CAR_Public/041109.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, November 9, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 222

                           Headlines

ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Arguments on Appeal of Certification Heard
ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Continues To Face Auto Policy Fraud Suits
ANDRX CORPORATION: Named As Defendant in NY City Medicaid Suit
ANDRX CORPORATION: Seeks Resolution For Cardizem Antitrust Suits
ANDRX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in S.D. FL

ANDRX CORPORATION: FL Court Grants Approval To Stock Suit Pact
AOL TIME: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Violations Lawsuit
AUSTRALIA: Court Approves $32Mil Esso Compensation For Gas Blast
CALIFORNIA: Police Adopt New Policy To Partially Settle Lawsuit
CITIGROUP: NY District Judge Approves $2.6B WorldCom Settlement

CONVERSION MARKETING: Suit Filed For Fraud, Telemarketing Scam
ELI LILLY: Uses "Tolling Agreements" To Limit Zyprexa Lawsuits
ELECTRONIC ARTS: Workers Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA Court
ETHICON INC.: Trial in WV VICRYL Sutures Injury Suit Adjourned
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA PBM Lawsuit

EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Retail Drug Prices Lawsuit in CA Court
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Deceptive Trade Practices Lawsuit in NY
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suits in E.D. MO
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Lawsuit For ERISA Violations in S.D. NY
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Health Plans Launch IL Breach of Contract Suits

FAX.COM: Idaho Obtains Consent Judgment Over Unsolicited Faxes
FIRST AMERICAN: Reaches Settlement For FTC Violations Complaint
FIRST DATA: NY Court Grants Final Approval To Consumer Suit Pact
FIRST DATA: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Concord Shareholders Suit
FIRST DATA: ATM Cardholders Commence Antitrust, Fraud Lawsuits

FPL GROUP: FL Court Grants Summary Judgment in Land Owners' Suit
INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH: FTC Commences Consumer Fraud, Spam Suit
INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Dropped From 9-11 Product Lawsuits in NY
INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: CA Orders Securities Suits Consolidated

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Working To Settle PROPULSID Injury Litigation
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Certification Sought For Racial Bias Lawsuit
MONSANTO CO.: Court Hears Appeal of MO Suit Certification Denial
MONSANTO CO.: Agent Orange Litigation Still Pending in NY Court
MONSANTO CO.: Korean Court Mulls Herbicide Suit Dismissal Appeal

NEW JERSEY: Proposes More Stringent Regulations On Gas Meters
NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud, Derivative Lawsuits
PFIZER INC.: Merchant Law Lodges Suit V. Celebrex's Side Effects
PRAXAIR CORPORATION: Faces Injury Lawsuits Over Welding Fumes
QUALCOMM: Continues To face Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA Court

QUALCOMM: Continues To Face Various Cellular Phones Injury Suits
QUANTUM CORPORATION: CA Court To Hear Certification For Lawsuit
SALTON INC.: AG Donates Part of Settlement To IN Organizations
SERVICE CORPORATION: Acquires Court Approval For $35M Settlement
STATE FARM: Files Suit Seeking To End Growers' Representation

TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Securities Suit
TIME WARNER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NV
TIME WARNER: Continues to Face Stock Fraud, ERISA Lawsuits in NY
TIME WARNER: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: AFGE Wins Policy Reversal On Leave For Reservists

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AXIS CAPITAL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
AXIS CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CHIRON CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in CA
EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in CA
FANNIE MAE: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DC

INTERACTIVECORP: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
JAKKS PACIFIC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges ERISA Suit in S.D. NY
NEW YORK: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY

SOURCECORP INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
SOURCECORP INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
STAR GAS: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA


                           *********


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Arguments on Appeal of Certification Heard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral
arguments in the appeal of class certification for the lawsuits
filed against Allstate Corporation, regarding its specification
of after-market (non-original equipment manufacturer)
replacement parts in the repair of insured vehicles.

One of these suits alleges that the specification of such parts
constitutes breach of contract and fraud, and this suit mirrors
to a large degree lawsuits filed against other carriers in the
industry.  These plaintiffs allege that after-market parts are
not "of like kind and quality" as required by the insurance
policy, and they are seeking actual and punitive damages.

In the second lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that Allstate and three
co-defendants have violated federal antitrust laws by conspiring
to manipulate the price of auto physical damage coverages in
such a way that not all savings realized by the use of
aftermarket parts are passed on to the policyholders.  The
plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages.

In November 2002, a nationwide class was certified in this case.
The defendants filed a petition to appeal the certification.
The parties are now awaiting a decision on the appeal.


ALLSTATE CORPORATION: Continues To Face Auto Policy Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Allstate Corporation continues to face several statewide and
nationwide class action lawsuits, alleging that its failure to
pay "inherent diminished value" to insureds under the collision,
comprehensive, uninsured motorist property damage, or auto
property damage liability provisions of auto policies
constitutes breach of contract and fraud.

Plaintiffs define "inherent diminished value" as the difference
between the market value of the insured automobile before an
accident and the market value after repair.  Plaintiffs allege
that they are entitled to the payment of inherent diminished
value under the terms of the policy.

To a large degree, these lawsuits mirror similar lawsuits filed
against other carriers in the industry.  These lawsuits are
pending in various state and federal Courts, and they are in
various stages of development.  Classes have been certified in
only two cases.  Both are multi-state class actions.  A trial in
one of these multi-state class action cases involving collision
and comprehensive coverage concluded on April 29, 2004, with a
jury verdict in favor of the Company.  The plaintiffs made a
motion for a new trial, which was denied, and have now filed an
appeal from the judgment.

In the other certified class action lawsuit, which involves
uninsured motorist property damage coverage, the appellate Court
has granted the Company's petition for review of the order of
certification.

The Company has been vigorously defending all of these lawsuits
and, since 1998, has been implementing policy language in more
than 40 states reaffirming that its collision and comprehensive
coverages do not include diminished value claims, the Company
stated in a regulatory filing.  The outcome of these disputes is
currently uncertain.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Named As Defendant in NY City Medicaid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation was named as a defendant in the action filed
by the City of New York in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The suit names as defendants 44
drug makers, including the Company and alleged that they
overcharged Medicaid for prescription medications.

The Company is not required to respond to this complaint until
after decisions on Motions to Dismiss are determined in a
related case.  Press reports and other sources indicate that the
attorneys general for the states of Massachusetts, Florida and
Pennsylvania, as well as others, are also investigating and/or
pursuing legal action against drug makers, charging the industry
has inflated prices.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Seeks Resolution For Cardizem Antitrust Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrx Corporation is working to settle several antitrust class
actions filed in relation to its product Cardizem CD in various
federal Courts.

Beginning in August 1998, several putative class action lawsuits
were filed against the Company and Aventis (formerly Hoechst
Marion Roussel, Inc.) arising from a 1997 stipulation entered
into between Andrx and Aventis in connection with a patent
infringement suit brought by Aventis with regard to Cardizem CD.
The actions pending in federal Court have been consolidated for
multi-district litigation purposes in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan, with one of the cases
filed by a group of direct purchasers having recently been
remanded back to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

The complaint in each action alleges that Andrx and Aventis, by
way of the 1997 stipulation, have engaged in alleged state
antitrust and other statutory and common law violations that
allegedly have given Aventis and Andrx a near monopoly in the
U.S. market for Cardizem CD and a generic version of that
pharmaceutical product.  Each complaint seeks compensatory
damages on behalf of each class member in an unspecified amount
and, in some cases, treble damages, as well as costs and counsel
fees, disgorgement, injunctive relief and other remedies.

In June 2000, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of Michigan granted summary judgment to plaintiffs finding that
the 1997 stipulation was a per se violation of antitrust laws.
On June 13, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit affirmed the district Court's decision. On October 12,
2004, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review this case.

Essentially reiterating the claims asserted against Andrx in the
aforementioned Cardizem CD antitrust class action litigation and
seeking the same relief sought in that litigation are:

     (1) the May 14, 2001 complaint filed by the attorneys
         general for the states of New York and Michigan, joined
         by 13 additional states and the District of Columbia,
         on behalf of their government entities and consumers
         resident in their jurisdictions, which was subsequently
         amended to add 12 additional states and Puerto Rico to
         the action;

     (2) the July 26, 2001 complaint filed by Blue Cross Blue
         Shield of Michigan, joined by three other Blue Cross
         Blue Shield plans;

     (3) two actions pending in state Courts in Florida, and

     (4) two actions pending in state Courts in Kansas

On November 26, 2002, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan approved a settlement between the direct
purchasers and Andrx and Aventis.  In October 2003, the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan approved a
settlement between the indirect purchasers and Andrx and
Aventis.  Although that order is currently on appeal, Andrx does
not believe the appeal has merit, or even if successful, would
ultimately change the settlement in any material respect.

In April 2004, the Company settled its litigation with the four
Blue Cross Blue Shield plaintiffs who opted-out of the
settlement with the indirect purchasers.  The Company has also
agreed with all remaining plaintiffs, consisting of the direct
purchaser groups that opted out of the settlement with the
direct purchaser class, upon a methodology for disposing of the
claims asserted by that group after receiving such guidance as
the U.S. Supreme Court may give on the issues raised.  As a
result of that methodology, and the U.S. Supreme Court's
determination that it will not review the decision of the Court
of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the parties have settled this
matter and are in the process of dismissing this case.


ANDRX CORPORATION: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against
Andrx Corporation and certain of its current and former officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company for
alleged material misrepresentations regarding the expiration
dating for the Company's s generic versions of Wellbutrin
SR/Zyban and that the Company knew that its products would not
receive timely FDA approval.  All of these cases were
consolidated and on October 20, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint, against the Company
and Richard J. Lane, its former Chief Executive Officer,
alleging a class period from March 1, 2002 through March 4,
2003.

After the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss this
complaint, the plaintiffs further amended their complaint to
assert that the Company knew, when it filed its ANDAs, that the
products would not be approved by the FDA because of their
expiration dating.


ANDRX CORPORATION: FL Court Grants Approval To Stock Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Andrx
Corporation and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

Several securities fraud class action complaints were filed in
March 2002, alleging that the Company and certain of its current
and former officers and directors engaged in securities fraud
and/or made material misrepresentations regarding the regulatory
status of the Company's ANDA for a generic version of Tiazac.
The amended class action complaint sought a class period for
those persons or institutions that acquired Andrx common stock
from April 30, 2001, through February 21, 2002.

In November 2002, the Court granted in part the Company's motion
to dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint and
determined that all but one of the statements allegedly made in
violation of the federal securities laws should be dismissed as
a matter of law.  The Court's decision reduced the class
period to six weeks commencing January 9, 2002, and ending
February 21, 2002.  The Court also later granted the Company's
motion to strike all allegations of insider trading from the
complaint.

In December 2003, defendant's motion for summary judgment was
granted and a final judgment was entered in favor of the
defendants.  The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal of the
motion to dismiss and the summary judgment orders.  On August 6,
2004, the Court entered a final judgment and granted final
approval of the settlement stipulation entered by the defendants
and the class members.


AOL TIME: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AOL Time Warner, Inc. asked the District Court of Cass County,
Texas to dismiss the lawsuit, styled "McClure et al. v. AOL Time
Warner Inc. et al.," filed on behalf of several purchasers of
Company stock.  The suit names as defendants the Company and
certain of its current and former officers, directors and
employees.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements in violation
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs
also allege breach of fiduciary duty and common law fraud.
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages.

The Company has filed a general denial and a motion to dismiss
for improper venue.  Also, all named individual defendants moved
to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.


AUSTRALIA: Court Approves $32Mil Esso Compensation For Gas Blast
----------------------------------------------------------------
The protracted legal battle to win compensation for Victorian
businesses affected by the 1998 Longford gas explosion, in the
state's southeast, has finally come to a conclusion, the ABC
Online, Australia reports.

The Supreme Court approved a $32 million package for 500
businesses to be compensated for property damage during the two-
week gas shutdown, which would officially end more or less six
years of Court action against Esso.

According to Lisa Nichols from law firm Slater and Gordon, the
settlement is a significant outcome and describes it as possibly
the largest class action in Australian legal history.
Furthermore she states, that it took them six years to reach
this point and that it's been a very hard fought battle that
"has resulted in Esso, which is possibly the largest corporation
in the world, paying over money to claimants who have sued it in
civil litigations."

Chris Welberry, Esso public affairs manager expressed the
Company's elation at reaching the settlement by stating, "In
February 2003 the Court ruled that economic loss as a result of
the accident in 1998 was not claimable. But the Court did allow
a number of limited claims for what was termed physical damage,
where there was spoilage and so forth as a result of the gas
stoppage. Today's settlement finalizes those claims."


CALIFORNIA: Police Adopt New Policy To Partially Settle Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Oakland, California police department has agreed to stop
using wooden or rubber bullets, Taser stun guns, pepper spray
and motorcycles to break up crowds, as part of a settlement in a
class action lawsuit, alleging that police violated activists'
First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and assembly during
an anti-war protest at the Port of Oakland on April 7, 2003,
KTVU.com reports.  About 60 people have accused the police of
firing non-lethal projectiles into the crowd with no warning,
while others stated that police on motorcycles bumped them hard.

The new policy followed 10 months of discussions involving
Oakland police, the city attorney's office and plaintiffs in the
case. Under the new policy, police are expected to respect
protesters' First Amendment right to demonstrate and that if the
protesters break laws, police would try to negotiate with
leaders and give audible orders to the crowd to disperse before
making arrests.

The guidelines also required the police officers to use tear gas
only if demonstrators still refuse to comply, and then only on
the edge of the crowd. They would also be able to push back at
protesters, but not strike them.  The plaintiffs are still
seeking monetary damages in the case with a trial slated in
January unless they are settled beforehand.


CITIGROUP: NY District Judge Approves $2.6B WorldCom Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Denise Cote recently approved Citigroup's
$2.6 billion settlement with WorldCom investors who lost
billions when an accounting scandal forced the
telecommunications Company to seek bankruptcy protection,
Reuters reports.

By gaining approval for the settlement, Citigroup, the world's
largest financial services company, which had set aside reserves
for the settlement, has actually managed to resolve one of the
biggest class-action lawsuits resulting from a string of
corporate scandals over recent years.

Under the settlement, which originally called for Citigroup to
pay $2.65 billion to WorldCom stockholders and bondholders, the
Company will now be made to pay a total of $2.58 billion, or
equal to just less than half of Citigroup's profit in its third
quarter. While investors, who were primarily seeking tens of
billions of dollars, will also receive $51 million in interest.

Though considered to be the second-largest settlement in a
securities class action case, it does not necessarily mean that
litigation by WorldCom investors is over, according to legal
observers. Even U.S. District Judge Denise Cote, who had hailed
the Citigroup settlement as "historic," noted that "this
litigation is far from over."

Upon approval of the settlement, New York State Comptroller Alan
Hevesi, the trustee for the New York State Common Retirement
Fund, the lead plaintiff in the suit described it as an
excellent settlement and further described it as "a fair
recompense to the class that was victim of the acts taken by
WorldCom and the underwriters."

The class action lawsuit, which represents hundreds of thousands
of investors, accused Citigroup, and other investment banks that
underwrote WorldCom bonds of failing to conduct due diligence
before bringing the securities to market. The lawsuit also
concentrated on the role played by Jack Grubman, once a star
telecommunications analyst at Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney
unit, who investors accused of touting WorldCom publicly while
knowing his statements were inaccurate.

A Citigroup representative, meanwhile, said, "We are pleased the
settlement process took this important step toward conclusion,"
Reuters states.


CONVERSION MARKETING: Suit Filed For Fraud, Telemarketing Scam
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission charged that a telemarketing
operation promised "free samples," then debited consumer's
accounts without their authorization in violation of federal
law.  The FTC alleges that the defendants withdrew fees from
consumers' credit and debit card accounts, and enrolled them in
automatic programs to keep the products coming without their
knowledge or authorization.

The FTC's complaint names Conversion Marketing, Inc., doing
business as National Health Support Center, Natural Bright, and
Pounds Off Patch, and Adam Tyler MacDonald d/b/a Fast White, all
based in Santa Ana, California.; and Drsharp, Inc., d/b/a
Oratech, LC, Fast White, and Product Design Corporation, and
David R. Sharp, all based in North Salt Lake, Utah.

According to the FTC, the operation uses telemarketing,
television, radio, and Internet ads to induce consumers to try a
"free" sample of Fast White tooth-whitening product or the
Pounds Off Patch weight-loss patch. Regardless of whether they
accept the defendants' offer, consumers later discover that they
have been charged for the "free" sample, and then assessed
additional, unauthorized charges for shipments they never
requested.

According to the complaint, prior to November 2003, MacDonald
began telemarketing Fast White through a now-bankrupt Company
called Test Marketing Group, LLC (TMG). TMG's telemarketers made
outbound calls to consumers and represented that they could get
a "free trial" or a "free sample" of the tooth-whitening kit at
no cost or obligation. The telemarketers did not ask for
consumers' financial information. They already had the
consumers' debit and credit account information they had
improperly obtained from third parties. When consumers agreed to
receive the kit, they were unaware of this fact. After TMG filed
for bankruptcy, its operations were transferred to Conversion
Marketing.

The FTC alleges that defendants MacDonald and Conversion
Marketing used telemarketing, radio, the Internet, and
television ads to market the Pounds Off Patch weight-loss patch.
During the telemarketing calls, some consumers were asked if
they would like to participate in a "study" during which they
would receive free samples of the patch and were told that all
they had to pay were shipping costs. Other consumers were told
that if they bought one set of patches they would receive a
second set at "half off." Consumers were asked for their
financial account information.

The FTC alleges that these defendants, in both instances, placed
unauthorized charges on consumers' accounts, and enrolled them
in programs where the consumers would automatically receive
additional unauthorized shipments (known as "continuity plans").

The FTC's complaint charges MacDonald and his companies with
falsely representing that the products were "free" or part of
trial offers. The complaint also charges as unfair the practice
of enrolling consumers in continuity plans and imposing
unauthorized charges. In addition, MacDonald and his companies
are charged with violating the Telemarketing Sales Rule by:

     (1) Engaging in unauthorized billing;

     (2) Misrepresenting a material aspect of a negative option
         feature (e.g., the fact that consumers' accounts will
         be charged unless the consumers take affirmative
         actions to avoid charges, or failing to inform
         consumers of the specific steps they must take to avoid
         the charges);

     (3) Failing to disclose the total cost of the products; and

     (4) Receiving unencrypted account information.

In addition, the complaint charges David Sharp and his company
Drsharp with providing substantial assistance or support to
MacDonald and his companies while knowing that MacDonald was
violating the federal laws. The FTC alleges that Sharp and his
Company sold products to MacDonald, shipped products to
consumers, and provided some telephonic customer service for
Fast White customers. The complaint charges that Sharp was
either aware or should have been aware that MacDonald and his
companies routinely assessed unauthorized charges against
consumers bank or debit accounts.

On October 29, 2004, the FTC obtained a temporary restraining
order and asset freeze against MacDonald and Conversion
Marketing to halt the business practices the FTC has alleged are
illegal.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was
5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court, Central
District of California, on October 29, 2004.

For more details, contact FTC's Consumer Response Center by
Mail: Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20580 or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. For more
details, also contact Brenda Mack, Office of Public Affairs by
Phone: 202-326-2182 or Jeffrey Klurfeld or Raymond McKown, FTC's
Western Region - Los Angeles by Phone: 310-824-4343


ELI LILLY: Uses "Tolling Agreements" To Limit Zyprexa Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Indianapolis drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. is now using a new
legal tactic that is aimed at limiting cases that come to trial
over its best-selling drug Zyprexa, according to the Company's
most recent federal securities filing, the Indianapolis Star
reports.

Though already facing 125 lawsuits over Zyprexa, Eli Lilly has
recently negotiated deals with trial lawyers that could delay
the filing of lawsuits on behalf of more than 1,800 other
potential claimants. According to Curt G. Oltmans, associate
general counsel for Lilly, they are pursuing the so-called
"tolling agreements" for the first time in any product-liability
cases against the Company because it sees legal benefits by
using them. Mr. Oltmans points out that the "tooling agreements"
would require prospective plaintiffs to file any lawsuit against
Lilly in one federal Court, rather than the hundreds of state
Courts. He states that by consolidating Zyprexa cases in federal
Court Lilly's legal fees will be reduced, since pre-trial
discovery of evidence is done once and shared with all
plaintiffs. Plaintiffs must also agree not to ask for personal
injury claims if they sign a tolling agreement, Eli Lilly's
associate general counsel said.

In return for signing the agreement, Eli Lilly agrees to a
lifting of the state-set statutes of limitation deadline for
when a person must file a product-liability case against a
manufacturer, which actually ranges from one to four years after
the time the alleged injury occurs. The Company expects some of
the 1,800 people whose lawyers have signed tolling agreements
with Lilly will never file lawsuits.

Zyprexa lawsuits began to mount about a year ago, after studies
showed that the antipsychotic is linked to higher rates of
diabetes, weight gain and high blood pressure in users. Eli
Lilly now faces about 125 Zyprexa lawsuits, 72 of which are
consolidated for pre-trial purposes in federal Court in the
Eastern District of New York.

Attorneys have asked U.S. District Judge Jack Weinstein in New
York to declare the case a class action, which would allow
anyone to join the litigation, who thinks that he or she was
harmed by Zyprexa. Eli Lilly is fighting the class action
request and expects to cite in its defense a recent decision by
another federal judge to reject class action status in lawsuits
over a rival antipsychotic, Seroquel, made by AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals.

The mass lawsuits are part of an increasingly litigious
environment for all drugmakers over side effects of some of
their best-selling drugs.


ELECTRONIC ARTS: Workers Launch Overtime Wage Suits in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Arts, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court in San Mateo, California, styled "Kirschenbaum v.
Electronic Arts Inc."

The complaint alleges the Company improperly classified "Image
Production Employees" in California as exempt employees and
seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages, interest
and attorneys' fees.


ETHICON INC.: Trial in WV VICRYL Sutures Injury Suit Adjourned
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the litigation against Ethicon, Inc. over its VICRYL
sutures in West Virginia has been adjourned and not reset.

The Johnson & Johnson subsidiary faces lawsuits that allege that
the sterility of VICRYL sutures was compromised by inadequacies
in the Company's systems and controls, causing patients who were
exposed to these sutures to incur infections which would not
otherwise have occurred.

The Company on several occasions recalled batches of VICRYL
sutures in light of questions raised about sterility but does
not believe any contamination of suture products in fact
occurred, it stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

In November 2003, a trial judge in West Virginia certified for
class treatment all West Virginia residents who had VICRYL
sutures implanted during Class I or II surgeries from May 1,
1994 to December 31, 1997.  The certification is subject to
later challenge following the conclusion of discovery.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA PBM Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of the class action
filed against Express Scripts, Inc. and other pharmacy benefit
management companies, styled "Jerry Beeman, et al. v. Caremark,
et al. Cause No. 021327."

The complaint, filed by several California pharmacies as a
putative class action, alleged that the Company, and the other
defendants, failed to comply with statutory obligations under
California Civil Code Section 2527 to provide our California
clients with the results of a bi-annual survey of retail drug
prices.  On July 12, 2004, the case was dismissed with prejudice
on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring the
action.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Retail Drug Prices Lawsuit in CA Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. and several other pharmacy benefit
management companies face a class action styled "Anthony
Bradley, et al v. First Health Services Corporation, et al.
(Cause No. BC319292), filed in the Superior Court for the State
of California, County of Los Angeles.

The complaint, filed by several California pharmacies as a
putative class action, alleged rights to sue as a private
attorney general under California law.  The complaint alleged
that the Company, and the other defendants, failed to comply
with statutory obligations under California Civil Code Section
2527 to provide its California clients with the results of a bi-
annual survey of retail drug prices.  Plaintiffs request
injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages and attorney's
fees.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Deceptive Trade Practices Lawsuit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Supreme
Court for the State of New York, County of Albany, styled
"Correction Officers' Benevolent Association of the City of New
York, et al v. Express Scripts, Inc. (Cause No. 04-602517)."

The complaint alleges that certain business practices violate
duties owed to the class members including fiduciary duties,
breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing, deceptive
trade practices, breach of contract, and unjust enrichment.  The
complaint purports to be a class action filed on behalf of all
non-Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) health plans
with members who are employees of the City of New York and the
members of those plans.  Plaintiffs request unspecified
compensatory and punitive damages, equitable relief and
attorney's fees.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suits in E.D. MO
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Missouri.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Sylvia Childress, et al v. Express Scripts, Inc., et
         al, Cause No. 04-CV-01191,

     (2) Lidia Garcia, et al v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al.,
         Cause No. 04-CV-1009,

     (3) Robert Espriel, et al v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al.,
         Cause No. 04-CV-01084,

     (4) Raymond Hoffman, et al v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al
         (Cause No. 04-CV-01054),

     (5) John R. Nicholas, et al v. Express Scripts, Inc., et al
         (Cause No. 04-CV-1295),

     (6) John Keith Tully, et al v. Express Scripts, Inc.,
         et al (Cause No. 04-CV-01338),

All of these suits are brought against the Company and certain
of its officers alleging violations of federal securities law.
The complaints allege that ESI failed to disclose certain
alleged improper business practices and issued false and
misleading statements.  The complaints allege that they are
brought on behalf of purchasers of Express Scripts stock during
the period October 29, 2003 to August 3, 2004.   The complaints
request unspecified compensatory damages, equitable relief and
attorney's fees.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Faces Lawsuit For ERISA Violations in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. and the National Prescription
Administrators, Inc. (NPA) face a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, styled "United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and
Employers Midwest Health Benefits Fund, et al v. National
Prescription Administrators, Inc., et al (Cause No.
04-CV-7472).

The complaint alleges that certain of our business practices
violate duties to the class members including duties under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), state common
law and state consumer protection statutes.  The complaint
purports to be a class action filed on behalf of all current
former self-funded ERISA and non-ERISA funds for which ESI or
NPA served as the PBM.  Plaintiffs request unspecified
compensatory damages, equitable relief and attorney's fees.


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Health Plans Launch IL Breach of Contract Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Express Scripts, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Twentieth Judicial Circuit Court, St. Clair County, Illinois,
styled "Central Laborers' Welfare Fund, et al v. Express
Scripts, Inc., et al (Cause No. 04-L-554)."  The suit also names
the National Prescription Administrators, Inc. (NPA) as
defendant.

The complaint alleges that certain of the Company's business
practices constitute a breach of contract, breach of covenant of
good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment.  The complaint purports to be a class action filed
on behalf of all former and current self-funded private and
governmental health plans that contracted with ESI or NPA since
January 1, 1997.  Plaintiffs request unspecified compensatory
damages, equitable relief and attorney's fees.


FAX.COM: Idaho Obtains Consent Judgment Over Unsolicited Faxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fax.com, believed to be the largest volume "fax-spammer" in the
United States, has been permanently enjoined from doing business
in Idaho, state Attorney General Lawrence Wasden announced in a
statement.

During a news conference in Boise, AG Wasden said that his
office has obtained a consent judgment against the California-
based Company.  "The Idaho Consumer Protection Act and the Idaho
Telephone Solicitations Act prohibit sending unsolicited faxes,"
Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said.  "The laws are clear and
do not contain exceptions.  This is not a situation where you
have to tell the sender to stop. Anytime you receive an
unsolicited ad by fax, the sender has violated the law."

The Attorney General filed a lawsuit against Fax.com in December
2003 alleging that the Company sent hundreds of unsolicited fax
advertisements to Idaho consumers.  The complaint alleged that
Fax.com used auto-dialers to locate active fax numbers, which
Fax.com compiled into a computer database.  Fax.com contracted
with other businesses and sent unsolicited advertisements to the
active fax machines on behalf of those businesses.  Although
consumers could call an "unsubscribe" number to remove their fax
number from Fax.com's database, consumers often continued to
receive advertisements.  As of September 2004, Fax.com claimed
its database contained more than 16 million fax numbers.

During the past three years, the Attorney General's Office
received 278 complaints from individuals, businesses, and
government agencies that received unwanted faxed advertisements
for diet pills, vacations, work-at-home offers, health care
plans, stock tips, and other goods and services.

"Unsolicited fax advertisements are both annoying and expensive
to Idaho consumers and businesses," Attorney General Lawrence
Wasden said.  "They're annoying because you don't want this
stuff in the first place and they're expensive because they use
your paper, toner and electricity while tying up your phone
line."

Along with enjoining Fax.com from sending faxes into Idaho, the
agreement requires Fax.com to pay the Attorney General's Office
a $5,000 civil penalty and $2,997.00 in attorney fees and costs.
The agreement also subjects Fax.com to liquidated damages of up
to $5,000 for each unsolicited fax it sends into Idaho in the
future.

"My office will vigorously enforce the terms of this consent
order," Attorney General Wasden said.  "In addition, we are
taking steps toward building cases against other fax-spammers.
While it's not realistic to think that we can completely stop
illegal faxes, I encourage Idaho consumers and businesses who
receive unsolicited fax advertisements to continue filing
complaints with my office."

For more details, contact Bob Cooper by Phone: (208) 334-4112.


FIRST AMERICAN: Reaches Settlement For FTC Violations Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
First American Payment Processing, Inc., two related
corporations, and their principals are banned from processing
any payments for outbound telemarketers as part of a settlement
with the Federal Trade Commission.

The FTC had charged the defendants with assisting fraudulent
telemarketers by electronically debiting consumers' bank
accounts in violation of the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) and
the FTC Act. The settlement announced today prohibits the
defendants from engaging in the types of practices alleged in
the complaint and requires them to pay redress in the amount of
$1,580,739.

In January 2004, the FTC filed a complaint in federal district
Court against First American Payment Processing, Inc.; CET
Corporation; Check Processing Center, LLC; Carl E. Towner; and
Matthew Robinson alleging that they knowingly processed
electronic payments for telemarketers who deceptively sold
advance-fee credit cards or who engaged in other deceptive or
abusive telemarketing practices.

The FTC alleged that the defendants violated the TSR by
providing substantial assistance and support to numerous
telemarketing clients whom they knew or should have known were
engaging in deceptive or abusive telemarketing practices. The
FTC further alleged that the defendants violated the law by
processing these consumer payments through the Automated
Clearing House (ACH) Network on behalf of merchants engaged in
outbound telemarketing to consumers.

According to the FTC, the defendants' payment processing
activities breached rules governing the ACH Network (NACHA
Rules) - rules to which they were contractually bound. The FTC
also sued the wives of Messrs. Towner and Robinson as relief
defendants.

The proposed stipulated permanent injunction and final order
bans the defendants from processing payments for outbound
telemarketers, regardless of the nature of the relationship
between the telemarketer and consumer. The ban permanently
prohibits the defendants from processing payments through any
mechanism - not just through the ACH Network - for outbound
telemarketers.  The proposed order allows the defendants to
continue their legitimate payment processing activities, such as
processing for clients whose business depends on consumer-
initiated calls, so long as the business is not violating the
TSR, the NACHA Rules, or the FTC Act.

In addition, the proposed order prohibits the defendants from
violating any provision of the TSR, including assisting
deceptive and abusive telemarketers. The proposed order
specifically prohibits the defendants from providing substantial
assistance to clients who the defendants know, or consciously
avoid knowing, are violating the TSR by:

     (1) inducing consumers to pay for goods or services using
         false or misleading statements;

     (2) selling advance-fee credit cards; or

     (3) engaging in unauthorized billing of consumers'
         accounts

The proposed order requires the defendants to investigate the
business practices of each of the companies for which they
process transactions, and obtain written documents demonstrating
that these companies' business practices comply with the NACHA
Rules regarding consumer authorization of debits. If the
defendants learn that a client's business practices violate the
TSR, the NACHA Rules, or the FTC Act, the settlement prohibits
them from processing payments for the client.

Finally, the settlement contains various provisions to assist
the FTC in monitoring the defendants' compliance.

The Commission vote to authorize the staff to file the
stipulated permanent injunction and final order proposed order
was 5-0. The stipulated permanent injunction and final order was
filed in the U.S. District Court, District of Arizona, Phoenix
Division, on November 2, 2004 and requires the Court's approval
to become final.

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


FIRST DATA: NY Court Grants Final Approval To Consumer Suit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against First Data Corporation
and its subsidiary Western Union Financial Services, Inc.

The suit asserts claims on behalf of a putative worldwide class
(excluding members of the settlement class of similar actions
previously filed against the Company and its subsidiaries)  The
plaintiffs claim that the Company, Western Union and Orlandi
Valuta impose an undisclosed "charge" when they transmit
consumers' money by wire either from the United States to
international locations or from international locations to the
United States, in that the exchange rate used in these
transactions is less favorable than the exchange rate that
Western Union and Orlandi Valuta receive when they trade
currency in the international money market.

Plaintiffs further assert that Western Union's failure to
disclose this "charge" in the transactions violates 18 U.S.C.
section 1961 et seq. and state deceptive trade practices
statutes, and also asserts claims for civil conspiracy.  The
plaintiffs seek injunctive relief, compensatory damages in an
amount to be proven at trial, treble damages, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, and costs of suit.

The parties to this action reached a proposed settlement of all
claims that includes:

     (1) Western Union (and, with respect to money transfer
         transactions from the U.S. other than California to
         Mexico, Orlandi Valuta) will issue coupons for
         discounts on future international money transfer
         transactions to customers who transferred money from
         the U.S. to certain countries other than Mexico between
         January 1, 1995 and approximately June 30, 2000 (for
         certain services, Western Union will issue coupons for
         transactions conducted as late as December 31, 2001),
         from anywhere in the U.S. other than California to
         Mexico between September 1, 1999 and June 30, 2000
         (again, for certain services, Western Union will issue
         coupons for transactions conducted as late as December
         31, 2001), from countries other than Canada to the U.S.
         between January 1, 1995 and June 30, 2000, and from
         Canada to the U.S. between January 1, 1995 and
         approximately July 31, 2002;

     (2) injunctive relief requiring Western Union and Orlandi
         Valuta to make additional disclosures regarding their
         foreign exchange practices; and

     (3) reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and costs as well
         as the costs of settlement notice and administration.

A small number of class members filed objections to or requests
for exclusion from the proposed settlement.  The Court held a
fairness hearing on April 9, 2004 and granted final approval of
the settlement on October 19, 2004.  The time period during
which objectors may appeal has not yet expired.  If an appeal is
taken and the approval of the settlement is reversed on appeal,
the Company intends to vigorously defend this action.


FIRST DATA: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Concord Shareholders Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corporation asked the Shelby County Circuit Court for
the State of Tennessee to dismiss the consolidated class action
filed against it, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc. and certain
of Concord's current and former officers and directors.

On April 3 and 4, 2003 two purported class action complaints
were filed on behalf of the public holders of Concord's common
stock (excluding shareholders related to or affiliated with the
individual defendants).  The defendants in those actions were
certain current and former officers and directors of Concord.

The complaints generally alleged breaches of the defendants'
duty of loyalty and due care in connection with the defendants'
alleged attempt to sell Concord without maximizing the value to
shareholders in order to advance the defendants' alleged
individual interests in obtaining indemnification agreements
related to the securities litigation discussed above and other
derivative litigation.  The complaints sought class
certification, injunctive relief directing the defendants'
conduct in connection with an alleged sale or auction of
Concord, reasonable attorneys' fees, experts' fees and other
costs and relief the Court deems just and proper.

On April 2, 2003 an additional purported class action complaint
was filed by Barton K. O'Brien.  The defendants were Concord,
certain of its current and former officers and directors, and
the Company.  The Company subsequently was dismissed from the
action.  This complaint contained allegations regarding the
individual defendants' alleged insider trading and alleged
violations of securities and other laws and asserted that this
alleged misconduct reduced the consideration offered to Concord
shareholders in the proposed merger between Concord and a
subsidiary of the Company.

The complaint sought class certification, attorneys' fees,
experts' fees, costs and other relief the Court deems just and
proper.  Moreover, the complaint also sought an order enjoining
consummation of the merger, rescinding the merger if it is
consummated and setting it aside or awarding rescissory damages
to members of the putative class, and directing the defendants
to account to the putative class members for unspecified
damages.

These complaints were consolidated in a second amended
consolidated complaint filed September 19, 2003 into one action,
styled "In re Concord EFS, Inc. Shareholder Litigation," in the
Shelby County Circuit for the State of Tennessee.  On October
15, 2003, the plaintiffs moved for leave to file a third amended
consolidated complaint similar to the previous complaints but
also alleging that the proxy statement disclosures relating to
the antitrust regulatory approval process were inadequate.

On October 17, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction to enjoin the shareholder vote on the
proposed merger and/or the merger itself.  The Court denied the
plaintiffs' motion on October 20, 2003 but ordered deposition
discovery on an expedited basis.  On October 27, 2003 the
plaintiffs filed a renewed motion to enjoin the shareholder
vote, which was denied by the Court the same day.  A motion to
dismiss was filed on June 22, 2004 alleging that the claims
should be denied and are moot since the merger has occurred.


FIRST DATA: ATM Cardholders Commence Antitrust, Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Data Corporation, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc. and
various financial institutions face several antitrust class
actions, charging they conspired to artificially inflate foreign
ATM fees that were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla
Martinez filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company, its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc., and various financial
institutions.  Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment,
injunctive relief, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, costs
and such other relief as the nature of the case may require or
as may seem just and proper to the Court.

Five similar suits were filed in July, August and October 2004,
two in the Central District of California (Los Angeles), two in
the Southern District of New York, and one in the Western
District of Washington.  The Plaintiffs have sought to refer
these cases to the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (MDL) for a
determination of where they should go forward.  While the MDL
panel has not yet ruled on this referral, the Court in New York
has ordered that the two cases filed in that jurisdiction should
be transferred to the Northern District of California.


FPL GROUP: FL Court Grants Summary Judgment in Land Owners' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida circuit Court granted summary judgment in favor of FPL
Group in the class action filed on behalf of all property owners
in Florida.

In 2001, J. W. and Ernestine M. Thomas, Chester and Marie
Jenkins (since substituted for by Hazel and Lamar Jenkins), and
Ray Norman and Jack Teague, as Co-Personal Representatives on
behalf of the Estate of Robert L. Johns, served FPL Group, FPL,
FPL FiberNet, FPL Group Capital and FPL Investments, Inc. (FPL
Investments) as defendants in a civil action filed in the
Florida circuit Court.

This action is purportedly on behalf of all property owners in
Florida (excluding railroad and public rights of way) whose
property is encumbered by easements in favor of FPL, and on
whose property defendants have installed or intend to install
fiber-optic cable which defendants currently lease, license or
convey or intend to lease, license or convey for non-electric
transmission or distribution purposes.

The lawsuit alleges that FPL's easements do not permit the
installation and use of fiber-optic cable for general
communication purposes.  The plaintiffs have asserted claims for
unlawful detainer, unjust enrichment and constructive trust and
seek injunctive relief and compensatory damages.

In May 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
allegations regarding the installation of wireless
communications equipment on some easements, and adding a claim
for declaratory relief.  Defendants filed an answer and
affirmative defenses to the amended complaint in August 2002.
Motions for summary judgment by FPL Group, FPL Group Capital and
FPL Investments have been granted, and they have been dismissed
from this lawsuit.


INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH: FTC Commences Consumer Fraud, Spam Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has asked a U.S. district
Court judge to shut down an operation that used illegal spam to
make deceptive claims about an "automotive fuel saver" that
doesn't save fuel.  The FTC charges that the spam violates the
CAN-SPAM Act and the deceptive claims violate the FTC Act. The
agency will ask the Court to permanently bar the law violations
and order the defendants to provide redress for consumers.

An FTC complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Chicago alleges
that Anthony Renda and International Research and Development
Corporation manufacture and market a "magnetic device" under the
names FuelMAX and Super FuelMAX.  They claim that when the
device is attached to an automobile's fuel line, it will
fracture gasoline hydrocarbon chains through magnetic resonance
and:

     (1) Increase mileage by up to 27%;

     (2) Reduce Fuel Consumption;

     (3) Reduce Emissions;

     (4) Provide Accelerated Combustion; and

     (5) Burn Fuel That is Normally Exhausted as Un-burned
         Pollution

In November 2001, the FTC issued a warning that these product
claims and advertising were false, lacked substantiation, and
likely violated the FTC Act.  Other defendants, acting as Super
FuelMAX resellers, set up Web sites, including
www.fuelsaverpro.com to sell the magnetic devices under the
pseudonym Fuel Saver Pro. The Web sites made claims such as:

     (1) Increase gas mileage 27%+ by helping fuel burn better;

     (2) Reduce emissions by 43%;

     (3) Smoother engine;

     (4) pays for itself FAST!!!!

     (5) Gives an extra 10% more horsepower; and

     (6) Based on the size of your gas tank you will save from
         $8 for a typical 15 gallon gas tank, but larger V8 SUVs
         and trucks will save up to $20 per tank.

The defendant resellers used spam that made deceptive claims to
drive traffic to their Web sites.  According to the FTC, the
spam contained the names of innocent third parties in the "from"
or "reply to" fields - a practice known as spoofing - and did
not contain a valid physical postal address.

The FTC alleges that the magnetic "fuel saver" doesn't save
fuel, doesn't increase gas mileage, and doesn't reduce
emissions.  According to the complaint, the claims are false and
misleading and violate the FTC Act.  The agency also alleges
that by providing promotional materials with the false claims to
distributors, resellers, and affiliates, the defendants have
provided them with the means and instrumentalities to violate
the FTC Act. The agency also alleges that the spoofing and
failure to provide a valid physical postal address violate the
CAN-SPAM Act.

The FTC charges that consumers throughout the country have
suffered substantial monetary loss and the defendants have been
unjustly enriched. It has asked the Court to halt the deceptive
claims, bar future violations of the CAN-SPAM Act, and order
redress for consumers.

The FTC's complaint names International Research and Development
Corporation of Nevada; Anthony Renda; Net Marketing Group, LLC;
Micro System Technologies; Floyd J. Tassin, Jr; Marcia Tassin;
Diverse Marketing Group, Inc.; Diverse Marketing Group, LLC;
Mark C. Ayoub; and Epro2000, Inc. as defendants.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center by
Mail: Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20580 or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov,or contact
Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2181 or Steven Baker or Steven M. Wernikoff, FTC Midwest
Region by Phone: 312-960-5634.


INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Dropped From 9-11 Product Lawsuits in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
InVision Technologies, Inc. and its subsidiary, Quantum
Magnetics have been dropped as defendants in the coordinated
litigation filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled "In re: September 11
Litigation, 21 MC 97 (AKH)."

The two companies, together with other entities, were named as
defendants in approximately 156 product liability lawsuits by
individual plaintiffs seeking damages for wrongful death in
connection with the terrorist acts of September 11, 2001.   The
Company and Quantum Magnetics have been served with 103
complaints.  Each complaint with which InVision and Quantum
Magnetics have been served alleges that defendants have breached
a duty to airplane passengers and others by failing to properly
screen passengers and carry-on baggage for dangerous weapons.

In a regulatory filing, the Company said the plaintiffs' claims
lack merit, especially in light of the fact that it and Quantum
Magnetics did not, as of September 11, 2001, have any passenger
or carry-on baggage screening equipment at security checkpoints
in any of the airports from which the hijacked airplanes
departed.

By Court order, the plaintiffs were required to file and serve
Amended Master Complaints and Appendices by March 31, 2004 to
reflect all defendants and causes of action in the litigation
that had been added since their original Master Complaints were
filed.  The Company and Quantum Magnetics were not included in
the plaintiffs' Amended Master Complaints and their Appendices.

Since these Amended Master Complaints are controlling over the
individual complaints filed by the plaintiffs, all plaintiffs in
the "In re: September 11 Litigation" have effectively dismissed
their claims against the Company and Quantum Magnetics.  Notices
of dismissals or dismissal orders have been received in all of
the individual complaints.

In September 2004, new complaints alleging personal injury and
property damages were filed in the In re: September 11
Litigation."  None of these complaints name the Company and
Quantum Magnetics as defendants.  As a result of the filing of
these new complaints, the new deadline for the named defendants
to assert cross-claims and third party claims is March 31, 2005.


INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
InVision Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the California
Superior Court for the County of Alameda, styled "Waltman, et
al. v. InVision Technologies, Inc., et al., Lead Case No.
RG04146722."

On March 19, 2004, two alleged holders of the Company's common
stock filed purported class action lawsuits against the Company
and each of its directors.  The complaints allege that, in
pursuing the transaction with General Electric Company (GE) and
approving the merger agreement, the directors violated their
fiduciary duties to the holders of InVision common stock by,
among other things, failing to obtain the highest price
reasonably available, tailoring the terms of the transaction to
meet GE's needs, engaging in self-dealing and obtaining personal
financial benefits not shared equally by the plaintiffs and
other stockholders.  The complaints also allege that the merger
agreement resulted from a flawed process designed to ensure a
sale to one buyer.

The lawsuits were later consolidated by stipulation of the
parties.   On May 3, 2004, InVision and three directors filed a
demurrer to the consolidated complaint on the grounds that the
plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of
action.  The remaining five directors filed a motion to quash
the service of summons because they are not California
residents, and, therefore, the Court lacks jurisdiction over
them.

On May 25, 2004, in response to the demurrer, the plaintiffs
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint asserting
similar causes of action, thereby rendering the demurrer moot.
The plaintiffs served initial written discovery requests and
following the May 26, 2004 Initial Complex Case Management
Conference, the plaintiffs were permitted limited expedited
discovery for the purpose of a bringing a motion for a
preliminary injunction.

On June 17, 2004, prior to the filing of any motion for a
preliminary injunction, the parties entered into a memorandum of
understanding to settle the consolidated class action suit.
Under the terms of the memorandum, the Company and the
plaintiffs to the consolidated action have agreed, subject to
approval by the Court, to enter into a settlement with respect
to all claims raised by the plaintiffs to the consolidated
action.

The terms of the settlement contemplated by the memorandum
required that additional disclosures be made concerning the
merger.  Those disclosures were made available in the June 18,
2004 joint press release issued by GE Infrastructure and
InVision.  The parties also agreed that the plaintiffs may seek
attorneys' fees and costs in the amount of $450,000 that
InVision will pay, if the attorney's fees and costs are granted
by the Court.  There will be no other settlement payment by
InVision, GE or any of the members of InVision's board of
directors, who were also named as defendants in the lawsuits.

On September 16, 2004, the Court permitted plaintiffs to file a
second amended complaint.  The second amended complaint added a
purported derivative claim against the individual defendants and
alleged that they had permitted, or failed to prevent, the
activities that gave rise to the internal investigation into
possible offers of improper payments by InVision's distributors
in connection with foreign sales activities.

By agreement of the parties and order of the Court, no
responsive pleading is due pending the Court's consideration of
the proposed settlement.  If the Court approves the settlement
contemplated in the memorandum, the lawsuits, as amended, will
be dismissed.


INVISION TECHNOLOGIES: CA Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against InVision Technologies, Inc.

On August 4, 2004, an alleged holder of InVision common stock
filed a purported class action lawsuit, captioned Engelken,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
InVision Technologies, Inc., et al.  The complaint also names as
defendants:

     (1) Giovanni Lanzara, the Chairman of InVision's Board of
         Directors,

     (2) Sergio Magistri, InVision's Chief Executive Officer and
         a director, and

     (3) Ross Mulholland, Senior Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer of InVision

The complaint alleges InVision and the individual defendants
failed to disclose that the Company's foreign distributors had
made improper payments in connection with foreign sales
activities, that InVision had improperly accounted for such
payments, that InVision's improper accounting for such payments
allowed it to enter into a definitive merger agreement with GE,
that InVision and the individual defendants made related
misrepresentations, and that these alleged nondisclosures and
misrepresentations violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act
and Rule 10b-5.

A substantially identical lawsuit was filed on August 9, 2004.
On October 13, 2004, the Court granted a motion by The Glazer
Funds to consolidate the actions and to be appointed lead
plaintiff.  On October 29, 2004 the parties submitted a proposed
scheduling order to the Court that contemplates the filing of a
consolidated amended complaint on or before December 9, 2004,
and a hearing on any motions to dismiss on March 29, 2005. The
disposition of the proposed scheduling order is uncertain.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Working To Settle PROPULSID Injury Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Johnson is working to settle litigation relating to
its subsidiary Janssen Pharmaceutica, Inc.'s product PROPULSID,
which was withdrawn from general sale and restricted to limited
use in 2000.

In the wake of publicity about those events, numerous lawsuits
have been filed against Janssen, which is a wholly owned
subsidiary of the Company, and the Company regarding PROPULSID,
in state and federal Courts across the country.  There are
approximately 429 such cases currently pending, including the
claims of approximately 5,900 plaintiffs.

In the active cases, 415 individuals are alleged to have died
from the use of PROPULSID.  These actions seek substantial
compensatory and punitive damages and accuse Janssen and the
Company of inadequately testing for and warning about the drug's
side effects, of promoting it for off-label use and of over
promotion.  In addition, Janssen and the Company have entered
into agreements (tolling agreements) with various plaintiffs'
counsel halting the running of the statutes of limitations with
respect to the potential claims of a significant number of
individuals while those attorneys evaluate whether or not to sue
Janssen and the Company on their behalf.

In September 2001, the first ten plaintiffs in the Rankin case,
which comprises the claims of 155 PROPULSID plaintiffs, went to
trial in state Court in Claiborne County, Mississippi.  The jury
returned compensatory damage verdicts for each plaintiff in the
amount of $10 million, for a total of $100 million.  The trial
judge thereafter dismissed the claims of punitive damages.  On
March 4, 2002, the trial judge reduced these verdicts to a total
of $48 million, and denied the motions of Janssen and the
Company for a new trial.

On May 13, 2004, the Supreme Court of Mississippi reversed the
verdicts against Janssen and the Company, and remanded the case
to the trial Court.  The Supreme Court found the joint trial of
multiple plaintiffs' cases against Janssen was prejudicial and
directed the trial Court to return the cases of the individual
plaintiffs for separate trials to their home counties.  A motion
for rehearing was denied on August 5, 2004.

In April 2002, a state court judge in New Jersey denied
plaintiffs' motion to certify a national class of PROPULSID
users for purposes of medical monitoring and refund of the costs
of purchasing PROPULSID.  An effort to appeal that ruling has
been denied.

In June 2002, the federal judge presiding over the PROPULSID
Multi-District Litigation in New Orleans, Louisiana similarly
denied plaintiffs' motion there to certify a national class of
PROPULSID users.  Plaintiffs in the Multi-District Litigation
have said they are preserving their right to appeal that ruling,
and other complaints filed against Janssen and the Company
include class action allegations, which could be the basis for
future attempts to have classes certified.

On February 5, 2004, Janssen announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with the Plaintiffs Steering Committee
(PSC), of the PROPULSID Federal Multi-District Litigation (MDL),
to resolve federal lawsuits related to PROPULSID.  There are
approximately 4,000 individuals included in the Federal MDL of
whom approximately 300 are alleged to have died from use of the
drug.  The agreement becomes effective once 85 percent of the
death claims, and 75 percent of the remainder, agree to the
terms of the settlement.

In addition, 12,000 individuals who have not filed lawsuits, but
whose claims are the subject of tolling agreements suspending
the running of the statutes of limitations against those claims,
must also agree to participate in the settlement before it will
become effective.  Those agreeing to participate in the
settlement will submit medical records to an independent panel
of physicians who will determine whether the claimed injuries
were caused by PROPULSID and otherwise meet the standards for
compensation.

If those standards are met, a Court-appointed special master
will determine compensatory damages.  If the agreement becomes
effective, Janssen will pay as compensation a minimum of $69.5
million and a maximum of $90 million, depending upon the number
of plaintiffs who enroll in the program.  Janssen will also
establish an administrative fund not to exceed $15 million, and
will pay legal fees to the PSC up to $22.5 million, subject to
Court approval.

With respect to all the various PROPULSID actions against them,
Janssen and the Company dispute the claims in those lawsuits and
are vigorously defending against them except where, in their
judgment, settlement is appropriate.  Janssen and the Company
believe they have adequate self-insurance accruals and third
party product liability insurance with respect to these cases.
In communications to the Company, the excess insurance carriers
have raised certain defenses to their liability under the
policies and to date have declined to reimburse Janssen and the
Company for PROPULSID-related costs despite demand for payment.
However, in the opinion of the Company, those defenses are pro
forma and lack substance and the carriers will honor their
obligations under the policies either voluntarily or after
litigation.  In March 2004, the Company commenced arbitration
against Allianz Underwriters Insurance Company, which issued the
first layer of applicable excess insurance coverage, to obtain
reimbursement of PROPULSID-related costs.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Certification Sought For Racial Bias Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs moved for the certification of a class action filed
against Johnson & Johnson, alleging the Company discriminated
against its African-American and Hispanic employees.

Plaintiffs moved to certify a class of all African American and
Hispanic salaried employees of the Company and its affiliates in
the United States, who were employed at any time from November
1997 to the present.  Plaintiffs seek monetary damages for the
period 1997 through the present (including punitive damages) and
equitable relief.

The Company is expected to file its response to plaintiffs'
class certification motion in the first quarter of 2005.  A
decision by the district Court is not expected before late 2005.


MONSANTO CO.: Court Hears Appeal of MO Suit Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals heard
plaintiffs' appeal of the denial of class certification for the
antitrust claims in the consolidated class action filed against
Monsanto Co.

Two purported class action lawsuits by farmers concerning the
Company's biotechnology trait products have been consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
The suits were initially filed against the former Monsanto
Company by two groups of farmers: one on December 14, 1999, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, which
complaint was amended in March 2001 to add Pioneer Hi-Bred
International, Inc., Syngenta Seeds, Syngenta Crop Protection,
and Bayer CropScience as defendants; and the other on February
14, 2002, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Illinois.  The complaints included both tort and antitrust
allegations.

The tort claims included alleged violations of unspecified
international laws through patent license agreements, alleged
breaches of an implied warranty of merchantability, and alleged
violations of unspecified consumer fraud and deceptive business
practices laws, all in connection with the sale of genetically
modified seed.  The antitrust claims included allegations of
violations of various antitrust laws, including allegations of a
conspiracy among defendants to fix seed prices in the United
States in violation of federal antitrust laws.  Plaintiffs
sought declaratory and injunctive relief in addition to
antitrust, treble, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On September 22, 2003, the District Court granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment on all tort claims and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to allow the tort claims to proceed as a
class action.  On September 30, 2003, the District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri denied the plaintiffs' motion to
allow their antitrust claims to proceed as a class action.  The
plaintiffs appealed this decision, and on September 13, 2004,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit heard oral
argument on its review of the District Court's decision denying
class certification of the plaintiffs' antitrust claims.


MONSANTO CO.: Agent Orange Litigation Still Pending in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monsanto Company continues to face litigation alleging personal
injury due to exposure to herbicides used by the U.S. armed
services during the Vietnam War, more prominently the chemical
called Agent Orange.

Various manufacturers of the herbicides, including the former
Monsanto Company, have been parties to lawsuits filed on behalf
of veterans and others alleging injury from exposure to the
herbicides.  In the United States, this litigation has been
assigned to Judge Weinstein of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, as part of In re Agent Orange
Product Liability Litigation, MDL 381 (MDL), a multidistrict
litigation proceeding established in 1977 to coordinate Agent
Orange-related litigation in the United States.

In 1984, a settlement in the MDL proceeding concluded all class
action litigation filed on behalf of U.S. and certain other
groups of plaintiffs.  Approximately 30 suits filed by
individual U.S. veterans contesting the denial of their claims
subsequent to the class action settlement have been consolidated
in the MDL and are currently pending in the District Court.

On June 9, 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed two claims
(Isaacson and Stephenson) to proceed notwithstanding the 1984
class action settlement.  On February 9, 2004, the District
Court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on all
claims made in the Isaacson and Stephenson cases on the basis of
the government contractor defense.  The Court, however, stayed
entry of that judgment and granted plaintiffs' request for an
additional six months to conduct further discovery solely
relating to the government contractor defense.  On March 18,
2004, the District Court ordered that all other plaintiffs in
all other lawsuits currently pending before the Court in this
matter were to adhere to the same schedule, unless they
specifically requested not to be so bound.

On February 5, 2004, a putative class action suit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York by
certain citizens of Vietnam alleging that the manufacturers of
Agent Orange conspired with the United States government to
commit war crimes and crimes against humanity in connection with
the spraying of Agent Orange.  This case has also been assigned
to Judge Weinstein.


MONSANTO CO.: Korean Court Mulls Herbicide Suit Dismissal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Seoul High Court in Korea will hear the appeal of the
dismissal of a lawsuit filed by certain Korean veterans of the
Vietnam War against Monsanto Company and The Dow Chemical
Company.

Plaintiffs allege that they were exposed to herbicides, and that
they suffered injuries or their children suffered birth defects
as a result.  Three separate complaints filed in October 1999
are being handled collectively and currently involve
approximately 16,700 plaintiffs.  The complaints seek damages of
300 million won (approximately US$260,000) per plaintiff.

On May 23, 2002, the Seoul District Court ruled in favor of the
manufacturers and dismissed all claims of the plaintiffs on the
basis of lack of causation and statutes of limitations.
Plaintiffs have filed an appeal de novo with the Seoul High
Court and the parties have engaged in the briefing process
required by that Court.

The Seoul High Court has held three preparatory hearings to
address issues on the appeal and has indicated that it will hold
a formal hearing on the appeal in December 2004.  Other
ancillary actions are also pending in Korea, including a request
for provisional relief pending resolution of the main action.


NEW JERSEY: Proposes More Stringent Regulations On Gas Meters
-------------------------------------------------------------
The state of New Jersey has proposed new regulations that would
toughen safety rules for gas meters near homes and hold utility
companies liable for damage caused by ruptures in lines, the
Newsday, NY reports.

The result of an explosion that happened two years ago, which
was caused by a ruptured meter in the driveway of a home in
Mount Laurel, the Division of Consumer Affairs proposed the new
rules.  The explosion led to two lawsuits, including one filed
on behalf of residents of Springwood Village in Mount Laurel,
where a driver lost control of her car on an icy driveway in
February 2003. The crash led to an explosion that destroyed
three townhouses and damaged 24 others. No one was hurt.

The lawsuit, which Public Service Electric & Gas settled earlier
this year claimed that placing exposed gas meters so close to
driveways was a hazard. The Company also agreed to protect or
relocate some meters as part of that settlement.  The other suit
was a class action filed by a Gibbsboro woman in September on
behalf of her and other South Jersey Gas customers who have
unprotected meters or gas pipes near their driveways or garages.

According to state sources, the new regulations that were
proposed would require gas companies to register the location of
all gas meters that are near residences and unprotected. Gas
companies would also be required to install shut-off valves on
the meters and add protective barriers.  A spokesman for the
Bureau of Public Utilities said the agency was working with
Consumer Affairs on the regulations and hoped to have them in
place by early next year.


NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Faces Securities Fraud, Derivative Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
NovaStar Financial, Inc. and several of its executive officers
and directors face number of substantially similar class action
lawsuits and three derivative lawsuits (now consolidated into a
single case) filed in the United States District Court in Kansas
City and in Missouri and Maryland state Courts.

The complaints generally claim that the defendants are liable
for making or failing to prevent alleged misstatements or
omissions in the Company's public disclosures.

The securities suits were allegedly filed on behalf of
purchasers NovaStar Financial, Inc.'s, (NYSE: NFI) common stock
during the period of October 28, 2003 through April 12, 2004,
inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.   The suits allege that defendants
violated certain provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.


PFIZER INC.: Merchant Law Lodges Suit V. Celebrex's Side Effects
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Saskatchewan-based Merchant Law Group launched a class-
action suit against Celebrex's maker, Pfizer Inc. alleging that
the arthritis drug causes cardiovascular-related side-effects,
ranging from high blood pressure to heart attacks, the CBC
British Columbia reports.

Though maintaining that the drug is well established and its
safe-use is supported by extensive clinical studies, Health
Canada has given Pfizer until mid-November to provide additional
proof of the drug's safety.

According to Dr. Katherine Siminovitch, a rheumatoligist at
Toronto's Mount Sinai hospital, who supports Celebrex,
"Considering the large number of patients that are on the
medication and [those that] have been studied in various trials,
it looks like this medication may be safe."

Twenty Canadians have died while taking Celebrex. Health Canada
is investigating six of those deaths. There is no evidence
showing that those deaths were associated to Celebrex use.


PRAXAIR CORPORATION: Faces Injury Lawsuits Over Welding Fumes
-------------------------------------------------------------
Praxair Corporation and many other companies face 635 lawsuits
alleging personal injury caused by manganese contained in
welding fumes.  The cases were pending in state and federal
Courts in Iowa, Illinois, Mississippi, Missouri, Texas,
Louisiana, Georgia, West Virginia, Ohio, Arkansas, Indiana,
Utah, Pennsylvania, Minnesota and Alabama.  There were a total
of 9,817 individual claimants in these cases.  One case is a
class action that has not been certified.

The suits allege that exposure to manganese contained in welding
fumes caused neurological injury.  In a regulatory filing, the
Company asserted that it has never manufactured welding
consumables.  The Company further stated that a predecessor
Company manufactured such products prior to 1985.

All of the cases filed in or removed to federal Courts have been
(or are in the process of being) transferred by the Judicial
Panel for Multidistrict Litigation to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated pretrial
proceedings.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and,
in most instances, punitive damages.


QUALCOMM: Continues To face Overtime Wage Lawsuits in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM continues to face litigation filed by its former
employees, alleging violations of the Labor Code and age
discrimination in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.

On February 2, 2000, three former employees filed a putative
class action against the Company, ostensibly on behalf of
themselves and those former employees of ours whose employment
was terminated in April 1999.  Virtually all of the purported
class of plaintiffs received severance packages at the time of
the termination of their employment, in exchange for a release
of claims, other than federal age discrimination claims, against
the Company.

The complaint purports to state 10 causes of action including
breach of contract, age discrimination, violation of Labor Code
Section 200, violation of Labor Code Section 970, unfair
business practices, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, unjust enrichment, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, declaratory relief and undue influence.
The complaint seeks an order accelerating all unvested stock
options for the members of the class, plus economic and
liquidated damages of an unspecified amount.

On June 27, 2000, the case was ordered transferred from Los
Angeles County Superior Court to San Diego County Superior
Court.  On July 3, 2000, the Company removed the case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, and discovery commenced.

On May 29, 2001, the Court dismissed all plaintiffs' claims
except for claims arising under the federal Age Discrimination
in Employment Act.  On July 16, 2001, the Court granted
conditional class certification on the remaining claims, to be
revisited by the Court at the end of the discovery period.  On
April 15, 2003, the Court granted the Company's summary judgment
motions as to all remaining class members' disparate impact
claims.  On June 18, 2003, the Court ordered decertification of
the class and dismissed the remaining claims of the opt-in
plaintiffs without prejudice.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

On June 20, 2003, 76 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed an action in
Federal District Court for the Southern District of California,
alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
as a result of their layoffs in 1999.  To date, the complaint
has not been served.


QUALCOMM: Continues To Face Various Cellular Phones Injury Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM is working to resolve purported class action lawsuits
(In re Wireless Telephone Frequency Emissions Products Liability
Litigation, United States District Court for the District of
Maryland), and several individually filed actions, seeking
personal injury, economic and/or punitive damages arising out of
the Company's sale of cellular phones.   The suits also name as
defendants other manufacturers of wireless phones, wireless
operators and industry-related organizations.

On March 5, 2003, the Court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss five of the consolidated cases (Pinney, Gimpleson,
Gillian, Farina and Naquin) on the grounds that the claims were
preempted by federal law.  On April 2, 2003, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of this order and the Court's order
denying remand.

All remaining cases filed against the Company allege personal
injury as a result of their use of a wireless telephone.  Those
cases have been remanded to the Washington, D.C. Superior Court.
The Courts that have reviewed similar claims against other
companies to date have held that there was insufficient
scientific basis for the plaintiffs' claims in those cases.


QUANTUM CORPORATION: CA Court To Hear Certification For Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court for the County of San Francisco, California
will hear class certification motions for the lawsuit filed
against Quantum Corporation in January 2005.  The suit also
names as defendants Hitachi Maxell, Ltd., Maxell Corporation of
America, Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., and Fuji Photo Film U.S.A.

The plaintiff, Franz Inc., alleges violation of California
antitrust law, violation of California unfair competition law,
and unjust enrichment.  Franz Inc. charges, among other things,
that the defendants entered into agreements and conspired to
monopolize the market and fix prices for data storage tape
compatible with DLT tape drives.

Franz seeks an order that the lawsuit be maintained as a class
action and that defendants be enjoined from continuing the
violations alleged in the complaint.  Franz also seeks
compensatory damages, treble damages, statutory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest.


SALTON INC.: AG Donates Part of Settlement To IN Organizations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter recently delivered a
$14,391.59 amount, which came from a class action settlement, to
three organizations, Meals on Wheels of Northwest Indiana,
Northwest Indiana Community Action Corp. and HHS of Porter
County on behalf of Salton Inc., which was accused of engaging
in improper pricing, the Gary Post Tribune reports.

The suit against the makers of the George Foreman line of
cooking utensils alleged that Salton required retail outlets
that sold the George Foreman grill to sell only those grills,
thereby forcing people who purchased them to pay a higher price
than if there were also others from which to choose.

However, instead of going to trial, Salton decided to settle
with the 45 states that entered into the lawsuit for $8 million,
of which Indiana received $170,000. AG Carter then decided that
since the money comes from a food-producing Company, the money
should then go to organizations that help people get the
nutrition they need.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Acquires Court Approval For $35M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Service Corporation International (NYSE: SCI), the world's
largest funeral and cemetery Company, recently received Court
approval of the settlement of the securities class action
lawsuit pending against the Company and certain of its current
and former officers since January 1999.

The terms of the settlement agreement, reached in April 2004,
called for a $65 million payment in settlement of these claims.
The Company's insurance carriers agreed to make a payment of $30
million towards the settlement resulting in net payments by the
Company of approximately $35 million. The Company reserved
amounts for this claim in the first quarter of 2004 and
deposited the required funds into escrow in the second quarter
of 2004.

For more details, contact Debbie Young - Director of Investor
Relations by Phone: (713) 525-9088 OR Terry Hemeyer - Managing
Director / Corporate Communications by Phone: (713) 525-5497


STATE FARM: Files Suit Seeking To End Growers' Representation
-------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. recently filed a case in U.S.
District Court asking a judge to declare North Idaho bluegrass
farmers Clarence Haeg and Philip Lampert of Plummer are on their
own when it comes to complaints about agricultural burning, the
Bonner County Daily Bee reports.

According to the insurance suit, "State Farm has no duty to
defendants ... for any claims arising out of the practice of
burning their fields."

The insurance company states that two cases that it shouldn't
have to defend have already gone in the farmers' favor. In one
case, the Idaho Supreme Court ruled the state law exempting
agricultural burning from claims of nuisance and trespass is
constitutional. After that ruling, a class action case filed
against farmers on behalf of people with breathing difficulties
was dismissed in Idaho's 1st District Court.

Mr. Haeg and Mr. Lampert were among dozens of farmers who were
defendants in lawsuits in State and Federal Court seeking to
halt field burning, which is a practice that some North Idaho
bluegrass farmers do, wherein they burn straw and stubble after
seed harvest to prepare the fields for the next year's crop.
According to the farmers, it promotes early plant growth and
enhances seed yields.

At least two other insurance companies are claiming in state
Courts that their policies don't cover claims about field smoke.


TIME WARNER: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of a class action
filed by the California State Teachers' Retirement System on
behalf of a putative class of purchasers of stock in
Homestore.com, Inc.

Plaintiff alleges that Homestore engaged in a scheme to defraud
its shareholders in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act.  Time Warner, Inc. and two former employees of its America
Online division were named as defendants in the amended
consolidated complaint because of their alleged participation in
the scheme through certain advertising transactions entered into
with Homestore.

Motions to dismiss filed by the Company and the two former
employees were granted on March 7, 2003, and a final judgment of
dismissal was entered on March 8, 2004.  On April 7, 2004,
plaintiff filed a notice of appeal in the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On July 26, 2004, plaintiff filed its opening
appellate brief.  The Company anticipates that defendants'
briefs will be filed during November 2004, the Company said in a
regulatory filing.


TIME WARNER: Faces Consolidated Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NV
--------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc. and four of its former officers and employees
face a consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Nevada on behalf of a
putative class of purchasers of stock in PurchasePro.com, Inc.

Plaintiffs allege that PurchasePro engaged in a scheme to
defraud its shareholders in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act. The Company and four former officers and
employees were added as defendants in the second amended
complaint and are alleged to have participated in the scheme
through certain advertising transactions entered into with
PurchasePro.

Three similar putative class actions had previously been filed
against the Company, America Online and certain former officers
and employees in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  On June 9, 2004, defendants filed a
motion to transfer these three actions to Nevada for
consolidation, and on June 16, 2004, this motion was granted.


TIME WARNER: Continues to Face Stock Fraud, ERISA Lawsuits in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc. continues to face litigation in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
alleging violations of federal securities laws and the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), on behalf of its
shareholders.

As of November 1, 2004, 30 shareholder class action lawsuits
have been filed naming as defendants the Company, certain
current and former executives of the Company and, in several
instances, America Online, Inc. (America Online).  These
lawsuits were filed in U.S. District Courts for the Southern
District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia and the
Eastern District of Texas.

The complaints purport to be made on behalf of certain
shareholders of the Company and allege that the Company made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.

Plaintiffs claim that the Company failed to disclose America
Online's declining advertising revenues and that the Company and
America Online inappropriately inflated advertising revenues in
a series of transactions.  Certain of the lawsuits also allege
that certain of the individual defendants and other insiders at
the Company improperly sold their personal holdings of Time
Warner stock, that the Company failed to disclose that the
America Online Historic TW Merger was not generating the
synergies anticipated at the time of the announcement of the
merger and, further, that the Company inappropriately delayed
writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill.  The lawsuits
seek an unspecified amount in compensatory damages.

All of these lawsuits have been centralized in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings (along with the federal
derivative lawsuits and certain lawsuits brought under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)) under the
caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA
Litigation."  Additional lawsuits filed by individual
shareholders have also been consolidated for pretrial
proceedings.

The Minnesota State Board of Investment (MSBI) has been
designated lead plaintiff for the consolidated securities
actions and filed a consolidated amended complaint on April 15,
2003, adding additional defendants including additional officers
and directors of the Company, Morgan Stanley & Co., Salomon
Smith Barney Inc., Citigroup Inc., Banc of America Securities
LLC and JP Morgan Chase & Co.

Plaintiffs also added additional allegations, including that the
Company made material misrepresentations in its Registration
Statements and Joint Proxy Statement-Prospectus related to the
America Online Historic TW Merger and in its registration
statements pursuant to which debt securities were issued in
April 2001 and April 2002, allegedly in violation of Section 11
and Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.

On July 14, 2003, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint.  On May 5, 2004, the district
Court granted in part the defendants' motion, dismissing all
claims with respect to the registration statements pursuant to
which debt securities were issued in April 2001 and April 2002
and certain other claims against other defendants, but otherwise
allowing the remaining claims against the Company and certain
other defendants to proceed.

On August 11, 2004, the Court granted MSBI's motion to file a
second amended complaint.  On July 30, 2004, defendants filed a
motion for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiffs cannot
establish loss causation for any of their claims, and thus
plaintiffs do not have any recoverable damages.

As of November 1, 2004, three putative class action lawsuits
have been filed alleging violations of ERISA in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of current and former participants in the AOL Time Warner
Savings Plan, the AOL Time Warner Thrift Plan and/or the TWC
Savings Plan.  Collectively, these lawsuits name as defendants
the Company, certain current and former directors and officers
of the Company and members of the Administrative Committees of
the Plans.

The lawsuits allege that the Company and other defendants
breached certain fiduciary duties to plan participants by, inter
alia, continuing to offer Time Warner stock as an investment
under the Plans, and by failing to disclose, among other things,
that the Company was experiencing declining advertising revenues
and that the Company was inappropriately inflating advertising
revenues through various transactions.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages and unspecified equitable relief.  The ERISA
actions have been consolidated as part of the "In re AOL Time
Warner Inc. Securities and "ERISA" Litigation."

On July 3, 2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint naming additional defendants, including America
Online, Inc., certain current and former officers, directors and
employees of the Company and Fidelity Management Trust Company.
On September 12, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated ERISA complaint and that motion is pending.  On
September 26, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion for a
limited stay of discovery in the ERISA actions.

On July 1, 2003, "Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. AOL Time Warner
Inc. et al." was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against the Company, current and
former officers, directors and employees of the Company and
Ernst & Young LLP.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company made
material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, Section 11, Section 12, Section 14(a)
and Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder, Section 18 and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The complaint also alleges common law fraud and negligent
misrepresentation.  The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of
compensatory and punitive damages.  This lawsuit has been
consolidated for coordinated pretrial proceedings under the
caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA
Litigation."  On July 16, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint adding certain institutional defendants, including
Historic TW, and certain current directors of the Company.

On November 11, 2002, Staro Asset Management, LLC filed a
putative class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York on behalf of certain
purchasers of Reliant 2.0% Zero-Premium Exchangeable
Subordinated Notes for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws.

Plaintiff is a purchaser of subordinated notes, the price of
which was purportedly tied to the market value of Time Warner
stock.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company made misstatements
and/or omissions of material fact that artificially inflated the
value of Time Warner stock and directly affected the price of
the notes.  Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and/or
rescission.  This lawsuit has been consolidated for coordinated
pretrial proceedings under the caption "In re AOL Time Warner
Inc. Securities and "ERISA" Litigation."

On May 23, 2003, "Treasurer of New Jersey v. AOL Time Warner
Inc. et al., was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
Mercer County, naming as defendants the Company, certain current
and former officers, directors and employees of the Company,
Ernst & Young LLP, Citigroup Inc., Salomon Smith Barney, Morgan
Stanley, JP Morgan Chase and Banc of America Securities.  The
complaint is brought by the Treasurer of New Jersey and purports
to be made on behalf of the State of New Jersey, Department of
Treasury, Division of Investments and certain funds administered
by the Division.

Plaintiff alleges that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements in violation
of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiff
also alleges violations of New Jersey state law for fraud and
negligent misrepresentation.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages.

On October 29, 2003, the Company moved to stay the proceedings
or, in the alternative, dismiss the complaint.  Also on October
29, 2003, all named individual defendants moved to dismiss the
complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.  The parties have
agreed to stay this action and to coordinate discovery
proceedings with the "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and
ERISA Litigation."

As of November 1, 2004, 11 shareholder derivative lawsuits have
been filed naming as defendants certain current and former
directors and officers of the Company, as well as the Company as
a nominal defendant.  Three have been filed in New York State
Supreme Court for the County of New York, four have been filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
and four have been filed in the Court of Chancery of the State
of Delaware for New Castle County.

The complaints allege that defendants breached their fiduciary
duties by causing the Company to issue corporate statements that
did not accurately represent that America Online had declining
advertising revenues, that the America Online Historic TW Merger
was not generating the synergies anticipated at the time of the
announcement of the merger, and that the Company inappropriately
delayed writing down more than $50 billion of goodwill, thereby
exposing the Company to potential liability for alleged
violations of federal securities laws.

The lawsuits further allege that certain of the defendants
improperly sold their personal holdings of Time Warner
securities.  The lawsuits request that:

     (1) all proceeds from defendants' sales of Time Warner
         common stock,

     (2) all expenses incurred by the Company as a result of the
         defense of the shareholder class actions discussed
         above and

     (3) any improper salaries or payments, be returned to the
         Company.

The four lawsuits filed in the Court of Chancery for the State
of Delaware for New Castle County have been consolidated under
the caption, "In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Derivative Litigation."
A consolidated complaint was filed on March 7, 2003 in that
action, and on June 9, 2003, the Company filed a notice of
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On December 9, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the three
lawsuits filed in New York State Supreme Court for the County
of New York on forum non conveniens grounds.  On May 2, 2003,
the motion to dismiss was granted.  On March 5, 2004, plaintiffs
filed a notice of motion for enlargement of time in which to
perfect their appeal of the Court's dismissal of these lawsuits.
This motion was denied on April 27, 2004.

The four lawsuits pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York have been centralized for
coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings with the
securities and ERISA lawsuits described above under the caption
"In re AOL Time Warner Inc. Securities and ERISA Litigation."

On February 24, 2004, "Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Public
School Employees Retirement System et al. v. Time Warner Inc. et
al." was filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia
County naming as defendants the Company, certain current and
former officers, directors and employees of the Company, America
Online, Historic TW, Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Banc of America Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan
Chase & Co and Ernst & Young LLP.

Plaintiffs had previously filed a request for a writ of summons
notifying defendants of commencement of an action.  Plaintiffs
allege that the Company made material misrepresentations in its
registration statements in violation of Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs also allege violations
of Pennsylvania Law, breach of fiduciary duty and common law
fraud.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  The parties have agreed to stay this action
and to coordinate discovery proceedings with the securities and
ERISA lawsuits under the caption "In re AOL Time Warner Inc.
Securities and "ERISA" Litigation."


TIME WARNER: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Time Warner, Inc. asked the California Superior Court for the
County of Los Angeles to dismiss the claims in a coordinated
class action filed against it, certain current and former
officers, directors and employees of the Company, Ernst &
Young LLP, Citigroup Inc., Salomon Smith Barney Inc. and Morgan
Stanley & Co.

On April 14, 2003, "Regents of the University of California et
al. v. Parsons et al.," was filed in California Superior Court,
County of Los Angeles, alleging that the Company made material
misrepresentations in its registration statements related to the
America Online Historic TW Merger and stock option plans in
violation of Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act of 1933.
The complaint also alleges common law fraud and breach of
fiduciary duties under California state law.  Plaintiffs seek
disgorgement of alleged insider trading proceeds and restitution
for their stock losses.

Three related cases have been filed in California Supreme Court
and have been coordinated in the County of Los Angeles.  On
January 26, 2004, the Company filed a motion to stay the
California Actions on forum non conveniens and comity grounds
and certain individuals filed motions to dismiss for lack of
personal jurisdiction.

On September 10, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaints and certain individual defendants (who
had not previously moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaints for
lack of personal jurisdiction) filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' complaints.


UNITED STATES: AFGE Wins Policy Reversal On Leave For Reservists
----------------------------------------------------------------
The American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) won a
major Court of Appeals case forcing a policy reversal by the
Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on the charging of leave
for National Guard training for federal employees. The reversal
makes thousands of current and former federal employees eligible
for annual leave adjustments or other compensation. AFGE sent a
letter to OPM offering assistance in developing and implementing
a claims process to expedite compensation.

Under federal law, federal employees who are reservist are
allowed 15 days of military leave each year to be charged only
for reserve training conducted on scheduled work days. Prior to
the OPM policy reversal, announced in a memo dated October 13,
2004, OPM improperly instructed agencies to incorrectly deducted
military leave from employees even if reserve training occurred
on a scheduled day off. As a result of the former policy,
employees quickly depleted their military leave and were forced
to use annual leave or leave without pay in order to fulfill
their National Guard training responsibilities.

"There are thousands of potential claimants in this case," said
Joe Goldberg, AFGE Assistant General Counsel. "AFGE won a major
victory for all federal employees/reservists in the Butterbaugh
case. AFGE is working to ensure that every federal employee,
current or former, who unjustly lost leave or pay as a result of
OPM's incorrect interpretation of the law is rightfully
compensated. OPM has admitted its mistake, and we will hold
every federal agency to its legal responsibility."

The OPM policy change is in direct response to the Court of
Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision in Butterbaugh v.
Department of Justice. AFGE initially filed a class action suit
with the Merit Systems Protection Board to secure compensation
for all employees unjustly charged leave under the old OPM
policy. The MSPB denied the request for a class action suit,
both initially and on appeal, and ruled that AFGE should instead
move forward with claims on an individual basis. Following an
unfavorable MSPB decision, AFGE moved forward in the U.S. Court
of Appeals with claims for four Department of Justice employees.
On July 24, 2003 the Court ruled against the former OPM military
leave policy.

AFGE is now moving forward to secure compensation for the
thousands of federal employees who were adversely impacted by
the old OPM policy. AFGE send a letter to OPM proposing a
coordinated effort to develop the fastest and most efficient
method of identifying claimants and processing compensation
claims.

The American Federation of Government Employees is the largest
federal employee union, representing 600,000 workers in the
federal government and the government of the District of
Columbia.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


AXIS CAPITAL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
AXIS Capital Holdings Limited ("AXIS") (NYSE:AXS) during the
period between August 6, 2003 and October 14, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges AXIS, Michael A. Butt, Andrew Cook, and
John R. Charman with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. 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 AXIS entered into illegal "contingent commission
         agreements" with insurance companies to pay so- called
         "contingent commissions";

     (2) that AXIS concealed these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements," thereby
         subjecting defendants to various violations of
         applicable principles of fiduciary law, and

     (3) that as a result of this illegal scheme, defendants,
         throughout the Class Period, materially overstated and
         artificially inflated AXIS' earnings, income, and
         earnings per share.

On October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
announced that he had charged several of the nation's largest
insurance companies and the largest broker with bid rigging and
payoffs that he claimed violated fraud and competition laws. On
this news, shares of AXIS fell $1.69 per share, or 6.53 percent,
to close at $24.20 per share on unusually high trading volume on
October 14, 2004.

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


AXIS CAPITAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit 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 securities
purchasers of AXIS Capital Holdings Limited (NYSE: AXS) ("AXIS"
and the "Company") from August 6, 2003 through October 14, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges AXIS, Michael A. Butt, Andrew Cook, and
John R. Charman with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. 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 AXIS entered into illegal "contingent commission
         agreements" with insurance companies to pay so- called
         "contingent commissions";

     (2) that AXIS concealed these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements," thereby
         subjecting defendants to various violations of
         applicable principles of fiduciary law, and

     (3) that as a result of this illegal scheme, defendants,
         throughout the Class Period, materially overstated and
         artificially inflated AXIS' earnings, income, and
         earnings per share.

On October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
announced that he had charged several of the nation's largest
insurance companies and the largest broker with bid rigging and
payoffs that he claimed violated fraud and competition laws. On
this news, shares of AXIS fell $1.69 per share, or 6.53 percent,
to close at $24.20 per share on unusually high trading volume on
October 14, 2004.

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


CHIRON CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
Chiron Corporation securities ("Chiron") (Nasdaq:CHIR) during
the period between July 23, 2003 through October 5, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint alleges that since August 2003, Chiron has
supplied approximately half of the flu vaccines administered in
the United States. Chiron manufactures its flu vaccine
("Fluvirin") in Liverpool, England, in a plant it acquired in
July, 2003. In 2003, Fluvirin sales accounted for approximately
12% of the Company's overall revenues. During the Class Period,
defendants reported impressive revenue growth, driven in
material part by sales of Fluvirin during the 2003-2004 flu
season. Chiron was under contract to provide its flu vaccine to
the United States for the 2004-2005 flu season and represented
that it would provide the U.S. market with more Fluvirin in 2004
than in 2003, as it increased production at the Liverpool plant.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, serious problems at the
Liverpool plant threatened Chiron's ability to provide the
vaccine for the 2004-2005 flu season. Problems with the plant
had been documented since 2000 by the Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA"). In June 2003, the FDA documented
"systemic quality-control issues" at the Liverpool plant and
found high levels of bacteria in unfinished vaccines. These, and
other problems, which were known to or recklessly disregarded by
defendants, signaled to defendants that the plant suffered from
serious issues that could lead to unsafe vaccines and/or a
serious disruption in the Company's ability to produce the
vaccine for the U.S. market. The complaint details additional
reasons why the Company's Class Period statements were
materially false and misleading.

On October 5, 2004, Chiron announced that "the UK regulatory
body, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency
has today temporarily suspended the Company's license to
manufacture Fluvirin(r) influenza virus vaccine in its Liverpool
facility, preventing the Company from releasing any of the
product during the 2004-2005 influenza season." In reaction to
this disclosure, the price of Chiron common stock plummeted from
a closing price of $45.42 per share on October 4, 2004, to a
closing price of $37.98 per share on October 5, 2004, a one day
drop of 16.3% on unusually heavy trading volume of over 25
million shares.

The Company's last-minute announcement that it would be unable
to deliver Fluvirin sparked widespread concern of a U.S. flu
pandemic. Numerous articles on the matter reported that
significant problems at the Liverpool plant were documented by
the FDA in 2000 and June 2003, while the plant was owned by
another pharmaceutical Company. On October 12, 2004, Chiron
received a grand jury subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's office
for the Southern District of New York, seeking documents and
materials relating to the growing scandal. On October 13, 2004,
the Wall Street Journal reported that the SEC has initiated an
informal investigation of Chiron, "to determine if the Company
failed to adequately disclose the extent of problems at the
Liverpool, England, facility that made its influenza vaccines."

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


EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: EMBT)
("Embarcadero Technologies" or the "Company") from April 20,
2004 through October 27, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

     (2) that defendants prematurely recognized revenue in its
         UK subsidiary, Embarcadero Europe Ltd.;

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

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

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

On October 27, 2004 Embarcadero Technologies, after the market
closed, announced that it was delaying the release of its
financial results for the third quarter ended September 30,
2004. The Company also announced that its Audit Committee this
week commenced an investigation of the revenue recognition
practices of its UK subsidiary, Embarcadero Europe Ltd.
(Embarcadero Europe), as a result of recent discoveries relating
to Embarcadero Europe's resellers. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Embarcadero Technologies fell $2.29 per share,
or 23.20 percent, by noon on October 28, 2004.

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


FANNIE MAE: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DC
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Federal National Mortgage Association
("Fannie Mae" or the "Company") (NYSE: FNM) between October 11,
2000 through September 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Fannie Mae securities. It is
specifically alleged that throughout the Class Period the
defendants failed to disclose or misrepresented the following
adverse facts that were known to defendants or were recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that Fannie Mae applied accounting methods and
         practices that do not comply with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") in accounting for the
         enterprise's derivatives transactions and hedging
         activities;

     (2) that Fannie Mae had materially understated its accrued
         cost-of-access liability by $50-$80 million;

     (3) that Fannie Mae used "cookie jar" accounting wherein it
         arbitrarily distributed current gains to subsequent
         quarters in a bid to keep its revenue and earning
         growth steady;

     (4) that Fannie Mae deferred expenses to achieve bonus
         compensation targets;

     (5) that Fannie Mae had insufficient and inadequate
         internal controls; and

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

On September 22, 2004, Fannie Mae revealed that over a year ago
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ("OFHEO")
began a special examination of Fannie Mae's accounting policies
and practices, and that the report of that examination -
delivered to Fannie Mae on September 20, 2004 - concluded that
Fannie Mae:

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

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

   (iii) tolerated related internal control deficiencies;

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

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

Fannie Mae also disclosed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission has been conducting an informal inquiry that includes
issues raised in the OFHEO report.

Following this disclosure, on September 22 shares of Fannie Mae
fell $4.96 per share, or 6.56 percent, to close at $70.69 per
share on unusually high trading volume. On September 23, shares
of Fannie Mae fell an additional $3.54 per share, or 5.01
percent, to close at $67.15 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


INTERACTIVECORP: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired IAC/Interactive Corporation
(NASDAQ: IACI) (formerly, USA Interactive) ("IAC" or the
"Company") securities (the "Class") between March 19, 2003 and
August 4, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
artificially inflated the price of IAC securities by issuing
press releases and other statements touting the strength of the
Company's business, its rise to the status of an Internet
commerce power house and its ability to continue to grow its
business successfully in 2004 and beyond. Such statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
that:

     (1) the Company's Expedia.com and Hotels.com businesses
         were inaccurately representing to customers that hotel
         rooms were sold out, when, in fact, rooms were
         available, albeit at lower profit margins to IAC. These
         misrepresentations led to confrontations between IAC
         and hotel chains that Expedia.com and Hotels.com
         depended on;

     (2) the Company had been charging consumers service fees
         that were not fully identified. At least one of IAC's
         hotel-chain partners requested that IAC detail all of
         its fees to consumers, which IAC refused to do, thereby
         (unbeknownst to investors) jeopardizing an important
         revenue stream;

     (3) certain hotel chains and airlines had threatened to,
         and did, decrease the number of rooms made available to
         IAC because of the Company's unscrupulous practices,
         thereby jeopardizing the Company's business;

     (4) hotel chains were aggressively pushing their own
         booking sites and encouraging potential customers to
         book directly through them rather than through
         Expedia.com or Hotels.com, thereby posing a serious
         threat to IAC's business; and

     (5) given the unsustainable nature of the Company's
         practices and/or the inevitable consequences of those
         practices, the Company's statements with respect to its
         growth prospects were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On August 4, 2004, the Company issued its Q2 2004 earnings
release disclosing that its Q2 2004 net income fell 24% from the
same quarter in 2003 and that it was cutting its forecast for
full-year operating profits, admitting that it was being
provided less airline seats and hotel rooms to sell. On this
news the Company's stock plummeted on extremely high volume of
almost 90 million shares. The Company's stock price dropped
precipitously from its Class Period high of $42.74 per share on
July 7, 2003, to close at $22.80 per share on August 4, 2004,
erasing over $10 billion in market capitalization.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 by E-mail: IACI@bernlieb.com or
http://www.bernlieb.com


JAKKS PACIFIC: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of JAKKS Pacific, Inc. ("JAKKS")
(NASDAQ:JAKK) common stock during the period between February
17, 2004 and October 19, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges JAKKS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. JAKKS describes itself as a multi-line, multi-brand toy
Company that designs, develops, produces and markets toys and
related products.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements concerning the
increasing sales of JAKKS's products licensed through the World
Wrestling Entertainment Inc. ("WWE"). As alleged in the
complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants knew, but failed to disclose:

     (1) that the WWE was contending that the WWE licenses had
         been obtained through a pattern of commercial bribery;

     (2) that the Company's relationship with the WWE was being
         negatively impacted by the WWE's contention that the
         licenses it had granted to the Company were improperly
         obtained; and

     (6) given the foregoing, the Company was subject to the
         heightened risk that the WWE would seek some
         modification to its WWE licensing agreements or
         complete nullification of those agreements, which would
         negatively impact the Company's future financial
         results.

On October 19, 2004, JAKKS issued a press release announcing
that it was "engaged in discussions with WWE concerning the
restructuring of its toy license and with WWE and THQ with
respect to the restructuring of the JAKKS THQ Joint Venture
video games license agreement with WWE." In response to the
announcement of the problems with the WWE licenses, the price of
JAKKS stock declined from $24.15 per share to $18.81 per share.
Then, after the market closed for trading, it was reported that
the WWE had just filed a lawsuit against JAKKS which alleged
that the videogame license and certain toy licenses that the WWE
previously granted to JAKKS were obtained through a pattern of
racketeering and commercial bribery and seeking, among other
things, that the licensing agreements be declared void.
Following this announcement, on the next day of trading, the
price of JAKKS common stock continued to fall to close at $12.96
per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC 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, Esq. by Phone: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone:
(215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges ERISA Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
participants and beneficiaries of the Marsh & McLennan Putnam
Investments Profit Sharing Retirement Plan and the Marsh &
McLennan Companies Stock Investment Plan (the "Plans") of Marsh
& McLennan Companies, Inc. ("MMC" or the "Company") [NYSE: MMC],
between November 1, 1998 and the present, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), against defendant Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. and
certain officers and directors of the Company.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Plan
fiduciaries knew or should have known, that the Company was
paying illegal and concealed "contingent commissions" pursuant
to illegal "contingent commission agreements;" that violated
applicable principles of fiduciary law, subjecting the Company
to enormous fines and penalties totaling potentially tens -- if
not hundreds -- of millions of dollars.

Plan fiduciaries knew, or should have known, that this business
practice was improper and unsustainable and that the value of
the Company's stock, and thus the value of the Plan, was based
on financial results dependent on these unsustainable business
practices.

By no later than November 1, 1998, Marsh & McLennan Companies,
Inc. and the Individual Defendants knew, or should have known,
that Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.'s stock was a highly
inappropriate investment for a long-term retirement savings plan
such as the Plan because of the financial issues described above
and other questionable business practices. Despite this,
Defendants continued to offer Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.'s
stock as a Plan investment alternative, continued to cause Marsh
& McLennan Companies, Inc. matching contributions to be invested
in Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. stock, and failed to impute
their full knowledge of the Company's operations on Plan
participants so that the Plan participants could make an
informed decision concerning their Plan investments in Company
stock.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Mark C.
Rifkin, Esq. or Gustavo Bruckner, Esq. of Wolf Haldenstein Adler
Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 or (212) 545-4600 by E-mail:
classmember@whafh.com or visit their Website:
http://www.whafh.com


NEW YORK: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in E.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
a class (the "Class") consisting of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of New York Community Bancorp
Inc. ("NYB" or the "Company") (NYSE:NYB) between June 27, 2003
and May 9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges NYB, Joseph R. Ficalora, and Michael P.
Puorro 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 defendants manipulated the Company's financial
         results in order to appear more attractive for
         potential merger deals;

     (2) that this was accomplished through leveraged growth
         funded by short-term funding;

     (3) the Company's projections about growth and interest
         rate sensitivity were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made; and

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

On Sunday, May 9, 2004, NYB announced that its Board of
Directors had authorized the Company's management team to engage
Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. to assist the Company in
undertaking a review of its strategic alternatives, including
remaining independent. Commenting on the announcement, defendant
Ficalora stated: "We have always been a Company that has focused
on shareholder value, and this review is consistent with that
focus." News of the engagement of Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and Sandler O'Neill & Partners,
L.P. shocked the market. For months, and in numerous interviews,
filings, and press releases, defendant Ficalora maintained that,
given the nature of the Company's business, assets, and
liabilities, NYB would not only do better than its rivals in its
sector, but even thrive in an environment of rising interest
rates. Furthermore, Ficalora stated that NYB's predictions were
based on lower interest rates, and that an interest rate
increase would be good for the Company. However, the sudden
engagement of three financial firms to "review strategic
alternatives" was the market's and investors' first indication
that NYB's strategy may not be working as planned or advertised.

Following NYB's announcement, in intra-day trading on Monday,
May 10, 2004, NYB dropped over $2.53 per share from its previous
close, on May 7, 2004, of $24.13 per share, or 10.5%, to close
at a low of $21.60 per share. At the close of trading, NYB had
fallen $1.33 per share, or 5.5%, to close at $21.80 per share on
volume of 9 million shares -- nearly three times its usual
volume.

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


SOURCECORP INC.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, PC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired SOURCECORP
Incorporated (NASDAQ: SRCP) securities between May 7, 2003 and
October 26, 2004, inclusive (the Class Period).

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

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

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


SOURCECORP INC.: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Sourcecorp, Inc. ("Sourcecorp" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
SRCP) between May 7, 2003 and October 27, 2004 inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas against defendants Sourcecorp,
Inc., Ed H. Bowman (President and CEO) and Barry Edwards
(Executive VP and CFO).

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Sourcecorp, Ed H. Bowman, Jr. and Barry L. Edwards violated
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 Defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to them or recklessly disregarded by them:

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

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

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

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

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

On October 27, 2004, the Company announced its need to restate
its previously certified financial results. As a result of the
restatement, the Company will have to adjust its revenues and
diluted EPS for 2003 by at least $5.4 million or $0.19 per
share. For the six months ending June 30, 2004, the adjustment
may amount to $2.8 million or $0.10 per share. Immediately
following this announcement, Sourcecorp's stock plummeted $5.95
per share, or almost 30%, on usually high trading volume of
833,200 shares, from its closing price of $22.21 on October 26,
2004, to a closing price of $16.25 on October 27, 2004.

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


STAR GAS: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Fraud Suit in CT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut, on behalf of
investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of
Star Gas Partners, L.P. ("Star Gas Partners" or the "Company")
(NYSE: SGU) during the period from December 4, 2003 through
October 18, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning
Star Gas Partners' business operations and finances.
Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that defendants misrepresented
and concealed the facts that:

     (1) the Company was experiencing massive delays in the
         centralization of its dispatch system and causing its
         customers to flee to competitors;

     (2) the Company's Petro heating oil division's business
         process improvement program was faltering and not
         generating the benefits claimed by defendants;

     (3) contrary to defendants' earlier indications, the
         Company was not able to increase or even maintain
         profit margins in its heating oil segment;

     (4) the Company's second quarter 2004 claimed profit
         margins were an aberration and not indicative of the
         Company's success or ability to pass on the heating oil
         price increase because the Company had earlier acquired
         heating oil (sold in the second quarter) at a much
         lower cost; and

     (5) defendants were facing imminent bankruptcy and would no
         longer be able to service the Company's debt, all of
         which would halt the Company's ability to maintain the
         Company's credit rating and/or obtain future financing.

On October 18, 2004, Star Gas Partners shocked the market by
revealing for the first time that it "has recently advised its
Petro heating oil division bank lenders of a substantial
expected decline in earnings for this division for the fiscal
year that ended on September 30, 2004, and a further projected
decline in earnings for the fiscal year ending September 30,
2005, which will not permit Petro to meet the borrowing
conditions under its working capital line ... Star anticipates
that because of the requirements of Star's current and potential
lenders, it will not be permitted to make any distributions on
its Common Units. Star believes that with the support of its
existing lenders, which cannot yet be assured, it can manage the
extraordinary challenges arising from current energy prices and
other factors. However, without that support, Star may be forced
to seek interim financing on extremely disadvantageous terms or
even to seek to restructure its debts under the protection of
the bankruptcy Courts." In response to this announcement, the
price of Star Gas Partners 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, on extraordinarily high trading volume.

For more details, contact Donald J. Enright or Karen J. Marcus
of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran's Washington, DC office, by
Phone: (866) 592-1960 by E-mail: dje@ftllaw.com or
kjm@ftllaw.com or visit their Web site: http://www.ftllaw.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Swift Transportation Co., Inc. ("Swift" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: SWFT) between October 16, 2003 and October 1, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Arizona against defendants Swift, Gary R. Enzor
(CFO), Patrick J. Farley (Exec. VP), Jerry C. Moyes (CEO and
Chair) and William F. Riley (Sr. VP).

The complaint alleges that Swift, a Nevada holding Company,
together with its wholly-owned subsidiaries, is a national
truckload carrier operating throughout the United States. At all
relevant times, defendant Moyes and entities controlled by him
owned approximately 34% of the Company's outstanding shares and
those shares were at all relevant times, pledged to an
undisclosed lending institution as collateral for margin loans.
The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements to prop up and otherwise manipulate
the price of Swift securities so as to prevent a margin call on
Moyes's shares and to engage in improper inside trading on the
basis of material nonpublic information. Specifically, the
Company made materially false and misleading statements with
respect to its U.S. Department of Transportation safety rating,
the impact of recently enacted DOT regulations on the Company's
operations, the extent to which the Company was offsetting
rising costs with customer rate increases, the depreciation of
its fleet, and the integrity of the Company's internal controls
and reported financial statements. On September 15, 2004, the
Company announced that third-quarter profit would lag analyst
estimates because the Company was unable to raise rates as fuel
costs increased. On news of the earnings shortfall, the
Company's share price dropped from a closing price of $18.27 on
September 15, 2004 to as low as $16.09 on September 16, 2004.
The Class Period ends on October 1, 2004. On that date, the
Company disclosed that an informal inquiry into certain stock
trades by the Company and Moyes had been elevated to a formal
investigation. On this news, the Company's shares, which closed
at $17.49 on October 1, 2004, fell to a low of $16.54 on October
4, 2004, the next trading day.

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


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Tripath Technology Inc. (Nasdaq: TRPH) ("Tripath"
or the "Company") from January 29, 2004 through October 22,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Tripath, Adya Tripathi, and David Eichler
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 improperly recognized revenue from
         sales of product that was eventually returned to the
         distributor;

     (2) that as a result of this, the Company had to increase
         its sales return reserve for the third quarter and had
         to take a charge of approximately $4.0 - $4.5 million
         for excess inventory;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls,
         especially the ability to adequately estimate
         distributor sales returns in accordance with SFAS no.
         48; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times
         and the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
         statements regarding the Company.

On October 22, 2004, Tripath announced that net revenues for the
third quarter of 2004 would be significantly below prior
guidance of $4 - $4.5 million. Moreover, Tripath announced that
it may have to restate its revenue for the quarter ended June
30, 2004. In addition, Tripath planed to take a charge of
approximately $4.0 - $4.5 million for excess inventory. News of
this shocked the market. Shares of Tripath fell $.75 per share,
or 49.34 percent, on October 25, 2004, to close at $.77 per
share.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *