CAR_Public/041206.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, December 6, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 241

                          Headlines

ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs File Amended CO Securities Suit
AMERICAN PHYSICIANS: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
ANTIGENICS INC.: Seeks Preliminary Approval For Suit Settlement
ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
BEMIS CO.: Class Certification Briefing To Finish By Feb. 2005

BODY BASICS: Recalls ACTRA-Rx Due To Inadvertent Contamination
CALIFORNIA: Diabetic Commences Overcharging Lawsuit V. CA Stores
CALIFORNIA: Sheriff Gives Deposition For Inmates Crowding Suit
CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues To Face 25 Natural Gas Lawsuits
CENTRA SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement

CLEAN HARBORS: MA Shareholder Lawsuits Voluntarily Dismissed
DISCOVER CAPITAL: Dinov Brothers Fined, Barred From Industry
DOVER ACQUISITION: Settlement Hearing Set For Stockholder's Suit
DUN & BRADSTREET: Asks CT Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Settles CA Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit

FINDWHAT.COM: Consumers Launch CA Suit Over Online Gambling Ads
FLORIDA: Boiler Room Operator Settles SEC Charges, Fined $200T
GENCORP INC.: Shareholder Files Suit Over Rejection Of $700M Bid
HOOVER'S INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
HUB INTERNATIONAL: Named As Defendant in NY Insurance Fees Suit

LANTRONIX INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in C.D. CA
MERCK & CO.: Vioxx Suit Removed From Madison County To S.D. IL
MORGAN STANLEY: Ex-Broker Lodges Sex Discrimination Suit in NM
NATURAL ORGANICS: Recalls Products Because Of Undeclared Casein
NEOFORMA INC.: Submits Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court

NETRATINGS INC.: Working To Settle NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: TX Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
OPENTV CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
OPENTV CORPORATION: Faces DE Shareholder Suit Over ACTV Merger
PEC SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal VA Securities Lawsuit Dismissal

PEPSICO: SEC Penalizes, Fines Thomas Taylor in Kmart Case
PULMONETIC SYSTEMS: Recalls 1,129 Adaptors Due To Injury Risk
RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Single ERISA Violations Suit in TX Court
RELIANT ENERGY: TX High Court Nixes Review of Franchise Fee Suit
RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Seek Securities Suit Certification

SARASOTA ASSOCIATION: FL Realtor Lodges Suit V. Membership Terms
SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
SONIC INNOVATIONS: UT Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
SONUS NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Certification For Securities Suit

SONUS NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated MA Securities Suit
STARK FOODS: Recalls Maggi Meat Products Ineligible For Import
STATE FARM: GA Appeals Court Overturns Auto Rate Settings Ruling
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
TAMPA ELECTRIC: Judge Denies Certification For Electric Lawsuit

TAP PHARMACEUTICAL: Agrees To Pay $150M To Settle Consumer Suit
USI HOLDINGS: Faces Insurance Fraud, RICO Violations Suit in NY
WEST VIRGINIA: Ruling On Coal Plant Suit Review Denies Status
WINK COMMUNICATIONS: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

GEOPHARMA INC.: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges NY Securities Suit
GEOPHARMA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
INTELLIGROUP INC.: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ


                           *********


ALLOS THERAPEUTICS: Plaintiffs File Amended CO Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Allos Therapeutics, Inc. and one of its officers in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from
May 29, 2003 to April 29, 2004, and is seeking unspecified
damages relating to the issuance of allegedly false and
misleading statements regarding EFAPROXYN during this period and
subsequent declines in the Company's stock price.  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.

The consolidated suit is filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, under Judge Richard P.
Matsch.  The suit is composed of these cases:

     (1) Noble Asset Mgmt LLC v. Allos Therapeutics, et al filed
         05/19/04, 1:04-cv-01030-RPM

     (2) Malasky v. Allos Therapeutics, et al filed 05/24/04,
         1:04-cv-01057-RPM

     (3) Neuman v. Allos Therapeutics, et al filed 05/24/04,
         1:04-cv-01058-RPM

     (4) Tsakonas v. Allos Therapeutics, et al filed 05/28/04,
         1:04-cv-01108-RPM

     (5) Ladenheim v. Allos Therapeutics, et al filed 06/16/04,
         1:04-cv-01244-RPM


AMERICAN PHYSICIANS: Asks MI Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Physicians Capital, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Western District of Michigan to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it, its
former President and Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief
Financial Officer.

The consolidated complaint alleges violations of federal
securities laws for certain disclosures made by the Company
between February 13, 2003 and November 6, 2003, regarding its
operating results and the adequacy of its reserves, and seeks
monetary damages in an unspecified amount.

On March 23, 2004, the Court dismissed the first case and
entered an Order approving a lead plaintiff in the second case.
A consolidated amended complaint was filed by the lead plaintiff
on May 7, 2004.


ANTIGENICS INC.: Seeks Preliminary Approval For Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Antigenics, Inc. submitted the proposed settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, its
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Garo Armen, and two
investment banking firms that served as underwriters in its
initial public offering to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York for preliminary approval.

The suit was filed on behalf of a class of purchasers of the
Company's stock between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000.
Similar complaints were filed against about 300 other issuers,
their underwriters, and in many instances their directors and
officers.  These cases have been coordinated under the caption
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No.
21 MC 92 (SAS)," by order dated August 9, 2001.

The suit against the Company and Dr. Armen alleges that the
brokerage arms of the investment banking firms charged secret
excessive commissions to certain of their customers in return
for allocations of our stock in the offering.  The suit also
alleges that shares of the Company's stock were allocated to
certain of the investment banking firms' customers based upon
agreements by such customers to purchase additional shares of
our stock in the secondary market.  The complaint alleges that
Antigenics is liable under Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933, as amended (the Securities Act), and Dr. Armen is liable
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act because the
Company's registration statement did not disclose these alleged
practices.

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs in this action filed an
amended class action complaint, which contains new allegations.
Similar amended complaints were filed with respect to about 300
other companies.  In addition to the claims in the earlier
complaint, the amended complaint alleges that the Company and
Dr. Armen violated Sections 10(b) and 20 of the Securities
Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making false and misleading
statements and/or omissions in order to inflate the Company's
stock price and conceal the investment banking firms' alleged
secret arrangements.  The claims against Dr. Armen, in his
individual capacity, have been dismissed without prejudice.  On
July 15, 2002, Antigenics and Dr. Armen joined the Issuer
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Consolidated Amended
Complaints.

By order of the Court, this motion set forth all "common
issues," i.e., all grounds for dismissal common to all or a
significant number of Issuer Defendants.  The hearing on the
Issuer Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and the other Defendants'
motions to Dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.  On February
19, 2003, the Court issued its opinion and order on the Issuer
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.  The Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the Rule 10b-5 and Section 20 claims with
leave to amend and denied the Company's motion to dismiss the
Section 11 and Section 15 claims.

The suit is styled "In re Antigenics, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 10988 (Sas)(Akh),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A.
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


ASIAINFO HOLDINGS: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc. submitted the proposed settlement for
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its current officers and directors and the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering, or IPO to
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York for approval.

The lawsuit alleged violations of the federal securities laws
and that the underwriters of the Company's IPO improperly
required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive
commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of the
Company's common stock in the aftermarket as conditions to their
purchasing shares in the Company's IPO.  The lawsuit further
claimed that these supposed practices of the underwriters should
have been disclosed in the Company's IPO prospectus and
registration statement.  The suit seeks rescission of the
plaintiffs' alleged purchases of the Company's common stock as
well as unspecified damages.

In addition to the case against the Company, various other
plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 other, substantially
similar class action cases against approximately 300 other
publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York
City, which along with the case against the Company have all
been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes
of case management.

On July 15, 2002, together with the other issuer defendants, the
Company filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated,
amended complaints against the issuers on various legal grounds
common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
underwriters also filed separate motions to dismiss the claims
against them.  On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed without
prejudice all claims against the individual defendants in the
litigation.  The dismissals were based on stipulations signed by
those defendants and the plaintiffs' representatives.

On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions
to dismiss filed by the underwriter and issuer defendants. In
that ruling the Court granted in part and denied in part those
motions. As to the claims brought against the Company under the
anti-fraud provisions of the securities laws, the Court
dismissed all such claims without prejudice. As to the claims
brought under the registration provisions of the securities
laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss such claims as to the
Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer
defendants.  The Court also denied the underwriter defendants'
motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed
settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation.  If
ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would
result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the
litigation against the Company and against any of the other
issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed
settlement, together with the current or former officers and
directors of participating issuers who were named as individual
defendants.  The proposed settlement does not provide for the
resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and
the litigation against those defendants is continuing.

The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the
class action cases brought against the participating issuer
defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by
insurers of the participating issuer defendants.  If recoveries
totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members
from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary
obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement
will be satisfied.  In addition, all participating issuer
defendants will be required to assign to the class members
certain claims that the Company may have against the
underwriters.  The proposed settlement contemplates that any
amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related
expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and
officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds
of the participating issuer defendants themselves.  A
participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute
to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance
coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share
of the settlement costs.

The suit is styled "In re AsiaInfo Holdings, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 10988 (Sas)(Akh),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A.
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


BEMIS CO.: Class Certification Briefing To Finish By Feb. 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Briefing on class certification for the consolidated antitrust
class action filed against Bemis Co., Inc. and its wholly-owned
subsidiary, Morgan Adhesives Company, is expected to be
completed by February 2005 in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.  The consolidated suit
purports to represent a nationwide class of labelstock
purchasers, and each alleges a conspiracy to fix prices within
the self-adhesive labelstock industry.

On November 5, 2003, the  Judicial Panel on MultiDistrict
Litigation issued a decision consolidating all of the federal
class actions for pretrial purposes in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, before
the Honorable Chief Judge Vanaskie.  Judge Vanaskie entered an
order which calls for discovery to be taken on the issues
relating to class certification and briefing on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification to be completed in February 2005.


BODY BASICS: Recalls ACTRA-Rx Due To Inadvertent Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Body Basics Inc., distributors of ACTRA-Rx, is warning those
consumers who purchased this product, lot number 001-3 and
expiration date of December 2005, between June 2001 and June
2004, promoted for increasing sexual potency, not to use these
capsules. Body Basics had voluntarily ceased distribution of
these capsules in June 2004.

This product, marketed under the trade name ACTRA-Rx, as a
dietary supplement and sold over the counter as well as via the
internet, may have been inadvertently contaminated by the
manufacturer with the unlabeled prescription drug ingredient,
sildenafil citrate, which may pose possible serious health risks
to some users. Sildenafil is known to have serious side effects,
including the potential for life-threatening side effects. The
interaction between nitrates and this drug can result in
profound and life-threatening lowering of blood pressure. Use of
nitrates in any form is an absolute contraindication for
Sildenafil Citrate.

The potential for ACTRA-Rx to be taken by unknowing nitrate
users is real since health care practitioners recognize that
erectile dysfunction is often a condition in patients with
diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, smokers and patients
with ischemic heart disease (potential users of nitrates). If
you or someone you know has any of these conditions and is
taking ACTRA-Rx with this particular lot number and expiration
date, you are urged to contact a health professional.

As there is no practical or economical way to determine whether
the product you purchased is so contaminated, you should
immediately arrange for a return of the product that you
purchased.

You are encouraged to contact Body Basics Inc., at P.O. Box 375,
Canoga Park Ca 91303 telephone number 818-715-1000 for
instructions and return policy; or, if you have any other
questions or concerns. To date no known health problems have
been reported. This recall is being conducted in cooperation
with the Food and Drug Administration.


CALIFORNIA: Diabetic Commences Overcharging Lawsuit V. CA Stores
----------------------------------------------------------------
A dozen Southern California supermarkets and pharmacies face a
class action filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleging that
they overcharged diabetics for the lancets they use to prick
their fingers for blood-sugar tests, the Associated Press
reports.

The suit, filed on behalf of one diabetic but which seeks class-
action status, alleges that the stores charged state sales tax
on lancets when they have been exempt since March 2000.  The
suit alleges negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract and
negligence by Wal-Mart, Costco, Target, Vons, Pavilions,
Albertson's, Sav-on Drugs, Longs Drug Stores, Rite Aid, Osco
Drug, Walgreen Co. and Horton & Converse.


CALIFORNIA: Sheriff Gives Deposition For Inmates Crowding Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a hearing for a class action lawsuit on behalf of 60,000
present and former inmates seeking to end alleged mistreatment
of Orange County inmates, Sheriff Mike Carona testified that he
had tried to ease jail crowding, but said that he knew few
details about inmate conditions, the Associated Press reports.

Mr. Carona's deposition was presented as evidence to U.S.
District Judge Gary L. Taylor, who is hearing the case that was
filed by inmate attorneys Richard Herman and Virginia Fenny in
an attempt to enforce an agreement reached with the county in
the 1978 case Stewart vs. Gates.

In his testimony, Mr. Carona stated, "We were doing a number of
things to aggressively improve our jail operations while staying
in compliance with Stewart versus Gates. I know we invested a
lot of dollars, I know we invested a lot of personnel time."

However, when asked about giving inmates access to day rooms,
telephones, visitors, recreation and chapels, Mr. Carona was
less sure, but said he discussed jail conditions regularly with
subordinates who ran his five jails.

Mr. Carona said he first heard of the "Psycho Crew" deputies,
who allegedly bullied and beat black inmates, in a newspaper
story. He said he had seen newspaper stories alleging inmate
abuse but he never ordered an investigation. The trial is
expected to continue through next week.


CENTERPOINT ENERGY: Continues To Face 25 Natural Gas Lawsuits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Centerpoint Energy, Inc., Centerpoint Huston and its predecessor
Reliant Energy continues to face 25 lawsuits along with numerous
market participants and remain pending in both federal and state
courts in California and Nevada in connection with the operation
of the electricity and natural gas markets in California and
certain other western states in 2000-2001, a time of power
shortages and significant increases in prices.

Several suits have been filed as class actions, based on a
number of legal theories, including violation of state and
federal antitrust laws, laws against unfair and unlawful
business practices, the federal Racketeer Influenced Corrupt
Organization Act, false claims statutes and similar theories and
breaches of contracts to supply power to governmental entities.
Plaintiffs in these lawsuits, which include state officials and
governmental entities as well as private litigants, are seeking
a variety of forms of relief, including recovery of compensatory
damages (in some cases in excess of $1 billion), a trebling of
compensatory damages and punitive damages, injunctive relief,
restitution, interest due, disgorgement, civil penalties and
fines, costs of suit, attorneys' fees and divestiture of assets.
To date, some of these complaints have been dismissed by the
trial court and are on appeal, several of which dismissals have
been affirmed by the appellate courts, but most of the lawsuits
remain in early procedural stages.

The Company's former subsidiary, Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI),
was a participant in the California markets, owning generating
plants in the state and participating in both electricity and
natural gas trading in that state and in western power markets
generally.  RRI, some of its subsidiaries and in some cases,
corporate officers of some of those companies, have been named
as defendants in these suits.

The 25 lawsuits were instituted between 2001 and 2004 and are
pending in state courts in Alameda County, Los Angeles County
and San Diego County, in federal district courts in San
Francisco, San Diego, Los Angeles, Fresno, Sacramento and Nevada
and before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  However, the
Company, CenterPoint Houston and Reliant Energy were not
participants in the electricity or natural gas markets in
California.  The Company and Reliant Energy have been dismissed
from certain of the lawsuits, either voluntarily by the
plaintiffs or by order of the court and the Company believes it
is not a proper defendant in the remaining cases and will
continue to seek dismissal from such remaining cases.

On July 6, 2004 and on October 12, 2004, the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the Company's removal to federal district court of two
electric cases brought by the California Attorney General and
affirmed the federal court's dismissal of these cases based upon
the filed rate doctrine and federal preemption.


CENTRA SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Centra Software, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
to the proposed settlement of the securities class action filed
against it, certain of its officers and directors and the
managing underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.

The plaintiffs filed an initial complaint on December 6, 2001
and purported to serve the Centra defendants on or about March
18, 2002. The original complaint has been superseded by an
amended complaint (complaint) filed in April 2002.  The action,
captioned in re Centra Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 10988, which is being
coordinated with an action captioned in re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92, is purportedly
brought on behalf of the class of persons who purchased Centra's
common stock between February 3, 2000 and December 6, 2000.

The complaint asserts claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that, in
connection with Centra's initial public offering in February
2000, the underwriters received undisclosed commissions from
certain investors in exchange for allocating shares to them and
also agreed to allocate shares to certain customers in exchange
for the agreement of those customers to purchase additional
shares in the after-market at pre-determined prices.

The complaint asserts that Centra's registration statement and
prospectus for the offering were materially false and misleading
due to their failure to disclose these alleged arrangements.
The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount against
Centra and the named individuals.

The underwriter defendants and the Centra defendants joined in
motions to dismiss the above-reference action on July 3 and July
15, 2002, respectively.  On October 9, 2002, the plaintiffs
dismissed, without prejudice, the claims against the named
Centra officers and directors in the suit.  On February 19,
2003, the court issued an order denying the motion to dismiss as
to Centra and other defendants.  On June 7, 2003, the plaintiffs
announced a proposed settlement with all issuers, including
Centra.

The suit is styled "In re Centra Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 10988 (Sas)(Akh),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A.
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


CLEAN HARBORS: MA Shareholder Lawsuits Voluntarily Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, Inc. ("Clean Harbors") (NASDAQ: CLHB), the
leading provider of environmental and hazardous waste management
services throughout North America, today announced that the
lawsuits filed against Clean Harbors in November 2003 by four
shareholders have now been voluntarily dismissed with prejudice
by the Lead Counsel for the plaintiffs without any payment by
Clean Harbors to the plaintiffs or their counsel.

The lawsuits, filed in the US District Court of Massachusetts,
arose after Clean Harbors' acquisition of the Chemical Services
Division of Safety-Kleen and had alleged securities law
violations by Clean Harbors and certain present and former
officers in reporting the effect of the acquisition on the
financial performance of the Company. Clean Harbors has
consistently maintained that the Company and its present and
former officers conducted themselves in compliance with relevant
securities laws during the period in question.

The cases were never certified as a class action, and the
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their cases by means of a
voluntary stipulation of dismissal without financial
consideration and mutual release of all claims.


DISCOVER CAPITAL: Dinov Brothers Fined, Barred From Industry
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Judge Rosemary M. Collyer of the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia entered final judgments
against Discover Capital Holdings Corp., Indianapolis
Securities, Inc., and Eli and Ari Dinov, arising from charges
that they participated in the fraudulent, unregistered offering
of Discover Capital's preferred shares. Without admitting or
denying the allegations of the Commission's complaint, Discover
Capital and the Dinov brothers agreed to pay a total of $706,459
in disgorgement, penalties, and prejudgment interest, including
a $120,000 penalty imposed on Ari Dinov. In addition, the four
defendants consented to being permanently enjoined from
violating the antifraud and registration provisions of the
federal securities laws, and Eli and Ari Dinov consented to
being barred from acting as officers or directors of a public
company. In related proceedings, the Commission issued an
administrative order on Dec. 2, 2004, to which Eli and Ari Dinov
consented, barring them from associating with any broker or
dealer.

Specifically, Discover Capital, Indianapolis Securities and the
Dinovs consented to the entry of final judgments permanently
enjoining them from violating Sections 5 and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

The Commission's complaint, filed on July 9, 2003, alleges that
the defendants, Eli Dinov, his brother Ari Dinov, and David
Rubin used spam e-mail touts and misleading, high pressure sales
calls to raise $1.1 million dollars through the sale of private
placement shares of Uniondale, New York-based Discover Capital,
a company controlled by the individual defendants, through
Discover's wholly owned broker-dealer subsidiary, Indianapolis
Securities.

The money to be paid in connection with these final judgments,
together with the $462,000 in disgorgement, penalty, and pre-
judgment interest which co-defendant David Rubin was ordered to
pay in March 2004, brings the total amount to be paid by the
defendants in this case to over $1.1 million. The action is
titled, SEC v. Discover Capital Holdings Corp., et al., Civil
Action No. 03 Civ. 1496, D.D.C.] (LR-18988).


DOVER ACQUISITION: Settlement Hearing Set For Stockholder's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dover Acquisition Corp. (the "Purchaser"), an affiliate of The
Lawrence Weissberg Revocable Living Trust (the "Trust"),
recently revealed that the Purchaser has extended the expiration
date for its tender offer for shares of Dover Investments
Corporation ("Dover") (OTCBB: DOVRA)(OTCBB: DOVRB) to 5 p.m.,
New York City time, January 11, 2005, which coincides with the
date of a court hearing to consider a settlement of certain
stockholder litigation relating to the Purchaser's tender offer.

The scheduled court hearing relates to a lawsuit (Chiarenza v.
Dover Investments Corporation) brought by a stockholder of
Dover, individually and as a class action on behalf of all
stockholders, against Dover, the Trust, the Purchaser and each
member of Dover's Board of Directors in response to the Trust's
January 2004 proposal to take Dover private and in response to
the Purchaser's tender offer. On October 22, 2004, the parties
to the lawsuit entered into a memorandum of understanding
relating to the settlement of the pending litigation. The
approval of the proposed settlement is one subject of the
scheduled hearing. Completion of the tender offer and the
proposed transaction are conditioned on court approval, and
dismissal with prejudice, of this litigation.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Asks CT Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dun & Bradstreet Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut to dismiss the
consolidated class action filed against it, alleging violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

In March 2003, a lawsuit seeking class action status was filed
against the Company on behalf of 46 specified former employees.
The complaint, as amended in July 2003, sets forth the putative
class:

     (1) current D&B employees who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (2) current employees of Receivable Management Services
         Corporation (RMSC) who are participants in The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account and were
         previously participants in its predecessor plan, The
         Dun & Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan;

     (3) former employees of D&B  or D&B's Receivable Management
         Services (RMS) operations who received a deferred
         vested retirement benefit under either The Dun &
         Bradstreet Corporation Retirement Account or The Dun &
         Bradstreet Master Retirement Plan; and

     (4) former employees of D&B's RMS operations whose
         employment with D&B terminated after the sale of the
         RMS operations but who are not employees of RMSC and
         who, during their employment with D&B, were "Eligible
         Employees" for purposes of The Dun & Bradstreet Career
         Transition Plan

The Amended Complaint estimates that the proposed class covers
over 5,000 individuals.  There are four counts in the Amended
Complaint.  Count 1 claims that the Company violated ERISA by
not paying severance benefits to plaintiffs under its Career
Transition Plan.  Count 2 claims a violation of ERISA in that
the Company's sale of the RMS business to RMSC and the resulting
termination of our employees constituted a prohibited discharge
of the plaintiffs and/or discrimination against the plaintiffs
for the "intentional purpose of interfering with their
employment and/or attainment of employee benefit rights which
they might otherwise have attained."  Count 3 claims that the
plaintiffs were materially harmed by the Company's alleged
violation of ERISA's requirements that a summary plan
description reasonably apprise participants and beneficiaries of
their rights and obligations under the plans and that,
therefore, undisclosed plan provisions (in this case, the
actuarial deduction beneficiaries incur when they leave D&B
before age 55 and elect to retire early) cannot be enforced
against them.  Count 4 claims that the 6 3/5% interest rate (the
rate is actually 6 3/4%) used to actuarially reduce early
retirement benefits is unreasonable and, therefore, results in a
prohibited forfeiture of benefits under ERISA.

The plaintiffs purport to seek payment of severance benefits;
equitable relief in the form of either reinstatement of
employment with D&B or restoration of employee benefits
(including stock options); invalidation of the actuarial
reductions applied to deferred vested early retirement benefits,
including invalidation of the plan rate of 6 3/5% (the actual
rate is 6 3/4%) used to actuarially reduce former employees'
early retirement benefits; attorneys' fees and such other relief
as the court may deem just.

In September 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Counts
1, 3 and 4 of the Amended Complaint on the ground that
plaintiffs cannot prevail on those claims under any set of
facts.  In February 2004, the Court heard oral argument on the
motion and the Company expects a written decision on Counts 1
and 3 shortly.  With respect to Count 4, the Court requested
that the parties conduct limited expert discovery, which has
been essentially completed.  In November 2004, the Company
renewed its motion to dismiss Count 4 as well.  The motion to
dismiss did not address the claim asserted in Count 2
challenging the sale of the RMS business as an intentional
interference with employee benefit rights and the parties have
agreed to stay all deposition discovery on Count 2 until the
Court fully addresses the issues presented by the pending motion
to dismiss.


E-COMMERCE EXCHANGE: Settles CA Unfair Trade Practices Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California, Superior Court of Orange County
approved the settlement of the class action filed against E-
Commerce Exchange, Inc., styled "Michelle Martin f/k/a Michelle
Swiger on behalf of herself and the general public as private
attorney general, v. Axin Financial Services, Inc., and E-
Commerce Exchange, Inc., Civil Action No.03004236."  Michelle
Martin filed the suit on behalf of herself and as a private
attorney general, and alleged claims for "unfair competition"
and "unfair business practices."

In January 2004, the parties conducted voluntary mediation which
resulted in a negotiated "settlement understanding" and the
parties entering into a Settlement Stipulation which set forth
the agreed terms of settlement, including the conversion of
Plaintiff's individual and private attorney general action into
a "certified class action."  In October, 2004 the Court issued a
Final Order Approving Settlement and Final Judgment of Dismissal
of the lawsuit.  The Final Judgment of Dismissal will become
"final" in December, 2004, unless an appeal has been taken prior
to that date.


FINDWHAT.COM: Consumers Launch CA Suit Over Online Gambling Ads
---------------------------------------------------------------
Findwhat.com, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco on
behalf of the general public.  The suit also names other
Internet search engines.

Mario Cisneros and Michael Voight filed the suit, alleging that
acceptance of advertising for internet gambling violates several
California laws and constitutes an unfair business practice.
The complaint seeks unspecified amounts of restitution and
disgorgement as well as an injunction preventing the Company
from accepting paid advertising for on-line gambling.


FLORIDA: Boiler Room Operator Settles SEC Charges, Fined $200T
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Joan A. Lenard of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida entered a final judgment by consent
against Sara Jane Peck, a resident of Aventura, Florida. Without
admitting or denying the allegations in the Commission's
complaint, Peck agreed to be enjoined permanently from violating
various antifraud and registration provisions of the federal
securities laws and to pay $200,000 in disgorgement. The three
other defendants in the case, Larry Grabarnick (Grabarnick),
Marc David Shiner (Shiner) and Donald LaBarre (LaBarre) have
previously settled to judgments requiring them to collectively
pay over $7 million in disgorgement, prejudgment interest and
civil penalties.

The Commission's complaint alleges that Grabarnick and Shiner
promoted investments in unregistered LLP units to the public
through bulk e-mails and Internet websites. Interested investors
responded over the Internet by providing contact information,
which Peck and LaBarre then purchased as "leads" from Grabarnick
and Shiner. The complaint alleges that Peck and LaBarre used
boiler room sales tactics to offer and sell the LLP units.
Investors were told they would benefit from the deregulation of
the electric service provider market in California. According to
the complaint, more than 580 people nationwide invested over $10
million by purchasing units, or fractions thereof, in eight
LLPs. Each LLP consisted of 80 partnership units, each valued at
$19,675, for a total of $1,547,000 per fully funded partnership.
According to the   complaint, Peck made numerous material
misrepresentations and omissions to investors regarding, among
other things, the use of investor funds, the profitability of
the investment, its likelihood of success, the risks associated
with the investment, and the need to invest quickly. After all
80 units were sold, or as many as could be, investors were told
that the partnerships would not be viable and they were offered
Over-the-Counter penny stock in exchange for their remaining
escrowed funds. None of the partnerships ever became operational
electric companies. Many investors were elderly; many rolled
over money from IRA and 401(k) accounts. All of the investors
were left with worthless partnership units and delisted penny
stock. Peck, without admitting or denying the allegations,
settled the action by consenting to entry of a court order that:

     (1) permanently enjoins her from violating Sections 5(a),
         5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
         Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
         of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder; and

     (2) requires her to pay $333,725 in disgorgement. Peck has
         consented to pay $200,000 in disgorgement.

She was not ordered to pay a civil penalty and the remainder of
her disgorgement obligation was waived based upon a demonstrated
inability to pay more. THe action is titled, SEC v. Larry
Grabarnick, Marc David Shiner, Donald LaBarre and Sara Jane
Peck, Case No. 02 Civ. 20875 (Leonard, J.)  S.D. Fla.] (LR-
18990).


GENCORP INC.: Shareholder Files Suit Over Rejection Of $700M Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
A GenCorp Inc. shareholder initiated a lawsuit that seeks class-
action status on behalf of all GenCorp shareholders and asks for
monetary damages against the aerospace company, alleging that
its directors and CEO, Terry Hall, violated their fiduciary duty
in rejecting a $700 million takeover bid by hedge fund Steel
Partners II LP, according to its most recent Securities and
Exchange Commission filing, The Deal reports.

The investor, who filed the suit in California Superior Court
for Sacramento County on November 23 and whose name was not
disclosed, also seeks an order requiring the Company to protect
the interests of minority shareholders. Jordan Lurie of Los
Angeles law firm Weiss & Lurie, which has represented
shareholders against Salesforce.com, Magna Entertainment Inc.
and Washington Mutual Inc., among others, represents the unnamed
investor.

According to the complaint, Steel Partners on November 22
withdrew its $700 million bid for GenCorp Inc., citing its plan
to refinance debt. The New York investment firm on November 11
had offered to buy Rancho Cordova, California-based GenCorp,
which specializes in rocket propulsion systems and components.
In withdrawing its offer, Steel Partners attacked the Company's
plan to refinance $80 million of existing convertible debt,
issue 7.5 million shares of common stock and secure a new $175
million bank facility.

Two large investors in GenCorp, Gabelli Asset Management Inc.
and Pirate Capital LLC also criticized GenCorp's refinancing
plan.

Shareholder suits against companies involved in deals are common
and frequently take years to complete. According to one lawyer,
"If you want to go through with one, they usually have a large
discovery process, a lot of documents must be reviewed and the
whole thing takes a long time and judges generally aren't in a
big hurry to move these cases along."

The unnamed lawyer further explained that in mergers, the most
successful class actions occur when the potential acquirer has
made a tender offer to shareholders and the Company makes
defensive moves to prevent the deal's completion. The GenCorp
situation is different because Steel Partners never made a
formal tender to shareholders, and it was never clear the firm
had the financing to back up its bid. "Usually it has to be a
more serious and substantial offer to show that shareholders
were harmed," the lawyer added.


HOOVER'S INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hoover's, Inc. submitted the proposed settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its then current and former officers and directors and one of
the investment banks that was an underwriter of its July 1999
initial public offering (IPO) to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York for preliminary
approval.

The consolidated suit purports to be a class action filed on
behalf of purchasers of Hoover's stock during the period from
July 20, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The purported class
action alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5 and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
Individual Defendants.

Plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendant agreed to
allocate stock in Hoover's IPO 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 predetermined prices above the IPO price.
Plaintiffs allege that the Prospectus for Hoover's IPO was false
and misleading in violation of the securities laws because it
did not disclose these arrangements.  The action seeks damages
in an unspecified amount.

The defense of the action is being coordinated with more than
300 other nearly identical actions filed against other
companies.  On July 15, 2002, Hoover's moved to dismiss all
claims against it and the Individual Defendants.  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.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
complaint against the Company.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements that set forth the terms of a settlement among the
Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other
approximately 300 issuer defendants.  Among other provisions,
the settlement 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.


HUB INTERNATIONAL: Named As Defendant in NY Insurance Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hub International, Ltd. was joined as a defendant in a class
action lawsuit against 30 different insurance brokers and
insurance companies, filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York by OptiCare Health
SystemsInc., a client of a Marsh & McLennan subsidiary.

The suit names the ten largest U.S. insurance brokers and four
of the largest commercial insurers.  The amended complaint
alleges that the defendants used the contingent commission
structure of placement service agreements in a conspiracy to
deprive policyholders of "independent and unbiased brokerage
services, as well as free and open competition in the market for
insurance."


LANTRONIX INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in C.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Lantronix, Inc. and certain of its current
and former officers and directors in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California.

On May 15, 2002, Stephen Bachman filed a class action complaint
entitled "Bachman v. Lantronix, Inc., et al., No. 02-3899,"
alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and
seeking unspecified damages.  Subsequently, six similar actions
were filed in the same court.

Each of the complaints purports to be a class action lawsuit
brought on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
the Company's common stock during the period of April 25, 2001
through May 30, 2002, inclusive.  The complaints allege that the
defendants caused the Company to improperly recognize revenue
and make false and misleading statements about its business.

Plaintiffs further allege that the defendants materially
overstated the Company's reported financial results, thereby
inflating its stock price during its securities offering in July
2001, as well as facilitating the use of its common stock as
consideration in acquisitions.  The complaints have subsequently
been consolidated into a single action and the court has
appointed a lead plaintiff.  The lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on January 17, 2003.

The amended complaint now purports to be a class action brought
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired the
Company's common stock during the period of August 4, 2000
through May 30, 2002, inclusive.  The amended complaint
continued to assert that the Company and the individual officer
and director defendants violated the 1934 Act, and also includes
alleged claims that the Company and its officers and directors
violated the Securities Act of 1933 arising from the Company's
Initial Public Offering in August 2000.  The Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the additional allegations on March 3, 2003.
Plaintiffs filed their second amended complaint February 6,
2004, and the Company filed a motion to dismiss the additional
allegations in the second amended complaint on March 10, 2004.

On August 19, 2004, the Court granted in part and denied in part
the motion to dismiss.  On September 13, 2004, Plaintiffs filed
their third amended complaint, and on October 18, 2004, the
Company answered that complaint.  Discovery has commenced, but
no trial date has been established.


MERCK & CO.: Vioxx Suit Removed From Madison County To S.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County's first class action suit against Merck & Co.'s
Vioxx, which was filed by the mother of Edwardsville personal
injury attorney Mike Bilbrey, was recently removed to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, the
Madison County Record reports.

As previously reported in the October 7, 2004 issue of the Class
Action Reporter, the consumer fraud class action lawsuit was
filed by the Hendler Law Firm, P.C. and Bilbrey & Hylla P.C.
against Merck & Co., Inc., maker of the pharmaceutical drug
Vioxx on behalf of Patricia Bilbrey of Glen Carbon and on behalf
of the class. It alleges Merck defrauded consumers by marketing
Vioxx as a safe, breakthrough pain medication, for which they
charged a premium, when in fact the drug wasn't significantly
better than existing pain relief medications and posed a much
greater health risk. The plaintiff claims that Merck has
unfairly profited by overstating the superiority of Vioxx, while
downplaying its dangers.

Meanwhile, Mr. Bilbrey's co-counsel, Houston attorney Scott
Hendler, said a remand back to Madison County is being sought.
"The class representative in this case is a resident of Madison
County," Mr. Hendler said. "And we expect that the federal court
will remand the case to the state court which is the proper
venue."

Merck's attorney, Stephen G. Strauss of Bryan Cave LLP in St.
Louis, filed notice of removal for his client pursuant to 28
U.S.C. 1332, 1441, and 1446 on November 15, 2004. Then on
October 21, Merck filed a motion for coordinated pre-trial
proceedings with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
(JPMDL) to coordinate all cases involving Vioxx pending in
federal courts in a single district court.

The pending cases, while involving different and distinct facts,
raise certain overlapping factual issues and allege similar
legal theories, according to Mr. Strauss, who expects motions to
be heard by the JPML in January.

Mr. Strauss states in the brief that in addition to Merck's
motion, seven different plaintiff's counsels have also filed
papers with the JPMDL seeking multi-district litigation
coordination of their Vioxx cases. He also stated that Merck &
Co. has plans to remove all cases to the Federal Court when
cases are filed in state courts.

Since Vioxx was introduced to the market in 1999 over 105
million prescriptions have been filled for about 20 million
consumers worldwide as a result one of the most ambitious
direct-to-consumer marketing campaigns ever launched in the
pharmaceutical industry.

For more details, contact Jill Langevin - Director of Strategic
Planning at The Hendler Law Firm, P.C. by Phone: 512-439-3213 or
by E-mail: jlangevin@hendlerlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.HendlerLaw.comOR Bilbrey & Hylla, P.C. by visiting
their Web site: http://www.BilbreyHyllaLaw.comOR for more
information about Vioxx and resources for heart attack and
stroke recovery, please visit http://www.vioxx-advice.org.


MORGAN STANLEY: Ex-Broker Lodges Sex Discrimination Suit in NM
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne P. Kaspar, a former Morgan Stanley (MWD) broker initiated a
sex-discrimination suit claiming that the New York investment
bank is not treating its female brokers fairly and also accuses
it of firing her after discovering she had participated in a
previous sex-discrimination suit, the Dow Jones Newswires
reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court in New Mexico, the suit seeks
class-action status on behalf of female brokers employed at the
firm after September 2003. Ms. Kaspar, who previously was a lead
plaintiff in a sex-discrimination lawsuit against Merrill Lynch
& Co. (MER), which was settled in 1998, claims that even though
she had 14 years of direct financial advisory experience when
she joined Morgan Stanley's Santa Fe office in August 2003, the
firm required her to submit to a three-year training program and
established her compensation at an abnormally low level similar
to new male hires with no prior industry experience.

The settlement in the Merrill case didn't provide a large cash
sum to the plaintiffs instead, it established a process of
mediation and arbitration to resolve sex-harassment claims made
by the women who joined the suit.

Ms. Kaspar is also claiming that Morgan Stanley didn't pair her
with a senior broker as she requested, and only groomed new male
brokers to be "rainmakers" while new female brokers became
junior members of teams and in addition, she didn't receive
sales or marketing support or positive feedback, unlike her male
counterparts. The firm also distributed more accounts to male
brokers than to her, she further claims.

In her court filing, Ms. Kaspar said that a month before Morgan
Stanley fired her, a group of managers called her into a meeting
and accused her of lying on an employment application by failing
to disclose her role in the discrimination suit against Merrill.

Morgan Stanley claims Ms. Kaspar's case is without merit, adding
that 40% of the brokers in the Santa Fe office where she worked
were women, and the highest producer at the branch for the last
decade has been a woman. According to Morgan Stanley spokeswoman
Andrea Slattery, "She was hired for the position for which she
applied - financial adviser trainee - because she had not worked
in a registered capacity for five years and had never
participated in formal training program. She had no active
licenses, and she was not qualified to work as a financial
adviser" under industry rules. She also added, "She was treated
fairly, consistent with our standards and objective policies.
The firm had ample just cause to terminate her employment."

Ms. Kaspar's case comes six months after Morgan Stanley agreed
to settle for $54 million a sex-discrimination suit with the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of women in
the firm's institutional stock division.


NATURAL ORGANICS: Recalls Products Because Of Undeclared Casein
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natural Organics Inc. of Melville, NY is recalling certain lots
of 90-count bottles of "Nature's Plus Animal Parade Children's
Chewable Calcium, Natural Vanilla Sundae Flavor" (Product Nos.
29996, E2999601, E2999602), and 2-count sample packets of
"Nature's Plus Animal Parade Children's Chewable Calcium,
Natural Vanilla Sundae Flavor" (Product No. 79996), because they
may contain trace amounts of undeclared casein, a milk
derivative, therefore posing a potential health hazard to
individuals with milk allergies or severe sensitivity to milk.

The product was distributed nationwide to retail stores and to
the following foreign countries: United Kingdom, Northern
Ireland, Republic of Ireland, France, Russia, South Korea,
Indonesia, Singapore, Japan, Philippines, Netherlands, Germany,
Spain, Italy, Switzerland, Honduras, Trinidad, Jamaica, and
United Arab Emirates.

The product is a white chewable tablet in various animal shapes
contained in a 90-count amber plastic bottle bearing a lot
number printed on the bottom of the bottle, or in sample packets
containing 2 chewable tablets. The following bottled lot numbers
are affected: 1021176, 1026101, 1027564,1031816, 1034956,
1036178, 1037365, 1040904, 1042758, 1044825, 1047386, 1047393,
1047525, 1048517,1050151, 1050154, 1051997,1053348, 1053973,
1054445, 1057193, 1057397, 1057707, 1060047, 1060499,
1060500,1060806, 1061489, 1061901, 1061981, 1063812, 1064562,
1064940, 1065113, 1066328, 1066447, 1069110, 1070316, 1073315,
1074734, 1075490, 1076653, 1070724, 1077869, 1079306, 1081876,
1082099.

The following sample packet lot numbers are affected: 03703A,
1037089, 14204A, 19703C, 27203A, 32103A, A31902.

One allergic reaction has been reported to date. Please note
that other than the presence of casein, this product is safe and
may be consumed by individuals who are not allergic to milk.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the
casein-containing product was distributed in packaging that did
not reveal the presence of milk. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a natural vanilla flavor raw
material that contained trace amounts of casein, a milk
derivative. The product labeling has been corrected.

Consumers who have purchased the affected 90-count bottles of
"Nature's Plus Animal Parade Children's Chewable Calcium,
Natural Vanilla Sundae Flavor " and/or have been given the 2-
count Sample packets of "Nature's Plus Animal Parade Children's
Chewable Calcium, Natural Vanilla Sundae Flavor" are advised to
return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions
may contact the company at 1-800-645-9500.


NEOFORMA INC.: Submits Securities Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neoforma, Inc. submitted the proposed settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York for preliminary approval.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Robert Zollars, chairman and chief executive officer

     (2) Frederick Ruegsegger, former chief financial officer

     (3) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,

     (4) Bear Stearns and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens

The amended complaint alleges that the underwriters solicited
and received "undisclosed compensation" from investors in
exchange for allocations of stock in the Company's IPO, and that
some investors in the IPO allegedly agreed with the underwriters
to buy additional shares in the aftermarket to artificially
inflate the price of the Company's stock.  The Company and Mr.
Zollars and Mr. Ruegsegger are named in the suits pursuant to
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, for allegedly failing to disclose in the Company's
IPO registration statement and prospectus that the underwriters
had entered into the arrangements.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages.

Approximately 300 other issuers and their underwriters have had
similar suits filed against them, all of which are included in a
single coordinated proceeding in the Southern District of New
York.  On July 1, 2002, the underwriter defendants moved to
dismiss all of the IPO allocation litigation complaints against
them, including the action involving the Company.  On July 15,
2002, the Company, along with the other non-underwriter
defendants in the coordinated cases, also moved to dismiss the
litigation.  Those motions were fully briefed on September 13
and September 27, 2002, respectively, and in February 2003, the
Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss.

On October 9, 2002, all of the individual defendants, including
Mr. Zollars and Mr. Ruegsegger, were dismissed from the action
without prejudice.  On June 30, 2003, the Company's board of
directors approved a proposed settlement for this matter, which
is part of a larger global settlement between the issuers and
plaintiffs. The acceptance of the settlement by the plaintiffs
is contingent on a number of factors, including the percentage
of issuers who approve the proposed settlement. The Company has
agreed to undertake other responsibilities under the proposed
settlement, including agreeing to assign away, not assert, or
release certain potential claims the Company may have against
its underwriters. Any direct financial impact of the proposed
settlement is likely to be borne by the Company's insurers.

The suit is styled "In re Neoforma, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6689 (Sas)(Akh)," related to "In
re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. 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


NETRATINGS INC.: Working To Settle NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
NetRatings, Inc. is working to settle the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, two of its former
directors and investment banking firms that served as
underwriters for its initial public offering in December 1999 in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock alleging violations of federal securities laws. The
case is now designated as In re NetRatings, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, related to In re Initial Public
Offerings Securities Litigation.  The case is brought
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's
common stock from December 8, 1999 through December 6, 2000.

The Plaintiffs electronically served an amended complaint on or
about April 19, 2002.  The amended complaint alleges violations
of Section 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, and Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds
that the prospectus incorporated in the registration statement
for the offering failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of the
         Company's stock sold in the initial public offering,
         and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         shares of the Company's stock sold in the initial
         public offering to those customers in exchange for
         which the customers agreed to purchase additional
         shares of Company stock in the aftermarket at pre-
         determined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that false analyst reports
were issued following the IPO.  No specific damages are claimed.

Similar allegations have been made in lawsuits relating to more
than 300 other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000.  Those cases, including the Company's case, have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes before the Honorable Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin.  On July 15, 2002, the Company (as well as
the other issuer defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  The motions were heard on November 1, 2002.

In February 2003, the judge granted the motion to dismiss
certain of the claims against the Company and the two individual
defendants and denied the motion to dismiss certain other claims
against the Company and the two individual defendants. The
issuer defendants and the plaintiffs have been engaged in
settlement negotiations and it is possible that the issuer
defendants and the plaintiffs will reach a settlement.

The suit is styled "In re NetRatings, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 1:01-cv-09798-SAS," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. 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


ODYSSEY HEALTHCARE: TX Court Orders Stock Lawsuits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, Dallas Division ordered consolidated the securities class
actions filed against Odyssey Healthcare, Inc., its current and
former Chief Executive Officers and its Chief Financial Officer.

Plaintiff Francis Layher filed a lawsuit on April 21, 2004
purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the Company's publicly traded securities between May 5,
2003 and February 23, 2004.  The complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10(b)-5 promulgated thereunder.  The plaintiff seeks an
order determining that the action may proceed as a class action,
awarding compensatory damages in favor of the plaintiff and the
other class members in an unspecified amount, and reasonable
costs and expenses incurred in the action, including counsel
fees and expert fees.  Six similar lawsuits were also filed in
May and June of 2004 in the same court by plaintiffs Kenneth L.
Friedman, Trudy J. Nomm, Eva S. Caldarola, Michael Schaufuss,
Duane Liffrig and G.A. Allsmiller on behalf of the same
plaintiff class and making substantially similar allegations and
seeking substantially similar damages.

The lawsuits have been transferred to a single judge and
consolidated into a single action.  The consolidated complaint
is due to be filed by December 20, 2004.  Lead plaintiffs and
lead counsel have been appointed.


OPENTV CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
OpenTV Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
to the proposed settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, certain of its officers and directors
and certain investment banks which acted as underwriters for the
Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated suit, styled "In re OpenTV Corp. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," alleges undisclosed and
improper practices concerning the allocation of our initial
public offering shares, in violation of the federal securities
laws, and seek unspecified damages on behalf of persons who
purchased OpenTV Class A ordinary shares during the period from
November 23, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  The Court has
appointed a lead plaintiff for the consolidated cases.  On April
19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

Other actions have been filed making similar allegations
regarding the initial public offerings of more than 300 other
companies.  All of these lawsuits have been coordinated for
pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation."  Defendants in these cases filed an omnibus motion
to dismiss on common pleading issues.  Oral argument on the
omnibus motion to dismiss was held on November 1, 2002.  All
claims against the Company's officers and directors have been
dismissed without prejudice in this litigation pursuant to the
parties' stipulation approved by the Court on October 9, 2002.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied in part and granted in
part the omnibus motion to dismiss filed on behalf of
defendants, including the Company. The Court's Order dismissed
all claims against the Company except for a claim brought under
Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The Court has given
plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their claims in order to
state a claim.  Plaintiffs have not yet filed an amended
complaint.  Plaintiffs and the issuer defendants, including the
Company, have agreed to a settlement, in which plaintiffs will
dismiss and release their claims in exchange for a guaranteed
recovery to be paid by the insurance carriers of the issuer
defendants and an assignment of certain claims.

The suit is styled "In re OpenTV Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. 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


OPENTV CORPORATION: Faces DE Shareholder Suit Over ACTV Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
OpenTV Corporation continues to face a class action filed in the
Court of Chancery of the States of Delaware in and for the
County of New Castle, over its acquisition of ACTV, Inc.  The
suit also names as defendants ACTV, Inc. and its directors.

The complaint generally alleges that the directors of ACTV
breached their fiduciary duties to the ACTV shareholders in
approving the ACTV merger agreement pursuant to which the
Company acquired ACTV on July 1, 2003, and that, in approving
the ACTV merger agreement, ACTV's directors failed to take steps
to maximize the value of ACTV to its shareholders.  The
complaint further alleges that the Company aided and abetted the
purported breaches of fiduciary duties committed by ACTV's
directors on the theory that the merger could not occur without
the Company's participation.  No proceedings on the merits have
occurred with respect to this action, and the case is dormant.


PEC SOLUTIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal VA Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against PEC Solutions, Inc. and certain of
its officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia.

Several suits were initially filed, alleging that between
October 22, 2002 and March 14, 2003, the defendants made, or
were aware of false and misleading statements which had the
effect of inflating the market price of the Company's common
stock, in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaints were
consolidated into a single class action on September 13, 2003.

The class action was dismissed by the district court on January
28, 2004.  The plaintiffs filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on September 30, 2004.  Oral
argument on the appeal is scheduled to be held in December 2004.

In addition, shortly after the class action complaints were
filed a stockholder's legal counsel sent a letter of demand that
the Board of Directors investigate the same charges addressed in
the class action suit.  In late 2003 the Board concluded, after
its investigation and based on its business judgment, to reject
the demand letter.

The suit is styled "In Re: PEC Solutions, et al v. , et al., )3-
CV-331," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Gerald Bruce Lee.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are Cohen Gettings & Caulkins PC,
2200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 800, Arlington, VA 22201, Phone:
(703) 525-2260 and Conor R. Crowley of Finkelstein Thompson &
Loughran, 1050 30th St NW, Washington, DC 20007, Phone:
(202) 337-8000

Lawyer for the defendants is Gregory A. Harris of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, Two Fountain Square, Reston Town Center,
11921 Freedom Dr, Suite 600, Reston, VA 20190-5634, Phone:
(703) 734-3100


PEPSICO: SEC Penalizes, Fines Thomas Taylor in Kmart Case
---------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted settled cease-
and-desist proceedings against Thomas L. Taylor, Director of
Sales for PepsiCo's Frito-Lay division in charge of the Kmart
snack account during the relevant period. The Order Instituting
Proceedings charges that Kmart "pulled forward," i.e.,
recognized prematurely, millions of dollars worth of vendor
"allowances" prior to bankruptcy with the result that Kmart's
cost of goods sold was understated, and earnings were
materially overstated, for the fourth quarter of fiscal year
ended Jan. 31, 2001. The Order further states that the
allowances were embodied in Vendor Allowance Tracking System
(VATS) forms. According to the Order, toward the end of Kmart's
fiscal year ended Jan. 31, 2001 (fiscal year 2000), Taylor
learned that Kmart needed Frito-Lay's help in overcoming a
profit shortfall in the food and consumables division.
Accordingly, the Order states that Frito-Lay agreed to make a
$2.8 million "space payment" in January 2001. The Order states
that Taylor understood that the $2.8 million was a "pre-payment"
of allowances to be earned by Kmart during calendar year 2001
because he helped draft a written agreement to that effect and
co-signed three VATS forms on Jan. 4, 2001, that misrepresented
the effective dates of the allowances as 1/1/01 to 1/31/01.
These VATS forms were entered into Kmart's computerized
accounting system and posted to the general ledger. As a result,
Kmart's "cost of goods sold" was understated by $2.8 million in
fiscal year 2000.

The Order charges Taylor with violations of Rule 13b2-1 under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and causing
violations of Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20
and 13a-1 thereunder. Simultaneously with the institution of the
Order, the Commission filed a civil action against three Kmart
mid-level officers and five individuals from Kmart's vendor
community, including Taylor, to collect a $25,000 civil penalty
from Taylor to which he agreed. The action is titled, SEC v.
John Paul Orr, et al., Civ. 04-74702 (Roberts J.) (E.D.Michigan]
(LR-18989).


PULMONETIC SYSTEMS: Recalls 1,129 Adaptors Due To Injury Risk
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pulmonetic Systems, Inc., is voluntarily initiating a recall of
1,129 Universal Cable Adaptors (adaptors) used to power medical
ventilators, distributed between November 2 and November 8,
2004.

When attached to the ventilator's power cord, the adaptor may
not allow the ventilator to be powered up again if the
ventilator's internal battery has been depleted. Serious injury
or death may result from this ventilator malfunction, unless an
alternate means of ventilation is immediately available. In
addition, some adaptors have not been attached securely to the
ventilator's power cord. The company has received two reports of
ventilators failing to power up after internal battery discharge
and three reports related to the adapter not being securely
attached to the ventilator. No death or injury has been reported
as a result of these recent failures.

The affected adaptors, labeled as either Part No. 17765-001 or
PN 17820-001, were intended as a permanent field correction to
the November 1, 2004, voluntary Class I Recall for malfunction
of certain ventilators. These ventilators malfunction when the
external DC power source is inadequate, causing failure of the
ventilator to breathe for the patient, and which could result in
permanent neurological failure or death. The recall initiated by
Pulmonetic Systems on November 1, 2004, applies to LTVr Series
Ventilators manufactured prior to September 2003 with serial
numbers less than:

     (1) LTV 1000- S# A06500

     (2) LTV 900- S# B03500

     (3) LTV 950- S# C07000

     (4) LTV 800- S# D01400

and which do not have the
symbol displayed on the ventilator
rear panel label. (Upper left or lower right of rear panel
label) Please check all ventilators in your inventory/control to
ensure all affected devices are identified.

The company has notified customers who have received adaptors by
certified mail on December 1, 2004. They have been asked to
remove the adaptors according to the instructions provided and
return the adaptors to the company.

Interim Instructions when using affected ventilators without the
adapter:

If you are using the ventilator on external battery or DC
automobile power cable and the red VENT INOP alarm lights up and
the alarm may sound, and the ventilator is not ventilating
properly.

If you are using the ventilator on external battery or DC
automobile power cable and the audible alarm may sound for 1
second duration every 3.5 seconds and the ventilator is not
ventilating properly:

     (i) Immediately unplug the external power source from the
         vent "pigtail".

    (ii) If the ventilator does not immediately resume
         ventilation, "restart" the vent by pressing the
         On/Standby button.

As part of ventilator patient care, caregivers should always be
prepared to provide alternate means of ventilation should any
product malfunction occur.

The firm voluntarily took this action and promptly notified FDA.
The permanent correction to the power switchover malfunction
identified in the November 1, 2004 recall will be to replace the
ventilator power board for each of the affected devices,
according to the company. Customers will be receiving
instructions shortly on how to return any affected devices for a
power board replacement at a Pulmonetic Systems authorized
Service Center.

Users with questions should contact their healthcare providers.
Healthcare providers with questions should contact Pulmonetic
Systems at 1-800-754-1914 extension 2.


RELIANT ENERGY: Faces Single ERISA Violations Suit in TX Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Reliant Energy, Incorporated faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court in Houston, Texas on behalf of
participants in various employee benefits plans sponsored by the
Company.  Two similar lawsuits have been dismissed without
prejudice.  The Company and certain current and former members
of its benefits committee are the remaining defendants in the
third lawsuit.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached their fiduciary
duties to various employee benefits plans, directly or
indirectly sponsored by Reliant Energy, in violation of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The
plaintiffs allege that the defendants permitted the plans to
purchase or hold securities issued by Reliant Energy when it was
imprudent to do so, including after the prices for such
securities became artificially inflated because of alleged
securities fraud engaged in by the defendants.  The complaint
seeks monetary damages for losses suffered on behalf of the
plans and a putative class of plan participants whose accounts
held Reliant Energy or RRI securities, as well as equitable
relief in the form of restitution.

In July 2004, another class action suit was filed in federal
court on behalf of the Reliant Energy Savings Plan and a class
consisting of participants in that plan against Reliant Energy
and the Reliant Energy Benefits Committee.  The allegations and
the relief sought in the new suit are substantially similar to
those in the previously pending suit; however, the new suit also
alleges that Reliant Energy and its Benefits Committee breached
their fiduciary duties to the Savings Plan and its participants
by investing plan funds in Reliant Energy stock when Reliant
Energy or its subsidiaries were allegedly manipulating the
California energy market.  On October 14, 2004, the plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the newly filed lawsuit.


RELIANT ENERGY: TX High Court Nixes Review of Franchise Fee Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court declined to hear plaintiffs motion to
review the municipal franchise free lawsuit filed against
Reliant Energy Incorporated and Houston Industries Finance, Inc.
(formerly a wholly owned subsidiary of the Company's
predecessor, Reliant Energy).

In February 1996, the cities of Wharton, Galveston and Pasadena
(Three Cities) filed suit in state district court in Harris
County, Texas for themselves and a proposed class of all
similarly situated cities in Reliant Energy's electric service
area, alleging underpayment of municipal franchise fees.  The
plaintiffs claimed that they were entitled to 4% of all receipts
of any kind for business conducted within these cities over the
previous four decades.

After a jury trial involving the Three Cities' claims (but not
the class of cities), the trial court entered a judgment on the
Three Cities' breach of contract claims for $1.7 million,
including interest, plus an award of $13.7 million in legal
fees.  It also decertified the class.  Following this ruling, 45
cities filed individual suits against Reliant Energy in the
District Court of Harris County.

On February 27, 2003, a state court of appeals in Houston
rendered an opinion reversing the judgment against the Company
and rendering judgment that the Three Cities take nothing by
their claims.  The court of appeals held that all of the Three
Cities' claims were barred by the jury's finding of laches, a
defense similar to the statute of limitations, due to the Three
Cities' having unreasonably delayed bringing their claims during
the more than 30 years since the alleged wrongs began.  The
court also held that the Three Cities were not entitled to
recover any attorneys' fees.

The Three Cities filed a petition for review to the Texas
Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case.  Thus, the
Three Cities' claims have been finally resolved in the Company's
favor, but the individual claims of the 45 cities remain pending
in the same court.


RELIANT RESOURCES: Plaintiffs Seek Securities Suit Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court in Houston,
Texas to certify the consolidated class action filed against
Reliant Resources, Inc. (RRI), certain of its current and former
executive officers, Reliant Energy Incorporated (Reliant
Energy), the underwriters of the initial public offering of RRI
common stock in May 2001 and RRI's and Reliant Energy's
independent auditors as defendants.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks monetary relief
purportedly on behalf of purchasers of common stock of Reliant
Energy or RRI during certain time periods ranging from February
2000 to May 2002, and purchasers of common stock that can be
traced to the RRI Offering.  The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants misrepresented their revenues and
trading volumes by engaging in round-trip trades and improperly
accounted for certain structured transactions as cash-flow
hedges, which resulted in earnings from these transactions being
accounted for as future earnings rather than being accounted for
as earnings in fiscal year 2001.

In January 2004 the trial judge dismissed the plaintiffs'
allegations that the defendants had engaged in fraud, but claims
based on alleged misrepresentations in the registration
statement issued in the RRI Offering remain.


SARASOTA ASSOCIATION: FL Realtor Lodges Suit V. Membership Terms
----------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Realtor Lois M. Hekker, who is a broker with Buyer's
Agents International Realty in Sarasota, initiated a lawsuit
seeking class-action status against the Sarasota Association of
Realtors for allegedly forcing local real estate agents to buy
memberships in the association as a condition of purchasing
lockbox keys and multiple listing service data, the Inman News
reports.

Filed in Federal District Court in Tampa, Florida by San
Francisco-based attorney David Barry of Barry & Associates
represents the plaintiff, the lawsuit aside from class action
status is also seeking up to $5 million in damages, amounting to
$4,500 for each member of the class, and names 14 association
directors as defendants. The complaint cites the 1991 Federal
Appeals Court decision in Thompson vs. Metropolitan Multi-List
in Florida, which held that a Realtor association that had
monopoly power over its MLS could not force real estate agents
to purchase memberships in the trade association as a condition
of gaining access to the MLS. The complaint alleges the Sarasota
Association and other Realtor associations in Florida evade the
Thompson decision by tying lockboxes and historical MLS data to
purchases of membership.

The suit is also seeking an injunction ordering the Sarasota
Association to sell lockboxes and historical MLS data without
requiring MLS users to purchase trade association memberships.

"In order to practice her profession as a real estate broker,
plaintiff needed to buy lockbox services and MLS comparable data
from the Sarasota Association, which forced her to purchase
trade association services she did not want," the complaint
states. Furthermore, the complaint states that agents purchasing
the local trade association services also must purchase state
and national association services, totaling about $424 per agent
in 2004.

Sarasota Association members rent electronic lockbox keys from
the association, which purchases them from GE, according to the
complaint. Lockboxes are attached to the front door of a for-
sale home and contain a key so agents can show the home to
prospective buyers. "Licensees who purchase lockbox services
have lockbox keys that open all lockboxes in the area covered by
the MLS," the complaint states.

The 21-page complaint cites other states where courts have
declared it illegal to tie the sale of trade association
services to the sale of the MLS, including California, New
Jersey and Colorado.


SEEBEYOND TECHNOLOGY: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
SeeBeyond Technology Corporation reached a settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors.

Beginning on July 3, 2002, several purported class action
shareholder complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California against the Company
and several of its officers and directors.  The actions were
subsequently consolidated and a consolidated amended complaint
was filed purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of common
stock of SeeBeyond Technology Corporation between December 10,
2001 and May 7, 2002.

The complaint generally alleged that defendants made false
statements about SeeBeyond's operating results and business,
while concealing material information.  The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.  The Company has entered into an
agreement, subject to court approval, to settle this litigation.
The total amount of the settlement is $13.1 million which is to
be paid by the Company's insurers.  The settlement provides for
a complete dismissal of all claims against SeeBeyond and the
individual defendants.


SONIC INNOVATIONS: UT Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Utah
granted final approval to the settlement of the class action
filed against Sonic Innovations, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors, alleging they violated federal
securities laws.

The defendants allegedly provided materially false and
misleading information or concealing information about the
Company's relationship with Starkey Laboratories, Inc.  The
complaint alleged that as a result of false statements or
omissions, the Company was able to complete its initial public
offering (IPO), artificially inflate its financial projections
and results and have its stock trade at inflated levels.  The
Company reached an agreement to settle the securities class
action lawsuits that have been consolidated under the caption
"Lynda Steinbeck, et al. v. Sonic Innovations, Inc., et al."

The terms of the settlement included a cash payment of $7,000
which was funded by the Company's directors and officer's
liability insurance.  The settlement had no impact on the
Company's results of operations and financial position.


SONUS NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sonus Networks, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
filed against it, two of its officers and the lead underwriters
of its initial public offering (IPO).

The suit alleges violations of the federal securities laws in
connection with the IPO and seeks unspecified monetary damages.
The purchaser seeks to represent a class of persons who
purchased Sonus' common stock between the IPO on May 24, 2000
and December 6, 2000.

An amended complaint was filed in April 2002.  The amended
complaint alleges that Sonus' registration statement contained
false or misleading information or omitted to state material
facts concerning the alleged receipt of undisclosed compensation
by the underwriters and the existence of undisclosed
arrangements between underwriters and certain purchasers to make
additional purchases in the after market.  The claims against
the Company are asserted under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 11 of the Securities Act of
1933 and against the individual defendants under Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

Other plaintiffs have filed substantially similar class action
cases against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies
and their IPO underwriters which, along with the actions against
Sonus, have been transferred to a single federal judge for
purposes of coordinated case management.  On July 15, 2002,
Sonus, together with the other issuers named as defendants in
these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaints on various legal
grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants.  The
plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the claims against the
individual defendants, including those Sonus officers named in
the complaint.

On February 19, 2003, the court granted a portion of the motion
to dismiss by dismissing the Section 10(b) claims against
certain defendants including Sonus, but denied the remainder of
the motion as to the defendants.  In June 2003, a special
committee of Sonus' Board of Directors authorized Sonus to enter
into a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs on terms
substantially consistent with the terms of a Memorandum of
Understanding negotiated among representatives of the
plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and the insurers for the
issuer defendants.  The settlement is subject to approval by the
court.  It remains uncertain whether and when the settlement
will become final.


SONUS NETWORKS: MA Court Mulls Certification For Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts heard the motion for class certification of the
consolidated shareholder lawsuit filed against Sonus Networks,
Inc., certain officers and directors and a former officer on
December 2,2004.

The suit makes claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of
persons who purchased Sonus' common stock between December 11,
2000 and January 16, 2002, and seek unspecified monetary
damages.  The suit alleged that the Company made false and
misleading statements about its products and business.

On April 22, 2003, Sonus filed a motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint on various grounds.  On May 11,
2004, the Court held oral arguments on the motion, at the
conclusion of which the Court denied Sonus' motion to dismiss.
The plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on July
30, 2004, and Sonus filed its opposition on September 10, 2004,
to which the plaintiffs replied on September 30, 2004.


SONUS NETWORKS: Plaintiffs File Consolidated MA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended securities class action
against Sonus Networks, Inc. and certain of its current officers
and directors in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts.

Beginning in February 2004, a number of purported shareholder
class action complaints were filed, asserting claims under the
federal securities laws, specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, relating to Sonus'
announcement that it had identified issues, practices and
actions of certain employees relating to both the timing of
revenue recognized from certain customer transactions and other
financial statement accounts, which could affect its 2003
financial statement accounts and possibly financial statements
for prior periods.

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

     (1) Sonus had materially overstated its revenue by
         improperly recognizing revenue on certain customer
         contracts;

     (2) Sonus lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

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

Plaintiffs contend that such statements caused Sonus' stock
price to be artificially inflated.  The complaints seek
unspecified damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of Sonus' common stock during the period from April 9, 2003,
June 3, 2003 or June 5, 2003 through February 11, 2004.  On June
28, 2004, the Court consolidated the claims.  On August 10, 2004
the Court appointed the lead plaintiff, selected the lead
counsel and ordered the lead plaintiff to file a consolidated
amended complaint by October 12, 2004.  The lead plaintiff
sought and received from the court an extension to file its
consolidated amended complaint to December 1, 2004.


STARK FOODS: Recalls Maggi Meat Products Ineligible For Import
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stark Foods, Inc., a Brooklyn, New York, firm is voluntarily
recalling approximately 154 pounds of ready-to-eat meat and
poultry products that were ineligible for import to the U.S.,
the Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

Germany is prohibited from exporting beef and poultry products
to the U.S. because of animal health regulations.  While Germany
is eligible to export pork products to the U.S., the producing
firm in Germany is not eligible to export such products to the
U.S.

The products subject to recall are:

     (1) "Maggi Ein Teller, REISTOPF mit Huhn" canned chicken
         product.

     (2) "Maggi Ein Teller, NUDELTOPF mit Huhn" canned chicken
         product.

     (3) "Maggi Ein Teller, RAVIOLI 'Bolognese'" canned beef
         product.

     (4) "Maggi Ein Teller, LINSENTOPF mit Speck" canned pork
         product.

     (5) "Maggi Meisterklasse, Rindfleischuppe mit
         Fleischklosschen" dried soup with meatballs.

     (6) "Maggi Meisterklasse, Fruhlingssuppe mit
         Fleischklosschen" dried soup with meatballs.

     (7) "Maggi, PASTARIA, Bolognese, Spirelli in Tomaten-
         Fleischsause" dried pasta with meat.

FSIS has received no reports of illnesses associated with
consumption of these products. However, these products could
present a health hazard to consumers because the country is not
eligible to export beef and poultry to the U.S. As such, these
products have not been inspected by FSIS. Anyone concerned about
an illness should contact a physician.

The products were distributed to retailers and specialty stores
in California, Florida, Illinois, Nevada, Texas and Virginia.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall may call
Company President Daniel Mohan at (718) 389-3116.  Consumers
with food safety questions can phone the toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline at l-888-MPHotline. The hotline can be reached
from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday, and
recorded food safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


STATE FARM: GA Appeals Court Overturns Auto Rate Settings Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals recently overturned a lower
court ruling in the case of Gilchrist, et al. v. State Farm
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., et al. that would have
reportedly given a single jury the power to set rates for auto
insurance across the country, the Insurance Journal reports.

In that case, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of Florida had certified a countrywide class action suit
alleging that several major insurers conspired to violate
antitrust laws by requiring the use of non-original equipment
manufactured replacement parts to repair damaged vehicles.

The other insurers involved in the suit were Allstate, GEICO,
and Nationwide. Gilchrist argued that this practice caused
premiums to be higher than their policies were worth. The Court
of Appeals dismissed the case based of the McCarran-Ferguson
Act, which limits federal antitrust laws from interfering with
states regulatory authority over the business of insurance.

Commenting on the recent ruling, Ann Spragens, legal division
senior vice president for the Property Casualty Insurers
Association of America (PCI) said, "We are pleased that the
Court of Appeals stepped in and reversed this ruling, which
would have allowed insurers to be held hostage to the threat of
class action claims. By reaffirming McCarran-Furguson, the court
is saying that rate-making and the performance of the insurance
contract, which are at the heart of the business of insurance,
are exempt from federal antitrust jurisdiction."

Also commenting on the ruling was Robert Hurns, manager,
legislative database and counsel for PCI, who said, "By granting
class action status to this case, the lower court erred by
ignoring the provisions of McCarran-Furguson. At its core, this
case was a dispute over rates. Insurance companies operate in an
environment of intensive regulation that involves the setting of
rates and resolving rate disputes. State regulators, not courts
or juries, have the expertise in these issues and are clearly in
the best position to make decisions about these matters."

Due to the important ramifications of this case all of the
national insurance trade associations, several state insurance
departments, the National Association of Insurance
Commissioners, U.S. Chamber of Commerce and many other groups
filed amicus briefs urging that the lower court decision be
overturned.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
SupportSoft, Inc. presented the proposed settlement for the
consolidated securities class action filed against him and two
of its officers to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York for preliminary approval.

The lawsuit alleged that the Company's registration statement
and prospectus dated July 18, 2000 for the issuance and initial
public offering of 4,250,000 shares of the Company's common
stock contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions,
related to alleged inflated commissions received by the
underwriters of the offering.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Radha Basu,

     (2) Brian Beattie,

     (3) Credit Suisse First Boston Corporation,

     (4) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. and

     (5) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens Inc.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages as well as interest, fees
and costs.  Similar complaints have been filed against 55
underwriters and more than 300 other companies and other
individual officers and directors of those companies.  All of
the complaints against the underwriters, issuers and individuals
have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes before U.S.
District Court Judge Scheindlin of the Southern District of New
York.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a proposed
settlement between the issuer defendants and their directors and
officers had been reached.  As a result of the proposed
settlement, which is subject to court approval, the Company
anticipates that its insurance carrier will be responsible for
any payments other than attorneys' fees prior to June 1, 2003.

Definitive settlement documentation was concluded in early June
2004 and first presented to the Court on June 14, 2004.
Briefing on the motion for preliminary approval was completed in
early August 2004.  On October 13, 2004, the Court issued a
lengthy opinion certifying classes in several focus or test
cases. SupportSoft's case is not one of those cases, but the
decision is intended to provide strong guidance on the remaining
cases.  A decision on the proposed settlements is still pending.


TAMPA ELECTRIC: Judge Denies Certification For Electric Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents of power poles in a residential neighborhood suffered
a major setback recently when a judge declined to give class-
action status to their lawsuit against Tampa Electric Co., the
Tampa Tribune reports.

Circuit Judge Claudia Isom ruled that the plaintiffs' lawyers
did not adequately explain how the nearly 100 people in a
lawsuit against TECO were affected by the installation of power
poles on residential streets in and around Egypt Lake. In her
ruling, Judge Isom noted that some of the plaintiffs resided on
streets where the electric poles were located, but others were
blocks away.

The poles in question, some as tall as 125 feet, were installed
last year. In October 2003, two groups of residents filed
lawsuits against TECO both of which were combined into one
several months later.

Though suffering a big blow, Keith Goan, a lawyer for the
residents, downplayed the ruling as a temporary setback and
said, "We'll probably refile" the request for class-action
status. We just need to amend what we've already done."

Meanwhile, TECO lawyer Mark Buell also requested that Judge Isom
require residents to exhaust their remedies with the appropriate
state and federal agencies before proceeding in court. Judge
Isom said, she will rule on TECO's request in a "couple of
weeks."


TAP PHARMACEUTICAL: Agrees To Pay $150M To Settle Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories and Takeda Chemical Industries Ltd, through
a joint venture, agreed to pay US$150 million to end a class-
action consumer lawsuit over the prostate-cancer drug Lupron,
the China Sail reports.

According to Prescription Access Litigation Project, a group
that advised consumers who sued, the joint venture, TAP
Pharmaceutical Products Inc, which admitted no wrongdoing in the
settlement, will pay US$55 million to certain health plans and
pay US$95 million to consumers, additional health plans and
legal fees.

Alex Sugerman-Brozan, director of the consumer group, said,
"This settlement is an enormous victory for everyone who was
illegally overcharged for Lupron. Consumers will get 100 US
cents on the dollar for their damages."

The amount is in addition to US$875 million that TAP paid in a
2001 settlement with the Justice Department over allegations
that it conspired to defraud Medicare and Medicaid, consumer
group spokeswoman Julie Bizzotto said. This is the first case in
which consumers will receive money for alleged fraudulent rate
setting by a drug company, said Thomas Sobol, lead lawyer for
the plaintiffs.

The consumer lawsuit claimed that TAP inflated the price of the
drug and provided incentives so doctors would prescribe Lupron
instead of less expensive alternatives.

US District Judge Richard G Stearns in Boston granted
preliminary approval to the settlement on November 24 and is set
to review the agreement again at an April 13 hearing in Boston.

Under the terms of the settlement, individuals will be
reimbursed based on the amount of Lupron they purchased. The
class includes anyone who bought Lupron from January 1, 1985,
through the end of this year.

UnitedHealth Group Inc, Aetna Inc, and Cigna Corp were among
about 60 companies that helped pay for the litigation. Those
companies and some consumer groups that also paid will share in
US$55 million of the settlement, according to Mr. Sobol of
Hagens Berman in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Those health plans as
well as health plans that did not pay for the litigation can
apply for reimbursement from a separate US$55 million of the
settlement, he said.


USI HOLDINGS: Faces Insurance Fraud, RICO Violations Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
USI Holdings, Inc. has been named as one of more than 30
insurance company and insurance brokerage defendants in an
amended complaint filed in the United States District Court
Southern District of New York in a putative class action lawsuit
captioned "Opticare Health Systems, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan
Companies, Inc., et al." (Civil Action No. CV 06954 (DC).

The amended complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties to
insureds by virtue of the payment of contingent commissions by
insurers to insurance brokers who sell their insurance and what
the amended complaint alleges constituted "bid rigging" in the
setting of insurance premium levels.  It is alleged that such
practice gave rise to the violation of numerous Federal and
state laws including the Federal Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations (RICO) and restraint of trade statutes,
state restraint of trade, unfair and deceptive practices
statutes, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment.  The
amended complaint seeks class certification for the named
plaintiff, treble damages for the alleged injury suffered by the
putative plaintiff class and other damages.

The suit is styled "Opticare Health Systems, Inc. v. Marsh &
McLennan Companies, Inc. et al, 1:04-cv-06954-DC," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, under Judge Denny Chin.


WEST VIRGINIA: Ruling on Coal Plant Suit Review Denies Status
-------------------------------------------------------------
A West Virginia class action lawsuit that aims to represent
people in seven states allegedly exposed to toxic chemicals at
coal preparation plants has been recently ruled upon by the
state's high court, the Associated Press reports.

In its ruling, West Virginia's Supreme Court stated that a
Marshall County judge did not properly organize the claimants
when he certified the case as a class action in September 2003.
Eight chemical companies targeted by the lawsuit had asked the
Supreme Court to review the class certification. They also
wanted the case limited to just West Virginia plaintiffs, but
the recent ruling denied that request.

The lawsuit requests medical monitoring, or court-ordered tests
that the defendant companies would pay for. It focuses on
residual acrylamide, a chemical compound added to water to wash
coal of waste material. Acrylamide is considered a cancer-
causing agent.  The lawsuit alleges workers were exposed to it
at plants in West Virginia, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Virginia.


WINK COMMUNICATIONS: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wink Communications, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the securities class action filed
against it, two of its officers and directors and certain
investment banks which acted as underwriters for the Company's
initial public offering.

The lawsuit is now captioned "In re Wink Communications, Inc.
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  The operative
amended complaint alleges undisclosed and improper practices
concerning the allocation of the Company's initial public
offering shares in violation of the federal securities laws, and
seeks unspecified damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock during the period from August 19, 1999
through December 6, 2000.

This action is among the over 300 lawsuits that have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation."  On February 19, 2003, the
Court ruled on the motions to dismiss filed by all defendants in
the consolidated cases.  The Court denied the motions to dismiss
the claims under the Securities Act of 1933, granted the motion
to dismiss the claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and one individual
defendant, and denied that motion against the other individual
defendant.

A stipulation of settlement for the claims against the issuer
defendants has been submitted to the Court.  There is no
guarantee that the settlement will become effective, as it is
subject to a number of conditions, including approval of the
Court, which cannot be assured.

The suit is styled "In re Wink Communications, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation," related to "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira A. 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


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


GEOPHARMA INC.: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges NY Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all purchasers who, on
December 1, 2004, purchased GeoPharma, Inc. (NasdaqSC--GORX)
securities. The lawsuit was filed against GeoPharma, Inc.
("GeoPharma" or "the Company), and its President, Kotha
Sekharam.

The action arises out representations that GeoPharma, a
pharmaceuticals company, was engaged in the development of a
"patent-pending" drug for the treatment of oral inflammation
suffered by cancer patients known as mucositis. The product was
dubbed Mucotrol (TM). On December 1, 2004, GeoPharma announced
that Mucotrol had been approved by the FDA. On this news,
GeoPharma shares shot up on heavy volume, reaching $11.25 per
share. Shortly thereafter, however, investigative journalists
uncovered that the FDA had not approved any such drug. It was
then conceded by the Company that Mucotrol was a "device", not a
drug. This is a material difference. Nor was it the case that
Mucotrol contained any medicinal ingredients at all. GeoPharm's
sales projections were also called into question. On these
revelations, GeoPharma shares sharply declined, last trading at
$6.81 per share on December 1, 2004 at which point trading was
halted.

For more details, contact Laurence Paskowitz, Esq. of Paskowitz
& Associates by Phone: 800-705-9529 or by E-mail:
classattorney@aol.com.


GEOPHARMA INC.: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of GeoPharma, Inc.
(NasdaqSC: GORX) ("GeoPharma") on December 1, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that GeoPharma violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, GeoPharma claimed that it was developing a
"patent-pending" drug for the treatment of oral inflammation
suffered by cancer patients known as mucositis. The product was
dubbed Mucotrol (TM). At 7:55 a.m., on December 1, 2004,
GeoPharma issued a statement announcing that Mucotrol had been
approved by the FDA. On this news, GeoPharma shares shot up on
heavy volume, reaching $11.25 per share. However, investigative
journalists uncovered that the FDA had not approved any such
drug. GeoPharma admitted that Mucotrol was a "device," not a
drug, and that Mucotrol did not contain any medicinal
ingredients at all. GeoPharm's sales projections were also
called into question. On these revelations, GeoPharma shares
sharply declined, last trading at $6.81 per share before trading
was halted at 1:29 p.m.

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


INTELLIGROUP INC.: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Intelligroup, Inc. ("Intelligroup" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:ITIGE) between May 1, 2001 and September 24, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period") against Intelligroup, Arjun
Valluripalli, Nicholas Visco, Edward Carr and David J. Distel.

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. More specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company engaged in improper accounting
         practices;

     (2) that as a consequence of the foregoing, the Company
         materially overstated its financial results in
         violation of generally accepted accounting principles
         ("GAAP");

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

     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's net income
         and revenues, among other things, were materially
         overstated at all relevant times.

On September 24, 2004, Intelligroup announced that it expected
to restate its previously issued financial statements filed on
Form 10-K for the years ended December 31, 2003, 2002 and 2001
and filed on Form 10-Q for the quarterly periods beginning
January 1, 2001 to date. The news shocked the market. Shares of
Intelligroup fell $.08 or 4.62 percent per share, to close at
$1.65 per share.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or
http://www.ssbny.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  * * *