CAR_Public/041117.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, November 17, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 228

                            Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles CA Employment Discrimination Suit
AVATAR HOLDINGS: DE Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
BAYER CORPORATION: CA Cipro Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
CANADA: Parents File Suit Against Ontario's $44M Autism Program
CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Allowed To Appeal Lost Premium Claim Ruling

DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Law Firm Files KS Suits V. Brakes
DIGITAS INC.: Working On NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
DORCHESTER MINERALS: Plaintiffs Sever Claims in Natural Gas Suit
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY: Working To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
eFUNDS CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal

eFUNDS CORPORATION: Asks For Summary Judgment in FL Privacy Suit
EI DUPONT: Reaches Settlement For WV PFOA Personal Injury Suit
EI DUPONT: Reaches $36 Million Settlement For Antitrust Lawsuit
EMULEX CORPORATION: CA Court To Hear Suit Settlement Challenge
FLORIDA: SEC Lodges Civil Fraud Suit V. Boiler Room Operations

GENCORP INC.: Sued Over Vinyl Chloride Exposure in OH Facility
GNC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Suit in CA
GNC CORPORATION: Former Employees Lodge Overtime Suit in S.D. NY
HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: SEC Files Suit V. Firm, Ex-CEO, Ex-COO
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: CO Shareholders Commence Stock Fraud Suit

MODEM MEDIA: Working on NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
NUTRACEUTICAL CLINICAL: SEC Launches Lawsuit V. Former Officers
PERKINELMER INC.: MA Court Won't Review Refusal To Dismiss Suit
PFIZER INC.: IL Resident Lodges Consumer Suit Over BEXTRA Drug
RMM CORPORATION: Recalls 30,000 Washers Because of Injury Hazard

ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 6,400 Cut-Off Wheels Due To Injury Hazard
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Units Seek NJ Insurance Lawsuit Dismissal
TENNCARE: TN Advocacy Group Seeks Moratorium On Lawsuit Changes
UNITARY PRODUCTS: Recalls 226T Gas Furnaces Due To Injury Hazard
UPS INC.: CA Judge Stays Own Ruling For Disabilities Lawsuit

VIXEL CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY Shareholder Fraud Suit
VIXEL CORPORATION: WA Court Grants Approval to Shareholder Suit

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in MA
JAKKS PACIFIC: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MEDQUIST INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
TOMMY HILFIGER: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY


                         *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Settles CA Employment Discrimination Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Both sides in an employment discrimination case, Gonzalez v.
Abercrombie & Fitch recently agreed to a multimillion-dollar
deal that would settle accusations that the clothing retailer
promoted whites at the expense of minorities, the Associated
Pres reports.

Though awaiting approval from a federal judge, the details of
the proposed settlement, according to federal anti-
discrimination officials involved an "eight-figure dollar amount
and sweeping injunctive relief" and is estimated to affect more
than 10,000 Hispanic, Asian or black men and women.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which had
joined several interest groups as plaintiffs in the class action
lawsuit, stated recently that the settlement "is expected to
have far-reaching effects on the youth-oriented retail clothing
industry."

As previously reported in the November 11, 2004 issue of the CAR
Newsletter, Ohio-based Abercrombie & Fitch had signed a consent
decree settling the case that would require an aggregate payment
of "slightly less than $50 million" to the plaintiffs, which
would include attorneys' fees, costs and expenses to carry out
the settlement.

The first lawsuit was filed last June in San Francisco by
Hispanic and Asian groups charging that Abercrombie & Fitch
hires a disproportionately white sales force, puts minorities in
less-visible jobs and cultivates a virtually all-white image in
its catalogues and elsewhere. While a second, similar lawsuit
was filed against the Company last November in New Jersey. They
were later consolidated in San Francisco and at present is being
presented for approval by a federal judge, according to the
plaintiffs in the case. It was unclear though whether the judge
had received that paperwork.


AVATAR HOLDINGS: DE Court Dismisses Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Delaware dismissed with
prejudice the shareholder class action filed against Avatar
Holdings, Inc. and certain of its officers.

The suit alleges the Company violated Section 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933 with respect to its announcement of a
partial redemption of $60,000 of the 7% Notes.  The complaint
did not allege a specific damage amount.

On June 21, 2004, the Company moved for an order dismissing the
action in its entirety, on the grounds of failure to state a
claim, failure to plead with the requisite particularity and
lack of standing.  Plaintiff did not file a response to the
Company's motion to dismiss.


BAYER CORPORATION: CA Cipro Lawsuit Granted Class Action Status
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law firms of Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP and
Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP recently revealed the
certification of a California Class of consumers and third party
payors regarding the drug Cipro.

The class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or paid for the prescription drug Cipro(R) since
January 8, 1997 and is pending in San Diego Superior Court
called Cipro(R) Cases I and II, J.C.C.P. Nos. 4154 and 4220.

Cipro(R) is an antibiotic drug prescribed by doctors. The Bayer
Corporation markets Cipro(R) and is a defendant, as are Barr
Laboratories, Inc., Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc., Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and The Rugby Group, Inc. Plaintiffs
allege that Defendants agreed not to compete with each other,
and thereby prevented a lower-cost generic form of Cipro(R) from
being sold. Plaintiffs allege that, as a result, consumers had
to pay more for Cipro(R) than they should have. Defendants deny
Plaintiffs' allegations. The Court has not yet determined
whether Plaintiffs' or Defendants' contentions are correct. The
trial is scheduled to begin on January 21, 2005.

There are two types of Plaintiffs:

     (1) Consumer Plaintiffs are people that paid for some or
         all of the price of Cipro(R) in California. A consumer
         plaintiff purchased Cipro(R) from a pharmacy or was
         administered Cipro(R) in a hospital. The consumer
         plaintiff must have lived in California at any time
         since January 8, 1997, and paid for some or all of the
         total cost of a Cipro(R) prescription in California
         during that time.

     (2) Third-party payor Plaintiffs include insurance
         companies, union health and welfare benefit plans, and
         other organizations that paid for all or part of a
         Cipro(R) prescription obtained by one of its California
         members since January 8, 1997.

Excluded from the Class are all persons who obtained Cipro(R)
through the MediCal Prescription Drug Program, governmental
entities, the Defendants and their related entities, any
purchaser of Cipro(R) who paid a flat copayment and who would
have paid the same copayment for a generic substitute under the
terms of their health insurance coverage, and anyone that
purchased Cipro(R) for purposes of resale.

For more details, contact Cipro(R) Class Counsel by Mail: P.O.
Box 2820, San Francisco, CA 9411 or visit the litigation Web
site: http://www.california-cipro-litigation.com.


CANADA: Parents File Suit Against Ontario's $44M Autism Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Families of autistic children are set to file a class-action
lawsuit against the Ontario government to get money to pay for
therapy for their children, the CBC News reports.

The group, which includes about 1,200 families and lead by
Christie and Grant Hartley, is seeking $225 million in
compensation. They are challenging the province's $44-million
autism program, which covers therapy for autistic children until
they are six years old. The one-on-one treatment program known
as Intensive Behavioural Intervention, which helps children
acquire essential life skills, is intensive and expensive,
costing about $65,000 per year for each child.

The government says the cutoff at the age of six is needed
because it opens up spaces in the program for children on the
waiting list.  However, in an audit released just recently,
Ontario's provincial auditor said the autism program has been
operating at a surplus since it was created five years ago.
According to the auditor, while the government spent $16.7
million less over the past five years than it had allocated for
the program, hundreds of children remained on a list, waiting
for funding, said the report.

Howard Kohn, an attorney for the couple leading the lawsuit said
the way the program operates violates the children's guarantees
of equal treatment under the Charter of Rights. "They were being
very selective about the options they were providing to parents,
children were left to linger on the waiting list while monies
were left unspent," Mr. Kohn further states.

Christie and Grant Hartley, who are leading the class action
lawsuit, are paying for their son Mason's treatment. The eight-
year-old, who qualified for, but never made it into, the
program, was removed from the wait list when he turned six.


CONSOLIDATED EDISON: Allowed To Appeal Lost Premium Claim Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York allowed Consolidated Edison, Inc. to appeal its ruling
related to the lost premium claim in litigation filed agiant the
Company over its merger with Northeast Utilities.

In March 2001, the Company commenced an action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
District Court), entitled "Consolidated Edison, Inc. v.
Northeast Utilities" (the First Federal Proceeding), seeking a
declaratory judgment that Northeast Utilities has failed to meet
certain conditions precedent to Con Edison's obligation to
complete its acquisition of Northeast Utilities pursuant to
their agreement and plan of merger, dated as of October 13,
1999, as amended and restated as of January 11, 2000 (the merger
agreement).

In May 2001, the Company amended its complaint.  As amended, the
complaint seeks, among other things, recovery of damages
sustained by it as a result of the material breach of the merger
agreement by Northeast Utilities, the District Court's
declaration that under the merger agreement the Company has no
further or continuing obligations to Northeast Utilities and
that Northeast Utilities has no further or continuing rights
against Con Edison.

In June 2001, Northeast Utilities withdrew the separate action
it commenced in March 2001 in the same court and filed as a
counter-claim in the First Federal Proceeding its claim that the
Company materially breached the merger agreement and that, as a
result, Northeast Utilities and its shareholders have suffered
substantial damages, including the difference between the
consideration to be paid to Northeast Utilities' shareholders
pursuant to the merger agreement and the market value of
Northeast Utilities common stock (the so-called "lost premium"
claim), expenditures in connection with regulatory approvals and
lost business opportunities.

Pursuant to the merger agreement, the Company agreed to acquire
Northeast Utilities for $26.00 per share (an estimated aggregate
of not more than $3.9 billion) plus $0.0034 per share for each
day after August 5, 2000 through the day prior to the completion
of the transaction, payable 50 percent in cash and 50 percent in
stock.

In March 2003, the District Court ruled on certain motions filed
by the Company and Northeast Utilities in the First Federal
Proceeding.  The District Court ruled that the Company's claim
against Northeast Utilities for hundreds of millions of dollars
for breach of the merger agreement, as well as its claim that
Northeast Utilities underwent a material adverse change, will go
to trial.  The District Court also dismissed Con Edison's fraud
and misrepresentation claims.

In addition, the District Court ruled that Northeast Utilities'
shareholders were intended third-party beneficiaries of the
merger agreement and the alleged $1.2 billion lost premium claim
against Con Edison would go to trial.

May 2003, a lawsuit by a purported class of Northeast Utilities'
shareholders, entitled "Rimkoski, et al. v. Consolidated Edison,
Inc.," was filed in New York County Supreme Court (the State
Proceeding) alleging breach of the merger agreement.  The
complaint defined the putative class as holders of Northeast
Utilities' common stock on March 5, 2001, and alleged that the
class members were intended third party beneficiaries of the
merger agreement.  The complaint sought damages believed to be
substantially duplicative of those sought by Northeast Utilities
on behalf of its shareholders in the First Federal Proceeding.
In December 2003, the District Court granted Rimkoski's motion
to intervene in the First Federal Proceeding and, in February
2004, the State Proceeding was dismissed without prejudice.

In January 2004, Rimkoski filed a motion in the First Federal
Proceeding to certify his action as a class action on behalf of
all holders of Northeast Utilities' common stock on March 5,
2001 and to appoint Rimkoski as class representative.  The
motion is pending.   In May 2004, the District Court ruled that
the Northeast Utilities' shareholders who may pursue the lost
premium claim against Con Edison are the holders of Northeast
Utilities' common stock on March 5, 2001 and the District Court
therefore dismissed Northeast Utilities' lost premium claim.
The District Court certified its ruling regarding the lost
premium claim for interlocutory appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the Court of Appeals),
and in June 2004 Northeast Utilities filed its motion for leave
to appeal the issue to the Court of Appeals.  The District Court
further certified for interlocutory appeal its March 2003
determination that Northeast Utilities' shareholders are
intended third-party beneficiaries under the merger agreement,
and in June 2004 Con Edison filed its motion for leave to appeal
the issue to the Court of Appeals.  In October 2004, the Court
of Appeals granted both Con Edison's motion and Northeast
Utilities' motion.

In May 2004, the District Court dismissed the lawsuit that was
commenced in October 2003 by a purported class of Northeast
Utilities' shareholders, entitled "Siegel et al. v. Consolidated
Edison, Inc." (the Second Federal Proceeding).  The Second
Federal Proceeding had sought unspecified injunctive relief and
damages believed to be substantially duplicative of the damages
sought from Con Edison in the First Federal Proceeding. A motion
by the plaintiffs in the Second Federal Proceeding to intervene
in the First Federal Proceeding is pending.

According to a regulatory filing, the Company stated, "Con
Edison believes that Northeast Utilities materially breached the
merger agreement, and that Con Edison did not materially breach
the merger agreement. Con Edison believes it was not obligated
to acquire Northeast Utilities because Northeast Utilities did
not meet the merger agreement's conditions that Northeast
Utilities perform all of its obligations under the merger
agreement. Those obligations include the obligation that it
carry on its businesses in the ordinary course consistent with
past practice; that the representations and warranties made by
it in the merger agreement were true and correct when made and
remain true and correct; and that there be no material adverse
change with respect to Northeast Utilities."


DAIMLERCHRYSLER CORPORATION: Law Firm Files KS Suits V. Brakes
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Michael L. Hodges, a Kansas law firm
initiated a class-action lawsuit against DaimlerChrysler
Corporation over what it claims is a problem with many Jeep
Grand Cherokees, KMBC reports.

The lawsuits, which were filed in Jackson County and Johnson
County, Kansas over alleged problems with the front brakes on
1999 through 2004 Jeep Grand Cherokees, alleges that after as
little as 5,000 miles, the steering wheel and front wheels
"shake" and that drivers encounter severe vibrations through the
steering wheel, floor, seat and pedals when the brakes are
applied.

According to the law firm, DaimlerChrysler has never issued a
recall for a problem with the front brakes. The lawsuits seek to
force the carmaker to reimburse Kansas and Missouri residents
for all costs spent repairing the brakes, the firm further
stated.

For more details, contact Mr. Michael L. Hodges, Attorney at Law
The Law Offices of Michael L. Hodges by Mail: 13420 Santa Fe
Trail Drive, Lenexa, Kansas 66215 by Phone: 913-888-7100 by Fax:
913-888-7388.


DIGITAS INC.: Working On NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Digitas, Inc. is working to settle the consolidated securities
class action filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Between June 26, 2001 and August 16, 2001, several stockholder
class action complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company,
several of its officers and directors, and five underwriters of
its initial public offering.  The purported class actions are
all brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common
stock since March 13, 2000, the date of the Offering.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that the Company's
prospectus, incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form
S-1 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was
materially false and misleading because it failed to disclose
that the underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result
in undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the
form of increased brokerage commissions and also that this
alleged conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated the
Company's stock price in the period after the Offering.

The plaintiffs claimed violations of Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the Securities and Exchange Commission and seek, among other
things, damages, statutory compensation and costs of litigation.
Effective October 9, 2002, the claims against the Company's
officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.
Effective February 19, 2003, the Section 10(b) claims against
the Company were dismissed.

The terms of a settlement have been tentatively reached between
the plaintiffs in the suits and most of the defendants,
including the Company, with respect to the remaining claims.  If
completed and if then approved by the court, the settlement
would dismiss those claims against the Company and is expected
to result in no material liability to it.

The suit is styled "In Re Digitas, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 5948 (Sas) (Mgc)," pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin, related to the "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)."  For more information, please visit
http://securities.stanford.edu/1018/DTAS01/20020419_r01c_015948.
pdf.  The members of the plaintiff's executive committee are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail:
         10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016,
         Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com,

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-
         1065, Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Mail: 110 Wall Street 21st Floor,
         New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), Mail: 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com,

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


DORCHESTER MINERALS: Plaintiffs Sever Claims in Natural Gas Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs severed claims against Dorchester Minerals Operating
L.P. in the lawsuit filed against it and several other natural
gas companies in the District Court of Texas County, Oklahoma.
The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) Dorchester Hugoton, Ltd., whose former properties the
         Partnership now owns and operates,

     (2) Anadarko Petroleum Corporation,

     (3) Conoco, Inc.,

     (4) XTO Energy Inc.,

     (5) ExxonMobil Corporation,

     (6) Phillips Petroleum Company, Incorporated and

     (7) Texaco Exploration and Production, Inc.

In January 2002, some individuals and an association called
Rural Residents for Natural Gas Rights, referred to as RRNGR,
filed the suit.  The individuals and RRNGR consist primarily of
Texas County, Oklahoma residents who, in residences located on
leases use natural gas from gas wells located on the same
leases, at their own risk, free of cost.

The plaintiffs seek declaration that their domestic gas use is
not limited to stoves and inside lights and is not limited to a
principal dwelling as provided in the oil and gas lease
agreements with defendants in the 1930s to the 1950s.
Plaintiffs' claims against defendants include failure to
prudently operate wells, violation of rights to free domestic
gas, violation of irrigation gas contracts, underpayment of
royalties, a request for accounting, and fraud.  Plaintiffs also
seek certification of class action against defendants.

In July 2002, the defendants were granted a motion for summary
judgment removing RRNGR as a plaintiff.  On October 1, 2004, the
plaintiffs severed claims against Dorchester Minerals Operating
LP regarding royalty underpayments.


DISTRIBUTED ENERGY: Working To Settle NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Distributed Energy Systems Corporation is working on the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York against it, several of its officers and directors and
the underwriters of its September 28,2000 initial public
offering (IPO).

The Company is the product of a merger between Proton Energy
Systems, Inc. and Northern Power Systems, Inc.  The suit was
initially filed against Proton Energy.

Between July 3, 2001 and September 6, 2001, five purported class
action lawsuits were filed on behalf of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock from September 28, 2000 through and
including December 6, 2000.  The complaints are similar, and
allege that the Company's IPO registration statement and final
prospectus contained material misrepresentations and/or
omissions related, in part, to excessive and undisclosed
commissions allegedly received by the underwriters from
investors to whom the underwriters allegedly allocated shares of
the IPO.

On April 19, 2002, a single Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint was filed, reiterating in one pleading the allegations
contained in the previously filed separate actions, including
the alleged Class Period of September 28, 2000 through and
including December 6, 2000.  On July 15, 2002 the Company joined
in an omnibus motion to dismiss the lawsuits filed by all issuer
defendants named in similar actions which challenges the legal
sufficiency of the plaintiffs' claims, including those in the
Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs opposed the motion and the Court
heard oral argument on the motion in November 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued an Opinion and Order,
granting in part and denying in part the motion to dismiss as to
the Company.  In addition, in August 2002, the plaintiffs agreed
to dismiss without prejudice all of the individual defendants
from the Amended Complaint.  An order to that effect was entered
by the Court in October 2002.

A special Litigation Committee of the Board of Directors
authorized the Company to negotiate a settlement of the pending
claims substantially consistent with a Memorandum of
Understanding which was negotiated among class plaintiffs, all
issuer defendants and their insurers. The parties have
negotiated a settlement which is subject to approval by the
Court.

The suit is styled "In re Proton Energy Systems, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6082 (SAS)
(LAP)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, related to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC
OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."
For more information, visit the website:
http://securities.stanford.edu/1019/PRTN01/20020419_r01c_016082.
pdf.  The members of the plaintiffs' executive committee are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail:
         10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016,
         Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com,

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-
         1065, Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Mail: 110 Wall Street 21st Floor,
         New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), Mail: 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com,

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


eFUNDS CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against eFunds Corporation, its former chief
executive and chief financial officers and its current chief
financial officer in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Arizona.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged, among other things,
that during the period from July 21, 2000 through October 24,
2002 the defendants made false and misleading statements and
omissions of material facts and that the plaintiff and other
members of a putative class of shareholders suffered damages as
a result.

This Complaint was dismissed by order of the Court on July 12,
2004.  The plaintiffs appealed this order of dismissal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 11, 2004.  At the
request of the parties, the Court vacated the original briefing
schedule of this appeal.  The Court has not established a new
briefing schedule.

The Company is a nominal defendant in two substantially
identical shareholder derivative actions filed in the Superior
Court of Arizona, Maricopa County in January 2003 (the
Shareholder Derivative Actions).  The complaints in these
actions allege, among other things, that certain of the
Company's current and former directors named in the complaints
as defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with certain alleged issues involving the Company's
accounting practices and internal controls.  The complaints also
name as a defendant the Company's former external auditor.
These actions were stayed pending the resolution of the motion
to dismiss the Federal Securities Action and the parties are now
considering the possible settlement of this litigation.


eFUNDS CORPORATION: Asks For Summary Judgment in FL Privacy Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
eFunds Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida to grant summary judgment in
its favor in a class action filed against it and numerous other
defendants, alleging that they purchased motor vehicle records
from the State of Florida and used that data for marketing and
other purposes that are not permitted under the Federal Driver's
Privacy Protection Act.

The plaintiffs are seeking liquidated damages of not less than
$2,500 for each affected member of a purported class, plus costs
and attorney's fees.  The plaintiffs are also asking for
injunctive relief to prevent further alleged violations of the
Federal Act.

On March 11, 2004, the Company joined in a motion to dismiss
this case filed by a co-defendant and the Company filed its own
further motion to dismiss a portion of this case on June 23,
2004.  On June 25, 2004 the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment.  All of these motions are pending before the court.

The suit is styled "Richard Fresco, et al. v. Automotive
Directions, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Southern
District of Florida, Case No. CIV-03-61063-Martinez/Klein."


EI DUPONT: Reaches Settlement For WV PFOA Personal Injury Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
EI DuPont De Nemours & Co. reached a settlement for the class
action filed in West Virginia state court against it and the
Lubeck Public Service District.

The lawsuit alleges that the class has or may suffer deleterious
health effects from exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
and its salts in drinking water and seeks medical monitoring.
In addition, the class seeks diminution of property values, and
punitive damages plus injunctive relief to stop releases of
PFOA.  The class, which could be as large as fifty thousand
individuals, has been defined as anyone who has consumed
drinking water containing quantifiable levels (0.05 parts per
billion) of PFOA.

The Company and attorneys for local residents reached an
agreement in principle to settle the lawsuit.  The agreement was
approved by DuPont on September 8, 2004; the parties issued a
joint press release describing the settlement on September 9,
2004.  Settlement is subject to approval by the Wood County
Circuit Court after public notice and a hearing (as yet
unscheduled).  The settlement is unrelated to pending
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement actions filed
against the Company relating to alleged reporting violations
under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The settlement calls for initial expenditures valued at $85
million, plus attorneys' fees and expenses of approximately $23
million.  As part of the initial payment, DuPont has agreed to a
cash payment of $70 million, $20 million of which will be used
for health and education projects.  The Company has also offered
to make available to six area water districts state-of-the-art
water treatment systems (estimated to cost approximately $10)
designed to reduce the level of PFOA in the water.

The other key component to the settlement is the creation of an
independent panel of experts to evaluate available scientific
evidence on whether any probable link exists between exposure to
PFOA and human disease.  This independent panel will design and
conduct a health study in the communities exposed to PFOA.
DuPont will fund this study at an estimated cost of $5 million.

The settlement, once approved, would resolve all claims asserted
in the lawsuit except for personal injury claims.  If the
independent panel concludes that no probable link exists between
exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement would
also resolve personal injury claims.  If the independent panel
concludes that a probable link does exist between exposure to
PFOA and any diseases, then DuPont will also fund a medical
monitoring program (capped at $235 million) to pay for such
medical testing.  In this event, plaintiffs would retain their
right to pursue personal injury claims.  All other claims in the
lawsuit would remain dismissed by the settlement.


EI DUPONT: Reaches $36 Million Settlement For Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
EI DuPont De Nemours & Co. reached a $36 million settlement for
lawsuits filed against it and four other manufacturers of
automotive refinishes in 2001 for civil damages arising out of
an alleged conspiracy to fix prices.

The majority of these lawsuits were consolidated in the United
States District court of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  The
Company will continue to vigorously defend nine related cases
pending in a California state court.


EMULEX CORPORATION: CA Court To Hear Suit Settlement Challenge
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California will hear on November 22,2004 Gateway Partners'
challenge of the allocation of settlement funds for the class
action filed against Emulex Corporation.

Beginning on or about February 20, 2001, the Company and certain
of its officers and directors were named as defendants in a
number of securities class action lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court, Central District of California,
designated as Case No. SACV-01-219 GLT (ANx).

The plaintiffs in the actions represent purchasers of the
Company's common stock during various periods ranging from
January 18, 2001, through February 9, 2001.  The complaints
alleged that the Company and certain of its officers and
directors made misrepresentations and omissions in violation of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.  The complaints generally seek compensatory damages,
costs and attorney's fees in an unspecified amount.

On April 22, 2003, the Company entered into two Memoranda of
Understanding agreeing to terms of settlement for both the class
action and derivative litigation.  The settlement was approved
and $39.5 million held in escrow was paid to the plaintiffs.
Gateway Partners filed a challenge to the allocation of
settlement funds among the plaintiffs and adequacy of
the settlement notice.


FLORIDA: SEC Lodges Civil Fraud Suit V. Boiler Room Operations
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil fraud charges
in federal court in the Southern District of Florida against six
boiler room operations in connection with their operation of a
series of consecutive recovery room advance-fee schemes directed
primarily at previously victimized investors from a number of
countries, including Australia, Belgium, Greece, Hong Kong,
Malaysia, New Zealand, Norway, Singapore, South Africa, Sweden
and the United Kingdom.

The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants carried
out their fraudulent scheme by setting up companies that, while
purporting to be legitimate tax and investment planning
companies, in fact functioned as illegal "boiler room"
operations. According to the Commission's complaint, to bolster
their credibility as established businesses, the defendants
created websites for each Company with content that was
plagiarized practically in toto from the websites of legitimate
tax and investment planning companies. The defendants then
contacted the investors, all of whom had purchased nonperforming
shares of stock from other boiler rooms in the past, and offered
them an opportunity to divest themselves of their nonperforming
shares. The Commission's complaint alleges that the defendants
lured their victims by two similar fraudulent mechanisms, both
of which required an advance fee payment by the targeted
investors.

The Commission's complaint alleges that each of the defendants
violated the  anti-fraud and broker-dealer registration
provisions of the federal securities laws contained within
Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b)
and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and  Rule  10b-
5 thereunder. The complaint seeks injunctive relief against
future violations, disgorgement, prejudgment interest and civil
penalties against all of the defendants. The action is titled,
SEC v. Crescent Financial Group, Inc., Berkshire Tax Consultants
Co., Warfield Capital Management Co., SpencerFerguson
Receivables Corp., Thompson & Whitehurst Acquisition
Consultants, and McKenzie Goldstein & Associates, Civil Action
No. 04-22878-Civ-Seitz, S.D.Fla. (LR-18967).


GENCORP INC.: Sued Over Vinyl Chloride Exposure in OH Facility
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gencorp, Inc. faces 44 toxic tort lawsuits, involving alleged
exposure to vinyl chloride, which was produced at the Company's
former Ashtabula, Ohio facility.

Between the early 1950s and 1985, the Company produced polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) resin at the facility.  PVC is the most common
form of plastic currently on the market.  A building block
compound of PVC is vinyl chloride (VC), now listed as a known
carcinogen by several governmental agencies.  The Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has strictly regulated
workplace exposure to VC since 1974.

With the exception of one case brought by the family of a former
Ashtabula employee, the Company is alleged to be a
"supplier/manufacturer" of PVC and/or a civil co-conspirator
with other VC and PVC manufacturers.  Plaintiffs generally
allege that the Company suppressed information about the
carcinogenic risk of VC to industry workers, and placed VC or
PVC into commerce without sufficient warnings.

Of these 44 cases, 18 have been settled or dismissed on terms
favorable to the Company, including the case where the Company
was the employer and the cases that allege VC exposure through
various aerosol consumer products.  In these "aerosol" cases, it
was alleged that VC had been used as an aerosol propellant
during the 1960s.  Defendants in these cases include numerous
consumer product manufacturers and more than 30 chemical
manufacturers.  The Company used VC internally, but never
supplied VC for aerosol or any other use.

The 26 pending cases involve employees at VC or PVC facilities
that had no connection to the Company.  One of the pending cases
is a class action seeking a medical monitoring program for
former employees at a PVC facility in New Jersey.  The
complaints in each of these cases assert that the Company's
involvement in the alleged conspiracy stems from its membership
in trade associations.

"Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e.,
as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions)
filed against us, we are unable to make a reasonable estimate of
the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims.
Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued
for such contingencies. We are vigorously defending against all
claims in these cases," the Company said in a regulatory filing.


GNC CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For Overtime Wage Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Corporation reached a settlement for the class action filed
against it in the Superior Court of the State of California,
Orange County, alleging that the Company misclassified store
managers in California and violated certain California wage and
hour laws.

In May 2004, the Company entered into an agreement in principal
to settle the claims of the putative class members, without
admitting any liability, for the total payment of approximately
$4.6 million.  This amount has been reserved as of September 30,
2004.  The settlement is subject to approval by the court and
the plaintiff's class.  Moreover, the Company has the right to
rescind the settlement if more than 10% of the putative class
members opt out of the settlement.  Therefore, as of September
30, 2004, no final decisions or resolution has been reached.


GNC CORPORATION: Former Employees Lodge Overtime Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Corporation faces a class action filed by seven former
employees in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of themselves and a purported
class of other similarly situated current and former employees
employed by GNC within the last six years and who allegedly
worked but were not paid overtime for hours worked in excess of
40 hours per week.

The complaint is brought under the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law.  The plaintiffs seek
actual damages, liquidated damages, an order enjoining GNC from
engaging in the future in the practices alleged in their
complaint, and attorneys' fees and the costs of suit.


HOLLINGER INTERNATIONAL: SEC Files Suit V. Firm, Ex-CEO, Ex-COO
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed fraud charges in
the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, against
Hollinger International's former Chairman and CEO Conrad M.
Black, former Deputy Chairman and COO F. David Radler, and
Hollinger, Inc., a Canadian public holding Company controlled by
Black.

The Commission's complaint alleges that from approximately 1999
through 2003, Black, Radler and Hollinger Inc. engaged in a
fraudulent and deceptive scheme to divert cash and assets from
Hollinger International, Inc., a U. S. public Company and a
subsidiary of Hollinger, Inc., and concealed their self-dealing
from Hollinger International's  public shareholders.

The SEC's compliant requests that the Court:

     (1) enjoin the defendants from further violations of the
         securities laws,

     (2) order the defendants to disgorge their ill-gotten gains
         and pay pre-judgment  interest,

     (3) order the defendants to pay civil penalties,

     (4) bar Black and Radler from serving as an officer or
         director of a public Company, and

     (5) impose a voting trust upon the shares of Hollinger
         International held directly or indirectly by Black and
         Hollinger, Inc.

Stephen M. Cutler, Director of the Commission's Division of
Enforcement, said, "Black and Radler abused their control of a
public Company and treated it as their personal piggy bank.
Instead of carrying out their responsibilities  to  protect the
interest of public shareholders,  the defendants cheated and
defrauded these shareholders through a series  of deceptive
schemes and misstatements."

Merri Jo Gillette, Regional Director of the Commission's Midwest
Regional Office, said, "The Commission is taking action at this
time because it has obtained strong evidence to support the
charges of serious misconduct by the defendants.  We intend to
seek tough sanctions against them based on these charges.
However, our work is not done. We will continue our
investigation into wrongdoing at Hollinger."

In the complaint filed today, the SEC alleges, among other
things, that:

     (i) Black,  Radler and Hollinger, Inc. engaged in a scheme
         to defraud Hollinger International shareholders through
         a series  of  related party transactions by which Black
         and Radler diverted to  themselves, other corporate
         insiders and Hollinger,  Inc.  approximately $85
         million  of  the  proceeds from Hollinger
         International's sale of newspaper publications through
         purported "non-competition" payments.

    (ii) Black and Radler further defrauded public shareholders
         by orchestrating the sale of certain of Hollinger
         International's newspaper publications at below-market
         prices to another privately-held Company owned and
         controlled by Black and Radler, including the sale of
         one publication for $1.00.

   (iii) In February 2003, Black, without obtaining the
         necessary approval from Hollinger International's Audit
         Committee, authorized the investment of $2.5 million of
         Hollinger International's funds in a venture capital
         fund with which Black and two other directors of
         Hollinger International were affiliated.

    (iv) In order to perpetrate their fraudulent scheme, Black
         and Radler misled  Hollinger International's  Audit
         Committee  and  Board of Directors concerning the
         related party transactions. Black and Radler also
         misrepresented and omitted to state  material facts
         regarding these transactions in Hollinger
         Internationals filings with the Commission and during
         Hollinger International shareholder meetings.

     (v) In November 2003, Black approved a press release issued
         by Hollinger International in which he misled the
         investing public about his intention to devote his time
         to an effort to sell Hollinger International assets for
         the benefit of all of Hollinger International
         shareholders (the "Strategic Process") and not to
         undermine that process by engaging in transactions for
         the benefit  of himself and Hollinger, Inc.

Previously, on Jan. 16, 2004, the SEC obtained a federal court
order against the Chicago-based Hollinger International, Inc.
alleging that from at least 1999 through 2003, the Company's
Commission  filings contained  misstatements and omitted
material facts regarding transfers of certain  corporate assets
to certain of  Hollinger International's insiders and related
entities (SEC v. Hollinger International, Inc.).

On the same date, the SEC obtained a federal court order to
ensure that the work of the Special Committee of Hollinger
International's board  of directors - including  its efforts to
recover and  preserve corporate assets - continued under the
jurisdiction and oversight of the  court. Hollinger
International consented to the entry of the order, which also
permanently enjoined  the  Company from  violating  the
reporting and internal control provisions of the federal
securities laws.

Under that order Hollinger International is required to maintain
its Special Committee to, among other things, continue its
investigation of alleged misconduct and its efforts to recover
and maintain corporate assets. In the event the Special
Committee's authority were in any way impaired, including
through a change in control of the Company, Richard C. Breeden
(the current Counsel to the Special Committee) would serve as a
court-ordered Special Monitor to protect the interests of
Hollinger International shareholders.

The SEC acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the
Ontario Securities Commission in the investigation of this
matter. The action is titled, SEC v. Conrad M. Black, et al.,
USDC, ND Ill., Case No. 04C03761.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: CO Shareholders Commence Stock Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fifteen Colorado shareholders initiated a federal lawsuit
against Lucent Technologies Inc., accusing the Company of
improperly booking hundreds of millions of dollars in 2000, the
Associated Press reports.

According to the shareholders, Company executives repeatedly
assured them and other investors that demand for Lucent products
was strong despite falling short of expectations throughout
2000. The lawsuit states Company executives had internally
declared a "sales crisis" during that time and accuses former
Lucent chairman and chief executive Richard McGinn of ignoring
and later firing a top executive who said earnings projections
were unattainable.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, the suit also states
that New Jersey-based Lucent recorded sales when no sales had
been made and fraudulently reported sales of products that were
later returned and that by the end of 2000, Lucent restated its
earnings by hundreds of millions of dollars, and shares in the
Company dropped significantly.

Similar allegations were also contained in class action lawsuits
filed in 2000 and 2001 though the Colorado shareholders chose
not to participate in those suits, which were consolidated and
settled in February.


MODEM MEDIA: Working on NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Modem Media, Inc. is working on the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against it,
several of its officers and directors, and five underwriters of
its initial public offering.

Beginning in August 2001, several stockholder class action
complaints were filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock since the date of the Modem Offering.  The
plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Modem's prospectus,
incorporated in the Registration Statement on Form S-1 filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose that the
underwriters had engaged in conduct designed to result in
undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the form
of increased brokerage commissions and also that this alleged
conduct of the underwriters artificially inflated Modem's stock
price in the period after the Modem Offering.

The plaintiffs claim violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission and seek,
among other things, damages, statutory compensation and costs of
litigation.

The terms of a settlement have been tentatively reached between
the plaintiffs in the suits and most of the defendants,
including Modem.  If completed and if then approved by the
court, the settlement would dismiss the claims against Modem and
the individual defendants and is expected to result in no
material liability to the Company.

The suit is styled "In Re Modem Media, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 7201 (Sas)," pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Schira N. Scheindlin, related to the "IN
RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File
No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."  For more information, visit the Website:
http://securities.stanford.edu/1020/MMPT01/20020508_r01c_017201.
pdf.  The members of the plaintiffs executive committee are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), Mail:
         10 E. 40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016,
         Phone: 800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com,

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-
         1065, Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Mail: 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax:
         610.667.7056, E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com,

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, Mail: 110 Wall Street 21st Floor,
         New York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com,

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), Mail: 6 East 45th
         Street, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com,

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, Mail: 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


NUTRACEUTICAL CLINICAL: SEC Launches Lawsuit V. Former Officers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged five individuals
with securities fraud for their participation in an alleged
"pump and dump" stock manipulation scheme involving St.
Petersburg-based Nutraceutical Clinical Laboratories
International, Inc. (Nutraceutical). The five individuals are
Paul Simmons, former Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of
Nutraceutical, Rodney Gilbert, former Chief Financial Officer
(CFO) of Nutraceutical, John Zankowski, former outside
securities counsel for Nutraceutical, and two stock promoters,
Kerry Kennedy and Stanley Siciliano. The Commission also charged
the five individuals, and a sixth individual, Eric Littman, with
selling unregistered securities.

The Commission's complaint, filed in United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, alleges the following:
In June 2000, defendants Simmons, Gilbert, Zankowski and Kennedy
conducted a reverse merger of Nutraceutical into a publicly
traded shell Company named October Project II Corp. (which then
was renamed Nutraceutical). At the same time, they secretly
purchased from defendant Littman and another individual, who
together owned the shell Company, nearly all of the shares
issued by the shell Company. Three months after the merger, in
September 2000, securities lawyer Zankowski and the shell owner
Littman deceived the Company's stock transfer agent into
removing legends from the shares' stock certificates identifying
certain resale restrictions on the shares. Once the legends were
removed from the stock certificates, defendants Simmons, Kennedy
and Siciliano pumped up the stock price and trading volume of
Nutraceutical common stock in October and November 2000.
Specifically, then-CEO Simmons disseminated false and misleading
publicity about the Company, while, at the same time, stock
promoters Kennedy and Siciliano falsely touted Nutraceutical
stock on an Internet message board and manipulated the market
for the Company's stock through fraudulent stock trading. During
the course of the manipulation, all of the defendants, except
Littman, sold shares of Nutraceutical. In addition, stock
promoters Kennedy and Siciliano failed to disclose, as required
by the federal securities laws, compensation they had received
to tout Nutraceutical. As a result of their violations, the
Defendants reaped ill-gotten gains of approximately $1.8
million.

The Commission's complaint further alleges that as a result of
the conduct described above, all of the defendants violated the
registration provisions of the federal securities laws (Sections
5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933), and all, except
Littman, violated the antifraud provisions of the federal
securities laws (Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder). The complaint also alleges that
Kennedy and Siciliano violated the anti-touting provisions of
the federal securities laws (Section 17(b) of the Securities
Act).  The Commission seeks against each of the defendants
permanent injunctions, civil money penalties, penny stock bars,
and disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus prejudgment interest.
The Commission also seeks officer and director bars against
former CEO Simmons and former CFO Gilbert. The action is titled,
SEC v. Simmons, et al., 8:04-CV-2477-T-17MAP, USDC, MDFL (LR-
18968).


PERKINELMER INC.: MA Court Won't Review Refusal To Dismiss Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts denied PerkinElmer, Inc.'s motion for
reconsideration of its ruling refusing to dismiss the class
action filed against the Company and certain of its senior
officers.

In papers dated July 1, 2002, Kevin Hatch filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, Civil Action No. 02-11314 GAO,
against the Company and certain of its senior officers, on
behalf of himself and purchasers of the Company's common stock
between July 15, 2001 and April 11, 2002.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages and claims
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of, and Rule 10b-5 under,
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging various statements
made during the putative class period by PerkinElmer and its
management were misleading with respect to our prospects and
future operating results.

At least eleven virtually identical lawsuits subsequently have
been filed in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts against PerkinElmer.  The court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to consolidate these matters, and on January
13, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

On February 25, 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed
a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  The motion was opposed by the
plaintiffs, and oral arguments concerning the motion took place
on May 5, 2003.  On September 30, 2003, the Court issued a
memorandum and order denying the motion to dismiss.  On October
10, 2003, the Company and the other defendants filed a motion
for reconsideration or, in the alternative, for an order
allowing immediate appeal of several issues of law to the
appellate court.  On October 23, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion for reconsideration.  The Company and
the other defendants' answers to the amended complaint were
filed on November 6, 2003.


PFIZER INC.: IL Resident Lodges Consumer Suit Over BEXTRA Drug
--------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Mihalich of Granite City filed a class action lawsuit
against New York-based Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE: PFE) alleging the
drug maker violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Business Practices Act, the Madison County Record reports.

Seeking up to $75,000 per class member, the suit alleges that
Pfizer failed to provide proper warning regarding Bextra usage
to doctors and consumers in package inserts and in reference
manuals for physicians. Ms. Mihalich also alleges in her suit
that Pfizer spent a great deal of money trying to convince
doctors to prescribe Bextra while at the same time limiting
relevant scientific data that could have given doctors an actual
basis to make informed decisions. Furthermore, by
misrepresenting the potential uses of Bextra to doctors, and
concealing scientific data on its safety, Pfizer deliberately
misbranded Bextra and thus caused Ms. Mihalich to be prescribed
a drug that was not effective and exposed her to dangerous side
effects, the complaint states.

Ms. Mihalich also alleges that Pfizer knew that Bextra, which is
a strong cox-2 specific inhibitor approved by the Food and Drug
Administration in 2003, for treating arthritis and is in the
class of drugs called NSAID's, was being sold to patients as a
safe and efficacious drug, in spite of contrary data and in
turn, sales of Bextra and profits skyrocketed far in excess of
what they would have been if Pfizer had properly informed
consumers and doctors.

Pfizer issued a voluntary letter to doctors describing the
increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events from Bextra
ingestion on Oct. 19.

Ms. Mihalich will be represented by Elizabeth V. Heller of the
Edwardsville law firm Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli,
P.C. The case has been assigned to Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian.


RMM CORPORATION: Recalls 30,000 Washers Because of Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
RMM Corporation, Eden Prairie, Minnesota and Shanghai MeiHao
Electric Co. Ltd., of Shanghai, China is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 30,000 BLACK CATr Electric Pressure Washers.

The electric motor in the pressure washer can overheat and melt
the housing, possibly igniting nearby flammable materials or
exposing live electrical parts. RMM and CPSC are aware of 14
incidents of pressure washers overheating, including one report
of damage to a wooden deck. Many of these incidents occurred
when the pressure washer was left running and unattended. No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled pressure washers have a black plastic housing and a
BLACK CATr logo on both sides of the unit. "MCM International,"
"Model TW1800" or "Model BC2200" appear on a silver label on the
recalled units.

Manufactured in China, the washers were sold at all Target and
Menard's between March 2002 and September 2002 for about $145.

Consumers should stop using the recalled electric pressure
washers immediately and contact RMM to arrange for a refund or
free replacement.

Consumer Contact: Call RMM Corporation at (800) 304-1316 between
8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 6,400 Cut-Off Wheels Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch Tool Corporation, of Mt. Prospect, Illinois is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 6,400 Type 1 Abrasive
Cut-Off Wheels.

These abrasive cut-off wheels do not have correct speed rating
labels. If used at the labeled speed rating, the wheels can
burst, causing possible injury to user and bystanders.

The wheels were sold under the "BOSCH" brand name under the
following catalog numbers:

Catalog Numbers = Description

     (1) 2610917994 = 12-inch type 1 abrasive cut off wheel
         intended for cutting stainless steel in stationary
         machines

     (2) 2610917996 = 12-inch type 1 abrasive cut off wheel
         intended for metal cutting in portable machines with 1-
         inch arbor

     (3) 2610917998 = 12-inch type 1 abrasive cut off wheel
         intended for metal cutting in portable machines with 1-
         inch arbor

     (4) 2610918000 = 12-inch type 1 abrasive cut off wheel
         intended for concrete/masonry in portable machines with
         1-inch arbor

     (5) 2610918002 = 12-inch type 1 abrasive cut off wheel
         intended for concrete/masonry in portable machines with
         20mm arbor

     (6) 2610918004 = 12-inch type 1 abrasive cut off wheel
         intended for asphalt/green concrete for portable
         machines with 1" arbor

     (7) 2610918006 = 12-inch type 1 abrasive cut off wheel
         intended for asphalt/green concrete for portable
         machines with 20mm arbor

     (8) 2610918009 = 3-1/16-inch AL Oxide metal cutting wheel,
         3/8-inch arbor

     (9) 2610918010 = 4-1/16-inch AL Oxide metal cutting wheel,
         3/8-inch arbor

    (10) 2610918011 = 2-1/2-inch by .045-inch AL Oxide metal
         cutting wheel, 3/8-inch arbor

    (11) 2610918012 = 2-1/2-inch by .045-inch AL Oxide metal
         cutting wheel, 1/4-inch arbor

    (12) 2610918013 = 3-inch by .045-inch AL Oxide metal cutting
         wheel, 3/8-inch arbor

    (13) 2610918014 = 3-inch by .045-inch AL Oxide metal cutting
         wheel, 1/4-inch arbor

    (14) 2610918015 = 4-inch by .045-inch AL Oxide metal cutting
         wheel, 3/8-inch arbor

    (15) 2610918016 = 4-inch by .045-inch AL Oxide metal cutting
         wheel, 1/4-inch arbor

    (16) 2610918017 = 4-inch by .045-inch AL Oxide metal cutting
         wheel, 5/8-inch arbor

The recalled 12-inch-diameter wheels can be identified by a
stamped expiration date in the metal center ring of "V 6/2007"
or before.

Expiration date "V 7/2007" and after are not included in this
recall. The smaller wheels (2-1/2-inch to 4-inch diameters)
under this recall will state "Made in Bulgaria." The replacement
smaller wheels will state "made in Canada," and are not affected
by this recall.

The small diameter wheels were made in Bulgaria, and the 12-inch
diameter wheels were made in Germany, both were sold at all
industrial Distributors or hardware stores nationwide from
September 2003 to August 2004. The wheels cost between $3 and $5
for the 2-1/2-inch to 4-inch diameter sizes and $10 to $20 for
the 12-inch diameter wheels.

Consumers should stop using the recalled wheels immediately and
contact Bosch for return and replacement instructions.

Consumer Contact: Call Bosch Power Tool at (800) 351-5813
between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the
firm's Web site at http://www.Boschtools.com


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Units Seek NJ Insurance Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division - Camden County
will hear in January 2005 motions seeking the dismissal of a
class action filed against three of Selective Insurance Group,
Inc.'s subsidiaries, namely, Consumer Health Network Plus, LLC
(CHN), Alta Services, LLC (Alta) and Selective Insurance Company
of America (SICA).  The suit also names ten other unrelated
parties.

The suit, styled "Berlin Medical Associates PA, et al. v. CMI
New Jersey Operating Corp., et al," was filed by several non-
hospital health care providers, alleging that the defendants
breached the terms of their participating provider agreements
and/or the terms of New Jersey automobile personal injury
protection policies by reducing payments for plaintiffs'
services pursuant to provider discount schedules when paying
claims and were unjustly enriched.  The complaint does not
specify monetary damages.

The defendants, including CHN, Alta, and SICA, are vigorously
defending this lawsuit and, together with the other defendants,
filed a motion to dismiss.  After a hearing on the motion, the
court ordered the plaintiffs to amend their complaint.  In March
2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which no longer
named Alta as a defendant.  In May 2004, all remaining
defendants, including CHN and SICA, moved to dismiss the amended
complaint.  In July, they also filed a motion to dismiss the
class action allegations.


TENNCARE: TN Advocacy Group Seeks Moratorium On Lawsuit Changes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Justice Center, an advocacy group which has filed
several lawsuits against TennCare, recently revealed that
they've asked the courts for a moratorium on any changes
required by the lawsuits, the WTVF, TN reports.

The motions by the advocacy group were in response to the
announcement by Governor Phil Bredesen that the state had begun
the process of ending TennCare and that the items required for
TennCare by the lawsuits would bankrupt the state. Furthermore,
the Tennessee governor stated that if the lawsuits against
TennCare weren't settled by the next few days then the state
would be forced to revert back to the Medicaid program.

The Tennessee Justice Center, which filed the lawsuits against
TennCare on behalf of TennCare enrollees, through its spokesman,
Gordon Bonnyman, revealed that the group filed motions in each
of the four TennCare class action lawsuits. The motions seek a
two-year moratorium on the state implementing changes forced by
the lawsuits, which was a proposal that former Governor Ned
McWherter pitched to the plaintiffs.

The governor also told more than 600 members of the State's
School Board Association that TennCare is hurting all other
funding needs, including education. It makes no sense for one
facet of our responsibilities, healthcare, to be able to come to
the table and eat and drink all it wants," Governor Bredesen
said.


UNITARY PRODUCTS: Recalls 226T Gas Furnaces Due To Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Unitary Products Group (UPG) of York International Corp., of
York, Pennsylvania is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
about 226,000 Gas furnaces.

These furnaces can overheat, causing heat-exchanger cracking,
burn-through and, in extreme cases, furnace wrapper burn-
through. This can lead to heating and possible burning of the
drywall and other combustibles adjacent to the furnace, which
poses a fire and smoke hazard to consumers. UPG has received 27
reports of fires, some resulting in extensive property damage
that could be related to these hazards. There have been no
injuries reported.

The recall involves Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red T brand
furnaces. The furnaces are a silver color with white access
panels. The "Coleman," "Coleman Evcon" and "Red T" brand names
are located on the middle of the front access panel. These model
furnaces with model numbers listed below are included in the
recall:

     (1) DGAM075BDD

     (2) DGAM075BDE

     (3) DGAM075BDF

     (4) DGAT070BDD

     (5) DGAT070BDE

     (6) DGAT070BDF

     (7) DGAT075BDD

     (8) DGAT075BDE

     (9) DGAT075BDF

    (10) DLAS075BDD

    (11) DLAS075BDE

    (12) DLAS075BDF

The model number is written on a nameplate, found by removing
both front access panels. The nameplate is found mounted on the
left inside surface behind the lower panel.

Manufactured in Wichita, Kansas, these furnaces were sold
nationwide between 1995 and 2000 under the brand names of
Coleman, Coleman Evcon and Red T as original equipment in
manufactured homes and as replacement furnaces in manufactured
homes.

Consumers should not use the heating function of these furnaces
until it has been inspected and repaired. Consumers should
contact UPG to schedule a free inspection and repair of any
furnace involved in the recall.

Consumer Contact: For more information, call UPG toll-free at
(888) 665-4640 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or visit their Web site at http://www.dgatprogram.com.
UPG Technical Services is also conducting a comprehensive
notification and communications program and working with its
distributors to locate owners. Firm's Media Contact: Helen
Marsteller at (717) 771-7451.


UPS INC.: CA Judge Stays Own Ruling For Disabilities Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson stayed his own ruling that
UPS must give hearing-impaired workers the same employment
opportunities as others to become truck drivers, the Associated
Press reports.

As previously reported in the October 25, 2004 issue of the CAR
Newsletter, the federal judge had ruled that Atlanta-based UPS
Inc. violates anti-discrimination laws by barring the deaf and
hearing-impaired from driving parcel delivery trucks, which
according to him was in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and thus promptly ordered the Atlanta-based
Company to change its policies within 30 days. Judge Henderson
stayed that recently ruling so UPS could appeal to the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

According to legal experts, the federal judge's stay means its
policy barring the deaf from operating trucks weighing less than
10,000 pounds won't be changed pending the outcome of lengthy
appeals.

The Oakland-based Disability Rights Advocates is representing
the current and former employees in the class action lawsuit,
who were passed over for the driving positions, and others who
acquiesced to what the group dubbed UPS's "deaf-need-not-apply"
policy. Caroline Jacobs, an attorney for the plaintiffs,
explains that the dispute centered on UPS's custom of denying
hearing-impaired workers jobs operating delivery trucks weighing
less than 10,000 pounds. She points out that federal rules
demand that trucks exceeding 10,000 pounds be staffed by those
meeting certain vision and hearing requirements, and demands
those drivers become certified. However, the government leaves
it up to companies to decide which drivers are qualified to
operate lighter vehicles.


VIXEL CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY Shareholder Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Emulex Corporation is working to settle the shareholder class
action filed against Vixel Corporation, which it acquired, in
the United States District Court in the Southern District of New
York, styled "In re Vixel Corporation Securities Litigation Case
No. 01 CIV. 10053(SAS), Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS).  The
suit also names as defendants two of its officers and directors
and certain underwriters who participated in the Vixel initial
public offering in late 1999.

The amended complaint alleges violations under Section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act and Section 11 of the Securities Act and seeks
unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased Vixel
stock during the period October 1, 1999 through December 6,
2000.

In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the statute of
limitations with respect to Vixel's officers and directors until
September 30, 2003, and on the basis of this agreement, Vixel's
officers and directors were dismissed from the lawsuit without
prejudice.

During June 2003, Vixel and the other issuer defendants in the
action reached a tentative settlement with the plaintiffs that
would, among other things, result in the dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the defendants and their
officers and directors.  In connection with the possible
settlement, those officers and directors who had entered tolling
agreements with the plaintiffs agreed to extend those agreements
so that they would not expire prior to any settlement being
finalized.  Although Vixel approved this settlement proposal in
principle, it remains subject to a number of procedural
conditions, as well as formal approval by the court.


VIXEL CORPORATION: WA Court Grants Approval to Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The King County Superior Court of the State of Washington
granted final approval to the settlement of the class action
filed against Vixel Corporation and each of its directors and
certain unnamed individuals, entitled "Russell Fink v. Vixel
Corporation, et al., Case No. 03-2-37226-9SEA."

The complaint made general allegations that, among other things,
Vixel's directors breached their fiduciary duties to Vixel
stockholders in connection with the approval of the merger with
Emulex Corporation and sought to enjoin the tender offer and
have the merger agreement declared unlawful, among other forms
of relief.

On November 7, 2003, the Vixel Parties entered into a memorandum
of understanding for a $0.7 million settlement with the
plaintiff in the class action suit pursuant to which the parties
have agreed to settle the action, subject to court approval.
Formal settlement documents were signed on May 5, 2004 and the
plaintiff has completed discovery as agreed to by the parties.
In August 2004, final court approval was obtained for the
settlement of the Fink v. Vixel litigation, and the Company paid
the $0.7 million settlement.


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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


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

ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Aspen Technology, Inc. ("Aspen" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:AZPN) between August 8, 2000 and October
29, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Aspen and certain officers and directors ("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 during the Class Period regarding the Company's
financial performance. More specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose that Aspen had improperly recognized revenue for
certain software license and service agreement transactions
entered into with certain alliance partners during the period
2000-2002, and that as a result the Company's revenues and
earnings were materially overstated.

On October 27, 2004, Aspen announced that its Audit Committee
had begun a review of accounting for certain software license
and service agreement transactions. According to the Company,
the review could lead to a restatement. Then on October 29,
2004, Aspen announced that federal prosecutors launched a probe
into the Company's accounting practices from 2000 through 2002.
The Company also received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York requesting
documents related to the transactions the Company entered into
in those years.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com


JAKKS PACIFIC: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of JAKKS Pacific, Inc. ("JAKKS" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:JAKK) between October 26, 1999 and
October 19, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
was filed against JAKKS and certain officers and directors
("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 false and misleading statements
during the Class Period. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the statements were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose that the Company had obtained their
license with World Wrestling Entertainment ("WWE") as a result
of its participation in an illicit bribery scheme, and that this
scheme would substantially impact the Company's past and future
operating results.

In response to the announcement of problems with the WWE, the
price of JAKKS stock fell dramatically, falling from $24.15 on
October 18, 2004 to $18.81 per share on October 19, 2004.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com


MEDQUIST INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of MedQuist, Inc. (Other OTC: MEDQ.PK)
("MedQuist") between April 23, 2002 and November 2, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, MedQuist
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false or
misleading public statements. 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 period, 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 and which in turn led to incorrect billing.

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.


TOMMY HILFIGER: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired Tommy Hilfiger Corp. (NYSE:
TOM) ("Tommy Hilfiger" or the "Company") securities (the
"Class") between November 3, 1999 through September 24, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, the
Company's United States subsidiary padded commissions paid to
non-U.S. subsidiaries for the improper purpose of shifting
millions of dollars in reportable revenue from high to low tax
rate jurisdictions. Consequently, throughout the Class Period,
the Company's liability and provision for income taxes was
materially understated, its net income was materially
overstated, and the risk that the Company would be forced to pay
material fines and penalties was concealed from the investing
public. Moreover, all statements made by defendants with respect
to the Company's operating performance, including the Company's
financial statements, were materially false and misleading, and
inherently unreliable, because defendants failed to disclose
that tax evasion was a key element of the Company's business
model. Defendants' scheme enabled insiders, including
defendants, to sell thousand of their shares of Tommy Hilfiger
at artificially inflated prices for proceeds in excess of $100
million.

The truth emerged on September 24, 2004 after the market closed.
On that date, the Company announced that its U.S. subsidiary,
Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc. ("THUSA"), had received a grand jury
subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York seeking documents generally relating to
THUSA's domestic and/or international buying office commissions
since 1990. On this news, Tommy Hilfiger stock dropped 21.79
percent from a closing price of $13.17 on September 24, 2004 to
a closing price of $10.30 on September 27, 2004, the next
trading day.

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