---

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

            Tuesday, November 23, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 232

                          Headlines

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Opposes Certification of TX Enron Litigation
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Appeals Remand of Stock Suit To IL State Court
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Mutual Fund Suits
ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Shareholders Launch Fiduciary Duty Suits in NY
AMERICAN HOME: Rosen Preminger Files Employees 401(K) Suit in NY

ARCH CHEMICALS: Working To Resolve Suits Over CCA-Treated Wood
ASK JEEVES: Working For NY Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faces Rental Fees Lawsuits in Various Courts
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Plaintiffs File DE Suit V. Viacom Stock Swap
BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA

BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Employees File FLSA Violations Suit in S.D. FL
BRUSH WELLMAN: OH High Court Refuses To Certify Workers' Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Teen Commences Lawsuit Against JPD Over Strip Search
CONSOL ENERGY: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in W.D. PA
COVENTRY HEALTH: Appeals FL Court's Arbitration Ruling in Suit

CROMPTON CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set For January 5, 2005
EFUNDS CORPORATION: SEC Lodges Civil Charges V. Ex-CFO, Ex-EVP
FIRST COMMUNITY: CA Court Remands Investor Suit To State Court
GROUP ECSA: Texas AG Sues Firm Due To Immigration Fraud Scheme
MACATAWA BANK: Limited Discovery Proceeds in MI Investor Lawsuit

NEW YORK LIFE: African Slave Descendants Launch Site For Justice
NEW ZEALAND: Vietnamese Agent Orange Victims Welcome Inquiry
REDBACK NETWORKS: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
REDBACK NETWORKS: Working To Settle NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
RETEK INC.: Presents Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court

RETEK INC.: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ROBOTIC VISION: SEC Lodges Civil Fraud Action in MA V. Employees
SKECHERS USA: Employees Launch Two CA Overtime Violations Suits
SKECHERS USA: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SKECHERS USA: Employees Launch Wage Violations Suit in CA Court

STAMPS.COM: Presents Formal Stock Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
STATE FARM: IL Judge Denies Motion To Dismiss Policyholder Suit
TOSHIBA AMERICA: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 31, 2005
TROVER FOUNDATION: Patients File Suit For Being Denied Treatment
VIRGIN ISLANDS: Consent Decree Could End Special Education Suit

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Consumers Sue V. Calypso Washing Machines

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in OK
FANNIE MAE: AG Jim Petro Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in OH
JAKKS PACIFIC: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MERCK & CO.: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA
SIRVA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL

TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA
UTSTARCOM INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA

                         *********


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Opposes Certification of TX Enron Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management LP filed a motion opposing class
certification for the class action filed against it and numerous
other defendants in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, styled "In re
Enron Corporation Securities Litigation,"

The principal allegations of the Enron Complaint, as they
pertain to Alliance Capital, are that Alliance Capital violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to
a registration statement filed by Enron Corporation and
effective with the SEC on July 18, 2001, which was used to sell
$1.9 billion Enron Corp. Zero Coupon Convertible Notes due 2021.

Plaintiffs allege that Frank Savage, who was at that time an
employee of the Company and a director of the General Partner of
the Company, signed the registration statement at issue.
Plaintiffs allege that the registration statement was materially
misleading.  Plaintiffs further allege that the Company was a
controlling person of Frank Savage.  Plaintiffs therefore assert
that the Company is itself liable for the allegedly misleading
registration statement.  Plaintiffs seek rescission or a
rescissionary measure of damages.

On June 3, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss the Enron
Complaint as the allegations therein pertain to it.  On March
12, 2003, that motion was denied.  A First Amended Consolidated
Complaint, with substantially similar allegations as to the
Company, was filed on May 14, 2003.  The Company filed its
answer on June 13, 2003.

On May 28, 2003, plaintiffs filed an Amended Motion for Class
Certification.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Appeals Remand of Stock Suit To IL State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management L.P. appealed the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruling
remanding the class action filed against the Company, styled
"Erb et al., v. Alliance Capital Management, L.P.," to Illinois
state Court.

On October 1, 2003, the suit was filed in the Circuit Court of
St. Clair County, Illinois.  The plaintiff, purportedly a
shareholder in Premier Growth Fund, alleges that the Company
breached unidentified provisions of Premier Growth Fund's
prospectus and subscription and confirmation agreements that
allegedly required that every security bought for Premier Growth
Fund's portfolio must be a "1-rated" stock, the highest rating
that Alliance Capital's research analysts could assign.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company's impermissibly purchased
shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.

On November 25, 2003, the Company removed the Erb action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on the basis that plaintiffs' alleged breach of
contract claims are preempted under the Securities Litigation
Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA).

On February 25, 2004, the Court granted plaintiffs' motion and
remanded the action to the Circuit Court.  On June 24, 2004,
plaintiff filed an amended complaint in the Circuit Court of St.
Clair County, Illinois.  The Amended Erb Complaint allegations
are substantially similar to those contained in the previous
complaint, however, the Amended Erb Complaint adds a new
plaintiff and seeks to allege claims on behalf of a purported
class of persons or entities holding an interest in any
portfolio managed by Alliance Capital's Large Cap Growth Team.

The Amended Erb Complaint alleges that Alliance Capital breached
its contracts with these persons or entities by impermissibly
purchasing shares of stocks that were not 1-rated.  Plaintiffs
seek rescission of all purchases of any non-1-rated stocks
Alliance Capital made for Premier Growth Fund and other Large
Cap Growth Team clients' portfolios over the past eight years,
as well as an unspecified amount of damages.

On July 13, 2004, Alliance Capital removed the Erb action to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois on the basis that plaintiffs' claims are preempted
under SLUSA.  On August 30, 2004, the Court remanded the action
to the Circuit Court.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Mutual Fund Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed consolidated complaints with respect to four
claim types against Alliance Capital Management L.P. in the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

On October 2, 2003, a purported class action complaint entitled
"Hindo, et al. v. AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund, et
al.," was filed against the Company and:

     (1) Alliance Capital Management Holding L.P.,

     (2) Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC),

     (3) AXA Financial, Inc.

     (4) the AllianceBernstein family of mutual funds
         (AllianceBernstein Funds),

     (5) the registrants and issuers of those funds,

     (6) certain  officers of Alliance Capital,

     (7) certain other defendants not affiliated with Alliance
         Capital, and

     (8) unnamed Doe defendants

The Complaint was filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York by alleged shareholders of two
of the AllianceBernstein Funds.  The Hindo Complaint alleges
that certain of the Alliance defendants failed to disclose that
they improperly allowed certain hedge funds and other
unidentified parties to engage in "late trading" and "market
timing" of AllianceBernstein Fund securities, violating Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 206 and 215 of the
Advisers Act.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages and rescission of their contracts with
Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to
Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts.

Since October 2, 2003, forty-three additional lawsuits making
factual allegations generally similar to those in the Hindo
Complaint were filed in various federal and state Courts against
Alliance Capital and certain other defendants, and others may be
filed.  Such lawsuits have asserted a variety of theories for
recovery including, but not limited to, violations of the
Securities Act, the Exchange Act, the Advisers Act, the
Investment Company Act, the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA), certain state securities statutes and
common law.  All of these lawsuits seek an unspecified amount of
damages.

On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation (JPMDL) transferred all federal actions to the United
States District Court for the District of Maryland ("Mutual Fund
MDL").  On March 3, 2004 and April 6, 2004, the MDL Panel issued
orders conditionally transferring the state Court cases against
Alliance Capital and numerous others to the Mutual Fund MDL.
Transfer of all of these actions subsequently became final.
Plaintiffs in three of these four actions moved to remand the
actions back to state Court.  On June 18, 2004, the Court issued
an interim opinion deferring decision on plaintiffs' motions to
remand until a later stage in the proceedings.  Subsequently,
the plaintiff in the state Court individual action moved the
Court for reconsideration of that interim opinion and for
immediate remand of her case to state Court, and that motion is
pending.  Defendants are not yet required to respond to the
complaints filed in the state Court derivative actions.

On September 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed consolidated amended
complaints with respect to four claim types: mutual fund
shareholder claims; mutual fund derivative claims; derivative
claims brought on behalf of Alliance Holding; and claims brought
under ERISA by participants in the Profit Sharing Plan for
Employees of Alliance Capital.  All four complaints include
substantially identical factual allegations, which appear to be
based in large part on the SEC Order.

The claims in the mutual fund derivative consolidated amended
complaint are generally based on the theory that all fund
advisory agreements, distribution agreements and 12b-1 plans
between Alliance Capital and the AllianceBernstein Funds should
be invalidated, regardless of whether market timing occured in
each individual fund, because each was approved by fund trustees
on the basis of materially misleading information with respect
to the level of market timing permitted in funds managed by
Alliance Capital. The claims asserted in the other three
consolidated amended complaints are similar to those that the
respective plaintiffs asserted in their previous federal
lawsuits.


ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Shareholders Launch Fiduciary Duty Suits in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alliance Capital Management L.P. faces several class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York alleging violations of the Investment
Company Act and breach of fiduciary duty.

On June 22, 2004, a purported class action complaint entitled
"Aucoin, et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al.,"
was filed against the Company,

     (1) Alliance Capital Management Holding,

     (2) Alliance Capital Management Corporation (ACMC),

     (3) AXA Financial, Inc.,

     (4) AllianceBernstein Investment Research and Management,
         Inc.

     (5) certain current and former directors of the
         AllianceBernstein Funds, and

     (6) unnamed Doe defendants.

The Aucoin Complaint names the AllianceBernstein Funds as
nominal defendants.  The Aucoin Complaint was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York by an alleged shareholder of the AllianceBernstein Growth &
Income Fund.  The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:

     (i) that certain of the defendants improperly authorized
         the payment of excessive commissions and other fees
         from AllianceBernstein Fund assets to broker-dealers in
         exchange for preferential marketing services,

    (ii) that certain of the defendants misrepresented and
         omitted from registration statements and other reports
         material facts concerning such payments, and

   (iii) that certain defendants caused such conduct as control
         persons of other defendants.

The Aucoin Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections
34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections
206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary
duties, and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary
duties.

Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with
Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to
Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of
all AllianceBernstein Fund-related fees, commissions and soft
dollar payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or
discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual
allegations substantially similar to those in the Aucoin
Complaint were filed against Alliance Capital and certain other
defendants, and others may be filed.  All nine of the lawsuits
were brought as class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, assert
claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint, and are
brought on behalf of shareholders of AllianceBernstein Funds.


AMERICAN HOME: Rosen Preminger Files Employees 401(K) Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Rosen Preminger & Bloom LLP, Clouse Dunn Hirsch
LLP and Feinberg, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. on behalf of the
employees of American Home Mortgage (NYSE: AHM) have filed a
class action lawsuit against the Company, claiming American Home
failed to honor the promises it made when they came to work for
the Company last year. The complaint, filed in Suffolk County,
New York, accuses the Company of fraud, breach of contract and
misrepresentation.

The employees used to work for the Principal Financial Group, in
its residential mortgage lending business. In early 2003,
American Home bought the Principal residential group, and the
employees -- approximately 400 of them -- went to work for the
new Company.

At the time, American Home agreed to honor their years of
service with Principal towards the vesting requirement for their
new 401(k) plan. American Home also agreed to contribute extra
money to the new 401(k) to compensate the workers for an
additional retirement benefit they had with their old employer.
The Company put both promises in writing.

But the employees say neither of those promises was kept.
Instead, the Company lengthened the requirement for 401(k)
vesting and has yet to contribute the extra benefit money it
pledged, even though it promised to do so by spring 2004.

"They promised to keep our prior benefits in place and make us
whole if we joined American Home," says plaintiff Bill Williams.
"And then they reneged on their promise."

Plaintiffs in the case are represented by David Preminger of
Rosen Preminger & Bloom LLP in New York, Keith Clouse of Clouse
Dunn Hirsch LLP in Dallas and Jeffrey Lewis and Claire Kennedy-
Wilkins, of Lewis, Feinberg, Renaker & Jackson, P.C. in Oakland,
California.

"What makes this case unusual is that American Home's promises
are clear and in writing," says Mr. Lewis, who specializes in
representing employees in benefit disputes. "Often, these cases
are based on ambiguous statements or conflicting testimony as to
what was or was not said. But here, American Home wrote down its
promises in no uncertain terms and put them in bold-face type.
It's very clear what they promised to do, and equally clear
they're not doing it."

For more details, contact Mark Annick by Phone: 800-559-4534 by
Pager: 214-967-2299 or by E-mail: mark@legalpr.com.


ARCH CHEMICALS: Working To Resolve Suits Over CCA-Treated Wood
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arch Chemicals, Inc. is working to resolve the class action
filed against it and/or its CCA-formulating subsidiary Arch Wood
Protection, Inc., along with several other chromated copper
arsenate (CCA) manufacturers, several CCA customers and various
retailers, regarding the marketing and use of CCA-treated wood.

Three of these cases have been dismissed without prejudice.  In
the fourth case (Jacobs v. Osmose, Inc. et. al.), the federal
district Court has ruled that the requirements for a class
action have not been met and has denied class action status in
this case.  Subsequently, the Court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for voluntary dismissal of their claims
against the Company, its subsidiaries and several other
defendants.

In March 2004, in the fifth putative class action lawsuit
(Ardoin v. Stine Lumber Company et. al.), the federal district
Court has ruled that the requirements for a class action have
not been met and has denied class action status to this case.
The parties have entered an agreement to settle the claims of
the individual plaintiffs for a nominal amount, and a motion to
dismiss the case with prejudice has been filed by the parties.

In addition, there are fewer than ten other CCA-related lawsuits
in which the Company and/or one or more of the Company's
subsidiaries is involved.  These additional cases are not
putative class actions.  They are actions by individual
claimants alleging various personal injuries allegedly due to
exposure to CCA-treated wood.

"Jacobs et al. v. Osmose, Inc., et al., No. 01-944," is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Case No. 01-CV-944, under Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.
"Ardoin v. Stine Lumber Co., et al., case no. 2:02-cv-02502-PM-
APW, is pending in the United States District Court in
Louisiana, under Judge Patricia Minaldi.


ASK JEEVES: Working For NY Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ask Jeeves, Inc. is working for the approval of the settlement
of the class action filed against it and certain of its officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled "Leonard Turroff, et al.
vs. Ask Jeeves, Inc., et al."  The suit also named as defendants
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering:

     (1) Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.,

     (2) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) U.S. Bancorp Piper Jaffray, and

     (5) Dain Rauscher, Inc.

The complaint alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 against all defendants, and violations of Section 15
of the Securities Act against the Individual Defendants in
connection with the Company's IPO.  An amended complaint was
filed on December 6, 2001, which includes the same allegations
in connection with Ask Jeeves second public offering in March
2000.  The complaints seek unspecified damages on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of common stock between June 30,
1999 and December 6, 2000.

This case is similar to, and has been coordinated with, over
three hundred other cases filed in the Southern District Court
of New York concerning the IPO market of the late 1990's.  A
coordinated settlement has been proposed and submitted to the
Court.

On June 24, 2003, a special committee of the Company's Board of
Directors approved the Company's participation in this
settlement and on July 9, 2003, the Individual Defendants
approved the settlement.  The settlement has not yet been
approved by the Court and might be opposed by the underwriter
defendants.

The suit is styled "In Re Ask Jeeves, Inc., Intial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 9422," related to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS), both pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Faces Rental Fees Lawsuits in Various Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. is working to resolve several lawsuits filed
in various states and in Canada over its extended viewing fees
for customers who choose to keep the rental product beyond the
initial rental term.

The Company currently is a defendant in 14 lawsuits filed by
customers in 10 states and the District of Columbia between
February 1999 and April 2001.  These are putative class action
lawsuits alleging common law and statutory claims for fraud,
deceptive practices and unlawful business practices regarding
the extended viewing fee policies.  Some of the cases also
allege that these policies impose unlawful penalties and result
in unjust enrichment.  The Company currently is also a defendant
in three similar lawsuits filed by customers in Canada between
August 2001 and July 2002.

In January 2002, a Texas Court entered a final judgment
approving a national class settlement, which included
settlements in 11 of the 14 pending putative class action
lawsuits.  Under the approved settlement, the Company would make
certificates available to class members for rentals and
discounts and would pay up to $9.25 million in plaintiffs'
attorneys' fees in connection with the settlement.  In December
2002, the Texas Court granted the Company's application for a
permanent injunction and motion for declaratory relief and
entered orders:

    (1) confirming a broad scope of release;

    (2) barring the settlement class members from challenging
        Blockbuster's past and present extended viewing fee
        policies in any other litigation; and

    (3) enjoining the settlement class members and anyone acting
        on their behalf, including their lawyers, from
        prosecuting claims on their behalf in the Illinois
        litigation discussed below.

Two parties appealed to the Beaumont Court of Appeals objecting
to the settlement and, in July 2003, the Beaumont Court of
Appeals approved the settlement and remanded one issue back to
the trial Court to address the language in the settlement
agreement as to a segment of the class and to determine if the
appealing attorneys are entitled to any attorney's fees with
respect to that one issue.  One objecting party appealed the
Texas Court orders barring further litigation and confirming the
broad scope of release and, in February 2004, the Beaumont Court
of Appeals affirmed the trial Court's December 2002 orders
confirming the broad scope of release and enjoining class
members from prosecuting claims in Illinois.

The Texas Supreme Court denied the objecting parties' petitions
for review in September 2004.  The objector has moved for
rehearing by the Texas Supreme Court.  In February 2002, on the
basis of the Texas settlement, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the pending Illinois litigation in which a provisional
order had been entered in April 2001 certifying plaintiff and
defendant classes, subject to further review and final
determination.  The Company also filed a motion to compel
arbitration as to some of the putative class members in the
Illinois litigation.

In September 2002, the Illinois state Court judge denied the
motion to dismiss and in August 2003 refused to compel
arbitration.  The Company filed an interlocutory appeal in
Illinois of the trial Court's denial of the motion to compel
arbitration.  On June 30, 2004, the Illinois Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial Court's s ruling denying the motion to compel
on the grounds that the arbitration issue was not ripe as no
named plaintiff alleged a claim subject to the arbitration
agreement and as no class was certified in the case, there were
no class members who signed an arbitration agreement before the
Court.  The case has been remanded to the trial Court.

In June 2002, in another Illinois case, a federal judge
dismissed litigation because of the Texas settlement, and in
July 2002, a California state Court judge also ruled that the
class claim allegations should be dismissed because of the Texas
settlement.  In March 2003, a California state Court judge ruled
in favor of the Company on the merits and granted summary
judgment on all claims in a case that is not a putative class
action, and the California Court of Appeals affirmed the summary
judgment in February 2004, and:

     (1) determined that neither the past nor present extended
         viewing fee policies were unconscionable as a matter of
         law;

     (2) found no breach and no penalty as a matter of law; and

     (3) declined to "engage in judicial price regulation."

In February 2003, in a Canadian case, the Ontario Court of
Superior Justice denied the plaintiff's request for class
certification.  The case was subsequently settled with the
plaintiff releasing all claims against the Company and neither
party seeking costs relating to the certification hearing.

In March 2003, the Quebec Superior Court certified a class of
customers in Quebec who paid extended viewing fees during the
period January 1, 1992 to the present.  The case was tried in
March 2004, and in September 2004 the Court ruled in
Blockbuster's favor, dismissed the lawsuit and ordered the
plaintiffs to reimburse Blockbuster its costs incurred in
defending itself.  Plaintiffs have appealed the judgment.  The
remaining two Canadian cases are putative class action lawsuits.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Plaintiffs File DE Suit V. Viacom Stock Swap
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Court of
Chancery of Delaware by Howard Vogel.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) John Muething,

     (2) Linda Griego,

     (3) John Antioco,

     (4) Jackie Clegg,

     (5) Viacom Corporation and

     (6) Blockbuster's directors at that time who were also
         directors and/or officers of Viacom

Plaintiff Vogel alleges that a stock swap mechanism anticipated
to be announced by Viacom would be a breach of fiduciary duty to
minority stockholders and that the defendants engaged in unfair
dealing and coercive conduct.  The stockholder class action
complaint asked the Court to certify a class and to enjoin the
anticipated transaction.  Plaintiff has agreed that defendants
are not required to answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff's
complaint of this time.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, Los Angeles County by Sheela Salazar and
Alberto Vasquez, on behalf of all hourly-paid California
employees for a period starting July 9, 2000.

The plaintiffs claim the Company fails to pay overtime to its
California hourly-paid employees in violation of California law,
asserting fraud and violations of the California Labor Code,
Section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code,
and certain California Industrial Welfare Commission wage
orders.  Plaintiffs seek recovery of alleged unpaid money,
wages, penalties, costs and attorneys fees in an unstated dollar
amount.


BLOCKBUSTER INC.: Employees File FLSA Violations Suit in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Blockbuster, Inc. faces a putative collective class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida by plaintiff Joanne Miranda.  The suit was filed under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), purporting to act on behalf
of all Blockbuster store managers who have worked for the
Company since July 2001.

The plaintiff claims that she, and other store managers, were
improperly classified as exempt employees and thus are owed
overtime payments under the FLSA.  Plaintiff seeks recovery of
alleged unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, wages,
penalties, costs and attorneys fees.


BRUSH WELLMAN: OH High Court Refuses To Certify Workers' Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court recently ruled that the thousands of
contract workers employed at the beryllium alloy producer Brush
Wellman's Elmore plant between the 1950s and 1990s do not meet
the guidelines for class-action status, the Fremont News
Messenger reports.

In her majority opinion, which stated that there were too many
different levels of exposure to make the group a class, Justice
Maureen O'Connor wrote, "The members of the proposed class span
46 years, multiple contractors, and multiple locations within
the plant, and are estimated by the parties to number between
4,000 and 7,000."

A disappointed Louise Roselle, who represented the contract
workers in the case that was decided by 5-2 decision states, "We
believe that all these workers do have a common cause of action
for medical monitoring and that medical monitoring is absolutely
something they should get." She also states that although the
Company provided testing for its employees, it failed to do the
same for contract workers, some of whom have contracted chronic
berylliosis, a sometimes fatal disease linked to beryllium dust.

Furthermore, Ms. Roselle said she doesn't think the plaintiffs
have reason to appeal the case to federal Court and that workers
seeking claims against the Company will have to sue
individually.

On February 14, 2000, John Wilson filed the case in Cuyahoga
County Common Pleas Court against Brush Wellman alleging
negligence and he later moved to have all Northwestern Ohio
Building and Construction Trades Council union members who
worked at the Elmore plant between 1953 and 1999 added to the
complaint, which sought medical monitoring and punitive damages.
The trial Court sided with Brush Wellman, but the plaintiffs
later won on appeal.

Justice O'Connor said that when the Appeals Court overruled the
trial Court's decision, it "failed to examine the cohesiveness
of the suggested class." In coming to her conclusion, Justice
O'Connor cited federal Court decisions that denied class-action
status to groups suing asbestos or tobacco companies. In those
cases, the plaintiffs' different exposure levels, family medical
histories and the large numbers in the group who had not
suffered damages are variables that keep the group from being
"cohesive."

In her dissenting opinion, Justice Alice Robie Resnick said the
majority on the Court was wrong to compare the case to the
asbestos claims, which involved many more people and at one time
comprised more than 6 percent of all federal civil filings.
Joined in her dissenting opinion by Justice Paul Pfeifer,
Justice Resnick wrote, "In terms of size, complexity,
cohesiveness, and unity, comparing (the asbestos case) to this
case is tantamount to comparing the expanse and intricacies of
the entire universe to a marble."

As with asbestos claims, those affected by tobacco could have
been exposed in many other places. The alleged victims in this
case, Justice Resnick said, were all exposed to beryllium at the
same place. She further wrote in her opinion, "There is no
contention in this case that the beryllium lymphocyte
proliferation test or any other prescribed test for chronic
beryllium disease would be recommended to individual class
members had they not been exposed to beryllium."


CALIFORNIA: Teen Commences Lawsuit Against JPD Over Strip Search
----------------------------------------------------------------
A 13-year-old girl initiated a class action lawsuit against San
Francisco's embattled Juvenile Probation Department, saying she
was strip-searched, told to urinate in a cup and asked questions
about her sexual history before being released without charges
filed, the San Francisco Chronicle reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco on behalf of a
girl identified in Court papers as Marie Doe, the lawsuit seeks
to bar body-cavity searches and nonconsensual medical tests of
minors. The suit states that Marie Doe, then 12, was wrongfully
arrested in October 2003, a week after a boy was kneed in the
stomach during some horseplay at Luther Burbank Middle School in
San Francisco. The suit adds that after she was questioned by
police she was later arrested on suspicion of assault with a
deadly weapon for using her feet, even though it was later
determined that she hadn't kicked anyone and despite a state
Supreme Court ruling in 1997 declaring feet can't be considered
deadly weapons.

The suit further states the girl was taken to the Youth Guidance
Center, where she was interrogated about her sexual and
menstrual history and told to give blood and urine samples.
Furthermore, according to the girl's mother, identified in Court
papers as Melba Doe, after the she arrived, a female employee
ordered the girl to "pull her pants and underpants down to
reveal her naked genital area and to squat and cough. She had to
pee in a cup. They had her squat. They checked her brassiere. My
daughter, she's totally messed up. She's never had to show her
body to nobody. "

Commenting on the action by the Juvenile Probation Department,
Michael Haddad, an Oakland attorney representing Marie Doe, said
that blanket strip searches of minors such as the one done on
his client shouldn't be done without any legal basis. He stated,
"The need for protection from 12-year-old girls is just absurd.
There needs to be some reasonable belief that the child has a
weapon or contraband hidden in an orifice before you can justify
a strip search of a child who hasn't been arraigned."

The suit names as defendants the city and county of San
Francisco, the Juvenile Probation Department, Tim Diestel,
assistant director of Juvenile Hall, and four San Francisco
police officers.


CONSOL ENERGY: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in W.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CONSOL Energy, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
face securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.

On October 21, 2003, a complaint was filed in the United States
on behalf of Seth Moorhead, alleging, among other things, that
the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act and that
during the period between January 24, 2002, and July 18, 2002,
the defendants issued false and misleading statements to the
public that failed to disclose or misrepresented the following,
among other things that:

     (1) CONSOL utilized an aggressive approach regarding its
         spot market sales by reserving 20% of its production to
         that market, and that by increasing its exposure to the
         spot market, CONSOL Energy was subjecting itself to
         increased risk and uncertainty as the price and demand
         for coal could be volatile;

     (2) CONSOL Energy was experiencing difficulty selling the
         production that it had allocated to the spot market,
         and, nonetheless, CONSOL Energy maintained its
         production levels which caused its coal inventory to
         increase;

     (3) CONSOL Energy's increasing coal inventory was causing
         its expenses to rise dramatically, thereby weakening
         the Company's financial condition; and

     (4) based on the foregoing, defendants' positive statements
         regarding CONSOL Energy's earnings and prospects were
         lacking in a reasonable basis at all times and
         therefore were materially false and misleading.

The complaint asks the Court to award unspecified damages to
plaintiff and award plaintiff reasonable costs and expenses
incurred in connection with this action, including counsel fees
and expert fees.

Two other class action complaints have purportedly been filed in
the same Court against the Company and certain of its officers
and directors. CONSOL Energy has not yet been served with either
purported complaint.

The suits are styled "Moorehead v. Consol Energy, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 03-CV-1588," and "McMahen v. Consol Energy, Inc., et
al., Case No. 03-CV-1915," pending in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania under Judge
Thomas M. Hardiman.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Alfred G. Yates, Jr. and Gerald L. Rutledge of the Law
         Offices of Alfred G. Yates, Jr., 429 Forbes Avenue, 519
         Allegheny Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Phone: (412)
         391-5164

     (2) Marc A. Topaz of Schiffrin & Barroway, Three Bala Plaza
         East, Suite 500, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (215)
         667-7706

     (3) Guri Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, 3181 South 27th Street,
         Milwaukee, WI 53215, Phone: (414) 671-1000

     (4) Samuel H. Rudman, David A. Rosenfeld, Mario Alba, Jr.
         of Geller Rudman, 200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100

     (5) Gregory M. Nespole, Christopher S. Hinton, Wolf,
         Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison Avenue,
         New York, NY 10016, Phone: (212) 545-4600

     (6) Mark C. Rifkin of Greenfield & Rifkin, 800 Times
         Building, Ardmore, PA 19003, Phone: (610) 649-3900

     (7) Marc S. Henzel, 273 Montgomery Avenue, Suite 202, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 660-8000

Lawyers for the defendants are E. J. Strassburger, H. Yale
Gutnick and Harry F. Kunselman of Strassburger, McKenna, Gutnick
& Potter, Four Gateway Center, 444 Liberty Avenue, Suite 2200,
Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Phone: (412) 281-5423


COVENTRY HEALTH: Appeals FL Court's Arbitration Ruling in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Coventry Health Care, Inc. and its fellow defendants appealed
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, Miami Division's ruling relating to arbitration for the
class action filed against them, styled "Humana, Inc., Charles
B. Shane, MD, et al., v. Humana, Inc., et al., MDL No. 1334."

The Company is a defendant in the provider track in the suit,
filed by a group of physicians.  Twelve other companies in the
managed care industry are also named as defendants.  In its
fourth amended complaint, the plaintiffs have alleged violations
of the federal racketeering act, Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO and
aiding and abetting a scheme to violate RICO.  In addition to
these RICO claims, the complaint includes counts for breach of
contract, violations of various state prompt payment laws and
equitable claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss each of these claims
because they fail to state a cause of action or, in the
alternative, to compel arbitration pursuant to the arbitration
provisions which exist in the Company's physician contracts.  In
response to the motion to dismiss, the trial Court dismissed
several of the claims and ordered that all physicians who have
an arbitration provision in their provider contracts must submit
all of their claims to arbitration.

As a consequence of this ruling, all the plaintiffs who have
arbitration provisions voluntarily dismissed all of their claims
that are subject to arbitration.  In response to the trial
Court's order, the defendants filed demands to arbitrate the
plaintiffs' arbitrable claims.  The trial Court, however, in
response to a motion filed by the plaintiffs, entered an order
enjoining the defendants from arbitrating those claims.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the trial Court's
order and dissolved the injunction barring arbitration of the
plaintiffs' arbitrable claims.  The trial Court however has
ordered that the plaintiffs' claims of conspiracy, conspiracy to
violate RICO and aiding and abetting violations of RICO are not
subject to arbitration.  The defendants, including Coventry,
have appealed the trial Court's order to the 11th Circuit Court
of Appeals.  The appeal has been fully briefed and argued and
the parties are awaiting the decision.  The Court of Appeals has
stayed the Shane lawsuit pending its decision.

The trial Court has certified various subclasses of physicians;
however, the Company is not subject to the class certification
order because the motion to certify was filed before the Company
was joined as a defendant.  The plaintiffs have now filed a
motion to certify a class as to Coventry, and Coventry has filed
their opposition to that motion.  The trial Court has not yet
issued a ruling on the motion.  The defendants who were subject
to the certification order filed an appeal to the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals.  The Court of Appeals has overturned the class
certification order as to the plaintiffs' state law claims but
affirmed the certification with respect to the plaintiffs'
federal law claims.  The Court of Appeals also suggested to the
trial Court that it reconsider the various subclasses it had
certified.  Two defendants have entered into settlement
agreements with the plaintiffs.  Both settlement agreements have
been filed with the Court and have received final approval.

The Shane lawsuit has triggered the filing of copycat class
action complaints by other health care providers such as
chiropractors, podiatrists, acupuncturists and other licensed
health care professionals.  Each of these actions has been
transferred to the MDL and has been designated as "tag-along"
actions to Shane.  The Court has entered an order staying all
proceedings in the tag-along actions until all Pre-trial
proceedings in Shane have been concluded.

The suit is part of the "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care
Litigation, MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under
Judge Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana,
Inc., Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc.,
Human Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc.,
Prudential Insurance Company of America, United Health Group,
United Health Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna
and Aetna have entered settlements with the plaintiffs.

Lead Plaintiffs' Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck,
et al., Harley Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and
Archie Lamb.


CROMPTON CORPORATION: Settlement Hearing Set For January 5, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court For the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter In Re Plastics Additives Antitrust
Litigation, [Master Docket No. 03-CV-2038 (E.D. PA)] on behalf
of all individuals or entities who purchased plastics additives
in the United States directly from Crompton Corporation, Rohm &
Haas Company, ATOFINA Chemicals, Inc. f/k/a Elf Atochem North
America, Inc., Ferro Corporation, Mitsubishi Rayon America,
Inc., Kreha Corporation of America, Akcros Chemicals America,
Akzo Nobel, Inc., and Baerlocher USA, L.L.C. at anytime during
the period January 1, 1990 to and including January 31, 2003.

The Court will hold a hearing on January 5, 2005, at 3:00 p.m.
at the United States Courthouse, 601 Market
Street, Philadelphia, PA.

For more details, contact Robert N. Kaplan of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer, LLP by Mail: 805 Third Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York,
NY 10022 by Phone: (212) 687-1980 OR Linda Nussbaum of Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 150 East 52nd Street
New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (212) 838-7797 OR Joseph C. Kohn or
William E. Hoese of Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C. by Mail: One South
Broad Street, Suite 2100, Philadelphia, PA 19107-3389 by Phone:
(215) 238-1700 OR Paul F. Bennett or Steven O. Sidener of Gold
Bennett Cera & Sidener LLP by Mail: 595 Market Street, Suite
2300, San Francisco, CA 94105 by Phone: (415) 777-2230 OR Ian
Simmons of O'Melveny & Myers LLP by Mail: 1625 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-4001 by Phone: (202) 383-5300 OR Thomas J.
McGarrigle of Reed Smith LLP by Mail: 2500 One Liberty Place,
Philadelphia, PA 19103-7301 by Phone: (215) 851-8100 or visit
the settlement Web site:
http://www.plasticsadditivesantitrustlitigation.com/.


EFUNDS CORPORATION: SEC Lodges Civil Charges V. Ex-CFO, Ex-EVP
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed civil charges
against eFunds Corporation's former chief financial officer,
Paul H. Bristow, of Halliburton, Ontario, Canada, and former
executive vice president of the business enterprise group,
Nikhil Sinha, of Austin, Texas. eFunds, a Delaware corporation
with its principal office in Scottsdale, Arizona, processes
electronic payments including debit card and automated teller
machine transactions. The Commission's complaint alleges that in
the second quarter of 2001, eFunds improperly recognized $2.1
million in revenue from a purported penalty payment by an
affiliated entity. The complaint alleges eFunds' recognition of
the penalty payment as revenue was not appropriate because,
among other things, eFunds agreed, in the third quarter of 2001,
to reimburse the affiliated entity by paying future consulting
fees that would approximate the amount of the penalty payment.
The complaint further alleges that Bristow and Sinha each
reviewed and approved the arrangement to repay the penalty
payment to the affiliated entity, knowing that the future
consulting fees would approximate the amount of the penalty
payment, and that they were reckless in causing eFunds to
recognize the $2.1 million as revenue in the second quarter of
2001.

Mr. Bristow, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, has consented to the entry of a Final Judgment
against him enjoining him from violating Sections 10(b) and
13(b)(5) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act)
and Rules 10b-5 and 13b2-1 thereunder, and from aiding and
abetting violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the
Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder. The Final
Judgment also requires Bristow to pay $53,680 disgorgement plus
$6,999.89 in prejudgment interest and imposes a $30,000 civil
penalty for his wrongdoing.

Mr. Sinha, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, has consented to the entry of a Final Judgment
enjoining him from violating Section 13(b)(5) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 13b2-1 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting
violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act
and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-13 thereunder. The Final Judgment also
requires Sinha to pay $58,152 disgorgement plus $6,717.56 in
prejudgment interest and imposes a $25,000 civil penalty for his
wrongdoing. The action is titled, SEC v. Paul H. Bristow and
Nikhil Sinha, Civil Action No. CIV04-2601-PHX-FJM.


FIRST COMMUNITY: CA Court Remands Investor Suit To State Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California remanded most of the class action filed against First
Community Bancorp to the Los Angeles Superior Court, and
transferred the fraudulent transfer claim and a request for
disgorgement to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central
District of California.

On June 8, 2004, the Company and Pacific Western National Bank
were named as defendants in a class action filed in the Los
Angeles Superior Court. The Company was named as defendant in
its capacity as alleged successor to First Charter Bank, N.A.,
which the Company acquired in October 2001.

The lawsuit alleges that a former officer of First Charter Bank
who later became a principal of Four Star Financial Services,
LLC ("Four Star"), an affiliate of 900 Capital Services, Inc.
("900 Capital"), improperly induced several First Charter
customers to invest in 900 Capital or affiliates of 900 Capital
and further alleges that Four Star, 900 Capital and some of
their affiliated entities perpetuated their fraud upon investors
through various First Charter accounts with First Charter's
purported participation in and/or willful ignorance of the
scheme.

The key allegations against First Charter in the complaint date
back to the mid-1990s and the complaint alleges several counts
for relief including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, relief
pursuant to the California Business and Professions Code,
negligence and relief under the California Securities Act
stemming from an alleged ponzi scheme and sale of securities
issued by Four Star.

In disclosures provided to the parties, plaintiffs have asserted
that "the named plaintiffs have suffered losses well in excess
of $3.85 million," and plaintiffs have asserted that "losses to
the class total many tens of millions of dollars."  While the
plaintiffs intend to establish a class for purposes of pursuing
a class action, a class has not yet been certified.

On July 7, 2004, the Company removed the action to U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California.  On July 26, 2004,
the Company filed proofs of claim in the federal bankruptcy
proceedings of Four Star and 900 Capital for contribution and
indemnity.


GROUP ECSA: Texas AG Sues Firm Due To Immigration Fraud Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit against an
Oak Cliff operation that allegedly provided unauthorized legal
advice concerning immigration matters, collecting tens of
thousands of dollars from unsuspecting victims.

A Dallas County District Judge also granted the Attorney
General's request for a temporary restraining order and a freeze
on the Company's assets and scheduled a hearing on the Attorney
General's request for a temporary injunction for November 30,
2004.

Consumers who filed complaints against Grupo ECSA and its
principal, Fidelina Cuevas, allege that the business promised to
provide legitimate immigration services that would help them
establish U.S. residency. However, the lawsuit points out that
Cuevas is not a licensed attorney, nor is Grupo ECSA a nonprofit
entity accredited by the federal government to provide
immigration services, as required by law.

"Grupo ECSA played with the future of its clients," said
Attorney General Abbott.  "Immigration matters can only be dealt
with by professionals with the proper authorization and legal
expertise. The mishandling of a case can have drastic
consequences for entire families, including the loss of hard-
earned dollars and jeopardizing benefits to which they could
possibly be entitled."

Consumers filed complaints stating the Company charged down
payments of about $370 but did little or nothing to advance
their cases. One consumer alleged that after paying this initial
fee Cuevas told him he would have to come up with a total of
$3,000 to help his family immigrate. ECSA bank statements show
that the Company made substantial sums, and in one month
deposited over $100,000 into its accounts.

The lawsuit alleges that Cuevas personally appeared on paid
Spanish-language radio broadcasts to recruit business outside of
Texas. During one recent broadcast on a radio station that
broadcasts in Kansas and Missouri, she provided legal advice to
listeners who called into the show. Radio station management,
suspicious of Cuevas' broadcasts, were among the first to alert
the Office of the Attorney General about the apparent scam.

The Company also promoted its services through a Spanish-
language Web site, which encouraged consumers who needed
assistance in immigration matters to come for an interview at
ECSA's office so that the Company could "establish a systematic,
precise and professional process to meet your needs."

Grupo ECSA is the latest in a number of businesses targeted by
Attorney General Abbott for allegedly defrauding immigrant
consumers by dispensing legal advice, which they are not
authorized to provide, under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act.  Businesses sued by the Attorney General often have done
little or no work to advance their clients' cases before federal
immigration authorities, though they have charged up to several
thousand dollars per case.

