CAR_Public/041129.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, November 29, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 236

                          Headlines

AAIPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs To File Consolidated Securities Suit
ALABAMA: Judge Denies Certification To Suit Over Aldridge Flood
AMEREN CORPORATION: Court Nixes Appeal of Certification Denial
AON CORPORATION: IL Court Issues Notice For Profit Sharing Suit
AUSTRIA: Relatives Of Ski Disaster Victims Press For Settlement

AUSTRALIA: Federal Court Dismisses CBA-EDS Related Court Action
CAPSTONE TURBINE: Directors' Committee Approves Stock Suit Pact
CHARTER ONE: IL Court Issues Notice For "Junk Fax" Settlement
FIRST CENTRAL: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 7, 2005
GOLD BANC: KS Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit With Prejudice

GOLD BANC: Agricultural Loans Lawsuit Moved To OK Federal Court
GOLD BANC: Faces Lawsuit Over Loan Interest Fraud in OK Court
i2 TECHNOLOGIES: TX Court OKs Securities Litigation Settlement
JAKKS PACIFIC: Faces Several Shareholder Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
JUDICIAL ARBITRATION: Chooses Not To Enforce Contractual Bans

KENTUCKY: Judge Says Priests Can't Refuse Depositions in Suit
KVH INDUSTRIES: RI Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
LORAL SPACE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
LORAL SPACE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit
LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Provides Updates On NY Securities Lawsuit

MARATHON ASHLAND: Station Owners File Suit V. Contaminated Gas
NEW YORK: Workers File Suit V. EPA, OSHA Over Site's Air Quality
NEWPORT ADHESIVES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 31, 2005
POST PROPERTIES: GA Court Approves Securities Suits Settlement
PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: VA Court Consolidates Stock Lawsuits

REGENCY AFFILIATES: DE Court Dismisses Shareholders' Claims
VERISIGN INC.: Plaintiffs File Second Amended CA Securities Suit
WELLPOINT HEALTH: Trial in FL Managed Care Suit Set March 2005
WELLPOINT HEALTH: CA Court Orders Arbitration of PBM Suit Claims
WELLPOINT HEALTH: Working To Settle CA Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit

WEST COAST: Faces Natural Gas Prices Antitrust Suit in CA Court
WEST COAST: Named As Defendant in NY Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
WEST COAST: Faces Natural Gas Prices Antitrust Suit in E.D. CA

                New Securities Fraud Cases

AXIS CAPITAL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY


                         *********


AAIPHARMA INC.: Plaintiffs To File Consolidated Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs are expected to file a consolidated securities class
action against aaiPharma, Inc. and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina by December
2004.

The suits allege violations of federal securities laws.  The
securities lawsuits assert claims arising under Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
there under on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's
common stock during the period from January 31, 2002 through and
including March 1, 2004.  The securities complaints allege
generally that the defendants knowingly or recklessly made false
or misleading statements during the Class Period concerning the
Company's financial condition and that our financial statements
did not present its true financial condition and were not
prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting
principles.  The securities complaints seek certification as a
class action, unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys' fees
and costs, and other relief.

By order dated April 16, 2004, the District Court consolidated
the securities lawsuits into one consolidated action.  The
Company expects that these plaintiffs will file a consolidated,
amended complaint in December 2004, to which it will respond in
lieu of responding to the individual complaints.

Additionally, a stockholder derivative action alleging
violations of state law fiduciary responsibilities is also
pending.  The stockholder derivative suit asserts state law
claims for breach of fiduciary duty, gross negligence, breach of
contract, and insider trading, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other
relief.

In addition, the Company, one of its former officers, certain of
its employees and others have been named in a purported class
action brought by an aaiPharma pension plan participant and
beneficiary asserting claims under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) on behalf of a class of all persons
who are or were participants or beneficiaries of the aaiPharma
Inc. Retirement and Savings Plan during the period from April
24, 2002 to March 31, 2004.

The complaint alleges generally that the defendants breached
fiduciary duties owed under ERISA with respect to the investment
of Plan assets in aaiPharma stock by misleading participants and
beneficiaries of the Plan regarding the Company's earnings,
prospects, and business condition.  The complaint seeks
certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.  This
ERISA lawsuit is pending in U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.  The proceedings in this matter are
expected to be coordinated with the securities lawsuits.

A lead plaintiff was appointed in the federal securities
litigation on October 14, 2004, and a consolidated amended
complaint has not yet been served in the securities and ERISA
litigation.


ALABAMA: Judge Denies Certification To Suit Over Aldridge Flood
---------------------------------------------------------------
Etowah County Circuit Judge William H. Rhea III recently denied
class action status for a $40 million lawsuit on behalf of 500
people, who are seeking flood damages from the city and several
land developers over flash flooding along Aldridge Creek in
southeast Huntsville in 1999, the Huntsville Times reports.

According to Huntsville lawyer Dick Richardson, the Court
decided there were too many dissimilar claims to certify the
case as a class action. He further stated, "The way the law
regarding class actions has been developing over the past few
years, we decided not to oppose the city motion or the judge's
decision." Although class action status was created for a good
purpose, Mr. Richardson said that there have been abuses and
that "It is unfortunate that such a sorely needed device is not
available to these people who have borderline cases."

The Huntsville lawyer originally filed the lawsuit in 2000 on
behalf of five clients in Madison County Circuit Court, claiming
that sticky mud and stinky, sewage-contaminated water rushed
into their homes during the June 1999 flooding. In their suit,
plaintiffs said that the flooding occurred because the city
allowed unchecked land development in the neighborhood and that
in addition both the city and developers neglected to improve
drainage systems significantly to prevent damage.

Mr. Richardson later requested class action status to include
all members of the Valley Homeowners Association and anyone who
owned a home along the Aldridge Creek watershed, which would
have included nearly 500 plaintiffs.

The lawsuit named the city as the primary defendant. Mr.
Richardson also named as defendants: Lindy Industries Inc.,
Somerby at Jones Farm LLC, Atria Inc., W.M. Development LLC,
Jones Valley Development Co. Inc., Crown Land Resources Co. and
The Ledges of Huntsville Ltd. Court records though show that
both Lindy Industries and Crown Land Resources were dismissed
from the case after negotiations with the plaintiffs.

Originally assigned to Madison County Circuit Judge E. Dwight
Fay, who retired in 2003, the case was later assigned by the
Alabama Supreme Court to Judge Rhea in Etowah County after all
the Madison County circuit judges declined to hear the case.

Attorneys Mike Fees and Allen Anderson, who are representing the
city, asked the Court to dismiss the class action because of the
dissimilarities of many of the cases. Some of the cases involved
people who did not live in the designated flood plain while some
claimed flooding inside their homes and others had no flooding
indoors. The attorneys also argued that damage claims varied
from as little as $999 to as much as $371,000.

In his ruling though, Judge Rhea stated that his order does not
dismiss the claims of individual plaintiffs.


AMEREN CORPORATION: Court Nixes Appeal of Certification Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals refused to
allow plaintiffs to appeal a lower Court ruling denying class
certification to the lawsuit it filed against Ameren
Corporation.

On June 18, 2003, 20 retirees and surviving spouses of retirees
of various Ameren companies (the plaintiffs) filed a complaint
in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Illinois (the
District Court), against the Company and:

     (1) Union Electric Company (UE),

     (2) Central Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS),

     (3) Ameren Energy Generating Company,

     (4) Ameren Services Company, and

     (5) the Company's Retiree Medical Plan

The retirees were members of various local labor unions of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the
International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE).  The
complaint, referred to as Barnett, et al. vs. Ameren
Corporation, et al., alleges that:

     (i) the labor organizations which represented the
         plaintiffs have historically negotiated retiree medical
         benefits with the defendants and that pursuant to the
         negotiated collective bargaining agreements and other
         negotiated documents, the plaintiffs are guaranteed
         medical benefits at no cost or at a fixed maximum cost
         during their retirement;

    (ii) Ameren has unilaterally announced that, beginning in
         2004, retirees must pay a portion of their own
         healthcare premiums and either an increasing portion of
         their dependents' premiums or newly imposed dependents'
         premiums, and that surviving spouses will be paying
         increased amounts for their medical benefits;

   (iii) the defendants' actions deprive the plaintiffs of
         vested benefits and thus violate the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor
         Management Relations Act of 1947, and constitute a
         breach of the defendants' fiduciary duties; and

    (iv) the defendants are estopped from changing the plan
         benefits. (This allegation was subsequently dropped
         from the amended complaint).

The plaintiffs filed the complaint on behalf of themselves,
other similarly situated former non-management employees and
their surviving spouses who retired from January 1, 1992 through
October 1, 2002, and on behalf of all subsequent non-management
retirees and their surviving spouses whose medical benefits are
reduced or are threatened with reduction.  The plaintiffs seek
to have this lawsuit certified as a class action, seek
injunctive relief and declaratory relief, seek actual damages
for any amounts they are made to pay as a result of the
defendants' actions, and seek payment of attorney fees and
costs.

In response to the Court's ruling on the defendants' motions to
dismiss various counts of the complaint, a second amended
complaint was filed on December 15, 2003, clarifying some of the
allegations, and adding the Ameren Group Medical Plan as a
defendant.  In April 2004, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss one of the counts brought in
connection with the amended complaint which alleges the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA.  In July
2004, the District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to
certify this lawsuit as a class action and in September 2004,
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
application to appeal the District Court's decision.  In August
2004, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which
is pending before the District Court.

The suit is styled "Barnett, et al v. Ameren Corporation, et
al., case no. 3:03-cv-00402-GPM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, under
Judge G. Patrick Murphy.

Lawyers for the defendants are Elizabeth C. Carver, Daniel M.
O'Keefe, Jeffrey S. Russell, Thomas E. Wack of Bryan Cave - St.
Louis, Generally Admitted, 211 North Broadway, One Metropolitan
Square, Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-259-2000, E-
mail: eccarver@bryancave.com

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are: Cary Hammond, Sherrie A.
Schroder, Janet E. Young of Diekemper, Hammond et al., 7730
Carondelet, Suite 200, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone: 314-727-1015
E-mail: cmercer@dhstl.com and William Payne, 1007 Mount Royal
Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA 15223, Phone: 412-492-8797, E-mail:
wpayne@stargate.net.


AON CORPORATION: IL Court Issues Notice For Profit Sharing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois - County Department -
Chancery Division issued a notice of class action in the matter
of Alan S. Daniel and Williamson County Agricultural Association
v. AON Corporation, et. al. (No. 99 CH 11893) to all persons who
obtained insurance directly or indirectly through AON
Corporation, AON Group, Inc., AON Services Group, Inc. or any
other subsidiaries or affiliates.

According to the notice, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants'
receive or are eligible to receive bonus or profit sharing
commissions from insurers without the insured's knowledge and
consent, violating an alleged duty Defendants have toward the
insureds. Plaintiffs request that the amount of the bonus or
profit sharing commissions be placed in a constructive trust for
the benefit of insureds.

For more details, contact Peter Linden, Esq. or Richard Stone,
Esq. of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Ave.,
10th Floor, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: (212) 371-6600 or
(888) 529-4797 or by Fax: (212) 751-2540.


AUSTRIA: Relatives Of Ski Disaster Victims Press For Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing families of the 155 skiers and
snowboarders from Austria, Germany and the United States that
were killed in a November 11, 2000 alpine cable car fire are
asking Austrian officials of a commission working to determine
compensation for those who lost loved ones for a euro120 million
(US$155 million) settlement, the Associated Press reports.

According to the attorneys, the families are seeking euro50
million (US$65 million) from the Austrian government, euro50
million (US$65 million) from Gletscherbahnen Kaprun AG, the
Company that operated the cable car and euro20 million (US$26
million) from the province of Salzburg and the city of Kaprun
where the tragedy occurred.

Ursula Geiger of Germany, who lost her 14-year-old son, Michael,
said a settlement would avoid a drawn-out Court battle and help
bring closure four years after Austria's deadliest peacetime
disaster.

Ed Fagan, a U.S. attorney leading the push for a settlement that
would represent euro800,000 (US$1 million) for each of the 155
victims, said there had been "significant progress" and
expressed hope that the claims could be resolved by the end of
January. He also said that in return for the settlement, the
relatives would drop a class-action lawsuit filed in U.S.
District Court in New York on behalf of victims from several
countries.

The victims were headed for a day of fun on a glacier atop the
Kitzsteinhorn mountain near Kaprun, a popular ski resort 100
kilometers (60 miles) south of Salzburg in the heart of
Austria's Alps, when the cable car bringing them to the summit
caught fire in a tunnel.

Most of those who perished in the inferno, which was Austria's
deadliest peacetime disaster, were from Austria and Germany,
while eight other victims were Americans, including a family of
four and a newly engaged couple. The rest came from Japan,
Slovenia, the Netherlands and Britain. Only 12 people managed to
escape the crowded car, part of what is known as a funicular
train, which ascended the mountain on a track while being pulled
by a steel cable.

An investigation into the disaster indicated that a defective
space heater in the car caused a heating element to come loose,
causing hydraulic brake oil in nearby pipes to overheat, drip
onto the plastic-coated floor and set it alight.

In the ensuing trial for charges of criminal negligence, sixteen
people, including cable car Company officials, technicians and
government inspectors, were acquitted in February in a verdict
that relatives denounced as a miscarriage of justice. According
to the presiding judge in the case, there was insufficient
evidence to find the defendants, who had all pleaded innocent,
responsible for the conditions that caused the blaze.

Austrian prosecutors in September appealed eight of the 16
acquittals, and lawyers for the victims' families have filed
separate civil proceedings in Germany and the United States
seeking compensation.

According to Mr. Fagan, the commission's first settlement offer
was just over euro7,500 (US$9,750) per victim. In subsequent
negotiations, that rose to euro60,000 (US$78,000), and the
latest offer was for the families to split insurance policies
totaling about euro20 million (US$256 million), or roughly
euro130,000 (US$170,000) per victim, he said.

The families hold the Austrian government partly responsible for
allegedly having ordered the defective space heater to be
installed in the cable car and having failed to ensure adequate
ventilation in the tunnel.


AUSTRALIA: Federal Court Dismisses CBA-EDS Related Court Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Court in Sydney recently dismissed proceedings
against Commonwealth Bank of Australia (CBA), Australia's second
biggest bank by nearly 600 staff, who had resigned over a
controversial outsourcing deal seven years ago, the Asia
Intelligence Wire reports.

CBA had outsourced its information services department to EDS in
1997. The bank claims that it had offered the department's 1,400
staff the choice between jobs at EDS or elsewhere in the bank.
Most of the employees chose to resign and take up jobs at EDS,
but 572 sued the bank for redundancy pay in a class action
spearheaded by the Finance Sector Union.

In statement, the bank said the decision reaffirmed the Court's
previous decision, which the FSU appealed and that the decision
also vindicated its actions in defending its position. The
statement further said, "Staff who chose to resign from the bank
and move to EDS in 1997 were in no way disadvantaged. They
retained terms and conditions that were equal to or better than
the terms and conditions of employment with the bank on an
overall basis, including the bank's redundancy arrangements."

Furthermore, CBA stated, "The decision vindicates the bank's
position that redundancy monies should not be paid to employees
that have ongoing employment." CBA also said it cut 20 per cent
of its information services costs through the decade-long EDS
contract, which was initially worth an estimated $5 billion a
year.


CAPSTONE TURBINE: Directors' Committee Approves Stock Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
A special committee of Capstone Turbine Corporation's Board of
Directors approved the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against the Company, two of its officers, and
the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The suit purports to be a class action filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
June 28, 2000 to December 6, 2000.  An amended complaint was
filed on April 19, 2002.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in the Company's June 28, 2000 initial public
offering and November 16, 2000 secondary offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases
of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

Plaintiffs allege that the prospectuses for these two public
offerings were false and misleading in violation of the
securities laws because they did not disclose these
arrangements.

The settlement would provide, among other things, a release of
the Company and of the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful in the Amended Complaint.
The Company would agree to undertake other responsibilities
under the partial settlement, including agreeing to assign away,
not assert, or release certain potential claims the Company may
have against its underwriters.  The committee agreed to approve
the settlement subject to a number of conditions, including the
participation of a substantial number of other defendants in the
proposed settlement, the consent of the Company's insurers to
the settlement, and the completion of acceptable final
settlement documentation.  Furthermore, the settlement is
subject to a hearing on fairness and approval by the Court.

The suit is styled "In Re Capstone Turbine Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, docket number 01-CV-11220,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


CHARTER ONE: IL Court Issues Notice For "Junk Fax" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois issued a notice of
class action and proposed settlement in the matter Inspe
Association, Ltd. V. Charter One Bank (No. 03 CH 10965) to all
persons or entities located anywhere in the United States, who
were sent or received an unsolicited facsimile advertisement
from or on behalf of Charter One Bank or any other Charter One
entity subsequent to July 1, 1998.

The notice relates to the proposed settlement of a class action
lawsuit that stems from allegations that Charter One Bank sent
unsolicited advertisements by fax.

For more details, contact Nick Zola of Edelman, Combs, Latturner
& Goodwin, LLC by Mail: 120 S. La Salle St., Chicago, IL 60603-
3403 by Phone: 1-800-644-4673 or visit their Web site:
http://www.edcombs.com.


FIRST CENTRAL: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 7, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
New York will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $3.78
million settlement in the matter Sam Lipson V. Martin J. Simon
(CV 98 4573 (TP)) otherwise known as the FCFC Securities
Litigation, on behalf of all persons who purchased the common
stock of First Central Financial Corporation (FCFC) during the
period July 6, 1997.

The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing to approve the
proposed settlement to occur before the Honorable Thomas J.
Platt at the United States Courthouse, 834 Federal Plaza,
Central Islip, New York 11722 at 2:00 pm on January 7, 2005.

For more details, contact FCFC Securities Litigation c/o
Complete Claims Solutions, Inc. by Mail: P.O. Box 24648, West
Palm Beach, FL 33416 or by Phone: (800) 930-0057.


GOLD BANC: KS Court Dismisses Shareholder Lawsuit With Prejudice
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Johnson County, Kansas dismissed with
prejudice the class action filed against Gold Banc Corporation
and nine of its directors, relating to a resale by the Company
of 530,000 shares of the Company's common stock to five
directors in the second quarter of 2003, which shares were
obtained from Michael Gullion in partial satisfaction of his
restitution obligations to the Company.

The complaint alleges that the Company's directors breached
their fiduciary duties by approving the Agreement and Plan of
Merger with Silver Acquisition Corporation and SAC Acquisition
Corporation, to enable those directors to sell those shares
sooner than they would have otherwise been legally able to do
under the federal securities laws.


GOLD BANC: Agricultural Loans Lawsuit Moved To OK Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Gold Banc Corporation, styled
"Wayne K. Janzen, Dustin E. Cole and Michael Ross v. Gold Banc
Corporation, Inc., GBC Kansas, Inc., d/b/a Gold Bank-Kansas and
GBC Oklahoma, Inc., d/b/a Gold Bank-Oklahoma," has been removed
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
Oklahoma.

This case was initially filed in the District Court of
Kingfisher County, Oklahoma on September 10, 2004.  The
plaintiffs bring the case on behalf of themselves and on behalf
of the putative class of all those similarly situated.  The
putative class is composed of all those agricultural borrowers
with loans that are or were guaranteed by the United States of
America through the FSA guaranteed loan program.

The plaintiffs generally allege that the defendants have engaged
in a pattern of charging interest rates and fees in excess of
what they charge their average agricultural customer.  The
petition contains six counts against the defendants.  The counts
are for breach of contract, negligence in the performance of
servicing the FSA guaranteed loans, unjust enrichment by
realizing increased profits caused by not disclosing to
borrowers that the defendant banks were charging excessive
interest rates and fees, a claim for usury, and an injunction
for preventing the defendant banks from continuing their alleged
practice of charging excessive interest rates and fees.  No
specific damage amounts are specified other than more than
$10,000 is sought on each count.  Plaintiffs also seek punitive
damages and their costs and attorneys' fees.

An answer denying the allegations in the petition was filed on
behalf of Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. and GBC Kansas, Inc. only.
Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state Court
and defendants have filed a response in opposition.  The Court
has not yet decided the motion to remand. There has been no
discovery in the case and no motion to certify a class or
classes has been filed.


GOLD BANC: Faces Lawsuit Over Loan Interest Fraud in OK Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gold Banc Corporation faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma,
styled "H.D. Young, Troy Boelte, Misti Boelte, Larry M. Boelte,
Neacha Boelte, Mark Lorenzen, Denniece Lorenzen, Harold I. Mason
and Jaynee D. Mason v. Gold Banc Corporation, Inc. and its
wholly-owned subsidiaries, Gold Bank Oklahoma, Gold Bank Kansas,
GBC Oklahoma, Inc. and GBC Kansas, Inc."

Plaintiffs filed the suit as individuals and on behalf of
persons similarly situated.  The putative class is composed of
all who entered into loan agreements with the defendant banks,
which loans were in turn guaranteed by the FSA under the FSA's
federally sponsored guaranteed loan program.  The complaint
generally alleges that the defendant banks charged their average
farm customer a lesser interest rate than was charged to FSA
guaranteed borrowers.  The plaintiffs claim that charging the
higher interest rate is usurious.

In addition to the usury cause of action, the complaint alleges
that because defendants have made no refunds to the plaintiff
class, they converted said unspecified funds.  Plaintiffs claim
that defendants committed fraud by materially misrepresenting to
the class that defendants would honestly and faithfully abide by
the FSA rules and regulations although defendants knew they were
not going to follow such rules and regulations.  The complaint
also alleges that:

     (1) the defendants owed a fiduciary duty to the class and
         breached such duty;

     (2) the defendants failed to perform their obligations and
         failed to properly credit the plaintiff class with the
         sums of money otherwise due under the guaranteed loan
         program;

     (3) defendants received money from the federal government
         that was to be paid to the defendants for the use and
         benefit of the class, but instead was converted by
         defendants for their own use;

     (4) the defendant banks charged a 1% origination fee on all
         guaranteed loans and that requiring the fee to be paid
         was a contract of adhesion,

     (5) the defendant banks do not charge similar fees on non-
         guaranteed loans and violated the applicable federal
         regulations;

     (6) the defendants' acts were deceitful and done with
         intent to defraud the class of borrowers; and

     (7) because defendants' conduct was fraudulent, the class
         is entitled to a contract reformation to the extent the
         promissory notes and renewals of interest assist failed
         to express the true intent of the parties to follow the
         terms of the guaranteed loan program.

The plaintiffs want to recover for the class all sums paid to
the defendants for usurious interest, which amount should be
doubled, forgiveness of all future interest otherwise due under
any note, punitive damages, and costs of the suit, including
reasonable attorneys' fees.  No specific amounts of monetary
damages are alleged.   An answer was filed on behalf of Gold
Banc Corporation, Inc., GBC Kansas, Inc. and Gold Bank, a Kansas
bank.


i2 TECHNOLOGIES: TX Court OKs Securities Litigation Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas granted approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class actions and the shareholder derivative
litigation filed against i2 Technologies, Inc. and certain of
its officers and directors.

Beginning in March 2001, a number of purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).  The cases
were consolidated, and in August 2001 the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that the Company and
certain of its officers and directors violated the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, by making purportedly false and
misleading statements concerning the characteristics and
implementation of certain of the Company's software products.
The consolidated amended complaint sought unspecified damages on
behalf of a purported class of purchasers of our common stock
during the period from May 4, 2000 to February 26, 2001.  By
stipulation, in December 2002, the Court certified the plaintiff
class.

Beginning in April 2003, additional purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division) against the
Company and certain of its current and former officers and
directors.  The complaints brought claims under the federal
securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to the 2003
restatement of the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Specifically, these actions alleged that the Company issued a
series of false or misleading statements to the market during
the class period that failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company had materially overstated our revenue by
         improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer
         contracts,

     (2) the Company lacked adequate internal controls and were
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition, and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
         statements issued during the class period were
         materially false and misleading.

Plaintiffs contended that such statements caused the Company
stock price to be artificially inflated.  The complaints sought
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from April 18,
2000 to January 24, 2003.  In July 2003, all of these class
action complaints were consolidated for purposes of pre-trial
matters only.

In April 2001, a purported shareholder derivative lawsuit was
filed in Dallas County, Texas, against certain of the Company's
officers and directors, naming the Company as a nominal
defendant.  The complaint alleged that certain of the Company's
officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to the
Company and its stockholders by:

     (i) selling shares of the Company's common stock while in
         possession of material adverse non-public information
         regarding its business and prospects, and

    (ii) disseminating inaccurate information regarding the
         Company's business and prospects to the market and/or
         failing to correct such inaccurate information.

This lawsuit was removed to the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division).  A motion to
dismiss the action was filed, and on October 8, 2002, the motion
was granted.  Plaintiffs filed an appeal of that decision on
October 15, 2002 and, following oral arguments, plaintiffs moved
for voluntary dismissal of their appeal.  On January 5, 2004,
the appellate Court granted plaintiffs' voluntary dismissal
motion and judgment against the plaintiffs became final.

In April and May 2003, two additional purported shareholder
derivative lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division)
against certain of the Company's officers and directors, naming
the Company as a nominal defendant.  The complaints alleged that
certain of the Company's officers and directors breached their
fiduciary duties to the Company and its stockholders by:

     (a) causing the Company to improperly recognize revenue in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         to artificially inflate its stock price in order to
         complete acquisitions in which its stock was used as
         consideration,

     (b) selling shares of the Company's common stock while in
         possession of material adverse non-public information
         regarding the Company's financial statements and

     (3) securing personal loans using the Company's allegedly
         artificially inflated stock price

In July 2003, these lawsuits were consolidated for all purposes.
Plaintiffs amended their consolidated complaint to add a claim
that the Company's Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief
Financial Officer violated Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, seeking recovery from them of bonuses, equity-based
compensation and profits realized from sales of securities of
the Company.  A motion to dismiss the actions was filed, and on
January 26, 2004, the motion was granted and judgment was
entered against the plaintiffs. An appeal of that decision was
filed on February 24, 2004.  In light of the settlement of the
class action litigation and derivative litigation, the Court
entered an unopposed motion to stay the appeal pending the entry
of a final order approving settlement.

On May 7, 2004, the Company reached a definitive agreement to
settle the class action and derivative litigation.  Under the
agreement, the total settlement amount was $85.0 million, which
included $43.0 million that was covered by the Company's
insurance policies and $42.0 million that was paid by the
Company.  To fund a portion of the $42.0 million payable by the
Company in connection with this settlement, the Company entered
into definitive agreements providing for the issuance and sale
by the Company, after the satisfaction of certain conditions, of
$20.0 million of common stock to Sanjiv Sidhu, the Company's
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President, and $2.0
million of common stock to Gregory Brady, its former Chief
Executive Officer and President, both of whom were individual
defendants in the actions.

On May 26, 2004, the sale of common stock to Sanjiv Sidhu closed
and funded.  The settlement, which does not reflect any
admission of wrongdoing by the Company or its directors and
officers, was subject to certain conditions including approval
by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
following notice to class members of an opportunity to object or
exclude themselves from the settlement.

On June 24, 2004, the Court entered an order, inter alia,
preliminarily approving the settlement, authorizing the
distribution of notice of the settlement to potential class
members and setting a hearing for final approval of the
settlement for October 1, 2004.  On October 1, 2004, the Court
entered an order and final judgment approving the settlement.

The consolidated securities suit, styled "ALLEN V. SCHEINER, on
Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. i2
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., SANJIV S.SIDHU, GREGORY A. BRADY, WILLIAM M.
BEECHER and ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP, Civil No. 3:01-CV-418-H," is
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, Dallas Division, under Judge Barefoot
Sanders.

Co-lead counsels for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David J. Bershad, Esq., Milberg Weiss Bershad &
         Schulman LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, New
         York 10119-0165, Phone: (212) 594-5300;

     (2) Dennis J. Johnson, Esq., Johnson & Perkinson, 1690
         Williston Road, South Burlington, VT 05403, Phone:
         (802) 862-0030; and

     (3) Daniel C. Girard, Esq., Girard Gibbs De Bartolomeo,
         LLP, 601 California Street, Suite 1400, San Francisco,
         CA 94108, Phone: (415) 981-4800

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (1) Bruce G. Vanyo of WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI, PC
         650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, California 94304-1050
         Phone: 650-493-9300

     (2) Lionel E. Pashkoff of PROSKAUER ROSE LLP, 1233 20th
         Street, Washington, DC 20036-2396, Phone: 202-416-6260

     (3) Michael A. Swartzenruber of FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.
         220 Ross Avenue, Suite 2800 Dallas, Texas 75201, Phone:
         214-855-8800

     (4) Edward S. Koppman, AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP,
         1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100, Dallas, Texas 75201,
         Phone: 214-969-2800


JAKKS PACIFIC: Faces Several Shareholder Fraud Suits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
JAKKS Pacific, Inc. faces two class actions filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York and
certain of its officers, namely:

     (1) Jack Friedman, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Stephen Berman, Chief Operating Officer, President and
         Secretary and a member of the Company's Board of
         Directors,

     (3) Joel Bennett, Chief Financial Officer

On November 5, 2004, a class action lawsuit was filed, alleging
that the defendants issued positive statements concerning
increasing sales of JAKKS' WWE licensed products and that these
statements were false and misleading because WWE was contending
that the WWE licenses had been obtained through a pattern of
commercial bribery.  The suit further alleged that JAKKS'
relationship with the WWE was being negatively impacted by the
WWE's contentions and that there was an increased risk that the
WWE would either seek modification or nullification of the
licensing agreements with JAKKS.

The plaintiffs in the class are described as purchasers of the
Company's common stock between February 17, 2004 and October 19,
2004.  The lawsuit seeks compensatory and other damages in an
undisclosed amount, alleging violations of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder by each of the defendants
violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act by Mr. Friedman,
Mr. Berman and Mr. Bennett.

On November 8, 2004 a second lawsuit seeking class action status
was filed against the Company in the same Court on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's securities between
February 17, 2004 and October 19, 2004.  Although the Company
has not yet received a copy of the complaint in such action, it
believes the lawsuit is seeking to represent the same class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock with respect to the
same subject matter as is involved in the November 5, 2004 class
action.

Several other similar suits have been filed against the Company
in the same Court.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Garcia v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al, 1:04-cv-08807-UA,
         filed 11/05/04

     (2) Quantum Equities L.L.C. v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al,
         1:04-cv-08877-UA, filed 11/09/04

     (3) Kahn v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al., 1:04-cv-08910-KMK,
         filed 11/10/04

     (4) Jonco Investors, LLC v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al.,
         1:04-cv-09021-UA, filed 11/16/04

     (5) Irvine v. Jakks Pacific, Inc. et al, 1:04-cv-09078-UA,
         filed 11/16/04

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) David Avi Rosenfeld and Samuel Rudman, Lerach,
         Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP, 200
         Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone:
         631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173 (fax), E-mail:
         drosenfeld@lerachlaw.com

    (ii) Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Wolf Haldenstein Adler
         Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
         10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, Fax: 212-545-4653, E-mail:
         isquith@whafh.com

   (iii) Ken H. Chang, Marian P. Rosner, Michael Adam Schwartz,
         Wolf Popper LLP, 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022,
         Phone: (212) 451-9667, Fax: (212) 486-2093, E-mail:
         kchang@wolfpopper.com or mschwartz@wolfpopper.com

    (iv) Peter Edward Seidman, Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman
         LLP (NYC), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119,
         Phone: (212) 613-5625, fax: (212) 868-1229, E-mail:
         pseidman@milberg.com

     (v) Eric James Belfi, Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-682-1818, fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         ebelfi@murrayfrank.com

    (vi) Richard A. Maniskas, Mark A. Topaz, Schiffrin &
         Barroway, L.L.P., Three Bala Plaza East, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706

   (vii) Gerald L. Rutledge, 429 Forbes Avenue, 519 Allegheny
         Building, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, phone: (412) 391-5164

  (viii) Alfred G. Yates, Jr., Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr.
         519 Allegheny Building, 429 Forbes Avenue, Pittsburgh,
         PA 15219 Phone: (412) 391-5164


JUDICIAL ARBITRATION: Chooses Not To Enforce Contractual Bans
-------------------------------------------------------------
In an unprecedented move, Irvine, California-based Judicial
Arbitration and Mediation Services (JAMS), one of the nation's
most prominent arbitration firms recently decided that it will
no longer enforce contracts that bar consumers and employees
from bringing class-action cases before its neutral
adjudicators, the Washington Post reports.

According to some experts, JAMS' decision is a major victory for
plaintiffs' lawyers and consumer advocates who have long argued
that the growing use of arbitration clauses by employers,
financial institutions, retailers and telephone companies was an
attempt by companies to avoid potentially costly class-action
lawsuits.

In the past decade an increasing number of companies, have
rewritten employment contracts and sales agreements to require
employees and customers to agree, in advance, to give up their
right to sue if they opt for arbitration. The third-party
arbitrator is usually one selected by the Company. A number of
companies, though, give customers the choice of the nation's
three largest arbitration firms: the American Arbitration
Association, the National Arbitration Forum and JAMS.

Companies state that mandatory arbitration helps resolve
disputes more quickly and less expensively than in the Courts.
However, lawyers and other experts say that for consumers,
arbitration can cost more, with fees that can run into thousands
of dollars and that it also permits less evidence-gathering that
can help win a case and usually doesn't allow for appeals.

Consumer advocates contend that arbitration requirements usually
bar consumers from bringing complaints as a group, which means
consumers and employees who have small monetary disputes with a
Company have no financial incentive to file an arbitration
claim, and lawyers would be reluctant to represent anyone
individually because any monetary gain would be too small.

Stating that the class action restriction "is an unfair
restriction on the rights of the individual consumer," JAMS
decision, according to consumer advocates and corporate lawyers
does not have enough the merits, although both sides did state
that it will certainly prompt plaintiffs' attorneys to file
class-action cases with JAMS.

However, some attorneys are not impressed by JAMS decision.
"It's an open invitation for plaintiffs' attorneys who have
clients who are subject to arbitration agreements to simply file
a class-wide arbitration in front of JAMS," said Philadelphia
lawyer Alan S. Kaplinsky, who has encouraged many financial
institutions to adopt arbitration clauses. Mr. Kaplinsky stated
that the decision was wrong and that "It's not up to the
arbitration administrator to unilaterally decide the provision
of an agreement is invalid." As chairman of the American Bar
Association's committee on consumer arbitration, he said he
hoped to encourage other lawyers to put pressure on JAMS to
change its policy.

"I know of several attorneys who are" preparing to do that, said
F. Paul Bland Jr., staff attorney for Trial Lawyers for Public
Justice, which opposes arbitration provisions.

At least one other arbitration firm might follow JAMS's lead.
Edward Anderson, head of the National Arbitration Forum, said
his firm did not plan to change its policy, but American
Arbitration Association spokeswoman Kersten Norlin said her
Company was reviewing the issue.


KENTUCKY: Judge Says Priests Can't Refuse Depositions in Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Special Judge John Potter of Louisville is warning priests and
former priests that they cannot refuse to answer all questions
from plaintiffs' lawyers in a church abuse case, the Associated
Press reports.

The priests have asked that their depositions be canceled
because they planned to invoke their Fifth Amendment rights.

However, the Northern Kentucky Judge points out that the priests
who have been asked to give depositions are mere witnesses and
since they aren't defendants in a criminal proceeding, they
cannot decline to testify.

As reported in the February 18, 2003 edition of the Class Action
Reporter, the class-action suit, which was filed in Boone County
Circuit Court by Cincinnati attorney Stan Chesley, claims that
21 priests and some other workers abused more than 150 victims
in the Diocese of Covington for decades while church officials
did nothing to stop the misconduct.

According to the Court filings, from about 1956, information on
the sexual abuse of minors by diocesan priests has been
concealed from the public, including parents of children in
schools and parishes where the alleged perpetrators were
assigned, as well as from family members of employees of the
diocese.


KVH INDUSTRIES: RI Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
KVH Industries, Inc. and certain of its officers face a
consolidated securities class action filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of Rhode Island.  This matter
consolidates into one action eight separate complaints filed
between July 21, 2004 and September 15, 2004.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's securities in the period
between October 1, 2003 and July 2, 2004.  The complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding KVH's increasing
financial results and the strong demand for its newly developed
TracVision A5 and G8 satellite TV systems (the "TracVision
systems"), an earlier Class Action Reporter story (August
10,2004) reports.

The Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan has been appointed lead
plaintiff.

The eight securities suits are pending in the United States
District Court for the District of Rhode Island, under Judge
Mary M. Lisi.  The suits are styled:

     (1) SEKUK GLOBAL vs. KVH INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.
         1:2004cv00306

     (2) VOGEL vs. KVH INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:2004cv00320

     (3) SLATER vs. KVH INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:2004cv00327

     (4) BLOMQUIST vs. KVH INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.
         1:2004cv00337

     (5) HORNER vs. KVH INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:2004cv00348

     (6) SERNOFF vs. KVH INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No.
         1:2004cv00353

     (7) FUNG vs. KVH INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:2004cv00369

     (8) SMITH vs. KVH INDUSTRIES, INC., Case No. 1:2004cv00405

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone: 800.424.6690, Fax:
         215.875.4604, E-mail: investorprotect@bm.net

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

   (iii) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185

    (iv) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

     (v) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

    (vi) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

   (vii) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
         (Philadelphia), 1845 Walnut St., Suite 945,
         Philadelphia, CA, 19103, Phone: 215.988.9546, Fax:
         215.988.9885, E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

  (viii) Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third
         Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215.625.9999,
         Fax: 215.440.9475, E-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com

    (ix) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, FaX: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (x) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

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


LORAL SPACE: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the securities class action filed
against Loral Space & Communications, Ltd.'s officers Bernard
Schwartz and Richard Townsend.

In November 2003, plaintiffs Tony Christ, individually and as
custodian for Brian and Katelyn Christ, Casey Crawford, Thomas
Orndorff and Marvin Rich, filed the suit, alleging that:

     (1) that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
         Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by making
         material misstatements or failing to state material
         facts about the Company's financial condition relating
         to the restatement in 2003 of the financial statements
         for the second and third quarters of 2002 to correct
         accounting for certain general and administrative
         expenses and the alleged improper accounting for a
         satellite transaction with APT Satellite Company Ltd.
         and

     (2) that each of the defendants is secondarily liable for
         these alleged misstatements and omissions under Section
         20(a) of the Exchange Act as an alleged "controlling
         person" of Loral.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all buyers of Loral common stock during the
period from July 31, 2002 through June 29, 2003, excluding the
defendants and certain persons related to or affiliated with
them.


LORAL SPACE: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated ERISA Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loral Space & Communications, Ltd. asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss
the consolidated class action filed by former Loral employees
and participants in the Loral Savings Plan, styled "In re: Loral
Space ERISA Litigation."

In July 2004, plaintiffs in the consolidated action filed an
amended consolidated complaint against the members of the Loral
Space & Communications Ltd. Savings Plan Administrative
Committee and certain existing and former members of the Board
of Directors of Space Systems/ Loral, Inc., including Bernard L.
Schwartz.  The amended complaint alleges:

     (1) that defendants violated Section 404 of the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), by breaching
         their fiduciary duties to prudently and loyally manage
         the assets of the Plan by including Loral common stock
         as an investment alternative and by providing matching
         contributions under the Plan in Loral stock,

     (2) that the director defendants violated Section 404 of
         ERISA by breaching their fiduciary duties to monitor
         the committee defendants and to provide them with
         accurate information,

     (3) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA
         by failing to provide complete and accurate information
         to Plan participants and beneficiaries, and

     (4) that defendants violated Sections 404 and 405 of ERISA
         by breaching their fiduciary duties to avoid conflicts
         of interest.

The class of plaintiffs on whose behalf the lawsuit has been
asserted consists of all participants in or beneficiaries of the
Plan at any time between November 4, 1999 and the present and
whose accounts included investments in Loral stock.


LOUDEYE CORPORATION: Provides Updates On NY Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Loudeye Corporation is named as one of the Defendants in class
action complaints that were filed before the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York in 2001 on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased Loudeye common stock
during the time period between March15 and December 6, 2000,
according to the Company's most recent SEC filing.

These actions were filed against 310 issuers (including
Loudeye), 55 underwriters and numerous individuals including
certain of Loudeye's former officers and directors. The
complaints allege violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, primarily based on
allegations that Loudeye's underwriters received undisclosed
compensation in connection with its initial public offering and
that the underwriters entered into undisclosed arrangements with
some investors that were designed to distort and/or inflate the
market price for its common stock in the aftermarket.

These actions were consolidated for pre-trial purposes. No
specific amount of damages has been claimed. Loudeye and the
individual defendants have demanded to be indemnified by
underwriter defendants pursuant to the underwriting agreement
entered into at the time of the initial public offering.
Presently all claims against the former officers have been
withdrawn without prejudice.

The Court suggested that the parties select six test cases to
determine class action eligibility. Loudeye is not a party to
any of the test cases. In June 2003, a proposed settlement was
structured between plaintiffs, issuer defendants, issuer
officers and directors named as defendants, and issuers'
insurance companies. This proposed settlement provides, among
other matters, that:

     (1) issuer defendants and related individual defendants
         will be released from the litigation without any
         liability other than certain expenses incurred to date
         in connection with the litigation;

     (2) insurers will guarantee $1.0billion in recoveries by
         plaintiff class members;

     (3) issuer defendants will assign certain claims against
         underwriter defendants to the plaintiff class members;
         and

     (4) issuer defendants will have the opportunity to recover
         certain litigation-related expenses if plaintiffs
         recover more than $5.0 billion from underwriter
         defendants.

Loudeye's board of directors approved the proposed settlement in
August 2003.

On June 25, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement with the Court, which was accompanied
by a brief filed by the issuer defendants in support of the
plaintiffs' motion. The Court requested that any objections to
preliminary approval of the settlement be submitted by July 14,
2004, and the underwriter defendants formally objected to the
settlement. The plaintiffs and issuer defendants separately
filed replies to underwriter defendants' objections to the
settlement on August 4, 2004. On October 13, 2004 the Court
issued an order granting plaintiffs' September 2, 2003 motion
for class certification in each of the six test cases. There can
be no assurance that this proposed settlement would be approved
and implemented in its current form, or at all. Loudeye's
management does not anticipate that the Company will be required
to pay any amounts under this settlement.


MARATHON ASHLAND: Station Owners File Suit V. Contaminated Gas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Charleston law firm Goodwin & Goodwin and a Houston firm,
Dehay & Elliston on behalf of service station owners in West
Virginia initiated a federal lawsuit seeking class action status
in Huntington against Marathon Ashland Petroleum, alleging that
gasoline contaminants corroded their storage tanks, the
Associated Press reports.

According to Marathon Ashland Petroleum spokeswoman Linda Casey,
who declined to discuss ongoing litigation, the Company acted
responsibly in addressing the contaminated gas in 2002.

The lawsuit states that about two years ago, state officials had
found rust in gasoline supplies from Marathon Ashland
Petroleum's Catlettsburg, Kentucky refinery, which supplies
gasoline to about 75 percent of West Virginia service stations
and stations in Kentucky and southern Ohio.

The lawsuit alleges that 16 gasoline contaminants were found in
2002 samples, including arsenic and zinc, and that the chemicals
are damaging tank lining materials, according to a report by
Thomas Schruben, an environmental consultant for Goodwin &
Goodwin. Furthermore, the lawsuit alleges that the Company sent
contractors to filter the contaminated gas at affected stations,
but failed to remove all the contaminants.

Furthering supporting their allegation is a statement by Mike
Dorsey, assistant director of the state Department of
Environmental Protection's waste management division, who said
that the Company contractors had allegedly failed to collect
about two-dozen drums of waste material. The DEP decided to
investigate after receiving several complaints of leaking tanks
and has drafted a consent order seeking a civil penalty of
$337,900.


NEW YORK: Workers File Suit V. EPA, OSHA Over Site's Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Ground Zero workers have initiated a lawsuit against the
federal government for allegedly lying about air quality after
the September 11, 2001 terror attacks on the World Trade Center,
the New York Daily News reports.

The suit specifically accuses officials of the Environmental
Protection Agency of making misleading public statements about
the level of dangerous contaminants released into the air after
the twin towers were destroyed in a terror strike. The suit also
alleges that workers were sent to Ground Zero without proper
protective gear, exposing them to PCBs, asbestos, benzene and
other known carcinogens.

City correction officers, a National Guard medic and a city
paramedic, who were sent to help with the cleanup, are among
those making claims against the government. Additionally a
federal marshal charges that he lost two months of work because
of shortness of breath and other ailments triggered by his work
at the site.

The attorneys for the plaintiffs are asking a judge to classify
the case as a class action to include all workers sent to Ground
Zero after the attacks. Among those named, as defendants are
former EPA director Christie Whitman and officials from the
Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

The lawsuit accuses EPA director of authorizing news releases in
the day after the attacks that were "false and misleading."


NEWPORT ADHESIVES: Suit Settlement Hearing Set January 31, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California - Western Division will hold a fairness hearing for
the proposed $11 million settlement in the matter Thomas &
Thomas, Inc., et. al. v. Newport Adhesives and Composites, Inc.,
et. al. (No. CV-99-07796-FMC(RNBx)) on behalf of all persons
(excluding governmental entities, defendants, their subsidiaries
and affiliates) who purchased carbon fiber in the United States
directly from any of the Defendants or any subsidiary of
affiliate, thereof, at any time during the period from January
1, 1993 through January 31, 1999.

The Court has scheduled a fairness hearing to approve the
proposed settlement to occur on January 31, 2005, at 10:00 am
before the Honorable Florence-Marie Cooper, at the Edmond R.
Roybal Federal Building and Courthouse, 255 East Temple Street,
Los Angeles, CA.

For more details, contact Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, LLP by Phone: (800) 449-4900 or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/or Carbon Fiber Antitrust Litigation
c/o Heffler Radetich & Saitta, LLP by Mail: P.O. Box 410,
Philadelphia, PA 19105-0410 or visit their Web site:
http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com.


POST PROPERTIES: GA Court Approves Securities Suits Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia approved
the settlement of two shareholder derivative and purported class
actions filed against Post Properties, Inc. (as a nominal
defendant) and members of the Company's board of directors.

On May 5, 2003, the Company received notice that a shareholder
derivative and purported class action lawsuit was filed,
alleging various breaches of fiduciary duties by the board of
directors of the Company and seeks, among other relief, the
disclosure of certain information by the defendants.  This
complaint also seeks to compel the defendants to undertake
various actions to facilitate a sale of the Company.  On May 7,
2003, the plaintiff made a request for voluntary expedited
discovery.

On May 13, 2003, the Company received notice that a shareholder
derivative and purported class action lawsuit was filed against
certain members of the board of directors of the Company and
against the Company as a nominal defendant.  The complaint was
filed in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Atlanta, Georgia
on May 12, 2003 and alleges breaches of fiduciary duties, abuse
of control and corporate waste by the defendants.  The plaintiff
seeks monetary damages and, as appropriate, injunctive relief.


PRIMUS TELECOMMUNICATIONS: VA Court Consolidates Stock Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed
between August 17, 2004 and October 5, 2004 against Primus
Telecommunications Group, Inc. and two of its executive
officers.

Six suits were initially filed, five in the Alexandria Division
and one in the Richmond Division.  The Court has consolidated
the Alexandria Actions under the caption "In re Primus
Telecommunications Group, Incorporated Securities Litigation",
and a motion has been filed to consolidate the lawsuit filed in
Richmond with the Alexandria Actions.

Plaintiffs are suing on behalf of certain purchasers of Company
securities between August 5, 2003 and July 29, 2004.  In one
action, Fener, the Class Period begins on November 11, 2003.
Plaintiffs allege that the Primus Defendants violated Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5.  Plaintiffs
seek damages, among other things, on the theory that the Primus
Defendants fraudulently published false and misleading
statements and/or fraudulently concealed adverse, non-public
information about Primus, thereby artificially inflating the
price of the Company's securities.

Motions have been filed by two groups to be appointed as lead
plaintiff, and the Company anticipates that the Court will
appoint a lead plaintiff by late November of 2004, and a
consolidated amended complaint will be filed within 30 days
thereafter.  The Primus Defendants will have 30 days to either
answer or file a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.

The suit is styled "In re Primus Telecommunications Group, Ltd.
Securities Litigation," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

     (1) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

     (2) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

     (3) Cohen, Gettings & Caulkins, P.C., 2200 Wilson
         Boulevard, Suite 800, Arlington, VI, 22201, Phone:
         703.525.2260, Fax: 703.525.2489, E-mail:
         info@cohengettings.com

     (4) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), Mail:
         One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY,
         10119, Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (7) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

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

     (9) Wechsler Harwood LLP, Mail: 488 Madison Avenue 8th
         Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-
         mail: info@whhf.com


REGENCY AFFILIATES: DE Court Dismisses Shareholders' Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
New Castle County Court of Chancery, Delaware dismissed all
claims alleged in a complaint (other than the claim relating to
the 2001 rock aggregate sales) that was filed by two individual
shareholders of Regency Affiliates, Inc., determining that all
of the dismissed claims were derivative in nature and could
therefore not be maintained.

The two individual shareholders had filed a purported derivative
and class action lawsuit in the New Castle County Court of
Chancery, Delaware, naming as defendants certain current and
former directors of the Company, Royalty Holdings LLC and
certain of its affiliates, Statesman Group, Inc. and, nominally,
the Company.

The complaint alleged, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties by the former director defendants and Statesman Group,
Inc. in connection with

     (1) the exercise by Statesman Group, Inc. in 2001 of an
         option to acquire shares of common stock of the
         Company,

     (2) the 2001 sale of rock aggregate by the Company to IMR
         and

     (3) the October 2002 recapitalization of the Company.

The complaint also alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
current director defendants in connection with the payment by
the Company in 2003 of accrued compensation owed to William R.
Ponsoldt, Sr. for periods prior to the October 2002
recapitalization of the Company. The complaint also alleged that
Royalty Holdings LLC and its affiliates knowingly participated
in the breaches of fiduciary duties by the former director
defendants relating to the October 2002 recapitalization of the
Company.

In addition to other damages, plaintiffs sought unspecified
compensatory and/or rescissory damages against all defendants, a
declaration that all Company stock issued to Statesman Group,
Inc., William R. Ponsoldt, Sr., Royalty Holdings LLC and any
person affiliated with the foregoing is void, an order
rescinding any payments in any form made by the Company to
William R. Ponsoldt, Sr. or any of his affiliates or family
members, an order rescinding the October 2002 recapitalization
of the Company, and an order rescinding Statesman Group, Inc.'s
2001 option exercise and rescinding the option itself.

The defendants in the lawsuit other than Statesman Group, Inc.
are entitled to be indemnified by the Company for damages, if
any, and expenses, including legal fees, as they may incur as a
result of the lawsuit, subject to certain circumstances under
which such indemnification is not available. In addition, the
Company's insurance carrier has denied the Company's claims for
coverage with regards to the lawsuit.

On May 10, 2004, Gary Nuttall, a former President of the
Company, commenced arbitration against the Company with respect
to certain claims allegedly arising under his 1995 Employment
Agreement with the Company. He is seeking severance and all
other compensation and benefits due him under the 1995
Employment Agreement in an amount in excess of approximately
$1,650,000 ($1,400,000 of which is a financing bonus), 466,667
unrestricted shares of the Company (pre-split), options to
purchase additional stock of the Company, punitive damages,
interest, fees and costs associated with the arbitration. The
Company believes the claims are without merit and intends to
defend them vigorously.


VERISIGN INC.: Plaintiffs File Second Amended CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended securities class action
against VeriSign, Inc. and certain of its current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, styled "In re VeriSign,
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-02-2270 JW(HRL)."

The consolidated action seeks unspecified damages for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased the Company's stock
from January 25, 2001 through April 25, 2002.

An amended consolidated complaint was initially filed on
November 8, 2002.  On April 14, 2003, the Court granted in part
and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
and consolidated complaint.

The second amended complaint is substantially identical to the
amended consolidated complaint except that it purports to add a
claim under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 on
behalf of a subclass of persons who acquired shares of VeriSign
pursuant to the registration statement and prospectus filed
October 10, 2001 and amended October 26, 2001 for the
acquisition of Illuminet Holdings, Inc. by VeriSign.


WELLPOINT HEALTH: Trial in FL Managed Care Suit Set March 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the managed care litigation filed in the United States
District Court in the Southern District of Florida against
WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and other health management
organizations is set for March 2005.

In May 2000, the California Medical Association filed a lawsuit
in U.S. district Court in San Francisco against Blue Cross of
California (BCC), alleging that the Company violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)
through various misrepresentations to and inappropriate actions
against health care providers.

In late 1999, a number of class-action lawsuits were brought
against several of the Company's competitors alleging, among
other things, various misrepresentations regarding their health
plans and breaches of fiduciary obligations to health plan
members.

In August 2000, the Company was added as a party to "Shane v.
Humana, et al.," a class-action lawsuit brought on behalf of
health care providers nationwide.  In addition to the RICO
claims brought in the California Medical Association lawsuit,
this lawsuit also alleges violations of Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA), federal and state "prompt pay"
regulations and certain common law claims.

In October 2000, the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order consolidating the California Medical
Association lawsuit, the Shane lawsuit and various other pending
managed care class-action lawsuits against other companies
before District Court Judge Federico Moreno in the Southern
District of Florida for purposes of the pretrial proceedings.
In March 2001, Judge Moreno dismissed the plaintiffs' claims
based on violation of RICO, although the dismissal was made
without prejudice to the plaintiffs' ability to subsequently
refile their claims.  Judge Moreno also dismissed, with
prejudice, the plaintiffs' federal prompt pay law claims.

On March 26, 2001, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
its lawsuit, alleging, among other things, revised RICO claims
and violations of California law.  On May 3, 2001, the
defendants filed a motion to dismiss this amended complaint.  On
May 9, 2001, Judge Moreno issued an order requiring that all
discovery in the litigation be completed by December 2001, with
the exception of discovery related to expert witnesses, which
was to be completed by March 15, 2002.

In June 2001, the Federal Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit
issued a stay of Judge Moreno's discovery order, pending a
hearing before the Court of Appeals on the Company's appeal of
its motion to compel arbitration (which had earlier been granted
in part and denied in part by Judge Moreno).  The hearing was
held in January 2002 and, in March 2002, the Court of Appeals
panel issued an opinion affirming Judge Moreno's earlier action
with respect to the motion to compel arbitration.  The Company
filed a motion requesting a rehearing of the matter before the
entire 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, which motion was denied by
the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in June 2002.

On July 29, 2002, Judge Moreno issued an order providing that
discovery in the case would be allowed to re-commence on
September 30, 2002.  On September 26, 2002, Judge Moreno issued
an additional order certifying a nationwide class of physicians
in the Shane matter, setting a trial date in May 2003 and
ordering the parties to participate in non-binding mediation.

In October 2002, the defendants, among other things, moved to
compel arbitration of most claims (which motion was granted in
part in September 2003 and the defendants have appealed the
portions of the motion to compel arbitration that were denied).
In October 2002, the Company also filed a motion with the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to appeal Judge Moreno's class-
certification order.  The motion was granted and the 11th
Circuit heard oral argument on September 11, 2003 on the
Company's appeal.

On September 1, 2004, the 11th Circuit upheld the class
certification order.  On September 20, 2004, the 11th Circuit
stayed the case pending the outcome of the defendants' appeal of
the denied portions of the defendants' motion to compel
arbitration filed in October 2002.  A mediator has been
appointed by Judge Moreno and the parties are currently
conducting Court-ordered mediation.  On April 30, 2004, Judge
Moreno set a new trial date in March 2005 and extended the
deadline for expert discovery to September 29, 2004, which has
been extended to November 23, 2004 and which may be further
extended.

In March 2002, the American Dental Association and three
individual dentists filed a lawsuit in U.S. district Court in
Chicago against the Company and BCC.  This lawsuit alleges that
WellPoint and BCC engaged in conduct that constituted a breach
of contract under ERISA, trade libel and tortious interference
with contractual relations and existing and prospective business
expectancies.  The lawsuit seeks class-action status.

The Company filed a motion (which was granted in July 2002) with
the Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
requesting that the proceedings in this case be consolidated
with a similar action brought against other managed care
companies that has been consolidated with the Shane lawsuit.
The case is currently stayed.

In May 2003, a lawsuit entitled "Thomas, et al. v. Blue Cross
and Blue Shield Association, et al." was filed in the U.S.
District Court in the Southern District of Florida.  The
attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are
primarily the attorneys representing the plaintiffs in the Shane
litigation.  The defendants in Thomas are the Company's Blue
Cross and Blue Shield-licensed subsidiaries, the Blue Cross Blue
Shield Association (BCBSA) and all of the other current Blue
Cross and Blue Shield licensees.

The lawsuit alleges that each of the defendants engaged in
similar activities and conduct as that alleged in the Shane
litigation.  The case has been assigned to Judge Moreno.  The
defendants have moved to compel arbitration and to dismiss the
complaint.  Class-certification discovery has been initiated and
is on-going.  The deadline for class-certification discovery is
December 31, 2004.

In early 2003, a lawsuit entitled "Knecht v. Cigna, et al." was
filed in U.S. District Court in Oregon.  This litigation has
subsequently been transferred to Judge Moreno of the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida.  This
litigation is a putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
chiropractors in the western United States.  The Company is a
named defendant in the lawsuit.  The lawsuit alleges that each
of the defendants engaged in similar activities and conduct as
that alleged in the Shane litigation.  The case is currently
stayed.

In October 2003, a lawsuit entitled Solomon, et al. v. Cigna, et
al. was filed in the U.S. District Court in the Southern
District in Florida.  The Company is a named defendant in this
lawsuit.  This lawsuit is also a putative class action brought
on behalf of chiropractors, podiatrists and certain other types
of health care practitioners nationwide.  This lawsuit also
alleges that the defendants engaged in similar activities and
conduct as that alleged in the Shane litigation.  On December
15, 2003, this lawsuit was transferred to Judge Moreno, and the
case was consolidated with the Knecht lawsuit for pre-trial
purposes.  Both of these cases are currently stayed.

In December 2003, the plaintiffs in "Solomon, et al. v. Cigna,
et al." filed a similar lawsuit against the Company, the
Company's Blue Cross and Blue Shield-licensed subsidiaries, the
BCBSA and all of the other current Blue Cross and Blue Shield
licensees.  The lawsuit is entitled "Solomon, et al. v. Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association, et al." and was filed in the
U.S. District Court in the Southern District in Florida.

On January 7, 2004, this lawsuit was transferred to Judge
Moreno.  On March 9, 2004, Judge Moreno issued an order
restoring this case to the active docket and placing it on a
coordinated track with the Thomas lawsuit.  Class-certification
discovery has been initiated and is on-going.  The deadline for
class-certification discovery is December 31, 2004.


WELLPOINT HEALTH: CA Court Orders Arbitration of PBM Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Superior Court in Alameda County ordered the
claims filed against WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. and certain
of its wholly-owned subsidiaries in the class action styled
"Irwin v. AdvancePCS, et al.," be resolved in arbitration.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, mainly pharmacy
benefit management companies, violated California Business and
Professions Code Section 17200 by engaging in unfair, fraudulent
and unlawful business practices.  The complaint alleges, among
other things, that pharmacy benefit management companies (such
as the Company's subsidiary that does business under the
tradename WellPoint Pharmacy Management) engage in unfair
practices such as negotiating discounts in prices of drugs from
pharmacies and negotiating rebates from drug manufacturers and
retaining such discounts and rebates for their own benefit.  The
complaint also alleges that drugs are included in formularies in
exchange for rebates and that the defendants charge patient co-
payments that exceed the actual cost of generic drugs.


WELLPOINT HEALTH: Working To Settle CA Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
WellPoint Health Networks, Inc. is working to settle a
stockholder class action filed in the Superior Court of Ventura
County, California against the Company and its board of
directors.

The lawsuit, which is entitled "Abrams v. WellPoint Health
Networks, Inc., et al.," alleges that the Company's directors
breached their fiduciary duties to stockholders by approving an
Agreement and Plan of Merger with Anthem while in possession of
non-public information regarding the Company's financial results
for the third quarter of 2003.  The lawsuit seeks to enjoin the
Company from consummating the merger with Anthem, unless the
Company adopts and implements a process for obtaining the
highest possible price for stockholders, and to rescind any
terms of the Agreement and Plan of Merger that have already been
implemented.

On May 7, 2004, the Company and the plaintiff signed a
memorandum of understanding regarding a potential settlement of
the action.  The potential settlement contemplated by the
memorandum of understanding involves the Company agreeing to
provide certain additional disclosures on several matters in the
joint proxy statement/prospectus sent to the Company's
stockholders beyond those contained in the preliminary proxy
statement/prospectus.  The settlement would also provide for the
payment by WellPoint of $2.25 million to the plaintiff's counsel
for fees and costs (subject to Court approval).

No part of the settlement costs will be paid by the WellPoint
directors individually.  The settlement would not involve any
admissions of breaches of fiduciary duty or other wrongdoing by
WellPoint or any of its directors.  The settlement and payment
of the plaintiff's counsel fees would be conditioned upon, among
other things, completion of the merger.  Any final settlement
agreement signed by the parties must be approved by the Superior
Court judge assigned to the matter.


WEST COAST: Faces Natural Gas Prices Antitrust Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
West Coast Power, LLC faces a class action filed in California
State Court for the County of San Diego, styled "Older v. Sempra
Energy, et al."  The suit also names various Dynegy, Inc.
entities and other power companies as defendants.

The complaint alleges violation of California Business &
Professions Code 16720 (the Cartwright Act) and Business &
Professions Code 17200, based on defendants' alleged efforts to
fix, raise, stabilize, maintain and manipulate retail natural
gas prices in California at supra-competitive levels.  The
complaint seeks a determination of class action status, a
trebling of unspecified damages, restitution, disgorgement and
costs and attorneys' fees.


WEST COAST: Named As Defendant in NY Natural Gas Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
West Coast Power LLC and Dynegy Marketing and Trade faces a
consolidated class action, styled "In Re: Natural Gas Commodity
Litigation, Master File No. 03-CV-6186(VM)(AJP)," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The suit also names numerous other power companies,
accusing them of manipulating gas index publications and prices
in violation of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1, et seq.

These consolidated cases comprise the litigation:

     (1) Cornerstone Propane Partners, LP v. Reliant Energy
         Services, Inc., et al., Case No. 03CV6186 (filed in the
         United States District Court for the Southern District
         of New York, August 18, 2003;

     (2) Calle Gracey v. American Electric Power Co., Inc., et
         al., Case No. 03CV7750 (filed in the United States
         District Court for the Southern District of New York
         October 1, 2003);

     (3) Cornerstone Propane Partners, LP v. Coral Energy
         Resources, LP, et al., Case No. 03CV8320, filed in the
         United States District Court for the Southern District
         of New York October 21, 2003); and

     (4) Viola v. Reliant Energy Servs., et al., Case No.
         03CV9039 (filed in the United States District Court
         for the Southern District of New York on November 14,
         2003)

Plaintiffs, in their Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint
dated October 14, 2004, allege that West Coast Power, Dynegy
Marketing and Trade and other energy companies engaged in an
illegal scheme to inflate natural gas prices by providing false
information to gas index publications, thereby manipulating the
price.

The Amended Complaint relies heavily on FERC and CFTC
investigations into, and reports concerning, index-reporting
manipulation in the energy industry.  The Amended Complaint also
alleges that Dynegy Marketing and Trade and certain other
defendants sought to manipulate gas prices by engaging in so-
called "wash trades" and other market gaming strategies.  The
plaintiffs seek class action status for their lawsuit,
unspecified actual damages for violations of the CEA and costs
and attorneys' fees.  Counsel for Dynegy Marketing and Trade is
also defending West Coast Power in these proceedings.


WEST COAST: Faces Natural Gas Prices Antitrust Suit in E.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
West Coast Power LLC and Dynegy Holding Co., Inc. faces a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of California, styled "Fairhaven Power Company v.
Encana Corporation, et. al., Case No. CIV-F-04-6256 (OWW/LJO)."

This putative class action lawsuit was filed in September 2004
and names other power companies as defendants.  The complaint
alleges violation of the federal Clayton and Sherman Acts,
California's Cartwright Act and Business and Professions Code
Section 17200, et seq., unjust enrichment and seeks imposition
of a constructive trust.

Specifically, plaintiff alleges defendants and co-conspirators
conspired to fix prices in the California natural gas market by,
among other things, providing false information to natural gas
trade indices and engaging in so-called "wash trades," as of
result of which plaintiff and members of the putative class paid
supra-competitive prices for natural gas.  The complaint seeks a
determination of class action status, a trebling of unspecified
damages, statutory, punitive or exemplary damages, restitution,
disgorgement, injunctive relief, a constructive trust and costs
and attorneys' fees.

                New Securities Fraud Cases

AXIS CAPITAL: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of
AXIS Capital Holdings Limited ("AXIS") (NYSE:AXS) during the
period between August 6, 2003 and October 14, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges AXIS, Michael A. Butt, Andrew Cook, and
John R. Charman with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that AXIS entered into illegal "contingent commission
         agreements" with insurance companies to pay so-called
         "contingent commissions";

     (2) that AXIS concealed these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements," thereby
         subjecting defendants to various violations of
         applicable principles of fiduciary law, and

     (3) that as a result of this illegal scheme, defendants,
         throughout the Class Period, materially overstated and
         artificially inflated AXIS' earnings, income, and
         earnings per share.

On October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
announced that he had charged several of the nation's largest
insurance companies and the largest broker with bid rigging and
payoffs that he claimed violated fraud and competition laws. On
this news, shares of AXIS fell $1.69 per share, or 6.53 percent,
to close at $24.20 per share on unusually high trading volume on
October 14, 2004.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron D. Patton of
MURRAY, FRANK & SAILER LLP by Phone: (800) 497-8076 or
(212) 682-1818 by Fax: (212) 682-1892 by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *