date. U.S.
Filter and USFDG also agreed that, until November 22, 2012, U.S.
Filter will cause USFDG to maintain USFDG's corporate existence
and ensure that USFDG has sufficient funds to pay any and all of
its debts and other obligations, including liabilities retained
by USFDG and its indemnification obligations, as and when they
become due. In addition, Veolia has guaranteed all obligations
of U.S. Filter and USFDG under the asset purchase agreement,
including the indemnity, up to an aggregate of $50.0 million
through November 22, 2017.

Historically, Courts have not held the acquirer of an entity's
assets liable for liabilities that are not assumed as part of
the transaction unless the asset buyer is found to be a
"successor" to the asset seller. Accordingly, the Company could
become subject to asbestos liabilities in the future to the
extent they are found to be a successor to USFDG and to the
extent USFDG, U.S. Filter and Veolia are unable to fulfill their
contractual obligations.

Since the asbestos claims were retained by USFDG and U.S.
Filter, and in view of the indemnity by USFDG and U.S. Filter
with respect to retained liabilities and the Veolia guarantee,
management believes that it has no liability related to asbestos
claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Cytec Posts $53.1M Asbestos Liability in 3Q
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cytec Industries Inc., a technology leader in the specialty
chemicals markets, disclosed its third quarter asbestos
liabilities, which reached $53.1 million, as of September 30,
2004. The fourth quarter of 2003 got up to as high as $54.0
million.

The New Jersey-based Company has been the subject of numerous
lawsuits and claims incidental to the conduct of its or certain
of its predecessors' businesses, including lawsuits and claims
relating to product liability, personal injury including
asbestos, environmental, contractual, employment and
intellectual property matters.

As of September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, the aggregate
self-insured and insured contingent liability was $70.9 million
and $72.5 million, respectively, and the related insurance
receivable was $28.7 million at September 30, 2004 and $29.3
million at December 31, 2003. Third quarter's asbestos related
insurance receivable was $28.4 million at September 30, 2004 and
$29.1 million at December 31, 2003.

The Company anticipates receiving a net tax benefit for payment
of those claims to which full insurance recovery is not
realized.

As of September 30, 2004, asbestos claims filed against the
Company totaled 3,542 and closed 2,759; which differ in
comparison to the last quarter of 2003, consisting of 7,648
claims filed and 7,601 closed.

The Company stated that the ultimate liability and related
insurance recovery for all pending and anticipated future claims
cannot be determined with certainty due to the difficulty of
forecasting the numerous variables that can affect these
figures.

These variables include but are not limited to:

     (1) Significant changes in the number of future claims;

     (2) Significant changes in the average cost of resolving
         claims;

     (3) Changes in the nature of claims received;

     (4) Changes in the laws applicable to these claims; and

     (5) Financial viability of co-defendants, insurers and
         other indemnifying parties.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: American Standard Faces 147,836 Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Standard Companies Inc., leading maker of air-
conditioning systems, plumbing products, and automotive braking
systems, received 147,836 asbestos claims against the Company as
of September 30, 2004. There were 122,989 pending claims,
compared with 116,199 at the end of 2003, and 96,638 and 52,169
at the end of 2002 and 2001, respectively, reflecting updated
information for all prior periods.

Since receipt of its first asbestos claim more than fifteen
years ago, the Company has resolved 24,847 claims, and
settlements of $49.5 million have been made, for an average
payment per claim of $1,992. These settlement payments have
substantially been paid or reimbursed or are expected to be
substantially reimbursed by insurance.

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant in
numerous lawsuits alleging various asbestos-related personal
injury claims arising primarily from sales of low-risk-profile
products, such as boilers and railroad brake shoes. The Company
believes it has ample insurance and has never had an unfavorable
Court judgment.

In these asbestos-related lawsuits, the Company is usually named
as one of a large group of defendants, often in excess of one
hundred companies. Many of these lawsuits involve multiple
claimants, do not allege a connection between any Company
product and the claimed injury or disease, and do not contain
any allegations regarding the type of claimed injury or disease
incurred. As a result, numerous lawsuits have been placed and
may remain on inactive or deferred dockets, which some
jurisdictions have established.

The Company has recorded an obligation of $72.9 million, which
represents the Company's estimated payments to claimants
associated with pending asbestos claims. It also has recorded a
related asset of $51 million that represents the probable
recoveries from insurance companies for such payments to
claimants.

On July 15, 2004, the Company agreed to a settlement with a
bankruptcy trustee for a small portion of the Company's
insurance coverage, of which $29.5 million was received in the
third quarter of 2004. In connection with the future liquidation
of the bankruptcy trust the Company expects to receive
additional payments. Proceeds from this settlement in excess of
amounts related to known claims covered by these policies have
been deferred until the liability, if any, for unknown claims
can be determined.

Additional developments may occur that could affect the
Company's estimate of asbestos liabilities and recoveries, such
as the nature of future claims, the average payment to claimants
and the amount of insurance recovery. No liability has been
recorded for unknown asbestos claims. However, the Company has
substantial insurance coverage for future claims.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Essex International Named as Defendant
-----------------------------------------------------------
Essex International, a global leader in the design, manufacture
and supply of a wide range of cable, wire and electrical
insulation products, has been named as a defendant since around
1990 in numerous product liability lawsuits brought by
electricians and other skilled tradesmen claiming injury from
exposure to asbestos found in electrical wire products produced
many years ago.

Litigation against various past insurers of Essex International
who had previously refused to defend and indemnify Essex
International against these lawsuits was settled during 1999.
Under the settlement, the Atlanta-based Company was reimbursed
for substantially all of its costs and expenses incurred in the
defense of these lawsuits, and the insurers have undertaken to
defend, are currently directly defending and, if it should
become necessary, will indemnify the Company against those
asbestos lawsuits, subject to the terms and limits of the
respective policies.

Under the plan of reorganization, certain of the claimants in
these actions will be able to assert claims under applicable
insurance coverage and other similar arrangements.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: U.S. Gypsum Named as Defendant in Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
One of the USG Corporation's subsidiaries, U.S. Gypsum, is among
many defendants in more than 100,000 asbestos lawsuits alleging
personal injury or property damage liability. Most of the
asbestos lawsuits against U.S. Gypsum seek compensatory and, in
many cases, punitive damages for personal injury allegedly
resulting from exposure to asbestos-containing products.

Certain of the asbestos lawsuits seek to recover compensatory
and, in many cases, punitive damages for costs associated with
the maintenance or removal and replacement of asbestos-
containing products in buildings.

U.S. Gypsum's asbestos liability derives from its sale of
certain asbestos-containing products beginning in the late
1920s. In most cases, the products were discontinued or asbestos
was removed from the formula by 1972, and no asbestos-containing
products were produced after 1978.

In addition to the personal injury cases pending against U.S.
Gypsum, two other Debtors, L&W Supply and Beadex Manufacturing,
LLC, have been named as defendants in a small number of asbestos
personal injury cases. In addition, the legal representative for
future asbestos claimants recently raised the issue of whether
the debtors may be liable for certain of the asbestos
liabilities of A.P. Green Refractories Co., a former subsidiary
of U.S. Gypsum and USG Corporation.

The amount of the debtors' present and future asbestos
liabilities is the subject of significant dispute in debtors'
Chapter 11 Cases. If the amount of the debtors' asbestos
liabilities is not resolved through negotiation in the Chapter
11 Cases or addressed by federal legislation, the amount of
those liabilities may be determined through litigation
proceedings in the Chapter 11 Cases, the outcome of which is
extremely speculative.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CT Court Approves Raytech's Settlement Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Last October 27, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of Connecticut
approved a settlement agreement and release by Raytech
Corporation as its registrant.

Also involved in this agreement are Raytech's Official Committee
of Equity Security Holders in the Chapter 11 case, the Raytech
Corporation Asbestos Personal Injury Trust, the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors in the Chapter 11 case, and
Robert Carter, in his capacity as the future claimants'
representative.

According to the settlement, each "Record Date Registered
Holder" defined as a holder of record of at least 20 shares of
the Registrant's common stock on April 17, 2001, shall be
entitled to receive a payment of $0.16 for each share held by
such holder on the record date. The total amount of these
payments plus other payments required under the settlement is
expected to be about $600,000.

The PI Trust, the majority shareholder of the registrant, has
initially funded the payments to be made under the settlement.
The PI Trust and the registrant have agreed informally to
negotiate a mutually agreeable allocation of the costs of the
settlement; the actual allocation has not been finally
determined at this time.

The Company makes wet-engineered friction products that are used
in an oil-immersed environment for heat resistance, inertia
control, energy absorption, and transmissions in trucks, buses,
and farm machinery. Its dry friction components include clutch
facings used in car and truck manual transmissions. Due to
asbestos liabilities, the Company entered Chapter 11 in 1989 and
finally emerged from bankruptcy in 2001.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: PPG Faces 116,000 Asbestos-related Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
For over thirty years, PPG has been a defendant in lawsuits
involving claims alleging personal injury from exposure to
asbestos. As of September 30, 2004, PPG was one of many
defendants in numerous asbestos-related lawsuits involving about
116,000 claims.

Most of PPG's potential exposure relates to allegations by
plaintiffs that PPG should be liable for injuries involving
asbestos-containing thermal insulation products manufactured and
distributed by Pittsburgh Corning Corporation. PPG and Corning
Incorporated are each 50% shareholders of the Pittsburgh Corning
Corporation.

PPG has denied responsibility for, and has defended, all claims
for any injuries caused by PC products. On April 16, 2000, PC
filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh, Pa.

On March 28, 2003, Corning Incorporated announced that it had
separately reached its own arrangement with the representatives
of asbestos claimants for the settlement of certain asbestos
claims that might arise from PC products or operations.

PPG believes that it has adequate insurance for the asbestos
claims that would not be covered by any channeling injunction
and that any financial exposure resulting from such claims will
not have a material effect on PPG's consolidated financial
position, liquidity or results of operations.

The fair value of the equity forward instrument was $13 million
and $15 million as of September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003,
respectively, and is included as another current asset in the
accompanying condensed balance sheet. The amounts due June 30,
2003, 2004 and 2005 of $75 million, $98 million and $90 million,
respectively, under the fixed payment schedule described above,
are included in the current asbestos settlement liability in the
accompanying condensed balance sheet, which totaled $394 million
and $308 million as of September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003,
respectively.

The net present value of the remaining payments is included in
the long-term asbestos settlement liability in the accompanying
condensed balance sheet, which totaled $433 million and $500
million as of September 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003,
respectively. Accretion expense associated with the asbestos
liability will continue to be approximately $7 million per
quarter through the end of 2005.

Because the filing of asbestos claims against the Company has
been enjoined since April 2000, a significant number of
additional claims may be filed against the Company if the
Bankruptcy Court stay were to expire. If the PPG settlement
arrangement is not implemented, for any reason, and the
Bankruptcy Court stay expires, the Company intends to vigorously
defend the pending and any future asbestos claims against it and
its subsidiaries.

The Company believes that it is not responsible for any injuries
caused by PC products, which represent the preponderance of the
pending bodily injury claims against it. Prior to 2000, PPG had
never been found liable for any such claims, in numerous cases
PPG had been dismissed on motions prior to trial, and aggregate
settlements by PPG to date have been immaterial.

Although PPG has successfully defended asbestos claims brought
against it in the past, in view of the number of claims, and the
questionable verdicts and awards that other companies have
experienced in asbestos litigation, the result of any future
litigation of such claims is inherently unpredictable.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: AU Mesothelioma Victims Seek Drug Subsidy
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal committee will decide this week whether to subsidize a
drug that extends by up to two years the lives of mesothelioma
victims.

Eli Lilly's new drug Alimta has been shown to manage symptoms,
reduce pain and treat shortness of breath. However, the drug
costs $24,000 for a six-week course for people with the
asbestos-induced cancer.

Asbestos Diseases Foundation president Barry Robson urged the
Federal Government to fast-track approval for the drug subsidy.
"We know it's an expensive drug, but if the Government can just
show a little bit of compassion for these people," he said.

It is likely to be March or April before the costly drug,
Alimta, is listed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The
process takes months because several time-consuming stages,
including price negotiation, must be made before any drug is
listed.

The Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee will consider
drug Company Eli Lilly's application for Alimta to be
subsidized. It makes recommendations to the Federal Government
which makes the final decision.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Endemol, Foilhope Breach Could Cost GBD45T
----------------------------------------------------------------
The TV production Company behind Fame Academy has admitted
exposing contestants and employees to asbestos while filming the
first series in Heathside mansion Witanhurst. The breaches could
cost Endemol GBD25,000 and Foilhope might have to pay GBD20,000.

Endemol UK and Foilhope, a Highgate-based property management
company, both pleaded guilty to health and safety charges at the
City of London Magistrates' Court last week.

Contractors found exposed asbestos in the basement of the
mansion after filming had stopped and the Health and Safety
Executive was called in. Following series one of Fame Academy a
small area of exposed asbestos was discovered in an area of the
basement at Witanhurst - cut off from the working and living
areas of the Academy. The area in question was sealed off before
being completely cleaned.

It is believed the stars of the 2002 show, won by David Sneddon,
were unaffected. A spokesman from Endemol UK said, "Endemol UK
takes its responsibilities with regard to health and safety
extremely seriously."

A full hearing will take place on December 1 at the City of
London Magistrates' Court.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: W.R. Grace Target of Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------
A federal grand jury is investigating W.R. Grace & Co. and
several of its senior-level employees for possible violations of
environmental laws in Montana.

The Columbia, Md.-based Company released a statement saying that
it has been named as a target of the grand jury in Montana
involving possible obstruction of federal agency proceedings and
conspiring with others to violate federal environmental laws.

"Grace believes that the investigation is related to its former
vermiculite mining and processing activities in Libby, Montana,"
stated the Company. Vermiculite, which was used to make
insulation, is a naturally occurring mineral that expands into
accordion-shaped pieces when heated and is lightweight and fire-
resistant.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency arrived in Libby in
November 1999, after national news reports linked asbestos
contamination from a vermiculite mine just outside town to the
deaths of nearly 200 people and illness in hundreds more.

Grace bought the mining operation, which once supplied more than
80 percent of the world's vermiculite, in 1963 and shut it down
in 1990. The federal government has said ore from the site is
contaminated with asbestos fibers, which were spread through the
town as it was mined and processed.

The EPA filed a lawsuit against Grace in March 2001 to recover
cleanup costs in the area, which the agency has declared a
Superfund site. EPA is working to remove asbestos from soil and
buildings at the mine site and in town.

In April, the Company appealed a federal judge's ruling that it
must pay the EPA the full $54.5 million for asbestos cleanup in
Libby, along with any future costs. Before Judge Molloy's
ruling, W.R. Grace and a subsidiary had agreed to pay nearly $33
million for work done from November 1999 through December 2001,
but Grace disputed another $21.5 million in costs.

Grace is a leading global supplier of catalysts and silica
products, specialty construction chemicals, building materials,
and sealants and coatings.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: Concern Raised Over Ireland Plant Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
A number of public representatives in Co Mayo have expressed
concerns about a proposal to build Europe's first asbestos
recycling plant in Killala.

Killala Fine Gael councilor Jarlath Munnelly said their worries
have not been alleviated by a briefing session with the Company
concerned, Irish Environmental Processes Ltd. They said the
people of Killala and Co Mayo do not want the plant and would
fight it every step of the way.

Mr. Munnelly added that he did not believe Company assurances
that both the transportation and recycling processes would be
safe. He expressed concern about potential health effects from
the plant itself and from the transportation of asbestos from
all over Ireland.

Independent TD Dr. Jerry Cowley also expressed concerns about
transporting asbestos, which is a cancer-causing substance, from
every corner of Ireland to Killala. Despite the Company denying
it would process other forms of waste, Dr. Cowley said IEP's
website said other waste could be disposed of in Killala. He
said the process IEP plans to use in Killala is also used for
radioactive and other hazardous waste.

The Company has purchased a 25,000 square foot section of the
Asahi plant for its thermo-chemical treatment plant and intends
to seek planning permission and a license from the EPA to
process asbestos waste. The Company will be investing EUR10
million in the project and insists it will be treating only
asbestos waste from Ireland and will not be importing waste from
the rest of Europe.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: T&N Fund Trustees Entitled to Block Deal
----------------------------------------------------------------
High Court judge Justice Patten ruled earlier this week that
Turner & Newall's pensions fund trustees will not breach their
fiduciary duty to members by voting against Federal-Mogul's
restructuring plan to emerge from Chapter 11 protection.

The trustees claim the rescue plan put forward for Federal-
Mogul, T&N's parent Company, in the US bankruptcy Courts is
structurally unfair in respect of an GBD875 million shortfall in
the 40,000-member Turner & Newall pension fund. The trustees
rejected the initial offer of a $130 million payment into the
fund from Federal-Mogul's creditors. The creditors are now
offering $25 million a year for the first three years, plus the
promise of ensuring the scheme is fully funded within a decade.
Creditors in Federal-Mogul have until Nov. 17 to vote on the
plan.

The restructuring proceedings were initiated in response to a
sharply increasing number of asbestos-related claims and their
related demand on the Company's cash flows and liquidity.

The plan provides that asbestos personal injury claimants, both
present and future, will be permanently channeled to a trust or
series of trusts established pursuant to Section 524(g) of the
Bankruptcy Code, thereby protecting Federal-Mogul and its
affiliates in the Chapter 11 Cases from existing and future
asbestos liability.

The Company's U.K. subsidiary, T&N Ltd., and two U.S.
subsidiaries are among many defendants named in numerous Court
actions in the U.S. alleging personal injury resulting from
exposure to asbestos or asbestos-containing products. T&N Ltd.
is also subject to asbestos-disease litigation, to a lesser
extent, in the United Kingdom and France. As of the petition
date, T&N Ltd. was a defendant in about 115,000 pending personal
injury claims. The two U.S. subsidiaries were defendants in
about 199,000 pending personal injury claims.

In 2000, the Company increased its estimate of asbestos-related
liability for the T&N Companies by $751 million and recorded a
related insurance recoverable asset of $577 million. The
revision in the estimate of probable asbestos-related liability
principally resulted from a study performed by an econometric
firm that specializes in these types of matters. The liability,
which is about $1.4 billion as of September 30, 2004,
represented the Company's estimate prior to the restructuring
proceedings for claims currently pending and those reasonably
estimated to be asserted and paid through 2012.

It is the Company's view that, as a result of the restructuring,
there is even greater uncertainty in estimating the future
asbestos liability and related insurance recovery for pending
and future claims. There are significant differences in the
treatment of asbestos claims in a bankruptcy proceeding as
compared to the tort litigation system.

Federal-Mogul, whose largest creditor is billionaire financier
Carl Icahn, sought Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection in 2001
because of asbestos liabilities and declining revenue. A hearing
to approve the plan at U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington,
Del., is set for Dec. 9.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: CNA Financial Discloses 3Q Expense Reserves
----------------------------------------------------------------
CNA Financial Corporation, a leading global insurance
organization based in Chicago, discloses in the Company's third
quarter results that it carried about $1,707 million and $1,767
million of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of
reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported asbestos-
related claims.

The Company recorded $44 million of unfavorable asbestos-related
net claim and claim adjustment expense reserve development for
the nine months ended September 30, 2004 and $642 million
asbestos-related net claim and claim adjustment expense
development for the same period in 2003. The 2004 unfavorable
net prior year development was primarily related to a
commutation loss related to The Trenwick Group Ltd. The Company
paid asbestos-related claims, net of reinsurance recoveries, of
$104 million and $101 million for the nine months ended
September 30, 2004 and 2003.

Some asbestos-related defendants have asserted that their
policies issued by CNA are not subject to aggregate limits on
coverage. CNA has such claims from a number of insureds. Some of
these claims involve insureds facing exhaustion of products
liability aggregate limits in their policies, who have asserted
that their asbestos-related claims fall within so-called "non-
products" liability coverage contained within their policies
rather than products liability coverage, and that the claimed
"non-products" coverage is not subject to any aggregate limit.

As a result of bankruptcies and insolvencies, management has
observed an increase in the total number of policyholders with
current asbestos claims as additional defendants are added to
existing lawsuits and are named in new asbestos bodily injury
lawsuits. New asbestos bodily injury claims have also increased
substantially in 2003, but the rate of increase has moderated in
the first nine months of 2004.

The Company has resolved a number of its large asbestos accounts
by negotiating settlement agreements. Structured settlement
agreements provide for payments over multiple years as set forth
in each individual agreement. As of September 30, 2004, CNA had
eleven structured settlement agreements with a reserve net of
reinsurance of $179 million. Payment obligations under those
settlement agreements are projected to terminate by 2016.

In the same period, CNA carried about $508.0 and $577.0 million
of claim and claim adjustment expense reserves, net of
reinsurance recoverables, for reported and unreported
environmental pollution and mass tort claims.

CNA had remaining payment obligations for four accounts. With
respect to these four remaining unpaid Wellington obligations,
CNA has evaluated its exposure and the expected reinsurance
recoveries under these agreements and has a recorded reserve of
$19 million, net of reinsurance.

The Company has made closing large accounts, those with more
than $100,000 of cumulative paid losses, a significant
management priority. At the end of the third quarter, the
Company had 180 large accounts and had established reserves of
$369 million, net of reinsurance.

The Company also evaluates its asbestos liabilities arising from
its assumed reinsurance business and its participation in
various pools. CNA's reserve totaled $156 million in the third
quarter, net of reinsurance, related to these liabilities. The
unassigned IBNR reserve was $696 million, net of reinsurance
whereas it was $684 million as of December 31, 2003. This IBNR
reserve relates to potential development on accounts that have
not settled and potential future claims from unidentified
policyholders.

CNA is vigorously defending these and other cases and believes
that it has meritorious defenses to the claims asserted.
However, there are numerous factual and legal issues to be
resolved in connection with these claims, and it is extremely
difficult to predict the outcome or ultimate financial exposure
represented by these matters.


ASBESTOS LITIGATION: NSW Seeks Support on Law Aimed at Hardie
-------------------------------------------------------------
The NSW government will ask other states to support laws aimed
at compensation for asbestos victims by winding back James
Hardie's corporate restructure. This movement is expected to
force James Hardie Industries to meet the possible $2 billion
shortfall in compensation for thousands of sufferers of asbestos
diseases in coming decades.

"We will be seeking support for NSW legislation that will seek
to unwind the James Hardie corporate restructure that was done
in 2001 so that victims of asbestos related disease will be
entitled to full and fair compensation," said a spokesman for
NSW Attorney-General Bob Debus.

NSW Premier Bob Carr last week foreshadowed legislation to
enforce James Hardie's obligation to compensate victims of
asbestos. Mr. Carr said the new laws would be designed to ensure
victims could claim against the former James Hardie parent
Company and that their claims would be met by funds from the
current parent Company.

The James Hardie laws will be discussed at a meeting in New
Zealand on Thursday and Friday of the ministerial council at the
Standing Committee of Attorneys-General.

James Hardie established a Medical Research and Compensation
Foundation when it moved to the Netherlands. The foundation
expected to receive ongoing funding to cover compensation claims
by victims of asbestos-related disease through the $1.9 billion
in partly paid shares, but these were later cancelled by James
Hardie.

The spokesman added that the NSW government needed support from
the other states because its legislation would be affected by
the Corporations Act, which was administered by the federal
government.

However, federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock warned of the
"broader implications" of any legal changes towards unwinding
the Company's restructure. The head of the inquiry, David
Jackson, QC, said such legislation "would probably face
constitutional challenges of one kind or another" in Australia.

Lawyers for James Hardie argued during the inquiry that
legislation affecting companies incorporated and operating in
different countries "clearly has the potential to give rise to a
myriad of legal complications and conflicts of laws."


ASBESTOS ALERT: Coroner Launches Probe of Central Heating System
----------------------------------------------------------------
The East Berkshire coroner has called for an entire street's
central heating systems to be examined after a 92-year-old died
of an asbestos related lung disease.

An inquest last week, heard Ernest Jasper died of mesothelioma,
linked to breathing asbestos fibers. As a result, coroner Peter
Bedford is now asking London and Quadrant Housing Trust to
investigate systems at dozens of homes in The Buffins, Taplow,
where Mr. Jasper lived.

The inquest had heard the former RAF man could have come into
contact with asbestos in a number of jobs he took over the
course of his long life. He had been an East End dockworker,
steel erector, electrician, and security guard and worked in a
coconut matting factory and an insulated cable firm.

Mr. Jasper's home was built in 1966 by what was then Beacon
Housing Association and he moved in the following year.

Mr. Jasper's family noticed he had began losing weight and
becoming short of breath shortly after Christmas last year. He
died on July 20 at Wexham Park Hospital. An L&Q spokesman said
all records on central heating at the Buffins were being checked
but it was "most unlikely" to have contributed to Mr. Jasper's
illness.

Michael Reece, Director of Property Services, said, "We are
always sad to hear of the death of one of our tenants but we do
not know Mr. Jasper's background and whether his employment
earlier in life might have been affected by asbestos.
Nevertheless, we will complete our investigations shortly and
let his family know the outcome of our findings."


ASBESTOS ALERT: Sisters Sue Canadian Govt for Asbestos Exposure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two sisters are suing the federal government and several
companies over asbestos-laden insulation in their childhood home
that they claim has made them sick.

Raven Thundersky, 39, and Rebecca Bruce, 44, said in their
statement of claim that the family was exposed to and did inhale
asbestos fibers over a period of 17 years.

The women grew up on the Popular River First Nation in Manitoba,
near Winnipeg. Their home was insulated with Zonolite, the brand
name of a type of vermiculite insulation that has been found to
contain asbestos, which has been linked to chest and abdominal
cancer.

The claim alleges that Ms. Thundersky has been diagnosed with
asbestosis, which is a thickening and scarring of lung tissue,
and that Ms. Bruce has mesothelioma, a cancer linked to exposure
to asbestos fibers. The women claim two other sisters have died
from cancer that they believe came from the insulation asbestos.

Ms. Thundersky says she has obtained documents showing that 597
reserve houses across Canada were constructed with the same
insulation, and she hopes to register the lawsuit as a class
action.


ASBESTOS ALERT: IA County Finds Asbestos Buried in Hotel Rubble
----------------------------------------------------------------
The discovery of asbestos in the Ellis Hotel rubble buried in
the Black Hawk County jail parking lot alerted its officials to
the potential swelling of cleanup costs to a project that should
have been done years ago. Authorities believe the asbestos
should have been removed under regulations at the time of the
demolitions in the mid-1980s, prompting them to call for an
investigation.

Gary Wilcox, executive director of the Black Hawk County Solid
Waste Management Commission, found the hazardous material when
inspecting the site two weeks ago with County Supervisor Barbara
Leestamper.

Ms. Leestamper said they have already tasked the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources to conduct an inspection of the site.
Board chairman Robert Smith said debris removal costs now could
reach $400,000, especially if hazardous materials are found. A
rebidding could delay work to next spring.

Subcontractors for Todd Van Dorn Construction of Cedar Falls,
originally hired to repair the sinking parking lot for $23,000,
found the rubble from the Ellis about 7 feet underground.
County building supervisor Louis Cutwright questioned the extent
to which asbestos may be present. County officials said it
should have been removed during jail construction in 1993.

While some supervisors want to find out who was responsible for
leaving the rubble, Assistant County Attorney Pete Burk said
supervisors may have to hire a private firm to review
construction records to determine what if any liability exists
on the part of anyone associated with the project.

"We're in the process of reviewing any documentation that might
be pertinent to it and we're forwarding that to the mayor for
his review," Waterloo Community Development Director Rudy Jones
said.

According to files, the hotel was vacated and city inspectors
"red-tagged" the five-story structure's upper levels as unsafe
to occupy following a November 1983 arson fire. In February
1986, the Waterloo City Council guaranteed a $27,500 loan from
the Waterloo Industrial Development Association to Ellis owner
O.J. Keiper to demolish the building. The city took over
demolition by agreement with Keiper in September 1986 when work
performed by a contractor stalled. The city resumed demolition
with a new contractor shortly thereafter.

On the subject of liability, Burk told the board that the normal
10-year statute of limitations for bringing civil action may
pose a "serious legal hurdle," since the county knew the Ellis
rubble was there in 1993.  Even if legal action is possible, Mr.
Burk and board chairman Smith said the costs of researching and
litigating the matter may exceed the potential recoverable
damages.


ASBESTOS ALERT: ATSDR Warns Omaha Plant Ex-Workers of Exposure
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal health warning has been issued for former workers of
Western Minerals Products, a closed Omaha insulation plant that
they could have been exposed to a deadly form of asbestos.

The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry is
investigating to see if workers at the Omaha plant and 27 other
sites around the country were unknowingly exposed to asbestos.
Inhalation of asbestos fibers can cause lung diseases including
cancer.

The plant used vermiculite to manufacture insulation from the
1940s until it closed in 1989. The vermiculite was taken from a
mine in Libby, Montana and it was later learned that the mine
had a natural deposit of asbestos that contaminated the
vermiculite.

The Western Mineral Products Company site in Omaha is among 28
Phase I sites in ATSDR's National Asbestos Exposure Review being
conducted with other federal, state, and local environmental and
public health agencies. It examines more than 200 U.S. sites
that received asbestos-contaminated vermiculite ore mined in
Libby, Montana, from the early 1920s until 1990.

ATSDR is working closely with EPA and state health partners to
determine whether a hazard to public health exists at any of the
sites. The exposure investigation collects information about
specific human exposures through biologic sampling, personal
monitoring, related environmental assessment, and exposure-dose
reconstruction. It also assesses the presence and nature of
health hazards, helps to prevent or reduce further exposure and
illnesses resulting from those hazards, and expands the
knowledge base about the health effects of exposure to hazardous
substances.


Company Profile:

Western Mineral Products Company
3520 South I Street
Omaha, NE 68107


ASBESTOS ALERT: Sterling Sugars Inc. Named in 8 Injury Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louisiana-based Sterling Sugars Inc, and in some cases one or
more of its executive officers, have been named in eight
asbestos complaints filed since November 22, 1997 involving
multiple plaintiffs, who are claming personal injury due to
exposure to asbestos.

Six of the eight cases name multiple other corporate defendants
in addition to the Company. The complaints were filed in
Louisiana State Court in either St. Mary Parish or East Baton
Rouge Parish. The complaints generally do not contain a specific
damage demand against the Company and there is not sufficient
information in the complaints to fully quantify the allegations
set forth in the complaints. The Company settled two of the
cases for a total of $18,200.

There have been no material developments in the other cases with
respect to the Company since the cases were filed and no
significant discovery has been exchanged in these cases. While
the Company believes that the remaining cases are without merit,
given the early stages of these cases the Company cannot predict
the outcome nor is it able to predict whether additional cases
will be filed.


Company Profile:

Sterling Sugars, Inc.
611 Irish Bend Rd.
Franklin, LA 70538
Phone: 337-828-0620
Fax: 337-828-1757

2004 Sales (mil.)  18.2
1-Year Sales Growth  (16.5%)
2004 Net Income (mil.)  0.9
2004 Employees   188

Description:
Sterling Sugars grows and processes sugarcane to make raw sugar
and blackstrap molasses for sale to sugar refiners and candy
manufacturers. It also leases land for oil and natural gas
exploration. The Patout and Guarisco families, who own about 60%
and 20%, respectively, run the Company.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Shipyards Deny Claims of Pleural Plaques Victims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thousands of retired industrial workers could be denied millions
of pounds as British Shipbuilders and Norwich Union have entered
separate applications asking for compensation payments of those
who suffer from pleural plaques to be scrapped.

These companies now claim that because the disease does not have
any symptoms they should not have to pay out. The condition,
caused by exposure to asbestos spores, leaves scarring on the
lining of the lungs and gives sufferers an increased chance of
developing life-threatening diseases like mesothelioma and
asbestosis.

Compensation has been paid out for more than 20 years but now
Newcastle-based Thompsons Solicitors is fighting to save the
payouts. At present claimants can choose a settlement of up to
GBD15,000 or can go for a provisional agreement of up to
GBD6,000 and the right to claim for further damages if they go
on to develop a disabling or fatal disease.

If their cases are upheld against 10 claimants, it will open the
floodgates for other firms to follow suit and thousands of
victims will lose out.

Ian McFall, head of the national asbestos team at Thompsons
Solicitors, said, "If the defendants succeed, people with
pleural plaques would not be compensated, then thousands of
people will be denied a legal remedy for compensation which they
have been entitled to for the last 20 years."

Mr. McFall added, "One of the things British Shipbuilders seems
upset about is the cost of processing pleural plaques claims. In
some cases it is equivalent to the amount of compensation paid
out to claimants."

Every year an estimated 1,000 to 1,800 new pleural plaques
claims are made. Many of the sufferers are pensioners and spent
their careers in shipyards, factories and engineering. Hundreds
of North East men alone worked for asbestos factory the
Washington Chemical Company where they were exposed to dangerous
spores daily.

Recent figures show that up to one in 20 sufferers will go on to
develop deadly mesothelioma.

In the past three years British Shipbuilders, which is liable
for yards including Middle Docks and Brigham and Cowan, both in
South Tyneside, has paid out GBD4.5 million in compensation for
691 pleural plaques cases.

The cases amount to 73% of the former shipyard employers' total
asbestos claims and the payments are 40% of the Company's total
compensation payouts. Amicus regional secretary Davey Hall said
the union was giving full backing to members.

The Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for the
liability for British Shipbuilders on a case-by-case basis, if
the Court finds it liable for health problems it pays out from
the period when shipbuilding was nationalized. DTI is seeking
for legal clarification.

A DTI spokesman said, "There are many other minor personal
injury cases and the sums paid out for pleural plaques are not
in line with amounts being paid out in other cases.

"We believe it is time for a fresh look at these cases. People
who have been exposed to asbestos are more likely to get
asbestos-related diseases but because you have pleural plaques
does not mean you go on to get asbestosis."


Company Profile:

Norwich Union
PO Box 4
Surrey Street
Norwich
NR1 3NG
Phone: 01603 622200
Fax: 01603 683659
http://www.norwichunion.com/

Description:
Norwich Union is one of the UK's most financially strong
investment companies. Norwich Union is an Aviva Company.
Aviva plc is the world's fifth-largest insurance group and the
biggest in the UK. It is one of the leading providers of life
and pensions products to Europe and has substantial businesses
elsewhere around the world. Its main activities are long-term
savings, fund management and general insurance. It has premium
income and investment sales of 30 billion, and around 240
billion of assets under management.

British Shipbuilders Corp
Description:
Although most of its assets have been privatized, British
Shipbuilders remains a public corporation responsible for
commitments and liabilities arising from its former manufacture
of ships and marine engines. The function of the residual
corporation is limited to these purposes, and it is expected
that the Company will be dissolved as soon as is practicable.


ASBESTOS ALERT: Markel Corp 3Q Review Recommended No Adjustments
----------------------------------------------------------------
During the third quarter of 2004, Markel Corporation completed a
review of asbestos and environmental exposures in both its U.S.
and international operations.

While the legal environment and process for resolving asbestos
and environmental claims continues to be adverse, no adjustments
to loss reserves resulted from this review. The third quarter of
2003 included $55.0 million of reserve increases for asbestos
and environmental exposures.


Company Profile:

Markel Corporation
4521 Highwoods Pkwy.
Glen Allen, VA 23060-6148 (Map)
Phone: 804-747-0136
Fax: 804-965-1600
Toll Free: 800-446-6671

Description:
Markel Corporation is an international property and casualty
insurance holding Company headquartered in Richmond, VA. The
Company markets and underwrites specialty insurance products and
programs to a variety of niche markets, which include: wind and
earthquake exposed commercial properties, liability coverage for
highly specialized professionals, horse mortality and other
horse related risks, personal watercrafts, high-valued
motorcycles, aviation and energy related activities.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Spector Roseman Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of American International Group,
Inc. ("AIG" or the "Company") (NYSE: AIG) between October 28,
1999 through October 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing false statements contained in
SEC filings and press releases during the Class Period, which
artificially inflated the price of AIG securities. The complaint
specifically alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts:

     (1) that AIG 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 AIG 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, AIG guaranteed
         itself material amounts of business;

     (4) that AIG failed to disclose that it had entered into
         partnerships with other insurance companies, which was
         contrary to its previous statements; and

     (5) that as a result of this illegal scheme, the Company
         materially overstated and artificially inflated AIG's
         earnings, income, and earnings per share.

On October 14, 2004, New York 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. Also named was AIG as an
alleged participant in steering and bid-rigging. It was also
revealed that two AIG executives, Karen Radke, a senior vice
president, and Jean-Baptist Tateossian, a manager, had pled
guilty to charges related to the probe. As a result of these
disclosures, on October 14, 2004, shares of AIG fell $6.99 per
share, or 10.43 percent, on unusually high trading volume of
more than 48 million shares traded, to close at $60.00 per
share. On October 15, 2004, an additional $2.15 per share or
3.58 percent fell, on more than 60 million in volume, to close
at $57.85 per share.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.srk-law.com


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

The complaint charges Aon and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Aon, through its various subsidiaries worldwide, serves
its clients through three operating segments: Risk and Insurance
Brokerage Services, Consulting and Insurance Underwriting. The
complaint alleges that Aon and its top officers violated the
federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's results and operations. The
true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

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

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

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

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Aon publicly issued securities during the Class Period (the
"Class").

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. or Larry Levit,
Esq. of Abraham, Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by Phone: One Penn
Plaza, Suite 2805, New York, NY 10119 by Phone: (212) 279-5050
or (800) 440-8986 by Fax: (212) 279-3655 or by E-mail:
jfruchter@aftlaw.com or llevit@aftlaw.com


CONCORD CAMERA: Vianale & Vianale Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP notifies investors that
the deadline to move for lead plaintiff in a securities fraud
class action brought by Vianale & Vianale LLP against Concord
Camera Corp. ("Concord") (Nasdaq:LENS) and certain of its
directors and officers, on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between August 14, 2003 and May 10, 2004 is on
November 8, 2004.

Plaintiff alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Defendants concealed the fact
that the Company had a total of $12 million in obsolete
inventory that should have been written off as impaired. To
avoid this one-time large write off, defendants instead
fraudulently wrote off only portions of the impaired inventory
over the first three fiscal quarters of 2004, allowing them to
capitalize on this delay when they sold their Concord stock
before the marketplace learned of the full extent of the needed
write downs. The Company's stock dropped from $10.30 at the
beginning of the Class Period to under $2 where it currently
trades. CFO Richard Finkbeiner resigned on July 27, 2004, and
his replacement as CFO resigned one month later, on August 27,
2004.

For more details, contact Kenneth J. Vianale, Esq. or Julie Prag
Vianale, Esq. by Mail: 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 801, Boca
Raton, FL 33486, by Phone: 561-391-4900 or 888-657-9960 or by E-
mail: info@vianalelaw.com


INTERACTIVECORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the IAC/InterActiveCorp (Nasdaq:
IACI) ("IAC" or the "Company") publicly traded securities
between July 16, 2001 and August 4, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges IAC, Barry Diller, Dara Khosrowshahi,
Julius Genachowski, Richard N. Barton, and Victor A. Kaufman
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 knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its profits were being adversely impacted by
         the decreases in available discounted inventory, such
         as discount hotel rooms and airline tickets;

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

     (3) that the favorable performance of IAC's Hotels.com
         division was largely dependent on the improper booking
         of revenue; and

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

On August 3, 2004, the Company reported its financial results
for its second quarter 2004. According to the Company, IAC's net
income fell 25 percent to $70 million. Additionally, the Company
cut its full year operating profits. The news shocked the
market. Shares of IAC fell $4.23 per share, or 15.65 percent, on
August 4, 2004 to close at $22.80 per share.

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


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (NYSE: MMC) securities between
October 15, 1999 and October 14, 2004, inclusive (the Class
Period).

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

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

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


MERCK & CO.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MRK) Employee Stock Purchase and Savings
Plan and the Merck & Co., Inc. Employee Savings and Security
Plan (the "Plans").

The complaint alleges defendants Merck & Co., Inc.; its Employee
Benefits Policy Committee, and certain of its officers and
directors breached their duties under ERISA by, among other
things:

(1) failing to properly manage the Plans' assets by
         imprudently investing a significant amount of the
         Plans' assets in Merck stock;

     (2) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         participants and beneficiaries;

     (3) failing to monitor those defendants who were charged
         with managing the Plans and their assets; and

     (4) failing to avoid conflicts of interest with respect to
         the Plans.

Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants, responsible
for the investment of the assets of the Plans, breached their
fiduciary duties to Plaintiff in violation of ERISA (Employee
Retirement Income Security Act) by failing to prudently and
loyally manage the Plans' investment in Merck stock. Next,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants who communicated with
participants regarding the Plans' assets, or had a duty to do
so, failed to provide participants with complete and accurate
information regarding Merck stock sufficient to advise
participants of the true risks of investing their retirement
savings in Merck stock. Plaintiff also alleges that Defendants,
responsible for the selection, removal, and, thus, monitoring of
the Plans' fiduciaries, failed to properly monitor the
performance of their fiduciary appointees and remove and replace
those people whose performance was inadequate. Finally,
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants breached their duties and
responsibilities to avoid conflicts of interest and serve the
interests of the participants in and beneficiaries of the Plans
with undivided loyalty.

As a result of Defendants' fiduciary breaches the Plans have
suffered substantial losses, resulting in the depletion of
hundreds of millions of dollars of the retirement savings and
anticipated retirement income of the Plans' participants. Under
ERISA, the breaching fiduciaries are obligated to restore to the
Plans the losses resulting from their fiduciary breaches.
According to the Company's 2003 11-Ks, the Plans held
$1,197,321,319 in Merck Common Stock as of December 31, 2003,
accounting for approximately 39% of the total assets held by the
Plans and $1,651,008,624 in Merck Stock as of December 31, 2002,
or about 53% of the Plans' total assets.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott by Mail: 108 Norwich
Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone: 800-404-7770 (EDT) or
800-332-2259 (PDT) or 619-233-4565 (California) or 860/537-3818
by Fax: 860/537-4432 or by E-mail: MerckERISALitigation@scott-
scott.com and nrothstein@scott-scott.com


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges MN Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the securities of The St. Paul Travelers
Companies, Inc. ("St. Paul" or the "Company") (NYSE: STA)
between January 27, 2000 and October 22, 2004, inclusive, (the
"Class Period") against defendants St. Paul and certain officers
and directors of the Company.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
made statements that were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts:

     (1) the Company had implemented and executed an
         unsustainable business practice whereby the Company
         designed and executed a business plan under which it
         agreed to pay so- called "contingent commissions" to
         insurance brokers to have them steer business to St.
         Paul and shield St. Paul from competition;

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

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

     (4) and the Company's prospects were at risk because its
         business and revenue could and would not be sustained
         when the public learned of its unlawful practice
         alleged herein.

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


STAR GAS: Wechsler Harwood Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Star Gas Partners, L.P., ("Star Gas" or
the "Company") (NYSE:SGU), during the period between July 25,
2000 and October 18, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled McCole, et al. v. Star Gas Partners, L.P.,
et al., Case No. (not yet assigned), is pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut, and names
as defendants the Company, its Chairman of the Board, Chief
Executive Officer, and a Director of the Company, Irik P. Sevin,
and its Chief Financial Officer and Controller, Ami A. Trauber.
A copy of the complaint can be obtained from the Court or can be
viewed on Wechsler Harwood's website at: www.whesq.com.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *