CAR_Public/041201.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, December 1, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 238

                           Headlines

ARMOR HOLDINGS: Resolves Zylon-Related Litigation in FL Counties
BLOOMFIELD BAKERS: Recalls Cookies Due To Undeclared Walnuts
CANADA: Halifax Woman Suing Over Husband's Long-term Care Costs
CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in C.D. CA
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Asks Court For Summary Judgment in DPPA Suit

CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Executes Settlement of NY Securities Lawsuit
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Finalizes Distribution of Suit Settlement
COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in DE
FARMERS INSURANCE: Deadline Nears For Claims To $9.5M OR Award
MICROTUNE INC.: Reaches $5.625M Securities Settlement in E.D. TX

MISSISSIPPI: Children's Rights Eyes Foster Care Suit Settlement
NEW CENTURY: Asks LA Court To Reject Wage Lawsuits Certification
NEW CENTURY: IL Court Refuses To Reconsider TILA Suit Dismissal
NEW CENTURY: IL Court Dismisses TILA Violations Consumer Lawsuit
NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Extension For Suit Dismissal Appeal

NEW CENTURY: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For Consumer Fraud
NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Dismiss IL Interest Act Violations Suit
NEW CENTURY: Faces MO Lawsuit Over State Law, RESPA Violations
NEW YORK: Steuben County Opts To Join Pharmaceutical Lawsuit
PMA CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in E.D. PA

REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Grants Stay of Consumer Fraud Suit
SOUTH AFRICA: NY Court Dismisses Apartheid Cases V. U.S. Firms
UNITED STATES: ATLA, Law Firms Outraged By Vioxx Web Site
UNITED STATES: Charfoos and Christensen Lodges MEPA Suit in MI
UNUMPROVIDENT: Quadrino & Schwartz Opens Site For Policyholders

VIGNETTE CORPORATION: Approves MOU To Settle NY Securities Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Files Brief in CA Court Opposing Class Status
WAL-MART STORES: Lawyers Say FL Workers' Suit Will Be Narrowed

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in OK
FANNIE MAE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DC
SIRVA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
SIRVA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
STAR GAS: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline


                         *********


ARMOR HOLDINGS: Resolves Zylon-Related Litigation in FL Counties
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armor Holdings, Inc. (NYSE: AH), a leading manufacturer and
distributor of security products and vehicle armor systems
serving law-enforcement, military, homeland security and
commercial markets, recently revealed that the Duval County
Circuit Court (Florida) entered a Supplemental Final Order and
Judgment concluding the settlement of the class action lawsuit
brought by the Southern States Police Benevolent Associate
("SSPBA").

As previously reported in the November 11, 2004 issue of the
Class Action Reporter a final order and judgment approving the
recently disclosed nationwide settlement against Armor Holdings,
Inc. and various of its subsidiaries and affiliated entities, on
behalf of purchasers of American Body Armor(TM) Safariland(R)
and Protech(TM) ballistic vests containing Zylon(R) was issued
by the Circuit Court of Duval County, Jacksonville, according to
the Law Firm of Carr, Tabb, Pope & Freeman, LLP. As previously
disclosed, the settlement, in summary, provides:

All current owners of American Body Armor(TM) Xtreme ZX level II
and level IIIA vests will receive, at no cost, a new ballistic
vest of their choice manufactured by the Defendants or any of
their subsidiaries or affiliated entities, including American
Body Armor(TM), Safariland(R) and Protech(TM). Class members
will also receive:

     (1) either one or two new carriers (depending on the new
         model they choose); and

     (2) a fully-transferable $100 voucher good for five years
         toward the future purchase of any new concealable body
         armor manufactured by American Body Armor(TM),
         Safariland(R) or Protech(TM).

Aside from the aforementioned terms, class members may also be
entitled to a cash refund. Furthermore, the Defendants must
conduct substantial testing of their used body armor and make
available to class members their testing data, protocols and
other information. The estimated value of the nationwide
settlement exceeds $20 million.

In addition, on November 16, 2004, the Lee County Circuit Court
(Florida) signed and entered a Final Order dismissing with
prejudice the class action lawsuit commenced by the National
Associate of Police Organizations, Inc. ("NAPO"). The result of
these legal developments brings a final conclusion to both of
the Zylon-related class action lawsuits that had been brought
against the Company.

For more details, contact W. Pitts Carr by Mail: 10 North
Parkway Square, 4200 Northside Parkway, N.W., Atlanta, GA 30327
by Phone: 1-888-755-1649 or visit the following Web sites:
http://www.ctpflaw.comor http://www.americanbodyarmor.com/zx.


BLOOMFIELD BAKERS: Recalls Cookies Due To Undeclared Walnuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Bloomfield Bakers of Los Alamitos, California is recalling
approximately 25,476 - 6.5 oz packages of Organica Foods Double
Chocolate Coffee Toffee Cookies because they contain undeclared
walnuts. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
walnuts run the risk of a serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product. No illnesses have been
reported to date in connection with this problem.

The recalled Organica Foods brand Double Chocolate Coffee Toffee
Cookies were distributed nationwide in retail stores. These
cookies were distributed by S&P Foods (AKA Summerland Foods),
10061 Riverside Drive, Suite 807, Toluca Lake, CA 91602; Phone
(323) 882-6670.

The product is packed in a white printed gable-top 6.5 oz carton
with green text and a picture of the cookie, including walnuts.
With the following lots printed on a sticker affixed to the
bottom of the carton: 20705, 31905, 32005, 42905, 60205.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
cookies containing walnuts had been packed in cartons that did
not include walnuts in the ingredient line. Subsequent
investigation indicates that the walnuts were inadvertently left
off of the ingredient line during a packaging artwork change.

Bloomfield Bakers was supplied the packaging by the own label
distributor, S & P Foods. Bloomfield Bakers no longer
manufactures this product.

Consumers who have purchased 6.5 oz packages of Organica Double
Chocolate Coffee Toffee Cookies are urged to return them to the
place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions
may contact Summerland Foods at (323) 882-6670 between the hours
or 9 AM and 5 PM Pacific Time.


CANADA: Halifax Woman Suing Over Husband's Long-term Care Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Halifax resident Joan Morrison is suing the provincial
government for forcing her to pay the medical costs associated
with her husband's stay in a long-term care facility, the
Medical Post reports.

According to the lawyer representing Mrs. Morrison, he is hoping
to turn the case into a class action lawsuit. Given the nature
of the suit, however, he may have difficulty making a case,
according to an expert in health law.

Mr. Morrison's 76-year-old husband, Elmer, who has Parkinson's
disease, has been in a long-term care facility since 2002. In
the two years since being admitted, nursing home costs-including
health-care costs-have amounted to more than $134,000 and have
raised sharply recently, Mrs. Morrison told the Chronicle Herald
newspaper.

That is money she shouldn't have to pay, according to her
Halifax attorney Ray Wagner, who is arguing that the province's
long-term care policies are discriminatory on the basis of age,
health and marital status. In addition, Mr. Wagner is claiming
that they violate three pieces of legislation: the Health
Services Insurance Act, the Homes for Special Care Act and the
Canada Health Act.

In an interview with the Medical Post, Elaine Gibson, associate
director of the Health Law Institute at Dalhousie University,
said that a possible legal argument could be made that forcing
individuals to pay for nursing home services-similar to services
provided in a hospital and even a doctor's office-violates the
universality principle in the Canada Health Act.

Though noting that such an argument would make sense, Ms. Gibson
was quick to reply that the recompense is then not a judgment in
court. It's that the federal government would hold back payment.
She also adds, "the Canada Health Act doesn't guarantee a right
to health care, all it says is funding can be withdrawn."

Ironically, the lawsuit was filed just as the provincial
government announced it would be fast-tracking changes to the
long-term care system. According to deputy minister of health
Cheryl Doiron, effective Jan. 1, 2005, the provincial government
will cover all health-care costs for residents in nursing homes.
She also states, "Residents who can afford it will pay their
non-medical costs."

Financial evaluation-one of the issues raised in Mrs. Morrison's
lawsuit-will also be simplified. "Assets will not be assessed.
Period," said Ms. Doiron. "The financial review will be based
only on income."


CHAPARRAL NETWORK: Shareholders Lodge Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chaparral Network Storage, Inc. (now acquired by Dot Hill
Systems Corporation) and certain of its former officers and
directors face a shareholder class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California.

The lawsuit, among other things, alleges violations of federal
securities laws and purports to seek damages on behalf of a
class of shareholders who purchased Chaparral securities during
a defined period prior to Dot Hill's acquisition of Chaparral.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Asks Court For Summary Judgment in DPPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida to grant summary judgment in their
favor in a class action filed against it, styled Fresco, et al.
v. Automotive Directions Inc., et al.

The suit alleges the Company has obtained, disclosed and used
information originating from the Florida Department of Highway
Safety and Motor Vehicles ("Florida DHSMV"), in violation of the
federal Driver's Privacy Protection Act (DPPA).  The plaintiffs
seek to represent classes of individuals whose personal
information from Florida DHSMV records has been obtained,
disclosed and used for marketing purposes or other allegedly
impermissible uses by ChoicePoint without the express written
consent of the individual.  A number of the Company's
competitors have also been sued in the same or similar
litigation in Florida.

The Company also has joined in a motion for judgment on the
pleadings.  This complaint seeks certification as a class
action, compensatory damages, attorney's fees and costs, and
injunctive and other relief.


CHORDIANT SOFTWARE: Executes Settlement of NY Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chordiant Software, Inc. executed a formal settlement agreement
for the consolidated securities class action filed against it
and certain of its officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, now
consolidated under the caption, "In re Chordiant Software, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01-CV-
6222."

In the amended complaint, the plaintiffs allege that Chordiant,
certain of the Company's officers and directors and the
underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) violated
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegations
that Chordiant's registration statement and prospectus failed to
disclose material facts regarding the compensation to be
received by, and the stock allocation practices of, the IPO
underwriters.

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

Similar complaints were filed in the same court against hundreds
of other public companies ("Issuers") that conducted IPOs of
their common stock in the late 1990s (collectively, the "IPO
Lawsuits").  In October 2002, the parties agreed to toll the
statute of limitations with respect to Chordiant's officers and
directors until September 30, 2003, and on the basis of this
agreement, the Company's officers and directors were dismissed
from the IPO Lawsuits without prejudice.

In February 2003, the Court issued a decision denying the motion
to dismiss the Section 11 claims against Chordiant and almost
all of the other Issuers and denying the motion to dismiss the
Section 10(b) claims against Chordiant and many of the Issuers.
In June 2003, Issuers and plaintiffs reached a tentative
settlement agreement that would, among other things, result in
the dismissal with prejudice of all claims against the Issuers
and their officers and directors in the IPO Lawsuits, and the
assignment to plaintiffs of certain potential claims that the
Issuers may have against the underwriters.

The tentative settlement also provides that, in the event that
plaintiffs ultimately recover less than a guaranteed sum of $1
billion from the IPO underwriters, plaintiffs would be entitled
to payment by each participating Issuer's insurer of a pro rata
share of any shortfall in the plaintiffs' guaranteed recovery.
In September 2003, in connection with the possible settlement,
those officers and directors who had entered tolling agreements
with plaintiffs agreed to extend those agreements so that they
would not expire prior to any settlement being finalized.

In June 2004, the Company executed a formal settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs consistent with the terms described above.
The settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
action by the Court certifying a class action for settlement
purposes and formally approving the settlement.  The
underwriters have opposed both certification of the class and
judicial approval of the settlement.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Finalizes Distribution of Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The distribution of the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Covad Communications
Group, Inc. and certain of its present and former officers and
directors has been finalized.

Purchasers of the Company's common stock and purchasers of the
convertible notes it issued in September 2000 filed complaints
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, or District Court, in the fourth quarter of 2000.
The complaints were consolidated and the lead plaintiff has
filed its amended consolidated complaint.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's securities, including common stock and
notes, during the period from April 19, 2000 to May 24, 2001.
The relief sought includes monetary damages and equitable
relief.

The Company and the officer and director defendants entered into
a Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU, with counsel for the lead
plaintiffs in this litigation that tentatively resolves the
litigation, providing for the distribution of $16,500 in cash to
be funded by the Company's insurance carriers and 6,495,844
shares of its common stock.

The plaintiffs voted in favor of the Plan. The settlement
provided for in the MOU was subject to the approval of the
District Court and, on December 18, 2002, the District Court
issued its final judgment and dismissal order.  One class member
subsequently filed an appeal relating to the allocation of the
settlement proceeds between the plaintiffs and their attorneys.
On February 18, 2004, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District
Court's final judgment and on February 24, 2004 the Company was
informed that the class member who had filed the appeal would
not be pursuing the matter any further.  The distribution of the
6,495,844 shares was completed in April of 2004.


COVAD COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Consolidated Securities Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
Covad Communications Group, Inc.'s current and former directors
faces a consolidated amended class action and derivative action
filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware in and
for New Castle County by the Company's former general counsel
and secretary, Druv Khanna.

On August 3, 2004, Mr. Khanna amended his Complaint and two
additional purported shareholders joined the lawsuit.  In this
action the plaintiffs seek recovery on behalf of the company
from the individual defendants for their purported breach of
fiduciary duty.  The plaintiffs also seek to invalidate the
Company's election of directors in 2002, 2003 and 2004 because
they claim its proxy statements were misleading.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Deadline Nears For Claims To $9.5M OR Award
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eligible motorists and health care providers have until December
6th to claim a share in a $9.5 million jury verdict that was
returned in a class action lawsuit in Multnomah County Circuit
Court in Oregon on December 5, 2003 against Farmers Insurance,
the Bend.com reported.

According to court documents, which stipulate that all claims
must be postmarked no later than December 6, 2004, those who are
eligible for a share of the jury award, include any person who
made a personal injury ("PIP") claim with Farmers Insurance
Company of Oregon, Mid-Century Insurance Company or Truck
Insurance Exchange whose claim payment was reduced between
January 26, 1998 and July 31, 1999. Also eligible for a share of
the award are the doctors and medical clinics that treated the
injured individuals.

Court documents also stipulate that qualified individuals and
health care providers would be compensated for the benefits
Farmers did not pay and in addition, individual drivers and
passengers who are class members may share in additional damages
with a share of these damages possibly amounting to $207 or more
per person.

Jurors in the case Strawn v. Farmers Insurance Co. found that
Farmers acted in bad faith and had been systematically
defrauding its policyholders by failing to reimburse its
customers for the full amount of their reasonable medical
expenses following an auto accident. Oregon motor vehicles
insurance law requires insurance companies pay "all reasonable
medical expenses." Between 1998 and mid-1999, Farmers used a
statistical formula that reduced payments to healthcare
providers for any amount over what Farmers asserted was
reasonable. The jury awarded $1,500,000 in compensatory damages
and prejudgment interest, and $8,000,000 in punitive damages.

Rick Yugler of the Portland firm Landye Bennett Blumstein, who
filed the class action on behalf of the 7,200 injured motorists
and over 1,500 Oregon doctors, chiropractors, therapists and
hospitals who were affected by Farmers action said, "The amounts
the company was taking from individual consumers were so small
that it was never enough for one person to pursue. Of course,
all these small amounts added up to over a million dollars in
profits for the insurance company."

The original claimant was Mark Strawn, who was injured in a car
wreck in 1997. His insurance company, Farmers, paid over $17,000
of his medical expenses, except for $427. When Mr. Yugler
investigated on behalf of Mr. Strawn, he discovered Farmers'
deliberate system of cutting reimbursements. The system was
never disclosed in the insurance policy, Farmers though
eventually changed its practice in 1999.

For more details, contact Strawn Claims Administration by Mail:
P.O. Box 3560, Portland OR 97208-3560 by Phone: 800-245-5097 or
by E-mail: http://www.farmerspipclaims.com.


MICROTUNE INC.: Reaches $5.625M Securities Settlement in E.D. TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Microtune(R), Inc. (Nasdaq:TUNE), a silicon and subsystems
company that designs and markets radio frequency (RF)-based
solutions for the worldwide broadband communications and
transportation electronics markets reached an agreement to
settle the consolidated securities class action litigation,
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas against Microtune and a number of Microtune's current and
former officers and directors.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the securities class
action litigation will be dismissed in exchange for a payment of
$5,625,000. Microtune's director and officer insurance carriers
have agreed to pay the $5,625,000 settlement amount, subject to
the Company's 15% co-pay obligation, under a separate settlement
agreement with the carriers reached on November 22, 2004.
Microtune established an accrual for its co-pay obligation
during the third quarter of 2004. Microtune's insurance carriers
also have agreed to reimburse certain of the Company's defense
costs. Microtune believes that the net effect of its co-pay
obligation and expense reimbursement from its insurance carriers
will have an insignificant impact on the Company's cash
reserves.

As part of the settlement of the securities class action
litigation, Microtune made no admission of wrongdoing. The
settlement of the securities class action litigation is subject
to a number of conditions, including notice to the class and
final court approval following completion of a fairness hearing.
At this time, there can be no assurance that these conditions
will be met and that the settlement of the securities class
action litigation will receive final court approval.

Microtune's settlement agreement with its director and officer
insurance carriers resolves certain obligations of these
carriers with respect to the securities class action litigation,
including the settlement payment and reimbursement for defense
costs mentioned above, and the previously announced
investigation of the Company by the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

Additionally, the agreement addresses certain of the parties'
obligations relating to the previously announced consolidated
derivative action lawsuit against Microtune and a number of
Microtune's current and former officers and directors. The
insurance carrier agreement is subject to a number of
conditions, including the execution and final court approval of
the securities class action litigation settlement and the
dismissal of the securities class action with prejudice.


MISSISSIPPI: Children's Rights Eyes Foster Care Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several days after a federal judge refused to dismiss a lawsuit
against the state of Mississippi over the treatment and care of
foster children in its custody, New York-based Children's
Rights, the group that sued the state in March said that it's
willing to discuss settling the case, the Clarion-Ledger
reports.

The state had tried to get the case dismissed on several
grounds, including the doctrine that the federal judiciary is
prohibited from interference in pending state judicial and
administrative proceedings. However, U.S. District Judge Tom S.
Lee refused to dismiss the lawsuit.

According to Marcia Robinson Lowry, executive director of
Children's Rights, Judge Lee's decision could allow a speedy
resolution. Ms. Lowry further adds, "The legal rulings by Judge
Lee create a strong framework on which we will prove the harm
that the state is inflicting on the vulnerable abused and
neglected children the state is legally obligated to protect."

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services reported the state failed to meet standards on abuse of
children in foster care and the length of time it took to
reunite children with their parents or place them for adoption.

The federal lawsuit was filed on behalf of 13 children alleged
to have suffered physical and psychological harm while under the
care and supervision of the Mississippi Department of Human
Services Division of Family and Children Services. Class action
status has been sought for the lawsuit, but Judge Lee has yet to
decide on that issue.


NEW CENTURY: Asks LA Court To Reject Wage Lawsuits Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation asked the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana to reject
conditional certification for the lawsuits filed against it and:

     (1) New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.

     (2) Worth Funding Incorporated (now known as New Century
         Credit)

     (3) The Anyloan Company.

In April 2003, two former, short-term employees, Kimberly A.
England and Gregory M. Foshee filed the suit in the 19th
Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, State of
Louisiana.  The suit was later removed to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.  The complaint
alleges failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
federal Fair Labor Standards Act.

The plaintiffs filed an additional action in Louisiana State
Court (19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge)
on September 18, 2003, adding James Gray as a plaintiff and
seeking unpaid wages under state law, with no class claims.
This second action was removed on October 3, 2003 to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, and was
ordered consolidated with the first action.

In April 2004, the U.S. District Court unilaterally de-
consolidated the James Gray individual action.  In September
2003, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to dismiss their claims
in Louisiana to enable them to join in a subsequently filed case
in Minnesota entitled Klas vs. New Century TRS, et al.

The Company opposed the motion and the Court agreed with the
Company's position and refused to dismiss the plaintiffs' case,
as it was filed first.  The Klas case has now been consolidated
with this case and discovery is proceeding.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss Worth Funding Incorporated
(now known as New Century Credit) and The Anyloan Company as
defendants.  The Court granted the motion to dismiss in April
2004.  On June 28, 2004, the Company filed a motion to reject
conditional certification of a collective action. The Company
awaits a ruling.


NEW CENTURY: IL Court Refuses To Reconsider TILA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois denied plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of its
dismissal of a class action filed against New Century Mortgage
Corporation and:

     (1) Tamayo Financial Title, Inc.,

     (2) Presidential Title, Inc.,

     (3) Juan Tamayo Jr.,

     (4) Jose Tamayo and

     (5) Luis Tamayo

Canales Jose Ines and Maria S. Marquez filed the suit, alleging
violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) related to the
fees charged for title insurance and recording fees.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss in December 2003 and the
motion was fully briefed in January 2004.  On April 5, 2004, the
Court granted the motion to dismiss and directed the court clerk
to enter judgment in the Company's favor and terminate the case
from the Court's docket.

On April 13, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for
reconsideration and for leave to amend their complaint.  The
motion was fully briefed in June 2004.  On July 20, 2004, the
Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration and the
plaintiff's motion for leave to amend.  Plaintiffs did not seek
to appeal the order dismissing the Company.


NEW CENTURY: IL Court Dismisses TILA Violations Consumer Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois dismissed the class action filed against New Century
Mortgage Corporation.  Denise Wade filed the suit against the
Company and:

     (1) Providential Bancorp, Ltd.,

     (2) Jet Title Services, LLC, and

     (3) Ocwen Federal Bank, FSB.

The complaint alleges violations of the Truth in Lending Act
TILA related to the fees charged for title insurance and
recording fees.

The Company filed its motion to dismiss in November 2003 and the
motion was fully briefed in January 2004.  The plaintiff filed a
motion to amend in April 2004 and it was fully briefed in June
2004.  On September 20, 2004, the plaintiff filed a motion for
class certification and the Court has set a briefing schedule.
On September 29, 2004, the Company filed a motion to strike, or
in the alternative, to stay the plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  By an Order dated September 29, 2004, the
plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was denied and the
Company's motion to dismiss was granted.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Seek Extension For Suit Dismissal Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the State Court in Suffolk County, New York to
grant them an extension to file their appeal brief for the
dismissal of the class action filed against New Century Mortgage
Corporation.

In December 2003, the Company was served with a class action
complaint filed by Elaine Lum.  The complaint alleged that
certain payments the Company makes to mortgage brokers,
sometimes referred to as yield spread premiums, interfered with
the contractual relationship between Ms. Lum and her broker.
The complaint also sought damages related thereto for fraud,
wrongful inducement/breach of fiduciary duty, violation of
deceptive acts and practices, unjust enrichment and commercial
bribing.  The complaint seeks class certification for similarly
situated borrowers in the State of New York.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss on January 30, 2004.  The
judge granted the Company's motion and dismissed all claims on
March 23, 2004.  On April 12, 2004, the plaintiff filed a notice
of appeal, seeking review of the Court's s order granting the
motion to dismiss.


NEW CENTURY: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Lawsuit For Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation asked the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey to dismiss the
class action filed against it and New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.
in June 2004.

Joseph and Emma Warburton filed the suit, alleging violations of
the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA), the Truth in
Lending Act (TILA) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and
unjust enrichment. The complaint also alleges certain other
violations against defendants unrelated to New Century TRS and
New Century Mortgage, including Foxtons, Inc., Foxtons North
America, Foxtons Realtor and Foxtons Financial, Inc., which the
Company refers to collectively as Foxtons, and Worldwide
Financial Resources, Inc.

The plaintiffs allege, among other things, that Foxtons, acting
as their broker, charged fees and received a yield spread
premium without disclosing the same to them until the time of
closing.  The class is defined as all persons in the state of
New Jersey who have purchased, or sought to purchase, a home
listed for sale by Foxtons and who have paid a pre-qualification
application fee, or who have received and accepted an offer from
Foxtons for a fixed interest rate mortgage loan that Foxtons
failed to deliver as promised and who have suffered damages as a
result.  The complaint seeks to enjoin the wrongful conduct
alleged, recovery of actual and statutory damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.  The complaint does not specify the
amount of damages sought.


NEW CENTURY: Plaintiffs Dismiss IL Interest Act Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs entered a notice of dismissal for the class action
filed against New Century Mortgage Corporation in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In June 2004, Kristi Lyn Randall filed the suit, alleging that
the Company violated Section 4.1a of the Illinois Interest Act
by charging more than 3 points on loans with an interest rate of
8% per annum or higher.  The complaint also alleges that the
Company and defendant Nations Title Agency of Illinois, Inc.
violated state law by improperly charging certain fees and
taxes.  The class is defined as all persons who are residents of
Illinois who obtained loans from the Company (which loans are
still outstanding or were paid off within two years prior to the
filing of this action) at an interest rate of 8% per annum or
higher and were charged more than 3 points on such loans.  The
complaint seeks recovery of statutory, compensatory, punitive
and restitutionary damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
complaint does not specify the amount of damages sought.

The plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint on
July 21, 2004, which adds Robert and Alice Elibasich as
plaintiffs.  The Company filed its answer in August 2004.  On
August 4, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for immediate
class certification and the judge denied the request for
immediate relief and set a briefing schedule for class
certification.  The motion for class certification has been
stayed per the Court's order of September 16, 2004.  The Company
filed a notice of removal on October 21, 2004 and case has been
removed to the U.S. District Court, Northern District of
Illinois.


NEW CENTURY: Faces MO Lawsuit Over State Law, RESPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
New Century Mortgage Corporation faces a class action filed in
the Circuit Court in St. Louis County, Missouri, alleging
violations of Missouri state law and the Real Estate Settlement
Procedures Act (RESPA).

In October 2004, Debbie Henderson, Florence Obani-Nwibari, Noble
Obani-Nwibari, Emmer Hardy, James D. Hardy, Subbaiah
Chalevendra, Rafael F. Herrara and Sandra G. Martinez filed a
class action complaint, which also names as defendants:

     (1) First Horizon Home Loan Corporation,

     (2) Master Financial, Inc.,

     (3) Mortgage Lenders Network USA, Inc.,

     (4) Hillsboro Title Company, Inc. and

     (5) American Mortgage Corporation

The complaint alleges the unauthorized practice of law in
violation of Missouri state law and the RESPA for performing
document preparation services in the state of Missouri for a fee
by non-lawyers, and seeks to recover the fees charged for the
document preparation, compensatory and punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.


NEW YORK: Steuben County Opts To Join Pharmaceutical Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
After a recent 20-minute executive legislative session, Steuben
County Attorney Frederick Ahrens Jr. announced that they would
join other counties in the state in a class action lawsuit
against pharmaceutical companies that may reach national
proportions to recover alleged Medicaid pharmaceutical
overcharges, the Corning Leader reports.

Though the lawsuit is still in its infancy stage, Mr. Ahrens
told the Corning Leader that the county Legislature's
Administration Committee is taking on the local groundwork in
the next few months. This decision by the Steuben legislators
aligns the county with neighboring counties, like Schuyler,
Chemung and Tioga, which joined the lawsuit when their
legislatures met earlier this month.

According to published reports, the lawsuit charges a number of
pharmaceutical and related companies set artificially high
prescriptive drugs prices for Medicaid patients. Current
Medicaid practices do not allow physicians to prescribe low-cost
generic drugs for their low-income patients. The cost of the
drugs is borne by the federal, state and local governments, and
is among the fastest growing segments of Medicaid expenditures.

Mr. Ahrens states that in Steuben County alone, pharmaceutical
costs account for 19 percent of the total county Medicaid
budget. Prices have doubled in the past four years, from $10.9
million paid out in 2000 to more than $22 million this year, he
adds.

Aside form calling for a judgment that the companies engaged in
intentionally fraudulent conduct, the lawsuit is also calling
for restitution and financial penalties and an injunction
against overcharging in the future though there is no way to
know what the financial implications of the lawsuit are at this
point, according to Mr. Ahrens said.


PMA CAPITAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Stock Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class action against
PMA Capital Corporation and certain of its directors and key
executive officers in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Several suits were filed on behalf of alleged purchasers of its
Class A Common Stock, 4.25% Senior Convertible Debentures and
8.50% Monthly Income Senior Notes due 2018. On June 28, 2004,
the District Court issued an order consolidating the cases under
the caption In Re PMA Capital Corporation Securities Litigation
(civil action no. 03-6121) and appointed Sheet Metal Workers
Local 9 Pension Trust, Alaska Laborers Employers Retirement Fund
and Communications Workers of America for Employees' Pension and
Death Benefits as lead plaintiff.

On September 20, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended and
consolidated complaint on behalf of an alleged class of
purchasers of the Company's securities between May 5, 1999 and
February 11, 2004.  The complaint alleges, among other things,
that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making materially false and
misleading public statements and material omissions during the
class period regarding the Company's underwriting performance,
loss reserves and related internal controls.

The complaint alleges, among other things, that the defendants
violated Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and 15 of the Securities Act by
making materially false and misleading statements in
registration statements and prospectuses about the Company's
financial results, underwriting performance, loss reserves and
related internal controls.  The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, the right to rescind the purchases of
securities in the public offerings, interest, and plaintiffs'
reasonable costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees and
expert fees.


REALNETWORKS INC.: WA Court Grants Stay of Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State Court granted RealNetworks, Inc.'s motion to
stay the consumer fraud suit filed against it, alleging causes
of action based on the Washington Consumer Protection Act and
unjust enrichment.

In March 2003, William Cirignani filed the suit, which alleges
consumers who attempted to download or purchase certain of the
Company's products and services were fraudulently and
deceptively enrolled in, and prevented from canceling, the
Company's subscription services.  The plaintiff seeks
compensatory damages, equitable relief in the form of an order
prohibiting the alleged false and deceptive practices, treble
damages and other relief.

The trial Court has granted the Company's motion to stay the
action pending arbitration on an individual, non-class basis and
the Court of Appeals and the Washington Supreme Court have
rejected the plaintiff's appeal.


SOUTH AFRICA: NY Court Dismisses Apartheid Cases V. U.S. Firms
--------------------------------------------------------------
A New York court recently dismissed legal cases against more
than 30 companies that were accused of having illegally aided
the apartheid-era South African Government, the BBC News
reports.

The dismissed class action lawsuits had targeted firms like
computer giant IBM and banking giant Citigroup, which the
plaintiffs, who suffered under apartheid, accused of supplying
oil, money and technology to South Africa. These resources, the
case argued, were used for "oppression and persecution".

However, District Judge John Sprizzo, who presided over the
case, found that there was no violation of the law in commercial
links with South Africa. In his judgment, he wrote, "Although it
is clear that the actions of the apartheid regime were
repugnant, and that the decision of the defendants to do
business with that regime may have been morally suspect... it is
this court's job to apply the law and not some normative or
moral ideal."

The promoters of the lawsuit had hoped to follow the success of
legal action on behalf of victims of the Nazi Holocaust, though
those cases have been complicated, legal pressure has persuaded
companies and governments involved in the Holocaust to arrange
for compensation.

However, in the case of apartheid, matters have been impeded by
the lack of direct corporate involvement in South African human-
rights abuses, according to human rights experts.


UNITED STATES: ATLA, Law Firms Outraged By Vioxx Web Site
---------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Suggs, president-elect of the Association of Trial
Lawyers of America (ATLA), is considering making a phone call to
Sen. Orrin Hatch telling the Utah Republican to blame a Canadian
who goes by the name of Leon Master and not America's trial
lawyers for a Web site that crows "Get Your Million Dollars From
Vioxx Lawsuit," The Recorder reports.

The site links to several law firms, including Suggs' Baltimore-
based firm Janet, Jenner & Suggs, who have apparently entered
deals with Google to serve up links to their firms alongside
Vioxx-related content.

Sen. Hatch, the outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee Chair has
been pushing for caps on damages against drug makers, had
pointed to the site at a recent Senate Finance Committee hearing
as evidence of "a feeding frenzy from trial lawyers" against
Merck & Co., the maker of the pain drug that has been shown to
cause heart problems.

Mr. Suggs protests that he had never heard of the site until a
friend called to tell him that the senator was reading from the
text of the site, and that it linked to his firm. "My law firm
was put on there totally without our knowledge, and we certainly
didn't pay this person. The claims that are made on there could
get me disbarred," Mr. Suggs said.

The "million dollars" site provides no information about its
creator except an e-mail address for potential advertisers. But
according to research by ATLA, the "Get Your Million Dollars
From Vioxx Lawsuit" site, www.vioxx.x.yi.org, looks to be the
work of a mysterious 29-year-old Ontarian who identifies himself
on a hacking bulletin board as Leon Master.

In addition to the million-dollar lure, the site claims that
some firms "even pay $200 per sign-up, regardless of the outcome
of the class action lawsuit." It also encourages patients to buy
the drug at pharmacies still selling Vioxx, which may then be
sued.

Lawyers agree that the site's promises of financial gain as a
result of Merck's September 30 recall of Vioxx are clearly
unethical. "That is terrible. No wonder lawyers get a bad name,"
said Heather Foster, a partner with Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein currently involved in several Vioxx suits.  An
incensed Todd Schneider says his San Francisco firm, Schneider &
Wallace, was linked to the "million dollars" site without his
knowledge. "We believe their Web site is immoral, illegal and
unethical," he said.

Mr. Schneider said he has contacted the yi.org provider and
Google, which apparently served up the ads, seeking to have the
link to his firm pulled. But his attempts have so far been
unsuccessful. "No one has been any help whatsoever," he said.
"Frankly, it's an outrage."

The Vioxx recall has elicited both shame and enthusiasm from the
plaintiff bar, which has unleashed a deluge of newspaper and TV
ads and a multitude of Web sites soliciting clients who suffered
cardiovascular problems while taking Vioxx.

Meanwhile, plaintiff attorneys insist that a single example of
egregiously unethical advertising shouldn't deflect blame for
the Vioxx disaster away from Merck, which allegedly marketed the
drug for three years after finding it was unsafe.

"Wouldn't you know that someone would turn it around so it's all
the trial lawyers' fault?" said San Francisco solo Mary
Alexander, who's currently preparing about 50 separate Vioxx
suits.


UNITED STATES: Charfoos and Christensen Lodges MEPA Suit in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Charfoos and Christensen will be holding a press
conference to provide details on a recently filed class action
suit entitled, City of River Rouge, the Citizens of the City of
River Rouge and the Citizens of the City of Ecorse vs. United
States Steel for alleged violation of the State of Michigan
Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act.

The press conference will be held on Tuesday, November 30 at
11:00 am at the West Jefferson Ave entrance of the United States
Steel, Great Lakes Works Plant, One Quality Drive, Ecorse, MI
48229. The firm is set to reveal the filing of a class action
air pollution case against United States Steel Corporation on
behalf of the City of River Rouge, the residents of the City of
River Rouge and the residents of the City of Ecorse.

The Michigan Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act
is the states equivalent to the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), and is also known as the Michigan Environmental
Protection Act (MEPA). MEPA, (Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, Part 17 -- formerly,
Act 127, Public Act 1970), which is a supplemental to all other
Michigan environmental laws, applies to any activity which
"...has, or is likely to pollute, impair or destroy the air,
water or other natural resources or the public trust therein..."
Any person, organization, government body, or other legal entity
can file MEPA suits.

For more details, contact Ronald D. Baker, Principal of the
Marketing Communications Counsel, Inc. by Phone: 248-615-6480 or
248-420-3276 (CELL) by Fax: 248-615-6488 or by E-mail:
rbaker@mktcom.net OR David Bower, City Attorney, City of River
Rouge by Phone: 313-842-5604 OR Jason Thompson of Charfoos and
Christensen, P.C. by Phone: 313-875-8080 or 800-247-5974 by Fax:
313-875-8522 or visit their Web site: http://www.c2law.com.


UNUMPROVIDENT: Quadrino & Schwartz Opens Site For Policyholders
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Quadrino & Schwartz recently launched:
http://www.unumprovidentclassaction.net,a website dedicated to
helping UnumProvident (NYSE: UNM) policyholders get their long-
term disability insurance claims fully and fairly considered.

On November 18, UnumProvident, the largest provider of
disability insurance in the country announced that it would
reconsider over 200,000 previously denied claims as a result of
a multi-state investigation into the Company's practices.
Starting in the mid-1990s, the Company came under fire for its
alleged practice of systematically denying and terminating
legitimate disability claims in order to boost profits. Quadrino
& Schwartz urges UnumProvident policyholders to seek legal
representation as their claims are re-evaluated to ensure a fair
claims handling process.

"It is important for policyholders and plan beneficiaries to
continue to seek legal representation regarding any re-
evaluation by UnumProvident," said Richard Quadrino, founding
partner of Quadrino & Schwartz. "The process is a legal
minefield loaded with traps which we believe still benefit the
Company, not the claimant," he added. "We will not stop fighting
for the rights of the disabled until UnumProvident treats all of
its disabled policyholders fairly."

Quadrino & Schwartz has represented hundreds of disabled people
who have had their long-term disability claims unfairly denied.
Quadrino & Schwartz was the first long-term disability insurance
law firm in the United States to bring a class action lawsuit
against UnumProvident, Unum, Paul Revere, First Unum, Provident
Life, and other UnumProvident subsidiaries to stop and correct
their dishonest disability claims practices. Two class action
lawsuits have been filed, the first seeking recovery for people
who obtained their disability coverage through their employers,
and the second seeking relief for those who purchased their own
disability policies.

Policyholders who had a disability claim denied or terminated at
any time after January 1, 1997 by UnumProvident, Paul Revere
Life Insurance Company, First Unum Life Insurance Company,
Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company, Provident Life
and Casualty Insurance Company, or Unum Life Insurance Company
of America may visit http://www.unumprovidentclassaction.netor
http://www.disabilityinsurancelawyers.comto receive a free
initial case evaluation.

For more details, contact Richard J. Quadrino or Evan S.
Schwartz of Quadrino & Schwartz by Phone: (516) 745-1122 by E-
mail: rjq@quadrinoschwartz.com or ess@quadrinoschwartz.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.disabilityinsurancelawyers.com.


VIGNETTE CORPORATION: Approves MOU To Settle NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Vignette Corporation approved a memorandum of understanding
(MOU) to settle the securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

Several suits were initially filed, seeking unspecified damages
on behalf of a purported class that purchased Vignette common
stock between February 18, 1999 and December 6, 2000.  Also
named as defendants were four underwriters involved in the
Company's initial public offering of Vignette stock in February
1999 and the Company's secondary public offering of Vignette
stock in December 1999 - Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, Inc.,
Hambrecht & Quist, LLC, Dain Rauscher Wessels and U.S.
Bancorp Piper Jaffray, Inc.

A Consolidated Amended Complaint, which is now the operative
complaint, was filed on April 19, 2002.  The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, based on, among other
things, claims that the four underwriters awarded material
portions of the shares in the Company's initial and secondary
public offerings to certain customers in exchange for excessive
commissions.

The complaint also asserts that the underwriters engaged in
"tie-in arrangements" whereby certain customers were allocated
shares of Company stock sold in its initial and secondary public
offerings in exchange for an agreement to purchase additional
shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  With
respect to the Company, the complaint alleges that the Company
and its officers and directors failed to disclose the existence
of these purported excessive commissions and tie-in arrangements
in the prospectus and registration statement for the Company's
initial public offering and the prospectus and registration
statement for the Company's secondary public offering.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July
15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it.
On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon
Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Individual Defendants.  This dismissal disposed of the Section
15 and 20(a) control person claims without prejudice, since
these claims were asserted only against the Individual
Defendants.  On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion
to dismiss the complaint against the Company.

The Company has approved a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU")
and related agreements that set forth the terms of a settlement
between the Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority
of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants.  Among other
provisions, the settlement contemplated by the MOU provides for
a release of the Company and the individual defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful.  The Company would
agree to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing
to assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims
the Company may have against its underwriters.  It is
anticipated that any potential financial obligation of the
Company to plaintiffs pursuant to the terms of the MOU and
related agreements will be covered by existing insurance.
Therefore, the Company does not expect that the settlement will
involve any payment by the Company.

The MOU and related agreements are subject to a number of
contingencies, including the negotiation of a settlement
agreement and its approval by the Court. The Company cannot
opine as to whether or when a settlement will occur or be
finalized and is unable at this time to determine whether the
outcome of the litigation will have a material impact on its
results of operations or financial condition in any future
period.


WAL-MART STORES: Files Brief in CA Court Opposing Class Status
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT) recently filed a brief with the U.S.
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California outlining why a
sex-discrimination lawsuit against the retailer should lose its
class action status, the Dow Jones Newswires reports.

As previously reported in the September 29, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the appellate court agreed to review an
earlier ruling by District Court Judge Martin Jenkins in San
Francisco that six current and former Wal-Mart employees from
California may represent all female Wal-Mart employees who
worked at Wal-Mart's U.S. stores anytime since Dec. 26, 1998,
which eventually lead to a class that covers about 1.6 million
women.

In their suit, the women, which include employees hired by Wal-
Mart (WMT) since Dec. 26, 1998 claim they were consistently held
back from promotions and paid less than male counterparts since
at least 1987. The suit also calls for future hires to be
included in the class action until the court issues an order
ending the allegedly illegal practices.

The world's largest retailer, which has vehemently maintained
that it does not discriminate against women and that the class
size is too large for the case to be manageable has
consistently, argued that hiring, promoting and firing decisions
were made at individual store levels and urged the judge to pull
the cases apart for each store. They further argued that the
suit doesn't take into account the thousands of women whose
paychecks are bigger than their male counterparts.

According to Joseph Sellers, one of the lawyers representing the
plaintiffs in the case, there is no basis for the court to
overturn the class-action status of the lawsuit based on
arguments presented in the Wal-Mart's brief. Mr. Sellers even
describes it as "a very ambitious brief that attempts to tackle
more than just this case and adds, "Wal-Mart is attempting to
overturn some fairly settled law in the Ninth Circuit Court."

In the 83-page document, which contains a 60-page appellate
brief, Wal-Mart again reiterated its previous argument that if
the suit retained class-action status, women who weren't
discriminated against could receive damages, including punitive
damages, if disparate treatment was proven, while women who were
discriminated against might not be compensated appropriately.
The retailer also restated another earlier argument that it
believes the class size -- which it says exceeds the popular of
at least 12 of the 50 U.S. states -- is too large for the
retailer to address individual plaintiff's claims.

Ted Boutrous, lead defense counsel for Wal-Mart argues, "Even if
plaintiffs make a statistical showing of disparity, an employer
has a right to show that in individual cases there was no
discrimination."

In addition, Wal-Mart argues that the lower court ignored the
retailer's "unrebutted" evidence that more than 90% of Wal-Mart
stores showed no statistically significant disparities in pay
between men and women. The judge for the lower court said the
evidence related to the overall "merits" of the case, but Wal-
Mart contends its evidence shows it didn't practice
discrimination nationwide.

"The judge was required to look at statistics from both sides,
but he didn't do that," Mr. Boutrous said. "Many appeals courts
have ruled that the district court has an obligation to look at
the full record at this stage."

Despite this latest legal maneuver by Wal-Mart, plaintiffs'
lawyers were quick to point out that although the appeals court
has agreed to review the lower-court's class action ruling, it
doesn't necessarily mean it will overturn the decision.


WAL-MART STORES: Lawyers Say FL Workers' Suit Will Be Narrowed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys for Florida employees who had lodged a class action
lawsuit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc., accusing it of failing to
pay them for working during breaks and after hours recently
revealed that they would proceed with a lawsuit after amending
it to comply with an appellate court ruling, the AL.com, AL
reports.

As previously reported in the November 30, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the 1st District Court of Appeal in
Tallahassee had refused to grant class-action status to the suit
filed in Panama City on behalf of about 230,000 Wal-Mart workers
because the class was too broad.

In its ruling, the three-judge panel suggested that the class
should be narrowed only those who have worked off the clock
instead of all current and former hourly wage-earners who had
been employed on or after July 13, 1997, which the plaintiffs'
lawyers said they would follow.

According to Russell Lloyd of Houston, who is handling similar
suits in at least four other states, "We don't look at it as a
loss," since tens of thousands of Florida workers would still be
covered by the narrower suit and adds that narrowing the class
should not be an obstacle.

In reaction to the plaintiffs recent decision to follow the
appellate court's recommendation, Wal-Mart spokesman Bill Wertz
said, "We had a favorable ruling and now they're going to pursue
an appeal, which they have every right to do. We feel confident
about our case and we'll just have to wait and see what the ourt
decides."


               New Securities Fraud Cases


DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma on behalf of purchasers of Dobson
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: DCEL) common stock during the
period between May 19, 2003 and August 9, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Dobson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Dobson is a rural and suburban wireless communications
services provider offering wireless calling, voice privacy and
call security, tri-mode handsets and roaming.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements describing the
Company's financial prospects and the continued growth in the
Company's roaming minutes, which are based on increased minutes
of use. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants knew, but
failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company's growth in roaming minutes was
         substantially declining, and the Company had
         experienced negative growth in October 2003;

     (2) AT&T, the Company's largest roaming customer, had
         notified defendants that it wanted to dispose of its
         equity interest in Dobson that it had held since
         Dobson's IPO, significantly decreasing AT&T's interest
         in purchasing roaming capacity from Dobson;

     (3) Bank of America intended to dispose of its substantial
         equity interest in Dobson as soon as AT&T disposed of
         its equity interest in Dobson;

     (4) the Company had been missing sales quotas and losing
         market share throughout the Class Period; and

     (5) the Company lacked the internal controls required to
         report meaningful financial results.

On February 17, 2004, defendants announced that the Company had
fallen materially short of hitting its earnings projections
forecast in October 2003 and that it would drastically reduce
its 2004 projections. Defendants now admitted that roaming
revenue had declined from a 36% growth rate in April 2003 over
April 2002 to a 22% decline by October 2003, causing the Company
to miss EBITDA expectations by $9.5 million. On this news, the
Company's shares plunged by 36% on extremely high trading
volume. Then, on August 9, 2004, Dobson issued a press release
announcing its second quarter financial results. The Company
reported a net loss of $15.9 million per share, or $(0.12) per
share. Dobson also dramatically cut its forecasts for subscriber
additions. In response to this news, the price of Dobson stock
plunged an additional 55% per share.

For more detail, contact the law offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by
E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


FANNIE MAE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DC
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia on behalf of all persons who purchased or acquired the
securities of the Federal National Mortgage Association (NYSE:
FNM) between October 11, 2000 and September 22, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Fannie Mae and certain executive officers
of Fannie Mae with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that defendants'
material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements concerning Fannie Mae's financial results
caused Fannie Mae's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors. Fannie Mae is a
Congressionally-chartered corporation that provides financing
and conducts similar activities related to home mortgages and
expanding home ownership in the United States. It is the largest
source of home mortgage financing in the U.S.

The Complaint alleges that the defendants failed to disclose or
misrepresented the following adverse facts that were known to
defendants or were recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that Fannie Mae applied accounting methods and
         practices that do not comply with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") in accounting for the
         enterprise's derivatives transactions and hedging
         activities;

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

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

     (4) that Fannie Mae deferred expenses to achieve bonus
         compensation targets;

     (5) that Fannie Mae had insufficient and inadequate
         internal controls; and

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

On September 22, 2004, Fannie Mae, prior to the opening of the
market, issued a statement, revealing that over a year ago, the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ("OFHEO") began a
special examination of Fannie Mae's accounting policies and
practices, and that the report of that examination -- delivered
to Fannie Mae on September 20, 2004 -- concluded that

Fannie Mae applied accounting methods and practices that do not
comply with GAAP in accounting for the enterprise's derivatives
transactions and hedging activities, employed an improper
'cookie jar' reserve in accounting for amortization of deferred
price adjustments under GAAP, tolerated related internal control
deficiencies, in at least one instance deferred expenses
apparently to achieve bonus compensation targets, and maintained
a corporate culture that emphasized stable earnings at the
expense of accurate financial disclosures.

Fannie Mae also disclosed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission has been conducting an informal inquiry that includes
issues raised in the OFHEO report.

In the wake of Fannie Mae's announcement, on September 22 shares
of Fannie Mae fell $4.96 per share, or 6.56 percent, to close at
$70.69 per share on unusually high trading volume. On September
23, shares of Fannie Mae fell an additional $3.54 per share, or
5.01 percent, to close at $67.15 per share.

For more detail, contact the law offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by
E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


SIRVA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Sirva, Inc. ("Sirva" or
the "Company") (NYSE:SIR) between November 25, 2003 and November
9, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Sirva and Brian P. Kelley, Joan E. Ryan, James W. Rogers
and Richard J. Schnall ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Sirva's financial statements issued during the class period,
including those in its IPO prospectus, were materially false and
misleading because Sirva's insurance and claim reserves were
inadequate and as a result the Company's earnings were
materially inflated, and violated generally accepted accounting
principles, ("GAAP"). In addition, the complaint alleges that
the Company mischaracterized its business model as "asset-light"
when in fact it later described its European operations as
"asset-intensive", which in fact represented a significant
undisclosed risk to the Company.

On November 9, 2004, Sirva announced that it would take a $15.2
million charge to bolster its insurance reserves, which had a
negative impact to earnings. Moreover, its insurance business
had deteriorated so significantly that the Company had to
discontinue entire lines of its insurance business. The Company
also reported poor results from its European operations. In
reaction to the news, Sirva shares sank, dropping from $23.78 to
$17.95 in heavy volume.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

     (4) that the profitability of the European operations was
         suffering. Additionally, during the Class Period and
         with the Company's stock trading at artificially
         inflated prices, Company insiders embarked on an
         insider trading scheme.

As a result of the insider trading scheme, Company insiders
reaped more than $336 million in gross proceeds.

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

News of this shocked the market. Shares of SIRVA fell $5.83 per
share, or 24.52 percent, to close at $17.95 per share.

For more detail, contact the law offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by
E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


STAR GAS: Pomerantz Haudek Sets Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP,
which has filed a class action lawsuit against Star Gas
Partners, L.P. ("Star Gas" or the "Company") (NYSE:SGU) and two
of the Company's senior officers, on behalf of all persons or
entities who purchased the securities of Star Gas during the
period between December 4, 2003 through October 18, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), reminds investors that they have
until Monday, December 20, 2004 to seek appointment by the Court
as one of the lead plaintiffs in this action.

The lawsuit alleges that defendants issued false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's operations, business model,
financial results and growth prospects. According to the
Complaint, defendants caused Star Gas's securities to trade at
artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and
misleading statements. As a result of this inflation, Star Gas
was able to complete a secondary offering of 1.3 million common
units and two note offerings totaling $65 million, raising net
proceeds of $95 million during the Class Period. Specifically,
defendants concealed from investors that the Company was
experiencing massive delays in the centralization of its
dispatch system, causing customers to flee to competitors, that
the company's Petro heating oil division's process improvement
program was not delivering the benefits claimed by Defendants,
and that contrary to prior indications, the Company could not
maintain profit margins in its heating oil segment.

On October 18, 2004, the Company indicated that results at its
heating oil unit were expected to decline significantly, which
would inhibit it from meeting borrowing conditions under its
working capital credit line. In reaction to this news, shares of
Star Gas dropped dramatically, falling from $21.60 per share to
close at $4.32 the following day.

For more detail, contact Andrew G. Tolan, Esq. of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: 888-476-6529
((888) 4-POMLAW) or by E-mail: agtolan@pomlaw.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  * * *