---

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

            Wednesday, November 10, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 223

                           Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Former Employees Lodge IL Suit Over Firings
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Seeks To Resolve Silicone Implants Suits
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Settles Federal Hemophiliac Lawsuits in IL
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Gammagard IVIG
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in IL

BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit For ERISA Violations in N.D. IL
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Lodges Fraud Suit in IL Court
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: MA Court Partially Dismisses AWP Lawsuit
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Litigation Over Thimerosal Still Pending
BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues To Face Chronic Beryllium Litigation

CALIFORNIA: Court Certifies Taxpayer Lawsuit v. Shreveport City
CANNONDALE BICYCLE: Recalls 2.6T Handle Bar Bags For Crash Risk
CAREER EDUCATION: IL Court Mulls Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Forges Securities, Derivative Suits Pact
DELTATHREE INC.: Executes NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement

DIVERSA CORPORATION: Executes NY Securities Lawsuit Settlement
EXTREME NETWORKS: Executes NY Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: FL Residents Asked To Join Class Action
IDACORP INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in ID
INTERMIX MEDIA: Derivative Suit Dismissed, CA Stock Suit Settled

MERCK & CO.: Justice Department, SEC Probe Handling Of VIOXX
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles Novell Netware Antitrust Claims
MICROTUNE INC.: Working on NY Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
MORRIS NATIONAL: Recalls Candy Pops For Undeclared Egg Proteins

ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Files Formal Settlement Documents in NY Court
RADIATION THERAPY: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in FL
TOYS R US: Reaches Settlement With "Illegally Fired" Ex-Employee
TREX CO.: NJ Court Grants Approval To Consumer Suit Settlement
UNITED STATES: 11th Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Suit V. HMOs

VANS INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Canadian Consumers Launch Antitrust Fraud Suit
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Appeals Summary Judgment Denial in OR Lawsuit
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Asks Appeals Court To Stay Trial in Alder Suit
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Investors Seek Summary Judgment For OK Suit

WORLDCOM: SEC, NY Court Issues Fair Fund Distribution Notice


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in NY
AUTOBYTEL INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
AUTOBYTEL INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
AXIS CAPITAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges CA Stock Suit

EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in CA
EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in CA
MEDQUIST INC.: Goodkind Labaton Rudoff Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
METLIFE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
NEW YORK: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

SOURCECORP INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in AZ
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in CA
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Suit in MI

                           *********

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Former Employees Lodge IL Suit Over Firings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Abbott Laboratories employees have initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the U.S. District Court in
Chicago accusing the Company of unlawfully firing staff at its
hospital-products division before spinning off the unit a move
that the complaint says was aimed at avoiding accrual of
retirement benefits, the Associated Press reports.

According to the attorneys for three of the former employees,
the May spinoff of Hospira Inc., which is also named in the
suit, prevented about 10,000 former Abbott employees who were
later hired by Hospira from earning "substantial employee
benefits," including retiree medical insurance.

However, Abbott disputed the allegations and in its own defense
stated that its former employees were moved to Hospira as part
of the spinoff and weren't terminated, which the Company
describes to be actions that are with the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act. Furthermore, Abbot defended its creation of
Hospira by saying that it made the spinoff as an independent
Company to provide shareholders with equity investments in two
separate companies that are "focused exclusively on maximizing
opportunities in their distinct markets."

The complaint stated that 70 percent of the Abbott employees who
were fired were at least 40 years old, making hospital products
the Company's most senior division. Steven Sprenger, attorney
for the plaintiffs alleges that Abbott instituted a two-year no-
hire policy to ensure the fired employees would lose seniority,
which is interrupted after one year. The complaint further said
that once the Hospira spinoff was completed, Hospira indicated
it wouldn't provide former Abbott employees with retiree medical
benefits, which they would have received had they retired from
Abbott.

Aside from seeking class status, Mr. Sprenger told AP that the
suit also seeks to reinstate the employees to their seniority
status before the termination.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Seeks To Resolve Silicone Implants Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries are
working to resolve litigation filed in various Courts, seeking
damages for injuries of various types allegedly caused by
silicone mammary implants previously manufactured by the Heyer-
Schulte division of American Hospital Supply Corporation (AHSC).
AHSC, which was acquired by the Company in 1985, divested its
Heyer-Schulte division in 1984.

It is not known how many of these claims and lawsuits involve
products manufactured and sold by Heyer-Schulte, as opposed to
other manufacturers.  In December 1998, a panel of independent
medical experts appointed by a federal judge announced its
findings that reported medical studies contained no clear
evidence of a connection between silicone mammary implants and
traditional or atypical systemic diseases.  In June 1999, a
similar conclusion was announced by a committee of independent
medical experts from the Institute of Medicine, an arm of the
National Academy of Sciences.

As of September 30, 2004, the Company, together with certain of
its subsidiaries, was named as a defendant or co-defendant in 71
lawsuits relating to mammary implants, brought by approximately
159 plaintiffs, of which 129 are implant plaintiffs and the
remainder are consortium or second generation plaintiffs.

Of those plaintiffs, eleven currently are included in the
Lindsey class action Revised Settlement, which accounts for
approximately ten of the pending lawsuits against the Company.
Additionally, 61 plaintiffs have opted out of the Revised
Settlement (representing approximately 48 pending lawsuits), and
the status of the remaining plaintiffs with pending lawsuits is
unknown.  Some of the opt-out plaintiffs filed their cases
naming multiple defendants and without product identification;
thus, not all of the opt-out plaintiffs will have viable claims
against the Company.

As of September 30, 2004, 31 of the opt-out plaintiffs had
confirmed Heyer-Schulte mammary implant product identification.
Furthermore, during the third quarter of 2004, Baxter obtained
dismissals, or agreements for dismissals, with respect to one
plaintiff.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Settles Federal Hemophiliac Lawsuits in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. has started executing the settlement
of the United States consumer class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of individuals who have hemophilia.

The Company currently is a defendant in a number of claims and
lawsuits brought by individuals who have hemophilia, all seeking
damages for injuries allegedly caused by anti-hemophilic factor
concentrates VIII or IX derived from human blood plasma (factor
concentrates) processed by the Company from the late 1970s to
the mid-1980s.  The typical case or claim alleges that the
individual was infected with the HIV virus by factor
concentrates, which contained the HIV virus.  None of these
cases involves factor concentrates currently processed by the
Company.

As of September 30, 2004, the Company was named as a defendant
in 25 lawsuits and has received notice of 149 claims in the
United States, France, Ireland, Italy, Japan and Spain.  The
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has approved a settlement of U.S. federal Court factor
concentrate cases.  As of September 30, 2004, approximately
6,246 claimant groups had been found eligible to participate in
the settlement.  Approximately 6,244 of the claimant groups had
received payments as of September 30, 2004.

In addition, the Company and other manufacturers have been named
as defendants in two purported class actions pending in the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of claimants, who are
primarily non-U.S. residents, seeking unspecified damages for
HIV and/or Hepatitis C infections.

In addition, Immuno International AG (Immuno), acquired by
Baxter in 1996, has unsettled claims for damages for injuries
allegedly caused by its plasma-based therapies.  The typical
claim alleges that the individual with hemophilia was infected
with HIV and/or Hepatitis C by factor concentrates.
Additionally, Immuno faces multiple claims stemming from its
vaccines and other biologically derived therapies.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Several Lawsuits Over Gammagard IVIG
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. faces a number of claims and lawsuits
brought by individuals who infused the Company's Gammagard IVIG
(intravenous immuno-globulin), all of whom are seeking damages
for Hepatitis C infections allegedly caused by infusing
Gammagard IVIG.

As of September 30, 2004, the Company was a defendant in ten
lawsuits and has received notice of five claims in the United
States, France, Denmark, Italy, Germany and Spain.  One class
action in the United States has been certified.  In September
2000, the U.S.D.C. for the Central District of California
approved a settlement of the class action that would provide
financial compensation for U.S. individuals who used Gammagard
IVIG between January 1993 and February 1994.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.  The suit also names as
defendants its current Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer and their predecessors.

The suits, which seeks recovery of unspecified damages, allege
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
making false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
financial results, which allegedly caused the Company's common
stock to trade at inflated levels during the period between
April 2001 and July 2004.

These cases are in the process of being consolidated before a
single judge.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Faces Suit For ERISA Violations in N.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc., its current Chief Executive Officer,
Chief Financial Officer and their predecessors face a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
(ERISA).

Plaintiff alleges that these defendants, along with the
Administrative and Investment Committees of the Company's
Incentive Investment Plan and Puerto Rico Savings and Investment
Plan, which are the Company's 401(k) plans, breached their
fiduciary duties to the plans' participants by offering Baxter
International common stock as an investment option in each of
these plans during the period of January 2001 to October 2004.
Plaintiff alleges that Baxter International common stock traded
at artificially inflated prices during this period and seeks
unspecified damages and declaratory and equitable relief.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Shareholder Lodges Fraud Suit in IL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. faces a purported class action filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois alleging a breach
of federal securities law through the Company's secondary
offering of common stock in September 2003.

The plaintiff alleges that the offering price of these shares
was artificially inflated by virtue of the financial statements
that the Company filed prior to and concurrent with the
offering, which the Company later amended in connection with the
restatement.  The suit seeks unspecified damages.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: MA Court Partially Dismisses AWP Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted in part Baxter International, Inc.'s and
other pharmaceutical firm's motion to dismiss the consolidated
class action filed against them, alleging they reported
artificially inflated average wholesale prices for Medicare and
Medicaid eligible drugs.

As of September 30, 2004, the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries have been named as defendants, along with others,
in seventeen lawsuits brought in various state and U.S. federal
courts.  These cases have been brought by private parties on
behalf of various purported classes of purchasers of Medicare
and Medicaid eligible drugs, as well as by state attorneys
general.

All but five of these cases have been consolidated and are
currently pending in the U.S.D.C. for the District of
Massachusetts for pretrial case management under Multi District
Litigation rules.  Claimants seek unspecified damages and
declaratory and injunctive relief under various state and/or
federal statutes.

In May 2003, the Court granted in part defendants' motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an
amended master consolidated class action complaint and the
defendants, including the Company, moved to dismiss the
complaint.

The lawsuits against the Company include five lawsuits brought
by state attorneys general, which allege that prices for
Medicare and Medicaid eligible drugs were artificially inflated
and seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief, civil
penalties, disgorgement, forfeiture and restitution.

Specifically, in January 2002, the Attorney General of Nevada
filed a civil suit in the Second Judicial District Court of
Washoe County, Nevada.  In February 2002, the Attorney General
of Montana filed a civil suit in the First Judicial District
Court of Lewis and Clark County, Montana.  In June 2003, the
U.S.D.C. for the District of Massachusetts remanded the Nevada
case to Washoe County, Nevada and denied plaintiffs' motion to
remand the Montana case.

In January 2004, the District Court remanded another case filed
in state Court to the Superior Court of Maricopa County,
Arizona.  In March 2004, the Attorney General of Pennsylvania
filed a civil suit in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
In May 2004, the Attorney General of Texas filed a civil suit in
the District Court of Travis County, Texas.  In June 2004, the
Attorney General of Wisconsin filed a civil suit in the Circuit
Court of Dane County, Wisconsin.



BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Litigation Over Thimerosal Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International, Inc. and certain of its subsidiaries have
been served as defendants, along with others, in 142 lawsuits
filed in various state and U.S. federal Courts, one of which is
a purported class action, seeking damages, injunctive relief and
medical monitoring for claimants alleged to have contracted
autism or other attention deficit disorders as a result of
exposure to vaccines for childhood diseases containing
Thimerosal.

These vaccines were formerly manufactured and sold by North
American Vaccine, Inc., which was acquired by Baxter in June
2000, as well as others.  As of September 30, 2004, seven suits
have been dismissed based on the application of the National
Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, five of which are pending on
appeal.  Additional Thimerosal cases may be filed in the future
against Baxter and companies that marketed Thimerosal-containing
products.


BRUSH WELLMAN: Continues To Face Chronic Beryllium Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brush Wellman, Inc. continues to face 13 proceedings in various
state and federal Courts brought by plaintiffs alleging that
they have contracted, or have been placed at risk of
contracting, chronic beryllium disease or other lung conditions
as a result of exposure to beryllium.

Plaintiffs in beryllium cases seek recovery under theories of
intentional tort and various other legal theories and seek
compensatory and punitive damages, in many cases of an
unspecified sum.  Spouses of some plaintiffs claim loss of
consortium.

During the third quarter of 2004, the number of beryllium cases
changed from 13 (involving 32 plaintiffs) as of July 2, 2004 to
13 cases (involving 60 plaintiffs) as of October 1, 2004.
During the third quarter, one third-party case (involving one
plaintiff) was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff.  One
third party case (involving two plaintiffs) was settled and
dismissed.  One third-party case (involving one plaintiff) that
had previously been reported as settled, has been dismissed by
the Court.  Two third-party cases (involving 12 plaintiffs) were
filed in the quarter.

In one purported class action that was previously reported on,
an amended complaint was filed (involving five additional named
plaintiffs).  One purported class action (involving 15 named
plaintiffs) which was previously reported as having been filed,
has been served on the Company.

The 13 pending beryllium cases as of October 1, 2004 fall into
two categories: 9 cases involving third-party individual
plaintiffs, with 13 individuals (and seven spouses who have
filed claims as part of their spouse's case and two children who
have filed claims as part of their parent's case); and four
purported class actions, involving 38 individuals.  Claims
brought by third-party plaintiffs (typically employees of the
Company's customers or contractors) are generally covered by
varying levels of insurance.

The first purported class action is styled "John Wilson, et al.
v. Brush Wellman Inc.," originally filed in Court of Common
Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio, case number 00-401890-CV, on
February 14, 2000.  The named plaintiffs are John Wilson, Daniel
A. Martin, Joseph A. Szenderski, Larry Strang, Hubert Mays,
Michael Fincher and Reginald Hohenberger.

The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf of a class of workers
who belonged to unions in the Northwestern Ohio Building
Construction Trades Council who worked in Brush Wellman's Elmore
plant from 1953-1999.  They have brought claims for negligence,
strict liability, statutory product liability, ultrahazardous
activities and punitive damages and seek establishment of a fund
for medical surveillance and screening.  The plaintiffs are
seeking that Brush Wellman pay for a reasonable medical
surveillance and screening program for plaintiffs and class
members, punitive damages, interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

Mr. Szenderski was voluntarily dismissed by the Court on
September 27, 2000.  Mr. Szenderski filed a separate claim,
which is now settled and dismissed.  The only defendant is the
Company.  The trial Court denied class certification on February
12, 2002, and the Court of Appeals, Ohio 8th District, remanded
on October 17, 2002.  The case was appealed to the Ohio Supreme
Court, case number 03-0048, and oral arguments were heard on
December 16, 2003.

The second purported class action is "Manuel Marin, et al.  v.
Brush Wellman Inc.," filed in Superior Court of California, Los
Angeles County, case number BC299055, on July 15, 2003.  The
named plaintiffs are Manuel Marin, Lisa Marin, Garfield Perry
and Susan Perry.  The defendants are Brush Wellman, Appanaitis
Enterprises, Inc. and Doe Defendants 1 through 100.

A First Amended Complaint was filed on September 15, 2004,
naming five additional plaintiffs.  The five additional named
plaintiffs are Robert Thomas, Darnell White, Leonard Joffrion,
James Jones and John Kesselring.  The plaintiffs allege that
they have been sensitized to beryllium while employed at the
Boeing Company. The plaintiffs' wives claim loss of consortium.

The plaintiffs purport to represent two classes of approximately
250 members each, one consisting of workers who worked at Boeing
or its predecessors and are beryllium sensitized and the other
consisting of their spouses.  They have brought claims for
negligence, strict liability & design defect, strict liability &
failure to warn, fraudulent concealment, breach of implied
warranties, and unfair business practices.  The plaintiffs seek
injunctive relief, medical monitoring, medical and health care
provider reimbursement, attorneys; fees and costs, revocation of
business license, and compensatory and punitive damages.
Messrs. Marin, Perry, Thomas, White, Joffrion, Jones and
Kesselring represent current and past employees of Boeing in
California; and Ms. Marin and Ms. Perry are spouses.

The third purported class action is "Neal Parker, et al.," v.
Brush Wellman Inc., filed in Superior Court of Fulton County,
State of Georgia, case number 2004CV80827, on January 29, 2004.
The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia, case number 04-CV-606, on March 4, 2004.
The named plaintiffs are Neal Parker, Wilbert Carlton, Stephen
King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins, Leonard Ponder, Barbara King
and Patricia Burns.  The defendants are Brush Wellman; Schmiede
Machine and Tool Corporation; Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc.,
d/b/a Copper and Brass Sales; Axsys Technologies, Inc.; Alcoa,
Inc.; McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation; Cobb Tool, Inc.;
and Lockheed Martin Corporation.

Messrs. Parker, Carlton, King and Burns and Ms. Watkins are
current employees of Lockheed.  Mr. Ponder is a retired
employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns are family members. The
plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict liability,
fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy and punitive damages.
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the
defendants to fund a Court-supervised medical monitoring
program, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

The fourth purported class action is "George Paz, et al. v.
Brush Engineered Materials Inc., et al.," filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, case
number 1:04CV597 on June 30, 2004.  The named plaintiffs are
George Paz, Barbara Faciane, Joe Lewis, Donald Jones, Ernest
Bryan, Gregory Condiff, Karla Condiff, Odie Ladner, Henry Polk,
Roy Tootle, William Stewart, Margaret Ann Harris, Judith Lemon,
Theresa Ladner and Yolanda Paz.  The defendants are Brush
Engineered Materials Inc.; Brush Wellman Inc.; Wess-Del, Inc.;
and the Boeing Company.

Plaintiffs seek the establishment of a medical monitoring trust
fund as a result of their alleged exposure to products
containing beryllium, attorneys' fees and expenses, and general
and equitable relief.  The plaintiffs purport to sue on behalf
of a class of present or former Defense Contract Management
Administration (DCMA) employees who conducted quality assurance
work at Stennis Space Center and the Boeing Company at its
facility in Canoga Park, California; present and former
employees of Boeing at Stennis; and spouses and children of
those individuals.

Messrs. Paz and Lewis and Ms. Faciane represent current and
former DCMA employees at Stennis.  Mr. Jones represents DCMA
employees at Canoga Park.  Messrs. Bryan, Condiff, Ladner, Park,
Polk, Tootle and Stewart and Ms. Condiff represent Boeing
employees at Stennis.  Ms. Harris, Ms. Lemon, Ms. Ladner and Ms.
Paz are family members.


CALIFORNIA: Court Certifies Taxpayer Lawsuit v. Shreveport City
---------------------------------------------------------------
Caddo District Judge Roy Brun recently certified a class action
lawsuit filed against the city of Shreveport on behalf of more
than 70,000 residents for funds authorized for a city park on
Cross Bayou that was never developed, the Shreveport Times
reports.

Named as class representatives for the suit are Shreveport
residents Brend O'Brock and Donald Sorrells. According to Mr.
O'Brock, who testified last month that Shreveport Mayor Keith
Hightower and his administration dragged their feet until Deja
Vu came, and then the strip club precluded the park plans, "I
believe this can be a beginning for Shreveport's best
interests."

Furthermore, Mr. O'Brock said that "the citizens of Shreveport
are becoming more vocal and more civic minded. They will be
speaking out more in the class action suit."


CANNONDALE BICYCLE: Recalls 2.6T Handle Bar Bags For Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cannondale Bicycle Corp., of Bethel, Connecticut in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission is voluntarily
about 2,600 "Crossroads" and "Perimeter" Handlebar Bags.

The plastic, handlebar-mounted, quick-release bags can fall off
the bicycle while it is being ridden, causing the rider to
crash. Cannondale has received one report of a rider crashing
when a bag fell under his front wheel while he was riding,
resulting in him suffering serious injuries.

The recall involves 2004- and 2005-models of black handlebar
bags. They are the quick-release-type bag, with a support and
sleeve to secure it to the bicycle. The "Crossroads" model
number is BHB322 and the "Perimeter" model number is BHB320,
which can be found on the packaging. The model name and number
is not written on the product. The Cannondale logo is on the
front of the bags. Only bags with the pattern of reflective
material and logo shown below are included in the recall. Older
bags that have an American flag sewn into an outer seam or have
a "Cannondale Made in USA" tag on an inner seam are not included
in the recall.

Manufactured in China, the bags were sold at all Cannondale
bicycle stores nationwide from September 2003 through August
2004 for about $35 for the Perimeter and about $60 for the
Crossroads bag.

Consumers should stop using the bags immediately, and return
them to a local Cannondale store or contact Cannondale Bicycle
Corp. to get a replacement bag fitted with a corrected sleeve
and support system.

Consumer Contact: Call Cannondale toll-free at (800) BIKE-USA
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit
Cannondale's Web site: http://www.cannondale.com


CAREER EDUCATION: IL Court Mulls Motion To Dismiss Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has yet to rule on Career Education Corporation's
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against the Company and its executive officers John M. Larson
and Patrick K. Pesch.

Between December 9, 2003 and February 5, 2004, six purported
class action lawsuits were initially filed on behalf of all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock during
a specified class period in 2003.  The complaints alleged that,
in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by the SEC, the
defendants made certain material misrepresentations and failed
to disclose certain material facts about the condition of the
Company's business and prospects during the putative class
period, causing the respective plaintiffs to purchase the
Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.

The plaintiffs further claim that John M. Larson and Patrick K.
Pesch are liable under Section 20(a) of the Act.  The plaintiffs
ask for unspecified amounts in damages, interest, and costs, as
well as ancillary relief.  Five of these lawsuits were found to
be related to the first filed lawsuit, captioned "Taubenfeld v.
Career Education Corporation et al. (No. 03 CV 8884)," and have
been reassigned to the same judge.

On March 19, 2004, the Court ordered these six cases to be
consolidated and appointed Thomas Schroeder as lead plaintiff.
On April 6, 2004, the Court appointed the firm of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, which represents Mr. Schroder, as
lead counsel.  On June 17, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated
amended complaint.

On July 30, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint filed in these related actions.
Plaintiffs filed their response to the motion to dismiss on
September 17, 2004.  The Company filed its reply in support of
the motion to dismiss on October 8, 2004.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Forges Securities, Derivative Suits Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications, Inc. reached a settlement for the
securities class actions and shareholder derivative suits filed
against it and certain of its former and present officers and
directors.

Fourteen putative federal class action lawsuits were filed
against the Company and certain of its former and present
officers and directors in various jurisdictions allegedly on
behalf of all purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from either November 8 or November 9, 1999 through July
17 or July 18, 2002.

In general, the lawsuits alleged that the Company utilized
misleading accounting practices and failed to disclose these
accounting practices and/or issued false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning its
operations and prospects.

On September 12, 2002, a shareholders derivative suit was filed
in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, State of Missouri
against Charter and its then current directors, as well as its
former auditors.  A substantively identical derivative action
was later filed and consolidated into the State Derivative
Action.  The plaintiffs allege that the individual defendants
breached their fiduciary duties by failing to establish and
maintain adequate internal controls and procedures.  An action
substantively identical to the State Derivative Action was filed
in March 2004.

Separately, on February 12, 2003, a shareholders derivative suit
was filed against Charter and its then current directors in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.  The plaintiff in that suit alleged that the
individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties and
grossly mismanaged Charter by failing to establish and maintain
adequate internal controls and procedures.

On August 5, 2004, Charter entered into Memoranda of
Understanding setting forth agreements in principle regarding
settlement of the Federal Class Actions, the State Derivative
Action(s) and the Federal Derivative Action.  In exchange for a
release of all claims by plaintiffs against Charter and its
former and present officers and directors named in the Actions,
Charter will pay to the plaintiffs a combination of cash and
equity collectively valued at $144 million, which will include
the fees and expenses of plaintiffs' counsel.

Of this amount, $64 million will be paid in cash (by Charter's
insurance carriers) and the balance will be paid in shares of
Charter Class A common stock having an aggregate value of $40
million and ten-year warrants to purchase shares of Charter
Class A common stock having an aggregate warrant value of $40
million.  The warrants would have an exercise price equal to
150% of the fair market value (as defined) of Charter Class A
common stock as of the date of the entry of the order of final
judgment approving the settlement.  In addition, Charter expects
to issue additional shares of its Class A common stock to its
insurance carrier having an aggregate value of $5 million.

Additionally, as part of the settlements, Charter will also
commit to a variety of corporate governance changes, internal
practices and public disclosures, some of which have already
been undertaken and none of which are inconsistent with measures
Charter is taking in connection with the recent conclusion of an
investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission.  The
settlement of each of the lawsuits is conditioned upon, among
other things, the parties' approval and execution of definitive
settlement agreements with respect to the matters described
above, judicial approval of the settlements by the Court
following notice to the class, and dismissal of the consolidated
derivative actions now pending in Missouri State Court, which
are related to the Federal Derivative Action.


DELTATHREE INC.: Executes NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
DeltaThree, Inc. executed a settlement agreement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its former officers and directors, in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
arising out of the Company's initial public offering in November
1999 (the IPO). Various underwriters of the IPO also are also
named as defendants in the action.

The complaint allege, among other things, that the registration
statement and prospectus filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission for purposes of the IPO were false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
         Company stock in connection with the IPO and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional shares in
         the aftermarket at predetermined prices.

In July 2002, omnibus motions to dismiss the complaints based on
common legal issues were filed on behalf of all issuers and
underwriters.  On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an opinion
granting in part and denying in part those motions to dismiss.
The complaint against the Company was not dismissed as a matter
of law.


DIVERSA CORPORATION: Executes NY Securities Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Diversa Corporation executed a settlement agreement for the
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned "Muller v. Diversa
Corp., et al., Case No. 02-CV-9699."

In the complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of
its initial public offering, or IPO, violated Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, based on allegations
that the Company's registration statement and prospectus
prepared in connection with the IPO failed to disclose material
facts regarding the compensation to be received by, and the
stock allocation practices of, the Underwriters.

The complaint also contains claims for violation of Sections
10(b) and 20 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
based on allegations that this omission constituted a deceit on
investors.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary damages and
other relief.

This action is related to In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Case No. 21 MC 92, in which similar
complaints were filed by plaintiffs against hundreds of other
public companies that conducted IPOs of their common stock in
the late 1990s (collectively, the "IPO Cases").

On January 7, 2003, the IPO Case against the Company was
assigned to United States Judge Shira Scheindlin of the Southern
District of New York, before whom the IPO Cases have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes.  In February 2003, the Court
issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the Sections 11
and 15 claims against the Company and its officers and directors
and almost all of the other Issuers, and granting the motion to
dismiss the Section 10(b) claim against us without leave to
amend.  The Court similarly dismissed the Sections 10(b) and 20
claims against two of the Company's officers and directors
without leave to amend, but denied the motion to dismiss these
claims against one officer/director.

In June 2003, Issuers and Plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement and entered into a memorandum of
understanding providing for, among other things, a dismissal
with prejudice and full release of the Issuers and their
officers and directors from all further liability resulting from
Plaintiffs' claims, and the assignment to Plaintiffs of certain
potential claims that the Issuers may have against the
Underwriters.

The tentative settlement also provides that, in the event that
Plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum of $1
billion from the IPO underwriters, Plaintiffs would be entitled
to payment by each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata
share of any shortfall in the Plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.

The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
action by the Court certifying a class action for settlement
purposes and formally approving the settlement. The Underwriters
have opposed both the certification of the class and the
judicial approval of the settlement.


EXTREME NETWORKS: Executes NY Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme Networks, Inc. executed a settlement agreement for the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "In
re Extreme Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civ. No. 01-6143 (SAS)," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)."

The operative amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf
of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock from
April 8, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It names as defendants
the Company; six of its present and former officers and/or
directors, including its CEO; and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering and October 1999 secondary offering.
Subsequently, plaintiffs and one of the individual defendants
stipulated to a dismissal of that defendant without prejudice.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The Securities Act allegations against the Company Defendants
are made as to the secondary offering only.  The amended
complaint also alleges that false analyst reports were issued.
No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000.  The cases were consolidated for
pretrial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.

The Court denied the motions to dismiss the claims in the
Company's case under the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court
denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section 10(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Extreme Networks and
184 other issuer defendants, on the basis that the complaints
alleged that the respective issuers had acquired companies or
conducted follow-on offerings after their initial public
offerings.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss the claims
under Section 10(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 against the remaining Extreme Networks Defendants and 59
other individual defendants, on the basis that the respective
amended complaints alleged that the individuals sold stock.

The Company executed a settlement agreement presented to all
issuer defendants. In this settlement, plaintiffs will dismiss
and release all claims against the Extreme Network Defendants,
in exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the
IPO cases, and for the assignment or surrender of control of
certain claims the Company may have against the underwriters.
The Extreme Networks Defendants will not be required to make any
cash payments in the settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid
by the insurers in the settlement exceeds the amount of the
insurance coverage.  The settlement will require approval of the
Court.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: FL Residents Asked To Join Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of the area around the former Honeywell International
Inc. manufacturing plant near Himes and Waters avenues are being
asked to join a possible class-action lawsuit against the
Company, the MSNBC reports.

Already five plaintiffs have signed on to a lawsuit filed
against Honeywell in Hillsborough County Circuit Court on
October 11. According to attorney Samuel Bearman of Pensacola,
who had filed the initial suit, he has met with additional
homeowners in a 3-square-mile area around the site whose
properties may be contaminated by the underground spread of
solvents from the old defense components plant.

Mr. Bearman further states, "We feel confident it will be
granted class status. Ultimately we're going to notify every
residential and business property owner on top of the plume of
contamination."

The lawsuit follows another filed in 2000 in U.S. District Court
by Los Angeles lawyer David Simon, whose family trust owns the
17-acre industrial site that was occupied by Honeywell for
nearly two decades. The Los Angeles attorney charged that
Honeywell was moving too slowly to clean up contamination
resulting from a methylene chloride spill in 1983, essentially
rendering the site worthless. Mr. Bearman's federal suit had
sought at least $100 million in damages but was awarded just
$250,000.


IDACORP INC.: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Securities Suit in ID
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
IDACORP Inc. and certain of its directors and officers in the
United States District Court for the District of Idaho, styled
Powell et al. v. IDACORP, Inc. et al.

On May 26, 2004 and June 22, 2004, respectively, two shareholder
lawsuits were filed against the Company and certain of its
directors and officers.  The lawsuits, captioned Powell, et al.
v. IDACORP, Inc., et al. and Shorthouse, et al. v. IDACORP,
Inc., et al., raise largely similar allegations.  The lawsuits
are putative class actions brought on behalf of purchasers of
IDACORP stock between February 1, 2002 and June 4, 2002, and
were filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Idaho.  The named defendants in each suit, in addition to
IDACORP, are:

     (1) Jon H. Miller,

     (2) Jan B. Packwood,

     (3) J. LaMont Keen and

     (4) Darrel T. Anderson

The complaints allege that, during the purported class period,
IDACORP and/or certain of its officers and/or directors made
materially false and misleading statements or omissions about
the Company's financial outlook in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5, thereby causing investors to purchase the
Company's common stock at artificially inflated prices.

More specifically, the complaints allege that IDACORP failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (i) IDACORP failed to appreciate the negative impact that
         lower volatility and reduced pricing spreads in the
         western wholesale energy market would have on its
         marketing subsidiary, IE;

    (ii) IDACORP would be forced to limit its origination
         activities to shorter-term transactions due to
         increasing regulatory uncertainty and continued
         deterioration of creditworthy counterparties;

   (iii) IDACORP failed to discount for the fact that IPC may
         not recover from the lingering effects of the prior
         year's regional drought and

    (iv) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         IDACORP and their earnings projections.

The Powell complaint also alleges that the defendants' conduct
artificially inflated the price of the Company's common stock.
The actions seek an unspecified amount of damages, as well as
other forms of relief.

By order dated August 31, 2004, the Court consolidated the
Powell and Shorthouse cases for pretrial purposes, and ordered
the plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint within 60 days.
On November 1, 2004, IDACORP and the directors and officers
filed the consolidated suit.

The new complaint alleges that during the purported class period
(February 1, 2002 to June 4, 2002) the defendants engaged in a
scheme to inflate IDACORP's financial results, including
engaging in improper energy trading practices from 2000 to 2002,
and made materially false and misleading statements or omissions
about the Company's financial outlook, and that the defendants'
conduct caused investors to purchase the Company's common stock
at artificially inflated prices, in violation of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and Rule 10b-5.


INTERMIX MEDIA: Derivative Suit Dismissed, CA Stock Suit Settled
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intermix Media, Inc. (Amex: MIX) recently provided an update on
its pending stockholder litigations matters. According to the
Company on October 1, 2004, the Company's motion to dismiss the
consolidated derivative action pending against the Company and
several of its current and former officers and directors in Los
Angeles Superior Court was granted and the lawsuit was
dismissed. Plaintiffs may appeal the decision of the Court, but
to date, have not filed notice of their intent to do so.

In addition, the Company also revealed that an agreement in
principle has been reached to settle a consolidated securities
class action case pending in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles.
The lead plaintiff and the Company have agreed to settle the
lawsuit for $5.5 million in cash. The Company's insurance
carriers have conditionally agreed to fund the entire
settlement. Consummation of the settlement is conditioned on
agreement by the parties to the additional terms and conditions
of a stipulation of settlement and upon the Court's acceptance
and approval of the settlement.

"The anticipated resolution of the class action lawsuit is
another important milestone in the turn-around of Intermix
Media," said Richard Rosenblatt, Chief Executive Officer. "This
settlement is an important step toward removing obstacles that
could hinder the growth of the business and the enhancement of
stockholder value, and is not an admission of guilt or
wrongdoing in any respect."


MERCK & CO.: Justice Department, SEC Probe Handling Of VIOXX
------------------------------------------------------------
The Justice Department's prosecutors and Securities and Exchange
Commission's regulators are currently investigating Whitehouse
Station, N.J.-based Merck & Co. for it's handling of the
painkiller Vioxx, according to a recent SEC quarterly filing by
the pharmaceutical giant, the Washington Post reports.

According to the drugmaker's quarterly filing, both inquiries
are in their early stages and focus on its arthritis painkiller,
which was pulled off the market on September 30 after a study
found long-term use of it doubled the risk of heart attacks and
strokes.

Merck goes on to describe that the SEC's probe is more of an
"informal inquiry," meaning that the SEC has not yet sent out
subpoenas. On the other hand, the Justice Department inquiry has
more serious implications for Merck since it is a criminal
probe. According to the Company, it has received a subpoena
"requesting information related to the Company's research,
marketing and selling activities with respect to Vioxx in a
federal healthcare investigation under criminal statutes."

Aside from the SEC and Justice Department inquiries, Merck also
revealed that as of October 31, it had been named in about 375
lawsuits representing 1,000 plaintiff groups alleging they
suffered side effects from Vioxx. The Company also revealed that
state judges in California and New Jersey have already ruled
that cases there can proceed as a group or class action and that
it is seeking to consolidate all of the federal cases before a
single judge.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Settles Novell Netware Antitrust Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation (Nasdaq: MSFT) has reached an agreement
with Novell, Inc. to resolve all antitrust claims relating to
Novell's NetWare product and all of the other products and
businesses which it currently owns. The agreement results from a
private mediation between the two companies.

As part of this agreement, Novell will release its antitrust
claims under U.S. and all other national and state laws
concerning these products. Novell will also withdraw from
participation in the European Commission's case with Microsoft
and will no longer participate as an intervener on behalf of the
European Commission in Microsoft's appeal of the Commission's
March 24 ruling. Microsoft will pay Novell $536 million under
the agreement, and Microsoft will also release its compulsory
counterclaims to those antitrust claims regarding NetWare. The
agreement does not obligate Microsoft to license or otherwise
share any of its technology or intellectual property rights with
Novell, nor does it include any admission of wrongdoing by
Microsoft.

While the parties were able to resolve all antitrust claims
related to Novell's current businesses, including NetWare, they
have not been able to reach agreement concerning Novell's
antitrust claims related to its ownership of WordPerfect between
June 1994 and March 1996. Novell retains the right to pursue
those claims. In addition, both parties retain the right to
pursue past or future patent claims.

"Over the past two years, we have made a sustained effort to
build more constructive relationships with our industry partners
and competitors," said Brad Smith, senior vice president and
general counsel for Microsoft. "Today's Netware settlement is a
product of that effort and reflects an open dialogue the
companies established to address and ultimately resolve this
matter. We could not resolve claims related to WordPerfect in
any manner we thought appropriate, and we are prepared to turn
to the Courts to resolve it."

Due to the nature and timing of the settlement, the first
quarter financial results that were previously released on
October 21, 2004 will be updated to include the impact of the
settlement. Net income and earnings per share for the quarter
were $2.53 billion and $0.23 respectively, including $359
million ($536 million pre-tax) or $0.03 per share relating to
the settlement.

In light of recent progress in addressing antitrust litigation
and claims that have been made against Microsoft, including the
recent developments with Novell, the Company believes that it
can now estimate the additional antitrust exposure that it is
reasonably possible it will incur. The Company estimates that it
is reasonably possible it will incur additional exposure of up
to $950 million for remaining antitrust claims, including $200
million above the amount previously described in its most recent
10-K filing with the SEC related to resolving remaining class
action overcharge cases.


MICROTUNE INC.: Working on NY Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Microtune, Inc. is currently working on the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its officers, and the underwriters of its initial public
offering in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York.

Starting on July 11, 2001, multiple purported securities fraud
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.  The complaints are
brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the
Company's common stock from August 4, 2000 through December 6,
2000 and are related to In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation (IPO cases).

One complaint names as defendants Microtune; Douglas J. Bartek,
its former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer; Everett Rogers,
its former Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance
and Administration; and several investment banking firms that
served as underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.
Microtune, Mr. Bartek and Mr. Rogers were served with notice of
the Atlas complaint on August 22, 2001, however, they have not
been served regarding the other referenced complaints.  Two
complaints assert claims against the underwriters only.  The
complaints were consolidated and amended on May 29, 2002.

The amended complaint alleges liability under Section 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933 (1933 Act Claims) and Section
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act
Claims), on the grounds that the registration statement for our
initial public offering did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain of their
         customers to purchase shares in the offering in
         exchange for excess commissions paid to the
         underwriters, and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain of their
         customers to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued. No specific amount of damages is claimed. We are
aware that similar allegations have been made in other lawsuits
filed in the Southern District of New York challenging over 300
other initial public offerings and secondary offerings conducted
in 1998, 1999 and 2000.  Those cases have been consolidated for
pretrial purposes before the Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin.

On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions
to dismiss.  The Court denied the motions to dismiss the 1933
Act Claims.  The Court did not dismiss the 1934 Act Claims
against the Company and other issuers and underwriters.

The Company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Under the settlement, plaintiffs will
dismiss and release all claims against the Microtune defendants.
The insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring
the issuer defendants in all of the IPO cases will guarantee
plaintiffs a recovery of $1 billion, an amount that covers all
of the IPO cases.  Under this guarantee, the insurers will pay
the difference, if any, between $1 billion and the amount
collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in
all of the IPO cases.  The Microtune defendants will not be
required to pay any money in the settlement.  However, any
payment made by the insurers will be charged to the respective
insurance policies covering each issuer' case on a pro rata
basis (that is, the total insurance Company payments will be
divided by the number of cases that settle). If the pro rata
charge exceeds the amount of insurance coverage for an issuer,
that issuer would be responsible for additional payments.  The
proposal also provides that the insurers will pay for the
Company's legal fees going forward.  The settlement will require
approval of the Court, which cannot be assured.


MIDAMERICAN ENERGY: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated suit filed against
MidAmerican Energy Co., alleging unlawful manipulation of the
prices of natural gas futures and options contracts traded on
the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX).

The suit alleged unlawful manipulation during the period January
1, 2000 to December 31, 2002.  The Company is mentioned as a
Company that has engaged in wash trades on Enron Online (an
electronic trading platform) that had the effect of distorting
prices for gas trades on the NYMEX.  The plaintiffs to the class
action do not specify the amount of alleged damages.

The original complaint in this matter, styled "Cornerstone
Propane Partners, L.P. v. Reliant, et al.," was filed on August
18, 2003 in the United States District Court, Southern District
of New York naming the Company and MidAmerican Energy Holdings
Company (MEHC) as defendants.  On October 1, 2003, a second
complaint, styled "Roberto, E. Calle Gracey, et al.,: was filed
in the same Court but did not name MEHC or the Company.  On
November 14, 2003, a third complaint, "Dominick Viola, et al,"
was filed in the same Court and named MEHC and the Company as
defendants.

On November 19, 2003, an Order of Voluntary Dismissal Without
Prejudice of the Company was entered by the Court dismissing
MEHC from the complaints and MEHC was dismissed from the suit.
On December 5, 2003, the Court entered Pretrial Order No. 1,
which among other procedural matters, ordered the consolidation
of the complaints and permitted plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint in this matter.

On January 20, 2004, plaintiffs filed "In Re: Natural Gas
Commodity Litigation," as the amended complaint reasserting
their previous allegations.  On February 19, 2004, the Company
filed a Motion to Dismiss and joined with several other
defendants to file a joint Motion to Dismiss.  The plaintiffs
filed a response on May 19, 2004, contesting both Motions to
Dismiss.


MORRIS NATIONAL: Recalls Candy Pops For Undeclared Egg Proteins
---------------------------------------------------------------
Morris National of Azusa, CA, is voluntarily recalling Halloween
Sour Kids Jelly Candy Pops, because it contains trace amounts of
egg proteins, which are not in the ingredient statement. People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to eggs run the risk
of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

This product is safe for people without egg protein allergies.
Morris National, Inc., is issuing this alert in keeping with its
commitment to provide safe and healthy confectionery products.

This product was distributed nationally through "Tuesday
Morning" stores. This product is packaged in a cardboard and
clear plastic box containing 12 pops. No illnesses have been
confirmed to date.

This voluntary recall action is being taken with the knowledge
of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and does not affect
other Morris National products.

Those with allergies to eggs who have purchased this candy
should not consume it, but should instead return it to the place
of purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions may contact
Morris National at 1 (800) 666-7747 (1-800-6-MORRIS).


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Files Formal Settlement Documents in NY Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
On Semiconductor Corporation submitted formal documents to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York relating to the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against it, certain of its former officers,
current and former directors and the underwriters for its
initial public offering.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  They have been docketed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York as: "Abrams
v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6114;" "Breuer
v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6287;" and
"Cohen v. ON Semiconductor Corp., et al., C.A. No. 01-CV-6942."

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a single consolidated
amended complaint that supersedes the individual complaints
originally filed.  The amended complaint alleges, among other
things, that the underwriters of the Company's initial public
offering improperly required their customers to pay the
underwriters' excessive commissions and to agree to buy
additional shares of the Company's common stock in the
aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in the Company's
initial public offering.

The amended complaint further alleges that these supposed
practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the
Company's initial public offering prospectus and registration
statement.  The amended complaint alleges violations of both the
registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities
laws and seeks unspecified damages.

The Company understands that various other plaintiffs have filed
substantially similar class action cases against approximately
300 other publicly traded companies and their public offering
underwriters in New York City, which have all been transferred,
along with the case against the Company, to a single federal
district judge for purposes of coordinated case management.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.  In addition, the parties have stipulated to the
voluntary dismissal without prejudice of the Company's
individual former officers and current and former directors who
were named as defendants in the Company's litigation, and they
are no longer parties to the litigation.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants. In
that ruling the Court granted in part and denied in part those
motions. As to the claims brought against the Company under the
antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed
all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow
plaintiffs the opportunity to re-plead these claims. As to the
claims brought under the registration provisions of the
securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be
pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as
to the Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants as well. The Court also denied the underwriter
defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, upon the determination of a special independent
committee of the Company's Board of Directors, the Company
elected to participate in a proposed settlement with the
plaintiffs in this litigation.  If ultimately approved by the
Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal,
with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the
Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect
to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the
current or former officers and directors of participating
issuers who were named as individual defendants.  The proposed
settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims
against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation against
those defendants is continuing.

The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the
class action cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by the
participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling less
than $1 billion are obtained by the class members from the
underwriter defendants, the class members will be entitled to
recover the difference between $1 billion and the aggregate
amount of those recoveries from the participating issuer
defendants.  If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are
obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants,
however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the
proposed settlement will be satisfied.  In addition, the Company
and any other participating issuer defendants will be required
to assign to the class members certain claims that the Company
may have against the underwriters of the Company's initial
public offerings.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary
to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come
from participating issuers' directors and officers' liability
insurance policy proceeds, as opposed to funds of the
participating issuer defendants themselves.  A participating
issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of
the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were
insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the
settlement costs.  The Company expects that insurance proceeds
will be sufficient for these purposes and that the Company will
not otherwise be required to contribute to the proposed
settlement.

Formal settlement documents, including a stipulation of
settlement and related documents, have now been filed with the
Court.  The plaintiffs in the cases against the Company, along
with the plaintiffs in the other related cases in which issuer
defendants have agreed to the proposed settlement, have
requested preliminary approval by the Court of the proposed
settlement, including the form of the notice of the proposed
settlement that will be sent to members of the proposed classes
in each settling case.  Certain underwriters who were named as
defendants in the settling cases, and who are not parties to the
proposed settlement, have filed an opposition to preliminary
approval of the proposed settlement of those cases.

In mid-September 2004, the Court asked lead counsel for the
plaintiffs and for the issuer defendants for additional
information concerning the adequacy of the settlement amount and
how plaintiffs intend to allocate any consideration paid under
the settlement among the more than 300 separate class actions
that are included in the settlement.  Counsel for the plaintiffs
and for the issuer defendants are in the process of providing
the Court the information it has requested.

Consummation of the proposed settlement remains conditioned on,
among other things, receipt of both preliminary and final Court
approval.  If the Court preliminarily approves the proposed
settlement, it will direct that notice of the terms of the
proposed settlement be published in a newspaper and mailed to
all proposed class members and schedule a fairness hearing, at
which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard.
Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final
approval to the proposed settlement.


RADIATION THERAPY: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radiation Therapy Services, Inc. and certain of its directors
and officers face a securities class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  The
suit, filed by the Kissel Family Trust and designated as Civil
Action No. 2:04-CV-470-FtM-29.SPC, purports to be a class action
on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between June 17, 2004 and September 8, 2004.

The complaint claims that the defendants violated the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by disseminating purportedly false and
misleading information and failing to disclose material facts in
the Company's public filings.  The plaintiff asserts in the
complaint that it purchased 800 of Company shares of common
stock at a purportedly inflated price of $14.53 on July 6, 2004
and sold its shares for $12.90 on August 6, 2004.  The complaint
seeks certification as a class action as well as unspecified
compensatory damages, counsel fees and expert fees and such
other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.


TOYS R US: Reaches Settlement With "Illegally Fired" Ex-Employee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Connie Gibbs and her former employer New Jersey-based Toys-R-Us
recently reached a settlement in a class action lawsuit that
accused the toy retailer of firing Ms. Gibbs to avoid paying her
pension, the Madison County Record reports.

The four-count suit, which was seeking at least $200,000 in
compensation, was filed in Madison County Circuit Court on April
6. According to Ms. Gibbs' complaint, she worked at the Toys-R-
Us store in Fairview Heights for almost five years before an
illness forced her to take "authorized sick leave time." The
complaint further states that Toys-R-Us used Ms. Gibbs' illness
as a pretext to fire her so the Company wouldn't have to pay her
pension, which would have vested upon her five-year anniversary
as an employee.

The suit also accuses Toys-R-Us of defaming Gibbs by suggesting
to her next employer that she was "engaging in illegal conduct
at the store." Ms. Gibbs believes her former managers at Toys-R-
Us got her fired from her next job, at Jack-in-the-Box.

Details though of the settlement were not immediately available
both Ms. Gibbs attorney Thomas Maag of the Lakin Law Firm and
Toys-R-Us could not be reached for comment regarding the
supposed settlement.


TREX CO.: NJ Court Grants Approval To Consumer Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex County granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of the class action filed
against Trex Co. by generally alleging that the Company has
violated state and common law by:

     (1) negligently misrepresenting the characteristics of its
         products,

     (2) breaching contracts,

     (3) breaching implied or express warranties and/or

     (4) defrauding consumers in the sale and promotion of
         these products

The plaintiffs seek reformation of the Company's warranty, as
well as compensatory damages in an unspecified amount.

On May 28, 2004, the Superior Court certified the following
three class action cases against the Company:

     (i) a nationwide class for reformation of warranty;

    (ii) a New Jersey class for alleged violation of the New
         Jersey Consumer Fraud Act; and

   (iii) a New Jersey class for alleged breach of express and
         implied warranties

Notice of the proposed settlement has been given by the Company
to the class members.  The final fairness hearing is scheduled
for December 10, 2004 at which time the Court will determine
whether to grant final approval of the settlement.  Although the
Company denies the allegations in the complaint, pursuant to the
terms of the proposed settlement, the Company has agreed that
upon proper proof of claim, it will replace, at the Company's
sole expense (including labor), any class member's product that
exhibits certain specified characteristics.  The Company has
also agreed to modify its warranty in certain respects, and to
discontinue certain advertising claims.  The proposed settlement
does not include the payment of any monetary damages by the
Company, although the Company has agreed to pay $1,750,000 in
legal fees to plaintiffs' counsel.


UNITED STATES: 11th Appeals Court Affirms Ruling in Suit V. HMOs
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an Order affirming
United States District Court Judge Federico Moreno's ruling
refusing to compel arbitration in the landmark lawsuit filed by
the nation's physicians against leading HMOs. The Order clearly
affirmed again the district Court's refusal to compel
arbitration of various claims asserted by the defendant HMOs and
declined to stay the litigation of the identified non-arbitrable
claims.

The Court noted in the twenty five page opinion that "Because we
previously affirmed the District Court's refusal to compel
arbitration of RICO conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims in
a decision not disturbed by the United States Supreme Court, the
law of the case doctrine compels us to affirm the district
Court's order..." The Court further supported the physicians'
position and indicated, "...that broad arbitration clauses
cannot be extended to compel parties to arbitrate disputes they
have not agreed to arbitrate."

"The nation's doctors are once again on track to present the
unconscionable actions of the HMOs to a jury in Miami. We are
confident that the overwhelming evidence of this long history of
abusive contract practices will present a compelling story,"
commented Archie Lamb, co-lead counsel of the national class
action.

It is anticipated that the Order will result in the lifting of
the stay associated with the appeal and allow the litigation to
continue in accordance with the current trial schedule. The
trial is currently scheduled to commence in Judge Moreno's Miami
Courtroom during the first week of March 2005.

For more details, contact Anne Duke of the Law Offices of Archie
Lamb by Phone: 703-518-2383 or by E-mail:
anned@natmedia.comvisit or visit http://www.hmocrisis.com


VANS INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Lawsuit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Vans, Inc. in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, styled "City of Dearborn Heights ACT 345 Police &
Fire Retirement System, on behalf of Itself and all others
similarly situated vs. Vans, Inc., Andrew J. Greenebaum, Gary
Schoenfeld and Arthur I. Carver, Case No. CV04-0431."

The complaint alleges that the Company and the individual
defendants violated the federal securities laws by improperly
inflating revenue and earnings for each fiscal quarter in the
period from March 1998 through May 2001, and issuing false and
misleading statements to the public about its business.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Canadian Consumers Launch Antitrust Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Co. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court
of Justice in Ontario, Canada by the La Cie McCormick Canada
Company.  The suit also names as defendants other linerboard
manufacturers.

The suit was filed on behalf of all Canadians who purchased
corrugated products, including sheets and containers and/or
linerboard, during the period of time from 1993 and continuing
until at least the end of 1995.  The suit alleges violation of
antitrust laws.

Relief is sought under various theories for $25 million in
general damages and $10 million in punitive damages.  At this
stage, the Company cannot calculate what portion of the damages
requested would be argued as the Company's responsibility.
Canadian law does not provide for a trebling of antitrust
damages, the Company said in a regulatory filing.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Appeals Summary Judgment Denial in OR Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Co. appealed the United States District Court in
Oregon's denial of its motion for summary judgment in the class
action filed against the Company, alleging that from 1996 to the
present, it had monopoly power or attempted to gain monopoly
power in the Pacific Northwest market for alder logs and
finished alder lumber.  The suit is designated as the Initial
Alder Case.

In April 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of one of
the plaintiffs in the amount of $26 million, which was
automatically trebled to $79 million under the antitrust laws.
The Company's motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict
was denied in July 2003.  The Company appealed and a hearing on
the appeal is scheduled to occur in December 2004.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Asks Appeals Court To Stay Trial in Alder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Co. filed a mandamus action with the United States
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking to stay the trial of the
civil antitrust suit filed against it in the U.S. District Court
in Portland, Oregon.

The complaint alleged that as a result of the Company's alleged
monopolization of the alder sawlog market in the Pacific
Northwest as determined in the Initial Alder Case currently on
appeal, the Company monopolized the market for finished alder
lumber in the Pacific Northwest and, as a consequence, has been
able to charge monopoly prices for finished alder lumber.  The
lawsuit requested class certification primarily for businesses
that purchased finished alder lumber produced by the Company
from 2000 to the present.

The original complaint alleged that the purported class may have
realized over $100 million in direct damages, and sought direct
and treble damages under the antitrust laws in an amount to be
determined at trial.  The lawsuit also requested injunctive
relief to ensure the availability of alder sawlogs for sawmills
competing with the Company, which could include termination of
certain of the Company's contracts to purchase alder logs or the
Company's control over certain timberlands.

The lawsuit has been assigned to the same judge who presided
over the other alder cases.  The judge issued an order to show
cause why the case should not be dismissed and stayed discovery.
The Company also filed a motion to dismiss, which was argued
with other motions on August 23, 2004.  The Court dismissed the
finished alder allegations with leave to re-file and reserved
ruling on whether the sawlog allegations should be dismissed.

On August 30, 2004, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
which again asserted monopolization of the alder finished lumber
market but deleted the allegations dealing with alder sawlogs.
The amended complaint no longer mentioned any amount that it was
seeking but did request that any actual damages be trebled and
that the Company be enjoined from certain business practices.
In September 2004 the judge denied the Company's motion to
dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery.  He set a hearing on
class certification for December 7, 2004, and a trial date of
March 29, 2005.

The plaintiffs in the Initial Alder Case also claimed that the
Company had monopolized the finished alder lumber market in the
Pacific Northwest, but the jury found in favor of the Company on
this claim and those plaintiffs have not appealed this finding.
The claim of attempted monopolization of the finished alder
lumber market was also made in the Washington Alder litigation,
but was abandoned by plaintiff during trial.  On October 22,
2004, the Company filed a mandamus action with the Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals asking that trial of this lawsuit be stayed
pending the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision on the
Initial Alder Case that is currently on appeal.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Investors Seek Summary Judgment For OK Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed motions for partial summary judgment in the
consolidated securities class action filed against Williams Co.
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that the Company
and co-defendants, WilTel Communications (WilTel), previously an
owned subsidiary known as Williams Communications, and certain
corporate officers, have acted jointly and separately to inflate
the stock price of both companies.  Several suits also alleged
similar causes of action related to a public offering in early
January 2002, known as the FELINE PACS offering.  The suits name
as defendants the Company, certain corporate officers, all
members of its board of directors and all of the offerings'
underwriters.

These cases have all been consolidated and an order has been
issued requiring separate amended consolidated complaints by the
Company's equity holders and WilTel equity holders.  The
underwriter defendants have requested indemnification from these
cases.

The amended complaint of the WilTel securities holders was filed
in September 2002, and the amended complaint of the Company's
securities holders was filed in October 2002.  This amendment
added numerous claims related to Power.  The purported class of
Company securities holders filed a partial motion for summary
judgment with respect to certain disclosures made in connection
with the Company's public offerings during the class period.

Derivative shareholder suits have been filed in state Court in
Oklahoma, all based on similar allegations.  The state Court
approved motions to consolidate and to stay these Oklahoma suits
pending action by the federal Court in the shareholder suits.

In addition, four class action complaints have been filed
against the Company, the members of its board of directors and
members of its benefits and investment committees under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by participants
in our 401(k) plan.  A motion to consolidate these suits has
been approved.  In July 2003, the Court dismissed the Company
and its board from the ERISA suits, but not the members of the
benefits and investment committees to whom the Company might
have an indemnity obligation.  On May 3, 2004, plaintiffs
requested permission to amend their complaint to add additional
investment committee members and to again name the board of
directors.  That permission was granted June 7, 2004, and a
motion to dismiss was filed on behalf of the board on July 15,
2004.


WORLDCOM: SEC, NY Court Issues Fair Fund Distribution Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York and the Securities and Exchange Commission have issued
a Fair Fund Distribution Notice in the matter SEC v. WorldCom,
Inc. (Civ. No. 02-CV-4963 (JSR)) on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or acquired the eligible securities of
WorldCom, Inc. or its affiliates during the period from April
29, 1999 through and including June 25, 2002 and continued to
hold such securities at the close of trading in June 25, 2002.

As a result of its enforcement action against WorldCom for fraud
and other violations of the federal securities laws, the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") won a recovery
under the Fair Funds for Investors provisions of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002 consisting of $500 million in cash and 10
million shares of common stock of MCI, Inc. The funds have been
deposited into the WorldCom Victim Trust (the "Trust") and will
be distributed to eligible holders of WorldCom's securities
pursuant to a Distribution Plan developed by the SEC and
approved by the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York (the "Court"). Mr. Richard C. Breeden is
the appointed as Distribution Agent for the Trust.

In order to determine your eligibility and be considered for
participation in the Trust, you must submit a completed Proof of
Claim Form no later than July 19, 2005 ("Claims Bar Date").

For more details, visit the following Web sites:
http://www.worldcomvictimtrust.comor http://www.mci.comor
http://www.sec.gov



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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


November 10, 2004
HORMONE REPLACEMENT THERAPY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

November 11-12, 2004
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
New Orleans
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 15-16, 2004
THE STRATEGIC GUIDE TO INSURANCE INSOLVENCY OVERCOMING BUSINESS,
LEGAL AND
REGULATORY HURDLES
American Conferences
The Park Central New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

December 2-3, 2004
TRIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FEDERAL COURTS: PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
ALI-ABA
New York
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

December 6-7, 2004
FEN-PHEN CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 6-7, 2004
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 6-7, 2004
MTBE & USTs LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 7-8, 2004
PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

December 8, 2004
EPHEDRA UPDATE
Mealey Publications
Sheraton Hotel and Towers NYC, New York, NY
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9, 2004
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

December 9, 2004
ANTIDEPRESSANTS LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
RETAIL LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
PERSONAL INJURY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-14, 2004
THE 9TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE FOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL & TRIAL ATTORNEYS
DRUG &
MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Plaza Hotel, New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

December 13-14, 2004
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin St. Francis, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 15-16, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
New Orleans
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

January 19-21, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

January 24-25, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENCING OBESITY CLAIMS:  THE LATEST INFORMATION
ON LEGAL
EXPOSURES, LEGISLATION
AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
American Conferences
St. Regis Hotel, Washington DC
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

January 24-25, 2005
THIRD ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP TEN
ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 31-February 01, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL
LITIGATION
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 31-February 01, 2005
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

February 10-11, 2005
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 10-11, 2005
CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

February 14-15, 2005
REINSURANCE 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 14-15, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 17-19, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING
American Bar Association
Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

February 22-23, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2005: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
New York, NY
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

February 28, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 28 - March 1, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 1, 2005
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXPOSURES CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 3-4, 2005
TRANSPORTATION MEGACONFERENCE VII
American Bar Association
New Orleans, LA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 7-8, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 18, 2005
CONFERENCE ON INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
American Bar Association
New York
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

March 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect
The Plaza New York, New York
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-436-6094

April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

November 01-30, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2004
TLIE PRESENTS: "LAW AND DISORDER: SUE-- LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL
MALPRACTICE
ISSUES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2004
TLIE PRESENTS: "DODGING THE BULLET": LEGAL ETHICS AND LEGAL
MALPRACTICE
ISSUES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2004
AVOIDING MALPRACTICE CLAIMS: THINGS TO DO (AND NOT DO)
ON THE FIRST DAY YOU REPRESENT A CLIENT
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

November 01-30, 2004
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND
ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday.  Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of American
International Group, Inc. (NYSE:AIG) between October 28, 1999
and October 13, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


AUTOBYTEL INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Autobytel,
Inc. (NASDAQ:ABTL) between July 24, 2003 and October 20, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


AUTOBYTEL INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Autobytel Inc. ("Autobytel")
(NASDAQ:ABTL) common stock during the period between July 24,
2003 and October 21, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Autobytel and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Autobytel is an automotive marketing services Company that
helps dealers and manufacturers through its marketing,
advertising and customer relationship management tools and
programs, primarily through the Internet.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements
concerning the Company's results and operations. The true facts,
which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from
the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) that the Company inappropriately recorded
         revenue/income associated with its dealer sales
         credits;

     (2) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated;

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

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
         issue earnings or projection reports;

     (5) that the Company was experiencing weaker than claimed
         customer relationship management ("CRM") revenues and
         zero growth in its dealer network size; and

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

On October 21, 2004, the Company revealed its third quarter 2004
financial results would be rescheduled because the Audit
Committee and Board of Directors of the Company were directing
an internal review of the accounting treatment of certain
credits that were recognized as revenue during the preceding
quarters. This news shocked the market. Upon the revelation of
these illegal acts, the Company's shares fell to $6.88 from
$8.81, a drop of over 28%.

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


AXIS CAPITAL: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of AXIS Capital
Holdings Limited (NYSE:AXS) between August 6, 2003 and October
1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges CA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Embarcadero
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:EMBT) between April 20, 2004 and
October 27, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers
of Embarcadero Technologies, Inc. ("Embarcadero") (NASDAQ:EMBT)
common stock during the period between April 20, 2004 and
October 27, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Embarcadero and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Embarcadero is a provider of data lifecycle management
solutions that help organizations cost-effectively build,
optimize, test and manage their critical data, database and
application infrastructures.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading forecasts for the second quarter of
2004, which artificially inflated the value of Embarcadero's
stock. Specifically, Embarcadero did not have sufficient time in
the second quarter of 2004 to close enough large sales to meet
defendants' forecasts. As defendants have admitted, larger
deals, meaning those over $100,000, took more time to close
because they involved more elaborate approval processes at the
customer level. As a result of these long lead-times, defendants
simply could not close the number of large deals necessary to
fulfill their forecasts in the second quarter of 2004. This is
demonstrated by the fact that, as defendants have admitted,
Embarcadero's second quarter 2004 shortfall was not caused by
one or two deals slipping, or even three or four deals slipping,
but by the fact that 10 to 12 large deals failed to close in the
quarter. As a result, Embarcadero closed no deals over $100,000
in the second quarter of 2004. Because of the large number of
deals at issue, their size, and the long lead-times involved,
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that Embarcadero could
not meet their forecasts for the second quarter of 2004. The
true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (1) that the Company had manipulated the financial reports
         at its U.K. unit in order to bolster the Company's
         income statement;

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
         ensure that the Company's financial statements would
         not be falsified; and

     (3) that as a result, the Company's accounting did not
         comply with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

According to the complaint, as a result of defendants' false
statements, Embarcadero's stock traded at inflated levels during
the Class Period, increasing to as high as $14.49. While the
stock was inflated, the Company's CEO sold more than $700,000
worth of his own shares. Then, when the truth was revealed,
Embarcadero's stock plummeted from $11.76 to $8.60 per share in
a single day, later falling another 20% from $9.83 to $7.81 per
share when the Company announced it would have to postpone its
third quarter 2004 earnings announcement.

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


EMBARCADERO TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Embarcadero Technologies, Inc.
(Nasdaq: EMBT) ("Embarcadero") from April 20, 2004 through
October 27, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Embarcadero
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false or
misleading public statements. On October 27, 2004, Embarcadero
announced that it was delaying the release of its financial
results for the third quarter ended September 30, 2004.
Embarcadero announced that its Audit Committee was investigating
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.
On this news, Embarcadero shares fell from a close of $9.83 per
share on October 27, 2004, to close at $7.81 on October 28,
2004.

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


MEDQUIST INC.: Goodkind Labaton Rudoff Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, on behalf of persons who purchased
or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of MedQuist
Inc. ("MedQuist" or the "Company") (Pink Sheets:MEDQ) between
April 23, 2002 and November 2, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class
Period"). The lawsuit was filed against MedQuist, Brian J.
Kearns and Davis A. Cohen ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements regarding the financial condition of the Company.
More specifically, the complaint alleges that Defendants
statements were materially false and misleading because the
Company's financial statements for 2002 and 2003 were the result
of fraudulent financial manipulations, including ambiguous
billing to clients which resulted in the overstatement of the
Company's revenue and earnings by a material amount. Moreover,
the complaint alleges that the Defendants indicated that
Company's financial statements complied with Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP") when they did not.

On November 2, 2004, MedQuist announced that on October 29,
2004, the Company's Board of Directors concluded that the
Company's previously issued financial statements, including the
10-K reports for 2002 and 2003, as well as the encompassed Forms
10-Q for the corresponding periods, and all earnings releases
and communications should no longer be relied upon. These
statements by the Company followed the conclusion of Debevoise &
Plimpton LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, that the way
MedQuist billed for services created ambiguities in how client
accounts were calculated. This in turn led to incorrect billing
and inflated revenues. Shares of MedQuist traded to
approximately $13.00 per share in reaction to the news, nearly
53% below the Class Period high of $29.13 per share.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 or visit their Web site:
http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=Medquist


METLIFE INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP filed
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all participants
of the Savings and Investment Plan for the Employees of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and Participating Affiliates
(the "Plan") established by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
and Participating Affiliates (MetLife, Inc. ("MetLife")
(NYSE:MET)), between November 8, 1998 and the present, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), against defendant MetLife 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
unsustainable and that during the Class Period, the value of the
Company's stock was based on financial results dependent on
these unsustainable business practices.

In short, by no later than the beginning of the Class Period,
MetLife and the Individual Defendants knew, or should have
known, that MetLife's stock was a highly inappropriate
investment for a long-term retirement savings plan such as the
Plan because of the scheme described above and other
questionable business practices.  Despite this knowledge,
Defendants continued to offer MetLife's stock as a Plan
investment alternative, continued to cause MetLife matching
contributions to be invested in MetLife 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., Gustavo Bruckner, Esq., or Christopher Hinton,
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
Web site: http://www.whafh.com


NEW YORK: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Fraud 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 New York Community Bancorp
(NYSE: NYB) ("NYB" or the "Company") securities (the "Class")
between June 27, 2003 and May 9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Plaintiff 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. NYB
serves as the holding Company for New York Community Bank ("the
Bank"). The Bank's principal business consists of accepting
retail deposits from the general public in the areas surrounding
its branch offices and investing those deposits, together with
funds generated from operations and borrowings, into multi-
family, commercial real estate, and construction loans. 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) defendants manipulated the Company's financial results
         in order to appear more attractive for potential merger
         deals;

     (2) 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) 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 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 was 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 Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by
Phone: (800) 217-1522 by E-mail: NYB@bernlieb.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.bernlieb.com


SOURCECORP INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of SOURCECORP, Inc. (NASDAQ:SRCP) between May 7, 2003 and
October 27, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of Swift Transportation Company, Inc. (Nasdaq: SWFT)
("Swift Transportation") between October 16, 2003 and October 1,
2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Swift
Transportation, Jerry C. Moyes ("Moyes"), and certain other
Company executives violated federal securities laws. Defendant
Moyes and entities controlled by him owned approximately 34% of
Swift Transportation's outstanding shares and those shares were
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 Transportation
securities so as to prevent a margin call on Moyes' shares. On
September 15, 2004, Swift Transportation announced that its
third- quarter profit would lag analyst estimates because it was
unable to raise rates as fuel costs increased. In response,
Swift Transportation's share price dropped from a closing price
of $18.27 per share on September 15, 2004 to close at $16.28 per
share on September 16, 2004. Then, on October 1, 2004, Swift
Transportation 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 per share on October 1, 2004, fell to close at
$16.61 per share on October 4, 2004.

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


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Tripath
Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ:TRPH) between January 29, 2004 and
October 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, PC initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Tripath Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:
TRPH) ("Tripath") from January 29, 2004 through October 22, 2004
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Tripath
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false or
misleading public statements. On October 22, 2004, Tripath
announced that its net revenues for the third quarter of 2004
would be significantly below prior guidance of $4 - $4.5
million. Tripath also announced that it may have to restate its
previously reported revenue for the quarter ended June 30, 2004.
Tripath announced that it planed to take a charge of
approximately $4.0 - $4.5 million for excess inventory. On this
news, shares of Tripath fell almost 50%, from a close of $1.52
on October 22, 2004, to close at $0.77 per share on the next
trading day.

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


VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Suit in MI
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on
behalf of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities
of Valassis Communications, Inc. (NYSE: VCI - News); ("VCI" or
the "Company") during the period between April 25, 2002 and
October 23, 2002 (inclusive) (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Company, which prints, markets and distributes advertising
inserts for newspapers, violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that, as part of its ongoing
efforts to create and continue the illusion of VCI's performance
and future profitability, the Company knowingly or recklessly
issued and/or participated in the issuance of materially false
and misleading statements and financial information. The
Complaint also alleges that, during the Class Period, the
Company failed to disclose that its rising prices were
negatively impacting its ability to win business, and that it
was also seeing increased competition in its free-standing
insert business.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. by Phone:
866-540-5505 or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com OR
James C. Shah, Esq. by Phone: 877-891-9880 by E-mail:
jshah@classactioncounsel.com


                            *********


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  * * *