---

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

            Wednesday, December 8, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 243


                            Headlines

ALLIANCE GAMING: NV Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
ALYON TECHNOLOGIES: Settles FTC Consumer Fraud Charges for $17M
AMDOCS LIMITED: 8th Circuit Appeals Court Avows Suit Dismissals
AUTOMOBILE CLUB: CA Court Approves $19.5 Mil Overtime Settlement
BANC ONE: Expert Discovery Proceeds in IL Securities Litigation

BICILLIN: Labeling Changes, Intravenous Use Warning Implemented
CACI INTERNATIONAL: Oral Arguments in Iraqi Abuse Suit Set 2005
CALIFORNIA: Supermarket Chains Settle Suit Over Janitors' Wages
CANADA CARE: FDA Files Complaint Over Illegal Prescription Drugs
CANADIAN RAILWAY: Plaintiffs' Attorney Says Ruling Not A Setback

CERES GROUP: Reaches Settlement for CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
CHEMED CORPORATION: IL Court Yet To Rule On Suit Certification
CHEMED CORPORATION: Ohio Court Declines Jurisdiction on Appeal
CITIZENS INSURANCE: Agrees To Review Certification of Stock Suit
COEUR D'ALENE: Plaintiffs Appeal Idaho Medical Monitoring Suit

CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in PA
CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Proceeds in FL PVC Injury Suit
DUKE ENERGY: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
DUQUESNE LIGHT: Expert Witness Discovery Proceeds in PA Lawsuit
ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls 5,280 Lawn Tractors Due To Fire Hazard

EQUITABLE LIFE: Lawyers Say Annuitants Exposed To Crippling Fees
FLORIDA: Tenants Score Major Victories V. Apartment Landlords
FORD MOTOR: Ball Police Department Continues Crown Victoria Suit
HUMANA MILCHUNION: New Lawsuit Lodged Over Remedia Baby Formula
LG SOURCING: Recalls 196,788 Garden Carts Due To Injury Hazard

JP MORGAN: Continues To Face Litigation Over Enron Relationship
JP MORGAN: Trial in NY WorldCom Securities Suits Set Feb. 2005
JP MORGAN: Appeals Partial Certification of NY Securities Suits
JP MORGAN: Named As Defendant in MD Suit Over Mutual Fund Fraud
MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Zicam Users Lodge Suit Over Loss Of Smell

NEW YORK: Immigrants To Lodge Lawsuit Over Halt To Some Benefits
NEW YORK: Court Allows AT&T Stock Analyst Lawsuit To Proceed
ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 120,000 Table Saws Due To Injury Hazard
SCAG POWER: Recalls 16T Riding Lawn Tractors Due To Fire Hazard
SECURITIES CLASS: Outlines Claims Roadmap To $8.4B Settlements

SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Suit Set For August 2005
SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit in IL
SEARS ROEBUCK: IL Court Allows Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit
SEMCO ENERGY: Faces Amended Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in WV
SOUTH KOREA: Limited Pardon Mulled For Class Action System Suits

ST. JUDE: Continues To Face, Trying To Settle Silzone Litigation
ST. JUDE: Faces 16 Lawsuits Over Symmetry Aortic Connector
STAR MARK: Recalls Palm Fan Vegetables For Undeclared Sulfites
TECO ENERGY: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in M.D. FL
TELLABS INC.: Appeals Court Yet To Rule On IL Lawsuit Dismissal

TELLABS INC.: Named As Defendant in Advanced Fiber Stock Lawsuit
TEXTRON INC.: Remaining Claims in ERISA Lawsuit Sent To RI Court
TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Actuary Appointed to Report on Suit Pact
UNITED AMERICAN: Named As Defendant in AR Policyholder Lawsuit
UNITED STATES: Soldiers Lodge Lawsuit Over Iraq Duty Extensions

UNIVERSAL HEALTH: To Ask PA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patient Lawsuits in NV, SC


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN STOCK: Lovell Stewart Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
UTSTARCOM INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA


                         *********


ALLIANCE GAMING: NV Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against
Alliance Gaming Corporation and certain of the Company's
officers:

     (1) Robert Miodunski,

     (2) Robert Saxton,

     (3) Mark Lerner, and

     (4) Steven Des Champs

The nearly identical complaints allege violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 stemming from revised earnings
guidance, declines in the stock price, and sales of stock by
insiders.  The Court has also appointed lead counsel and lead
plaintiff, although plaintiffs have yet to file a consolidated
suit.


ALYON TECHNOLOGIES: Settles FTC Consumer Fraud Charges for $17M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alyon Technologies, Inc. will drop its claim to approximately
$17 million in consumer bills to settle Federal Trade Commission
charges that it engaged in unauthorized billing and collection
for adult videotext services supposedly accessed on the Internet
by hundreds of thousands of consumers. Another $22 million in
bills may be forgiven if consumers challenge their charges.

The settlement provides that consumers who were billed for adult
services used on or before June 15, 2003, and who disputed the
charges to the defendants on or before January 15, 2004, will be
credited.  Consumers who were billed for services used on or
before June 15, 2003, but who did not pay or dispute the
charges, will have the opportunity to dispute the charges in
writing and qualify to have the debt forgiven. The defendants
may continue to bill those consumers. On the first bill sent to
these consumers in the future, however, the defendants must
disclose the rights consumers have to dispute these bills. Those
rights are set out in
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2004/12/alyonexhf.pdf.

Consumers who believe these bills were not authorized must
complete the appropriate affidavit, sworn to under penalty of
perjury, and return it to the defendants within 45 days after
they receive the bill. The settlement also bars Alyon from
billing consumers without first giving them notice of all
material terms and conditions of the offer and getting their
express, verifiable authorization to receive and be billed for
the videotext services. It requires that Alyon monitor the
practices of its videotext service providers to assure they
comply with those conditions and disclosures.

In May 2003, the FTC charged Alyon and its principal, Stephane
Touboul, with illegally billing and collecting for videotext
services purportedly accessed on the Internet. Over time, 16
state attorneys general filed similar charges against Alyon in
state courts. According to the FTC, the defendants downloaded a
modem-dialing program onto consumers' computers, allegedly after
consumers clicked on a button to agree to the terms and
conditions for such a download. The dialing program then
disconnected consumers from their own Internet service providers
and reconnected them to the defendants' network. The defendants
captured the telephone number used by the modem and matched it
against databases of line subscriber information. The line
subscribers identified as responsible for the captured telephone
numbers later received bills charging them $4.99 a minute for
each minute the defendants claimed videotext services were
purchased, regardless of whether the line subscribers authorized
the purchase. The FTC alleged that many consumers never visited
the defendants' sites at all, and were charged due to billing
service errors of which the defendants were aware. Other line
subscribers were billed because a minor child or someone else in
their household accessed the services without the line
subscriber's authorization. The FTC also alleged the defendants'
dialing program at times downloaded onto consumers' computers
without their authorization. It also alleged that the defendants
failed to follow provisions of the Pay-Per-Call Rule that
provide a mechanism for consumers to dispute charges for
"telephone-billed purchases." The FTC asked the court to halt
the illegal practices and provide for consumer redress. The
settlement announced today ends the litigation against
defendants Alyon and Touboul.

The settlement bars Alyon from representing that a consumer who
is being billed owes money unless the consumer is an adult; the
consumer received clear and conspicuous notice of all material
terms and conditions of the offer to access videotext services;
and the consumer provided express, verifiable authorization to
receive and be billed for the videotext services. It requires
Alyon to monitor the practices of its videotext service
providers to assure that they comply with those conditions and
disclosures. The settlement bars Alyon, and any videotext
service providers with which it does business, from blocking
consumers' ability to read the terms and conditions of service;
plant spyware, viruses, or other unnecessary software on
consumers' computers; block consumers' ability to remove a
dialer program or disconnect from the videotext service; fail to
disclose how billing charges are calculated; or download modem-
dialer software without consumers' authorization. The settlement
also bars the defendants from violating the Pay-Per-Call Rule.

Consumers billed by the defendants for videotext services used
on or before June 15, 2003, who disputed the bills to the
defendants before January 15, 2004, and did not pay them, will
receive credits for the full amount of the bill. Consumers
billed for services used on or before June 15, 2003, who neither
paid nor disputed the bills, will be given the opportunity to
dispute them and, where appropriate, receive a credit. Based on
financial statements submitted by the defendants, the order will
not require the defendants to refund any money previously
collected from consumers. Should the court find that the
defendants misrepresented their financial condition, the issue
of refunds for those who have previously been billed, and who
have paid those bills, will be reopened. The settlement requires
that any bills sent after the settlement was entered by the
court must clearly disclose a "Billing Rights Summary" for
consumers disputing their bills. The settlement contains certain
recordkeeping and other provisions to allow the agency to
monitor compliance with its order

For more information, contact the FTC's Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580, or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also
contact Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs, Phone:
202-326-2181 or David M. Torok, Bureau of Consumer Protection,
Phone: 202-326-3075


AMDOCS LIMITED: 8th Circuit Appeals Court Avows Suit Dismissals
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has
affirmed per curiam the dismissal of the securities class action
lawsuits pending against Amdocs Limited and certain of its
directors and officers since June 2002. The U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri had previously dismissed
the case with prejudice in December 2003.

As previously reported in the June 28, 2002 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the Plaintiffs had accused the Company of
violating securities laws when it failed to disclose in a timely
manner that the Company was experiencing declining sales. The
suits further charged that the Company inflated its financial
statements by maintaining inadequate reserves for doubtful
accounts and by failing to disclose that its figures on revenue
growth improperly included revenue from a recent acquisition.

The suit further alleges that defendants' material omissions and
the dissemination of materially false and misleading statements
regarding the nature of Company revenue and business prospects
caused the Company's stock price to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors.

Dov Baharav, Chief Executive Officer of Amdocs Management
Limited, said, "We consistently held that the allegations made
in the complaints were without merit and we are pleased that the
three judges of the Court of Appeals has unanimously and so
convincingly affirmed that these lawsuits should be dismissed."


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: CA Court Approves $19.5 Mil Overtime Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court in Santa Ana, California approved a $19.5
million settlement of class action overtime claims brought by
over 1300 insurance sales agents employed by the Automobile Club
of Southern California.

However, the workers' lawyer, David Borgen, of the Oakland class
action law firm, Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian,
(formerly known as "Saperstein, Goldstein, Demchak & Baller"),
said, "It would have been much harder, if not impossible, to win
this case under the new Department of Labor (DOL) overtime
rules."

The insurance sales agents initially filed the overtime class
action in June 1999, claiming that they worked over 60 hours a
week, were denied overtime pay, and were forced to pay for
"gifts" to promote sales. The agents worked for the Automobile
Club of Southern California in the Los Angeles area, as well as
in Texas and New Mexico.  The "club," headquartered in Costa
Mesa, California, is the largest affiliate of the American
Automobile Association (AAA), and provides home, life, and
automobile insurance, in addition to its popular emergency road
service programs.

After five years of litigation, including a two-day trial in
October 2002, the Auto Club agreed to settle all overtime and
gift expense claims.  The Auto Club also agreed to reclassify
its sales agents as non-exempt employees and began paying them
overtime. Payments to the 1300 eligible workers, averaging about
$70 per week for each week worked, are to be made this month.

During the litigation, the Auto Club had argued that its sales
agents were "outside salesmen" under the federal Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) despite the fact that nearly all of
the sales agents worked most of their time inside its District
Offices. The sales agents relied on the "twenty-percent test" in
the then current DOL white collar overtime regulations that
required an employer to demonstrate that less than twenty
percent of the workers' time was spent on non-exempt or inside
sales duties.

The new DOL overtime regulations, effective on August 23, 2004,
no longer include the twenty-percent test. "It is clear that, at
least in this case and in other cases involving the outside
sales exemption, the new regulations are much less protective of
workers than before," Mr. Borgen said.

The case is Bullock v. Automobile Club of Southern California,
No. SACV 01-731 GLT.


BANC ONE: Expert Discovery Proceeds in IL Securities Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery is proceeding for three class actions and one
individual action filed against Banc One Corporation and several
of its former officers, arising out of the mergers between Banc
One Corporation and First Commerce Corporation (First Commerce)
and Banc One Corporation and First Chicago NBD Corporation
(FCNBD).

These actions were filed in 2000 and are pending in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in
Chicago under the general caption, "In re Bank One Securities
Litigation." The cases were filed after the Company's earnings
announcements in August and November 1999 that lowered its
earnings expectations for the third and fourth quarter 1999.
Following the announcements, the Company's stock price had
dropped by 37.7% as of November 10, 1999.

Two of these class actions were brought by representatives of
FCNBD shareholders and Banc One shareholders, respectively,
alleging certain misrepresentations and omissions of material
fact made in connection with the merger between FCNBD and Banc
One that was completed in October 1998.  There is also an
individual lawsuit proceeding in connection with that same
merger.  A third class action was filed by another individual
plaintiff representing shareholders of First Commerce alleging
certain misrepresentations and omissions of material fact made
in connection with the merger between Banc One and First
Commerce, which was completed in June 1998.

All of these plaintiff groups claim that as a result of various
misstatements or omissions regarding payment processing issues
at First USA Bank, N.A., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Banc One,
and as a result of the use of various accounting practices, the
price of Banc One common stock was artificially inflated,
causing their shareholders to acquire shares of the Company's
common stock in the merger at an exchange rate that was
artificially deflated.  The complaints against Bank One and the
individual defendants assert claims under federal securities
laws.

Fact discovery, with limited exceptions, closed in December
2003.  The parties are in the middle of expert discovery, which
is scheduled to close in March 2005.


BICILLIN: Labeling Changes, Intravenous Use Warning Implemented
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced important
labeling changes regarding Bicillin CR (penicillin G benzathine
and penicillin G procaine injectable suspension) and Bicillin LA
(penicillin G benzathine injectable suspension).

These changes include a new, boxed warning against intravenous
use and precautionary note for Bicillin CR explaining it is not
for treatment of syphilis.  King Pharmaceuticals, Inc., the
manufacturer of these products, has also issued a "Dear Doctor"
letter, highlighting these changes.

In addition to the new boxed warning "WARNING: NOT FOR
INTRAVENOUS USE" that has been added to the labeling of both
products, the same warning has been added in red, bold, all
capital letters, to the Bicillin CR and Bicillin LA cartons and
syringe labels. Intravascular administration of Bicillin has
been associated with serious adverse effects in postmarketing
reports, including cardiorespiratory arrest and death.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2002 Sexually
Transmitted Diseases Treatment Guidelines recommend penicillin G
benzathine for the treatment of syphilis infection, consistent
with the labeled indications for Bicillin LA. However, recently
King Pharmaceutical, Inc., became aware of postmarketing reports
from multiple sexually transmitted disease (STD) clinics in the
U.S. where Bicillin CR had been inappropriately used to treat
patients infected with syphilis.

Therefore the manufacturer's "Dear Doctor" letter also reminds
practitioners that Bicillin LA is the only currently approved
penicillin G benzathine product indicated for the treatment of
syphilis and that Bicillin CR should not be administered in
place of Bicillin LA for this purpose. Administration of
Bicillin CR instead of Bicillin LA in the treatment of syphilis
may result in inadequate treatment.

To help health professionals better distinguish between the two
types of Bicillin, King Pharmaceuticals has modified the cartons
and syringe labels. The background colors for the CR cartons
have been changed from white to pale green (Bicillin CR) and
pale purple (Bicillin CR 900/300). Bicillin LA cartons will
retain the white background. The statement "Not for the
Treatment of Syphilis" has also been added in red text to both
the Bicillin CR and Billin CR 900/300 syringe labels.

FDA urges health care providers and patients to report adverse
event information to FDA via the MedWatch program by Phone: 1-
800-FDA-1088, by Fax: 1-800-FDA-0178 or visit the Website:
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/index.html.


CACI INTERNATIONAL: Oral Arguments in Iraqi Abuse Suit Set 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments for CACI International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the class action filed against it, CACI, Inc. Federal, CACI N.V.
and an employee Stephen A. Stefanowicz is set for February
5,2005 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California.

On June 9, 2004, seven named plaintiffs filed a twenty-six count
class-action complaint against a number of corporate defendants
and individual corporate employees alleging that defendants
formed a conspiracy regarding interrogation services in Iraq.
The complaint alleges that defendants engaged in a pattern of
racketeering activity, violated U.S. domestic and international
law and intentionally and negligently committed a series of
tortious acts against plaintiffs, who were detainees at Abu
Ghraib prison and elsewhere in Iraq.  The complaint alleges that
instead of providing interrogation and other related
intelligence services in a lawful manner, the defendants
conspired with each other and with certain U.S. government
officials to direct and conduct a scheme to torture, rape, and,
in some instances, summarily execute plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' complaint seeks a permanent injunction, compensatory
and punitive damages, treble damages and attorney's fees under
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO),
declaratory relief, and a permanent injunction against any
future contracting with the United States.  On June 30, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint adding an additional
named plaintiff.  On July 30, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint.  Plaintiffs seek to have their action
certified as a class action, including three subclasses
certified - a RICO Class, a Common Law Class, and a Wrongful
Death Class.

The twenty-six claims allege violations of a variety of laws
including RICO, a Conspiracy to Violate RICO, the Alien Tort
Claims Act, the Geneva Conventions, the U.S. Constitution, and
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.  In
addition, the plaintiffs allege Assault and Battery, Sexual
Assault and Battery, Wrongful Death, False Imprisonment,
Negligent Hiring and Supervision, Intentional Infliction of
Emotional Distress, Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress,
Conversion, Unjust Enrichment, and violation of various federal
procurement laws and regulations.  Plaintiffs also request
Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief.

In a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company stated that it ".absolutely rejects the idea that it was
ever a party to any kind of conspiracy related to the actions of
its personnel in Iraq and intends to vigorously defend its hard
earned reputation against the malicious and damaging allegations
of this suit.  The Company notes that, although the complaint
names CACI as a "Torture Conspirator" and alleges that the
"Torture Conspirators" were responsible for plaintiffs'
injuries, the complaint fails to present any information linking
any CACI employee to any claimed injury."

The CACI defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the case on
September 10, 2004.  Thereafter, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion
seeking to enjoin Defendants from providing additional
interrogators.  The Court has stayed any action on the
Injunction Motion pending oral argument on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss.

The suit is styled "Sami Abbas Al Rawi et al. v. Titan Corp.,
S.D. Cal., No. 04 CV 1143R (NLS)," filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California, assigned to Judge
John S. Rhoades and referred to Magistrate Judge Nita L.
Stormes.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Susan L. Burke, Jonathan H. Pyle of Montgomery
         McCracken Walker and Rhoads, 123 South Broad Street,
         Suite 2400, Philadelphia, PA 19109, Phone: (215)772-
         7223

     (2) William J. Aceves, Law Office of William J. Aceves, 225
         Cedar Street, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)515-1589

     (3) Shereef Hadi Akeel, Melamed Dailey and Akeel, 26611
         Woodward, Huntington Woods, MI 48070, Phone: (248)591-
         5000


CALIFORNIA: Supermarket Chains Settle Suit Over Janitors' Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Three of the largest supermarket chains in California have
reached a tentative $22.4 million settlement in a class-action
suit by immigrant janitors who said they often earned $3.50 an
hour and were never paid overtime, according to representatives
of both parties.

The chains Albertsons, Ralphs and Vons tentatively settled the
suit by 2,100 janitors, mostly from Mexico. Many of the
immigrant workers said they worked 70 or more hours a week,
often seven nights a week from 10 p.m. to 9 a.m.

The companies originally contended that they should face no
liability, citing that their cleaning contractors, and not the
stores, employed the janitors. The companies, who had said that
they were not joint employers along with the cleaning
contractor, tentatively agreed to the accord after a federal
judge rejected their motion to dismiss the suit.

According to representatives of the janitors, Judge Percy
Anderson of Federal District Court in Los Angeles had been
expected to approve the settlement yesterday. But in a hearing,
Judge Anderson said he was postponing approval, perhaps until
January 24, since Albertsons had not posted notices about the
proposed settlement in its California stores to inform the
cleaners.

When the suit began in 2000 on behalf of 600 janitors,
Albertsons, Ralphs, part of Kroger and Vons, part of Safeway,
said they had little to do with the janitors, arguing that the
workers were the responsibility of the contractor. The janitors
also sued Encompass Services, the principal contractor, which
has gone bankrupt.

The janitors' advocates said the suit was important to help
check a trend in which thousands of employers relied on
contractors who often broke the law, while the major companies
insisted that they knew nothing of the violations. "Many
companies use contractors as a way of avoiding liability," the
director of the U.C.L.A. Labor Center, Kent Wong, said. "It
avoids paying comparable wages, paying health benefits and
making long-term commitments to these employees."

Jesus Lopez, who worked for five years cleaning a Vons in the
San Fernando Valley, said he earned $250 a week even though he
typically worked 70 hours, working out to $3.57 an hour, far
less than the $5.15-an-hour federal minimum wage. Mr. Lopez said
he was never paid time and a half when he worked more than 40
hours a week. "I had only three days off in my whole five years
there, and that was because I was very sick," Mr. Lopez, 29, an
immigrant from Mexico, said. "I really couldn't do anything,
because if I told my boss he was paying me too little, he would
just fire me. It's hard to find another job, and I have to
support my mother and younger brothers." Like other janitors,
Mr. Lopez said he was paid in cash, never had taxes withheld and
was not given health insurance or vacation days. He said the
contractor gave him orders about washing and waxing the floors,
but Vons managers often ordered him to clean storage areas and
remove empty cartons. "I felt very bad about how little they
paid me," he said. "One comes to this country with dreams, and
when you see the reality of things, you see it's very different
from what you expected."

Class-action lawyers along with the Mexican American Legal
Defense and Educational Fund and the Service Employees
International Union originally brought the suit.

Under the settlement, the janitors will receive $10,000 each on
average.

Mike Garcia, president of the largest S.E.I.U. janitors' local
in California explains, "When work gets contracted out and then
subcontracted out again, standards for workers plummet, and
that's when we see the illegal activity that led to this
lawsuit."


CANADA CARE: FDA Files Complaint Over Illegal Prescription Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, has
on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), filed a
civil complaint against Canada Care Drugs, Inc. (Canada Care),
Claire Ruggiero, and Christine Ruggiero for the illegal
importation of prescription drugs into the U.S.

Canada Care was previously affiliated with Rx Depot, Inc., a
company that was engaged in the illegal importation of
prescription drugs until November 6, 2003, when the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
entered an order of preliminary injunction against the company
and its affiliates to stop their illegal activity.

"By continuing to illegally import unapproved drugs, Canada Care
is putting at risk the health of patients who are expecting to
improve their health," said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA
Commissioner.

According to the complaint filed in the Southern District of New
York on Monday, following the preliminary injunction order
against Rx Depot and its affiliates, which was made permanent
with the entering of a consent decree on August 20, 2004, Canada
Care severed its relationship with Rx Depot, but continued
illegal activity in violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA).

As is alleged in the complaint, the FDA's investigation of
Canada Care's illegal importation operations has revealed
several products that pose a risk to the public health. In
February and August 2004, the FDA made two undercover purchases
of the FDA-approved drugs Sporanox and Neurontin through Canada
Care.

Instead of Neurontin, the FDA received unapproved drugs called
APO-Gabapentin and Novo-Gabapentin. The unapproved drugs
purchased through the defendants pose a public health threat
because, as alleged in the complaint, the FDA cannot assure the
safety and efficacy of unapproved drugs. Because unapproved
drugs are not subject to the FDA's oversight, the FDA has no
knowledge how unapproved drugs are made, what patient
information is included with the drug, or what the side effects
of the drugs are, and as a result they are more likely to be
contaminated, counterfeit, inherently ineffective, or contain
different amounts of the active ingredients from similar drugs
that have been reviewed and approved by the FDA.

In addition, as alleged in the complaint, the manner in which
the Sporanox shipment was sent by the foreign pharmacy posed a
potentially serious health threat to the patients who received
it. Patients should take it in treatment "pulses" of one week,
and then wait three weeks before resuming another pulse
treatment. Between treatments, patients should consult their
doctors to determine whether the treatment should be terminated
either because it is no longer necessary or because they are
experiencing liver or heart side effects. Because the foreign
pharmacy sent three packages of Sporanox at one time, patients
receiving the drugs could have taken all 84 tablets without
consulting their doctor in between "pulse" treatments - an
action that could have exposed them to serious and even fatal
side effects.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court in
the Southern District of New York and seeks to enjoin Canada
Care from directly or indirectly importing or causing the
importation of U.S.-manufactured and unapproved, foreign-
manufactured prescription drugs into the U.S. in violation of
the FDCA. The government will also seek preliminary injunctive
relief and monetary relief in the form of restitution,
disgorgement, or both.


CANADIAN RAILWAY: Plaintiffs' Attorney Says Ruling Not A Setback
----------------------------------------------------------------
A recent Illinois Supreme Court decision ordering a lower court
to take another look at class certification for the Tamaroa
train derailment suit is "not a major setback," according to
plaintiffs' attorney Joe Leberman of Bryant & Kautz Law Firm,
the Du Quoin Evening Call reports.

Mr. Leberman pointed out, "The appellate court is now going to
look at the class certification issue, and we certainly think
it's appropriate to be a class-action type case, but if
necessary, we'll file 500 individual cases in Perry County and
proceed on every one of them."

As previously reported in the November 3, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the plaintiffs, numbering approximately
500 Tamaroa residents, alleged that Canadian National Railroad
failed to adequately compensate them for damages incurred during
the 2003 chemical spill that occurred in the town when a train
derailed there.

CN filed a motion in August asking the 5th District Court of
Appeals to consider an appeal of a St. Clair County court's
decision that certified the case as a class action lawsuit. The
Fifth District refused to hear the motion, so CN filed their
appeal with the Supreme Court. The justices in Springfield also
refused to hear the motion filed by CN but issued a supervisory
order to the appellate court. The order requires the Fifth
District to hear arguments "on the merits of the appeal."

Mr. Leberman says the Supreme Court decision means that there
will be no more motion hearings or any further actions on the
case by the trial court until the issue is resolved in the Fifth
District. He said the Fifth District court could allow certain
parts of the case to proceed even before making a decision on
the appeal, however.

Although CN offered Tamaroa residents displaced by the
derailment an inconvenience stipend of $50 per for adults and
$25 for children, many consider that compensation to be
inadequate. They claim that damages paid by CN did not address
property damage, medical issues related to the chemical spill,
or devaluation of homes and property in the area.

Although no current date is set for the Fifth District's
consideration of CN's appeal, "the case will go forward, one way
or the other," according to Mr. Leberman.


CERES GROUP: Reaches Settlement for CA Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ceres Group, Inc. agreed to settle a class action filed in the
Superior court for San Luis Obispo County, California, Case No.
CV 020275 against it, United Benefit Life, Central Reserve, the
American Association for Consumer Benefits (AACB), and Does 1
through 100.

Annelie and Joseph Purdy filed the suit, on behalf of themselves
and individuals in California who purchased group health
insurance from United Benefit Life through the AACB.  Plaintiffs
alleged causes of action for breach of contract, bad faith,
violations of California's Unfair Competition Law and fraud in
the inception.  Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages, including
the return of premium rate increases during the relevant period
of time.

Plaintiffs' motion for statewide class certification was granted
in November 2003 and the case was scheduled to go to trial in
January 2005.  The plaintiffs also filed an action against
Provident American Life containing somewhat similar allegations.

On September 15, 2004, the Company announced that it had agreed
to settle these lawsuits.  The settlements contemplate payments
to class members and others, as well as certain attorneys' fees
and costs.


CHEMED CORPORATION: IL Court Yet To Rule On Suit Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Third Judicial Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois has
yet to rule on class certification on the remaining states in
the lawsuit filed against Chemed Corporation (formerly Roto-
Rooter, Inc.)

Robert Harris filed the suit in June 2000, alleging certain
Roto-Rooter plumbing was performed by unlicensed employees.
Plaintiff moved for a certification of a class of customers in
32 states who allegedly paid for plumbing work performed by
unlicensed employees.  Plaintiff also moved for a partial
summary judgment on grounds the licensed apprentice plumber who
installed his faucet did not work under the direct personal
supervision of a licensed plumber.

On June 19, 2002, the trial judge certified an Illinois-only
plaintiffs class and granted summary judgment for the named
party Plaintiff on the issue of liability, finding violation of
the Illinois Plumbing License Act and the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act, through Roto-Rooter's representation of the licensed
apprentice as a plumber.


CHEMED CORPORATION: Ohio Court Declines Jurisdiction on Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court declined jurisdiction of plaintiffs'
appeal of the court's reversal of class certification for the
lawsuit filed against Chemed Corporation (formerly Roto-Rooter,
Inc.).

On April 5, 2002, Michael Linn, an attorney, filed a class
action in the Court of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, Ohio.  He
alleged Roto-Rooter Services Company's miscellaneous parts
charge, ranging from $4.95 to $12.95 per job, violates the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act.  The Company contends that this
charge, which is included within the estimate approved by its
customers, is a fully disclosed component of its pricing.

On February 25, 2003, the trial court certified a class of
customers who paid the charge from October 1999 to July 2002.
The Company appealed this order and on May 20, 2004 the Eighth
District Court of Appeals of Ohio overturned the certification
of this class action.  Mr. Linn sought review of the
decertification by the Ohio Supreme Court.


CITIZENS INSURANCE: Agrees To Review Certification of Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Supreme Court heard Citizens Insurance Company of
America's (CICA) petition for review of a lower court ruling
affirming in part and modifying in part class certification for
the lawsuit filed against it styled "Delia Bolanos Andrade, et
al v. Citizens Insurance Company of America, Citizens, Inc.,
Negocios Savoy, S.A., Harold E. Riley, and Mark A. Oliver, Case
Number 99-09099."

The suit alleges that life insurance policies sold to certain
non-U.S. residents by CICA are actually securities that were
offered or sold in Texas by unregistered dealers in violation of
the registration provisions of the Texas securities laws.  The
suit seeks class action status naming as a class all non-U.S.
residents who purchased insurance policies or made premium
payments since August 1996 and assigned policy dividends to an
overseas trust for the purchase of the Company's Class A common
stock.  The remedy sought is rescission of the insurance premium
payments.

On April 24, 2003, the Court of Appeals for the Third District
of Texas affirmed in part and modified in part, a July 31, 2002,
class action certification granted by a Travis County, Texas
district court judge to the plaintiffs in a lawsuit filed in
1999.  The Company filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme
Court of Texas for review of the decision of the Court of
Appeals.  Review by the Texas Supreme Court is discretionary.
The Texas Supreme Court granted the Company's Petition for
Review and heard oral arguments on the case on October 21, 2004.


COEUR D'ALENE: Plaintiffs Appeal Idaho Medical Monitoring Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of a class action filed
against Coeur d'Alene Mines Corporation and other mining
companies in the Idaho State District Court for the First
District in Kootenai County, Idaho, styled "Baugh v. Asarco, et
al., Docket No. 2002-131."

Defendants include mining companies and the Union Pacific
Railroad Company which were defendants in the Bunker Hill
natural resource damage litigation in the Coeur d'Alene Basin,
including the Company.  Plaintiffs are eight northern Idaho
residents seeking medical monitoring and real property damages
from the mining companies and the railroad which operated in the
Bunker Hill Superfund site.

In October 2002, the court conducted a hearing on motions
resulting in an order striking certain of the alleged causes of
action from the complaint, and dismissing the complaint with
leave to amend it.  In January 2003, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.  The court dismissed the amended complaint
with leave to amend.  In May 2003 a second amended complaint was
filed.  The Company filed a motion for summary judgment, which
was heard on July 14, 2004.  On September 3, 2004, the Court
entered judgment in favor of the Company and against the
plaintiffs, and ordered that the second amended complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated securities class action
against Constar International, Inc., Crown Holdings, Inc.
certain of Constar's present and former directors, and various
underwriters in the United Sates District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, styled In re Constar International,
Inc. Securities Litigation (Master File No. 03-CV-05020).

This action consolidates previous lawsuits "Parkside Capital LLC
v. Constar International Inc et al.(Civil Action No.
03-5020)," filed on September 5, 2003 and "Walter Frejek v.
Constar International Inc. et al. (Civil Action No.03-5166),"
filed on September 15, 2003.

The consolidated and amended complaint generally alleges that
the registration statement and prospectus for the Company's
initial public offering of its common stock on November 14, 2002
contained material misrepresentations and/or omissions.
Plaintiffs claim that defendants in these lawsuits violated
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Plaintiffs
seek class action certification and an award of damages and
litigation costs and expenses.


CONSTAR INTERNATIONAL: Discovery Proceeds in FL PVC Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a lawsuit filed against Constar
International, Inc. in the Ninth Judicial Circuit Court of
Florida by former and current employees of its Orlando, Florida
facility.

The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages.  The lawsuit
alleges bodily injury as a result of exposure to off-gasses from
polyvinyl chloride (PVC) during the manufacture of plastic
bottles during the 1970's, 1980's and into the mid-1990's.  PVC
suppliers and a manufacturer of the manufacturing equipment used
to process the PVC are also defendants.


DUKE ENERGY: NY Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York refused to dismiss the consolidated class action filed
against Duke Energy Trading and Marketing LLC (DETM) and other
natural gas companies.

In August 2003, plaintiffs have filed three class-action
lawsuits on behalf of entities who bought and sold natural gas
futures and options contracts on the New York Mercantile
Exchange during the years 2000 through 2002.  The lawsuits
initially named Duke Energy Corporation as a defendant, along
with numerous other entities.  In the latest consolidated
complaint filed in January 2004, the plaintiffs dropped Duke
Energy from the cases and added DETM as a defendant.

The case claims that the defendants violated the Commodity
Exchange Act by reporting false and misleading trading
information to trade publications, resulting in monetary losses
to the plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs seek class action certification,
unspecified damages and other relief.


DUQUESNE LIGHT: Expert Witness Discovery Proceeds in PA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Expert witness discovery is proceeding in the consolidated
securities class action filed against Duquesne Light Holdings,
Inc. and its former chairman, chief executive officer and
president David Marshall in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania.

The consolidated suit, styled "In re DQE, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Master File No. 01-1851 (W.D. Pa.)," alleges
violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 12(a)(2)
of the Securities Act of 1933.  The complaint also alleges
controlling person liability under Section 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Section 15 of the Securities Act.

The complaint alleges that between December 6, 2000 and April
30, 2001, the defendants issued a number of materially false and
misleading statements concerning investments made by the
Company's subsidiary, DQE Enterprises, and the impact that these
investments would have on its current and future financial
results.  More particularly, the complaint alleges that the
Company and Marshall stated their expectation that certain
companies in which DQE Enterprises had invested would undertake
initial public offerings of their shares, with the result that
our earnings would be positively impacted by the public market
valuation of DQE Enterprises' interests in these companies, but
failed to disclose allegedly adverse facts that made the
possibility of successful public offerings of the securities of
these companies unlikely.

The complaint seeks an award of unspecified compensatory
damages, and an order permitting class members who purchased
Company shares through a dividend reinvestment plan to rescind
those purchases, pre- and post-judgment interest, attorneys'
fees and expenses of litigation and unspecified equitable and
injunctive relief.

On May 20, 2003, the Court certified a class to include
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
December 6, 2000 through April 30, 2001, and a sub-class to
include purchasers of its common stock through its dividend
reinvestment and stock purchase plan during the same period.
Since December 2002, the Company has been engaged in pre-trial
discovery.  Fact discovery concluded at the end of April 2004.
Expert witness discovery is expected to continue until December
2004.


ELECTROLUX HOME: Recalls 5,280 Lawn Tractors Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Electrolux Home Products Inc., of Orangeburg, S.C. is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 5,280 Husqvarna Lawn
Tractors.

These lawn tractors can develop abrasions on the fuel tank
because of the fuel line clamp's location. This can result in a
fuel tank leak, which could pose a fire hazard to consumers.
Husqvarna has received four reports of fuel tanks leaking. There
have been no reports of fire or property damage.

These Husqvarna 18.5 horsepower, hydrostatic transmission, 42-
inch cutting deck, lawn tractors are gasoline-powered and are
designed for residential use. The recall involves models
LTH18542A and LTH18542B and includes all serial numbers. The
model plate with the model number information is found under the
seat.

Manufactured in the United States, the tractors were sold at all
Husqvarna dealers and distributors nationwide from November 2003
through July 2004 for about $1,500.

Consumers who have one of the recalled lawn tractors should
contact an authorized Husqvarna service provider in your area,
which will provide a free repair.

Consumer Contact: For more information or to locate a Husqvarna
dealer, call Husqvarna at (800) 448-7543 between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m. ET Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.usa.husqvarna.com.


EQUITABLE LIFE: Lawyers Say Annuitants Exposed To Crippling Fees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Equitable Life pensioners who have seen their retirement incomes
slashed by a third have little hope of pursuing legal action
after their lawyers failed to secure adequate legal indemnity
insurance, according to Clarke Willmott, the Bristol-based law
firm acting on behalf of 600 members of the Equitable Life
Trapped Annuitants group (Elta), The Sunday Telegraph reports.

The firm explains that pensioners will have to foot their own
legal bills if they proceed in a class action against the
insurer, potentially leaving them liable for crippling legal
costs if the case is lost. It is believed that the firm was
seeking indemnity insurance of about pounds 3m.

Elta members, who have already stumped up pounds 900 each
towards legal and administrative costs, have been invited to
respond within the next few weeks. The law firm has received 300
responses so far, but declined to say how many are in favor of
proceeding.

About 48,000 Equitable members have with-profits annuities,
which provide a pension income. Unlike conventional annuities,
the income paid is dependent on investment returns, in this case
the bonuses paid out by Equitable's stricken with-profits fund.
As with any annuity, investors cannot transfer to another
provider.

Members have suffered two significant bonus cuts this year. They
have been told to expect further reductions and warned that
pensions could halve over the next decade. Clarke Willmott says
it is prepared to pursue the case, irrespective of how few Elta
members sign up for the self-funded class action. Robert Morfee,
a partner at the firm, said: "We are giving members the option
of going ahead with what we've got." He said he was "surprised"
that the group failed to secure adequate insurance.

Peter Scawen, one of the leaders of Elta, refused to say whether
he would be going ahead with the legal action but he predicted
that a "significant proportion will continue, albeit with a much
bigger exposure to costs". Tim Balkwill, another Elta member,
said everyone was feeling "very aggrieved". He added: "An
annuity is supposed to be guaranteed income for life, but we
have been fobbed off and mis-sold and are now facing a declining
pension for the rest of our days."

Meanwhile, Equitable has told Walter Merricks, the Financial
Ombudsman, that it is inappropriate for his office to deal with
complaints of "over bonusing" - pledging more in bonuses than it
could afford to pay in order to win business. This practice came
to light in Lord Penrose's inquiry into the crisis at the
insurer.

In a letter to Mr. Merricks, Equitable says the Financial
Ombudsman Service "is not an appropriate forum for resolving
complex actuarial expert issues" or matters that require
"witnesses and cross-examination". The FOS has said it will
consider the request. It has asked people with objections to
submit views by December 31.


FLORIDA: Tenants Score Major Victories V. Apartment Landlords
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rod Tennyson, P.A., and Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le Clainche,
P.A., revealed two big class action victories for Florida
tenants against two of the nation's largest publicly traded
apartment landlords.

Palm Beach County Circuit Judge Susan R. Lubitz on Friday
concluded Chicago-based Equity Residential, a publicly traded
Real Estate Investment Trust (NYSE:EQR) knowingly violated
Florida law by illegally charging tenants big penalties if they
left before their one-year leases were up or failed to give
notice of non-renewal. Judge Lubitz then ordered Equity to
remove over $15,000,000 in illegal charges from the credit
reports of thousands of former Equity tenants. Equity, with
$12.5 billion in assets, is the nation's largest publicly traded
apartment owner.

In a separate but almost identical case late Thursday, Palm
Beach County Circuit Judge Jonathan Gerber granted another group
of tenants class action certification against Gables Residential
Trust (NYSE:GBP), a REIT and major apartment landlord based in
Boca Raton, Fl., with nearly $2 billion in assets. A trial on
the merits of that case is pending.

"Both of these cases are very important to tenant consumers
because the big landlords have been charging these unlawful fees
for years," said attorney Rod Tennyson, who represents tenants
in both cases with Ted Babbitt of Babbitt, Johnson, Osborne & Le
Clainche, P.A., a West Palm Beach plaintiff's trial law firm.
"The court's decision is especially significant because the
judge recognized that Equity knowingly violated the law."

"This order goes a long way toward restoring the credit and good
name to thousands of tenants who were victims of these unlawful
practices," Mr. Babbitt said.

In her 20-page order, Judge Lubitz wrote: "Equity charged
unlawful fees to end of term tenants and early termination
tenants from Dec. 1, 1998, to Jan. 31, 2004, and reported these
unpaid charges to credit reporting agencies." She ordered Equity
to deduct the unlawful fees from the class tenants' accounts and
then ordered Equity to notify all credit agencies to remove the
charges (over $15 million) from tenants' credit reports.

Adverse consumer credit reports can cause increases in interest
and insurance rates, as well as sharply restricted credit, among
other consequences.

In addition, the judge ordered Equity to establish a class fund
of $1,629,380 to compensate tenants who actually paid the
unlawful fees plus interest. Most of the 14,700 Florida class
members did not pay the unlawful fees but still suffered from
the adverse credit reports. Tennyson stated that "the real
damage here is not only the illegal fees, but the effect on the
tenants' credit reports." Coincidentally, the Federal Trade
Commission's new laws on fair credit reporting went into affect
December 1, the very same day of both Court rulings. Consumers
can begin to get their credit reports free at
http://www.annualcreditreport.com.

In another part of the order, Judge Lubitz ruled that Equity
ignored the advice of Donna Barfield, the firm's own Florida
counsel, in an August 1999 memo that its collection of
"liquidated damages" equivalent to 60 days' rent for tenants
terminating early was illegal.

"Equity knew that the fees in the Lease and National Lease
affecting early terminating tenants were impermissible," Judge
Lubitz wrote. "Despite Barfield's legal advice, Equity continued
to attempt to collect these fees until Jan. 31, 2004."

In the Gables case, Circuit Judge Jonathan Gerber's action late
Thursday follows a similar class action certification - by Palm
Beach Circuit Judge Jorge Labarga - issued in October 2003
against Equity.

Both suits were filed in late 2002 by tenants who said they were
unlawfully hit with big penalties when they left before their
leases expired. In the Gables Residential suit, Gables is
accused of charging tenants "early termination fees" if they
leave before their one-year leases are up, and illegally
charging two months' rent if tenants fail to give 60 days'
notice of non-renewal.

In the Gables ruling, Judge Gerber said there were at least
6,721 Florida class members, and Tennyson said he believed that
number would rise to more than 8,000.

At trial Equity stated that it stopped the practice of charging
those fees in July 2003, but Gables testified in class
certification that it was continuing these practices to this
day.

Rod Tennyson, whose practice includes landlord-tenant
litigation, actually wrote the consumer protection laws he said
the landlord defendants violated while he served as a Florida
Assistant Attorney General in the 1970s. Ted Babbitt is founding
partner of his 36-year-old firm, which represents
catastrophically injured and wronged people in pharmaceutical
litigation, brokerage fraud, personal injury and wrongful death,
products liability and medical malpractice cases.

Equity Residential owns more than 1,000 properties in 33 states
and has 225,000 apartments, 33,000 of them throughout Florida.
For more information and a complete listing of properties by
area, see http://www.equityapartments.com.

Gables manages 52,860 apartment homes in 188 communities, owns
85 communities with 23,768 stabilized apartment homes and has an
additional nine communities with 2,388 apartment homes under
development or lease-up. The Gables Residential website lists 17
complexes in Palm Beach County, eight in Broward, three in
Miami-Dade, six in Central Florida, three in the Tampa Bay area
and one in St. Lucie County. (For more information on a listing
of properties by area, see http://www.gables.com).

(Gables suit: Christopher Water et al. v. Gables Residential
Trust, etc. et al, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach
County, Civil Case No. 02-CA-14989. Equity suit: Tammy Yates,
Peter Miller, Maria Cruz and Jose Ortega as Class
Representatives v. Equity Residential Properties, et al., Civil
Case No. CA 02-14116, Palm Beach County Circuit Court.)

Further information about the suits and general background is
available at http://www.babbitt-johnson.comor
http://www.rodtennyson.com.


FORD MOTOR: Ball Police Department Continues Crown Victoria Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ball Police Department is going ahead with its lawsuit
against Ford Motor Co. while the Avoyelles Parish Sheriff's
Office is backing out of the class-action lawsuit, the
Alexandria Daily Town Talk reports.

The agencies are among those involved in 10 current Louisiana
lawsuits filed against the maker of the Crown Victoria Police
Interceptor, which are all pending in about a dozen other
states. There are an estimated 10,000 to 15,000 Interceptors on
Louisiana's roadways.

At issue is whether the car is too dangerous for officers to use
because the fuel tank is located in the "crush zone" at the back
of the car. According to J.R. Whaley of the Alexandria law firm
of Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, the lawsuit claims that the car
is prone to fuel fires when involved in rear-end collisions. The
firm, along with local lawyer Brian Cespiva, is representing the
town of Ball.

Court proceedings on the lawsuit were to start Wednesday in the
Rapides Parish Courthouse but have been postponed. No new date
was set, Mr. Whaley said.

Alexandria Police Chief Daren Coutee said the department's
entire fleet is made up of Ford vehicles. In the 1970s, Coutee
recalls, the department tested other models, but it always
returned to the Crown Victoria.

Pineville Police Chief Jay Barber's has nearly an entirely Ford
fleet, as does the Rapides Parish Sheriff's Office. All three
agencies are not suing Ford.

Ford is currently not selling vehicles to agencies that are
suing the Company, a policy that has made many agencies back out
of the lawsuit.

Ball Mayor Roy Hebron admitted that the lawsuit has hindered his
police department from getting replacement cars. "We have gotten
some pressure," he said, but declined to elaborate.

Avoyelles Parish has not had trouble getting vehicles from
surplus sales, but it still plans to drop the lawsuit. Sheriff
Bill Belt received a letter from the state Sheriffs Association
suggesting the lawsuit be dropped. Mr. Belt said he would do
whatever the organization asked of him.

Nationwide, 15 officers have died in fatal fires after rear-end
collisions, according to The Associated Press. Ford has
contended that the deaths are not a design flaw in the vehicle
but a reflection of officers' risky jobs.


HUMANA MILCHUNION: New Lawsuit Lodged Over Remedia Baby Formula
---------------------------------------------------------------
A new class action suit has been filed in Haifa District Court
against German company Humana Milchunion and Heinz-Remedia's CEO
Gideon Landsberger for their role in the 2003 Remedia baby
formula scandal, the Ha'aretz reports.

The plaintiffs are suing for NIS 101 million in financial and
emotional damages caused when Remedia marketed soy-based baby
formula lacking vitamin B1, which would later be implicated in
two deaths and the illness of 15 babies.

The suit seeks NIS 10,000 damages for each of 10,000 expected
plaintiffs and in addition, they are seeking NIS 1,000,000 in
punitive damages.

The suit is similar to its predecessors, charging the Company
with maliciously displaying misleading labels, violating
consumer protection laws and legal responsibility for defective
products. Other former Remedia customers filed three separate
class-action suits in late 2003, totaling NIS 115 million, NIS 1
billion, and NIS 56 million respectively.

As previously reported in the October 25, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Humana is close to reaching a settlement
in the other suits, according to which it would pay out NIS 7.25
million to dismiss them. The NIS 7.25 million compensation was
split to give NIS 4 million to families, NIS 2 million to five
public organizations: Izzy Shapiro House in Ra'anana, Dana
Children's Hospital in Tel Aviv, the Children's Hospital of
Laniado Hospital in Netanya, the pediatric department of Sheba
Medical Center at Tel Hashomer and the nutrition department of
the Agriculture Faculty in Rehovot and NIS 1.1 million to the
various lawyers representing the claimants. Humana is dealing
with compensation for those families whose babies suffered or
died separately.


LG SOURCING: Recalls 196,788 Garden Carts Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
LG Sourcing, Inc. of North Wilkesboro, N.C.; Lowe's Home
Centers, Inc. of North Wilkesboro, N.C.; and Lowe's HIW, Inc. of
Washington, D.C. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling about 196,788
GardenPlus Industrial Garden Cart.

Over-inflation of the tires can break the metal tire rim,
causing users and bystanders to be struck with pieces of metal.
LG Sourcing and Lowe's are aware of four incidents involving the
metal rim assembly breaking during over-inflation of the tires.
Three injuries occurred, including a fractured wrist, fractured
fingers, and bruised hands.

The recalled GardenPlus Industrial Garden Carts, item number
128483, were made between November 2002 and April 2004. The
garden cart is a four-wheeled pull wagon with a yellow mesh
steel gauge bed and reinforced sides. The cart is approximately
20 inches wide by 30 inches long and 20 inches high. This recall
affects all carts sold between March 2003 and October 2004
without metal washers on the outside tire rims.

Manufactured in China, the carts were sold at all Lowe's retail
establishments nationwide from March 2003 through October 2004
for about $70.

Owners will receive a direct shipment of a free set of
replacement wheels.

Consumer Contact: Contact Lowe's Garden Cart Recall Hotline
toll-free at (800) 444-6742 anytime or visit the Lowe's Web site
at http://www.lowes.comfor more information.


JP MORGAN: Continues To Face Litigation Over Enron Relationship
---------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase & Company is working to resolve litigation and
investigations arising out of its banking relationships with
Enron Corporation and its subsidiaries.

Actions involving Enron have been initiated by parties against
the Company, its directors and certain of its officers.  These
lawsuits include a series of purported class actions brought on
behalf of shareholders of Enron, including the lead action
captioned "Newby v. Enron Corp.," and a series of purported
class actions brought on behalf of Enron employees who
participated in various employee stock ownership plans,
including the lead action captioned "Tittle v. Enron Corp."

The consolidated complaint filed in Newby names as defendants,
among others, the Company, several other investment banking
firms, a number of law firms, Enron's former accountants and
affiliated entities and individuals, and other individual
defendants, including present and former officers and directors
of Enron.  The suit alleges claims against the Company and the
other defendants under federal and state securities laws.

The Tittle complaint named as defendants, among others, JPMorgan
Chase, several other investment banking firms, a law firm,
Enron's former accountants and affiliated entities and
individuals, and other individual defendants, including
present and former officers and directors of Enron.  The suit
purports to allege claims against the Company and certain other
defendants under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) and state common law.

On December 20, 2002, the Court denied the motion of the Company
and other defendants to dismiss the Newby action, and the Newby
trial is scheduled to commence in October 2006.  On September
30, 2003, Judge Melinda Harmon dismissed all claims against the
Company in Tittle.

Additional actions include:

     (1) a purported, consolidated class action lawsuit by
         Company stockholders alleging that the Company issued
         false and misleading press releases and other public
         documents relating to Enron in violation of Section
         10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
         10b-5 thereunder;

     (2) putative class actions on behalf of JPMorgan Chase
         employees who participated in the Company's employee
         stock ownership plans alleging claims under the
         Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") for
         alleged breaches of fiduciary duties and negligence by
         JPMorgan Chase, its directors and named officers;

     (3) shareholder derivative actions alleging breaches of
         fiduciary duties and alleged failures to exercise due
         care and diligence by the Firm's directors and named
         officers in the management of JPMorgan Chase;

     (4) individual and putative class actions in various courts
         by Enron investors, creditors and holders of
         participating interests related to syndicated credit
         facilities;

     (5) third-party actions brought by defendants in Enron-
         related cases, alleging federal and state law claims
         against JPMorgan Chase and many other defendants;

     (6) investigations by governmental agencies with which the
         Firm is cooperating; and

     (7) an adversary proceeding brought by Enron in bankruptcy
         court seeking damages for alleged aiding and abetting
         breaches of fiduciary duty by Enron insiders, return of
         alleged fraudulent conveyances and preferences, and
         equitable subordination of JPMorgan Chase's claims in
         the Enron bankruptcy.

By joint order of the district court handling Newby, Tittle and
a number of other Enron-related cases and the bankruptcy court
handling Enron's bankruptcy case, a mediation among various
investors and creditor plaintiffs, the Enron bankruptcy estate
and a number of financial institution defendants, including
JPMorgan Chase, has been initiated before The Honorable William
C. Conner, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern
District of New York.

On July 28, 2003, the Company announced that it had reached
agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC),
the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRB), the New York State
Banking Department (NYSBD) and the New York County District
Attorney's Office (NYDA) resolving matters relating to JPMorgan
Chase's involvement with certain transactions involving Enron.
In connection with these settlements, JPMorgan Chase has
committed to take certain measures to improve controls with
respect to structured finance transactions.

The agreement with the FRB and NYSBD, a formal written
agreement, requires JPMorgan Chase to adopt programs acceptable
to the FRB and the NYSBD for enhancing the Company's management
of credit risk and legal and reputational risk, particularly in
relation to its participation in structured finance
transactions.


JP MORGAN: Trial in NY WorldCom Securities Suits Set Feb. 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the class actions filed against JP Morgan Chase & Co.
and J.P. Morgan Securities Inc. (JPMSI) in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York over
alleged accounting irregularities in the books and records of
WorldCom, Inc. is set for February 2005.

The two companies were named as defendants in more than 50
actions that were filed in U.S. District Courts, in state courts
in more than 20 states, and in one arbitral panel beginning in
July 2002, arising out of alleged accounting irregularities in
the books and records of WorldCom Inc.  Plaintiffs in these
actions are individual and institutional investors, including
state pension funds, who purchased debt securities issued by
WorldCom pursuant to public offerings in 1997, 1998, 2000 and
2001.

JPMSI acted as an underwriter of the 1998, 2000 and 2001
offerings and was an initial purchaser in the December 2000
private bond offering.  In addition to JPMSI, the Company and,
in two actions, J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. (JPMSL), in its
capacity as one of the underwriters of the international tranche
of the 2001 offering, the defendants in various of the actions
include other underwriters, certain executives of WorldCom and
WorldCom's auditors.

In the actions, plaintiffs allege that defendants knew, or were
reckless or negligent in not knowing, that the securities were
sold to plaintiffs on the basis of misrepresentations and
omissions of material facts concerning the financial condition
and business of WorldCom. The complaints against the Company,
JPMSI and JPMSL assert claims under federal and state securities
laws, under other state statutes and under common law theories
of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.


JP MORGAN: Appeals Partial Certification of NY Securities Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase & Co. and other underwriters appealed the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York's
granting of partial suit certification to the "focus" cases in
the initial public offering securities litigation filed against
them.

Beginning in May 2001, the Company and certain of its securities
subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other firms in the
securities industry, as defendants in a large number of putative
class action lawsuits filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  These suits purport to challenge
alleged improprieties in the allocation of stock in various
public offerings, including some offerings for which a JPMorgan
Chase entity served as an underwriter.

The suits allege violations of securities and antitrust laws
arising from alleged material misstatements and omissions in
registration statements and prospectuses for the IPOs and
alleged market manipulation with respect to aftermarket
transactions in the offered securities.  The securities claims
allege, among other things, misrepresentation and market
manipulation of the aftermarket trading for these offerings by
tying allocations of shares in IPOs to undisclosed excessive
commissions paid to JPMorgan Chase and to required aftermarket
purchase transactions by customers who received allocations of
shares in the respective IPOs, as well as allegations of
misleading analyst reports.

The antitrust claims allege an illegal conspiracy to require
customers, in exchange for IPO allocations, to pay undisclosed
and excessive commissions and to make aftermarket purchases of
the IPO securities at a price higher than the offering price as
a precondition to receiving allocations.

The securities cases were all assigned to one judge for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings, and the antitrust cases were
all assigned to another judge.  On February 13, 2003, the Court
denied the motions of JPMorgan Chase and others to dismiss the
securities complaints.  On October 13, 2004, the Court granted
in part plaintiffs' motion to certify classes in six "focus"
cases in the securities litigation, and the underwriter
defendants have petitioned to appeal that decision.  On November
3, 2003, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the
antitrust claims relating to the IPO allocation practices, and
that decision is on appeal.  A separate antitrust claim alleging
that JPMSI and the other underwriters conspired to fix their
underwriting fees is in discovery.


JP MORGAN: Named As Defendant in MD Suit Over Mutual Fund Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase & Co. was named as a defendant in a class action
filed in the United States District Court in Baltimore,
Maryland, arising out of the alleged late trading and market
timing controversy in mutual funds.  The suits also name as
defendants other entities related to the mutual fund industry.

Certain plaintiffs allege that the defendants and their officers
allowed favored investors to market time and late trade in the
One Group mutual funds.  These complaints include a purported
class action on behalf of One Group shareholders alleging claims
under federal securities laws and common law; a purported
derivative suit on behalf of the One Group funds under the
Investment Company Act, the Investment Advisers Act and common
law; and a purported class action on behalf of participants and
beneficiaries of the Bank One Corporation 401(k) plan, alleging
claims under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

On September 29, 2004, certain other plaintiffs in the federal
action in Baltimore, Maryland filed amended complaints which
included the Company and JP Morgan Securities, Inc. (JPMSI) as
defendants.  The amended complaints allege that JPMorgan Chase
and JPMSI, with several co-defendants including Bank of America,
Bank of America Securities, Canadian Imperial Commerce Bank,
Bear Stearns, and CFSB provided financing to Canary Capital
which was used to engage in the market timing and late trading.
JPMorgan Chase and JPMSI allegedly knowingly financed the market
timing and late trading by Canary Capital and Edward Stern, and
knowingly created short position equity baskets to allow Canary
to profit from trading in a falling market.


MATRIXX INITIATIVES: Zicam Users Lodge Suit Over Loss Of Smell
--------------------------------------------------------------
Users of homeopathic nasal spray Zicam Cold Remedy have filed a
proposed class action lawsuit, claiming the popular over-the-
counter product robbed them of their sense of smell, according
to a spokesman for the Phoenix-based Matrixx Initiatives Inc.,
the distributor Zicam, the Reuters reports.

The spokesman elaborated that the lawsuit had been prompted by
media reports on a flawed medical study and was without merit.
The Matrixx spokesman further stated that the lawsuit is also
seeking unspecified damages from retailers such as Walgreen Co.,
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Costco Wholesale Corp., Kroger Co., Rite
Aid Corp., Safeway Inc.

Filed in Arizona Superior Court last month and made public just
recently, that lawsuit claims that Matrixx and Botanical
Laboratories Inc. sold the homeopathic spray and gel without
proper testing. Doctors and some researchers have touted zinc
nasal sprays as a way to cut the length and severity of colds.

However, a University of Colorado study, presented in the
American Journal of Rhinology's May-June issue, linked zinc
sprays to loss of the sense of smell, or anosmia.

The Company has strongly defended Zicam as safe, and contends
the University of Colorado research relied on a "very, very weak
anecdotal report about one man in his 50s who had a lot of risk
factors for loss of smell." Robert Murphy, a spokesman for
Matrixx even said, "The product was marketed since 1999 and this
was not an issue until this (study) got into the media."


NEW YORK: Immigrants To Lodge Lawsuit Over Halt To Some Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Boris Khrapunskiy, a 97-year-old widower, who arrived in
Brooklyn as a refugee from Ukraine seven years ago and has
subsisted on federal and state disability payments, as elderly
or disabled poor people in New York State have done for the past
60 years will be the lead plaintiff in a class-action lawsuit
expected to be filed in State Supreme Court, charging that New
York State is violating the federal and state Constitutions by
using alien status to deny impoverished elderly, blind or
disabled residents the lawful standard of need, which in New
York has been set at $651 a month, the New York Times reports.

A letter from the government that Mr. Khrapunskiy received in
June 2004, saying his benefits would be cut off until he became
a United States citizen, prompted the legal action.

The letter from the government was the result of a 1996 decision
by Congress to eliminate Supplemental Security Income, or
S.S.I., for most immigrants who entered the country after August
22 of that year, and to set a seven-year time limit for others -
mainly refugees - receiving the welfare payment. New York State
echoed those restrictions in a 1998 law denying state aid to
anyone ineligible for federal benefits because of immigration
status. Congress had reasoned that seven years was long enough
to achieve citizenship, however time is up for the first wave of
refugees and those granted asylum, who number as many as 48,000
around the country, including 7,000 in New York. Most are
refugees from the former Soviet Union; others fled persecution
in Asia, Bosnia, Cuba or Africa. Hundreds have already lost
their benefits.

The case, which was brought by a coalition of lawyers for the
poor, argues that many refugees here have been caught short by
the deadline because of growing backlogs in naturalization since
the terror attacks of September 2001, and infirmities of age and
illness that prevented them from taking the citizenship test.

Among the 20 plaintiffs who have signed affidavits in the
lawsuit, some said they had been waiting for a citizenship
interview for as long as four years, or that they had to reapply
when immigration authorities lost their documents. Meanwhile,
they are reduced to public assistance grants of $352 a month,
which is too little to even cover their rent. Many are borrowing
from hard-pressed relatives to stave off eviction.

According to Barbara Weiner, a lawyer with the Greater Upstate
Law Project, one of several legal-service programs for the poor
involved in the lawsuit, "The state has established a minimum
income level that is necessary for people who are elderly and
disabled to live on, but it denies that same level of assistance
to some people just because they're immigrants. That violates
the state's constitutional duty to take care of poor people
without making distinctions that have nothing to do with their
need."

The lawyers point out that in 2001, New York's highest court
struck down a similar state restriction on non-emergency
Medicaid coverage for the immigrant poor, saying that it
violated the federal Constitution's guarantee of equal
protection and the state Constitution's requirement that the
state help the needy. The decision, which also said that the
state had usurped the federal government's exclusive
responsibility for regulating immigration, will dictate a
similar finding in this lawsuit, they contend.

Jack Madden, a spokesman for the state Office of Temporary and
Disability Assistance, said that Commissioner Robert Doar, who
is named as defendant, would not comment before seeing the legal
papers.

However, the plaintiffs' lawyers themselves acknowledge that if
they are successful, the long-term result could be expensive for
the state, unless Congress extends aid to lawful immigrants. The
court could require the state, which now adds $87 to the federal
monthly share of an S.S.I. grant, to pay more than three times
as much to fill the gap between the $352 basic grant for the
able-bodied and the $651 standard of need set for the elderly,
blind or disabled.

In addition to the special categories of immigrants granted
seven years of benefits by Congress, the lawsuit also
encompasses the growing number of other elderly or disabled
legal immigrants in the state who were never eligible for
federal S.S.I. at all because they entered the country after
welfare reform and have not yet obtained citizenship.

Some states, including Illinois, recently created temporary
special programs to fill the gap for refugees reaching the time
limit, while pushing for Congress to reconsider the deadline.
But bills that would have lengthened the time limit died this
year.

Meanwhile in New York, those already cut from benefits include
Sura Simonova, who is 90 and almost blind, and Yelena
Bragilevskaya, 76, who wrote in her affidavit, "I am very
grateful if the judge can help me get more money so we can pay
the rent and buy more food."

Another plaintiff, Marianna Popova, 67, said that her husband
died of cancer while waiting for citizenship, and that she
waited more than four years for a green-card interview. Now, six
years after she first applied, she has yet to receive one. In
July her S.S.I. was ended, and she is now four months behind on
her rent of $406 a month.


NEW YORK: Court Allows AT&T Stock Analyst Lawsuit To Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
In an important victory for investors, Manhattan Federal Judge
Gerard E. Lynch issued an opinion allowing AT&T stock buyers to
proceed with a class action lawsuit against Citigroup, Inc.,
Salomon Smith Barney -- Citigroup's investment banking division
(now renamed "Citigroup Capital Markets") -- former Citigroup
CEO Sanford Weill, and former Salomon Smith Barney research
analyst Jack Grubman.

Marc I. Gross, Esq., of the New York City office of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP is Lead Counsel for the
Louisiana School Employees Retirement System and Private Asset
Management, which are the Lead Plaintiffs in the case.

The lawsuit alleges that Grubman, Weill, Salomon Smith Barney,
and Citigroup carried out a scheme to defraud buyers and sellers
of AT&T stock by issuing false research analyst reports on AT&T.
The motive for the scheme was for Salomon to reap lucrative
investment banking business from AT&T, and for Grubman and Weill
to boost their personal compensation and gain other benefits.
(Claims based on Salomon's research coverage of AT&T Wireless
were dismissed.)

As Judge Lynch's opinion explains, the lawsuit alleges that
Grubman, Salomon's leading telecommunications analyst, had until
late 1999 consistently given AT&T lukewarm ratings and analysis.
On November 29, 1999, Grubman announced that he was upgrading
AT&T from his "Neutral" rating to the highest possible "Buy"
rating. The lawsuit charges that Grubman's AT&T rating upgrade
was fraudulent and did not reflect Grubman's true assessment of
the stock.

The lawsuit alleges that Weill persuaded Grubman to issue the
fraudulent upgrade in part in order to win investment banking
business for Salomon from AT&T. Following Grubman's upgrade,
AT&T selected Salomon for an important banking assignment
through which Salomon earned $63 million in fees.

According to the lawsuit, an additional motive behind Weill's
efforts to convince Grubman to issue the fraudulent upgrade was
Weill's desire to gain the support of then-AT&T CEO Michael
Armstrong -- who sat on Citigroup's board -- in Weill's
ultimately successful campaign to become sole Chairman of
Citigroup by ousting then co-Chairman John Reed.

The lawsuit charges that Grubman and Weill agreed that as a
payback for Grubman's AT&T upgrade, Weill would arrange for
Grubman's twin toddlers to be admitted to one of New York City's
most prestigious and competitive nursery schools, which was
located at the 92nd Street Y.

As in many other major recent cases charging corporate fraud,
some of the most revealing documents are e-mails. The complaint
alleges, for example, that in January 2001, Grubman gloated in
an e-mail about some of his motives for upgrading AT&T. After
referring to the AT&T upgrade, Grubman declared in his e-mail
that:

"I used Sandy (Weill) to get my kids in 92nd ST Y pre-school
(which is harder than Harvard) and Sandy (Weill) needed
Armstrong's vote on our board to nuke Reed in showdown. Once
coast was clear for both of us (ie Sandy clear victor and my
kids confirmed) I went back to my normal negative self on
(AT&T)."

In rejecting defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Lynch noted
that "plaintiffs . . . claim . . . that Grubman intentionally
lied about his true opinions when he issued research reports for
(Salomon) on AT&T, and that these deliberate lies were
disseminated with the knowledge and, indeed, encouragement of
(Salomon) and Citigroup at the highest levels, up to and
including the Chairman of the Board."

Plaintiffs will now have the opportunity to conduct discovery,
including reviewing internal Salomon and Citigroup documents,
and questioning Weill, Grubman, and other key witnesses under
oath.

For more details, contact Russel N. Jacobson, Esq. of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (212) 661-1100 by E-
mail: rnjacobson@pomlaw.com.


ROBERT BOSCH: Recalls 120,000 Table Saws Due To Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Bosch Tool Corporation, of Mount Prospect, Illinois is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 120,000 Skilr Table
Saw Model 3400.

The blade drive mechanism may loosen or the motor can separate
from the tool. Loosening of the blade drive mechanism can result
in kickback of the item being sawed, resulting in possible
laceration. Motor unit separation can cause the coasting saw
blade to damage the saw wiring resulting in possible electric
shock, or the separated motor could strike the user and cause
injury. Robert Bosch Tool Corporation has received eleven
reports of loose or broken motors. No injury or property damage
has been reported.

Only Skilr table saws with model number 3400 printed on the
front side of the table base with the date codes listed below
are included in the recall. Date codes are printed on the upper
right corner of the table base and include 2002 date codes
28501-28831, 2003 codes 38101-39231 and 2004 codes 48101-48811.
The table saw holds a 10-inch blade and is made of metal
tabletop with a red plastic base.

Manufactured in Taiwan, the saws were sold at all Home Depot,
Lowe's and Menards as well as independent hardware retailers
nationwide from July 2002 through October 2004 for between $149
and $199.

Contact Robert Bosch Tool Corporation to receive a repair kit.
The kit includes hardware and instructions for installation.

Consumer Contact: Robert Bosch Tool Corporation at
(800) 351-5788 between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m. CT Monday through
Friday or visit the Skil Web site at http://www.skil.com.


SCAG POWER: Recalls 16T Riding Lawn Tractors Due To Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scag Power Equipment, of Mayville, Wisconsin is cooperating with
the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 16,000 Scag Tiger Cub Riding Lawn
Tractors.

Fuel can leak out of the carburetor, posing a risk of fire and
burn injuries. Scag is aware of 20 incidents, all of which
involved fires and damage to tractors. Two consumers received
minor burn injuries to their hands as a result of trying to put
out fires involving these lawn tractors.

The recalled zero-turn-radius riding lawn tractors are "Cat's
Eye Gold" with black trim, and have a vinyl seat. The body of
the tractor has "Scag Tiger Cub" written in red on the side and
front of the tractor. The following model and serial numbers can
be found under the seat, next to the hydraulic pump on the right
hand side.

Model Numbers = Serial Numbers

     (1) STC40-17KA = 4910001-4910004; 5810001-5810310; 6570001-
                      6570250

     (2) STC48-19KA = 5870001-5870071

     (3) STC48A-19KA = 5880001-5880511; 6580001-6580550;
                       7630001-7630875; 8400001-8404750

     (4) STC48-21KA = 5820001-5820050

     (5) STC48A-21KA = 4920001-4920002; 5890001-5890561;
                       6600001-6601150; 7650001-7650975;
                       8420001-8420342

     (6) STC52A-21KA = 5900001-5900117; 6610001-6610150

     (7) STC52A-23KA = 5910001-5910571; 6620001-6620900;
                       7670001-7671298; 8430001-8430600

     (8) STC61A-25KA = 8440001-8441794

Manufactured in the United States, the tractors were sold at
authorized Scag Power equipment dealers nationwide from November
1999 through July 2003 for between $5,000 and $8,000.

Consumers should stop using these tractors immediately and
contact a Scag Equipment dealer for a free repair. The company
is directly notifying those consumers who completed and returned
warranty cards.

Consumer Contact: For information on locating a dealer near you,
contact Scag Equipment Customer Service toll-free at
(866) 821-9208 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. ET, Monday through
Friday and 9 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. ET Saturday.


SECURITIES CLASS: Outlines Claims Roadmap To $8.4B Settlements
--------------------------------------------------------------
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS), the world's leading
provider of proxy voting and corporate governance services,
recently revealed that its wholly-owned subsidiary, Securities
Class Action Services (SCAS), will hold an institutional webcast
on December 7 at 12:30pm eastern to outline the roadmap for
investors who are due more than $8 billion in settlements. ISS
has identified more than $5.8 billion in pending and tentative
settlements in securities class action cases for which
investors' claim deadline has not passed. On top of that, there
is currently an estimated $2.6 billion in pending SEC
settlements under the Fair Funds provision of Sarbanes-Oxley.

"The magnitude of the recovery that is now coming due is
enormous," said Bruce Carton, executive director of SCAS. "What
is truly amazing is the number of investors, including many
institutions, that are uninformed about the recovery process,
resulting in hundreds of millions of settlement dollars being
left on the table."

In addition to Mr. Carton, Scott W. Friestad, Assistant
Director, Division of Enforcement, U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission, will discuss the recent explosion of SEC-generated
settlement dollars and explain how investors can determine
eligibility and collect their share of these recoveries.

ISS' Securities Class Action Services maintains the industry's
most comprehensive database on securities class action
litigation and provides professional monitoring and claims
filing services to investment managers whose clients have a
stake in class action suits. As of November 18, 2004, the
Settlement Pipeline had climbed to $5.8 billion. The largest
pending settlements in which shareholders may currently file
claims include WorldCom/Citigroup ($2.575 billion), Raytheon
Company ($460 million), and Bristol-Myers Squibb Company ($300
million). The largest tentative settlements that have been
announced but in which claims cannot yet be filed include the
IPO Securities Litigation ($1 billion), Enron Corp./Lehman
Brothers ($222.5 million), and Charter Communications ($144
million).

To register online for ISS' institutional webcast on December 7
at 12:30pm eastern, go to http://www.issproxy.com/classaction.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Trial in IL Securities Suit Set For August 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class actions filed against
Sears Roebuck & Co. and certain of its current and former
officers is set for August 8,2005 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

On and after October 18, 2002, several actions were filed
alleging that certain public announcements by the Company
concerning its credit card business violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  The Court has consolidated the actions
and certified the consolidated action as a class action.
Discovery is underway.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Sears Roebuck & Co., certain of its officers and
directors and alleged fiduciaries of Sears' 401(k) Savings Plan
(the "Plan"), in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

On and after November 15, 2002, several actions were filed,
seeking damages and equitable relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").  The
plaintiffs purport to represent participants in the Plan, and
allege breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection
with the Plan's investment in the Company's common shares and
alleged communications made to Plan participants regarding the
Company's financial condition.


SEARS ROEBUCK: IL Court Allows Plaintiffs To File Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois allowed plaintiffs to file an amended class action
against Sears Roebuck & Co., and certain officers, alleging
violations of federal securities laws.

The suit, initially filed on behalf of a class of all persons
who, between June 21, 2002 and October 17, 2002, purchased the
7% notes that Sears Roebuck Acceptance Corporation (SRAC) issued
on June 21, 2002.  An amended complaint has been filed, naming
as additional defendants certain former officers, SRAC and
several investment banking firms who acted as underwriters for
SRAC's March 18, May 21 and June 21, 2002 notes offerings.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations or omissions concerning its credit business
during the class period and in the registration statements and
prospectuses relating to the offerings.  The amended complaint
alleges that these misrepresentations and omissions violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons who purchased any security of SRAC between
October 24, 2001 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action.  On
September 24, 2004, the court granted these motions in part, and
denied them in part.  The court dismissed the claims related to
the March 18 and May 21, 2002 note offerings because the
plaintiff did not purchase notes in those offerings.  The court
dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against
several of the individual defendants because the plaintiff
failed to adequately plead such claims.  The court sustained the
remaining claims.  By invitation of the court, on October 1,
2004, defendants moved to dismiss the Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) claims not dismissed in the court's ruling. On
October 5, 2004, the court granted the plaintiff leave to file a
second amended complaint.


SEMCO ENERGY: Faces Amended Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in WV
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against SEMCO Energy,
Inc., SEMCO Energy Ventures, Inc. and approximately 30 other
defendants in the United States District Court for the District
of West Virginia, alleging violations of the Sherman Antitrust
Act and tortious interference.

In October 2003, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action
in the jurisdiction in which the action was originally filed and
gave the Company notice that it would re-file the complaint in a
different jurisdiction.  In November 2003, the plaintiff filed a
separate but similar lawsuit against SEMCO Energy Services,
Inc., a company subsidiary no longer actively engaged in
business and whose operations were sold in 1999. This lawsuit
was voluntarily dismissed by the plaintiff in July 2004.  A
variation of the aforementioned putative class action lawsuit
was filed in July 2004.  Neither the Company nor any of its
subsidiaries were named as defendants.

In late October 2004, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
naming, among others, SEMCO Energy Services, Inc. and SEMCO
Pipeline Company as additional defendants. The amended lawsuit
alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, the West
Virginia Antitrust Act and various common law claims.


SOUTH KOREA: Limited Pardon Mulled For Class Action System Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
South Korea's Ministry of Finance and Economy (MOFE) and the
Ministry of Justice (MOJ) have tentatively agreed that corporate
irregular accounting committed before the enforcement of the
class action system from January 1, 2005 will not be subject to
lawsuits, the Korea Times reports.

Through an appeal to lawmakers, the two ministries are set to
unveil the detailed additional clauses for the class action suit
against corporate accounting irregularities during the first
quarter of next year.

According to the government and accounting regulators, there
will be no problem as long as the government announces its
stance before March 31, 2005 when conglomerates with assets more
than 2 trillion won complete their first-quarter operating
activities.

It has been found that the finance-economy ministry and the
justice ministry are in final discussions over whether or not to
exclude all of the past fraudulent accounting in the enforcement
of the law. In an interview with the Korea Times MOFE spokesman
Kim Kyung-hoh said, "It is difficult for the government to
pardon habitual perpetrators of the accounting rules who
critically damaged investors' rights though we understand the
viewpoints of the companies."

Noting that Deputy Prime Minister and Finance-Economy Minister
Lee Hun-jai have accessed the accounting class action issue on
the basis of market-friendly policies, Mr. Kim hinted the
possibility of adding several clauses to exclude past
misstatements is high, which is also based on the favorable
stance of lawmakers acquainted with the financial sector, and
Financial Supervisory Commission (FSC) Chairman Yoon Jeung-hyun
toward conglomerates' appealing for excluding past accounting
book-rigging from the new law.

Hwang In-tae, chief accountant at the Financial Supervisory
Service (FSS), an arm of the FSC, has also winked at the rising
possibility of the exclusion to some extent. But he added it is
difficult for the FSS to reveal its official standpoint, since
according to him, "Opinion is divided on the issue among us
(accounting regulatory officials at the FSC/FSS). Though we
cannot officially agree with the appeal, we are not skeptical of
their view."

But he suggested that the class action suit system couldn't be a
panacea in reducing companies' rigging of their financial
statements, regardless of giving the amnesty. Citing the United
States, which implemented the same law in 1938, as an example,
Mr. Hwang said the number of American companies engaged in
accounting fraud has come to 200 per annum on the average, or 2
to 3 percent of the total publicly traded companies.

Samil PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) vice president Kim Young-sik
said the securities and accounting-related class action bill,
which passed the National Assembly in December 2003, is
originally a proactive law, not a retroactive one. "Should the
law have retroactive power, a number of companies could suffer
from their long-lasting misstatements under the exceptionality
of the accounting sector in which past financial statements to
be linked with current statements," he adds. Furthermore, he
stated that the proactive law is aimed at the prevention and
reduction of irregular accounting under the motive of the law
adoption.

In a statement last May, the FSS said the class action lawsuit
regulations would not be applicable to companies, which take
appropriate action to correct any accounting fraud committed
before the law's implementation. Bur, despite the regulator's
statement, companies have been afraid of an interpretation of
the law in a broad sense which may highlight past records in the
wake of the voluntary efforts to correct the misstatements. FSC
Chairman and FSS Governor Yoon Jeung-hyun is scheduled to meet
CEOs of local major conglomerates on December 15.

Apart from the issue on including or excluding past records in
the class action suits, the FSC/FSS are empowered to sanction
accounting rule violators even though the fraud was committed
before 2005 under the external accounting audit law.

The U.S. and South Korea are the only countries in the world to
have introduced the securities and accounting-related class
action suit.


ST. JUDE: Continues To Face, Trying To Settle Silzone Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. is working to resolve litigation filed
against it over its mechanical heart valves and valve repair
products, which incorporated a Silzone coating.

The Company began marketing these products in July 1997.  The
Company later began marketing heart valve repair products
incorporating a Silzone coating.  The Silzone coating was
intended to reduce the risk of endocarditis, a bacterial
infection affecting heart tissue, which is associated with
replacement heart valves.  In January 2000, the Company
voluntarily recalled all field inventories of Silzone devices
after receiving information from a clinical study that patients
with a Silzone valve had a small, but statistically significant,
increased incidence of explant due to paravalvular leak compared
to patients in that clinical study with non-Silzone heart
valves.

Subsequent to the Company's voluntary recall, the Company has
been sued in various jurisdictions and now has cases pending in
the United States, Canada, and United Kingdom by some patients
who received a Silzone device.  Some of these claims allege
bodily injuries as a result of an explant or other
complications, which they attribute to the Silzone devices.
Others, who have not had their device explanted, seek
compensation for past and future costs of special monitoring
they allege they need over and above the medical monitoring all
replacement heart valve patients receive.  Some of the lawsuits
seeking the cost of monitoring have been initiated by patients
who are asymptomatic and who have no apparent clinical injury to
date.

The Company has settled a number of these Silzone-related cases
and others have been dismissed.  Cases filed in the United
States in federal courts have been consolidated in the federal
district court for the district of Minnesota under Judge
Tunheim.  A number of class-action complaints have been
consolidated into one case seeking certification of two separate
classes.  One proposed class in the consolidated complaint seeks
injunctive relief in the form of medical monitoring.  A second
class in the consolidated complaint seeks an unspecified amount
of monetary damages.  In a March 27, 2003 ruling, the Court
conditionally certified two separate classes, and also certified
a class for patients claiming relief under Minnesota's Consumer
Protection Statutes.

On January 5, 2004, the judge issued further rulings concerning
the classes that he had conditionally certified.  More
specifically, the judge declined to grant class-action status to
personal injury claims; however, he granted class-action status
for patients from a limited group of states to proceed with
medical monitoring claims.  Judge Tunheim also ruled against the
Company in a separate order on the issue of preemption and held
that the plaintiff's causes of action were not preempted by the
U.S. Food and Drug Act.

In a July 15, 2004 order, Judge Tunheim added three additional
states to the limited group of states from which he determined
residents with Silzone valves could proceed with a class action
involving medical monitoring claims so long as they did not have
a clinical injury.  (In other words, Judge Tunheim concluded
that residents from 17 states could proceed with a class action
involving medical monitoring, while residents from other states
could not be part of that class).  In this order, the Court also
indicated that the class action he certified under Minnesota's
Consumer Protection Statutes should proceed.

The Company requested the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals to
review Judge Tunheim's class certification orders and his
preemption order.  In a September 2, 2004 order, the appellate
court indicated it would accept the appeal of Judge Tunheim's
certification orders and set forth a briefing schedule for that
appeal.  The appellate court also indicated that it would not
accept review of Judge Tunheim's decision regarding federal
preemption at this time.  It is not expected that the appellate
court would complete its review and issue a decision concerning
the appeal of the rulings regarding class certification until
sometime in mid to late 2005.

In addition to the class-type claims, as of October 22, 2004,
there are 19 individual Silzone cases pending in various federal
courts where plaintiffs are each requesting damages ranging from
$9.5 thousand to $120.5 million and, in some cases, seeking an
unspecified amount.  These cases are proceeding in accordance
with the orders issued by Judge Tunheim.  There are also 22
individual state court suits pending as of October 22, 2004
involving 30 patients.  The complaints in these cases each
request damages ranging from $50 thousand to $100 thousand and,
in some cases, seek an unspecified amount.  These state court
cases are proceeding in accordance with the orders issued by the
judges in those matters.

In addition, a lawsuit seeking a class action for all persons
residing in the European Economic Union member jurisdictions who
have had a heart valve replacement and/or repair procedure using
a product with Silzone coating has been filed in Minnesota state
court.  The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount for
the class, and in excess of $50 thousand for the representative
plaintiff individually.  The complaint also seeks injunctive
relief in the form of medical monitoring.  The Company removed
this matter to the federal court in Minnesota, but the
plaintiffs challenged this removal.  In an August 5, 2004 order,
the federal court returned the case to Minnesota state court.
The Company has filed motions in the state court seeking to have
the claims dismissed.

There are also four class-action cases and one individual case
pending against the Company in Canada.  In one such case in
Ontario, the court certified that a class action may proceed
involving Silzone patients.  The most recent decision on
certification was issued by the Ontario court on January 16,
2004, but the Company has moved for leave to appeal the rulings
on certification.  A second case seeking class action in Ontario
has been stayed pending resolution of the other Ontario action,
and the matter seeking class action in British Columbia has been
relatively inactive.  A court in the Province of Quebec has
certified a class action.  In the United Kingdom, two cases
involving two separate plaintiffs have been filed.  The
complaints in these cases request damages of unspecified
amounts.  One of these matters has not been served upon the
Company, and the other is only in very preliminary stages.


ST. JUDE: Faces 16 Lawsuits Over Symmetry Aortic Connector
----------------------------------------------------------
St. Jude Medical, Inc. faces sixteen cases in the United States,
alleging that its Symmetry Bypass System Aortic Connector
(Symmetry device) caused bodily injury or might cause bodily
injury.  In addition, a number of persons have made a claim
against the Company involving the Symmetry device without filing
a lawsuit.

The first lawsuit involving the Symmetry device was filed
against the Company on August 5, 2003, and the most recently
initiated case was served upon the Company on September 24,
2004.  Each of the complaints in these cases request damages
ranging from $50 thousand to $100 thousand and, in some cases,
seek an unspecified amount.

Four of the sixteen cases are seeking class-action status.  One
of the cases seeking class-action status has been dismissed but
the dismissal is being appealed by the plaintiff.  In a second
case seeking class action status, a Magistrate Judge has
recommended that the matter not proceed as a class action, and
the parties are presently awaiting the Court to review the
Magistrate's decision.  A third case seeking class action status
has been indefinitely stayed by the Court, and is presently
inactive.  The Company believes the plaintiffs in those cases
seeking class-action status seek or will seek damages for
injuries and monitoring costs, it stated in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

The Company's Symmetry device was cleared through a 510(K)
submission to the FDA, and therefore, is not eligible for the
defense under the doctrine of federal preemption that such suits
are prohibited.  Given the Company's self-insured retention
levels under its product liability insurance policies, the
Company expects that it will be solely responsible for these
lawsuits, including any costs of defense, settlements and
judgments.  Company management believes that class-action status
is not appropriate for the claims asserted based on the facts
and case law, it said in its filing with the SEC.


STAR MARK: Recalls Palm Fan Vegetables For Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Star Mark Management Inc., 1101 Metropolitan Ave., Brooklyn, NY
11211 is recalling "PALM FAN Dehydrated Vegetable", because it
contains undeclared sulfites. Consumers who have a severe
sensitivity to sulfites may run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reactions, if they consume this product.

The recalled "PALM FAN Dehydrated Vegetable" is packaged in
uncoded, 7 oz. (198g), clear plastic bags. The product was sold
in the New York City area.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by Department Food Laboratory personnel
revealed the presence of sulfites in "Dehydrated Vegetable", in
packages which did not declare sulfites as an ingredient on the
label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased "PALM FAN Dehydrated Vegetable" are
urged to return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the Star Mark Management, Inc. at (718)
486-0188.


TECO ENERGY: Shareholders Launch Securities Lawsuits in M.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
TECO Energy, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of
TECO Energy, Inc. (NYSE: TE) between October 30, 2001 and
February 4, 2003, including anyone who purchased in the October
10, 2002 or June 5, 2002 equity offerings or the January 10,
2002, May 8, 2002 or January 10, 2002 debt offerings.

The suits uniformly allege that, during the Class Period,
Defendants, TECO, Robert D. Fagan, and Gordon L. Gillette,
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

These actions are at the initial pleading stage. The company
intends to defend them vigorously, the Company stated in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


TELLABS INC.: Appeals Court Yet To Rule On IL Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to
rule on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Tellabs, Inc., Michael
Birck and Richard Notebaert, former CEO, President and Director
of the Company.

On June 18, 2002, a class action complaint was filed in the
United States District Court of the Northern District of
Illinois, alleging that during the class period (December 11,
2000 to June 19, 2001) the defendants violated the federal
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements, including, among other things, allegedly providing
revenue forecasts that were false and misleading,
misrepresenting demand for the Company's products, and reporting
overstated revenues for the fourth quarter 2000 in the Company's
financial statements.  Further, certain of the individual
defendants were alleged to have violated the federal securities
laws by trading the Company's securities while allegedly in
possession of material, non-public information about the Company
pertaining to these matters.

On January 17, 2003, the Company and the other named defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint in its entirety.  On May 19, 2003, the Court granted
the Company's motion and dismissed all counts of the
consolidated amended complaint, while affording plaintiffs an
opportunity to replead.  On July 11, 2003, plaintiffs filed a
second consolidated amended class action complaint against
Tellabs, Mr. Birck and Mr. Notebaert, and many (although not
all) of the other previously named individual defendants, re-
alleging claims similar to those contained in the previously
dismissed consolidated amended class action complaint.

The Company filed a second motion to dismiss on August 22, 2003,
seeking the dismissal with prejudice of all claims alleged in
the second consolidated amended class action complaint.  On
February 19, 2004, the Court issued an order granting that
motion and dismissed the action with prejudice.  On March 18,
2004, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United
States Federal Court of Appeal for the Seventh Circuit appealing
the dismissal. The appeal has been fully briefed and is waiting
oral argument and decision.


TELLABS INC.: Named As Defendant in Advanced Fiber Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tellabs, Inc. was named as a defendant in the class action filed
in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware in and for New
Castle County on behalf of a putative class of Advanced Fiber
Communications, Inc. (AFC) stockholders.  The suit also names as
defendants AFC, which the Company acquired in May 2004, and
certain of its current officers and directors.

The complaint alleges that the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to AFC's public stockholders by acting to
cause or facilitate the merger of Tellabs and AFC for inadequate
consideration, and that Tellabs acted to aid and abet the
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  In particular, plaintiff
alleges that the merger consideration originally offered by
Tellabs to AFC's public stockholders prior to the amendment and
restatement of the merger agreement is unfair and inadequate
because, according to the plaintiff:

     (1) the intrinsic value of the stock of AFC is materially
         in excess of the $21.24 per share being proposed,
         giving due consideration to the possibilities of growth
         and profitability of AFC in light of its business,
         earnings and earnings power, present and future;

     (2) the $21.24 per share price is inadequate and offers an
         inadequate premium to the public shareholders of AFC;
         and

     (3) the $21.24 per share price is not the result of any
         structure[d] auction process by which AFC sought to
         obtain the best deal possible for its shareholders.

The plaintiff seeks to enjoin the merger, and if the merger is
consummated, to rescind the transaction, and also asserts claims
for unspecified compensatory and/or rescissory damages, and an
award of costs, including attorneys' fees.


TEXTRON INC.: Remaining Claims in ERISA Lawsuit Sent To RI Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The remaining claims in the consolidated class action filed
against Textron, Inc. has been sent back to the United States
District Court in Rhode Island for further proceedings.

Two identical lawsuits, purporting to be class actions on behalf
of the Company's benefit plans and participants and
beneficiaries of those plans during 2000 and 2001, were filed in
2002 against the Company, the Textron Savings Plan and the
Plan's trustee.  A consolidated amended complaint alleges breach
of certain fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), based on the amount of Plan assets
invested in Textron stock during 2000 and 2001.  The complaint
seeks equitable relief and compensatory damages on behalf of
various Textron benefit plans and the participants and
beneficiaries of those plans during 2000 and 2001 to compensate
for alleged losses relating to Textron stock held as an asset of
those plans.

The company's Motion to Dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was granted on June 24, 2003.  On May 7, 2004, the
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed
dismissal of all claims against the Plan's trustee and against
the Plan itself, and also affirmed dismissal of certain other
claims against the Company.  However, the Court of Appeals ruled
that plaintiffs should be permitted to attempt to develop their
breach of fiduciary duty claims, and remanded those claims to
the District Court.  The Company's petition for rehearing en
banc by the First Circuit Court of Appeals has been denied, and
the matter has been sent back to the District Court for further
proceedings.


TORCHMARK CORPORATION: Actuary Appointed to Report on Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama ordered the
appointment of an independent actuary to report back to the
Court on certain issues relating to the settlement of the class
action filed against Torchmark Corporation and Liberty National
Life Insurance Company.

Several suits were initially filed in the Circuit Court of
Choctaw County, Alabama on behalf of all persons who currently
or in the past were insured under Liberty cancer policies which
were no longer being marketed, regardless of whether the
policies remained in force or lapsed (Roberts v. Liberty
National Life Insurance Company, Case No. CV-2002-009-B).  These
cases were based on allegations of breach of contract in the
implementation of premium rate increases, misrepresentation
regarding the premium rate increases, fraud and suppression
concerning the closed block of business and unjust enrichment.

On December 30, 2003 the Alabama Supreme Court issued an opinion
granting Liberty's and the Company's petition for a writ of
mandamus, concluding that the Choctaw Circuit Court did not have
subject matter jurisdiction and ordering that Circuit Court to
dismiss the action.  The plaintiffs then filed their purported
class action litigation against Liberty and the Company in the
Circuit Court of Barbour County, Alabama on December 30, 2003
(Roberts v. Liberty National Life Insurance Company, Civil
Action No. CV2003 0137).

On April 16, 2004 the parties filed a written Stipulation of
Agreement of Compromise and Settlement with the Barbour County,
Alabama Circuit Court seeking potential settlement of the
Roberts case.  A fairness hearing on the potential settlement
was held by the Barbour County Circuit Court on July 15, 2004.
After receipt of briefs on certain issues and submission of
materials relating to objections to the proposed settlement to
the Court-appointed special master, the Court reconvened the
previously-continued fairness hearing on September 23, 2004.


UNITED AMERICAN: Named As Defendant in AR Policyholder Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
United American Insurance Company has been named as a defendant
in purported class action litigation filed in the Circuit Court
of Saline County, Arkansas on behalf of the Arkansas purchasers
of association group health insurance policies or certificates
issued by thje Compny through Heartland Alliance of America
Association and Farm & Ranch Healthcare, Inc.

The suit is styled "Smith and Ivie v. Collingsworth, et al.,
CV2004-742-2."  The plaintiffs assert claims for fraudulent
concealment, breach of contract, common law liability for non-
disclosure, breach of fiduciary duties, civil conspiracy, unjust
enrichment, violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, and violation of Arkansas law and the rules and regulations
of the Arkansas Insurance Department.  Declaratory, injunctive
and equitable relief, as well as actual and punitive damages are
sought by the plaintiffs.


UNITED STATES: Soldiers Lodge Lawsuit Over Iraq Duty Extensions
---------------------------------------------------------------
In an attempt to prevent the Pentagon from requiring them to
continue to serve in Iraq under emergency orders that
involuntarily extended their tours of duty, eight soldiers have
initiated a class-action lawsuit in federal court, the
Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

Filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the
lawsuit was the first legal challenge to Iraq service by active-
duty troops, and it is the first class-action suit representing
a group of soldiers. Several other soldiers have filed lawsuits
in recent weeks, but they had not yet been sent to Iraq.

The Pentagon has used its "stop-loss" policy, which was
authorized by President Bush in an executive order three days
after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, to extend the
assignments of 40,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, most of
them reservists.

According to David Qualls of Morrilton, Arkansas, the only
soldier identified in the new lawsuit, he has served in Iraq
since March 5, most of the time in an extremely dangerous area
north of Baghdad. "I've fulfilled my duties," Mr. Qualls, who is
home on leave, said.

After enlisting and serving in the Army for 56 months through
October 1990, most of the time on active duty, Mr. Qualls signed
up with the Arkansas National Guard on July 7, 2003, under a
"Try One" program that obligated him to serve one year. The suit
seeks an injunction to prevent his departure on Friday to return
to Iraq.

Jules Lobel, one of several lawyers representing Mr. Qualls and
the other soldiers, accused the Pentagon of running "a classic
bait-and-switch operation" by signing up soldiers under one set
of promises and then changing the rules. "It's a backdoor
draft," he said. "All of this is being done simply to hide the
human cost of the war."

About 135,000 American troops are in Iraq, but the Pentagon is
using duty extensions to provide increased security for
elections scheduled for late January.

Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, a Pentagon spokesman, explains that the
stop-loss policy helps to protect active military units from the
disruption of soldiers rotating in and out on the combat field.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: To Ask PA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Universal Health Services, Inc. intends to ask the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its officers and directors.

The suit alleges that defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by disclosing
materially false and misleading information or failing to
disclose material information necessary to make other disclosure
not misleading or to correct prior disclosure with respect to
the Company's financial condition and operations.

A claim is asserted against the individual defendants under
section 20(a) of the Exchange Act alleging that because they
controlled the Company, they should be held liable for damages
caused by the Company's violation of section 10(b) and Rule 10b-
5 thereunder.  Plaintiffs seek, on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of the Company's common stock during a class
period from July 21, 2003 through February 27, 2004, unspecified
money damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
expenses.

A motion was made in the class action litigation to consolidate
the cases and appoint the lead plaintiff in the litigation and
counsel for such plaintiff.  On August 3, 2004, the Court
entered an Order granting the motion and directing plaintiffs to
serve an Amended Consolidated Complaint in the consolidated
action "Lloyd Freed, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, vs, Universal Health Services, Inc., Alan B.
Miller and Steve G. Filton (Cv. 04-1233)."  Plaintiffs filed
that complaint on September 29, 2004.


UNIVERSAL HEALTH: Faces Uninsured Patients Lawsuits in NV, SC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Certain of Universal Health Services, Inc.'s subsidiaries faces
several class actions filed on behalf of uninsured patients in
various court.

A class action lawsuit is pending in the District Court of Clark
County, Nevada, alleging that the subsidiaries violated various
state and federal laws by reason that they charged greater fees
to uninsured patients for medical services than the Company
charged to insured patients for similar services. The plaintiffs
seek damages and declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of
the purported class.

In addition, on October 1, 2004, a purported class action was
filed against Aiken Regional Medical Center in the Court of
Common Pleas in Aiken, South Carolina, by an uninsured former
patient of the hospital, seeking to represent herself and a
class of similarly situated uninsured hospital patients.  The
complaint asserts a number of claims under South Carolina law
that allegedly arise from the hospital's purported practice of
charging uninsured patients higher rates than it charges to
insured patients.  According to the Complaint, the amounts that
the hospital charges its uninsured patients are unreasonable.
The plaintiff seeks damages and restitution of overpayments.


                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
-------------------------------------------------


December 9, 2004
D&O LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
ASBESTOS PREMISES LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DEFECT & MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Lake Las Vegas, Las Vegas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 9-10, 2004
RETAIL LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Ceasars Palace, Las Vegas, NV
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 12-14, 2004
THE 9TH ANNUAL CONFERENCE FOR IN-HOUSE COUNSEL & TRIAL ATTORNEYS
DRUG & MEDICAL DEVICE LITIGATION
American Conferences
The Plaza Hotel, New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

December 13-14, 2004
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Westin St. Francis, San Francisco, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

December 15-16, 2004
WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
New Orleans
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

January 19-21, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
San Juan, Puerto Rico
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

January 20-21, 2005
VIOXXr LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Wyndham Philadelphia at Franklin Plaza Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 24-25, 2005
PREVENTING AND DEFENCING OBESITY CLAIMS:  THE LATEST INFORMATION
ON LEGAL EXPOSURES, LEGISLATION
AND DEFENSE STRATEGIES
American Conferences
St. Regis Hotel, Washington DC
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

January 24-25, 2005
THIRD ANNUAL ADVANCED INSURANCE COVERAGE CONFERENCE: TOP TEN
ISSUES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 31-February 01, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS DEFENSE STRATEGIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL
LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

January 31-February 01, 2005
EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LIABILITY INSURANCE
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

February 10-11, 2005
ACCOUNTANTS' LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

February 10-11, 2005
CLINICAL TRIALS
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

February 14-15, 2005
REINSURANCE 101 CONFERENCE: LITIGATION & ARBITRATION
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 14-15, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Pentagon City, Washington, DC
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 17-19, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE LITIGATION COMMITTEE MEETING
American Bar Association
Phoenix, AZ
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

February 22-23, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE 2005: CLAIM TRENDS & LITIGATION
New York, NY
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

February 28, 2005
LEXISNEXIS PRESENTS WALL STREET FORUM: ASBESTOS
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

February 28 - March 1, 2005
REINSURANCE ARBITRATIONS
American Conferences
New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

February 28 - March 1, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 1, 2005
INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION EXPOSURES
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Battery Park, New York City
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 3-4, 2005
TRANSPORTATION MEGACONFERENCE VII
American Bar Association
New Orleans, LA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conferences
Coral Gables
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 7-8, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 7-8, 2005
CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
San Francisco
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 18, 2005
CONFERENCE ON INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
American Bar Association
New York
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

March 14-15, 2005
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect
The Plaza New York, New York
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-436-6094

April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

August 25-26, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
City to be announced
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

December 07-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-31, 2004
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-31, 2004
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

December 01-31, 2004
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

January 11, 2005
WHY OUR CLIENTS' INSURANCE POLICIES MAY NO LONGER MEET THEIR
GREATEST NEEDS AND WHAT THEY CAN DO ABOUT IT
ABA-CLE
Contact:  800-285-2221


TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS (2004)
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN STOCK: Lovell Stewart Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP, and Squitieri &
Fearon, LLP initiated a securities class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of investors who sought to execute direct access
limit orders to buy or sell options listed at the American Stock
Exchange by certain specialist firms and who were wrongfully
refused executions and suffered damages between April 2, 2001
and December 3, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants, in clear violation of and
contrary to the Firm Quote Rule, materially misrepresented both

     (1) real time electronically displayed "bid" Equals and
         "ask" Equals quotes on listed equity options and

     (2) that customer orders would be executed instantaneously
         when plaintiff (and other "Direct Access" Equals
         customers) accepted the bid or offer that was
         electronically displayed by the particular options
         specialist.

Instead, defendants knowingly and intentionally, systematically
refused to execute stock option transactions when Plaintiff, and
others, submitted a limit order that specifically accepted the
displayed quote or was specifically within the electronically
displayed bid and ask -- which, under the appropriate
circumstances, should have been executed instantaneously.
Plaintiff claims that the wrongful conduct described above
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 and gives rise to state law claims such
as breach of contract.

For more details, contact David Leifer, Shareholder Relations of
Lovell Stewart Halebian LLP by Mail: 500 Fifth Avenue, New York,
New York 10110 by Phone: (212) 608-1900 by E-mail:
dleifer@lshllp.com.


UTSTARCOM INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of UTStarcom, Inc.
("UTStarcom" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: UTSI) between April 16,
2003 and August 10, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending before the Honorable Martin J. Jenkins,
case no. 04-5132, in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendants UTStarcom,
Hong Liang Lu (Chairman, CEO, and President), Michael J. Sophie
(CFO and a Senior VP), Thomas J. Toy (Director), Ying Wu
(Executive VP and Vice Chairman), and Vice Presidents Howard
Kwock, Gerald S. Soloway, Shao-Ning J. Chou, and Bill Huang.
According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

The complaint alleges that UTStarcom provides IP access
networking solutions and international service and support to
operators in telecommunications markets around the world.
Throughout the Class Period, UTStarcom reported record results
and projected continuous profitability in publicly disseminated
press releases and SEC filings. Defendants attributed the
positive results and guidance to growing demand for its products
and services globally, particularly in China. Unbeknownst to the
Class, however, defendants' statements were materially false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that the Company had
massive supply chain constraints causing delays in the
recognition of millions of dollars in revenue; that the Company
was experiencing weakening demand for its products and services
in China; that the Company lacked adequate internal controls. In
addition, defendants concealed from investors that the Company
was in violation of Nasdaq rules requiring an independent
majority in the membership of the Company's Board of Directors
so to minimize conflicts of interests and improve corporate
governance, and that it may be in violation of Section 404 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 ("Sarbanes-Oxley") requiring the
Company to inform investors about its internal control
structures and which must be tested and verified by independent
auditors. As a result of defendants' material misstatements
and/or omissions, the Company's revenue and earnings guidance
during the Class Period was significantly overstated and caused
the price of UTStarcom shares to trade at artificially inflated
prices. Defendants were motivated to engage in the fraudulent
scheme in order for Company insiders, including defendants Lu
and Sophie, to sell 1.5 million shares of their personally-held
UTStarcom securities for over $57 million in proceeds. In
addition, defendants' material misrepresentations allowed the
Company to complete an equity offering of 12.1 million shares of
stock for proceeds of $475 million.

The truth began to emerge on July 27, 2004. On that date, the
Company issued a press release announcing that it was
experiencing pricing pressure in China and supply chain
constraints which delayed the recognition of higher-margin
international revenues, forcing the Company to revise downwards
its previous guidance of $1.85 earnings per share for the full-
year 2004 to $1.65-1.70 per share. In reaction to this news, the
price of UTStarcom shares dropped dramatically, falling $7.40
per share, or 29.3%, from its July 27, 2004 closing price of
$25.25 to $17.85 on July 28, 2004. On August 10, 2004, after the
market closed, the Company filed with the SEC a Notification of
Late-Filing, seeking an extension to file its second quarter
2004 report following the discovery of a $1.9 million equipment
sale which the Company included as revenue in its draft second
quarter financial statements but which the Company "subsequently
determined did not qualify as recognizable revenue." In reaction
to this news, the price of UTStarcom stock fell $2.58 per share,
or 14.3%, from the closing price of $17.95 on August 10, 2004 to
close at $15.37 on August 11, 2004. On August 16, 2004,
UTStarcom belatedly filed its second quarter report with the SEC
that revealed that the Company had discovered that "significant
control deficiencies exist related to the review and evaluation
of criteria related to revenue recognition, including process
deficiencies with respect to obtaining evidence of delivery." In
addition, the Company disclosed that it may not meet the year-
end deadline to comply with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley.
Finally, on September 20, 2004, the Company announced that it
would have to defer recognition of $290 million in revenue from
an equipment and service contract, even though the Company had
already factored in $220 million in revenue from the contract
when it issued projections for the remainder of 2004. Moreover,
the Company disclosed that weakening demand for the Company's
products in China would negatively affect the Company's third
quarter profitability and that the Company was in violation of
Nasdaq rules requiring an independent majority of the membership
of the Company's Board of Directors.

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



                            *********


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  * * *