In Texas, only licensed attorneys or nonprofit organizations
authorized by the Department of Justice's Board of Immigration
Appeals may charge fees to represent consumers in immigration
proceedings. Consumers who believe they have been the victims of
a scam should report it to the Office of the Attorney General at
1-800-252-8011 or visit the Website: http://www.oag.state.tx.us.


MACATAWA BANK: Limited Discovery Proceeds in MI Investor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery is proceeding in the amended class action
filed against Macatawa Bank Corporation and LaSalle Bank
Corporation in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Michigan.

Forrest W. Jenkins and Russell S. Vail filed the suit on behalf
of investors who invested in limited liability companies formed
by Trade Partners, Inc.  On November 6, 2003, the Court
permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to expand the
purported class to include all individuals who invested in Trade
Partners viatical investments.  The class has not been
certified.  The Court stayed this action to avoid interference
with the process of the receivership proceedings, though the
stay was modified on July 19, 2004 to permit the Company and
plaintiffs to engage in certain limited discovery directed to
each other.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company's subsidiary Grand Bank
breached certain escrow agreements, breached its fiduciary
duties, acted negligently or grossly negligently with respect to
the plaintiff's investments and violated the Michigan Uniform
Securities Act.  The amended complaint seeks certification of
the action as a class action, unspecified damages and other
relief.

The suit is styled "Forrest W. Jenkins and Russell S. Vail v.
Macatawa Bank Corporation, successor by merger to Grand Bank and
LaSalle Bank Corporation, civ. No. 1:03-cv-00321-RAE," filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Michigan, under Judge Richard Alan Enslen.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs is Cindy Moulton and Jeff Meyer
of Moulton & Meyers, LLC, 600 Travis, Suite 6700, Houston, TX
77002, Phone: 713-353-6699, Fax: 713-353-6698.  Lawyers for the
defendants are J. A. Cragwall, Jr. and Sarah M. Riley of Warner,
Norcross & Judd, LLP (Grand Rapids), 900 Fifth Third Ctr., 111
Lyon St., NW Grand Rapids, MI 49503-2487, Phone: (616) 752-2123,
E-mail: jcragwall@wnj.com or sriley@wnj.com


NEW YORK LIFE: African Slave Descendants Launch Site For Justice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Outraged over what they call a "Jim Crow standard for justice,"
Black descendants of African slavery victims launched an online
campaign against New York Life Insurance Company entitled,
"Justice 4 One - Justice 4 All" - at www.justice4one-
justice4all.com. The campaign raises questions about why, on
January 26, 2004, New York Life worked so hard to get a class
action lawsuit filed by blacks for slavery restitution
dismissed, then three days later settled a similar case for $20
million with white descendants of Armenian genocide victims.

The slavery case was filed against New York Life in May of 2002,
and is entitled, In Re: African-American Slave Descendants, CV-
02-7764(CRN) (United States District Court, Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division). Black plaintiffs claimed that New
York Life committed a crime against humanity via its early
Company that wrote life insurance policies enslaving their
African ancestors in mid-1800. Slave owners were the
beneficiaries.

Over one third of New York Life's first revenue came from
writing slave policies. This practice encouraged the employment
of enslaved people in ultra-hazardous capacities, like coal
mining or constructing railroads, which sometimes resulted in
burning and drowning deaths. The website contains a copy of a
Company policy enslaving an African named Robert Moody who was
employed in a Virginia coal pit.

The Armenian genocide case, Marootian v. New York Life Insurance
Company, CV-99-12073(CAS),(United States District Court, Central
District of California), was filed in November of 1999. The
plaintiffs claimed that New York Life wrongfully failed to pay
benefits under life insurance policies they issued as far back
as the 1870s in the Turkish Ottoman Empire on the lives of their
Armenian ancestors. New York Life denies any wrongdoing.

Slave descendants say critical factors in the cases were
identical and should have resulted in the same outcome:

     (1) Both cases involved insurance policies from the 19th
         century;

     (2) Both involved descendants making claims on behalf of
         themselves and their ancestors; and

     (3) Both cases resulted from some of the worst crimes
         committed against humans in world history -- the
         enslavement of Africans, and the genocide of Armenians.

"Race is the key difference in these cases. This looks like
discrimination against African-Americans," said Deadria Farmer-
Paellmann, Executive Director of the Restitution Study Group --
the New York non-profit sponsoring the campaign.

The slavery case was amended in the Northern District Federal
Court in Chicago, Illinois on April 5, 2004. A decision is
pending.

For more details, contact Deadria Farmer-Paellmann by Phone:
917-365-3007.


NEW ZEALAND: Vietnamese Agent Orange Victims Welcome Inquiry
------------------------------------------------------------
Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange are welcoming a recent New
Zealand parliamentary inquiry recognizing the devastating
effects of the chemical sprayed extensively during the Vietnam
War, the TVNZ, New Zealand reports.

According to Professor Nguyen Trong Nhan, head of the Vietnam
Association for Agent Orange/Dioxin Victims and former
Vietnamese health minister, he was inspired by recent
developments in New Zealand and stated, "I adore the brave
people who speak on behalf of New Zealand parliament. It means
they have certified that those veterans of New Zealand suffered
from Agent Orange. That's very brave because previously many
people have hidden the fact."

As earlier reported in the February 6, 2004 edition of the CAR
Newsletter at least 26 Vietnamese families are suing United
States chemical companies like Dow and Monsanto, which
manufactured Agent Orange in the United States District Court in
Brooklyn, New York.

U.S. and South Vietnamese armies sprayed millions of liters of
the toxic herbicide over South Vietnam from 1961 to 1971, to
destroy the vegetation used by communist forces for cover and
food. The Vietnamese Government has said that the defoliant has
caused health problems for more than one million Vietnamese and
continues to have devastating consequences.

A study, released in August last year by scientists from the
United States, Germany and Vietnam, found that Agent Orange was
still contaminating people through their food consumption.
Dioxin, the defoliant's deadly component, can cause an increase
risk of cancers, immunodeficiencies, reproductive and
developmental changes, nervous system problems and other health
effects, according to medical experts.

The plaintiffs in the case were named as Nguyen Thi Phi Phi,
Duong Quynh Hoa, who are both women, and Nguyen Van Quy all of
them are demanding compensation from more than 20 American
companies for the health problems caused by America's use of
Agent Orange. Professor Nhan also stated that his group is
seeking an estimated US$1 billion in compensation from the
chemical companies to benefit victims and clean up alleged toxic
hotspots.

The chemical companies for their part have argued that there are
no legal grounds for the class action, and early next year, a
New York Court will decide whether to let the case proceed to
trial.


REDBACK NETWORKS: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Redback Networks, Inc. intends to ask the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against certain of
its current and former officers and directors, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

On December 15, 2003, the first of several putative class action
complaints, styled "Robert W. Baker, Jr., et al. v. Joel M.
Arnold, et al., No. C-03-5642 JF," was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from April 12, 2000
through October 10, 2003.  At least ten similar lawsuits were
filed after the Baker case.

All of the suits purport to allege violations of the federal
securities laws in connection with the alleged failure to timely
disclose information allegedly relating to certain transactions
between the Company and Qwest Communications International, Inc.
The complaints seek damages in an unspecified amount.

The Court has appointed a lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff
filed its amended complaint on August 24, 2004.  The Company's
motion to dismiss will be filed on November 8, 2004.

The suit is styled "In re Redback Networks, Inc. Securities
Litigation, docket number 03-05642," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Jeremy Fogel.  Lead counsel for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., 1201 N. Market Street, Suite
         2100, Wilmington, DE, 19801, Phone: 302.622.7000, Fax:
         302.622.7100, E-mail: info@gelaw.com

     (2) Anderlini, Finkelstein, Emerick & Smoot, 400 S. El
         Camino Real, San Mateo, CA, 94402, Phone: 650-348-010,
         Fax: 650-348-096, E-mail: Info@Afelaw.com


REDBACK NETWORKS: Working To Settle NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Redback Networks, Inc. is working for the approval of the
settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its former officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The lawsuit asserts, among other claims, violations of the
federal securities laws relating to how the Company's
underwriters of its initial public offering allegedly allocated
IPO shares to the underwriters' customers.

In March 2002, the Court entered an order approving the joint
request of the plaintiffs and Company to dismiss the claims
without prejudice.  On April 20, 2002, plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint against the Company
and certain of its former officers and directors, as well as
certain underwriters involved in the Company's initial public
offering.

Similar complaints were filed concerning more than 300 other
IPOs.  All of these cases have been consolidated as "In re
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92."  On July 15,
2002, the issuers filed an omnibus motion to dismiss for failure
to comply with applicable pleading standards.  On October 8,
2002, the Court entered an Order of Dismissal as to the
individual defendants in the Company's IPO litigation, without
prejudice, subject to a tolling agreement.  On February 19,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the claims against
the Company.

Settlement discussions on behalf of the named defendants
resulted in a final settlement memorandum of understanding with
the plaintiffs in the case and Company's insurance carriers,
which has been submitted to the Court.  The underwriters are not
parties to the proposed settlement.  As of June 30, 2003, the
Company has tentatively agreed to this settlement, provided that
substantially all of the other defendants agree to the
memorandum of understanding. As of July 31, 2003, over 250
issuers, constituting a majority of the issuer defendants, had
tentatively approved the settlement.  The settlement is still
subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the
Court.

The suit is styled "In Re Redback Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6090," filed in relation
to "IN RE INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master
File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, under
Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


RETEK INC.: Presents Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Retek, Inc. presented the settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, certain of its current
and former officers and directors and certain underwriters of
its initial public offering (IPO) to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Between June 11 and June 26, 2001, three class action complaints
alleging violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended were filed.  On August 9, 2001, these
actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes before a single
judge along with similar actions involving IPOs of numerous
other issuers.

On February 14, 2002, the parties signed and filed a stipulation
dismissing the consolidated action without prejudice against the
Company and the Individual Defendants, which the Court approved
and entered as an order on March 1, 2002.  On April 20, 2002,
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in which they elected
to proceed with their claims against the Company and the
Individual Defendants only under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

The amended complaint alleges that the prospectus filed in
connection with the IPO was false or misleading in that it
failed to disclose:

     (1) that the underwriters allegedly were paid excessive
         commissions by certain of the underwriters' customers
         in return for receiving shares in the IPO and

    (2) that certain of the underwriters' customers allegedly
        agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
        common stock in the aftermarket in return for an
        allocation of shares in the IPO.

The complaint further alleges that the underwriters offered to
provide positive market analyst coverage for the Company after
the IPO, which had the effect of manipulating the market for the
Company's stock.  Plaintiffs contend that, as a result of the
omissions from the prospectus and alleged market manipulation
through the use of analysts, the price of the Company's common
stock was artificially inflated between November 18, 1999 and
December 6, 2000, and that the defendants are liable for
unspecified damages to those persons who purchased the Company's
common stock during that period.

On July 15, 2002, the Company and the Individual Defendants,
along with the rest of the issuers and related officer and
director defendants, filed a joint motion to dismiss based on
common issues.  Opposition and reply papers were filed.  The
Court rendered its decision on February 19, 2003, which granted
dismissal in part of a claim against one of the Individual
Defendants and denied dismissal in all other respects.

On June 30, 2003, a Special Litigation Committee of the Board of
Directors of the Company approved a Memorandum of Understanding
(the "MOU") reflecting a tentative settlement in which the
plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the case against the Company with
prejudice in return for the assignment by the Company of certain
claims that the Company might have against its underwriters.
The same offer of settlement was made to all issuer defendants
involved in the litigation.  No payment to the plaintiffs by the
Company was required under the MOU.  After further negotiations,
the essential terms of the MOU were formalized in a Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement, which has been executed on the
Company's behalf and on behalf of the Individual Defendants.

The settling parties presented the proposed Settlement to the
Court on June 15, 2004 and filed formal motions seeking
preliminary approval on June 25, 2004.  The underwriter
defendants, who are not parties to the proposed Settlement,
filed a brief objecting to the Settlement's terms on July 14,
2004.  The Court is reviewing the matter and has had continued
discussions with all of the parties on various matters relating
to the proposed Settlement.  The Court has not yet reached a
decision regarding preliminary approval. There can be no
assurance that it will approve the proposed Settlement.


RETEK INC.: Asks MN Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Retek, Inc. asked the United States District Court in Minnesota
to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The consolidated suit alleged, among other things, violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the Company
and certain of its current and former officers and directors.
Specifically, the Consolidated Complaint alleged that, among
other things, between July 19, 2001 and July 8, 2002, defendants
made false and misleading statements and/or concealed material
adverse facts from the market in press releases, presentations
and SEC disclosures.

The Consolidated Complaint alleged that the Company and the
individual defendants misled the market with respect to, among
other things the Company's alliance with IBM, its ability to
develop certain software, and its expectations regarding certain
customer sales.  Plaintiffs further alleged that defendants
manipulated financial statements and failed to disclose problems
with existing and potential customer deals, which led to the
Company's stock price being artificially inflated during the
Class Period.  The plaintiffs sought compensatory damages and
other unspecified relief.

On May 30, 2003, the Company and the individual defendants
served a motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  On March
30, 2004, the Court dismissed the Consolidated Complaint,
granting the plaintiffs leave to amend.  On May 21, 2004,
plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated Complaint, which
attempts to cure several of the deficiencies of the Consolidated
Complaint.


ROBOTIC VISION: SEC Lodges Civil Fraud Action in MA V. Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil fraud
action, in Massachusetts federal Court, against five current and
former employees of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc. (Robotic), a
publicly traded technology Company currently based in Nashua,
New Hampshire. Four of the defendants - Frank D. Edwards,
Laurence D. Cohen, Mark A. Tatkow, and Curtis W. Howes - have
consented to the entry of judgments against them, without
admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint.  The Commission's complaint is pending against
William Baker, the former General Manager of the 2D Business
Unit of Robotic's ACIM division.

In its complaint, the Commission alleged that during its fiscal
year 2000, Robotic's ACIM division improperly recorded revenue
from approximately 36 purported sales to distributors totaling
approximately $4.73 million in order to meet its revenue and
sales goals. According to the complaint, between December 1999
and September 2000, ACIM negotiated numerous purported sales to
its distributors and customers, which contained non-standard
terms that deferred, conditioned or even negated the
distributors' obligations to pay for the ACIM products.
Recognizing revenue from these transactions was contrary to
generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

According to the complaint, most of the non-standard deals were
negotiated or approved by defendant Tatkow, the former Senior
Vice President of Worldwide Sales, who pressured his sales staff
to induce ACIM's distributors to place such orders at the end of
each quarter so that ACIM could meet its sales and revenue
targets. Prior to the filing of the Company's Form 10-K for
fiscal year 2000, defendants Edwards (Robotic's former CFO),
Cohen (Robotic's former Corporate Controller) and Howes (the
former Acting President of ACIM) knew or were reckless in not
knowing that the sales contained consignment terms and knew or
were reckless in not knowing that the recognition of revenue
from such deals had been improper. Nevertheless, they did not
correct the improper revenue recognition, nor did they inform
Robotic's Board of Directors, Audit Committee, or outside
auditors of what they had learned. As a result, the Company
overstated its net income by 13.5% and its revenue by 2.1%.

In their Consents to Final Judgment, the defendants  agreed,
without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint,
to the following relief:

     (1) Mr. Edwards, Robotic's former CFO, agreed to pay a
         civil monetary penalty of $75,000, be barred for a
         period of five years from serving as an officer or
         director of a public Company, and be  permanently
         enjoined from violating  Sections 10(b), 13(a),
         13(b)(5), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange
         Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 13b2-1 and
         13b2-2;

     (2) Mr. Cohen, Robotic's former Corporate Controller,
         agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty of $40,000, be
         barred for a period of five years from serving as an
         officer or director of a public Company, and be
         permanently enjoined from violating Sections 10(b),
         13(a), 13(b)(5), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the
         Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13,
         13b2-1 and 13b2-2;

     (2) Mr. Tatkow, Robotic's former Senior Vice President of
         Sales agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty of
         $65,000, disgorge a  $10,000 performance bonus, and be
         permanently enjoined from violating Sections 10(b),
         13(a), 13(b)(5) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and
         Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13, 13b2-1 and 13b2-2;

     (4) Mr. Howes, the former Acting President of Robotic's
         ACIM division, agreed to pay a civil monetary penalty
         of $25,000, disgorge $15,000 performance bonus, and be
         permanently enjoined from violating Sections 10(b),
         13(a), 13(b)(5), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the
         Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13 and
         13b2-1.

The Commission's complaint also alleges that Baker, the sole
remaining defendant, told a distributor "in your [purchase
order] to us you cannot state that you have the right to return
the product" because "when you do that, we can't book the order
as revenue." The improper transactions Baker negotiated, coupled
with the other consignment transactions, resulted in Robotic
materially overstating its revenue and net income for fiscal
year 2000.

The Commission also instituted and settled cease-and-desist
proceedings against Robotic and one of its distributors, ID
Integration, and the President of ID Integration, Gary Moe. In
the Orders, which were consented to by Robotic, ID Integration
and Moe without admitting or denying the allegations in the
Orders, the Commission found that Robotic committed violations
of the antifraud and other provisions of the federal securities
laws, while ID Integration and Moe caused violations of the
antifraud and other provisions of the federal securities laws.
The action is titled, SEC v. William M. Baker, et al., Civil
Action No. 04-12444 DPW, D.Mass. (LR-18980).


SKECHERS USA: Employees Launch Two CA Overtime Violations Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. faces two class actions filed in California
State Courts, alleging violations of the state's overtime wage
laws.

On December 2, 2002, a class action complaint entitled "OMAR
QUINONES v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case No. 02CC00353," was
filed in the Superior Court for the State of California for the
County of Orange.  The complaint, as amended, alleges overtime
and related violations of the California Labor Code on behalf of
managers of Skechers' retail stores and seeks, inter alia,
damages and restitution, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.

On February 25, 2003, another related class action complaint
entitled "MYRNA CORTEZ v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case No.
BC290932," was filed in the Superior Court for the State of
California for the County of Los Angeles, asserting similar
claims and seeking similar relief on behalf of assistant
managers.


SKECHERS USA: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Central District of California to dismiss the consolidated
amended securities class action filed against it and certain of
its officers and directors.

On March 25, 2003, a shareholder securities class action
complaint captioned "HARVEY SOLOMON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et
al., Case No. 03-2094 DDP," was filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  On April
2, 2003, a similar shareholder securities class action complaint
captioned "CHARLES ZIMMER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case No.
03-2296 PA," was filed in the same Court.  Three other similar
suits were filed, namely:

     (1) MARTIN H. SIEGEL v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case No
         03-2645 RMT

     (2) ADAM D. SAPHIER v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case
         No.03-3011 FMC

     (3) LARRY L. ERICKSON v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et al., Case
         No.03-3101 SJO

Each of these class action complaints alleged violations of the
federal securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased
publicly traded securities of Skechers between April3, 2002 and
December9, 2002.

In July 2003, the Court in these federal securities class
actions, all pending in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, ordered the cases
consolidated and a consolidated complaint to be filed and
served.  On September 25, 2003, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint entitled "In re SKECHERS USA, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No.CV-03-2094-PA," in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California,
consolidating all of the federal securities actions above.

The complaint names as defendants the Company and certain
officers and directors and alleges violations of the federal
securities laws and breach of fiduciary duty on behalf of
persons who purchased publicly traded securities of Skechers
between April 3, 2002 and December 9, 2002.  The complaint seeks
compensatory damages, interest, attorneys' fees and injunctive
and equitable relief.

The Company moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint in its
entirety.  On May 10, 2004, the Court granted SKECHERS motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiffs to amend the complaint.  On
August 9, 2004, plaintiffs filed a first amended consolidated
complaint for violations of the federal securities laws.  The
allegations and relief sought were virtually identical to the
original consolidated complaint.

The Company has moved to dismiss the first amended consolidated
complaint and the motion is set for hearing on December 6, 2004.
Discovery has not commenced.

The suit is styled "In re SKECHERS USA, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Case No.CV-03-2094-PA," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Percy Anderson.  The plaintiff firms in
the litigation are:

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

     (2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364;

     (3) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         Mail: 200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747,
         Phone: 631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

     (4) Glancy and Binkow, Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars,
         suite 311, Los Angelos, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150,
         E-mail: info@glancylaw.com

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

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


SKECHERS USA: Employees Launch Wage Violations Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers USA, Inc. faces a class action complaint filed in the
Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los
Angeles entitled "MYRNA CORTEZ et al. v. SKECHERS USA, INC. et
al., (Case No. BC318101)."

The complaint alleges wage violations of the California Labor
Code and unfair business practices relating to deductions for
uniforms on behalf of employees of Skechers' retail stores and
seeks, inter alia, damages and civil penalties, as well as
injunctive relief.


STAMPS.COM: Presents Formal Stock Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stamps.com, Inc. presented to the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York formal settlement
documents for the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its current or former board members
and/or officers.

In May and June 2001, 11 purported class actions were filed,
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
initial public offering and secondary offering of its common
stock.  The lawsuits also name as defendants the principal
underwriters in connection with the Company's initial and
secondary public offerings, including Goldman, Sachs & Co. (in
some of the lawsuits sued as The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.) and
BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

The lawsuits allege that the underwriters engaged in improper
commission practices and stock price manipulations in connection
with the sale of the Company's common stock.  The lawsuits also
allege that the Company and/or certain of its officers or
directors knew of or recklessly disregarded these practices by
the underwriter defendants, and failed to disclose them in our
public filings.  Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory
compensation, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees), and rescissory
damages.

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint against the Company and certain of its current
and former board members and/or officers. The consolidated
amended class action complaint includes similar allegations to
those described above and seeks similar relief.  In July 2002,
the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action complaint.  In October 2002, pursuant to a stipulation
and tolling agreement with plaintiffs, the Company's current and
former board members and/or officers were dismissed without
prejudice.  In February 2003, the Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint.

In June 2003, the Company approved a proposed Memorandum of
Understanding among the plaintiffs, issuers and insurers as to
terms for a settlement of the litigation against us. The
proposed settlement terms would not require Stamps.com to make
any payments.  The proposed settlement is subject to approval by
the Court.

The suit is styled "In Re Stamps.com, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," filed in relation to "IN RE
INITIAL PUBLIC OFFERING SECURITIES LITIGATION, Master File No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," both pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
N. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


STATE FARM: IL Judge Denies Motion To Dismiss Policyholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
State Farm Insurance Co. recently filed a motion to dismiss a
class action suit in which it is accused of violating the
Illinois Insurance Code, the Madison County Record reports.
However, Madison County Circuit Judge Phillip Kardis, quickly
denied the motion, and set a class certification hearing for
June of 2005.

Represented by Stephen Tillery of Korein Tillery in St. Louis,
Cynthia Hoffman of Belleville brought the class action against
State Farm Insurance Company in June 2002. Ms. Hoffman alleges
that State Farm refused to issue or renew insurance policies
solely on the basis of a credit report. She claims that refusal
violates the Illinois Insurance Code, which has prohibited
insurance companies from refusing to issue or renew an insurance
policy based solely on a credit report since October 2002.

Ms. Hoffman, a State Farm policyholder from August 1997 until
January 2002, renewed her lapsed policy on March 2002, paying a
six-month premium of $528.76. State Farm had canceled the
policy, stating coverage was denied, "Based upon an insurance
underwriting score developed from credit and automobile
insurance claim information." She claims that the cancellation
forced her to pay $1,722 for a substitute policy from another
insurance carrier.

The class action seeks damages for the excessive premium
payments the class was required to pay based on State Farm's
alleged violation of the insurance code plus all attorney fees
and Court costs, plus interest.


TOSHIBA AMERICA: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 31, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court Of New Jersey - Bergen County: Law Division
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter DOUGLAS M. SUMMER v. TOSHIBA AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS,
INC. (DOCKET NO. BER L-7248-01) and ARTHUR DIEM, JR. v. TOSHIBA
AMERICA CONSUMER PRODUCTS, INC. (DOCKET NO. BER L-0078-02) on
behalf of al persons in the United States who prior to October
15, 2004 purchased or acquired a Toshiba Brand DVD player.

The fairness hearing will be held on January 31, 2005, at 9:00
a.m. in the Superior Court of New Jersey, located at 10 Main
Street, Hackensack, NJ 07601.

For more details, contact Bruce D. Greenberg, Esq. of Lite,
DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas LLP by Mail: Two Gateway Center, 12
Fl., Newark, NJ 07102 or visit the settlement Web site:
http://www.dvdnotice.com.


TROVER FOUNDATION: Patients File Suit For Being Denied Treatment
----------------------------------------------------------------
Some twenty-five patients of a Madisonville-based hospital have
filed a lawsuit, alleging that the hospital's parent foundation
is refusing them treatment because they are involved with an
earlier case, the WKYT, KY reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in Owensboro, the disgruntled
patients are accusing the Trover Foundation of violating
antitrust law and Medicare / Medicaid program rules by refusing
to treat them. The federal lawsuit seeks a temporary restraining
order and permanent injunction to prohibit Trover from denying
treatment, and Court costs and expenses.

On the other hand, the earlier lawsuit by the patients was filed
in March in Hopkins County Circuit Court and claims that
thousands of X-rays and diagnostic images were misread. That
lawsuit is still pending.

The foundation, which runs the Regional Medical Center, regional
Trover Clinic system and a local cancer treatment center,
notified the patients November 18 that they can be treated there
only for emergencies and must seek routine care elsewhere, a
hospital official said.

Jon Garrett, a spokesman for the hospital, said the patients are
banned because they joined the malpractice suit against the
foundation and former radiologist Phillip Trover. He said the
hospital has sent similar letters to other patients who have
sued in the past, but the goal is not to scare people from
joining lawsuits. "We feel it creates unnecessary risk for the
hospital and the doctor," according to Garrett, who was
explaining why the hospital does not want to treat patients
involved in a lawsuit.

About 30 plaintiffs have joined the initial lawsuit, which
alleges Phillip Trover either misread or failed to read patient
films from CT scans, mammograms and X-rays. Circuit Judge
Charles Boteler is studying a plaintiffs' request to certify
that case as a class action, which is opposed by the hospital.

John Whitfield, the Madisonville lawyer who filed the
malpractice and the treatment ban suits against Trover, calls
the hospital's actions "strictly retaliatory."

The federal lawsuit asserts The Trover Foundation's refusal to
treat patients is a violation of federal antitrust law, because
it is forcing some patients to travel out of state to get health
care. It also claims the action violates federal Medicare /
Medicaid rules because the hospital has agreed to take funding
from the agencies and has a duty not to refuse to treat a broad
class of Medicare/Medicaid patients. Furthermore, the suit says
that the foundation violated the Employment Retirement Income
Security Act by hindering plaintiffs' abilities to get coverage
under their health insurance plans.


VIRGIN ISLANDS: Consent Decree Could End Special Education Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A 20-year-old class action lawsuit filed by parents of disabled
students against the Virgin Islands Education Department could
be settled soon with the signing of a consent decree, according
to U.S. District Magistrate Judge Geoffrey Barnard, the Virgin
Islands Daily News reports.

Although problems remain, the judge said that enough progress
has been made to settle the suit. Furthermore Judge Barnard
stated, "This case has been going on for 20 years, I think it's
appropriate to reduce it to a consent agreement. That would be
the conclusion of the suit, I would hope."

Parents throughout the Virgin Islands, who charged that hundreds
of students were being denied special education services such as
speech therapy and occupational therapy, brought the two-decade
long lawsuit, which was filed in 1984 and was later certified as
a class action. The suit demanded that the government take
action to remedy the inadequacies in education for disabled
children.

Titled the Nadine Jones case, the suit was filed under the
federal Education of the Handicapped Act of 1984, a precursor to
today's Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. The suit
named as defendants, governor Juan Luis, Education Commissioner
Charles Turnbull and Office of Special Education Office Director
Priscilla Stridiron.

As a result of the lawsuit, the Court required an annual status
conference to determine whether the department was improving
special education programs. According to St. Thomas attorney
Archie Jennings, who has been involved for five years with
handling the case through Virgin Islands Advocacy Inc., "We
tried to act as a catalyst for change."

The department currently is operating its special education
programs under orders from the Court and a 1999 compliance
agreement with the U.S. Education Department that has been
extended several times.

The compliance agreement, scheduled to end in March, requires
the V.I. Education Department to honor the terms of
Individualized Education Plans, perform tri-annual assessments,
and provide transportation for students to ensure that they
receive a full school day. The department also must fill
vacancies of faculty and staff.

After examining the latest report on the federal compliance
agreement, which showed progress, Judge Barnard recently
authorized the beginning of a process reducing the lawsuit to a
consent agreement and ending the yearly status conferences. By
December 15, Mr. Jennings will submit a proposal for the
agreement with the Education Department given a month to think
it over before responding. The consent agreement is to be based,
in part, on testimony from parents who have specific suggestions
for improvement. If the terms of the consent agreement are
violated, parents have a right to bring forward a contempt of
Court action on behalf of their child.


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Consumers Sue V. Calypso Washing Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation faces 13 purported class action lawsuits
in 11 states related to its Calypso clothes washing machine.
The complaints in these lawsuits generally allege violations of
state consumer fraud acts, unjust enrichment, and breach of
warranty based on the allegations that the washing machines have
various defects.

There are no allegations of any personal injury, catastrophic
property damage, or safety risk.  The complaints generally seek
unspecified compensatory, consequential, and punitive damages.
The Company believes these suits are without merit and intends
to vigorously defend these actions, and at this point cannot
reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, the
Company said in a regulatory filing.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Dobson Communications Corporation ("Dobson" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:DCEL) between May 19, 2003 and August 9,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Dobson, Everett R. Dobson, Russell L.
Dobson, Stephen T. Dobson, Douglas B. Stephens, Bruce R.
Knooihuizen, and Richard D. Sewell, Jr. 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 defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company's growth in roaming minutes was
         eroding;

     (2) that the Company had been missing sales quotas, as its
         service, marketing and customer upgrade cots spiraled
         out of control;

     (3) that the Company's largest equity interest holders AT&T
         and Bank of American intended to dispose of their
         interests in Dobson; and

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls to
         ascertain the true financial condition of the Company.

On February 17, 2004, Dobson reported operating income of $48.6
million for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2003. The
results were disappointing due to weak growth in roaming minutes
and very large reduction in 2004 guidance. This news shocked the
market. Shares of Dobson fell $2.65 per share, or 36.55 percent,
on February 18, 2004, to close at $4.60 per share. On August 9,
2004, Dobson reported a net loss applicable to common
shareholders of $15.9 million, or $0.12 per share, for the
second quarter ended June 30, 2004. On this news, shares of
Dobson fell an additional $1.30 per share, or 54.17 percent, on
August 10, 2004, to close at $1.10 per share.

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


FANNIE MAE: AG Jim Petro Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed a securities fraud class
action lawsuit in federal Court on behalf of the State of Ohio
and all other shareholders in the Federal National Mortgage
Association (Fannie Mae) (NYSE: FNM), alleging that the mortgage
buyer manipulated its earnings to artificially inflate the price
of its common stock.

Mr. Petro filed suit against Fannie Mae, one of the largest
financial institutions in the world, and its top executives in
the United States District Court, Southern District of Ohio
(Eastern Division), on behalf of the Ohio Public Employees
Retirement System, State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio,
Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation and all other purchasers of
Fannie Mae common stock from Oct. 11, 2000, through Sept. 22,
2004.

"These defendants manipulated earnings in a fraudulent scheme to
deceive investors about Fannie Mae's true financial state. This
deception could cost shareholders billions of dollars," Petro
said. "STRS, OPERS and BWC are to be congratulated for holding
Fannie Mae accountable for these unscrupulous acts."

The complaint alleges that Fannie Mae and its top executives --
Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy Howard and Leanne G. Spencer --
artificially inflated the Company's publicly traded common stock
through false public financial statements. "Because these
executives were compensated primarily on Fannie Mae's stock
performance, this artificially high stock price allowed the
executives to get rich at the expense of the Company's
shareholders," Petro said.

In violation of The Securities Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission rules, Fannie Mae and its officers did not
disclose that the Company:

     (1) failed to apply generally accepted accounting
         procedures;

     (2) lacked sufficient internal auditing controls;

     (3) failed to report the volatility of the Company's
         earnings.

The federal agency charged with overseeing Fannie Mae stated its
findings were not simply differences in interpretation of
accounting principles. Rather, the findings demonstrated "clear
instances in which management sought to misapply and ignore
accounting principles for the purposes of meeting investment
analyst expectations; reducing volatility in reporting earnings;
and enabling fragmented processes and systems and an ineffective
controls environment to exist."

For more details, contact Michelle Gatchell, Attorney General's
Office by Phone: 614-466-3840 or 614-679-7819 OR Kim Norris,
Attorney General's Office, Director of Communications by Phone:
614-361-0202 or visit their Web site: http://www.ag.state.oh.us.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of JAKKS Pacific, Inc. ("JAKK" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:JAKK) between February 16, 2000 and October 18, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges JAKKS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that JAKKS had obtained its lucrative WWE licenses
         through an illegal bribery scheme;

     (2) that JAKKS' success was predicated upon unsustainable
         business tactics;

     (3) that discovery of these unsustainable business tactics
         would have material impact on the Company's business
         model; especially, the revenue that JAKKS received from
         the WWE licenses;

     (4) that the Company's revenues and earnings would have
         been significantly less had the Company not engaged in
         the bribery scheme; and

     (5) that as a result of JAKKS' unsustainable business
         tactics and bribery scheme, the terms of the WWE
         licenses could be materially modified, or revoked in
         its entirety, and the Company would be exposed to
         significant liability in the form of damages sought by
         WWE.

On October 19, 2004, JAKKS issued a press release announcing
that it was "engaged in discussions with WWE concerning the
restructuring of its toy license and with WWE and THQ with
respect to the restructuring of the JAKKS THQ Joint Venture
video games license agreement with WWE." On news of this, shares
of JAKKS fell from $24.15 per share to $18.81 per share despite
the fact that JAKKS reported "record" results for the third
quarter and increased its earnings guidance for the fiscal year.
Then, later that day, the WWE Action was filed. The filing of
the WWE Action was made public after the market closed on
October 19, 2004. The next trading day, October 20, 2004, in
response to the news that the problems with the WWE were much
more pronounced and serious than the impression conveyed by
JAKKS' third quarter financial release, the price of JAKKS
common stock declined precipitously, falling from $18.81 per
share to $12.96 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


MERCK & CO.: Lockridge Grindal Files Securities Fraud Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired Merck & Co., Inc.
(NYSE:MRK) ("Merck" or the "Company") securities, including
common stock, between October 30, 2003 and September 29, 2004,
inclusive, and who suffered damages.

The Complaint alleges that Merck failed to disclose material
information during the Class Period concerning the safety of its
arthritis drug Vioxx, and that a growing body of evidence
demonstrated that patients who used the drug for more than 18
months were exposed to an increased risk of heart attack.

On September 30, 2004, the Company announced that it was
immediately withdrawing Vioxx from the market after a data
safety monitoring board, overseeing a long-term study of the
drug, recommended that the study be halted because of an
increased risk of serious cardiovascular events among members of
the study group. The Company's sudden decision to withdraw Vioxx
was in stark contrast to its prior public announcements touting
the safety of Vioxx and other public disclosures by the Company
and its representatives that specifically refuted criticism of
the drug lodged by respected clinicians.

The Company's withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, came
only one month after the Company issued a press release refuting
reputable clinicians' criticisms of Vioxx and its safety profile
and on the heels of the Company obtaining approval to market the
drug for the treatment of juvenile arthritis and migraines.

In addition to frightening millions of people who were misled
and used Vioxx despite these serious risks, the announcement
caused the Company's common stock to plummet during September
30, 2004 trading by approximately 25%, or $12 per share. The
resulting market capitalization loss was a staggering $26
billion.

For more details, contact Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. by Mail: 100 Washington Avenue South,
Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: 612-339-6900 or by
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com.


SIRVA INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all of the common
stock of SIRVA, Inc. (NYSE: SIR) ("SIRVA" or the "Company")
between November 24, 2003 and November 9, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period") and on behalf of purchasers who bought SIRVA
common stock pursuant to and/or traceable to the Company's June
8, 2004 Registration Statement.

The complaint charges SIRVA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. SIRVA is in the global relocation industry,
providing its solutions to a diverse customer base, including
transferring corporate and government employees and moving
individual consumers.

According to the Complaint, the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company maintained inadequate reserves in the
         Network Services division;

     (2) that the growth and profitability of the Network
         Services division was being adversely affected;

     (3) that SIRVA failed to rationalize capacity, reduce fixed
         costs, and generate a more meaningful relocation volume
         growth in its European division; and

     (4) that the profitability of the European operations was
         suffering. Additionally, during the Class Period and
         with the Company's stock trading at artificially
         inflated prices, Company insiders embarked on an
         insider trading scheme. As a result of the insider
         trading scheme, Company insiders reaped more than $336
         million in gross proceeds.

On November 9, 2004, SIRVA reported third-quarter profit fell
from the year-ago period as the Company booked a $15.2 million
charge to increase insurance loss reserves. The Company said due
to higher reserves for U.S. insurance claims and continued poor
market conditions in Europe, 2004 earnings from continuing
operations are now projected to be between 86 cents and 87
cents. For 2005, it expects to post earnings in the range of
$1.25 to $1.30 per share. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of SIRVA fell $5.83 per share, or 24.52 percent, to close
at $17.95 per share.

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


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Tripath Technology, Inc.
("Tripath" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TRPH) between January 29,
2004 and October 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending before in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against defendants
Tripath, Adya Tripathi (Chairman, CEO, and President), and David
Eichler (CFO). According to the complaint, defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Tripath is a semiconductor Company
that focuses on providing power amplification to the digital
media consumer electronics and communications markets. The
Company owns the patented technology called Digital Power
Processing (DPP(R)) which leverages modern advances in digital
signal processing and power processing in audio, DSL, and
wireless communication products. Throughout the Class Period,
Tripath reported quarter after quarter of record results in
publicly disseminated press releases and SEC filings. Defendants
attributed the results to the sale of its products and design
wins (the selection of Tripath products for design into its
customers' new products) in the communications and home
entertainment system markets. Unbeknownst to the Class, however,
the Company's seeming success was the result of improper
accounting that artificially inflated Tripath's reported
results.

On October 22, 2004, after the market closed, Tripath disclosed
in a press release and a concurrent SEC filing on Form 8-K that
net revenues for the third quarter 2004 would be "significantly
below prior guidance of $4 - $4.5 million" and that the
Company's net loss in the same period would be "significantly
greater than previously anticipated." Moreover, the Company
disclosed that it was reviewing the return of $1.3 million in
products to the Company's distributor. The Company had already
recognized as revenue proceeds from the sale of the products in
the second quarter of 2004. The Company further announced it
might need to restate its revenues for the second quarter 2004,
and that its auditor, BDO Seidman, LLP, had resigned on October
18, 2004, citing "material weaknesses in Tripath's internal
controls concerning the effectiveness of Tripath's Audit
Committee and Tripath's ability to estimate distributor sales
returns in accordance with SFAS no. 48." In reaction to this
news, the price of Tripath common stock fell $0.75 per share, or
49%, from its closing price of $1.52 on October 22, 2004 to
close at $0.77 per share on its next trading day, October 25,
2004. The closing price of Tripath shares on October 22, 2004
represented a $7.07, or 90%, decline from its Class Period high
of $7.84 reached on January 29, 2004. Defendants were motivated
to engage in this illegal and fraudulent scheme in order for
Company insiders, including the defendants Tripathi and Eichler,
to sell thousands of shares of their personally-held Tripath
securities at artificially inflated prices, reaping over $2.1
million in proceeds.

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


UTSTARCOM INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of UTStarcom,
Inc. (Nasdaq:UTSI) between April 16, 2003 through and including
August 11, 2004 (the "Class Period"), including all purchasers
in the January 8, 2004 stock offering and the September 16, 2003
debt offering.

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

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036
by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *