CAR_Public/041122.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, November 22, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 231

                          Headlines

ANNUITY & LIFE: CT Securities Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 2005
CALIFORNIA: Consent Decree With Universal Life Speeds Up Inquiry
CALIFORNIA: Law Firms Launch Suit V. Homeless Sleeping Tickets
CALIFORNIA: SEC Commences Action To Halt $18 M Securities Fraud
CHICAGO IMPORTS: Recalls 55.6T Electric Pictures For Fire Risks

CNET NETWORKS: Consumers File Suit V. Illegal Gambling Searches
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Dismisses Claims in Mercury Suit
CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Mulls Certification For Race Suit
CONSTELLATION POWER: CA Court To Hear Show Cause Motion in Suit
CONSTELLATION POWER: Consumer Lawsuit Moved To CA District Court

CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY Securities Lawsuit
DIRECTV US: Dealers Suit Pending Before Arbitration Association
FINANCIAL RESOURCES: Court Bars Work-At-Home Firm From Operating
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Notifications For $65M Paxil Settlement Started
HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Fraud Suit in N.D. GA

ICT GROUP: Trial in WV Employees Wage Lawsuit Set April 19,2005
J.C. PENNEY: Recalls 41,300 Pajama Sets Because of Injury Hazard
KENTUCKY: Court Rules Bromley Tax Ordinance Is Unconstitutional
KIA MOTORS: PA Court Orders Notice of Pendency For Sephia Suit
MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Appeals Court Nixes Suit Dismissal Appeal

MERCK & CO.: Charfoos & Christensen Lodges Suit V. VIOXX in MI
MIDWAY GAMES: GA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed Final
MIDWAY GAMES: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
MIRANT CORPORATION: GA Court Refuses To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
NORTH CAROLINA: Uninsured Patients Commence Lawsuit V. Hospitals

NORTH TEXAS: Administrative Judge Upholds FTC Antitrust Lawsuit
NORVERGENCE: TX A.G. Abbot Launches Consumer Fraud Complaint
OHIO: ACLU Files Breach Of Agreement Motion Against Cincinnati
OHIO: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit V. Peter J. Wilson
PETCO ANIMAL: Agrees To Settle FTC Complaint On Website Security

QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Begins Settlement Talks With Shareholders
RADIO ONE: Executes NY Consolidated Securities Suit Settlement
RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in IL Court
SEARS ROEBUCK: Stockholder Files Suit V. $11B Kmart Merger in IL
SILICON IMAGE: NY Court Grants Approval To Securities Settlement

SILICON IMAGE: Dropped As Defendant in FL CSFB Securities Suit
TEXAS: TISD Trustees Approve $42.7T Back-Pay Lawsuit Settlement
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Parties Approve NY Stock Suit Settlement
TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Victims' Relatives To Speak As Suit Ends
UNITED STATES: FTC Initiates Rule On Final Document Destruction

VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: PA Court Orders Consolidation of Suits

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
SOURCECORP INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in TX
STAR GAS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
UTSTARCOM INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
UTSTARCOM INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA


                           *********

ANNUITY & LIFE: CT Securities Settlement Hearing Set Jan. 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fairness hearing for the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Annuity & Life Re
(Holdings), Ltd. and certain of its present and former officers
and directors is set for January 2005 in the United States
District Court in Connecticut.

On and since December 4, 2002, certain of the Company's
shareholders, seeking to act as class representatives, filed
lawsuits seeking unspecified monetary damages for alleged
violations of certain provisions of the United States securities
laws.  The plaintiffs allegedly made various alleged material
misstatements and omissions in public filings and press
releases.

The plaintiffs filed a single consolidated amended complaint in
July 2003, adding as defendants XL Capital Ltd and two
additional directors.  On October 1, 2003, the Company answered
the amended and consolidated complaint and denied liability on
the claims the plaintiffs have asserted.

In January 2004, the Court ordered that a related action that
the plaintiffs filed against the KPMG LLP (United States) and
KPMG in Bermuda be consolidated with the action against the
Company.  In February 2004, the Court denied certain individual
defendants' motions to dismiss the action.  In March 2004, the
Court denied motions to dismiss filed by certain other
individual defendants and XL Capital Ltd.  Also in March 2004,
KPMG LLP (United States) and KPMG in Bermuda filed motions to
dismiss the action.  The Court has not yet ruled on KPMG LLP's
(United States), KPMG in Bermuda's and one individual
defendant's respective motions to dismiss. The individual
defendant's motion to dismiss will become moot if the settlement
discussed below is consummated.

On July 20, 2004, the Company announced that it had reached an
agreement in principle with the plaintiffs, subject to full
documentation by the parties to the settlement, notice to the
class, Court approval and other steps required to consummate a
class action settlement, to settle the lawsuit.  In August 2004,
the parties to the settlement executed and filed a Stipulation
setting forth their settlement agreement, and sought Court
approval.  The parties to the settlement are the plaintiffs and
the class (which consists, subject to certain exclusions, of
persons who purchased the Company's common shares between March
15, 2000 and November 19, 2002), the Company, all individual
defendants and XL Capital, Ltd.  The settlement is without any
admission of liability or wrongdoing.  The Company, along with
its directors and officers' liability carrier, and XL Capital,
Ltd. have agreed to pay an aggregate of $16.5 million.  The
Company's share of the settlement is $2.5 million in cash, which
it paid into escrow in August 2004, and an additional $2.5
million in common shares (subject to a cap of 19.9% of the
Company's outstanding shares), although the Company has reserved
the right to elect to pay this portion in cash.

In October 2004, the Court ordered that notice of the settlement
be given to class members, set deadlines for class members to
exclude themselves from the class or file objections to the
settlement.  The settlement cannot be consummated until and
unless the Court approves it.


CALIFORNIA: Consent Decree With Universal Life Speeds Up Inquiry
----------------------------------------------------------------
By forcing a large California-based employee benefits brokerage
firm to enter into a consent decree, the State of California has
taken the lead in the nationwide effort to break up a national
industry-wide pattern of kickbacks and hidden fees between
brokers and large insurance companies, according to the lead
attorney for the state Insurance Commissioner.

"Now that Universal Life Resources (ULR) has agreed to
cooperate, the state can focus more specifically on the illegal
practices of the insurance firms, with full assistance from the
insiders at ULR," said John Stoia. "This is a huge
breakthrough."

Mr. Stoia, a partner in Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP, was hired by California Insurance Commissioner John
Garamendi to assist in breaking up a longstanding pattern of
hidden deals and commissions paid by the companies to companies
like ULR and Marsh & McLennan, who advanced the companies'
products while pretending to perform objective brokerage
services for employers who hired them to assemble employee
benefits.

Mr. Stoia is filing suit today on behalf of the state of
California and Garamendi against ULR and its chairman along with
MetLife, Cigna, Prudential and UnumProvident to enjoin them from
violating California insurance laws and regulations. The consent
agreement and permanent injunction excludes ULR from further
prosecution or fines but requires them in writing to "fully and
timely cooperate" in the state's investigation.

The agreement also requires ULR to no longer "put their own
financial interests ahead of their clients' financial
interests," to disclose fully their income and commission
arrangements and to stop paying or receiving kickbacks and other
hidden fees. ULR did not admit to guilt or liability as part of
the agreement.

In the lawsuit filed recently in state Superior Court in San
Diego, where ULR is headquartered, the Insurance Commissioner
charged that the brokerage and the insurance companies
participated in a scheme to steer clients to buy insurance
products from the insurors and others who provided undisclosed
compensation to ULR.

"Defendants use a number of euphemisms for these improper
steering agreements," the complaint noted, such as "special
compensation service agreements," "direct vendor marketing
agreements" and "preferred broker compensation plans." This
revenue came to ULR in addition to standard fees or commissions
from the companies and amounted to profit-sharing between the
insurance firms and the broker at the expense of the broker's
clients.

The suit also singles out a practice known as "low-hanging
fruit," in which the insurance companies push their clients with
whom they have direct contracts to ULR, in exchange for ULR
steering their clients to the insurers. The result was millions
of dollars in undisclosed fees for ULR and hundreds of millions
of dollars in premiums to the insurance companies, even as ULR
positioned itself as providing "independent and unbiased advice
to their clients," the lawsuit charged.

The suit seeks to permanently stop these practices. Mr. Stoia
and the Lerach Coughlin firm filed the first of the now numerous
cases uncovering insurance industry kickback practices, suing
Marsh and McLennan, the world's largest insurance brokerage, in
federal district Court in New York City last August. In October,
New York Atty. Gen. Eliot Spitzer initiated a major
investigation into the same practices.

Mr. Stoia also filed a separate class action civil RICO case in
federal Court in San Diego last month against Universal Life
Resources, MetLife Inc., Prudential Financial Inc., Cigna
Corporation and UnumProvident.

The New York suit, also a class action civil RICO case, names
Aon and its related companies and The Willis Group of companies,
in addition to Marsh and McLennan. Stoia amended the complaint
on Oct. 19 to include additional allegations and named as new
defendants Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., Wells Fargo & Company,
Acordia, Inc., Brown & Brown, Inc., Hilb, Rogal & Hamilton
Company, BB&T Corporation, Branch Banking and Trust Company,
BB&T Insurance Services, Inc., U.S.I. Holdings Corporation, HUB
International Limited, American International Group, Inc.,
Lexington Insurance Company, American International Specialty
Lines Insurance Co., ACE Limited, ACE INA Holdings, Inc., ACE
USA, The Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc., Hartford Fire
Insurance Co., Twin City Fire Insurance Co., The Munich Re
Group, American Re Corporation, American Re-Insurance Co., and
Munich-American Risk Partners, Inc.

For more details, contact John J. Stoia, Jr. of Lerach Coughlin
Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP by Mail: 401 B Street, Suite
1700, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 619-231-1058 or 800-449-4900
by Fax: 619-231-7423 or by E-mail: johns@lerachlaw.com.


CALIFORNIA: Law Firms Launch Suit V. Homeless Sleeping Tickets
--------------------------------------------------------------
Three San Diego law firms -- Dreher Law Firm, Cohelan & Khoury,
and the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program -- representing nine
homeless people, filed a federal class-action lawsuit against
the City of San Diego and the San Diego Police Department
(SDPD), seeking an injunction preventing further ticketing of
homeless people for sleeping in public.

The lawsuit claims that the citations, which have increased
dramatically during the past two years, violate the civil rights
of homeless people who have nowhere to sleep. The financially
strapped city, already battered by FBI and SEC investigations
into a billion-dollar pension fund deficit and with three of its
council members under indictment on charges of accepting bribes,
collects fines ranging up to $100 for each citation.

"With the homeless shelters full to overflowing, these people
literally have no place where they can legally sleep," said Tim
Cohelan and Scott Dreher, the lawyers who filed the case. "Sleep
isn't a choice, it's a necessity. The Constitution of the United
States says you can't punish someone in that situation."

Citing the results of scientific studies showing that lack of
sleep adversely affects brain functioning, immune system
activity, and decrease in body temperature, leading to illness
and impaired judgment, the lawsuit alleges that the City's
sleeping-ticket practices pose a danger to the public and waste
precious financial and law enforcement resources which the City
can ill afford. The action is titled, Spencer v. City of San
Diego, USDC, Southern District of California, Case No. 04 CV-
2314 BEN (WMC).

For more details, contact Scott Dreher of the Dreher Law Firm by
Mail: Historic Louis Bank of Commerce Building, 835 Fifth
Avenue, Suite 202, San Diego, CA 92101 by Phone: 619-230-8828 by
Fax: 619-687-0136 or visit their Web site:
http://www.lawyers.com/dreherlaw/.


CALIFORNIA: SEC Commences Action To Halt $18 M Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed an emergency action
to halt an $18 million, ongoing securities fraud perpetrated by
three San Diego-based defendants -- Emvest Mortgage Fund, LLC
(the Fund); Emvest, Inc. (Emvest), the Fund's manager; and Milon
Lyle Brock, age 60, the Fund's chief executive officer. Also on
November 16, the Honorable Dana M. Sabraw, U.S. District Judge
for the Southern District of California, issued an order
appointing a temporary receiver over both companies and freezing
distributions, among other things.

The Fund purports to raise capital from investors to make and
purchase loans secured by California real property.  Since 2002,
the Fund has raised approximately $18 million from 270
investors. The Commission's complaint, filed in federal Court in
San Diego, alleges that the Fund, Emvest, and Brock
misrepresented and failed to disclose to potential and existing
investors material information regarding the use of investor
capital, investor returns, and the preservation of investor
capital.

The Court issued an order temporarily enjoining all of the
defendants from future violations of the antifraud provisions of
the federal securities laws, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and

     (1) freezing distributions;

     (2) appointing a temporary receiver;

     (3) prohibiting the destruction of documents;

     (4) expediting discovery; and

     (5) requiring accountings.

The Commission also seeks preliminary and permanent injunctions
and disgorgement with prejudgment interest against all
defendants, and civil penalties against Brock and Emvest. The
action is titled, SEC v. Emvest Mortgage Fund, LLC, Emvest,
Inc., and Milon Lyle Brock, Civil Action No. 04 CV 2295 DMS
(LSP) S.D.Cal. (LR-18978).


CHICAGO IMPORTS: Recalls 55.6T Electric Pictures For Fire Risks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Imports Inc., of Chicago, Illinois is cooperating with
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 55,600 Electric Pictures.

These pictures have inadequate construction, incorrect wiring,
and use flammable materials, all of which pose fire and electric
shock hazards to consumers.

The recalled electric pictures are framed artwork that utilize
electric lights and sound and feature moving background scenes,
including waterfalls, snow, beach scenes, city skylines, and
religious figures. Some of the pictures contain battery-operated
clocks. The paintings come with wooden, glass mirror, or plastic
frames. The pictures come in four different sizes: 99cm x 48cm;
65cm x 47cm; 35cm x 35cm; and 33cm x 19cm.

Manufactured in China, the electric pictures were sold at all
discount, dollar and general merchandise stores nationwide from
October 2001 through April 2004 for between $20 and $150
(depending on the size of the picture).

Consumer should unplug the electric pictures immediately and
return them to Chicago Imports for a refund.

Consumer Contact: For information on returning the picture,
consumers should call Chicago Imports at (800) 656-0000 between
9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.


CNET NETWORKS: Consumers File Suit V. Illegal Gambling Searches
---------------------------------------------------------------
CNET Networks, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco by
Mario Cisneros and Michael Voigt on behalf of themselves, all
others similarly situated and the general public.  The suit also
names numerous other defendants.

The complaint alleges that certain search results displayed by
the defendants facilitate illegal Internet gambling in violation
of California state law. The proceeding is in its early stages,
and accordingly, CNET cannot predict the impact of this
litigation on its business, financial condition or results of
operations.

The suit is styled "MARIO CISNEROS et al VS. YAHOO!, INC. et
al., case no. CGC-04-433518."


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Dismisses Claims in Mercury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland dismissed with
prejudice all claims against Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
and Baltimore Gas & Electric Co. (BGE), alleging mercury
poisoning from several sources, including coal plants formerly
owned by BGE.  The plants are now owned by a subsidiary of
Constellation Energy.

In addition to BGE and the Company, approximately 11 other
defendants, consisting of pharmaceutical companies,
manufacturers of vaccines and manufacturers of Thimerosal have
been sued.  Approximately 66 cases have been filed to date, with
each case seeking $90 million in damages from the group of
defendants.

In a ruling applicable to all but several of the cases, the
Circuit Court for Baltimore City dismissed with prejudice all
claims against BGE and Constellation Energy and entered into a
stay of the proceedings as they relate to other defendants.  The
several cases that were not dismissed were filed subsequent to
the ruling by the Circuit Court.  Plaintiffs may attempt to
pursue appeals of the rulings in favor of BGE and Constellation
Energy once the cases are finally concluded as to all
defendants.


CONSTELLATION ENERGY: MD Court Mulls Certification For Race Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
has yet to rule on class certification for the lawsuit filed
against Constellation Energy Group, Inc., Baltimore Gas &
Electric Co., Constellation Nuclear and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear
Power Plant.

The suit, styled "Miller, et. al., v. Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company, et al.," seeks class certification for approximately
150 past and present employees and alleges racial discrimination
at Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.  The amount of damages is
unspecified, however the plaintiffs seek back and front pay,
along with compensatory and punitive damages.

The Court scheduled a briefing process for the motion to certify
the case as a class action suit.  The briefing process
concluded, oral argument on the class certification motion was
held on April 16, 2004, and the parties are awaiting the Court's
decision.


CONSTELLATION POWER: CA Court To Hear Show Cause Motion in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A hearing on the Superior Court, County of San Francisco,
California's show cause order for the plaintiffs in the class
action filed against Constellation Power Development, Inc., a
subsidiary of Constellation Power, Inc. is set for December
6,2004.

The suit, styled "Baldwin Associates, Inc. v. Gray Davis,
Governor of California," also names 21 other defendants.  The
action seeks damages of $43 billion, recession and reformation
of approximately 38 long-term power purchase contracts, and an
injunction against improper spending by the state of California.

The Company is named as a defendant but has never been served
with process in this case and does not have a power purchase
agreement with the State of California.  However, the Company's
High Desert Power Project does have a power purchase agreement
with the California Department of Water Resources.  The Court
issued an order to the plaintiff asking that he show cause why
he had not yet served any of the defendants with process.


CONSTELLATION POWER: Consumer Lawsuit Moved To CA District Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against two of Constellation Power,
Inc.'s subsidiaries has been removed to the United States
District Court in California.  The suit, styled "James M. Millar
v. Allegheny Energy Supply, Constellation Power Source, Inc.,
High Desert Power Project, LLC, et al.,' names as defendants
several power suppliers and subsidiaries Constellation Power
Source, Inc. (CPS) and High Desert Power Project, LLC (High
Desert).

The complaint is a putative class action on behalf of California
electricity consumers and alleges that the defendant power
suppliers, including CPS and High Desert, violated California's
Unfair Competition Law in connection with certain long-term
power contracts that the defendants negotiated with the
California Department of Water Resources in 2001 and 2002.

Notwithstanding the amended long-term power contracts and the
releases and settlement agreements negotiated at the time of
such amendments, the plaintiff seeks to have the Court certify
the case as a class action and to order the repayment of any
monies that were acquired by the defendants under the long-term
contracts or the amended long-term contracts by means of unfair
competition in violation of California law.  The amended
complaint was removed to federal Court by one of the defendants
and a motion to remand the case back to the state Court is
pending before the federal Court.


CYBERSOURCE CORPORATION: Working To Settle NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
CyberSource Corporation is working for the approval of the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed in
the United States District Court, Southern District of New York,
against it, its Chairman and CEO, a former officer, and four
brokerage firms that served as underwriters in its initial
public offering.

The suit was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock issued pursuant to or traceable to the initial
public offering during the period from November 4, 1999 through
December 6, 2000.  The action alleges that the Company's
underwriters charged secret excessive commissions to certain of
their customers in return for allocations of the Company's stock
in the offering.  The two individual defendants are alleged to
be liable because of their involvement in preparing and signing
the registration statement for the offering, which allegedly
failed to disclose the supposedly excessive commissions.

The lawsuit filed against the Company is one of several hundred
lawsuits filed against other companies based on substantially
similar claims.  On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended
complaint was filed to consolidate all of the complaints and
claims into one case.  The consolidated amended complaint
alleges claims that are virtually identical to the amended
complaint filed on December 7, 2001 and the original complaints.

In October 2002, the Company's officer and a former officer that
were named in the amended complaint were dismissed without
prejudice.  In July 2002, the Company, along with other issuer
defendants in the case, filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint with prejudice.  On February 19,
2003, the Court issued a written decision denying the motion to
dismiss with respect to the Company.

On July 2, 2003, a committee of the Company's Board of Directors
conditionally approved a proposed partial settlement with the
plaintiffs in this matter.  The settlement would provide, among
other things, a release of the Company and of the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful
in the Amended Complaint.  The Company would agree to undertake
other responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters.
Any direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is
expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.  The committee
agreed to approve the settlement subject to a number of
conditions, including the participation of a substantial number
of other Issuer Defendants in the proposed settlement, the
consent of the Company's insurers to the settlement, and the
completion of acceptable final settlement documentation.
Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the Court overseeing the IPO litigations.

Plaintiffs Brian Mohr and Javad Samadi filed the suit, styled
"In Re CyberSource Corp. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Docket no. 01 Civ. 7000 (Sas)," related to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The plaintiffs executive committee is composed of:

     (1) Melvyn I. Weiss, Ariana J. Tadler, Peter G.A.
         Safirstein of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119-0165,
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

     (2) Stanley D. Bernstein, Robert Berg, Rebecca M. Katz,
         Danielle Mazzini- Daly of BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD &
         LIFSHITZ, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York
         10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414

     (3) Richard S. Schiffrin, David Kessler, Darren J. Check of
         SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite
         400, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004, Phone: (610) 667-
         7706

     (4) Jules Brody and Aaron Brody, STULL STULL & BRODY, 6
         East 45th Street, New York, New York 10017, Phone:
         (212) 687-7230

     (5) Daniel W. Krasner, Fred Taylor Isquity, Thomas H. Burt
         and Brian Cohen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ
         LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016,
         Phone: (212) 545-4600

     (6) Howard Sirota, Rachell Sirota, Saul Roffe, John P.
         Smyth, Halona N. Patrick, SIROTA & SIROTA LLP, 110 Wall
         Street, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10005, Phone:
         (212) 425-9055


DIRECTV US: Dealers Suit Pending Before Arbitration Association
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against DIRECTV U.S. on behalf of its
dealers is now pending before the American Arbitration
Association, after several procedural hearings and orders.

Plaintiffs Cable Connection, Inc., TV Options, Inc., Swartzel
Electronics, Inc. and Orbital Satellite, Inc. filed the suit in
May 2001 in Oklahoma State Court regarding commissions and
certain charge back disputes on behalf of all DIRECTV dealers.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief.


FINANCIAL RESOURCES: Court Bars Work-At-Home Firm From Operating
----------------------------------------------------------------
A set of defendants with mail drops in Willowbrook, Illinois are
permanently barred from selling work-at-home business
opportunities, and will pay $420,000 in consumer redress in
connection with allegedly deceptive pitches made to consumers
between 2001 and 2003, under the terms of a Court order, the
Federal Trade Commission announced via its website, www.ftc.gov.

According to the Commission's complaint, in promoting their
program to consumers, the defendants violated the FTC Act
through a variety of misrepresentations, including claims that
consumers could earn between $500 and $5,000 per week stuffing
envelopes at home, "guaranteed." Consumers typically paid
between $55 and $150 for the defendants' business-opportunity
information, with almost none receiving return of the
registration fee, let alone earning the income promised in the
defendants' ads.

The stipulated final order settles the FTC's civil case against
Financial Resources Unlimited, Inc., Supreme Mailing Services,
Inc.; and Mark E. Shelton, individually and as an officer of the
corporate defendants.  The defendants did business as L. Lewis &
Associates and A. Joseph & Associates.

The Commission filed its complaint as part of December 2003's
"Operation Pushing the Envelope" joint federal/state law
enforcement sweep targeting envelope-stuffing home-based
business opportunity fraud. The sweep consisted of five criminal
and 22 civil cases filed by the FTC, 24 states, and four other
government agencies, including the U.S. Postal Inspection
Service.

According to the FTC's complaint, announced on December 16,
2003, since at least 2001, the defendants sold envelope-stuffing
business opportunities throughout the United States, claiming
that consumers could make "$500 WEEKLY" by mailing sales
brochures from home. Calling their plan a "Genuine opportunity,"
the defendants claimed that no experience was necessary and that
they would provide consumers who called the toll-free number in
their classified ads all the supplies they needed to earn
"guaranteed paychecks." Consumers who responded to the
defendants' ads were connected to a recorded message that
instructed them to leave their name and address. According to
the FTC, consumers then received a form letter stating that they
could earn "$550.00 to $3,000 AND MORE WEEKLY!," based on $10
for each circular they mailed.

The defendants' program was organized into five different
"groups," each promising a higher level of income, ranging from
$550 per week in Group #1 to $5,000 weekly in Group #5, with
sign-up fees ranging from $55 for Group #1, to $150 (originally
$300) for Group #4. Group #5 was "only for home workers who
started under income Group #4" and "received their 5th $3,000
paycheck." The defendants allegedly identified Group #4 as the
"BEST DEAL!" and provided consumers with examples of how much
money they could earn at each level.

The FTC alleged that consumers did not make the money promised
and that the defendants did not pay $10 per envelope for all or
many of the envelopes stuffed and mailed by consumers. The FTC
also alleged that the defendants did not pay the cost of postage
as they promised consumers.

The agency filed for a temporary restraining order against the
defendants on December 9, 2003. The Court signed the order on
December 15, 2003, and it has been in place since that time,
barring the defendants' allegedly illegal conduct and freezing
their assets. The FTC received assistance and support from
several other law enforcement agencies, including the U.S.
Postal Inspection Service, the Illinois Attorney General's
Office, and the Cook County (Ill.) States Attorney's Office,
which is pursuing a separate civil case against the defendants.

The final judgment and order bans the defendants from promoting
work-at-home business opportunities, prohibits them from making
misrepresentations in connection with the advertising and sale
of any goods or services, and bars them from providing anyone
else with the means of engaging in the deceptive conduct alleged
in the complaint. In addition, the order requires the defendants
to pay $420,000 for use as consumer redress, with an avalanche
clause that requires the payment of $6.5 million - the estimate
of total consumer harm - if the defendants are found to have
misrepresented their financial condition. Finally, the order
prohibits the defendants from distributing their mailing lists
and contains terms related to monitoring and compliance to
ensure that they meet the terms of the order.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the stipulated
final order was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on November 17, 2004, and
requires the signature of the judge.

For more information, contact FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580 or
visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov,or contact Mitchell J.
Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2161 or John C.
Hallerud, FTC Midwest Region, Chicago by Phone: 312-960-5615


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Notifications For $65M Paxil Settlement Started
----------------------------------------------------------------
As ordered by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, a notification program has been
initiated to alert consumers, insurers, and employee welfare
benefit plans who paid for the prescription antidepressant
Paxil(R) or its generic equivalent, paroxetine, about a proposed
$65 million settlement of the case against GlaxoSmithKline.

Notices will be mailed, and are scheduled to appear in
newspapers and magazines all over the United States, leading up
to a hearing on March 9, 2005, when the Court will consider
whether to approve the settlement.

The lawsuit includes people, called a "Class," who paid for
Paxil(R) or a generic paroxetine, from January 1, 1998 through
September 30, 2004. The Class includes consumers who paid any
portion of the cost of Paxil(R) or a generic paroxetine, as well
as insurers and Employee Welfare Benefit Plans that paid on
behalf of patients and insureds. Governmental entities are
included only to the extent that they purchased prescription
drugs as part of a health plan for their employees.
GlaxoSmithKline, and its officers, directors and affiliated
companies are not included.

This lawsuit claims that GlaxoSmithKline broke antitrust and
consumer protection laws by keeping lower cost generic versions
of Paxil(R) off the market. The lawsuit and the settlement do
not relate to any claims about the safety or effectiveness of
Paxil(R).

GlaxoSmithKline denies that it did anything wrong. The
settlement is not an admission of wrongdoing or an indication
that any law was violated.

The Court has appointed the law firms of RodaNast P.C. of
Lancaster, Pennsylvania; Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP of
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and The Wexler Firm, LLP of Chicago,
Illinois to represent the Class.

Those affected by this settlement can send in a claim form to
ask for a payment, or they can ask to be excluded from or object
to the settlement and its terms. The deadline for exclusion is
January 20, 2005 and the deadline for objections is February 15,
2005. Payment amounts will depend on the amount of Paxil(R) that
was purchased and the number of valid claims filed. The deadline
to file claims is April 15, 2005.

A toll-free number, 1-866-404-0134, has been established in the
case (called Nichols v. SmithKline Beecham, No. 00-cv-6222),
along with a website, http://www.paxilclaims.com,where a more
detailed notice, claim form, and the settlement agreement may be
obtained. Those affected may also write to Paxil Settlement
Administrator, P.O. Box 24754, West Palm Beach, FL 33416.


HEALTHTRONICS SURGICAL: Faces Consolidated Fraud Suit in N.D. GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
HealthTronics Surgical Services, Inc. faces a consolidated
amended class action filed in the United States District Court,
Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division, amending and
consolidating several previously filed shareholder class action
lawsuits alleging securities fraud.

There are three lead plaintiffs in the suit: Operating Engineers
Construction Industry and Miscellaneous Pension Fund (Local 66),
Timothy J. Ditchey and Dr. Ludger Gertesmeyer.  The suit names
as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Argil J. Wheelock, M.D.,

     (2) Ronald Gully,

     (3) Martin McGahan,

     (4) Victoria W. Beck,

     (5) Roy S. Brown,

     (6) John House, and

     (7) Russell H. Maddox

The Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint alleges
fraudulent disclosures relating to the results of the clinical
trial for the Company's orthopaedic shock wave device, treatment
revenue utilizing such device, insurance Company reimbursement,
medical device sales, and earnings projections.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory damages and reasonable costs and
expenses.


ICT GROUP: Trial in WV Employees Wage Lawsuit Set April 19,2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against ICT Group, Inc. in the
Circuit Court of Berkeley County, West Virginia is set for April
19,2005.

In 1998, William Shingleton filed a class action lawsuit against
the Company and twelve current and former members of Company
management, alleging they violated the West Virginia Wage
Payment and Collection Act for failure to pay promised signing
and incentive bonuses and wage increases, failure to compensate
employees for short breaks or "transition" periods, production
hours worked and improper deductions for the cost of purchasing
telephone headsets.  The complaint also included a count for
fraud, alleging that the failure to pay for short break and
transition time violated specific representations made by the
Company to its employees.

In addition to compensatory claims for unpaid wages, the
plaintiffs are seeking liquidated damages under the Act and
punitive damages for allegedly fraudulent conduct on the part of
the Company and the individual defendants.  The method of
calculating liquidated damages under the Act is one of the
matters in dispute between the parties, and there is a
significant difference in the amount of potential liquidated
damages using the methods the plaintiffs and the Company contend
apply.

On August 26, 2002, the Court entered two separate orders
granting partial summary judgment against the Company and, in
the case of one of the orders, against three of the individual
defendants, finding that employees were not paid for all hours
attributable to short breaks and idle time of less than 30
minutes in duration.  On April 16, 2003, the Court issued a
ruling which held that, under the Act, every class member who
was not paid transition time, short breaks or other wages is
owed liquidated damages equal to a day's wages for every day the
amounts due remain unpaid up to a maximum of 30 days.  The
defendants moved to vacate this ruling on the grounds that it
violated due process.

On April 23, 2004, the Court denied the defendants' motion
concluding that it could not determine whether the calculation
of liquidated damages under the Act was disproportionate enough
to violate the defendants' due process rights prior to an actual
award of compensatory damages. On May 17, 2004, the defendants
filed a motion, which is still pending, to decertify the class
as to all fraud claims.

On June 9 and October 27, 2004, the Company filed amended
accountings updating amounts the Company may potentially be
liable for relating to unpaid breaks and unpaid transition time,
including interest.  These amended accountings reflected slight
decreases in amounts potentially owed for unpaid breaks and
transition time.


J.C. PENNEY: Recalls 41,300 Pajama Sets Because of Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
J.C. Penney Corporation, of Plano, Texas is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 41,300 Okie Dokie Alligator Football Pajama
Sets.

The heat-sealed patches on the front of the garment can detach,
posing a possible choking hazard to young children. There has
been one report of a patch detaching. No injuries reported.

The recalled pajama shirts are heather grey with red or blue
sleeves with heat-sealed alligator and football patches on the
front. The collar tag reads "Okie Dokie." The pajama pants are
red or blue with cartoon pictures of alligators, footballs, and
stars, and the word "football." They were sold in infant sizes
12M to 24M and toddler sizes 2T to 5T. This recall does not
include the pajama sets with the alligator and football silk-
screen images on the pajama shirts.

Manufactured in Honkong, the garments were sold at all J.C.
Penney stores nationwide from June 2004 through September 2004
for about $22.

Consumers should immediately stop using the pajama sets and
return them to the store where purchased for a refund.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact the J.C.
Penney Customer Service Department toll-free at (888) 333-6063
anytime or visit the Company's Web site at
http://www.jcpenney.com.


KENTUCKY: Court Rules Bromley Tax Ordinance Is Unconstitutional
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Kentucky's High Court recently ruled that an ambulance tax
otherwise known as a "life-squad" fee, which was levied by the
Bromley City Council since 1999 is unconstitutional, the
Kentucky Post reports.

Supreme Court Justice Donald Wintersheimer wrote the unanimous
opinion. The Court said a flat-tax fee was unconstitutional. In
Kentucky, local real property taxes must be based on assessed
value.

Judge Wintersheimer wrote: "A flat-rate life squad tax is not
based on value, and it cannot be deemed to be either a license
fee, special assessment or user fee. The taxes are of a type
that is not recognized by Kentucky law. Consequently, they are
invalid and unconstitutional."

The Court also sent the case back to Kenton County Circuit Court
for consideration of class-action certification for declaratory
relief. This would allow Ms. Smith and other Bromley residents
to seek their refund for life squad taxes paid to the city. This
status earlier had been denied by the circuit Court. But the
Supreme Court said class-action relief is "available with
respect to the common law remedy for aggrieved taxpayers."

As previously reported in the October 18, 2004 issue of the CAR
Newsletter, the arguments presented by the attorneys concerns
the refund of a "life-squad" fee first levied by the city
council in 1999. An ordinance passed by the council imposed a
fee of $60 for the provision of life squad and other emergency
services that are not fire-related for each home, lot and
business within the city's corporate limits.

The city of Bromley argues that the tax is justified since it is
needed for maintaining the emergency services. The city further
contends that the flat rate is constitutional due to the fact
that it spreads out the cost equally among citizens of the
fifth-class city.

However, Gail Smith, a resident and former city council member,
who had voted against the measure during its passage claimed
that the flat tax is unconstitutional and should be based on
property value instead.

Bromley's attorney, Robert Watson of Landrum & Shouse in
Louisville, wrote in his brief to the Court that: "Public policy
alone thus dictates that such services be done on a flat fee
basis to ensure that all citizens equally share the cost of such
services."

Ms. Smith's attorney, Frank Wichmann of Wichmann & Schaffer in
Erlanger countered writing in his own brief "that public policy
is contrary to the public policy proposed by the city that,
according to the city, dictates a flat-fee basis for the life
squad taxes to insure (sic) that all citizens equally share the
cost thereof."

Aside from making his arguments, Bromley's attorney also asked
the Court to rule against Ms. Smith's request for class-action
certification for declaratory relief, which would have the
effect of allowing Ms. Smith and the other Bromley residents to
seek their refund for life squad taxes paid to the city.

But Ms. Smith's attorney argued in favor of class-action
certification, which the Kenton County Circuit Court had
previously denied. The Kenton Court also declared the life-squad
tax to be illegal in 2001.

The case then went on before the Court of Appeals in 2002, which
disagreed with the lower Court's class-action ruling and later
said that Ms. Smith had the authority to challenge the life-
squad taxes.


KIA MOTORS: PA Court Orders Notice of Pendency For Sephia Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Donovan Searles, LLC, recently revealed that the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas has, in the case of Samuel-
Bassett v. Kia Motors America, Inc., No. 2199, Jan. Term 2001,
ordered that Notice of Pendency of Class Action be provided to
all residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who purchased
or leased a model year 1997, 1998, 1999 or 2000 Kia Sephia
between January 17, 1997 and January 17, 2001.

In this lawsuit, Plaintiff claims the Sephia 1997, 1998, 1999,
and 2000 model automobiles have defects in their braking system.
Plaintiff claims this is a breach of warranty and a violation of
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act. Plaintiff seeks to
recover money damages from Defendant, which may include the
costs of repairs and compensation for the reduction in vehicle
value.

The certified Class Representative is the Plaintiff, Shamell
Samuel-Bassett, who represented by class counsels Michael D.
Donovan, Esq. of the law firm of Donovan Searles, LLC, and James
A. Francis, Esq. of the law firm of Francis & Mailman, P.C.

For more details, contact James A. Francis, Esq. of FRANCIS &
MAILMAN, P.C. by Phone: 215-735-8600 OR Michael D. Donovan, Esq.
of DONOVAN SEARLES, LLC by Phone: 215-732-6067 or 800-619-1677.


MATRIA HEALTHCARE: Appeals Court Nixes Suit Dismissal Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals dismissed plaintiffs' appeal
of the dismissal of the class action filed against Matria
Healthcare, Inc., Parker H. Petit, Jeffrey D. Koepsell and
George W. Dunaway.

The suit was initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia on behalf of all persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's securities
between October 24, 2001 and June 25, 2002, inclusive, an
earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 22,2004) states.  In
July 2003, the Court dismissed the suit.

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market between October 24, 2001
and June 25, 2002.  During the class period, the defendants
touted the "strong performance" of all of its diabetes
businesses and repeatedly bragged about the Company's growth,
noting the signing of new contracts and anticipated contracts,
an earlier Class Action Reporter (September 10,2003) story
states.


MERCK & CO.: Charfoos & Christensen Lodges Suit V. VIOXX in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Detroit Attorney J. Douglas Peters recently filed a national
class action lawsuit against Merck & Co., Inc., in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
under the Jersey Corporation. The class representatives are Mrs.
Maxine Bates from Detroit, Wayne County, Michigan; Mr. Harry
Brooks and Mrs. Sandra Brooks from East Jordan, Charlevoix
County, Michigan; and Mr. Gerald Norback and Mrs. Jean Norback
from Watton, Baraga County, Michigan. Both Harry Brooks and
Gerald Norback were prescribed Vioxx for pain relief never
suspecting that the prescription medication would cause them to
suffer heart attacks.

"This lawsuit will toll the statute of limitations for all
United States citizens as of the date of filing. This lawsuit is
being filed to protect the rights of people injured by Vioxx so
that their time limit, the statute of limitations, does not
expire before they have an opportunity to see an attorney," says
attorney Peters, a senior shareholder with Charfoos &
Christensen, P.C. in Detroit, Michigan.

Although a government study suggests that as many as 27,000
deaths have been caused by Vioxx worldwide, thousands of other
patients have experienced strokes, heart attacks and have
developed hypertension when it previously did not exist because
of their use of Vioxx. Individuals who should consult a lawyer
include those who were using Vioxx at the time of the heart
attack or stroke and sustained physical impairment (paralysis),
death or loss of heart tissue to a myocardial-infarction. At
this time, it also appears that Vioxx is probably implicated in
clot-based strokes and not bleed based strokes.

The Vioxx lawsuits that are being filed nationally are being
brought at a very politically sensitive period of time. It is
incumbent on attorneys to carefully screen and bring meritorious
cases only. With the re-election of President George Bush, there
is a national trend to grant immunity to manufacturers of
products (prescription drugs) that are approved by the FDA. "The
Vioxx cases and the negligence surrounding Merck's development,
marketing and obfuscation of the problems associated with this
drug perfectly illustrate the dangers to the public in granting
immunity to manufacturers whose products are approved by the
FDA," said Peters. "Without individual lawsuits and the
discovery of documents that are allowed in such lawsuits,
tomorrow's Vioxx case will go undiscovered and the public's
health will be threatened."

For more details, contact Charfoos & Christensen, P.C. by Mail:
Hecker-Smiley Mansion, 5510 Woodward Ave., Detroit, MI 48202 by
Phone: 313-875-8080 or 800-247-5974 by Fax: 313- 875-8522 by E-
Mail: Lawyers1@c2law.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.charfooschristensenpc.com/.


MIDWAY GAMES: GA Securities Fraud Lawsuit Dismissal Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois' dismissal of the consolidated securities class action
filed against Midway Games, Inc. and certain of its officers, is
deemed final after plaintiffs failed to file an appeal.

Three putative securities class actions were initially filed,
namely:

     (1) Allen Ehrlich, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Midway Games, Inc.,
         Neil D. Nicastro, Thomas E. Powell, and Kenneth J.
         Fedesna, Defendants, Case No. 03 C 6821, filed
         September 29, 2003;

     (2) Denise R. McVey, Individually and On Behalf of All
         Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Midway Games,
         Inc., Neil D. Nicastro, Thomas E. Powell, and Kenneth
         J. Fedesna, Defendants, Case No. 03 C 7008, filed
         October 6, 2003; and

     (3) Ezra Birnbaum, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
         Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. Midway Games, Inc.,
         Neil D. Nicastro, Thomas E. Powell, Kenneth J. Fedesna,
         UBS Warburg LLC, Gerard Klauer Mattison & Co., Inc.,
         and Jefferies & Company, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 03
         C 7095, filed October 7, 2003.

Plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Complaint, under the caption
In re Midway Games, Inc. Litigation, No. 03 C 6821 on March 8,
2004.  The Consolidated Complaint seeks damages for a class
consisting of persons who purchased the Company's securities
between December 11, 2001 and July 30, 2003, inclusive.
Plaintiffs allege that during this time, the defendants
concealed facts concerning expected release dates for the
Company's major new game titles, its ability to develop new game
titles in a timely manner, and a decrease in consumer demand for
its released products.

Plaintiffs claim that, as a result, defendants lacked a
reasonable basis for the Company's earnings projections, which
plaintiffs allege were materially false and misleading.
Plaintiffs further claim that the Company's financial statements
during the class period violated General Accepted Accounting
Principles because they did not include timely write-offs of
capitalized product development costs, and because they did not
include adequate reserves for price protection, returns, and
discounts.  Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

On August 27, 2004, the Court entered an order granting
defendants' motion dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims in the
Federal Action, with prejudice.  The time for appeal has
expired, and the judgment is final.

The suit is styled "In re Midway Games, Inc. Litigation, case
No. 03-CV-6821."  Judge Joan Lefkow presided over the
litigation.


MIDWAY GAMES: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Midway Games, Inc. asked the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against it, one of its largest shareholders Sumner M.
Redstone and several of its directors.

In June 2004, four putative class action lawsuits were filed
against Sumner M. Redstone, Midway and several directors of
Midway in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  Two
putative class action lawsuits were filed against Sumner M.
Redstone, Midway and several directors of Midway in the Court of
Chancery for the State of Delaware in and for New Castle County.

These six putative class actions were brought on behalf of all
persons, other than defendants, who own Midway's securities and
allege, among other things, that Midway and its directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Midway's other shareholders
by allowing Sumner M. Redstone to purchase a substantial amount
of Midway's common stock from other Midway shareholders.  The
lawsuits seek injunctive relief to prevent Mr. Redstone from
acquiring the remaining outstanding shares of Midway in order to
take the Company private and damages from the alleged breach of
fiduciary duty.

A motion to consolidate the four putative class actions pending
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois was granted, and
plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  Discovery
has not yet started, and no trial date has been set.  On October
6, 2004, defendants filed Motions to Dismiss these consolidated
actions, asserting that none of plaintiffs' allegations state a
legally viable claim against any of the defendants.


MIRANT CORPORATION: GA Court Refuses To Dismiss ERISA Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California refused Mirant Corporation's motion to dismiss the
class action filed against it and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

On April 17, 2003 and June 3, 2003, purported class were filed
against the Company, certain of its current and former officers
and directors, and Southern Company.  The plaintiffs, who seek
to represent a putative class of participants and beneficiaries
of the Company's 401(k) plans (the "Plans"), allege that
defendants breached their duties under ERISA by, among other
things:

     (1) concealing information from the Plans' participants
         and beneficiaries;

     (2) failing to ensure that the Plans' assets were invested
         prudently;

     (3) failing to monitor the Plans' fiduciaries; and

     (4) failing to engage independent fiduciaries to make
         judgments about the Plans' investments.

The plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs.

On September 2, 2003, the Court issued an order consolidating
the two suits.  On September 23, 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
amended and consolidated complaint.  The amended and
consolidated complaint asserted similar factual allegations as
the previously filed lawsuits and added as defendants T. Rowe
Price Trust Company and certain additional current and former
officers of the Company.  The consolidated action is stayed as
to Mirant by the filing of its Chapter 11 proceeding.

On November 19, 2003, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order
staying this action also with respect to the other defendants to
avoid the suit impeding the ability of Mirant to reorganize or
having a negative effect upon Mirant's assets.  By agreement,
however, the suit has been allowed to proceed through the filing
of, and ruling by the district Court upon, motions to
dismiss.

On January 9, 2004, T. Rowe Price Trust Company answered the
amended and consolidated complaint. All other defendants filed
motions on that date seeking dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
On February 19, 2004, the plaintiffs dismissed their claims
against Southern without prejudice.  On June 14, 2004, the
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to amend their consolidated
complaint to add as defendants Mirant Services, LLC and its
board of managers.

On August 4, 2004, the Court entered an order staying the suit
until the Bankruptcy Court lifts the stays resulting from the
filing of Mirant's bankruptcy proceedings and the order entered
by the Bankruptcy Court on November 19, 2003 staying the action
with respect to the other defendants.  In the order issued
August 4, 2004, the district Court also denied the motions to
dismiss filed by various defendants, including Mirant, and the
motion filed by the plaintiffs seeking to amend their
consolidated complaint to add as defendants Mirant Services, LLC
and its board of managers.  With respect to both motions, the
District Court granted the party filing the motion leave to re-
file the motion once the stays have been lifted by the
Bankruptcy Court.

The suit is styled "In Re: Mirant Corp ERISA, et al v. Mirant
Corporation, et al., case no. T:03-cv-01027-RWS," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, under Judge Richard W. Story

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (1) James P. Baker or Heather Reinschmidt of Orrick
         Herrington & Sutcliffe, 405 Sansome Street, The Orrick
         Building, San Francisco, CA 94105-2669, Phone: 415-773-
         5975, E-mail: jbaker@orrick.com or
         hreinschmidt@orrick.com (representing T. Rowe Price
         Trust Company);

     (2) Bridget Bobick, James L. Theriot, J Kirk Quillan of
         Troutman Sanders, Bank of America Plaza, 600 Peachtree
         Street, N.E., Suite 5200, Atlanta, GA 30308-2216,
         Phone: 404-885-3000, E-mail:
         james.theriot@troutmansanders.com or
         kirk.quillian@troutmansanders.com (representing The
         Southern Company, Terminated as defendant 03/04/2004);

     (3) Howard Douglas Hinson and Michael G. Monnolly of Alston
         & Bird, 1201 West Peachtree Street, One Atlantic
         Center, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: 404-881-7000, E-
         mail: dhinson@alston.com or mmonnolly@alston.com
         (representing Mirant Corporation, A. D. Correll, David
         J. Lesar, James A. Ward, Raymond D. Hill, S. Maurice
         Fuller, Vance Booker, William J. Hierpe, Carlos Ghosn,
         Dianne W. Davenport, James F. McDonald, Michael L.
         Smith, Ray M. Robinson, Richard J. Pershing, A. W.
         Dahlberg, Americas Benefits Committee, Qualified Plans
         Investment Review Committee, and Stuart E. Eizenstat);

     (4) Daniel M. Klein of Buckley & Klein, 1180 West Peachtree
         Street, Suite 1100, Atlantic Center Plaza, Atlanta, GA
         30309 Phone: 404-781-1100, fax: 404-781-1101, E-mail:
         dmklein@buckleyklein.com, representing T. Rowe Price
         Trust Company

Law firm for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Edward W. Ciolko or Richard S. Schiffrin of Schiffrin &
         Barroway, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, representing
         James Brown;

    (ii) Gary Gotto of Keller Rohrback, 3101 North Central
         Avenue, Suite 900, Phoenix, AZ 85012-2600, Phone: 602-
         230-6322, representing Greg Waller, Sr. and James
         Brown;

   (iii) Derek W. Loeser or Lynn Sarko of Keller Rohrback, 1201
         Third Avenue Suite 3200, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone: 206-
         623-1900, representing Greg Waller, Sr., James Brown;

    (iv) Joseph H. Meltzer or Lee D. Rudy, Schiffrin & Barroway,
         Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA
         19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, E-mail:
         jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com, representing James Brown;

     (v) Joshua A. Millican, Office of Joshua A. Millican, 44
         Broad Street, N.W., Suite 400, Atlanta, GA 30303,
         Phone: 404-221-1555, E-mail:
         joshua.millican@lawofficepc.com, representing James
         Brown and Greg Waller, Sr.;

    (vi) Gerald L. Rutledge and Alfred G. Yates, Office of
         Alfred G. Yates, Jr., 429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny
         Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1649, Phone: 412-391-
         5164, representing Greg Waller, Sr.;


NORTH CAROLINA: Uninsured Patients Commence Lawsuit V. Hospitals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Gary Jackson of Charlotte has sued two of North
Carolina's largest hospitals claiming that they are gouging the
uninsured, the Associated Press reports.

The lawsuits, which are the first cases filed in North Carolina
that are part of a wave of litigation targeting nationwide
hospital pricing practices, seeks to stop Charlotte's Carolinas
Medical Center and North Carolina Baptist Hospital of Winston-
Salem from charging uninsured patients several times more than
they charge insurance companies for the same treatments.

In the lawsuit against Carolinas Medical Center, David McLean,
an uninsured Gaston County man, contends the hospital billed him
an "unconscionable" amount of more than $50,000 for an eight-day
stay in July 2003. Carolinas HealthCare sued Mr. McLean in
Gaston County in August to collect his unpaid bill. Mr. Jackson
then filed his counterclaim in October. Although Mr. McLean
signed a form agreeing to pay for hospital services, his
counterclaim said the hospital doesn't publish prices and that
he was given no choice about any of the charges the hospital
assessed.

The second lawsuit was filed November 5 in Rowan County by Sue
Coughenour of Salisbury. She said N.C. Baptist, a unit of the
Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, billed her $8,616 for her
uninsured grandson's 2000 hospital stay, an amount
"exponentially greater than the actual cost of providing the
rendered medical services."

Both lawsuits seek Court permission to expand into class actions
that would include all uninsured patients who may have been
overcharged. Mr. Jackson's co-counsel in the North Carolina
cases is J.P. "Pete" Strom, a former U.S. attorney in Columbia,
S.C., who has sued more than a dozen hospitals in South Carolina
and joined in other lawsuits filed in Florida, Texas and
Alabama.

However, spokesmen for both hospitals said the suits lack merit
and that their institutions provide millions of dollars in free
care for patients who can't pay.

According to the American Hospital Association, a co-defendant
in some cases, about 110 similar lawsuits have been filed this
year alone against U.S. hospitals, which are all seeking class-
action status to represent large numbers of uninsured patients.

The AHA further said that since June, a group of lawyers led by
Mississippi attorney Richard Scruggs, who sued tobacco companies
in the 1990s, has filed about 50 lawsuits against more than 300
hospitals in 26 states, none of them in the Carolinas. Those
cases, filed in federal Courts, allege that non-profit hospitals
are abusing their IRS nonprofit status while using strong-arm
tactics to collect exorbitant fees from the uninsured. Congress
held hearings in June into the pricing practices of tax-exempt
and other hospitals.


NORTH TEXAS: Administrative Judge Upholds FTC Antitrust Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an initial decision filed on November 8, 2004, Administrative
Law Judge (ALJ) D. Michael Chappell upheld a Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) complaint filed last year against a physicians'
group practicing in Fort Worth, Texas.

In the complaint, the FTC alleged the physicians' group engaged
in illegal anticompetitive practices to the detriment of Fort
Worth health care consumers.  The Commission charged North Texas
Specialty Physicians (NTSP) with restraining trade by conspiring
to fix prices in certain contracts its doctors entered into to
provide medical services to the patients of health plans.

Following an administrative trial, the ALJ ruled in favor of the
FTC staff, writing in his initial decision that, "The government
proved its case," and that, "the appropriate remedy is an order
to cease and desist."

NTSP is a nonprofit corporation funded through fees paid by
participating physicians. Organized in 1995, it is currently
composed of approximately 600 physicians, of whom about 130 are
primary-care physicians. Its board of directors consists of
participating physicians elected to three-year terms by the
members of each of NTSP's sections. A physician may participate
in NTSP-payor contracts by granting NTSP the authority to
arrange for his or her services to be provided to consumers
covered by the payors.

In its administrative complaint, announced on September 17,
2003, the FTC staff alleged that NTSP broke the law by
negotiating agreements among its participating physicians on
price and other terms, refusing to deal with payors except on
collectively agreed-upon terms, and refusing to submit payor
offers to participating physicians unless the terms complied
with NTSP's minimum-fee standards. The Commission alleged that
nearly all of NTSP's participating physicians participate in
some non-risk contracts, and that,"with respect to these non-
risk contracts, NTSP often has sought to negotiate for, and
often has obtained, higher fees and other more advantageous
terms than its individual physicians could obtain by negotiating
individually with payors."

The staff also alleged NTSP's polling practices are illegal.
NTSP polls its participating physicians to determine the minimum
fee they would accept for medical services provided under an
NTSP-payor agreement. Once this information is collected, NTSP
then calculates the averages of the reported minimum acceptable
fees and reports these measures to its participating physicians,
confirming to the participating physicians that these will be
the minimum fees that NTSP collectively will entertain when
negotiating any contract with a payor. The staff alleged that
the exchange of prospective price information among otherwise
competing physicians reduces price competition and enables the
participating physicians to achieve supra-competitive prices.

The staff further charged that NTSP sometimes begins contract
discussions with payors by identifying the fee minimums
determined by its participating physicians, and states that it
will not enter into an agreement with any payor unless the payor
agrees to satisfy these fee minimums. The staff alleged that in
other instances, payors have proposed agreements to NTSP that
did not satisfy the organization's fee minimums. In those cases,
NTSP allegedly required the payors to resubmit their proposals,
or otherwise actively bargained to obtain the fees they wanted.
As a result, payors sometimes were forced to accept the higher
fees.

NTSP also allegedly discouraged payors and participating
physicians from negotiating directly with one another. In at
least one instance, the complaint stated that, after fee
negotiations with a particular payor broke down, NTSP allegedly
orchestrated the removal of NTSP physicians from other
arrangements with that payor. The FTC charged that the payor was
forced to yield to NTSP's pressure and contract with the
participating physicians at higher prices.

Finally, the complaint charged that none of NTSP's negotiating
practices significantly increase efficiency, because its
participating physicians are not integrated in ways that would
increase the quality and reduce the cost of health care in the
Fort Worth area. The staff alleged that because of NTSP's
practices: price and other forms of competition among the
participating physicians were unreasonably restrained; prices
for physician services were increased; and health plans,
employers, and individual consumers were deprived of the
benefits of robust competition among physicians.

In his initial decision, the ALJ stated that, "In this case,
Complaint Counsel [FTC staff] has proven that Respondent [NTSP]
engaged in horizontal price fixing through its negotiation, on
behalf of its member physicians, of economic terms of non-risk
contracts with health plan services for the provision of
physician services." To remedy this "unfair method of
competition," the ALJ issued an order "requiring Respondent to
cease and desist from collective price fixing in its negotiation
of non-risk contracts." In addition, he stated that "to the
extent that there are any existing, current non-risk contracts
between NTSP, negotiated on behalf of its member physicians, and
any health care payor, Respondent must take actions . to allow
termination of any such existing contracts."

The ALJ further stated that NTSP "has not met its burden of
proof of demonstrating that the challenged conduct has a
procompetitive effect on competition," and that NTSP's price-
fixing of non-risk contracts "does not have a valid efficiency
justification" and "is not reasonably necessary to create any
efficiencies." He accordingly ruled that the conduct alleged by
the FTC staff violates Section 5 of the FTC Act. Nothing in the
order, however, should be construed as prohibiting any agreement
or conduct by NTSP "that is reasonably necessary to form, or
participate in, or take any action in furtherance of a qualified
risk-sharing joint arrangement or qualified clinically-
integrated joint arrangement," he wrote.

Finally, the ALJ ordered NTSP - for three years - to notify the
Secretary of the FTC within 60 days before entering into any
arrangement with any physician under which it would act as a
"messenger, or as an agent on behalf of the physician, with
payor regarding contracts." He also defined the manner in which
NTSP must distribute the order and notify the FTC before
changing its structure in any way and stated that the order will
terminate in 20 years.

The judge's initial decision in this matter is subject to review
by the full Commission on its own motion or at the request of
any party. The initial decision will become the final decision
of the Commission 30 days after it is served on NTSP, unless
either NTSP files a timely notice of appeal or the Commission
places the case on its own docket for review.

Copies of the public version of the initial decision by the
administrative law judge are available from the FTC's Web site
at http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20580.  For more details, contact Mitchell J. Katz, Office of
Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2161.


NORVERGENCE: TX A.G. Abbot Launches Consumer Fraud Complaint
------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott sued bankrupt
telecommunications reseller NorVergence of New Jersey for
engaging in a scheme to defraud hundreds of Texas small
businesses.  The Attorney General also demanded that 19 finance
companies holding rental agreements for now worthless equipment
stop attempting to collect millions of dollars from Texas small
business owners who signed up for NorVergence's services.

In a cover letter attached to civil investigative demands
seeking details about the rental agreements, the Attorney
General asked the finance companies to cease collection efforts,
noting indications that NorVergence misled small businesses in
order to get them to sign the agreements.  Attorney General
Abbott warned the finance companies that attempting to collect
on invalid agreements could trigger substantial penalties under
Texas law.

"These small business owners believed they were investing in
reliable discount telecommunications services provided by
NorVergence," said Attorney General Abbott.  "They thought they
were making sound business decisions as a way to save money and
compete in the marketplace. It turns out they were scammed
badly, stuck with overpriced services they used only a short
time or never received at all."

NorVergence's creditors placed the Company in Chapter 11
bankruptcy in New Jersey in July, which accelerated efforts by
finance companies holding the debt to pressure the small
businesses with five-year contracts to pay for nonexistent
services. The bankruptcy was converted to Chapter 7 liquidation
shortly after it was filed.

The Attorney General said more than 100 small business owners
across Texas have complained that NorVergence salespeople misled
them by promising to cut their telecommunications costs by 30
percent if they purchased the Company's equipment. NorVergence
falsely represented that a so-called "Matrix" box would
integrate all telecommunications services, including long
distance, DSL and wireless phone service, and that the plan
offered opportunities to obtain additional discounted and free
services.

Small business owners signed agreements to pay NorVergence
hundreds of dollars per month for five years for
telecommunications services that were to flow through the Matrix
box. However, NorVergence sold this part of the agreements to
finance companies to whom business owners were directed to make
payments.

The Attorney General said business owners realized little if any
telecommunications benefits from the Matrix box, which is valued
at between $300 and $1,500, nor did NorVergence live up to its
service agreements after assigning collection rights to the
finance companies. Some businesses lost all service when
NorVergence stopped paying its creditors.

Despite the fact that customers did not receive the services for
which they signed up, the finance companies have continued to
seek thousands of dollars in payments for the worthless Matrix
box. Some finance companies have demanded amounts up to $80,000
and have sued customers who refused to pay, despite the fact
they were not receiving any services. In addition, business
owners have been forced to pay for telephone and Internet
services from new legitimate providers.

Attorney General Abbott's civil investigative demands and
lawsuit were brought under authority of the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act, which permits the office to seek
restitution for consumers, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees
and penalties of up to $20,000 per violation.


OHIO: ACLU Files Breach Of Agreement Motion Against Cincinnati
--------------------------------------------------------------
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) accused the city of
Cincinnati of failing to heed police reform agreements reached
with the Justice Department and black activists in the wake of
three days of race riots in 2001, the Associated Press reports.

In its Court motion the ACLU of Ohio asked that federal
Magistrate Judge Michael Merz find the city in breach of the
agreements and order their enforcement. According to ACLU lawyer
Scott Greenwood, "The basic problem is that the city is trying
to unilaterally declare success and end federal supervision of
the city when the problems haven't been fixed. The city can't
just walk away from these agreements. They are about police
reform and are not just public relations campaigns to attract
tourism."

The ACLU had filed a class action lawsuit against the city in
2001, accusing the police of harassing black citizens for 30
years. That year, Mayor Charlie Luken asked the Justice
Department to examine police operations following three days of
rioting, which came after a white police officer shot and killed
an unarmed black man wanted on misdemeanor charges who ran from
police.

The city and the federal government signed an agreement in 2002
requiring the Justice Department to spend five years overseeing
officers' conduct and their use of force and police dogs. The
department also oversees the investigation of citizen complaints
against police. The city simultaneously signed an agreement with
the ACLU and black activists to settle the class-action lawsuit.
The police union denied allegations that police had harassed
blacks, but also signed the document, which incorporated the
terms of the city's agreement with the Justice Department.

Mayor Luken asked the Justice Department in October to end its
supervision about two-and-a-half years early, saying the police
department had met goals to reduce use of force and promote
integrity. The Justice Department has said that it will review
the mayor's request.


OHIO: SEC Launches Securities Fraud Lawsuit V. Peter J. Wilson
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission charged Peter J. Wilson,
a former licensed registered representative, with securities
fraud. In its complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Ohio, the Commission charges that Mr.
Wilson sought to manipulate the price of stocks he traded and
illegally obtain material, non-public information from public
companies by impersonating officials from the NASDAQ Stock
Market and the American Stock Exchange (AMEX).

The complaint alleges that from at least June 2003 through April
2004, Wilson, a 43-year-old resident of Rocky River, Ohio,
engaged in a scheme to profit illegally from trading in the
securities of at least five NASDAQ-listed issuers and two AMEX-
listed issuers. After seeing an unusual upward spike in the
share price or trading volume of a stock, Wilson would telephone
the issuer at or about the time he traded
the stock. Wilson's trading strategy generally was to sell the
securities short prior to the calls. During these calls, Wilson
used an alias and told a corporate officer of the issuer that he
was an employee of NASDAQ or AMEX, depending on where the
issuer's stock was listed. Using that false authority, Wilson
then asked the corporate officers if they knew of a reason for
their companies' unusually high share price or trading volume.
Wilson was seeking-and in several of these telephone calls
received-material, non-public information: that the Company knew
of no reason for the increased price or volume. In all but one
case, Wilson instructed the Company to issue a press release
confirming that it knew of no reason for the increased price or
volume. Two of the companies followed Wilson's instructions and
issued such releases. Wilson knew that the companies' stock
prices would drop as a result of these press releases.

The complaint also alleges that Wilson illegally attempted to
drive down the share price of at least one issuer's stock by
posting false and misleading information regarding that issuer
on the Yahoo Finance internet message boards. In one such
message, the Commission alleges, Wilson falsely stated that the
issuer was being investigated for stock manipulation by the
Commission.

The Commission's complaint charges that, as a result of his
alleged misconduct, Wilson violated three antifraud provisions
of the federal securities laws (Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder). The Commission is seeking a
permanent injunction, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains,
prejudgment interest, penalties and other equitable relief
against Wilson.

In a related criminal case, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Northern District of Ohio revealed the filing of information
charging Wilson with one count of securities fraud and one count
of making false statements to the Commission during its
investigation of this scheme. The Commission wishes to
acknowledge the cooperation and assistance provided in this
matter by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District
of Ohio, the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Cleveland, Ohio
field office, and the Stock Watch department of the American
Stock Exchange. The action is titled, SEC v. Peter J. Wilson,
Civ. Action No. 1:04CV2290 (Judge Gaughan) (LR-18979).


PETCO ANIMAL: Agrees To Settle FTC Complaint On Website Security
----------------------------------------------------------------
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc., a national seller of pet food,
supplies, and services, has agreed to settle Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) charges that security flaws in its
www.PETCO.com Web site violated privacy promises it made to its
customers and violated federal law.

The agency alleges that, contrary to Petco's claims, it did not
take reasonable or appropriate measures to prevent commonly
known attacks by hackers. The flaws allowed a hacker to access
consumer records, including credit card numbers. The settlement
requires that Petco implement a comprehensive information
security program for its Web site.  This is the fifth FTC case
challenging deceptive claims by businesses about the security
they provided for consumers' personal information.

"Consumers have the right to expect companies to keep their
promises about the security of the confidential consumer
information they collect," said Lydia Parnes, Acting Director of
the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The FTC will hold
companies to their word."

Petco has sold pet food and supplies to consumers through its
online store at www.PETCO.com since February 2001. According to
the FTC, Petco made security claims on the Web site, such as:
"At PETCO.com, protecting your information is our number one
priority, and your personal information is strictly shielded
from unauthorized access" and "Entering your credit card number
via our secure server is completely safe. The server encrypts
all of your information; no one except you can access it."

According to the complaint, however, the Web site was vulnerable
to commonly known Web-based application attacks, such as
"Structured Query Language" (SQL) injection attacks. The FTC
alleges that Petco created these vulnerabilities in its Web site
by failing to implement reasonable and appropriate security
measures to secure and protect sensitive consumer information,
including simple, readily available defenses that would have
blocked such attacks. The agency also charged that the sensitive
information Petco obtained through its Web site was not
maintained in an encrypted format, as it claimed. As a result, a
hacker was able to penetrate the Petco Web site and access
credit card numbers stored in unencrypted clear text. The FTC
charged that Petco's claims were deceptive and violated the FTC
Act.

The settlement prohibits Petco from misrepresenting the extent
to which it maintains and protects sensitive consumer
information. It also requires Petco to establish and maintain a
comprehensive information security program designed to protect
the security, confidentiality, and integrity of personal
information collected from or about consumers. It requires that
Petco arrange biennial audits of its security program by an
independent third party certifying that Petco's security program
is sufficiently effective to provide reasonable assurance that
the security, confidentiality, and integrity of consumers'
personal information has been protected. The settlement also
contains record keeping provisions to allow the FTC to monitor
compliance.

The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was
5-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the
agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be
subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and
continuing through December 15, after which the Commission will
decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to
the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that
any comment filed in paper form near the end of the public
comment period be sent by courier or overnight service, if
possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at
the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security
precautions.

For more details, contact FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room
130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580, or
visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. For more details,
contact Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs, by
Phone: 202-326-2181 or Alain Sheer, Bureau of Consumer
Protection by Phone: 202-326-3321


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: Begins Settlement Talks With Shareholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
Qwest Communications, which recently settled civil fraud
charges, has begun negotiating settlements of shareholder
lawsuits that accuse the Company of misleading investors, a
spokeswoman for one of the stockholders said, the Associated
Press reports.

According to California State Teachers' Retirement System
spokeswoman Kirsten Macintyre, her group participated in a
mediation session in San Francisco, wherein both parties agreed
not to disclose details of their discussions.

The teachers' pension fund lost tens of millions of dollars when
Qwest Communications International Inc.'s stock collapsed amid
allegations of accounting fraud. The Securities and Exchange
Commission in 2002 accused Qwest's former managers of massive
accounting fraud, which Qwest settled for $250 million without
admitting or denying the allegations.

The accounting scandal also forced Qwest to erase $2.5 billion
of revenue in 2000 and 2001 as well as precipitated the
resignation of CEO Joseph Nacchio in 2002, who has denied any
wrongdoing.

The Company currently remains under criminal investigation by
the U.S. attorney's office in Colorado, and several class-action
shareholder lawsuits are pending.


RADIO ONE: Executes NY Consolidated Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Radio One, Inc. executed a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, now captioned, "In re Radio One, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
10160."

Similar complaints were filed in the same Court against hundreds
of other public companies that conducted initial public
offerings of their common stock in the late 1990s.  In the
complaint filed against Radio One (as amended), the plaintiffs
claim that Radio One, certain of its officers and directors, and
the underwriters of certain of its public offerings violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations
that its registration statement and prospectus failed to
disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the
underwriters.

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

In July 2002, Radio One joined in a global motion, filed by the
Issuers, to dismiss the IPO Lawsuits.  In October 2002, the
Court entered an order dismissing the Radio One's named officers
and directors from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice, pursuant
to an agreement tolling the statute of limitations for refilling
the dismissed claims until September 2003.  In February 2003,
the Court issued a decision denying the motion to dismiss the
Section 11 and Section 10(b) claims against Radio One and most
of the Issuers.

In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of Radio One's
Board of Directors agreed to participate in a settlement with
the plaintiffs and almost all of the Issuers.  Among other
things, the terms of the settlement provide for dismissal with
prejudice of all claims against the participating Issuers and
their officers and directors, and the assignment to plaintiffs
of certain potential claims that the Issuers may have against
their underwriters.  The tentative settlement also provides
that, in the event that plaintiffs ultimately recover less than
a guaranteed sum from the underwriters, plaintiffs would be
entitled to payment by each participating Issuer's insurer of a
pro rata share of any shortfall in the plaintiffs' guaranteed
recovery.

In September 2003, in connection with the proposed settlement,
Radio One's named officers and directors extended the tolling
agreement so that it would not expire prior to any settlement
being finalized.  Although the plaintiffs and all participating
Issuer defendants have executed the settlement agreement, it
remains subject to a number of procedural conditions, as well as
formal approval by the Court.  Other than legal fees incurred to
date, Radio One expects that the expenses of settlement, if any,
will be paid by its insurance carriers.  Until such settlement
is finalized, Radio One and its officers and directors intend to
continue to defend this action vigorously.


RADIOSHACK CORPORATION: Faces Overtime Wage Lawsuit in IL Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
RadioShack Corporation continues to face a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division styled "Alphonse L. Perez, et al. v.
RadioShack Corporation, Case No. 02 C 7884."

On October 31, 2002, Alphonse L. Perez and Douglas G. Phillips
brought this lawsuit against the Company on behalf of themselves
and all other past and present employees of RadioShack who were
designated, paid, or employed as "Y" Store Managers in the
United States within the past three (3) years, and who have not
already had their claims for overtime previously adjudicated.

The suit alleges a claim under the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act.  This lawsuit alleges that RadioShack has and continues to
have a policy of requiring their employees in the "Y" Store
Manager position to work in excess of forty (40) hours per week
without paying them overtime compensation as required by federal
wage and hour laws.  Plaintiffs seek to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, including the interest thereon, statutory
penalties, reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs on
behalf of themselves and all similarly situated current and
former "Y" Store Managers.

The suit is styled, "Perez et. al. v. RadioShack Corporation,
Case No. 02 C 7884," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, under
Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer.

Counsel for the class are: Timothy J. Touhy, Esq., Daniel K.
Touhy, Esq., James B. Zouras, Esq., and Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.,
of TOUHY & TOUHY, LTD., 161 North Clark Street, Suite 2210,
Chicago, Illinois 60601.,Phone: (877)372-2209, Fax: (312)456-
3838, Email: lawyers@touhylaw.com Website:
http://www.radioshackclassaction.com,and Peter M. Callahan,
Esq., Robert W. Thompson, Esq. and Lee A. Sherman, Esq. of
CALLAHAN, McCUNE & WILLIS, 111 Fashion Lane, Tustin, California,
92780, Phone: (714) 730-5700, Fax: (714) 730-1642, E-mail:
classaction@cmwlaw.net.

Defendant Radioshack is represented by: Edward W. Bergmann,
Esq., Justin M. Crawford, Esq., Brian J. Hipp, Esq. of SEYFARTH
SHAW, 55 East Monroe Street, Suite 4200, Chicago, Illinois,
60603, Phone: (312) 346-8000, Fax: (312) 269-8869, and Robert S.
Brewer, Jr., Esq., Ross H. Hyslop, Esq., and Robert A. Cocchia,
Esq., of MCKENNA, LONG & ALDRIDGE, LLP, 750 B Street, Suite
3300, San Diego, California, 92101, Phone: (619)595-5400, Fax:
(619) 595-5450, E-mail: rsattorneys@mckennalong.com, Website:
http://www.radioshackovertimelawsuits.com.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Stockholder Files Suit V. $11B Kmart Merger in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Sears, Roebuck and Co. stockholder has initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status after the Company willingness to be
acquired for $11 billion by Kmart Holding Corp., the Chicago
Tribune reports.

The lawsuit, which was filed in Cook County Chancery Court by a
stockholder identified as William Fischer, complains that the
deal is unfair to Sears' shareholders and named as defendants
Sears and Sears' board of directors, as well as Kmart and its
directors. The list of defendants thus includes Sears Chief
Executive Alan J. Lacy and Kmart Chairman Edward S. Lampert.

The suit contends that Mr. Lampert, whose investment group holds
a controlling stake in Kmart and a 15 percent position in Sears,
structured the transaction in a way that favors him and will
"deprive Sears' public shareholders of the fair proportionate
value to which they are entitled." Furthermore the suit contends
that by agreeing to the Kmart deal, Mr. Lacy and the other Sears
directors violated their legal duty to protect shareholder
interests.

Seeking class-action status on behalf of Sears' stockholders,
the suit asks the Court to bar the proposed transaction and
seeks undisclosed damages.


SILICON IMAGE: NY Court Grants Approval To Securities Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Silicon Image, Inc.,
certain of its officers and directors, and the Company's
underwriters, captioned "Gonzales v. Silicon Image, et al.,
No.01 CV 10903 (SDNY 2001)."

The lawsuit alleges that all defendants were part of a scheme to
manipulate the price of Silicon Image's stock in the aftermarket
following Silicon Image's initial public offering in
October1999.  Response to the complaint and discovery in this
action on behalf of Silicon Image and individual defendants has
been stayed by order of the Court.

The lawsuit is proceeding as part of a coordinated action of
over 300 such cases brought by plaintiffs in the Southern
District of New York.  Pursuant to a tolling agreement,
individual defendants have been dropped from the suit for the
time being.  In February 2003, the Court denied the
underwriters' motion to dismiss and ordered that the case may
proceed against issuers including against Silicon Image.


SILICON IMAGE: Dropped As Defendant in FL CSFB Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action dropping
Silicon Image, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in
the suit, styled "Liu v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., et
al., No.03-20459 (S.D. Fla. 2003)," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

The plaintiff filed an action on behalf of a putative class of
shareholders who purchased stock from some or all of
approximately 50 issuers whose public offerings were
underwritten by Credit Suisse First Boston.  The lawsuit alleges
that Silicon Image and certain officers were part of a scheme by
Credit Suisse First Boston to artificially inflate the price of
the Company's stock through the dissemination of allegedly false
analysts' reports.


TEXAS: TISD Trustees Approve $42.7T Back-Pay Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a closed executive session, Tyler Independent School District
trustees recently approved a settlement of a back-pay lawsuit
filed against the district in federal Court by school bus
drivers, Tyler Morning Telegraph reports.

The board considered matters then voted in open regular session
to resolve the class action lawsuit by agreeing to pay 14 of the
district's bus drivers who joined the suit a total of $42,700.

Filed under the Federal Labor Standards Act last February in
U.S. District Court by David Hedgecock and later joined by
several other drivers, the suit by the bus drivers was scheduled
for trial in January 2004 and was seeking to recover unpaid
wages, overtime compensation and wages, attorneys fees and
costs.

The suit had alleged that several current and former hourly
district school bus drivers were not paid all of their wages or
overtime compensation for hours worked, including time in excess
of a 40-hour workweek from Feb. 19, 2001, through July 20, 2004.

Prior to agreeing to pay the drivers $42,700, the district
initially denied the allegation that the drivers were not
properly compensated and maintained the suit was frivolous and
without foundation. According to school board attorney John
Hardy, payments individually to the drivers will range from $720
to about $3,000.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Parties Approve NY Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Transmeta Corporation, certain of its directors and
officers, and certain of the underwriters for its initial public
have approved in principle the settlement of the suit.

Beginning in June 2001, three putative shareholder class actions
were filed and later consolidated in and by the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York as "In re
Transmeta Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 6492."

The complaints allege that the prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's initial public offering on November 7, 2000
failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters
for that offering, and alleges claims against the Company and
several of its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.

Similar actions have been filed against more than 300 other
companies that issued stock in connection with other initial
public offerings during 1999-2000.  Those cases have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

In July 2002, the Company joined in a coordinated motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of multiple issuers and other
defendants.  In February 2003, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued an
order regarding the pleading of amended complaints.  Plaintiffs
subsequently proposed a settlement offer to all issuer
defendants, which settlement would provide for payments by
issuers' insurance carriers if plaintiffs fail to recover a
certain amount from underwriter defendants.

Although the Company and the individual defendants believe that
the complaints are without merit and deny any liability, but
because they also wish to avoid the continuing waste of
management time and expense of litigation, they accepted
plaintiffs' proposal to settle all claims that might have been
brought in this action.  The Company and the individual
Transmeta defendants expect that their share of the global
settlement will be fully funded by their director and officer
liability insurance. Although the Company and the Transmeta
defendants have approved the settlement in principle, it remains
subject to several procedural conditions, as well as formal
approval by the Court.  It is possible that the parties may not
reach a final written settlement agreement or that the Court may
decline to approve the settlement in whole or part.

The suit is styled "In re Transmeta Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation 01 Civ. 6492 (SAS)," related to
"IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.

The plaintiffs executive committee is composed of:

     (1) Melvyn I. Weiss, Ariana J. Tadler, Peter G.A.
         Safirstein of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP,
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New York 10119-0165,
         Phone: (212) 594-5300

     (2) Stanley D. Bernstein, Robert Berg, Rebecca M. Katz,
         Danielle Mazzini- Daly of BERNSTEIN LIEBHARD &
         LIFSHITZ, LLP, 10 East 40th Street, New York, New York
         10016, Phone: (212) 779-1414

     (3) Richard S. Schiffrin, David Kessler, Darren J. Check of
         SCHIFFRIN & BARROWAY, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite
         400, Bala Cynwyd, Pennsylvania 19004, Phone: (610) 667-
         7706

     (4) Jules Brody and Aaron Brody, STULL STULL & BRODY, 6
         East 45th Street, New York, New York 10017, Phone:
         (212) 687-7230

     (5) Daniel W. Krasner, Fred Taylor Isquity, Thomas H. Burt
         and Brian Cohen, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ
         LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10016,
         Phone: (212) 545-4600

     (6) Howard Sirota, Rachell Sirota, Saul Roffe, John P.
         Smyth, Halona N. Patrick, SIROTA & SIROTA LLP, 110 Wall
         Street, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10005, Phone:
         (212) 425-9055


TRI-STATE CREMATORY: Victims' Relatives To Speak As Suit Ends
-------------------------------------------------------------
As former Tri-State Crematory operator Ray Brent Marsh prepares
to plead guilty in Atlanta to the dumping 334 bodies and passing
off cement dust as their ashes some victims' relatives plan to
come to the Courtroom, while others will send letters to make
their voices heard, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Marsh, who is free on bail is set enter pleas to 787 counts
against him, including theft, abuse of a corpse, burial service
fraud and making false statements. He is expected to receive a
sentence that requires him to serve no more than 12 years in
prison although he will receive credit for the roughly seven
months he spent in jail while awaiting trial. The sentence will
then be followed by a lengthy probation that would effectively
last the rest of the 31-year-old's life. A sentencing hearing
will be held January 31, 2005.

According to Heather Hedrick, a spokeswoman for the state parole
board, state guidelines would make Mr. Marsh eligible for parole
in as few as 41 months, however due to the nature of the crime
it would be unlikely that the board would release him at his
first eligibility.

Court sources say that it is unclear if Judge James Bodiford
will approve the plea deal or wait until sentencing, which could
last several days depending on how many victims' relatives want
to address the Court. So far though, several dozen relatives
have said they want to speak at the sentencing hearing, but the
number has been increasing daily, according to the prosecutor's
office. Other relatives, like Carol Bechtel of Coeur d'Alene,
Idaho, plan to send letters to be entered into the Court record.

Mr. Marsh will also be given a chance to speak at the hearing,
though it is unclear what, if anything, he will say. When Mr.
Marsh's pleas are entered though, his lawyers are expected to
drop an appeal before the state Supreme Court dealing with their
argument that the theft charges should be dismissed. The lawyers
had argued that the corpses did not constitute property under
the law.

Mr. Marsh is also charged in Tennessee with six felony counts of
abuse of a corpse. He is accused of taking bodies to the
crematory, then returning to Bradley County funeral homes with
what were purported to be those cremated human remains. In some
cases, the urns contained cement dust. According to Tennessee
prosecutor Shari Young, Mr. Marsh is expected to plead guilty to
the Bradley County charges by the end of the year and that as
part of his agreement in Georgia, the two prison sentences will
run concurrently.

Mr. Marsh allegedly stopped performing cremations at the Tri-
State Crematory in Noble, Ga., in 1997, when he took over the
family business that served funeral homes in Georgia, Tennessee
and Alabama. After an anonymous tip in February 2002,
investigators found bodies scattered on the crematory property -
in the woods, in buildings and crammed into burial vaults and
behind Marsh's house.

Last month, a federal judge approved an $80 million settlement
of a lawsuit by victims' relatives against Marsh. It's unclear
how much of that money will be paid. In March, several dozen
funeral homes that sent corpses to the crematory settled a
class-action lawsuit against them for roughly $36 million. Much
of that money has been paid.


UNITED STATES: FTC Initiates Rule On Final Document Destruction
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a final Rule requiring
businesses to properly dispose of and destroy sensitive consumer
data. The Rule is one of several new requirements intended to
combat consumer fraud and identity theft and protect privacy
required by the federal Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions
Act (FACT Act) which was enacted in December 2003.

The new FACT Act Disposal Rule broadly covers "any record about
an individual, whether in paper, electronic, or other form that
is a consumer report [also known as a credit report] or is
derived from a consumer report." It requires any person or
Company that possesses or maintains such information to "tak[e]
reasonable measures to protect against unauthorized access to or
use of the information in connection with its disposal."

"This new Rule is an important step forward in the fight against
consumer fraud and identity theft. Shredding documents and
properly destroying computer files and hard drives will help
ensure that records containing sensitive personal and financial
information don't fall into the wrong hands," said Robert
Johnson, executive director of the National Association for
Information Destruction (NAID), an international trade
association for companies providing information destruction
services, whose mission is to promote the information
destruction industry and the standards and ethics of its member
companies. "It's important for the business community to
understand that this law applies to nearly every business and
private employer in the U.S."

According to a study released by the FTC in September 2003,
nearly 10 million Americans were the victims of identity theft
in the previous year alone. The study also found that U.S.
businesses lost $47 billion and consumers lost approximately $5
billion as a result of identity theft during the same period.

"There is no reason that a stack of customer files containing
credit reports should be sitting in a dumpster, easily
accessible to just about anyone. This rule will force banks,
retailers and auto dealers that obtain credit reports to shred
those documents into little pieces before throwing them away,"
added Johnson.

The new rule provides examples of how to comply with the new
requirements, including:

     (1) Implementing and monitoring compliance with policies
         and procedures that require shredding or other forms of
         destruction of documents and electronic media
         containing consumer information; and

     (2) Contracting with a third party to properly dispose of
         consumer information and monitoring their performance.

The FACT Act Disposal Rule applies to virtually every business
and private employer in the U.S. The rule requires these
businesses to come into compliance by June 1, 2005 by both
adopting and implementing their own document destruction
policies or by contracting with a document shredding Company or
other data destruction Company to do so. Penalties for violating
the rule include actual damages, statutory damages up to $1,000
punitive damages per violation (with no cap on class action
damages), attorneys' fees, and civil penalties up to $2,500. For
more information about the rule and business compliance
requirements, visit the FTC Web site: http://www.ftc.gov.


VICURON PHARMACEUTICALS: PA Court Orders Consolidation of Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ordered consolidated the six shareholder class
actions filed against Vicuron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain
of its senior officers.

Each complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 arising from the Company's
May 24, 2004 press release announcing the approvable letter from
the FDA indicating anidulafungin does not currently support a
labeling for initial treatment of esophageal candidiasis.  Each
plaintiff seeks to represent a class of Vicuron securities
purchasers from January 6, 2003, through May 24, 2004, (except
one complaint, whose putative class period begins March 17,
2003).  The complaints seek compensatory damages, interest,
attorneys' fees, and injunctive and equitable relief.

On August 18, 2004, counsel for all parties involved in the
Federal Class Actions stipulated to consolidation of the six
actions.  Under the stipulation, defendants are not required to
respond to the six individual complaints.  Rather, defendants
will respond to an amended, consolidated class action complaint
that will be filed by the Court-appointed lead plaintiff and
lead plaintiff counsel, or the "Consolidated Complaint."  The
District Court approved the Consolidation Stipulation on August
23, 2004.

The Court's order provides that:

     (1) the designated lead plaintiff will have 60 days to file
         the Consolidated Complaint once appointed by the
         District Court;

     (2) defendants will file a responsive pleading within 60
         days of service of the Consolidated Complaint; and

     (3) in the event defendants' responsive pleading is a
         motion to dismiss, plaintiffs' opposition papers will
         be due 60 days from the filing of the motion, and any
         reply papers by defendants will be due 30 days
         thereafter.

Three motions were filed with the District Court pursuant to 15
U.S.C. 78u-4(a)(3)(A)(i)(II) proposing a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff counsel.  On October 7, 2004, the Court entered an
order appointing the group of institutional investors
(Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund, Massachusetts
State Carpenters Pension Fund, and Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund) as lead plaintiffs, the law firm of
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins as lead plaintiffs
counsel, and the law offices of Marc S. Henzel as liaison
counsel.  Based on the Court's order of August 23, 2004,
plaintiffs must file a consolidated amended complaint by
December 6, 2004.  The Court has ordered a status conference in
the Federal Class Actions for November 1, 2004.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

IMPAX LABORATORIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. (Nasdaq: IPXL) ("IMPAX"
or the "Company") from May 5, 2004 through November 3, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges IMPAX, Barry R. Edwards, Charles Hsiao,
Larry Hsu, Cornel C. Spiegler, David S. Doll, and David J.
Edwards with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company inappropriately recognized certain
         customer credits on bupropion products marketed by a
         strategic partner;

     (2) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated by $4.6 million;

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

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

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

On November 3, 2004, IMPAX announced that the Company had
postponed its release of 2004 third quarter financial results to
Tuesday, November 9, 2004, in order to allow its independent
auditors more time to complete their review of the Company's
third quarter financial statements, including the timing of
certain customer credits on bupropion products marketed by a
strategic partner. Results were originally scheduled to be
announced on Thursday, November 4, 2004. This news shocked the
market. On November 4, 2004, shares of IMPAX fell $2.93 per
share, or 22.54 percent, to close at $10.97 per share on usually
high trading volume.

On November 9, 2004, IMPAX announced that it had determined to
restate its financial results for the first and second quarters
of 2004. The restatement was required as the result of an
adjustment due to recently reported customer credits granted by
a strategic partner on sales of the Company's bupropion products
made by a strategic partner during March 2004.

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


SOURCECORP INC.: Federman & Sherwood Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated class action
lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas on behalf of
purchasers of Sourcecorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: SRCP) ("Sourcecorp" or
the "Company") securities during the period between May 7, 2003
and October 27, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: 405-235-1560 by Fax: 405-239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


STAR GAS: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in CT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut against Star Gas Partners, Inc. ("Star" or the
"Company") (NYSE:SGU) (NYSE:SGH) and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Federal Securities Laws
(Securities Exchange Act of 1934) on behalf of all purchasers of
securities from December 4, 2003 to October 18, 2004 (the "Class
Period") inclusive (those in the longer period may contact the
firm as well).

Star Gas is a diversified home energy distributor and service
provider, which purports to specialize in heating oil, propane,
natural gas and electricity. During the Class Period, defendants
caused Star Gas's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading statements.

As a result of this inflation, Star Gas was able to complete a
secondary public offering of 1.3 million common units and two
note offerings totaling $65 million, raising net proceeds of $95
million during the Class Period. On October 18, 2004,
TheStreet.com issued an article entitled "Stocks In Motion: Star
Gas." The article stated that the Company reported it could not
meet the current conditions of its working capital line and that
"if lenders do not agree, however, to offer modified terms, Star
said it could be forced to seek alternative financing on
'extremely disadvantageous' terms or even be forced to seek
bankruptcy protection."

On this news, Star Gas's stock dropped to $4.32 per share from a
closing price of $21.60 on the previous trading day. The true
facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were that the
Company was experiencing certain massive delays; that the
Company's Petro heating oil division's business process
improvement program was faltering and that contrary to
defendants' earlier indications, the Company was not able to
increase or even maintain profit margins in its heating oil
segment; and that the Company's second quarter 2004 claimed
profit margins were an aberration and not indicative of the
Company's success or ability to pass on the heating oil price
increase because the Company had earlier acquired heating oil
(sold in the second quarter) at a much lower cost.

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

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC by Phone:
800-404-7770 (EDT) or 800-332-2259 (PST) or 860-537-3818
(Connecticut) or 619-233-4565 (California) or by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or
StarGasSecuritiesLitigation@scott-scott.com.


UTSTARCOM INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of UTStarcom, Inc. ("UTStarcom")
(NASDAQ:UTSI) common stock during the period between April 16,
2003 and August 11, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges UTStarcom and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. UTStarcom designs, manufactures and sells
telecommunications equipment and products, and provides services
associated with their operation.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused UTStarcom's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, UTStarcom was able to
raise proceeds of $475 million through a secondary offering and
the Company insiders were able to reap $56 million in illegal
insider trading proceeds. The true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company had massive supply chain constraints
         delaying legitimate revenue recognition;

     (2) the Company's prime margins were eroding in China;

     (3) the Company lacked internal control over its ability to
         analyze revenue recognition criteria;

     (4) the Company was in violation of Nasdaq rules requiring
         that the Board of Directors have a majority which is
         independent;

     (5) the Company's Japanese-related revenue projections were
         overstated by $290 million; and

     (6) as a result, defendants' projections for FY 2004 and
         2005 were grossly inflated.

On August 10, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it had "filed a request with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for a five-day extension with respect to the
filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2004 .... Specifically, in connection with its second
quarter closing and review process, UTStarcom identified a
single equipment sale transaction in a single geographical sales
market in the amount of approximately $1.9 million that was
initially proposed to be recorded as revenue for the second
quarter. Upon further analysis, UTStarcom determined that this
transaction did not meet the qualification requirements for
recognition within the second quarter and as a result did not
include this as revenue in the release of its second quarter
results." The stock dropped to $15.37 per share on this news.

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


UTSTARCOM INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of UTStarcom, Inc. (Nasdaq: UTSI)
("UTStarcom") between April 16, 2003 and August 11, 2004 (the
"Class Period"), including all purchasers in the January 8, 2004
stock offering and the September 16, 2003 debt offering.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, UTStarcom
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false or
misleading public statements. On August 10, 2004, UTStarcom
disclosed that it had "filed a request with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for a five-day extension with respect to the
filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2004. . . . Specifically, in connection with its second
quarter closing and review process, UTStarcom identified a
single equipment sale transaction in a single geographical sales
market in the amount of approximately $1.9 million that was
initially proposed to be recorded as revenue for the second
quarter. Upon further analysis, UTStarcom determined that this
transaction did not meet the qualification requirements for
recognition within the second quarter and as a result did not
include this as revenue in the release of its second quarter
results." On this news UTStarcom stock fell from a close of
$17.95 per share on August 10, 2004, to close at $15.37 per
share on August 11, 2004.

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


                            *********


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  * * *