CAR_Public/041125.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, November 25, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 234

                            Headlines

ADVANCE FOOD: Recalls Beef Pattie Due to Undeclared Allergens
AES CORPORATION: Appeals Remand of CA Electricity Prices Lawsuit
AES CORPORATION: IN Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Overturns Suit Dismissal

BRISTOL-MYERS: Reaches $70 Mil Antidepressant Lawsuit Settlement
CASH AMERICA: Consumers Launch Illegal Payday Loans Suit in GA
CITY MORTGAGE: TX A.G. Abbot Launches Suit For Consumer Fraud
COMPUWARE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Stock Suit Certification
DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Rules Class Would Be "Opt-in"

DEUTSCHE TELECOM: Shareholders Lodge Suits Over Asset Inflation
DUPONT CO.: West Virginia Judge OKs C8 Settlement Stipulations
FARMERS INSURANCE: Landye Bennet Sets Settlement Cut-Off Date
FIRST ACCESS: SEC Settles Securities Fraud Claims V. Advisers
FITNESS QUEST: Recalls 460T Ultimate Exercisers For Injury Risks

FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Approves Lawsuit Settlement
GEORGIA: 11th Appeals Court Overturns Ruling V. Insurance Firms
GUAM: Casino Proponent Lodges Suit, Disputes Proposal A Election
IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Summary Judgment Cross-motions Filed in Suit
LADISH COMPANY: WI Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Securities Fraud

LAKEWOOD ENGINEERING: Recalls 18,000 Heaters Due To Fire Hazard
LEVEL 3: Nationwide Certification For Right-of-Way Suit Vacated
MERCK & CO.: Australian Lawyers Considers Filing Suit Over Vioxx
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: MD Court Hears Appeal of Suit Dismissal
NORTH CAROLINA: SEC Starts Proceedings V. $29M Scheme's Promoter

OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Insurance Fraud Suits in OH, FL State Courts
OVERSEAS PARTNERS: NY Court Approves Consumer Lawsuit Settlement
PHILIP MORRIS: Stephen Tillery Files Another Consumer Fraud Suit
PITNEY BOWES: Enters Mediation To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
PORTLAND GENERAL: Seeks Summary Judgment In Oregon Consumer Suit

REHABCARE GROUP: MO Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Fraud
REWARDS NETWORK: Purchase Plan Participants Launch CA Fraud Suit
SAINZ ENTERPRISES: Agrees To Settle FTC Consumer Fraud Charges
SERVICE CORPORATION: Lawyers Get $25.8M From Cemetery Settlement
TIME WARNER: Nears $750M Settlement With SEC Over AOL Scandal

UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Parker & Waichman To File More Claims
US GRANT: FTC, LA Justice Department Halt Fraudulent Scheme
VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Launch Stock Suits in MI
WAL-MART CORPORATION: Sioux Man Lodges Racial Harassment Lawsuit
XTEL MARKETING: Faces FTC Suit For Defrauding Elderly Customers

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTOBYTEL INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
FANNIE MAE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DC
REMEC INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SOURCECORP INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA


                            *********


ADVANCE FOOD: Recalls Beef Pattie Due to Undeclared Allergens
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Food Company, Inc., an Enid, OK, firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 31,390 pounds of beef pattie fritter
products due to undeclared allergens, (buttermilk and whey), the
U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced.  The product could cause an allergic reaction
for people who are sensitive to milk.

The products subject to recall are 10.5 lb. cases of "ADVANCE
FOOD COMPANY, BEEF PATTIE FRITTER, CN 1-61, 40 Pieces."  Each
package bears the establishment number "EST. 2260Y" inside the
USDA mark of inspection. In addition, each box bears a code date
beginning with either the letter H or I.

The patties were produced on September 3, 2003, September 25,
2003, November 20, 2003, July 29, 2004 and September 9, 2004.
The products were distributed to schools in Texas, primarily in
the northeastern part of the state.  The Company discovered the
problem. FSIS has received no reports of allergic reactions
associated with consumption of this product. Anyone concerned
about an allergic reaction should contact a physician.

Media or consumers with questions may contact Company
representative Brian Hayden at (877) 550-4848.  Consumers with
other food safety questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat
and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854). The
hotline is available in English and Spanish and can be reached
from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern Time), Monday through Friday.
Recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


AES CORPORATION: Appeals Remand of CA Electricity Prices Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
AES Corporation and other defendants appealed the remand of the
class action filed against them to the San Diego County Superior
Court in California.

In November 2000, the Company was named in a purported class
action suit along with six other defendants, alleging unlawful
manipulation of the California wholesale electricity market,
resulting in inflated wholesale electricity prices throughout
California.  The alleged causes of action include violation of
the Cartwright Act, the California Unfair Trade Practices Act
and the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act.

In December 2000, the case was removed from the San Diego County
Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.  On July 30, 2001, the Court remanded
the case back to San Diego Superior Court.  The case was
consolidated with five other lawsuits alleging similar claims
against other defendants.

In March 2002, the plaintiffs filed a new master complaint in
the consolidated action, which asserted the claims asserted in
the earlier action and names the Company, AES Redondo Beach,
L.L.C., AES Alamitos, L.L.C., and AES Huntington Beach, L.L.C.
as defendants.  In May 2002, the case was removed by certain
cross-defendants from the San Diego County Superior Court to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to state Court,
which was granted on December 13, 2002.  Certain defendants have
appealed that decision to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.  That appeal is pending before the Ninth
Circuit.


AES CORPORATION: IN Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against AES
Corporation and certain of its officers, styled "In re AES
Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 02-CV-1485."

In July 2002, the Company, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W. Sant, and
Barry J. Sharp were named as defendants in a purported class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana.  In September 2002, two virtually
identical complaints were filed against the same defendants in
the same Court.  All three lawsuits purport to be filed on
behalf of a class of all persons who exchanged their shares of
IPALCO Enterprises common stock for shares of the Company's
common stock issued pursuant to a registration statement dated
and filed with the SEC on August 16, 2000.

The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on
statements in or omissions from the registration statement
concerning certain secured equity-linked loans by AES
subsidiaries; the supposedly volatile nature of AES stock, as
well as AES's allegedly unhedged operations in the United
Kingdom, and the alleged effect of the New Electrical Trading
Agreements (NETA) on AES's United Kingdom operations.

In October 2002, the defendants moved to consolidate these three
actions with other IPALCO securities lawsuits.  On November 5,
2002, the Court appointed lead plaintiffs and lead and local
counsel.  On March 19, 2003, the Court entered an order on
defendants' motion to consolidate, in which the Court deferred
its ruling on defendants' motion and referred the actions to a
magistrate judge for pre-trial supervision.

On April 14, 2003, lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
which adds former IPALCO directors and officers John R. Hodowal,
Ramon L. Humke and John R. Brehm as defendants and, in addition
to the purported claims in the original complaint, purports to
allege against the newly added defendants violations of Sections
10(b) and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules
10b-5 and 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.  The amended complaint
also purports to add a claim based on alleged misstatements or
omissions concerning an alleged breach by AES of alleged
obligations AES owed to Williams Energy Services Co. under an
agreement between the two companies in connection with the
California energy market.

By order dated August 25, 2003, the Court consolidated these
three actions with a purported class action captioned "Cole et
al. v. IPALCO Enterprises, Inc. et al, 1:02-cv-01470-DFH-TAB."
On September 26, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint.  The motion to dismiss is pending with the
Court.

In September 2002, IPALCO and certain of its former officers
and directors were named as defendants in the Cole Action in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.  The Cole Action purports to be filed on behalf of the
class of all persons who exchanged shares of IPALCO common stock
for shares of AES common stock pursuant to the registration
statement dated and filed with the SEC on August 16, 2000.

The complaint purports to allege violations of Sections 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(a), 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rules 10b-5 and 14a-
9 promulgated thereunder based on statements in or omissions
from the registration statement covering certain secured equity-
linked loans by AES subsidiaries; the supposedly volatile nature
of the price of AES stock; and AES's allegedly unhedged
operations in the United Kingdom.  By order dated August 25,
2003, the Court consolidated this action with three previously
filed actions.

In October 2002, the Company, Dennis W. Bakke, Roger W. Sant and
Barry J. Sharp were named as defendants in purported class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia.  Between October 29, 2002 and
December 11, 2002, seven virtually identical lawsuits were filed
against the same defendants in the same Court.

The lawsuits purport to be filed on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock and certain of
its bonds between April 26, 2001 and February 14, 2002.  The
complaints purport to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder based on statements or omissions
concerning the Company's United Kingdom operations and the
alleged effect of the NETA on those operations.

On December 4, 2002 defendants moved to transfer the actions to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Indiana.  By stipulation dated December 9, 2002, the parties
agreed to consolidate these actions into one action.  On
December 12, 2002 the Court entered an order consolidating the
cases.

On January 16, 2003, the Court granted defendants' motion to
transfer the consolidated action to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana.  On September 26,
2003, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on behalf of a purported class of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock and certain of its bonds
between July 27, 2000 and November 8, 2002.

The consolidated amended class action complaint, in addition to
asserting the same claims asserted in the original complaints,
also purports to allege that AES and the individual defendants
failed to disclose information concerning AES's role in
purported manipulation of the California electricity market, the
effect thereof on AES's reported revenues, and AES's purported
contingent legal liabilities as a result thereof, in violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on November 17, 2003.  On
October 1, 2004, the parties filed a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement pursuant to which defendants caused to be paid a
total of $5 million into a settlement fund to settle all claims
arising out of the Imler Action and the Moskal Action (discussed
below) and as defined in the stipulation.  Defendants settled
the lawsuits without any admission or concession of any
liability or wrongdoing or lack of merit in their defenses.  On
October 4, 2004, the Court signed and entered a Preliminary
Order for Notice and Hearing in Connection With Settlement
Proceedings and set a hearing to consider final approval of the
settlement on January 28, 2005.


AMYLIN PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated class action filed against Amylin Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., its Chairman and former Chief Executive Officer and one
director.

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws
related to declines in the Company's stock price. The complaint
alleges securities fraud in connection with various statements
and alleged omissions to the public and to the securities
markets.

In July 2004, the Company executed a memorandum of understanding
with plaintiffs to settle the lawsuit, subject to approval by
the Court.  The terms of the memorandum of understanding include
payment by the Company of $2.1 million, all of which will be
paid by the Company's insurance.  Any of the $2.1 million amount
remaining after full reimbursement to class members and payment
of plaintiff legal fees will be donated to the American Diabetes
Association.  On September 30, 2004, the Court gave preliminary
approval to the settlement and set a final settlement hearing
for December 30, 2004.


BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION: Appeals Court Overturns Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrack Rodos & Bacine ("BR&B") recently
revealed that the dismissal of the securities class action
lawsuit against Bridgestone Corporation (Pink Sheets: BRDCF,
BRDCY) has been reversed by the Court of appeals. BR&B is co-
lead counsel for the lead plaintiffs in this matter.

The complaint, originally filed in 2001, alleges that Japan-
based Bridgestone and certain of its officers and directors
concealed from investors (as well as from the driving public and
regulators) the serious problems the Company had been
experiencing with its ATX tires that had been installed
principally on Ford Explorer SUVs. These problems were revealed
when the Company announced a recall of the tires on August 9,
2000. Bridgestone common stock and ADRs lost about 50% of their
value in reaction to the news.

Class action lawsuits were brought on behalf of investors to
recover the losses they sustained as a result of the Company's
concealment of important information about the quality of the
ATX tires and the effect of the problems with those tires on the
financial health of the Company. The United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee dismissed the
lawsuits in 2002, but the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit recently reversed that dismissal and ruled that
the claims based on the statements made by the Company between
March 31, 2000, and August 31, 2000, should proceed. Barrack,

For more details, contact Maxine S. Goldman, Shareholder
Relations Manager of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine by Mail: 3300 Two
Commerce Square, 2001 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by
Phone: 215-963-0600 by Fax: 215-963-0838 or by E-mail:
mgoldman@barrack.com.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Reaches $70 Mil Antidepressant Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The drug Company Bristol-Myers Squibb recently agreed to pay $70
million to end a nationwide class-action lawsuit over its
antidepressant Serzone, according to Court documents filed in
Charleston by the Company and the plaintiff's lawyers, including
Carl Frankovitch of Weirton and Marvin Masters of Charleston,
the Charleston Gazette reports.

An estimated 2,000 individuals have filed lawsuits in state and
federal Court alleging that Bristol-Myers Squibb did not warn
them adequately that the drug, which has been used by more than
8 million people since its introduction into the market in 1995,
could cause liver failure.

According to Court documents, all 8 million people that have
taken the drug would be eligible for a share of the $70 million
settlement, but most of the money would go to compensate the
families of people who died after taking the drug and people who
had serious liver problems after taking the drug.

A spokesman for the drug maker stated that the Company opted to
settle the case to "avoid protracted litigation," thus continues
to deny any wrongdoing, and maintains that Serzone was a safe
drug.

U.S. District Judge Joseph R. Goodwin gave the deal his
preliminary approval and is expected to decide next year whether
to give final approval to the settlement.

People started suing Bristol-Meyers Squibb over Serzone after
the Company reported in 2001 that more than 100 users had
serious liver problems. In 2002, the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration forced Bristol-Myers Squibb to put a "black-box
warning" on the drug's packaging that said studies found Serzone
users were three to four times more likely to have liver failure
than the general population. As the public learned about the
drug's potential side effects, the drug's sales dropped from
$334 million in 2001 to $98 million in 2003. The Company stopped
selling Serzone earlier this year.


CASH AMERICA: Consumers Launch Illegal Payday Loans Suit in GA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cash America International, Inc. faces a class action filed in
the State Court of Cobb County, Georgia over illegal payday
loans.  The suit, filed on August 6, 2004 by James E. Strong,
also names as defendants Georgia Cash America, Inc., Daniel R.
Feehan, and several unnamed officers, directors, owners and
"stakeholders" of the Company.

The lawsuit alleges many different causes of action, among the
most significant of which is that the Company has been making
illegal payday loans in Georgia in violation of Georgia's usury
law, the Georgia Industrial Loan Act and Georgia's Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Community State Bank has for some time made loans to Georgia
residents through the Company's Georgia operating locations.
The complaint in this lawsuit claims that Community State Bank
is not the true lender with respect to the loans made to Georgia
borrowers and that its involvement in the process is "a mere
subterfuge."  Based on this claim, the suit alleges that the
Company is the "de facto" lender and is illegally operating in
Georgia. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, attorney's fees, punitive damages and the trebling of
any compensatory damages.

The Company has filed a motion to compel Mr. Strong to arbitrate
his claim.  Discovery has not yet commenced in this lawsuit, and
as a result neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor
the ultimate liability, if any, with respect to this litigation
can be determined at this time, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


CITY MORTGAGE: TX A.G. Abbot Launches Suit For Consumer Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has sued and is seeking a
restraining order and asset freeze against a business for
defrauding more than 150 Hispanic homeowners in Texas.

Consumers in the Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston areas reported to
the Office of the Attorney General that City Mortgage Services,
Inc. (no affiliation to CitiBank or CitiMortgage) and its
principals, Gustavo Duarte and Alfredo Mendez, pocketed
thousands of dollars that should have been forwarded to the
mortgage companies financing the consumers' homes.  The Company,
which had offices in Dallas, Houston and Austin, shut down
abruptly earlier this year, leaving consumers owing their
mortgage companies substantial amounts of money in missed
payments and late fees.

"Brazen schemes like these will not be tolerated in Texas," said
Attorney General Abbott.  "City Mortgage systematically
victimized these Hispanic families by exploiting their dreams of
home ownership.  I am committed to ensuring this scam doesn't
hurt any more Texas consumers."

According to the lawsuit, filed pursuant to the Texas Deceptive
Trade Practices Act and the Texas Home Solicitation Act, City
Mortgage dispatched teams of door-to-door salespersons
throughout Hispanic neighborhoods, touting the Company's "debt-
reduction service."  Sales pitches and promotional materials
promised consumers City Mortgage would save them thousands of
dollars by withdrawing and forwarding to their mortgage Company
a larger monthly amount than their regular mortgage payment,
thus reducing the number of years it took to pay off the loan.
City Mortgage charged families between $700 and $1,000 for the
service.

Many consumers indicated that City Mortgage was often late in
forwarding payments to the corresponding mortgage companies,
resulting in delinquency notices and late fees. In its last few
months of operation, City Mortgage failed to make payments
altogether, and simply shut down and kept the consumers' money.
Many consumers did not learn about City Mortgage's failure to
pay until they received notices from their mortgage companies,
informing them that they had accrued considerable debts.

Consumers can reduce their mortgage debt by dealing directly
with their mortgage companies. Typically, consumers can make
arrangements to pay extra amounts each month that can be applied
toward paying down the principal of the loan. No middlemen are
necessary, and consumers do not have to pay enrollment fees like
those charged by City Mortgage.

Consumers who believe they have been victimized by City Mortgage
or similar operations should contact the Office of the Attorney
General at 1-800-252-8011. Assistance is available in both
English and Spanish.


COMPUWARE CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Seek Stock Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan to certify as a class action the
lawsuit filed against Compuware Corporation on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock from January 1, 1999 to
April 3, 2002.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to disclose under
the securities laws its problems with the misappropriation of
its software source code by IBM.  The plaintiffs further allege
that the Company omitted and/or disseminated materially false
and misleading statements concerning its deteriorating
relationship with IBM.  The plaintiffs request that the Court
award them monetary damages and expenses of litigation,
including reasonable attorneys fees.

The Company intends to oppose class certification.  To date, the
Company is not engaged in any meaningful discovery.


DENTSPLY INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Rules Class Would Be "Opt-in"
--------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court for Alameda County ruled that the
class in the lawsuit filed against Dentsply International, Inc.
would be opt-in, instead of opt-out, pursuant to a motion filed
by the Company.

On March 27, 2002, Bruce Glover, D.D.S. filed the complaint,
alleging, inter alia, breach of express and implied warranties,
fraud, unfair trade practices and negligent misrepresentation in
the Company's manufacture and sale of Advance(R) cement.  The
Complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for costs
incurred in repairing dental work in which the Advance(R)
product allegedly failed.

In January 2004, the Judge entered an Order granting class
certification only on the claims of breach of warranty and
fraud.  In general, the Class is defined as California dentists
who purchased and used Advance(R) cement and were required,
because of failures of the cement, to repair or re-perform
dental procedures.  The Company challenged the certification of
a class in higher Courts, but such challenges have been
unsuccessful.

In July, the Court issued a decision that the class would be
opt-in, as proposed by the Company, rather than opt-out (this
means that after Notice of the class action is sent to possible
class members, a party will have to determine they meet the
class definition and take affirmative action in order to join
the class).  The Advance(R) cement product was sold from 1994
through 2000 and total sales in the United States during that
period were approximately $5.2 million.


DEUTSCHE TELECOM: Shareholders Lodge Suits Over Asset Inflation
---------------------------------------------------------------
In one of the most unprecedented legal actions in Germany, about
15,000 shareholders have initiated separate lawsuits against
Deutsche Telekom AG for allegedly inflating the value of assets
in three separate share placements before it was privatized, the
IT World reports.

The shareholders filed a total of 2,100 cases related to the
matter in Frankfurt regional Court. According to the Court,
Judge Meinrad W”sthoff and his colleagues normally handle that
many cases in a decade.

The plaintiffs are suing many of the parties involved in the
privatization, including Deutsche Telekom itself, its former
Chief Executive Officer Ron Sommer, the government and even some
of the underwriting banks. According to the Frankfurt Court the
disgruntled investors have instructed nearly 750 law firms to
file 2,100 separate claims, seeking about ?100 million (US$130
million) in compensation.

The shareholders, many of them customers of Deutsche Telekom who
believed their money would be safe in Europe's largest
telecommunications Company, claim the operator inflated the
value of its real estate, consisting of more than 35,000
buildings and plots of land, in placements made through 2000.
The shareholders also claim that after watching the price of
what was once dubbed the "people's share" plummet in the late
90s, many of them were again affected when Deutsche Telekom
wrote down the value of its real estate holdings at the
beginning of 2001.

Since Germany, unlike the U.S., has no procedure for filing
class-action suits, Judge W”sthoff plans to rule on 10 claims
covering all issues, and then use these verdicts to guide
decisions in the remaining suits.


DUPONT CO.: West Virginia Judge OKs C8 Settlement Stipulations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wood County Circuit Court Judge George W. Hill has approved the
terms of an almost $70 million medical study of up to 80,000
people who drank water contaminated with C8, a chemical used to
make Teflon at DuPont Co.'s Washington Works plant, the
Associated Press reports.

The judge upon approving the settlement also congratulated the
two sides for agreeing to it and stated, "I commend the parties
on a job well done, as far as I can tell. We'll see if it works
out as well."

As previously reported in the September 13, 2004 issue of the
Class Action Reported, critical components of the proposed
settlement include C-8 water treatment facilities for area
communities and creation of an expert panel to conduct a
community study to assist it in evaluating whether there is a
probable link between C-8 exposure and any human disease. The
settlement also calls for cash payments and expenditures valued
at $85 million, plus attorneys' fees, expenses of $22.6 million
as well as contingent medical monitoring funding.

The settlement proceeds will be directed into the Ohio and West
Virginia communities in the vicinity of the Washington Works
plant that comprise the class bringing the suit. As part of the
settlement, DuPont has agreed to an initial cash payment of $70
million, $20 million of which will be used for health and
education projects.

In addition, DuPont will also offer to provide six area water
districts - Little Hocking, Lubeck, Belpre, Tuppers Plains,
Mason County and Pomeroy - a state-of-the-art water treatment
system designed to reduce the level of C-8 in the water supply
to the lowest practicable levels as specified by the water
districts. The Company will offer the same technology or its
equivalent to residents of those districts whose sole source of
drinking water is a private well. The Company estimates the cost
for water treatment at $10 million.

The other key component to the settlement is the creation of an
independent panel of experts to evaluate available scientific
evidence on the extent of any probable link between exposure to
PFOA and any human disease, including birth defects. Toward that
end, this independent panel will also design and conduct a
health study in the communities exposed to PFOA. DuPont will
fund this study at an estimated cost of $5 million.

If the independent panel concludes that a probable link exists
between exposure to PFOA and any diseases, DuPont will also fund
a medical monitoring program for up to $235 million, in $1
million intervals, to pay for such medical testing. In this
event, DuPont will not contest general causation between PFOA
and any such disease in any personal injury claims that
plaintiffs may pursue. If no such probable link is found though,
plaintiffs' personal injury claims and related punitive damage
claims would be released at that point.

All of the plaintiffs' other claims for relief, including
medical monitoring, injunctive relief, property damage, and all
claims for punitive damage related to such claims, will be
released upon final Court approval of the settlement. DuPont's
obligations for water treatment would cease only if the
scientific panel finds no probable link between PFOA exposure
and any disease.

However, the settlement will not be final until after a public
hearing on February 28, 2005.

If any of the $70 million is left over, it will be distributed
equally among the participants, unless the amount per person
would be less than $25. In that case, the money would be donated
to the Good Samaritan Clinic in Parkersburg, according to the
settlement.

All in all, DuPont will pay at least $107.6 million to settle
the class action lawsuit over polluted water supplies near its
Washington Works plant, which is located on the Ohio River about
seven miles southwest of Parkersburg.

Though opting to settle, DuPont's attorney, Laurence Jannsen
stated that the Company continues to deny any wrongdoing but
decided to enter into the agreement because of the time and
expense of litigation. He also stated that allowing independent
scientists to examine the alleged effect of C8 is preferable to
leaving it to the legal system, since this is a case that cries
out to be decided by science.

Commenting on the settlement's plus side, Robert A. Bilott of
the Cincinnati law firm of Taft, Stettinius & Hollister, LLP,
one of the class counsel for the plaintiffs states, "In addition
to the clear benefit of removing C-8 from their drinking water,
addressing medical monitoring, and funding a scientific study on
the effects of PFOA exposure, this agreement preserves people's
rights to pursue any personal injury claims they may have if
their exposure to C-8 is found to be linked to any disease or
birth defects."

The Charleston, West Virginia law firms of Hill, Peterson,
Carper, Bee & Deitzler, PLLC, and Winter Johnson & Hill, PLLC,
also serve as class counsel for the plaintiffs.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Landye Bennet Sets Settlement Cut-Off Date
-------------------------------------------------------------
In order to share in the $9,500,000 jury verdict reached in
Multnomah County Court in Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co. (No.
9908-0908), class members and eligible healthcare providers must
mail their claims no later than December 6, 2004, according to
the law firm of Landye Bennett Blumstein LLP.

In December 2003, a Multnomah County jury returned a verdict in
a class action suit against Farmers Insurance for a fraudulent
practice that targeted thousands of Oregon auto insurance
policyholders. Class members include any person who made a
personal injury ("PIP") claim with Farmers Insurance Company of
Oregon, Mid-Century Insurance Company or Truck Insurance
Exchange whose claim payment was reduced for Reason Code "RC40"
or "B2" between January 26, 1998 and July 31, 1999. Class
members and their healthcare providers with approved claims will
be paid the reductions plus interest. In addition, class members
will share in the $8,000,000 punitive damages award. Each share
is estimated to be $207 per person).

Almost 9,000 claims forms were mailed out on August 4, 2004 to
all known class members and their healthcare providers. However,
only about 3,000 claimants have responded to date.

A final effort to contact all individuals and healthcare
providers who may share in the $9.5 million Strawn verdict
starts this week. This effort, being supervised by Class Counsel
at Landye Bennett Blumstein, will include one more mailing and
thousands of calls to class members and eligible medical
providers who have not responded to date.

For more details, contact the Settlement Administrator by Phone:
1-800-245-5097 or visit their Web site:
http://www.farmerspipclaims.com.


FIRST ACCESS: SEC Settles Securities Fraud Claims V. Advisers
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission settled fraud charges
against First Access Financial, LLC, First Access, Inc., Thomas
H. Keesee and Eduardo Lautieri. The Commission had charged the
defendants with securities fraud in connection with an
unregistered interstate offering and sale of securities in the
form of interests in a pooled foreign currency trading account.
Due to the Commission's early discovery of the fraudulent
offering, the Commission halted the offering in January 2004
after the defendants had obtained funds from only 15 investors.

On January 28, 2004, the Commission filed a complaint against
the defendants in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (District Court),
SEC v. First Access Financial, LLC, et al, Civ. No. 3-04-CV-168-
H (N.D. Tex.). The Commission's complaint alleged that
defendants, using aggressive cold calling, an Internet website,
television infomercials and paid radio spots, claimed to provide
investors access to foreign exchange markets at the special
"Interbank level" supposedly accessible only to the "most
profitable" and  "largest financial institutions in the world."
The Complaint also alleged that the defendants further claimed
to have a "Currency Management Team" with a five-year track
record of 100% returns, headed by "a world-renowned
institutional money manager" who is a "Top 10 certified and
rated trader." The Commission contended these claims, as well as
others that defendants made, were false and that First Access
Financial was, in fact, merely a five-month-old boiler room
outfit. Defendants raised $243,000 from investors in at least
seven states and two foreign countries, with no investor funds
going to "Interbank level" foreign currency trading.

First Access Financial, First Access, Keesee and Lautieri
consented to the entry of a final judgment enjoining them from
future violations of Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act). Further, Keesee and First
Access consented to the entry of an order enjoining each from
future violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act.
Additionally, all defendants agreed to an order requiring,
jointly and severally, the disgorgement of $30,074 plus pre-
judgment interest of $750 and Keesee and Lautieri each consented
to the entry of an order to pay a civil monetary penalty of
$51,020. The trial Court entered the final judgment on Nov. 18,
2004. Additionally, Keesee agreed to an order barring him from
association with a broker or dealer with a right to apply for
association with a registered entity after three years. The
action is titled, SEC v. First Access Financial, LLC, et al.,
Civil Action No. 3-04-CV-166-H, USDC, NDTX, Dallas Division (LR-
18984).


FITNESS QUEST: Recalls 460T Ultimate Exercisers For Injury Risks
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fitness Quest Inc., of Canton, Ohio Illinois is cooperating with
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 460,000 Ab LoungeT, Ab LoungeT 2,
and Ab LoungeT Ultimate Exercisers.

When opening or folding up these exercise machines, consumers
can catch their fingers in the hinges. This can result in
lacerations, crushing, or amputation to finger tips. This does
not occur while users are exercising. Fitness Quest has received
15 reports of injuries, including lacerations, crushing and
amputations to finger tips.

The recall includes the Ab LoungeT, Ab LoungeT 2, and Ab LoungeT
Ultimate exercisers. The machines have the name "Ab Lounge" or
"Ab Lounge 2" printed on the upper front fabric of the seat. The
recall involves machines with the following serial numbers:
Ab LoungeT machines: ALX-000001 through ALX-037999, and all
machines that start with serial numbers 03 44 through 04 36.
Ab LoungeT 2 machines: AL2X-000001 through AL2X-059060, and all
machines that start with serial numbers 04 03 through 04 36.
Ab LoungeT Ultimate machines: all machines that start with
serial numbers 04 28 through 04 34.

The serial number is located on a label on the bottom of the
front frame. Ab LoungeT exercise products with straight brackets
that do not fold are not part of this recall.

Manufactured in China and Thailand, the exercisers were sold at
Infomercial, Internet, catalog, and discount department and
sporting goods stores, including Wal-Mart and Dicks Sporting
Goods, nationwide since October 2003 for between $100 and $210.

Consumers should stop using these exercisers and contact the
firm for a free repair kit. The firm is contacting all consumers
who purchased the Ab LoungeT directly from Fitness Quest via
infomercial or website. Due to the large number of repair kits
required to meet demand, these consumers may experience a delay
of a few weeks before they receive their kits. Any consumer who
owns an Ab LoungeT purchased at a retail store should stop using
the equipment and contact Fitness Quest immediately to receive
the repair kit.

Consumer Contact: Contact Fitness Quest at (800) 321-9236
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or log on to
http://www.fitnessquest.com.


FLEXTRONICS INTERNATIONAL: CA Court Approves Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Flextronics
International, Ltd. and certain of its officers and directors.

Between June and August 2002, several securities class action
lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, seeking an unspecified amount of
damages.  Plaintiffs filed these actions on behalf of those who
purchased, or otherwise acquired, the Company's ordinary shares
between January 18, 2001 and June 4, 2002, including those who
purchased ordinary shares in the Company's secondary offerings
on February 1, 2001 and January 7, 2002.  These actions
generally allege that, during this period, the defendants made
misstatements to the investing public about the financial
condition and prospects of the Company.

On April 23, 2003, the Court entered an order transferring these
lawsuits to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  In July 2003, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss on behalf of the Company and the individual
defendants and in November 2003 the Court entered an order
granting defendants' motion to dismiss without prejudice.
Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in January 2004 and
defendants again moved to dismiss the complaint.

In May 2004, before a hearing on the motion to dismiss was to
take place, the parties reached a tentative settlement of all
claims in the lawsuit and the defendants withdrew their motion.
The settlement is funded entirely with funds from the Company's
Officers' and Directors' insurance.  On July 28, 2004, the Court
entered an order preliminarily approving the settlement.

The suit is styled "In Re: Flextronics Intl, et al v.
Flextronics Intl, et al., Case No. 1:02cv4497," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, referred to Magistrate
Judge James C Francis IV.


GEORGIA: 11th Appeals Court Overturns Ruling V. Insurance Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
A three-judge federal appeals panel has overturned a lower
Court's ruling certifying a nationwide class of 70 million
insureds in a suit against four of the largest U.S. automobile
insurers by upholding the federal antitrust exemption granted to
insurance companies by the 1945 McCarran-Ferguson Act, BestWire
Services reports.

In a ruling handed down by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Atlanta, the judges found the by the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Florida erred in its November
2002 certification of a suit by lead plaintiff Linda Gilchrist
against State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., Allstate
Insurance Co., Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., and
Government Employees Insurance Co. The district Court found that
McCarran-Ferguson wouldn't bar federal action because state
regulatory authorities didn't "have jurisdiction allowing them
to regulate or prohibit conspiracies that restrain trade."

The decision, written by Senior Judge James C. Hill, remands the
case back to the district Court with an instruction to dismiss
the plaintiffs' complaint, which sought as much as $20 billion
in damages on behalf of policyholders.

According to the complaint, the insurers conspired to limit
coverage for external auto body repairs and specifying the use
of less expensive parts that weren't made by an original
equipment manufacturer, thus violating "their contractual
obligation to restore insured vehicles to their preloss
condition and to use parts of like kind and quality as those
originally employed by automobile manufacturers."

"Defendants and unnamed co-conspirators have conspired and
combined with the effect of raising and maintaining prices, that
is, premiums, for automobile insurance paid by plaintiffs and
other class members above the competitive levels that would have
prevailed for the actual vehicle repair provided using inferior,
imitation parts," the plaintiffs wrote.

However, the Court found that the plaintiffs' failure to specify
any third-party agreements, or even third parties, underscored
that the heart of the complaint was "the relationship between
insurer and insured" and the acCompanying "reliability,
interpretation, and enforcement" of the insurance policy itself
-- both elements that have been specifically cited in case law
as the relevant concerns of McCarran-Ferguson's exemption.

"The repair of the insured's automobile, and the way in which it
is repaired, are the obligation of insurers under their policies
of insurance," Hill wrote. "Both are the business of insurance.
The benefit promised to insurers' policyholders is that their
automobiles will be repaired with parts of like kind and
quality. So long as that insurance promise is kept,
policyholders are basically unconcerned with any business
arrangements insurers make with third parties. Gilchrist's
complaint is that this promise has not been kept, and this is an
attack on the business of insurance."

The Court also found that the complaint failed to qualify for
the so-called "boycott" exception specified in McCarran-
Ferguson, which allows for application of federal antitrust law
against those insurance companies that refuse "to deal in a
collateral transaction as a means to coerce terms respecting a
primary transaction."

"The alleged boycott involves the very same refusal to deal --
with OEM parts, either by buying them from their manufacturers
or by providing them to plaintiffs in the repair of their
vehicles," Hill wrote. "Consequently, we conclude that the
allegations of the complaint are insufficient to state a
cognizable antitrust boycott claim."

Closely watched by regulators and industry groups alike, the
case had taken on added importance in recent months with the
introduction of the State Modernization and Regulatory
Transparency Act, which would create a greater federal presence
in the industry, as well as more than a dozen state
investigations of compensation practices in the industry, which
have led some to call for a repeal of McCarran-Ferguson's
antitrust exemption. Among those filing amicus briefs seeking to
have the district Court's certification overturned were the
American Insurance Association, the Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America, the National Association of Mutual
Insurance Companies and the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners.

"The claims or defenses of the representative parties cannot be
typical of the class because the many and varied state laws give
very different rights, disclosures and duties to both insureds
and insurers in each state," the NAIC wrote. "The state laws
governing non-OEM parts reflect state policies that in many
instances encourage the use of these parts as a means of
reducing the cost of automobile insurance for a state's
citizens. There is extensive and varied state regulation of
after-market non-OEM automobile parts."


GUAM: Casino Proponent Lodges Suit, Disputes Proposal A Election
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Tim Roberts, a consultant for casino initiative
proponent Citizens for Economic Diversity initiated an amended
civil class action lawsuit in the District Court of Guam
challenging the legality of the General Election results
surrounding casino initiative Proposal A, the Pacific Daily News
reports.

According to Court documents, the suit was filed on behalf of
Jay Merrill "and on behalf of all other similarly situated
voters desirous of casting a vote in favor of Proposal A at a
fair and legal election."

In the November 2 General Election, Proposal A, which would have
allowed as many as 10 casinos to open in large hotels and create
a gaming commission to regulate those casinos failed, with an
overwhelming majority of residents voting against it.

However, Mr. Roberts points out that the votes were invalid
since the Guam Election Commission did not mail the entire text
of the 80-page initiative to voters and then failed to follow
the provisions of Bill 374. Signed into law by Governor Felix
Camacho on October 27, the bill states that any defect in the
casino ballot pamphlet shall not cause the election to be
delayed or invalidated. The bill was introduced after the
Election Commission failed to mail the 80-page initiative to
voters, and after the attorney general's office stated the
flawed pamphlet would make the election results unenforceable.

According to Mr. Roberts, "Bill 374 required the election
commission to provide copies of Proposal A to every village
mayor's office, and (GEC) didn't do that. And it required that
Proposal A be posted at every village mayor's office so people
can read what they are supposed to be voting on, and that didn't
happen either". He further states, the Legislature ordered the
Election Commission to immediately publish a notice in the
newspaper on the availability of copies of Proposal A at all the
village mayor's offices, and it didn't do it either.

Mr. Roberts, who stated in a press release that the lawsuit is
the only way to ensure that the right of all registered voters
to "an informed vote will be observed," also filed sworn
declarations from the mayors of Tamuning/Tumon, Barrigada, and
Mangilao that "nobody ever supplied them with copies of Proposal
A" before the election.

However, Election Commission executive director Gerald Taitano
stated that the commission did brought copies of the entire text
of the proposal to the Mayors' Council of Guam and that the
election commission had the information available on its Web
site, www.gec.guam.net. He further stated that his organization
was not able to publish the bill in the newspaper, since it did
not appropriate any funding.


IPALCO ENTERPRISES: Summary Judgment Cross-motions Filed in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability in
the class action filed against IPALCO Enterprises and certain of
its former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana.

On May 28, 2002, an amended complaint was filed in the lawsuit.
The amended complaint asserts that IPALCO and former members of
the pension committee for the Indianapolis Power & Light Company
thrift plan breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs
under the Employees Retirement Income Security Act by investing
assets of the thrift plan in the common stock of IPALCO prior to
the acquisition of IPALCO by the Company.

In December 2002, plaintiffs moved to certify this case as a
class action.  The Court granted the motion for class
certification on September 30, 2003.  On October 31, 2003, the
parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment on liability.
Those motions currently are pending before the Court.


LADISH COMPANY: WI Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin dismissed the putative class action filed against
Ladish Company, Inc., styled "Dean, et. al. v. Ladish, et. al.,
Case No. 03-C-0165."  The suit also names as defendants Kerry L.
Woody and Wayne E. Larsen, two of the Company's officers.

The suit includes claims under the federal securities laws and
state common law, and seeks damages for stockholders who
purchased the common stock of the Company between March 10, 1998
and September 27, 2002.  The complaint's allegations, which the
Company intends to dispute, are based primarily on accounting
issues relating to the Company's restatement in 2002, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (March 3,2003) reports.

The plaintiffs failed to appeal this Order of Dismissal and the
time period for appeal has expired.

The suit is styled "Dean v. Ladish Company, Inc., et al., 2:03-
cv-00165-RTR," in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin, under Judge Rudolph T. Randa.

Lawyers for the defendants are Brian E. Cothroll, Douglas M.
Hagerman, Andrew J. Wronski of Foley & Lardner LLP, 777 E
Wisconsin Ave - Ste 3800, Milwaukee, WI 53202-5306, Phone:
414-271-2400, Fax: 414-297-4900, E-mail: bcothroll@foley.com or
awronski@foley.com.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Guri Ademi, Shpetim Ademi of Ademi & O'Reilly, 3620 E
         Layton Ave, Cudahy, WI 53110, Phone: 414-482-8000, Fax:
         414-482-8001, E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com or
         sademi@ademilaw.com.

     (2) Andrew L Barroway, Stuart L. Berman, Darren J. Check,
         David Kessler, Sandra G. Smith, Marc A. Topaz of
         Schiffrin & Barroway LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E - Ste 400,
         Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, 610-667-
         7056 (fax), E-mail: sberman@sbclasslaw.com

     (3) David A. Rosenfeld, Samuel H. Rudman of Cauley Geller
         Bowman & Rudman LLP, 200 Broadhollow Rd - Ste 406,
         Melville, NY 11747, Phone: 631-367-7100 or 631-367-1173
         (fax), E-mail: drosenfeld@cauleygeller.com


LAKEWOOD ENGINEERING: Recalls 18,000 Heaters Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Company of Chicago,
Illinois is cooperating with the United States Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 18,000 Lakewood
MPH-25 fan-forced mini-personal electric heaters.

Fire hazard if an electrical failure leads to overheating and
melting of plastic parts. Lakewood is aware of three incidents
where the heater failed, causing plastic parts to melt. No
injuries have been reported.

The electric heater is a small white plastic heater with these
dimensions: 6 « x 7 x 3 inches. It has a gray grill and a gray
knob. The Lakewood logo appears in gray letters on top of the
heater. The model number "MPH-25" is embossed or appears on a
sticker label on the bottom of the heater.

Manufactured in China, the heaters were sold by retailers
nationwide from August 2001 through November 2004 for about $13
to $15.

As a remedy the will provide a free replacement heater.
Consumers though should immediately stop using these heaters,
unplug them, and contact Lakewood to get instructions on how to
receive a free replacement heater.

Consumer Contact: Call Lakewood at (888) 858-3506 between 8:30
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. CT Monday through Friday. Consumers can visit
the Company's Web site: http://www.lakewoodeng.com.


LEVEL 3: Nationwide Certification For Right-of-Way Suit Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the
nationwide class certification for the class actions filed
against Level 3 Communications, Inc., the Company's right to
install its fiber optic cable network in easements and right-of-
ways crossing the plaintiffs' land.

In May 2001, Level 3 Communications, Inc., and two of its
subsidiaries were named as a defendant in "Bauer, et. al. v.
Level 3 Communications, LLC, et al.," a purported multi-state
class action, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Illinois.  In April 2002, the same plaintiffs filed
a second nearly identical purported multi-state class action in
state Court in Madison County, Illinois. In July 2001, the
Company was named as a defendant in "Koyle, et. al. v. Level 3
Communications, Inc., et. al.," a purported multi-state class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho.  In September 2002, Level 3 Communications, LLC was named
as a defendant in "Smith et al v. Sprint Communications Company,
L.P., et al.," a purported nationwide class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

These actions involve the Company's right to install its fiber
optic cable network in easements and right-of-ways crossing the
plaintiffs' land.  In general, the Company obtained the rights
to construct its network from railroads, utilities, and others,
and is installing its network along the rights-of-way so
granted.  Plaintiffs in the purported class actions assert that
they are the owners of lands over which the Company's fiber
optic cable network passes, and that the railroads, utilities,
and others who granted the Company the right to construct and
maintain its network did not have the legal ability to do so.
The complaints seek damages on theories of trespass, unjust
enrichment and slander of title and property, as well as
punitive damages.

The Company has also received, and may in the future receive,
claims and demands related to rights-of-way issues similar to
the issues in these cases that may be based on similar or
different legal theories.  To date, all attempts to have class
action status granted on complaints filed against the Company or
any of its subsidiaries involving claims and demands related to
rights-of-way issues have been denied.

On July 25, 2003, the Smith Court entered an Order preliminarily
approving a settlement agreement that will resolve all claims
against the Company arising out of the Company's location of
fiber optic cable and related telecommunications facilities that
the Company owns within railroad rights-of-way throughout the
United States.  In connection with the Court's Order
preliminarily approving the settlement, the Court entered an
Order enjoining the parties in all pending federal and state
railroad rights-of-way class action litigation involving the
Company from further pursuing those pending actions at this
time.

Under the terms of the settlement agreement, landowners who own
property adjacent to the railroad rights- of-way in which the
Company placed its fiber optic cable and related facilities may
submit claims and receive specified compensation.  The Company
is unable to quantify the ultimate amount of payments to be made
pursuant to the settlement until if and when (1) the settlement
receives final approval and all appeals have been exhausted; and
(2) the claims process has been completed.

In September 2003, a petition for appeal was granted which seeks
a reversal of the Smith Court's decision to preliminarily
approve the settlement and certify a nationwide class for
settlement purposes.  On October 19, 2004, the Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals issued a 2-1 decision vacating the nationwide
certification which was a necessary element of the nationwide
settlement.  The Court also vacated the injunction against
competing class actions and remanded the case to the district
Court for further proceedings.  The Company will request the
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider their decision.


MERCK & CO.: Australian Lawyers Considers Filing Suit Over Vioxx
----------------------------------------------------------------
In light of the worldwide legal action that has been launched
against Merck & Co. since its controversial painkiller, Vioxx
was removed from the market in October because of its link with
chronic heart disease, South Australian lawyers have recently
stated that they would be joining the fray by launching their
own class action against the pharmaceutical Company, the
NEWS.com.au, Australia reports.

According to Adelaide law firm Duncan Basheer Hannon, thousands
of South Australians had taken the drug since it came on the
market five years ago. Duncan Basheer Hannon partner Peter
Humphries even adds, "It's estimated that people taking a low
dose of Vioxx - as little as 25 milligrams a day - have a 50 per
cent higher risk of heart attack and sudden cardiac death.
Reports indicate between 30,000 and 100,000 users of Vioxx
worldwide have suffered heart attacks and strokes, many of them
fatal."

Mr. Humphries further states that 12 people had contacted the
law firm to date to discuss joining the class action, including
former Vioxx user Brian Heffernan, who had no history of heart
trouble before taking the drug but was later diagnosed with
chronic heart disease after using the drug for 14 months. He
would eventually undergo a triple bypass.

Attorneys believe that up to 500,000 Australians have taken
Vioxx, which was commonly prescribed for the treatment of
arthritis until a US study linked it to heart attacks, strokes,
blood clots and kidney damage.

Mr. Humphries also stated that a Wall Street analysis suggested
legal action against Merck could cost the Company $18 billion in
compensation payouts in the next decade further strengthens
there resolve to sue Merck.


NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS: MD Court Hears Appeal of Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Baltimore, Maryland heard
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a class action filed
against Nextel Communications, Inc. over their wireless
telephones.

In April 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court in Baltimore, Maryland by the Law Offices of Peter
Angelos.  Subsequently Mr. Angelos and other firms filed similar
suits in other state Courts in Pennsylvania, New York and
Georgia.  The suits allege that wireless telephones pose a
health risk to users of those telephones and that the defendants
failed to disclose these risks.  The Company, along with
numerous other companies, were named as defendants in these
cases.

The cases, together with a similar case filed earlier in
Louisiana state Court, were ultimately transferred to federal
Court in Baltimore, Maryland.  On March 5, 2003, the Court
granted the defendants' motions to dismiss.  The plaintiffs have
appealed this decision, and the Court heard arguments on appeal
in October 2004, but has yet to issue a decision.

The suit is styled "In re:, et al v. Wireless Telephone, et al,
1:01-md-01421-CCB," filed in the United States District Court in
Baltimore, Maryland, under Judge Catherine C. Blake.  Lawyers
for the plaintiffs are John CM Angelos and Peter G Angelos of
the Law Offices of Peter G Angelos, One Charles Center, 100 N
Charles St 22nd Fl, Baltimore, MD 21201, Phone: 1-410-649-2000
Fax: 1-410-649-2112, E-mail: jangelos@lawpga.com.


NORTH CAROLINA: SEC Starts Proceedings V. $29M Scheme's Promoter
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted administrative
proceedings against Frederick J. Gilliland based on the entry,
on October 26, 2004, of a final judgment by the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina. The final
judgment in that civil action, entitled SEC v. Frederick J.
Gilliland et al., Civil Action File Number 3:02-CV128McK
(W.D.N.C.), enjoined Gilliland from future violations of
Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Commission's complaint in the civil action alleged that
Frederick Gilliland sold more than $29 million in interests in a
succession of non-existent prime bank trading programs to more
than 200 investors between at least mid-1997 through November
1998. In connection with his scheme, the complaint alleged that
Gilliland misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning:

     (1) the existence of the trading programs;

     (2) the use of investor funds;

     (3) the promised return; and

     (4) the safety of  the funds invested.

For example, the investment agreements that Gilliland's
investors typically signed referred to the investment programs
as a "high-yield banking transaction."  Most of these programs
guaranteed rates of return ranging from 30% per month to as high
as 130% per 10 days. According to the Commission's complaint,
Gilliland also misrepresented that investments were safe because
they would be fully collateralized by U.S. Treasury bills.
According to the complaint, Gilliland acted as broker-dealer
without registering with the Commission as a broker-dealer.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge
to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are
true, to provide the Respondent an opportunity to dispute these
allegations, and to determine what, if any, remedial sanctions
are appropriate and in the public interest.

The Order requires the Administrative Law Judge to issue an
initial decision no later that 210 days from the date of service
of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission's
Rules of Practice.


OLD REPUBLIC: Faces Insurance Fraud Suits in OH, FL State Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Republic National Title Insurance Company (ORNTIC) faces
several class actions filed in Ohio and Florida state Courts.
Substantially similar lawsuits have been filed against other
title insurance companies in New York and Florida.

Plaintiffs allege that, pursuant to rate schedules filed by
ORNTIC with insurance regulators, ORNTIC was required to, but
failed to give consumers a reissue credit on the premiums
charged for title insurance covering mortgage refinancing
transactions.  Both actions seek damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief.

The Ohio case has been stayed, pending an appeal in a similar
action against another title insurer.


OVERSEAS PARTNERS: NY Court Approves Consumer Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted final approval to the settlement of the two
class actions filed against Overseas Partners, Ltd. on behalf of
customers of United Parcel Service of America (UPS).

On November 19, 1999 and January 27, 2000, two suits were filed
in Montgomery County, Ohio Court and Butler County, Ohio Court,
respectively.  The lawsuits alleged, among other things, that
UPS told its customers that they were purchasing insurance for
coverage of loss or damage to goods shipped by UPS.  The
lawsuits further alleged that UPS wrongfully enriched itself
with the monies paid by its customers to purchase such
insurance.

The November 19, 1999 and January 27, 2000 actions were removed
to federal Court and thereafter transferred to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York and
consolidated in a multi-district litigation for pretrial
discovery purposes with other actions asserting claims against
UPS.  Plaintiffs subsequently amended those claims against all
defendants to join a Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO) claim as well.

On August 7, 2000, the Company and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Overseas Partners Capital Corporation (OPCC), were added as
defendants in a third class action lawsuit, also consolidated in
the multi-district litigation, which alleged violations of
United States antitrust laws, and state unfair trade practice
and consumer protection laws.  The allegations in the lawsuits
were drawn from an opinion by the United States Tax Court that
found that the insurance program, as offered through UPS, by
domestic insurance companies, and ultimately reinsured by the
Company, should not be recognized for federal income tax
purposes.

In June 2001, the Tax Court opinion was reversed by the United
States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  The Company
filed or joined in motions to dismiss all of the consolidated
actions on a number of grounds, including that the antitrust
claim failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted,
and that the remaining claims were preempted by federal law.  In
orders dated July 30, 2002, the Court granted in part and denied
in part the motions to dismiss.  Pursuant to the Court's orders,
the claims remaining against the Company were RICO, antitrust,
and common law interference with contract claims.  On November
8, 2002, the parties presented to the Court a stipulation and
proposed order certifying a nationwide class with respect to
certain of the claims brought by the plaintiffs, including the
RICO and interference with contract claims against the Company.
The Court approved the stipulation and proposed order.  The
stipulation did not certify the antitrust claims brought against
the Company.

During October 2003 the parties reached a tentative settlement
with respect to all claims brought by the various plaintiffs.
The settlement agreement was executed on December 31, 2003 and
on July 30, 2004 the Court approved the settlement.  The final
judgment and order approving the settlement and dismissing the
claims with prejudice was entered on August 6, 2004 and the
settlement was deemed effective on September 8, 2004.  During
September 2004 the Company paid $10 million in connection with
the settlement.


PHILIP MORRIS: Stephen Tillery Files Another Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent plaintiff's attorney Stephen Tillery recently
initiated another lawsuit in Madison County against Philip
Morris USA on behalf of his client, Steven Squires of Alton, the
Madison County Record reports.

In his suit, Mr. Squires, who has smoked between a pack-and-a-
half and two packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years, is seeking
more than $250,000 from Philip Morris is accusing the tobacco
Company of violating the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act by
representing Marlboro Lights as "lights" and thus implicitly
representing that they contained lower tar and nicotine.

According to complaint, Mr. Squires has been smoker since he was
a teenager and was diagnosed with lung cancer in November 2001,
smoking Marlboro Lights caused his lung cancer. He is also
claiming that he received higher levels of tar and nicotine from
his Marlboro Lights than Philip Morris represented and that the
smoke was also more mutagenic than regular cigarettes. "Each
milligram of tar from Marlboro Lights cigarettes actually
increases the mutagenicity (genetic and chromosomal damage) of
the tar delivered to the consumer and increases the levels of
most of the harmful toxins delivered to the consumer," Mr.
Squires further alleges in the suit.

The complaint, which is the third consumer fraud suit Mr.
Tillery filed within a week that targets the tobacco industry
has been assigned to Judge Philip Kardis. Mr. Tillery was the
class action plaintiff's attorney in the now-famous $10.1
billion bench verdict against Philip Morris USA last year, where
in he accumulated attorney's fees of $1.7 billion.


PITNEY BOWES: Enters Mediation To Settle Consumer Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pitney Bowes, Inc. entered into a mediation process with counsel
for the plaintiffs in the remaining putative class action
litigations arising out of the equipment replacement program its
wholly owned subsidiary, Pitney Bowes Credit Corporation (PBCC)
offers to certain of its leasing customers.

Several suits were initially filed against the Company, alleging
that the PBCC program is mischaracterized in the lease contract
and is not properly communicated to the customers.  Plaintiffs
are seeking class-wide relief on their breach of contract claims
only and that the class-wide damages sought are reimbursement of
the fees paid. The complaints also seek to enjoin PBCC from
offering the program in the future, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (March 15,2004) states.

The remaining class actions are:

     (1) Boston Reed v. Pitney Bowes, et al., filed in the
         Superior Court of California, County of Napa, filed
         January 16, 2002, on behalf of California customers,
         February 1998 to the present)

     (2) Harbin, et al. v. Pitney Bowes, et al., filed in the
         Montgomery, Alabama Circuit Court, on March 19, 2002,
         on behalf of Alabama customers, dating from March 1996
         to the present; the motion for summary judgment was
         denied in February 2004 but the Court has granted the
         Company the right to seek an immediate appeal of key
         aspects of that decision; the class certification
         motion is ready for decision with either party having
         the right to an immediate appeal of an adverse
         decision;

     (3) McFerrin Insurance v. Pitney Bowes, et al., filed in
         the District Court, Jefferson County, Texas, on May 29,
         2002, on behalf of a purported national class in
         September 2003;

     (4) Cred-X v. Pitney Bowes, et al., filed in the Circuit
         Court, Kanawha County West Virginia, on November 19,
         2003 on behalf of West Virginia customers with one
         claim purportedly on behalf of a national class of
         customers, with no date limitation disclosed.


PORTLAND GENERAL: Seeks Summary Judgment In Oregon Consumer Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Portland General Electric Co. (PGE) moved for summary judgment
in the class actions filed in Marion County Circuit Court in
Oregon against it on behalf of two classes of electric service
customers.

One case seeks to represent current PGE customers that were
customers during the period from April 1,1995 to October 1, 2001
(Current Class) and the other case seeks to represent PGE
customers that were customers during the period from April 1,
1995 to October 1, 2001, but who are no longer customers (Former
Class).  The suits seek damages of $190 million for the Current
Class and $70 million for the Former Class, as a result of the
inclusion of a return on investment of Trojan in the rates PGE
charges its customers.

On April 28, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment and on July 30, 2004, PGE also moved for
Summary Judgment in its favor on all of Plaintiff's claims.
Hearings on both the motion for Summary Judgment and class
certification are pending.


REHABCARE GROUP: MO Court Dismisses Suit For Securities Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri dismissed with prejudice a class action filed against
Rehabcare Group, Inc. and certain of its former and current
directors and officers, alleging violations of the federal
securities laws.

The suit had been certified as a class action with the class
consisting of persons that purchased shares of the Company's
common stock between August 10, 2000 and January 21, 2002.  The
case alleged weaknesses in the software systems selected by its
former StarMed Staffing subsidiary, and the purported negative
effects of such systems on the Company's business operations.

The appeal period for this decision has not yet lapsed.

The suit is styled "Gakenheimer v. RehabCare, et al, 4:02-CV-
001103 CAS," filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri, under Judge Rodney W. Sippel.

Lawyers for the defendants are Douglas M. Hagerman of FOLEY AND
LARDNER, 330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 3300, Chicago, IL 60611-
3608, Phone: 312-755-1900, Fax: 312-755-1925 or Steven M.
Sherman and Sherri C. Strand of THOMPSON COBURN, One US Bank
Plaza, St. Louis, MO 63101, Phone: 314-552-6000, Fax: 314-552-
7000, E-mail: ssherman@thompsoncoburn.com or
sstrand@thompsoncoburn.com.

Lawyers for the plaintiff are:

     (1) Donald H. Clooney, CLOONEY AND ANDERSON, 319 N. Fourth
         Street, Suite 200, St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-231-
         5855, Fax: 314-231-6909 E-mail:
         sbailey@clooneyanderson.com

     (2) Fred Taylor Isquith, WOLF AND HALDENSTEIN, 270 Madison
         Avenue, New York City, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600,
         E-mail: isquith@whafh.com

     (3) Charles J. Piven, LAW OFFICES OF CHARLES J. PIVEN, The
         World Trade Center - Baltimore, 401 E. Pratt Street,
         Suite 2525 Baltimore, MD 21202, Phone: 410-332-0030,
         Fax: 410-685-1300, E-mail: piven@pivenlaw.com


REWARDS NETWORK: Purchase Plan Participants Launch CA Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rewards Network, Inc. faces a class action currently pending in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, on behalf of participants in its Dining Credits
Purchase Plan.

The suit was initially filed on May 25, 2004 in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries.  Bistro Executive, Inc., Westward Beach Restaurant
Holdings, LLC and MiniBar Lounge, all of which were participants
in the Company's Dining Credits Purchase Plan, and their
respective owners filed the suit on behalf of a class consisting
of all restaurants located in California who participated in the
Plan and all persons in California who provided personal
guaranties of obligations under the Plan.

The complaint claims that amounts paid by the Company under the
Plan constituted loans, and asserts claims for damages and
equitable and injunctive relief for violations of California
usury laws and the California Unfair Business Practices Act and
declaratory relief.  The complaint seeks, among other relief,
disgorgement of all purported "interest" and profits earned by
the Company from the Plan in California, which plaintiffs allege
to be a significant portion of an amount in excess of $300
million, and treble damages for all purported "interest" paid
within one year prior to the filing of the complaint.

The suit is styled "Bistro Executive Inc et al v. Rewards
Network Inc et al., Case No.  2:04-cv-04640-CBM-Mc," in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division - Los Angeles, under Judge Consuelo
B. Marshall.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are Kenneth R. Chiate, James E.
Doroshaw and John S. Purcell of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver &
Hedges, 865 S Figueroa St, 10th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543,
Phone: 213-624-7707 or Fax: 213-624-0643 and Anat Levy of Anat
Levy and Associates, 8840 Wilshire Boulevard, Third Floor,
Beverly Hills, CA 90211, Phone: 310-358-3138

Lawyers for the defendants are Mark E Haddad, Aimee G. Mackay,
and Peter I. Ostrof of Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 555 W 5th St,
Ste 4000, Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010, Phone: 213-896-6000, E-
mail: mhaddad@sidley.com or postroff@sidley.com


SAINZ ENTERPRISES: Agrees To Settle FTC Consumer Fraud Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Colorado-based telemarketing firm and its principal have
agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission charges that they
deceived consumers in financial distress out of more than $200
each with offers for credit cards and promises to help them
rebuild their credit.

The settlement permanently bars Sainz Enterprises, LLC, and
owner Joe P. Sainz III from marketing certain credit products,
making any claims that violate the FTC's Telemarketing Sales
Rule (TSR), or knowingly assisting others who are violating the
TSR. The order also requires the defendants to review all sample
scripts and other marketing materials from any telemarketer or
seller in connection with their business.

According to the FTC, from 2002 through early 2003, the
defendants telemarketed advance-fee credit cards and credit
repair materials, which they billed as "Credit Securities
Resources." The defendants allegedly targeted consumers who
needed financial assistance or were trying to repair their
credit, including consumers who had recently filed for
bankruptcy, and offered them a "Credit Repair Kit." The
defendants promised that consumers would receive an "unsecured"
Visa or MasterCard for a fee of $209, which they debited from
consumers' bank accounts. Instead, consumers allegedly received
a stored-value card that could only be used if they loaded money
onto it.

The FTC's complaint alleged that the defendants violated the FTC
Act by misrepresenting that consumers could get an unsecured
major credit card for an advance fee. The FTC also charged that
the defendants violated the TSR by deceiving consumers through
telemarketing and collecting money from consumers after
promising them a credit card. Further, the FTC alleged that the
defendants violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act and the
FTC's Privacy Rule by failing to notify consumers of their
privacy practices after collecting sensitive personal financial
data from consumers and by obtaining such information from
consumers under false pretenses.

The order permanently bars the defendants from knowingly
assisting fraudulent telemarketers. To ensure that the
defendants comply with this provision, the order requires the
defendants to review all scripts and direct mail samples they
receive from third-party sellers - if they fail to do so, they
will be charged with consciously avoiding knowledge of the
telemarketers' illegal practices.

The order also prohibits the defendants from misrepresenting
that they can guarantee consumers a credit card for an advance
fee; taking consumers' money after promising them an extension
of credit; failing to provide consumers with privacy notices
when required to do so; reusing consumers' personal financial
information in certain circumstances; or using false information
to get consumers to divulge their personal financial
information.

The order also contains a suspended judgment of $75,000, which
the defendants will be required to pay if it is found that they
misrepresented their financial situation. The defendants are
required to provide a copy of the order to all employees and
clients. Finally, the order contains standard reporting and
recordkeeping provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the
defendants' compliance.

According to the FTC, the defendants also employed telemarketers
from Infinium, Inc., a Cedar City, Utah-based operation that
settled FTC charges that it participated in an international
telemarketing network illegally pitching advance-fee credit
cards to U.S. consumers using boiler rooms around the world. The
FTC alleges that Infinium telemarketers called consumers on
Sainz's behalf to sell Credit Securities Resources to consumers.
The February 2003 settlement with Infinium barred the
operation's illegal conduct, froze its assets, and appointed a
receiver to assume control of its business. See press release
dated February 27, 2003

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint and
stipulated final order was 5-0. Both pleadings were filed in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center, by
Mail: Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20580 or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also, contact
Jen Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2674
or Julie Brof, FTC Northwest Region by Phone: 206-220-4475.


SERVICE CORPORATION: Lawyers Get $25.8M From Cemetery Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The attorneys who won a $100 million judgment for family members
suing a funeral home accused of desecrating graves will receive
more than a quarter of the award, according to Broward Circuit
Judge J. Leonard Fleet, the Associated Press reports.

Judge Fleet stated that the 22 lawyers and paralegals who worked
on the case are entitled to $25.8 million for more than 24,000
hours of work in "complex issues of law" and in such areas as
"ground penetrating radar, global positioning technology,
topographical surveys, probing of the grave sites, cemetery
records and computer modeling to create maps and portray what
lay beneath the ground."

In his November 9 order, the judge wrote, "No attorney is
willing to expend millions of dollars in attorney time, and
hundreds of thousands of dollars in costs, only to be
compensated at regular hourly rates in the event of success."

As previously reported in the September 22, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Judge Fleet was expected to rule on the
case, which involves a Service Corporation International-owned
Menorah Gardens cemetery in Southwest Ranches and one in Palm
Beach County. In the original suit, Plaintiffs claim that
relatives' bodies were disinterred, in some instances desecrated
and thrown into brush just outside the cemetery, to make space
for new burials.

Another $29 million would also be set-aside separate from the
aforementioned settlement for the 12 families with the most
serious grave desecration claims.  To settle non-desecration
claims, including Company whistle-blowers' suits, the Company
has also set aside $6 million.

Barry Davidson, the Miami-based attorney for cemetery operator,
Houston-based Service Corporation International, the nation's
largest funeral services company said he's glad the case is
over.


TIME WARNER: Nears $750M Settlement With SEC Over AOL Scandal
-------------------------------------------------------------
In possibly one of the largest settlements the Securities and
Exchange Commission has extracted from a Company, Time Warner,
the world's largest media group, is nearing an agreement to pay
up to US$750m in a settlement with the US regulator over wide-
ranging allegations of accounting irregularities at its America
Online internet business, the New Zealand Herald reports.

The SEC had begun to investigate the disclosure, advertising
arrangements and treatment of subscriber numbers at AOL in 2002
with special attention given to transactions with Germany's
Bertelsmann. The SEC had insisted at the time that Time Warner
restate the way it accounted for transactions with Bertelsmann
in the months following the AOL merger, a request that Time
Warner initially rejected. The SEC's chief accountant has
accused Time Warner and America Online of improperly counting
US$400m from Bertelsmann as AOL advertising revenue, when
portions reflected payments for other purposes.

As part of the settlement, Time Warner would not admit SEC
allegations that AOL improperly pumped up revenue and profit
before or after the high-profile internet Company bought Time
Warner in 2001. According to observers, the deal though would
not end the ongoing investigation by the SEC and Department of
Justice into various individuals who worked for AOL. Although by
not having to admit guilt, Time Warner would be strengthened
against a flood of shareholder class action lawsuits.


UNUMPROVIDENT CORPORATION: Parker & Waichman To File More Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Parker & Waichman, LLP & associated counsel
continue to aggressively pursue claims on behalf of
UnumProvident Corp. (NYSE:UNM) policyholders, including those
who have purchased disability coverage under Paul Revere Life
Insurance Company, First Unum Life Insurance Company, Unum Life
Insurance Company of America, Provident Life and Accident
Insurance Company and Provident Life and Casualty Insurance
Company. While Parker & Waichman, LLP applauds UnumProvident's
decision to re-evaluate all denied claims, the firm strongly
encourages all policyholders who have previously been denied
benefits to seek legal representation to ensure that their
claims are re-evaluated fairly.

Last week, UnumProvident Corp., the nation's largest disability
insurer, offered to pay a $15 million penalty and reconsider
about 215,000 previously denied claims in response to an
investigation by insurance regulators around the United States.
UnumProvident insures more than 25 million people and has about
a quarter of the disability insurance market.

"While we are encouraged by UnumProvident's decision to
reconsider these denied claims, we can not put this matter
behind us yet," commented Jerrold S. Parker, one of the founding
partners of Parker & Waichman, LLP, a law firm committed to
advocating for the rights of UnumProvident policyholders.
"People purchase disability insurance to protect them in the
event that the unthinkable occurs. Unfortunately in this case,
UnumProvident policyholders were regularly denied the benefits
that they deserved which caused irrevocable harm to
policyholders and their families."

For more details, contact David Krangle, Esq. of Parker &
Waichman, LLP by Phone: 800-529-4636 by E-mail:
dkrangle@yourlawyer.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.yourlawyer.com/practice/overview.htm?topic=Unum%20Pro
vident%20Fraud or http://www.unumprovidentlawsuit.com.


US GRANT: FTC, LA Justice Department Halt Fraudulent Scheme
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Louisiana Department
of Justice shut down a fraudulent grant marketing service that
had cheated consumers out of millions of dollars.  The husband-
and-wife team cheated thousands of consumers across the country.
Working together, the FTC and the Louisiana AG brought separate
cases in federal and state Court and negotiated settlements in
each case with the New Orleans-based defendants.

The FTC order bars defendants from selling grant services in the
future, from misleading consumers regarding the sale of any
goods or services, and from violating the Commission's
Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR). It also requires them to pay
more than $500,000 in consumer redress, including $400,000 to
the FTC, $100,000 to Louisiana, and $5,000 to Wisconsin, which
filed a similar civil complaint against the defendants.

The action settles the Commission's complaint against:

     (1) U.S. Grant Resources, LLC;

     (2) National Grants, LLC;

     (3) John B. Rodgers; and

     (4) Laurel A. Rodgers

The Rodgers are the managing members of both corporate entities.
"We are pleased to be able to announce this action today jointly
with the attorneys general of Louisiana and Wisconsin. It should
send a message to grant marketers that we will be watching to
ensure their pitches are legitimate," said Lydia Parnes, Acting
Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection.  "This case
is an excellent example of how federal and state law enforcement
agencies can work together to help stop a fraud affecting
thousands of U.S. consumers."

According to the Commission's complaint - filed on March 2,
2004, concurrently with state actions in Louisiana and Wisconsin
- the defendants violated the FTC Act through a deceptive scheme
to market grant-procurement services nationwide for a fee.
Specifically, the FTC contended that, since at least September
2001, the defendants had bought classified ads in local
community newspapers, representing that, after paying a fee,
consumers were highly likely to receive a cash grant by using
their services. They also falsely stated that they would provide
a refund to consumers who did not secure a grant, while failing
to disclose that there were several conditions that discouraged
consumers from seeking refunds or that restricted their
availability.

After consumers called the toll-free number in the ads, the
defendants' representatives purportedly determined if the
consumer was qualified to receive a grant. According to the FTC,
they then collected the consumer's information and told them
that they needed to pay a "one-time processing fee" of between
$95 and $200. Consumers who expressed doubt or asked if they
could get their money back were told that the grant was
guaranteed and that they could receive a refund if not
satisfied.

The FTC alleged that within a few weeks, most consumers received
the defendants' information package in the mail. Instead of
grant applications, however, the package typically contained
only lists of agencies and foundations to write to seeking
funding. Many of the listed sources did not offer grants to
individuals, and some provided them only to nonprofit
organizations. Unsatisfied consumers - who often were turned
down by the grant sources on the lists - found that the terms of
the defendants' refund policy were difficult, if not impossible,
to meet.

The final judgment and order bans the defendants from marketing
any grant-procurement services and from telemarketing, as well
as assisting anyone else who is engaged in telemarketing
activities. They also are barred from making misrepresentations
similar to those alleged in the FTC's complaint, including that
consumers will make money through the use of their goods or
services or any other relevant fact material to a consumer's
purchasing decision. Finally, the defendants are barred from
violating the TSR in the future and from distributing their
customers' lists.

The order also imposes a $5.4 million monetary judgement against
the defendants, which will be suspended upon payment of $400,000
to the Commission for use as consumer redress. The defendants
will pay an additional $100,000 and $5,000 to Louisiana and
Wisconsin, respectively, to settle similar charges brought by
those states.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to file the stipulated
final order was 5-0. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana in New Orleans on Monday,
November 15, and signed by the judge the same day. The order was
entered by the Court on November 16, 2004. The FTC appreciates
the invaluable assistance of the Louisiana Department of Justice
and the Wisconsin Attorney General's Office in bringing the
action announced today. Additional support was provided by the
New Orleans office of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center, by
Mail: Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC
20580 or visit the website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also, contact
Mitchell J. Katz, Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2161 or W. David Griggs, FTC Southwest Region - Dallas
by Phone: 214-979-9378


VALASSIS COMMUNICATIONS: Shareholders Launch Stock Suits in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Valassis Communications, Inc., its Chief Executive Officer, Alan
F. Schultz and its Chief Financial Officer, Robert L Recchia
face several securities class actions filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock (NYSE:VCI) between
April 25, 2002 and October 23, 2002, inclusive, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

The actions are pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan, and allege that 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, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (November 24,2004) states.


WAL-MART CORPORATION: Sioux Man Lodges Racial Harassment Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Greg Clements, a Marine Corps veteran and a member of the Oglala
Sioux Tribe is suing Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart
Corporation, accusing employees at a Wal-Mart in Chadron,
Nebraska, a border town located about 50 miles south of the Pine
Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota with racial harassment,
including pointing a loaded gun at his head, the Native American
Times reports.

According to Mr. Clements, while he was working at the store in
June of this year, several other employees taunted him about an
archaic law apparently still on the books in the Nebraska town
of Crawford, which stated that if two or more American Indians
are found on or crossing a bridge, they can legally be shot at.

In his lawsuit Mr. Clements claims that he "did report to his
immediate supervisors about this inappropriate harassment, but
nothing was done to address and correct the behavior of the non-
Indian employees. The situation continued to escalate right up
to the end of the work shift when a Wal-Mart co-worker offered
Mr. Greg Clements a ride home. As he approached the co-worker's
truck, the co-worker inquired if he wished to see the type of
firepower he had and pointed a loaded .380 automatic pistol at
him. The co-worker kept the weapon leveled at Mr. Clements while
explaining the capabilities of the weapon. Naturally, he
declined the offered ride home."

Since the alleged incident Mr. Clements has filed a $25 million
lawsuit alleging racial discrimination and has also reportedly
gone into hiding, out of fear of retribution. Mr. Clements
believes a break-in at his home was related to the lawsuit.

However, according to Mary Ann RedCloud a Sioux woman whose son,
Joseph, worked at the store in question for a period of time,
the store seems to have improved its policies since the lawsuit
was filed last month. "Every time I went there, I didn't see
that many Indians, like they had no use for us, but last time I
was there it seemed a lot better. They have more Indians working
there now," Ms. RedCloud said from her home on the Pine Ridge
Indian Reservation.

The giant corporation, which is the nation's largest private
employer with some 3,580 stores and 1.2 million full and part-
time employees, is no stranger to legal action. Wal-Mart is
currently the target of a class action lawsuit based on sex
discrimination, as well as another class action case involving
wage violations.


XTEL MARKETING: Faces FTC Suit For Defrauding Elderly Customers
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Canadian enterprise that targets elderly consumers, dupes them
into revealing their bank account information, then debits
hundreds of dollars from their accounts is facing Federal Trade
Commission charges that its operation violated federal law.

According to the FTC, Xtel Marketing, Inc., and its principals
cold-called consumers across the United States and, masquerading
as Social Security or Medicare representatives, told consumers
that they must provide bank account information or risk losing
their Social Security payments. The FTC has asked the Court to
bar the defendants' illegal business practices and award
consumer redress.  On November 9, a U.S. district Court issued a
temporary restraining order barring the illegal activities and
freezing the defendants' assets.

According to the FTC, since at least 2002, Xtel Marketing, Navin
Baboolal, and Annilla Ramkissoon, doing business as Millenium
(sic) Consulting and Med Supply, have been making cold calls to
elderly consumers and claiming that, due to a Social Security
Administration computer failure, the consumers' personal
information had been erased from the system. The defendants tell
consumers that they must provide their bank account and routing
information to remedy the problem. The FTC's complaint states
that, if consumers are reluctant to provide the information, the
defendants often threaten them with delays or complete loss of
their Social Security benefit payments.

According to the FTC, the defendants also tell consumers they
will enroll them in a new Medicare insurance program that will
give them discounts on medication purchases and eyeglasses. The
defendants allegedly claim that they will debit $299 from
consumers' bank accounts to enroll them in the program, and will
send them a Medicare insurance card or drug discount card.
Although the defendants debit consumers' accounts, the consumers
receive nothing in return. According to papers filed with the
Court, consumers lost approximately $1 million in this scam.

The FTC also charges that the defendants have violated the FTC
Act by falsely claiming that:

     (1) they are employees of Medicare or the Social Security
         Administration;

     (2) consumers must give the defendants their bank account
         information to replace information lost in a computer
         failure;

     (3) consumers may lose their Social Security benefits if
         they do not provide the requested information; and

     (4) the defendants will enroll consumers in a Medicare
         insurance program after debiting $299 from consumers'
         accounts.

The FTC further charges that the defendants have violated the
Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) by misrepresenting that they can
provide consumers with Medicare insurance or drug discount cards
in exchange for the $299 they debit from consumers' bank
accounts and by misrepresenting an affiliation with the Social
Security Administration or Medicare.

Finally, the FTC's complaint alleges that the defendants
violated the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by claiming they were
affiliated with a government entity to trick consumers into
divulging their bank account information. The FTC has asked the
Court to bar the defendants' illegal operation and award redress
for consumers who have fallen victim to the scam.

The FTC brought this matter with assistance from the members of
the Toronto Strategic Partnership, a cross-border fraud law
enforcement effort that includes, in addition to the FTC,
Competition Bureau Canada, the Ontario Provincial Police Anti-
Rackets, the Toronto Police Service Fraud Squad, the Ontario
Ministry of Consumer and Business Services, and the United
States Postal Inspection Service.

The Commission vote authorizing staff to file the complaint was
5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division on November 9,
2004.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,by
Mail: Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C.
20580 or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact
Jen Schwartzman, Office of Public Affairs by Phone: 202-326-2181
or John C. Hallerud, FTC Midwest Region by Phone: 312-960-5633.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTOBYTEL INC.: Glancy Binkow Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of a class (the
"Class") consisting all persons or entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities of Autobytel, Inc. ("Autobytel" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq:ABTLE) between July 24, 2003 and October
21, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Autobytel and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Autobytel's operations and
performance during the Class Period artificially inflated the
Company's stock price, inflicting damages on investors.
Autobytel is an automotive marketing services Company that helps
dealers and manufacturers through its marketing, advertising and
customer relationship management tools and programs, primarily
through the Internet. The Complaint alleges defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that their statements were materially
false and misleading when made because:


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

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

     (3) the Company's financial results were in violation of
         GAAP;

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

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

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

On October 21, 2004, the Company revealed its third quarter 2004
financial results would be rescheduled because the Audit
Committee and Board of Directors of the Company were directing
an internal review of the accounting treatment of certain
credits that were recognized as revenue during the preceding
quarters. These revelations shocked the market, causing
Autobytel's share price to plummet the next day from the
previous day's close of $8.81, to close on October 22, 2004, at
$6.88, a one-day drop of nearly twenty two percent (22%) as a
result of this news.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Mail: 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite
311, Los Angeles, CA 90067 by Phone: 310-201-9150 or
888-773-9224 or by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com.


FANNIE MAE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Lawsuit in DC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on behalf of all those who purchased
publicly traded securities of the Federal National Mortgage
Association (operating as Fannie Mae) (NYSE:FNM) ("Fannie Mae"
or the "Company") between October 11, 2000 and September 22,
2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Fannie Mae, Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy
Howard, and Leanne G. Spencer 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 known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

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

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

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

     (4) that the Company deferred expenses to achieve bonus
         compensation targets;

     (5) that the Company had insufficient and inadequate
         internal controls; and

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

On September 22, 2004, Fannie Mae, prior to the opening of the
market, disclosed, in brief, the findings of the Office of
Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ("OFHEO") report. The
report revealed that Fannie Mae was engaged in inappropriate
accounting practices. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Fannie Mae fell $4.96 per share, or 6.56 percent, to close at
$70.69 per share on unusually high trading volume. After the
market closed on September 22, 2004, OFHEO released the complete
report detailing Fannie Mae's inappropriate accounting
practices. The market reacted swiftly. The next trading day
shares of Fannie Mae fell an additional $3.24 per share, or 4.58
percent, by noon on September 23, 2004.

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


REMEC INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired Remec, Inc. (NASDAQ: REMC)
("Remec" or the "Company") securities (the "Class") between
September 8, 2003 and September 8, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Plaintiff alleges that Remec, Ronald E. Ragland, and Winston E.
Hickman violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More
specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material, adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) defendants used faulty assumptions with respect to
         revenue growth and gross margins in the Wireless
         Systems subsidiary, in determining if its goodwill was
         impaired;

     (2) due to the faulty assumptions, the defendants failed to
         take timely goodwill impairments;

     (3) as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company's
         announced financial results were in violation of
         generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP");

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

On September 9, 2004, Remec filed a Form 10-Q with the SEC for
the Company's second quarter of fiscal year 2005, which ended
July 30, 2004. The filing occurred a few hours after the filing
deadline. The reason for the delay was to allow management
additional time to finalize the required accounting disclosures
associated with the goodwill impairment charge. The Company also
stated that it had begun a detailed assessment of its internal
controls. Shares of Remec fell $1.00 per share or 18.87%, on
September 9, 2004, to close at $4.30 per share.

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


SOURCECORP INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a securities class action on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of SOURCECORP, Inc. ("SOURCECORP" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:SRCP) between May 7, 2003 and October 27,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, against SOURCECORP and
individual defendants, Ed H. Bowman, Jr. (President and CEO) and
Barry Edwards (Executive Vice President and 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.

SOURCECORP Incorporated provides value-added business process
outsourcing solutions. The Company targets information-intensive
industry segments such as healthcare, legal, financial services
and government. According to the complaint, throughout the Class
Period defendants issued numerous materially false and
misleading statements about the Company's improving financial
performance, which caused SOURCECORP's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels. These statements are alleged to be
materially false and misleading because when made, defendants
knew but failed to disclose the following:

     (1) that the Company had improperly and prematurely
         recognized revenue prior to delivering contractually
         required output to a certain customer;

     (2) that the Company had improperly and prematurely
         recognized revenue for services that were performed and
         delivered to customers that were in excess of the
         volume and/or revenue limits set by the contract with
         the customer and for which there was no assurance that
         the customer would ever make payment;

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

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's revenues and earnings for 2003 and the first
         two quarters of 2004 were materially overstated at all
         relevant times and would have to be restated.

On October 27, 2004, SOURCECORP surprised investors when it
issued a press release announcing that based on information
provided by, and the recommendation of corporate management, the
Company's Audit Committee concluded on October 25, 2004 that the
Company's previously-issued financial statements and related
independent auditors' report for the year ended December 31,
2003, as well as its previously-issued financial statements for
the 2004 quarterly reports for periods ended March 31, 2004 and
June 30, 2004, should no longer be relied upon. Specifically,
the Company admitted that the Information Management Division of
its Information Management and Distribution business had
improperly and prematurely recognized revenue prior to the
delivery of contractually required output to a certain customer
and for services which were performed and delivered to certain
customers in excess of the volume and/or revenue limits set by
the contract. Due to its improper revenue recognition practices,
the Company will have to adjust its revenues and diluted
earnings per share for 2003 by at least $5.4 million and $0.19
respectively. For the six months ended June 30, 2004, the
Company may have to adjust its revenues and diluted earnings per
share by at least $2.8 million and $.10 respectively.

Upon revealing this news, shares of the Company's stock fell
$5.96 per share, or almost 30%, to close at $16.25 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq., Angela M. Wallis
or Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W. West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C. 20005
by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail:
stolldc@cmht.com or awallis@cmht.com.


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Tripath Technology, Inc. ("Tripath")
(NASDAQ:TRPH) common stock during the period between January 29,
2004 and October 22, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Tripath and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Tripath develops and supplies digital amplifiers for three
markets based on proprietary technology, called Digital Power
Processing (DPP).

The complaint alleges that starting in September of 2003,
Tripath announced that it would be introducing a "revolutionary"
architecture platform for digital audio amplifiers, which it
labeled as "Godzilla." Following this announcement, for nearly a
year, Tripath consistently reiterated the potential of Godzilla
and the Company's on-schedule execution of its strategy to
market and manufacture Godzilla. In fact, Tripath was not close
to a single sale of Godzilla during 2004. Additionally,
throughout the Class Period, Tripath's financial results were
false and misleading because of improper revenue recognition and
because of inadequate and deficient internal controls, resulting
in the resignation of its independent auditor.

On October 22, 2004, Tripath announced that it might have to
restate its financial statements for the second quarter of 2004,
that it was reducing its guidance for the third quarter of 2004
by $4-$4.5 million, and that its former independent accountants,
BDO Seidman, LLP, had resigned after issuing a letter "asserting
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."

Market reaction was swift and negative, with the price of
Tripath common stock falling 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.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers
of Tripath common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has
expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive
experience in actions involving financial fraud.

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


                            *********


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  * * *