CAR_Public/041209.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 9, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 244

                          Headlines

AMERCO: Shareholders Launch Consolidated Securities Suit in AZ
CALIFORNIA: ACLU Lodges Suit Challenging DNA Database Expansion
ELI LILLY: Judge Limits Discovery For Zyprexa Consolidated Case
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Expresses Disappointment in FL Suit Ruling
FLORIDA: Federal Lawsuit Names Brokers With Tampa Bay Area Ties

GOODYEAR TIRE: Working To Settle Entran II Product Litigation
HAWAII: Judge Allows Substitute Teachers To File Suit Over Wages
HUDSON'S BAY: Ontario Judge Take More Time To Decide Kmart Suit
INTERPUBLIC GROUP: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
IONICS INC.: Reaches Settlement For MA Securities Fraud Lawsuit

LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Suit in CA
MANA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Chocolates Due To Undeclared Nuts
MARYLAND: 21 Black Police Officers File Race Discrimination Suit
MASSACHUSETTS: Women Persist With Civil Suit V. Kenneth Powers
MASSEY ENERGY: WV Jury Awards $1.6M To Plaintiffs in Mining Suit

MASSEY ENERGY: WV Flood Suit Stayed Pending High Court Ruling
MASSEY ENERGY: Faces Litigation Over WV Illegal Coal Transport
MERCK & CO.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Suit in PA V. VIOXX Recall
MONDAVI CORPORATION: CA Suit Over Proposed Buyout Moves Forward
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Rules In Favor Of Firm in MN Lawsuit

PACIFIC CAPITAL: NY Residents File Refund Anticipation Loan Suit
PROPERTY CASUALTY: Hails WV Court Ruling On Acrylamide Lawsuit
QUINTUS CORPORATION: Settles Securities Litigation in CA, TX, DE
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Attorney Lodges Suit Over Tape Drive Defects
SEARS ROEBUCK: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Suit V. Made in USA Claim

SETTLEMENT RECOVERY: Says One Month Left To Collect on $1B Award
SHELL OIL: Lawsuit Seeks Broad Damages Over Sulfur-Spiked Fuel
SIX FLAGS: Settlement of CA Race Bias Suit Effective Oct. 2004
TENNESSEE: Jackson Officials Agree To ADA Suit Settlement
U.S. HOMES: Seniors Commence Suit V. Heating Contractors in NJ

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AON CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in MA
H&R BLOCK: Cotchett Pitre Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in CA
JAKKS PACIFIC: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

JAKKS PACIFIC: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
JAKKS PACIFIC: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MEDQUIST INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
REMEC INC.: Bernstein Liebhard Files Securities Fraud Suit in CA
SOURCECORP INC.: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX

TOMMY HILFIGER: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in CA
UTSTARCOM INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
UTSTARCOM, INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA

                          *********

AMERCO: Shareholders Launch Consolidated Securities Suit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
AMERCO faces a consolidated putative class action lawsuit
entitled "In Re AMERCO Securities Litigation, United States
District Court, Case No. CV-N-03-0050-ECR (RAM)," filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

The action alleges claims for violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 there under, section
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and sections 11,
12, and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  The action alleges
that AMERCO engaged in transactions with SAC entities that
falsely improved AMERCO's financial statements and that AMERCO
failed to disclose the transactions properly.

Several suits were initially filed in the United Sates District
Court, District of Nevada, namely:

     (1) Article Four Trust v. AMERCO, et al., District of
         Nevada, United States District Court, Case No. CV-N-03-
         0050-DWH-VPC

     (2) Mates v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court,
         District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-0 3-0107

     (3) Klug v. AMERCO, et al., United States District Court of
         Nevada, Case No. CV-S-03-0380

     (4) Holdings v. AMERCO, et al., United States District
         Court, District of Nevada, Case No. CV-N-03-0199


CALIFORNIA: ACLU Lodges Suit Challenging DNA Database Expansion
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Civil Liberties Union initiated a lawsuit seeking
class-action status in California federal Court to stop the
implementation of Proposition 69, which expands California's DNA
database to include samples from people arrested, but not
necessarily convicted of a felony calling it an unconstitutional
and "vicious assault" on privacy, the Associated Press reports.

According to the suit, which names as defendants Attorney
General Bill Lockyer as well as several police chiefs and county
sheriffs, "California now has the most draconian program for the
collection, retention and sharing of DNA data in existence
anywhere in the United States,"

Starting in 2009, the initiative, which voters passed last
month, requires the state to take samples of genetic material
from anyone arrested on suspicion of committing a felony, even
if they are never charged or convicted. Anyone acquitted or
never charged could eventually petition to have their sample
destroyed, although there are two other provisions in existing
law that call for the samples to be removed from the records
automatically after a time without a conviction.

Assemblyman Todd Spitzer, R-Orange, who was the statewide co-
chairman for Proposition 69, was confident the new law would be
upheld. "The taking of DNA is the exact same as taking a
photograph or fingerprint at the time of arrest and making it a
part of one's criminal record whether or not it results in a
conviction," Mr. Spitzer said. "The Courts absolutely recognize
that law enforcement needs to keep up with scientific
advancement when it comes to fighting crime. It is clearly not a
violation of the Fourth Amendment," he adds.

However, the ACLU, which estimates 50,000 Californians are
arrested each year but never convicted, doesn't agree with those
reasons contending that the collection of the samples at the
time of arrest runs counter to the American system of presuming
innocence until guilt is proven in Court. "There are very clear
limits on what law enforcement is permitted to do without
probable cause," says ACLU lawyer Sonya Winner.

DNA databases in only three other states namely Texas, Virginia
and Louisiana include samples from people accused, but not
convicted of crimes with only Louisiana's standards being as
broad as California's, said Maya Harris, ACLU lawyer and
director of the Racial Justice Project.

Current state law requires the collection of DNA from people
convicted of any of 36 serious felonies. The state's DNA lab in
Richmond currently processes about 50,000 samples each year.
When arrestees are added in five years, the annual number of
samples is projected to spike to 309,000, according to the
attorney general's office.


ELI LILLY: Judge Limits Discovery For Zyprexa Consolidated Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jack Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York has
ordered Eli Lilly and Co. to be ready for trial within a year to
defend its star drug Zyprexa against charges in federal Court
that the drug causes diabetes and related problems, The
Indianapolis Star reports.

The decision, which was handed just recently, marks the first
time the federal judge has set a deadline in the federal cases
for both sides to finish the discovery phase, in which documents
are turned over and witnesses deposed.

According to Jerrold S. Parker, a member of the plaintiffs'
steering committee for federal Zyprexa lawsuits, who are seeking
to have the case, certified as a class action, "By giving us a
date for trial I think that was sending us a signal. The
judge... wanted this case to move."

However, Curt G. Oltmans, an associate general counsel for Lilly
was quick to point out that Judge Weinstein's decision doesn't
necessarily mean the first federal case will go to trial in
December 2005, "but we heard him -- get ready."

Judge Weinstein is currently overseeing the early stages of
about 72 federal Zyprexa lawsuits consolidated in his Court.
Most have been filed since the Food and Drug Administration in
2003 required Lilly and other makers of schizophrenia drugs to
warn doctors and patients of the drugs' link with obesity and
high blood pressure and to tell doctors to monitor patients for
those conditions.

In a Court filing last month, plaintiffs' attorneys complained
to the judge about "Lilly's abysmally slow production of
documents" and "significant redactions" or blacked-out wording,
in the internal documents that were turned over. According to
one lawyer, "Many of the redactions appear to be entirely
improper."

Experts explain that Judge Weinstein's decision would require
Lilly and plaintiffs' attorneys to speed up the discovery
process by reviewing millions of pages of Lilly documents that
could become part of a trial a year from now.

Lilly has contracted with about 30 outside attorneys and legal
reviewers to catalog, sort and review stacks of documents that
plaintiffs' attorneys want to see, Mr. Oltmans said. "It's a
very complex process," he adds.

Another 50 or so Zyprexa cases have been also filed against
Lilly in state Courts and aren't part of the consolidated
federal lawsuits with the earliesy among the coming to trial in
mid-2005, Mr. Oltmans said.

The first case to come to trial in such drug-liability lawsuits
can strongly influence outcomes of the rest of the pending
cases, so both sides typically put an all-out effort into
winning the first case. "Everyone will look very closely" at the
first Zyprexa trial, Mr. Oltmans said.

Similar lawsuits have also been filed against the makers of two
other drugs in Zyprexa's class, Risperdal from Johnson & Johnson
and Seroquel, sold by AstraZeneca.


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: Expresses Disappointment in FL Suit Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Equity Residential (NYSE:EQR), the largest publicly traded
apartment Company in America, issued a statement addressing its
partial victory in the Palm Beach County class action case of
Yates, et. al. v. Equity Residential.

The lawsuit, filed in late 2002 and tried in August 2004,
challenged the enforceability of certain charges that Equity
assessed residents who terminated their leases early or failed
to give notice of their intent to vacate at the end of the lease
term. The challenged practices were discontinued over a year
ago. On December 1, 2004, the Circuit Court issued a ruling that
certain charges were unenforceable, ordered Equity to establish
a class fund of $1.629 million (less than 20% of the amount
requested at trial) and retained jurisdiction to consider an
award of reasonable attorneys' fees. The Court also barred
Equity from seeking to collect any such outstanding charges,
which will not result in any earnings charge as Equity had not
previously recorded these uncollected amounts as income.

"While we are disappointed that the Court found that certain of
our charges are unenforceable and will appeal that decision if
necessary, we are pleased that the Court rejected substantial
parts of the plaintiffs' case and ordered a class fund that is
considerably less than the amount requested," said Bruce C.
Strohm, Equity Residential's Executive Vice President and
General Counsel. "The Company has submitted insurance claims for
coverage of any losses we may incur as a result of this lawsuit,
including both our and the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees. Whether
coverage ultimately will be provided is uncertain."

An anticipated earnings charge of $1.629 million, which will be
taken in the fourth quarter 2004, will not meaningfully impact
the Company's earnings guidance provided on November 2, 2004.

For more details, contact information on Equity Residential,
please visit our website at http://www.EquityResidential.com.


FLORIDA: Federal Lawsuit Names Brokers With Tampa Bay Area Ties
---------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance brokers Brown & Brown Inc. and BB&T Corp., who both
have strong Bay area ties, were among 14 companies named as
defendants in federal lawsuit seeking class action status on
behalf of the policyholders of the defendants that was filed in
New York by OptiCare Health Systems Inc., a Waterbury,
Connecticut, vision care firm, accusing the companies of taking
part in a massive scheme to manipulate the insurance market, the
Tampa Bay Business Journal reports.

Aside from Brown & Brown, which has headquarters in Tampa and in
Daytona Beach and BB&T, the additional defendants are eight
other insurance brokers, all among the largest in the United
States and many of them with offices in the Bay area, and four
of the country's largest insurance companies.

The suit is the first to be brought on behalf of policyholders
in the wake of a nationwide probe of the insurance industry. It
comes amidst ongoing investigations in several states, including
Florida, and a civil lawsuit filed October 14 by New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer accusing Marsh & McLennan Cos.,
the nation's largest insurance broker, of bid-rigging.

The OptiCare lawsuit, which was originally filed in August
against three insurance brokers Marsh, based in New York, Aon
Corp., based in Chicago and Willis Group Holdings, based in
London had challenged an alleged arrangement in which those
companies got fees from insurance companies for placing their
policies with clients.

The suit was expanded in October to include Brown & Brown, BB&T
and others as defendants. Other brokers named as defendants that
have Bay area offices are Acordia Inc., which is a Wells Fargo &
Co. subsidiary, Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. and Hilb Rogal & Hobbs
Co. Insurance. American International Group Inc., Ace Ltd.,
Hartford Financial Services Group Inc. and Munich American Risk
Partners are also named as defendants.

The amended suit added bid rigging to the initial charges,
saying the defendants conspired to deprive policyholders of free
and open competition in the market for insurance.

OptiCare, a managed vision care provider that also operates eye
surgery centers and is represented by Edith Kallas of Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP in New York, is also seeking in its
lawsuit damages of up to three times the amount policyholders
allegedly overpaid for insurance but does not name a specific
amount.

In its lawsuit, OptiCare said the defendant insurance companies
and brokers manipulated the market by steering clients to
particular insurers based on considerations other than the
customers' interests, and failed to disclose contingent
commissions and other allegedly improper compensation and fee
arrangements.


GOODYEAR TIRE: Working To Settle Entran II Product Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. is working to settle the litigation
pending against it relating to Entran II, a rubber hose product
that it supplied from 1989-1993 to Chiles Power Supply, Inc.
(d/b/a Heatway Systems), a designer and seller of hydronic
radiant heating systems in the United States.

The Company is a defendant in 22 class actions or potential
class actions and a number of other civil actions in various
Federal, state and Canadian Courts asserting non-asbestos
property damage claims relating to Entran II.  The plaintiffs in
these actions are generally seeking recovery under various tort,
contract and statutory causes of action, including breach of
express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability,
breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose,
negligence, strict liability and violation of state consumer
protection statutes.

On June 4, 2004, the Company entered into an amended settlement
agreement that was intended to address a substantial portion of
its Entran II liabilities.  On October 19, 2004, the Court
conducted a fairness hearing on, and gave final approval to, the
Amended Settlement.  As a result, Goodyear will make annual cash
contributions to a settlement fund of $60 million, $40 million,
$15 million, $15 million and $20 million in 2004, 2005, 2006,
2007 and 2008, respectively.  The first of these payments will
be made within ten days of the Final Order and Judgment and will
consist of $60 million, less the amount paid as of June 30, 2004
to cover the cost of administration and class notice.

In addition to these annual payments, Goodyear was required to
contribute to the settlement fund by October 19, 2004, the
amount of insurance Goodyear recovered from its carriers
relating to Entran II but, in any event, no less than $150
million.  As of October 19, 2004, $150 million had been
deposited by the Company in the settlement fund comprised of $75
million of insurance recoveries previously obtained by the
Company and $75 million of cash contributions made by the
Company.  The Company expects to receive an additional $100
million of insurance reimbursements during the 4th quarter.  Of
this amount, $75 million will reimburse the Company for its
October 19, 2004 cash contribution to the settlement fund and
the balance (net of unreimbursed legal costs incurred to obtain
the insurance recoveries) will be deposited into the settlement
fund.

A total of 62 claimants have been opted out of the Amended
Settlement.  The Amended Settlement does not cover the liability
associated with these opt outs, however, the Company will be
entitled to assert proxy claims against the settlement fund for
the payments such claimants would have been entitled to under
the Amended Settlement if these claimants assert claims against
the Company.  The Company is a defendant in two pending state
Court actions in Colorado involving approximately 15 sites that
have been opted out of the amended settlement.

In 2002, two state Courts in Colorado entered judgments against
the Company in Entran II cases of $22.7 million and $1.3
million, respectively.  On June 19, 2003, a jury in Colorado
Federal Court awarded a judgment in an Entran II case against
the Company of $4.1 million.  An additional $5.7 million in
prejudgment interest was awarded on September 8, 2003.  Any
liability of the Company arising out of these actions will not
be covered by the Amended Settlement.  The Company will continue
to pursue appeals of these judgements.

In another Entran II action, on May 13, 2004, a federal jury in
Colorado awarded the plaintiffs aggregate damages of $8.1
million, of which 40% was allocated to Goodyear.  The Court
subsequently awarded plaintiffs $4.8 million in prejudgment
interest, all of which was allocated to the Company.  On June
21, 2004, a jury in another Entran II case in Colorado state
Court awarded the plaintiff $0.6 million in damages, 20% of
which was allocated to the Company.  The plaintiff was also
awarded approximately $0.4 million in prejudgement interest and
costs.  Any liability of the Company arising out of these
actions also will not be covered by the Amended Settlement.
However, the Company will be entitled to a credit from the
settlement fund against amounts (if any) paid to the plaintiffs
in these actions.  The Company will continue to pursue appeals
of these judgments.


HAWAII: Judge Allows Substitute Teachers To File Suit Over Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
A Circuit Court Judge Karen Ahn in Honolulu cleared the way for
substitute teachers to go forward with a class action lawsuit
seeking millions of dollars in back pay, the Associated Press
reports.

As previously reported in the October 11, 2004 edition of the
Class Action reporter, the suit was filed by Maui substitute
teacher David Garner and by other substitutes against the state
and the Department of Education demanding back pay based on a
1996 state law that requires schools to pay substitute teachers
a daily amount based on the salary of a teacher with four years
of college education.

That 8-year-old law, which is known as Act 89, specifically
states that the daily pay rate for substitutes "shall be based
on the annual entry step salary rate established for a Class II
teacher on the most current teacher's salary schedule."

However, Judge Karen Ahn ruled that the statute of limitations
prevents them from seeking back pay before November Eighth,
2000. Plaintiff David Garner said the substitutes were
originally seeking about $25 million in pay going back to July
First, 1996. That's when Act 89 took effect linking their pay to
a salary classification for full-time teachers. Mr. Garner says
the amount at stake now is about $15 million.

Substitute teachers are paid $119.80 per day. The lawsuit claims
they should get $150.00 a day.


HUDSON'S BAY: Ontario Judge Take More Time To Decide Kmart Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Almost 1,000 former Kmart employees in Ontario must wait a few
more weeks before learning whether their 6-year-old class action
lawsuit against one of the country's largest retailers will be
able to proceed, the Associated Press reports.

Attorneys for Hudson's Bay Co., which bought Troy, Michigan-
based Kmart Corp.'s Canadian stores in 1998, are asking that the
suit seeking severance pay be decertified. The case has not been
advanced by any preceding motions or proceedings, and that is
one of the tests for continuing a class action suit, said lawyer
John Field.  However, plaintiffs' attorney Michael McGowan said
more than three years have been spent arguing over a point of
jurisdiction, and to have the defendants now claim the case
hasn't been advanced is unfair.

Superior Court Justice John Brockenshire reserved his decision,
saying that he needs time to survey the changing landscape of
decisions on such issues in the past five years.

Employees across Canada were laid off when the Hudson's Bay
closed 31 Canadian Kmart stores.


INTERPUBLIC GROUP: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted final approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Interpublic
Group of Companies, Inc. and certain of its present and former
directors.

Thirteen federal securities purported class actions were
initially filed on behalf of purchasers of Interpublic stock
shortly after Interpublic's August 13, 2002 announcement
regarding the restatement of its previously reported earnings
for the periods January 1, 1997 through March 31, 2002.  These
actions, which were all filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, were consolidated
by the Court and lead counsel was appointed for all plaintiffs
on November 8, 2002.

A consolidated amended complaint was filed on January 10, 2003.
The purported class consists of Interpublic shareholders who
purchased Interpublic stock in the period from October 1997 to
October 2002.  Specifically, the consolidated amended complaint
alleges that Interpublic and certain of its present and former
directors and officers allegedly made misleading statements to
its shareholders between October 1997 and October 2002,
including the alleged failure to disclose the existence of
additional charges that would need to be expensed and the lack
of adequate internal financial controls, which allegedly
resulted in an overstatement of Interpublic's financial results
during those periods.

The consolidated amended complaint alleges that such false and
misleading statements constitute violations of Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  The consolidated amended complaint also alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
in connection with Interpublic's acquisition of True North on
behalf of a purported class of True North shareholders who
acquired Interpublic stock.  No amount of damages is specified
in the consolidated amended complaint.

On February 6, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint in its entirety.  On February 28,
2003, plaintiffs filed their opposition to defendants' motion
and, on March 14, 2003, defendants filed their reply to
plaintiff's opposition to defendants' motion.  On May 29, 2003,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York denied the motion to dismiss as to Interpublic and
granted the motion, in part, as to the present and former
directors and officers named in the consolidated amended
complaint.  On June 30, 2003, defendants filed an answer to the
consolidated amended complaint.  On November 6, 2003, the Court
granted plaintiffs' motion to certify a class consisting of
persons who purchased Interpublic stock between October 28, 1997
and October 16, 2002 and a class consisting of persons who
acquired shares of Interpublic stock in exchange for shares of
True North stock.

On December 2, 2003, Interpublic reached an agreement in
principle to settle the consolidated class action shareholder
suits currently pending in federal district Court in New York.
Under the terms of the proposed settlement, Interpublic will pay
$115 million, of which $20 million will be paid in cash and $95
million in shares of its common stock at a value of $14.50 per
share. Interpublic also agreed that, were the price of its
common stock to fall below $8.70 per share before final approval
of the settlement, Interpublic would either, at its sole
discretion, issue additional shares of common stock or pay cash
so that the consideration for the stock portion of the
settlement would have a total value of $57 million.  On July 20,
2004, the Court entered an order granting preliminary approval
to the proposed settlement.  The Court held a final approval and
fairness hearing on October 22, 2004, and on November 4, 2004,
the Court entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement.  The shares issuable under the settlement will be
released upon expiration of the relevant term of appeal, which
will be during the fourth quarter of 2004.


IONICS INC.: Reaches Settlement For MA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ionics, Inc. reached a settlement for the securities class
action filed against it and its former Chief Executive Officer
and current Chief Financial Officer in the U.S. District Court,
District of Massachusetts, styled "Jerome Deckler v. Ionics,
Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 03-CV10393(WGY)."

Plaintiff alleges violations of the federal securities laws
relating to the restatement of the Company's financial
statements for the first and second quarters of 2002 announced
in November 2002, and other material misrepresentations and
omissions concerning the Company's financial results.  The
plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages and their costs and expenses, including legal fees.

Under the terms of the settlement-in-principle, a settlement
fund will be created totaling $3 million, to be paid entirely by
the Company's insurer.  The Company will not be required to make
any contribution to this settlement fund.  The
settlement-in-principle  is subject to the execution and filing
with the U.S. District Court of a definitive stipulation of
settlement and also final approval of the settlement by the
Court.


LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: Plaintiffs File Amended Consumer Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Louisiana-
Pacific Corporation the Superior Court in Stanislaus County,
California, over the Company's Nature Guard Fiber Cement Shakes.

Four putative class actions were initially filed in California
and one putative class action was filed in the state of
Washington, namely:

     (1) Virginia L. Davis v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation,
         filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
         Stanislaus, on January 9, 2001;

     (2) Mahleon R. Oyster and George Sousa v. Louisiana-Pacific
         Corporation, filed in the Superior Court of California,
         County of San Francisco, on July 30, 2001;

     (3) Angel H. Jasso and Angela Jasso v. Louisiana-Pacific
         Corporation, filed in the Superior Court of California,
         County of Stanislaus, on September 7, 2001;

     (4) Keith Oguro v. Louisiana-Pacific Corporation, filed in
         the Superior Court of California, County of San
         Francisco, on March 12, 2002; and,

     (5) Nick P. Marassi, M.D. and Debra Marassi v. Louisiana-
         Pacific Corporation, filed in the Superior Court for
         the State of Washington, Snohomish County, on June 13,
         2001

The plaintiffs in the Davis, Oyster/Sousa and Jasso cases sought
and were granted coordination in California State Court.  The
coordinated case was assigned to the Superior Court for
Stanislaus County, California.  On April 2, 2002, class counsel
filed a Master Complaint captioned as "Nature Guard Cement
Roofing Shingle Cases."  The plaintiffs in the Davis,
Oyster/Sousa, Jasso and Marassi cases as well as a plaintiff
from Oregon named Karl E. Von Tagen were named as putative class
representatives in the Master Complaint.  As a result, the
separate actions filed by those individuals were dismissed.

On November 5, 2002, the Court granted plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification.  The plaintiffs now represent the class of
persons owning structures on which Nature Guard Fiber Cement
Shakes were installed as roofing.  The Master Complaint asserts
claims for breach of express and implied warranties, unfair
business practices, and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies
Act and seeks general, compensatory, special and punitive
damages, disgorgement of profits and the establishment of a fund
to provide restitution to the purported class members.

The Court dismissed plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied
warranty and violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
Plaintiffs subsequently filed an Amended Complaint to
reintroduce the Consumer Legal Remedies Act claim by naming an
additional plaintiff representative, Stephen Redmond.  The Court
allowed the amendment and, despite the Company's motion and
appeal to remove the claim under California's Consumer Legal
Remedies Act that claim remains in the case.


MANA INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Chocolates Due To Undeclared Nuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mana International Foods is recalling Chocolate Rugelach because
it may contain undeclared nuts. People who have allergies to
nuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Chocolate Rugelach, 16 ounce package, date code
December 15 2004 were sold in the Metropolitan NY area. UPC code
on the packages is 873207 002104.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through routine
sampling by the New York State Department of Agriculture and
Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product
by Food Laboratory personnel that the nut-containing product was
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of
nuts. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with
this problem.

Consumers who have purchased the Chocolate Rugelach are urged to
return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions
may contact the Company at (914) 788-6430.


MARYLAND: 21 Black Police Officers File Race Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twenty-one current and former black police officers in Baltimore
initiated a discrimination lawsuit against the city, alleging
that nooses were hung in their lockers, dog feces was placed on
their desks and zebra stripes were painted on pictures of their
mixed-race children, the Associated Press reports.

The federal class-action lawsuit, whose allegations reach back
to 1994, accuses the department of condoning a hostile
workplace, blocking black officers from promotion, levying
uneven discipline and retaliating against officers who spoke out
against discrimination. Furthermore, the suit also alleges that
racism led to the firing last month of former police
Commissioner Kevin P. Clark. Mayor Martin O'Malley said domestic
abuse allegations against the commissioner, though
unsubstantiated, had eroded his leadership ability.

The officers are seeking financial damages, the appointment of
an independent monitor and the reinstatement of fired officers,
among other restitution.

However, city solicitor Ralph S. Tyler called the allegations
"untrue," saying many claims are barred by statutes of
limitations. "People who have serious issues to raise come in to
present them, they don't issue press releases. What I know in
the short time I've had to look at it is that a large number of
plaintiffs are people who have had what we call 'troubled'
histories in the Police Department, he adds."

Mr. Clark, who is not a plaintiff in the suit, has filed a
separate action against Mayor O'Malley. Court papers filed
recently indicated that Mr. Clark is seeking $120 million in
damages, double the amount in his original lawsuit against the
mayor. He is also seeking reinstatement to his job, arguing that
state law prohibited Mr. O'Malley from firing him without
showing "official misconduct, malfeasance, inefficiency,
incompetence or prolonged illness."


MASSACHUSETTS: Women Persist With Civil Suit V. Kenneth Powers
--------------------------------------------------------------
Several Massachusetts women intend to pursue their civil suit
against former jeweler Kenneth Powers, even though the state
attorney general's office decided not file criminal charges
against Mr. Powers for allegedly replacing real diamonds with
fakes, the MetroWest Daily News reports.

According to Richard Goren, a lawyer with Framingham's Rubin,
Hay and Gould, the civil case seeking millions in retribution is
moving forward despite the state's decision. "The biggest issue
for civil plaintiffs in the real world is if there is a pocket
to pursue, and we think we have a complaint to pursue. We have a
respectable chance of recovering some money for these people,"
Mr. Goren adds.

Almost a year ago, Laura Wagner of Marlborough lodged the first
of what became dozens of complaints against Mr. Powers, dating
back to the early '90s. Soon after, Mr. Goren's firm filed a
class-action civil suit against Kenneth Powers and Kenneth's
Fine Jewelry store, which is now closed. The suit was filed in
Genevieve Prevost's name, an Ashland woman who is seeking
$45,000 in damages after claiming she dropped off her nearly 2-
carat diamond to be reset at Kenneth's in 1996 and in return got
back a tiny setting, a thin band and a yellow, cloudy diamond.
More women started to come forward and, at one point, the firm
had 30 people on a list waiting to tell a lawyer their stories.

Although that list has dwindled for legal reasons, Mr. Goren
said about a dozen women have legitimate gripes with Kenneth
Powers and enough evidence to move forward with a civil case
against him. "We are actively pursuing it," Mr. Goren said. "The
issue is that we need to understand what the attorney general
has done and why and then we need to get the documents. We
haven't been able to get those because of the criminal
investigation."

Mr. Goren said his firm first went to Mr. Powers' attorney, Jim
Gribouski, for the documents, but was told all the paperwork was
with the attorney general's office. Now that the AG's office has
completed its investigation, Mr. Goren said he and his staff
could try to get some of these women the money they are due.
"It's a lot less rigorous to get a civil judgment than it is to
put a person in jail," Mr. Goren adds.

The attorney general's office announced earlier this week that
it would not be pressing criminal charges against Powers after a
21-month investigation. Since most of the allegations dated back
to 1996 or earlier, the six-year statute of limitations would
hinder the case.


MASSEY ENERGY: WV Jury Awards $1.6M To Plaintiffs in Mining Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
A West Virginia jury awarded $1.6 million to plaintiffs in the
two lawsuits filed against Massey Energy Co., alleging that the
Company's Delbarton Mining Company's mining activities destroyed
nearby residents' water supplies.

The suit, filed in the Circuit Court of Mingo County, West
Virginia, sought to recover unquantified compensatory and
punitive damages for personal injuries and property damages.
Delbarton provided almost all of the plaintiffs with replacement
water sources.

On May 26, 2004, following the first phase of trial on liability
issues, a jury found that Delbarton's mining failed to protect
water supplies and caused material damage to the hydrologic
balance.  On September 17, 2004, following the second phase of
the trial, the jury awarded $1.6 million in compensatory
damages, but no punitive damages.  The plaintiffs are now
seeking an award of attorney's fees and a new trial.


MASSEY ENERGY: WV Flood Suit Stayed Pending High Court Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
The litigation filed against seven of Massey Energy Co.'s
subsidiaries and 170 other companies in Raleigh County Circuit
Court in West Virginia has been stayed pending the state Supreme
Court's ruling on nine issues in the litigation.

Since July 2001, seven Company subsidiaries have been named,
along with approximately 170 other companies, in 35 separate
complaints filed in the Circuit Courts of Boone, Fayette,
Kanawha, McDowell, Mercer, Raleigh and Wyoming Counties, West
Virginia.  These cases cover approximately 2,100 plaintiffs who
filed suit on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, seeking unquantified damages for property damage and
personal injuries arising out of flooding that occurred in
southern West Virginia on July 8, 2001.

The plaintiffs sued coal, timber, railroad and land companies
under the theory that mining, construction of haul roads and
removal of timber caused natural surface waters to be diverted
and interrupted in an unnatural way, thereby causing damage to
the plaintiffs.  The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
ruled that these cases, along with 21 additional flood damage
cases not involving the Company's subsidiaries, would be handled
pursuant to the Court's mass litigation rules.  The cases were
transferred to the Circuit Court of Raleigh County, West
Virginia, to be handled by a panel consisting of three circuit
Court judges.  On August 1, 2003, the panel certified nine
questions to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.  On
June 9, 2004, the Supreme Court of Appeals heard oral argument
on the nine questions.  The Court requested further briefing on
these questions, with additional oral argument heard on
September 1, 2004.  All matters have been stayed pending a
ruling from the Supreme Court of Appeals on the nine certified
questions.

In August 2004, five of the same seven subsidiaries of the
Company were named in six new civil actions filed in Boone,
McDowell, Mingo, Raleigh, Summers, and Wyoming Counties, West
Virginia.  Similar to the complaints concerning flooding on or
about July 8, 2001, these complaints seek unquantified damages
for property damage and personal injuries arising out of
flooding on or about May 2, 2002. Collectively, the complaints
name approximately 360 plaintiffs and 35 defendants. The
Company's subsidiaries responded, filing motions to dismiss or,
in the alternative, for a more definite statement of the
allegations. The claims set forth in these new actions are not
part of the referred cases pending as mass litigation noted
above.


MASSEY ENERGY: Faces Litigation Over WV Illegal Coal Transport
--------------------------------------------------------------
Massey Energy Co. and 12 of its subsidiaries face litigation
over the illegal transport of coal in West Virginia, now pending
in the West Virginia State Court for Lincoln County.

In January 2003, Coal River Mountain Watch, an advocacy group
representing residents in the Counties of Boone, Raleigh and
Kanawha, West Virginia, and other plaintiffs, filed 16 suits in
the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia against the
Company and 12 subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants
illegally transport coal in overloaded trucks, causing damage to
state roads, thereby interfering with plaintiffs' use and
enjoyment of their properties and their right to use the public
roads.  Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and unquantified
compensatory and punitive damages.

The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia referred the
consolidated lawsuits, and three similar lawsuits against other
coal and transportation companies not involving the Company's
subsidiaries, to a mass litigation panel consisting of one
circuit Court judge in Lincoln County, West Virginia, pursuant
to the Court's mass litigation rules.

In March 2004, seven residents of Mingo County, West Virginia,
filed a similar lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Mingo County,
West Virginia, against the Company and three subsidiaries,
raising similar claims and seeking similar relief.  Although
this case had not been referred to the mass litigation panel,
the plaintiffs in all five trucking cases requested that the
cases be further consolidated, the scope of their claims be
expanded statewide, claims be added against land companies, and
class action status be granted.  On June 6, 2004, the panel
denied those requests, while granting plaintiffs in the first
four cases additional time to conduct additional discovery and
to refile their motions if plaintiffs obtained sufficient
supporting evidence.  The panel reset a hearing on class
certification and any renewed motions for January 7, 2005.
Discovery is continuing in those cases.  On October 21, 2004,
the Court in the Mingo County case entered an Order transferring
the fifth case to the mass litigation panel.


MERCK & CO.: Brian M. Felgoise Lodges Suit in PA V. VIOXX Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. filed suit in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania on
behalf of individuals who took the Painkiller Vioxx. The law
firm has been retained to represent individuals who have
suffered injuries as a result of the drug Vioxx.

On September 30, 2004, Merck & Co., the maker of the drug
announced that it was immediately withdrawing Vioxx from the
market after a data safety monitoring board, overseeing a long-
term study of the drug, recommended that the study be halted
because of an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events
among members of the study group. The Company's sudden decision
to withdraw Vioxx was in stark contrast to its prior public
announcements touting the safety of Vioxx and other public
disclosures by the Company and its representatives that
specifically refuted criticism of the drug lodged by respected
clinicians.

The Company's withdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, came
only one month after the Company issued a press release refuting
reputable clinicians' criticisms of Vioxx and its safety profile
and on the heels of the Company obtaining approval to market the
drug for the treatment of juvenile arthritis and migraines.

In addition to frightening millions of people who were misled
and used Vioxx despite these serious risks, the announcement
caused the Company's common stock to plummet during September
30, 2004 trading by approximately 25%, or $12 per share. The
resulting market capitalization loss was a staggering $26
billion.

For more details, contact Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. of the Law
Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. by Mail: 261 Old York Road,
Suite 423, Jenkintown, PA 19046 by Phone: 215 886-1900 or by E-
mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com.


MONDAVI CORPORATION: CA Suit Over Proposed Buyout Moves Forward
---------------------------------------------------------------
If a shareholder lawsuit against the Mondavi Corporation isn't
settled in the next two weeks, it will likely be decided by a
judge at a December 20 hearing, just two days before Mondavi
shareholders are due to vote on a proposed buyout by beverage
giant Constellation Brands, the NapaNet Daily News reports.

Connecticut-based Bamboo Partners' class-action lawsuit against
the Robert Mondavi Corporation and its board of directors
recently had moved forward, with lawyers ordered to work at a
frenzied pace gathering information and deposing witnesses to
meet the December 20 hearing deadline.

Bamboo Partners also clarified its case, filing a revised claim
against the Mondavi Corporation that detailed what they say is a
breach of the board of directors' duties to shareholders.
They're asking a judge to order the $1.36 billion sale to
Constellation stopped unless the Mondavi Corporation takes steps
to ensure shareholders are treated fairly under the articles of
incorporation and obtain the highest possible price per share.

According to Jeff Westerman, a Bamboo Partners attorney based in
Los Angeles, "essentially we're saying the deal should not close
until it's made equal,"

The suit was filed after Mondavi received a $1.3 billion buyout
offer from New York-based Constellation, but before the Company
ultimately accepted an offer sweetened to $1.36 billion. Bamboo
Partners was selected at a November 9 hearing to be the lead
representative of shareholders. Attorneys for the Alaska
Electrical Pension Fund, who filed a similar case against
Mondavi, have appealed the designation of Bamboo Partners as
lead plaintiff to the First District Court of Appeal in San
Francisco.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Court Rules In Favor Of Firm in MN Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Court of Appeals panel recently ruled in favor of
Northwest Airlines in a major class-action lawsuit brought by
Twin Cities consumers who allege that the Eagan-based carrier
engaged in anti-competitive practices after its 1986 merger with
Republic Airlines, the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports.

Six Minneapolis law firms, led by Lindquist & Vennum, have
represented plaintiffs in the 1997 suit, which argued that the
full consumer impact of the Northwest-Republic merger did not
surface until 1993. According to a plaintiffs' brief, "Northwest
began to use the market power it gained by acquiring Republic to
raise the fares far above the level they would have been if they
still had competition at Minneapolis-St. Paul International
Airport." The brief further states, "In order to preserve its
power to charge excessive fares, Northwest took steps to keep
low-fare airlines from gaining a foothold at MSP."

However, Judge Morris Sheppard Arnold of the Eighth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals, writing for the 2-1 majority, said plaintiffs
did not meet the legal requirements to demonstrate when they
were "first injured by Northwest's differing use of market
power." He also said that the plaintiffs' claims for damages
were barred because they did not file suit against Northwest in
a timely manner.

Plaintiffs cited a Northwest pricing program, which allows the
carrier to track and modify fares on a given flight or route as
a means to exercise Northwest's market power differently after
1993. But, Judge Arnold said that if the Court accepted that
argument, it "would preclude merged firms from responding to
changes in market conditions and opportunities. This makes scant
sense."

Northwest spokesman Kurt Ebenhoch said, "We are pleased with the
Court's decision affirming the lower Court." In February 2003,
U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank granted Northwest's motion to
dismiss the case. In that decision, Judge Frank's key element in
granting the motion was that a statute of limitations had
expired, so plaintiffs could not pursue damages against
Northwest on pricing and competition arguments.

Noting that the merger occurred in 1986, Appeals Court Judge
Arnold said there was "no reasonable justification for the 11-
year delay in filing suit." He said the plaintiffs "did not file
suit because they were too busy, too concerned about the costs
of litigation or ignorant about their cause of action."

But still, Judge Arnold may not have the final word on this
case. Mark Jacobson, a lawyer for Lindquist & Vennum, said the
plaintiffs' attorneys would probably seek a rehearing in the
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals or ask the U.S. Supreme Court to
review the decision.

The consumers' lawsuit, which was granted class-action status in
2001, included passengers who bought tickets on Northwest
flights into or out of the Twin Cities from June 16, 1993, to
the present.

Mr. Jacobson said that if the plaintiffs had prevailed in Court,
he's unsure what the damages might total. "What we are seeking
is the return to Northwest passengers of the overcharges that
they paid," he said.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: NY Residents File Refund Anticipation Loan Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Capital Bancorp faces a class action filed in the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York,
styled "Myron Benton v. Jackson Hewitt, Inc. and Santa Barbara
Bank & Trust Co."

The suit is brought on behalf of residents of the State of New
York who engaged Jackson Hewitt, Inc (JHI) to provide tax
preparation services and who through JHI entered into an
agreement with the Company to receive a refund anticipation loan
(RAL).  JHI is also a defendant.

As part of the RAL documentation, the customer receives and
signs a disclosure form which discloses that the Company may
share a portion of the federal refund processing fee and finance
charge with JHI.  The plaintiffs allege that the failure of JHI
and the Company to disclose the specific amount of the fee which
JHI receives is unlawful and request damages on behalf of the
class, injunctive relief, punitive damages and attorneys' fees.


PROPERTY CASUALTY: Hails WV Court Ruling On Acrylamide Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Property Casualty Insurers Association of America (PCI) has
praised the West Virginia Supreme Court's decision on December 2
to vacate a lower Court certification of a class action as a
tremendous step towards returning the class action mechanism to
its intended function, the Insurance Journal reports.

According to Robert Hurns, PCI counsel and legislative database
manager, whose group had filed an filed an amicus brief in the
case, "We applaud the decision of the West Virginia Supreme
Court in Chemtall, Inc. v. Madden, the high Court in effect has
determined that trial lawyers cannot impose West Virginia's
medical monitoring standards upon other states that have not
adopted them."

As previously reported in the December 6, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, West Virginia's Supreme Court had ruled
that a Marshall County judge did not properly organize the
claimants when he certified the case as class-action in
September 2003. Eight chemical companies targeted by the lawsuit
had asked the Supreme Court to review the class certification.
They also wanted the case limited to just West Virginia
plaintiffs, but the recent ruling denied that request.

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

On September 26, 2003, the circuit Court certified a class
consisting of workers from the aforementioned states, as well as
their offspring alleged to have been "at increased risk of
developing genetic abnormalities and diseases." Petitioners took
their challenge of the class certification to the West Virginia
Supreme Court in April, and the Court accepted the issue.

West Virginia, which has the nation's most liberal law
pertaining to "medical monitoring," in which individuals who
have been exposed to substances such as asbestos but are not
currently ill are monitored, should the illness manifest down
the road, if at all. Insurers have traditionally been required
to pay for the heavy costs of this monitoring, PCI was concerned
this liberal standard would be exported to other states by means
of the class action mechanism.

PCI, along with the National Association of Manufacturers, the
American Chemistry Council, the Coalition for Litigation
Justice, Inc. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, filed an amicus
brief that had argued that the class certification should be
reversed as the lawsuit included claimants from other states
that did not recognize medical monitoring as a cause of action,
therefore the requirement of "typicality" was not met.

The high Court agreed stating West Virginia law requires that
claims must be "based on the same legal theory." The Court
further stated the trial Court "committed clear error in failing
to consider West Virginia's conflict of law doctrine and in
failing to conduct a meaningful analysis of variations in the
law of the several states included in the proposed class
action."

"The ruling in this case should serve as notice to lower Courts
that they should only certify classes where the class members
properly meet the criteria for certification," Mr. Hurns added.

"This decision helps restore the intention of the class action
mechanism - where similar claims can be adjudicated on an
economical and expedient basis," he said. "Trial Courts should
make sure the proposed class actually meets the criteria
enumerated for class certification, rather than conduct "drive-
by certifications."


QUINTUS CORPORATION: Settles Securities Litigation in CA, TX, DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
Quintus Corporation ("Quintus") reached a settlement in
connection with all of the securities litigation involving
Quintus and its former officers and directors. This litigation
includes a class action suit pending in the federal district
Court for the Northern District of California, state Court
lawsuits in California and Texas and suits and claims in the
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Under the terms of the settlement, the various plaintiff groups
will be paid a total of $13 million. Quintus will contribute $1
million of this amount from existing cash, while the remaining
$12 million will be paid by certain insurers and Quintus' former
auditors. The settling parties will exchange releases. The
settlement is subject to Court approval by both the federal
Court in California and the Delaware Bankruptcy Court. The
settlement funds will only be disbursed after the required Court
approval.

Terms of the settlement also include the reacquisition or
subordination of certain shares of Quintus stock held by its
former Chief Executive Officer and its former Chief Financial
Officer.

Kurt F. Gwynne, the Chapter 11 Trustee for Quintus, stated,
"This settlement clears the way for a plan to be filed in the
bankruptcy case providing for distribution of Quintus' cash
assets." Quintus previously sold substantially all of its assets
to Avaya, Inc. in 2001.


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Attorney Lodges Suit Over Tape Drive Defects
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wood River personal injury attorney Lance Mallon, who was so
offended by a flaw in the tape drive system of his computer
recently filed a consumer fraud class action lawsuit against
California-based Seagate Technology, the world's largest
supplier of computer disc media, the Madison County Record.

According to his complaint, "Seagate's misconduct offends public
policy and is immoral, unethical, oppressive and unscrupulous."
Nowhere in the complaint does it state that Mr. Mallon had any
problems with his Seagate products, but instead it states that
Seagate knowingly, recklessly or negligently committed unfair
and deceptive acts with respect to the true quality and
capability of its product.

Represented by Timothy O'Sullivan of The Lakin Law Firm in Wood
River, Mr. Mallon had purchased a Seagate tape drive system,
which stores, retrieves and manages data on computer systems
that was built into his Gateway computer's server.

The tape drive "contains an inherent flaw or defect in that it
has an undisclosed failure rate approaching 50 to 70 percent,"
the complaint alleges. Mr. Mallon claims that had he known that
Seagate tape drive systems possessed an extremely high failure
rate, he would not have purchased the system, or he would have
negotiated a lower price.

Seagate's tape drive products have been the subject of numerous
complaints from consumers across the country because of faulty
technology, according to the complaint.

Mr. Mallon alleges that Seagate's conduct constitutes violations
of the unfair and deceptive practices acts, implicates consumer
protection concerns and results in substantial injury to
consumers.

"Plaintiff and class have been damaged as a proximate result of
defendants' course of conduct and violations of the Consumer
Fraud Acts in that they purchased a product that did not have
the advertised operational capacity," the complaint states.

Furthermore, Mr. Mallon also claims that as a result of
Seagate's conduct, they have unjustly received and retained a
benefit to the detriment of the class along with him, and that
this benefit violates fundamental principles of justice, equity,
and good conscience and that due to the alleged unjust
enrichment of Seagate, Mr. Mallon claims that he and other
members have suffered injury and seek relief resorting them to
the positions they would be in had Seagate not been unjustly
enriched.

Mr. Mallon is therefore asking that the Court award him and the
class equitable relief, including but not limited to the return
of monies wrongfully obtained by defendants, but in no event
should the value of recovery exceed $75,000.

Based in Scotts Valley, California, Seagate is the world's
largest supplier of disc media and manufactures among other
things, tape drive systems, which are at issue here.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Suit V. Made in USA Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
class action lawsuit in New York against Sears, Roebuck and Co
(NYSE:S) on behalf of several tool buyers who allege that Sears
conducted false advertising and consumer fraud by advertising
that its Craftsman tool line is "Made in the USA."

The allegations include that promotions in ads, the website, on
signs and labels that Craftsman is "Made in the USA" led
consumers to purchase the tools out of a sense of patriotism.
Consumers were also led to believe that Craftsman is of high
quality because it is "Made in the USA." Pictures attached to
the complaint clearly show metal parts from Austria, Denmark,
China, India and Mexico on Craftsman tools boldly labeled as
"Made in the USA."

"Craftsman and Sears enjoy the goodwill of American consumers
who have been led to believe Craftsman is 'Made in the U.S.A.'
Sears has falsely touted Craftsman tools as 'Made in the USA'
when the Federal Trade Commission has issued guidelines stating
that such a claim is proper only where all or substantially all
of the product is U.S.A. made. Sears Craftsman is misleading
consumers by invoking that claim," said Barbara J. Hart,
attorney for the tool buyers.

For more details, contact Jennifer Tetefsky or Barbara J. Hart
of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow by Mail: 100 Park Avenue,
12th Floor, New York, NY  10017 by Phone: (212) 907-0700 or
(212) 907-0659 by Fax: (212) 818-0477 or by E-mail:
jtetefsky@glrslaw.com.


SETTLEMENT RECOVERY: Says One Month Left To Collect on $1B Award
----------------------------------------------------------------
California consumers and companies have until January 8 to claim
their share of a $1.1 billion fund arising out of a 2003 class-
action settlement with the Microsoft Corporation, which stands
to save hundreds of millions of dollars if eligible claims are
not filed by the aforementioned deadline, according to the
Settlement Recovery Center.

Only a small fraction of the qualified claims have been filed.
"Fourteen million people in California are eligible to share in
the Microsoft payout, but only around 750,000 claims have been
filed so far," says Howard Yellen, founder and CEO of Settlement
Recovery Center ("SRC"), a San Francisco-based Company that
helps companies participate in class action settlements.

Anyone who misses the Jan. 8 filing deadline will be out of
luck. "This deadline will not be extended," reads the authorized
website for the California Settlement,
http://www.microsoftcalsettlement.com.Previous deadlines were
repeatedly postponed to allow consumers and businesses
additional time to file for benefits.

Why are the vast majority of eligible parties not signing up?
Microsoft contends that it is because the Redmond giant is so
popular with consumers.

Mr. Yellen thinks there is a more reasonable explanation.
"Companies don't realize what is at stake." For a typical
Company that upgraded its Windows and Office software twice
between 1995 and 2001 this can mean a recovery of nearly $150
per user. "We have quite a few clients who will recover over a
million dollars each," Mr. Yellen noted.

There is also a misperception that claimants will only receive
voucher-credits, good for purchases of computer gear in the
future. In fact, Yellen indicated that many of SRC's clients
will receive direct cash recoveries from Microsoft and never
have to deal with vouchers. "The Settlement is great, but it is
not well understood."

Settlement Recovery Center has been hired to file claims for
over 600 leading companies and nonprofits with millions of
employees in the fields of banking and financial services,
healthcare, telecommunications, technology, transportation,
manufacturing, law, retail, education and entertainment.

With all its experience, SRC knows how to maximize recoveries.
The firm charges a contingency fee of 20-30 percent, which means
it only gets paid when its customers receive their refunds. In
order to help all eligible claimants, SRC has a "tip sheet"
posted on its website
http://www.settlementrecovery.com/camstips.Using this
information, companies can file better, more complete, more
valuable claims -- even without hiring SRC.

Mr. Yellen believes every business in California should file a
claim before the deadline. "Whether they use SRC or file
themselves there is no reason not to file a claim and recover
every dollar that they are entitled to."

For more details, contact Craig Wolfson of the Settlement
Recovery Center by Phone: 415-221-1950.


SHELL OIL: Lawsuit Seeks Broad Damages Over Sulfur-Spiked Fuel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Informal mediation continues in the class action lawsuit against
Shell Oil Co. and its refiner Motiva Enterprises for the sale of
sulfur-tainted gasoline this spring, the Hart Energy Publishing,
LP reports.

According to attorneys bringing the suit, the class could
potentially involve tens of thousands of drivers in nearly a
half-dozen states that include Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama and Florida, who purchased the fuel.

A multi-jurisdictional panel of judges set the case for a
hearing in New Orleans, and several pre-trial motions for
administrative matters and discovery have been ordered.

Plaintiffs' attorneys have retained a team of some 35 experts in
the fields of automotive engineering, metallurgy, chemistry and
refinery process technology. "They are familiar with the process
from beginning to end," said Daniel Becnel, one of the attorneys
representing the plaintiffs. "They are determining what was in
the gasoline, at what concentrations and what damage was caused.
The team has gathered hundreds of gasoline samples which were
taken at or near the time the problem surfaced."

Although their analysis is in the early stages, "they have a
pretty good idea" of what happened, Mr. Becnel continued. "The
fact that it so quickly, adversely affected gasoline gauges
suggests pretty high concentrations of chemical that shouldn't
have been there."

The dispute over additional damages, costs and attorneys fees is
at the core of the suit, which the attorneys say could be
settled. "We're still in the early stages," according to
Plaintiffs attorney Richard Arsenault. "We're in preliminary
mediation and informal dialogue about an exit strategy for this
case."


SIX FLAGS: Settlement of CA Race Bias Suit Effective Oct. 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of a purported class action litigation filed
against Six Flags, Inc. in the California Superior Court for Los
Angeles County became effective in October 2004.

The plaintiffs in the litigation had alleged that security and
other practices at the Company's parks in Valencia, California,
discriminated against visitors on the basis of race, color,
ethnicity, national origin and/or physical appearance, and had
asserted claims under California statutes and common law.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company paid $5,625,000
into a settlement fund, provided 7,000 free tickets to the
Valencia park, and accepted certain injunctive relief, in
exchange for a complete, class-wide release of all claims within
the scope of the master complaint, other than claims by sixteen
individuals who requested exclusion from the class.


TENNESSEE: Jackson Officials Agree To ADA Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Jackson officials recently agreed to a partial settlement in a
lawsuit concerning disabled access filed nearly a year and a
half ago and although there's no immediate monetary penalty for
the city, fully complying with the Americans with Disabilities
Act will cost millions in the long run, according to Jackson
Mayor Charles Farmer, the Jackson Sun News reports.

The City Council unanimously approved a consent decree and
partial settlement at a recent council meeting. By agreeing to
the settlement, the city is admitting to violating ADA
requirements in numerous areas throughout the city, said Mike
Harris, city engineer. Examples include the sidewalks off
Airways Boulevard, where there's broken and uneven pavement
that's not wheelchair friendly, and the intersection of Airways
and Fairgrounds Street, where curbs are out of compliance.

In the city's partial settlement and consent decree for the
August 2003 lawsuit, it requires them to comply with the
following:

     (1) The city must submit an annual report of compliance by
         January 30, showing that the city is prepared to comply
         with ADA standards on any sidewalks or streets
         scheduled to be resurfaced or altered.

     (2) Within the next 180 days, the city must submit a list
         of resurfacing projects and city facility construction
         projects done between Jan. 26, 1992, and July 2004 to
         identify those that fail to meet ADA standards, and
         state what actions the city plans to take to remedy
         those.

Randy Oliver and James Futrell, both physically disabled men
from Jackson, alleged violations of the Americans with
Disabilities Act against the city on August 8, 2003, in U.S.
District Court. It was one of several similar suits filed by
their attorneys in other cities throughout the country. In the
lawsuit, they complained that a list of areas throughout the
city is out of ADA compliance.

To meet settlement requirements, the city will hire a
consultant, at $20,000, to help point out ADA law deficiencies
and to suggest a plan for compliance, said Jackson Mayor Charles
Farmer. The city's insurance will cover the consultant's salary
and payment to the Tennessee Municipal League, who defended the
city in the suit.

The suit, which was filed by J. Mark Finnegan, who is based in
Ann Arbor, Michigan and is one of the attorneys for the
plaintiffs started out as a class action suit with three
plaintiffs, but when it went to Court the judge said it couldn't
be a class action suit since one of the plaintiffs didn't live
in Jackson. So that plaintiff's suit was filed in a Court in the
city he lived in.


U.S. HOMES: Seniors Commence Suit V. Heating Contractors in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Dinan, one of the first on his block to purchase a house at
U.S. Home's Greenbriar Oceanaire age-restricted development in
Waretown, New Jersey, initiated a lawsuit in Burlington County
against two firms that designed and installed his home's heating
system, claiming that his home does not warm properly, the
Asbury Park Press reports.

Since discovering the alleged heating problems, Mr. Dinan, who
has recorded the temperatures using digital thermometers since,
stated that he leaves the thermostat at 70 degrees, but over the
past week since he's been recording regularly, temperatures in
the bathroom have ranged from 62.1 to 67 degrees; and 63 to 68
degrees in the bedroom -- depending on how cold it is outside.
On average, the bathroom has been 5.7 degrees less than the
thermostat and the bedroom has been 4.5 degrees less, on days
ranging from 30 to 55 degrees.

"We're just dreading the winter," said Mr. Dinan, 64, who is a
work-at-home salesman of elevators and escalators. "We had a
phenomenal spring, summer and fall, but who knows what it's
going to be like in the winter."

Mr. Dinan is among a group of residents in the U.S. Home's
Greenbriar Oceanaire age-restricted development who say their
homes do not heat properly. They filed a lawsuit against the
developer in August, which was dismissed by an Ocean County
Superior Court Judge who said their problems could be addressed
through mediation, arbitration, and homeowners' warranty program
or individual negotiation. A month later, they filed this latest
suit in Burlington County against the two firms that designed
and installed their heating systems.

However, odds are the dispute will not be settled this winter,
which is the third in the 1,400-home community's history. "That
depends. I don't think we're going to get a trial date this
year, if this has to go to trial," according to Stephen P.
DeNittis, the lawyer representing the residents. "Other than a
settlement, a trial will not happen before this winter. It's
unfortunate, but that's the way it is."

The suit alleges that the heating systems were defectively
designed by Magrann Associates, based in Moorestown, and
defectively installed by Thermal Design, based in Marlboro. The
suit seeks the companies to implement a program to correct the
problems at their cost, damages and Court costs.

Though attorneys for both companies could not be reached for
comment, in legal documents responding to the suit, the
companies deny wrongdoing and ask the Court that if damages are
awarded to hold the other Company liable. Thermal Design's
response also names U.S. Home in the suit as a defendant.

Meanwhile as the legal process takes its course, residents say
they're already anticipating a third cold winter. "It hasn't
been too cold, but we're starting to feel it already," said Nick
Bonamassa, 63, one of two plaintiffs named in the class-action
suits. "I'm starting to feel it already, but we haven't had that
constant cold days with the wind and all. We all know work has
to be done and we're hoping they own up to it and fix it," he
adds. Ron Bruno, 69, the other named plaintiff, said he has had
to install 500-watt heating lamps in his bathroom and place an
electric heater in the kitchen. He further states, "It just
warms your feet a little bit, but you have to have that. I hate
even thinking what's going to happen next month. You're not
comfortable with all the money we put into these homes. It's not
really normal."


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


AON CORPORATION: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Aon Corporation ("Aon" or the "Company") (NYSE:AOC) between
October 31, 2002, and October 18, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants' publicly disseminated
Class Period statements were materially false and misleading
because, unbeknownst to investors, Aon engaged in an illegal
scheme engineered by defendants to steer business to favored
insurance companies in exchange for lucrative contingent
commissions. In collusion with preferred insurance carriers, Aon
routinely orchestrated illusory bidding competitions in which it
would designate a winner first and then urge other favored
insurance companies to submit inflated bids with the
understanding that Aon would make similar favorable arrangements
for the "losing" bidders in subsequent competitions. Aon
presented clients with the fictitious high quotes from the
insurance companies to create the appearance of a fair bidding
competition. Thus, the complaint alleges, Aon's Class Period
representations regarding its performance were materially false
and misleading because, among other reasons, they failed to
disclose that a material portion of defendants' revenues were
derived from illegal bid rigging and kickback schemes that was
inherently unsustainable and which subjected the Company to a
serious risk of regulatory penalties, potential criminal and
civil liability, and the loss of goodwill among its clients,
thereby compromising the Company's overall financial condition
and prospects for future business.

On October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
issued a press release, headlined "Investigation Reveals
Widespread Corruption in Insurance Industry," announcing his
filing of an action, in New York state Court, against insurance
broker Marsh & McLennan Cos. and two executives for rigging bids
and collecting fees from insurers for steering business their
way, pursuant to "contingent commission" agreements. The civil
complaint accuses the defendants of engaging in fraudulent
business practices, antitrust violations, securities fraud,
unjust enrichment and common law fraud. The press release
described wide-ranging fraud and improper conduct within the
insurance industry. In response to this announcement, and
widespread media coverage of the action, which sent shockwaves
throughout the insurance industry, the price of Aon common stock
dropped dramatically, falling 16% in one day, from a closing
price of $27.66 per share on October 13, 2004 to a closing price
of $23.18 per share on October 14. On October 15, 2004, The Wall
Street Journal reported that Aon was a target of Mr. Spitzer's
probe, having been served with a subpoena for documents related
to its contingent commission agreements. Numerous similar
articles, highlighting the corruption alleged in Mr. Spitzer's
complaint, and the fruits of their own investigations, were
published since then, causing Aon's stock price to decline
further. On October 22, 2004, SmartMoney reported that Mr.
Spitzer's office criticized Aon for "dragging its feet" in
complying with the investigation. Also that day, Aon issued a
press release announcing that "it is eliminating its practice of
accepting contingent commissions from underwriters." Aon's stock
closed at $19.35 on October 22, 2004, 30% below its closing
price prior to the breaking of the scandal.

For more details, contact Eric J. Belfi or Aaron Patton of
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP by Phone: 800-497-8076 or
212-682-1818 by Fax: 212-682-1892 or by E-mail:
info@murrayfrank.com.


ASPEN TECHNOLOGY: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts,
on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of Aspen Technology, Inc. ("Aspen" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:AZPN) between August 8, 2000 and October
29, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against Aspen and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements during the Class Period regarding the Company's
financial performance. More specifically, Defendants failed to
disclose that Aspen had improperly recognized revenue for
certain software license and service agreement transactions
entered into with certain alliance partners during the period
2000-2002, and that as a result the Company's revenues and
earnings were materially overstated.

On October 27, 2004, Aspen announced that its Audit Committee
had begun a review of accounting for certain software license
and service agreement transactions. According to the Company,
the review could lead to a restatement. Then on October 29,
2004, Aspen announced that federal prosecutors launched a probe
into the Company's accounting practices from 2000 through 2002.
The Company also received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Southern District of New York requesting
documents related to the transactions the Company entered into
in those years.

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


H&R BLOCK: Cotchett Pitre Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, on behalf of all persons and
entities who purchased Enron corporate bonds from defendant H&R
Block Financial Advisors, Inc. from October 29, 2001 through
November 27, 2001 (the "Class Period").

Plaintiffs' Complaint alleges causes of action under:

     (1) section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,

     (2) fraud and concealment, and

     (3) breach of fiduciary duty.

Plaintiffs allege that H&R Block Financial Advisors made false
statements and concealed material information in its sale of
Enron bonds to Class members. Specifically, plaintiffs allege
that during an approximate one-month period immediately
preceding Enron's bankruptcy on December 2, 2001, H&R Block
Financial Advisors, through its registered representatives,
solicited and sold Enron bonds without disclosing material facts
including known risks associated with the bonds due to Enron's
accounting and credit problems, H&R Block Financial Advisors'
internal decision to downgrade another Enron security due to
credit risks, and H&R Block Financial Advisors' internal
decision to pay increased incentives to brokers to sell the
bonds.

For more details, contact Cotchett, Pitre, Simon & McCarthy by
Mail: 840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200, Burlingame, CA 94010 or visit
their Web site: http://www.cpsmlaw.com.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of IMPAX
Laboratories, Inc. (Nasdaq:IPXL) between May 5, 2004 and
November 3, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant IMPAX and one
or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact the law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036
or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 JAKKS Pacific, Inc.
("JAKKS") (Nasdaq: JAKK) between December 3, 1999 and October
19, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action, Case No. 04-CV-9021, is pending before the Honorable
Kenneth M. Karas in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, against defendants JAKKS, Jack
Friedman (Chairman and CEO), Stephen Berman (President and COO),
and Joel Bennett (CFO and Executive VP). 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 JAKKS designs, develops, produces and
markets toys and related products using well-recognized
trademarks and brand names it licenses. Prior to the Class
Period, JAKKS licensed the rights from World Wrestling
Entertainment ("WWE"), an integrated media and entertainment
Company, to manufacture toys bearing the WWE brand name in the
United States. According to the Complaint, in pursuit of more
lucrative agreements with WWE, JAKKS bribed a senior WWE
executive, James Bell ("Bell"), who was responsible for
negotiating and managing license agreements, and WWE's licensing
agent, Stanley Shenker & Associates, Inc. ("SSAI"), among
others. In exchange for the bribes from JAKKS, laundered through
foreign corporations, Bell and SSAI agreed to assist JAKKS in
securing a WWE videogame license and favorable amendments to the
toy license. The complaint alleges that JAKKS's bribery scheme
was successful, and on or about February 10, 1997, WWE, at the
recommendation of SSAI and Bell, entered into an international
toy license agreement with JAKKS. In June 1998, SSAI and Bell
convinced WWE management to enter into a videogame license
agreement with THQ & Jakks Pacific LLC, a joint venture formed
by JAKKS and video game maker THQ Inc. The videogame license was
set to expire on December 31, 2009, subject to the right to
renew for an additional five years. At the recommendation of
SSAI and Bell, WWE extended the term of the domestic and
international toy license agreements with JAKKS to make them
conterminous with the videogame license. The WWE videogame
license and toy licenses were extremely lucrative for JAKKS.
Throughout the Class Period, JAKKS publicly reported quarter
after quarter of positive results which it attributed, in
material part, to its WWE product line. At all relevant times,
however, defendants failed to disclose that in order to get the
licenses, they had bribed SSAI and Bell, among others.

The truth began to emerge on October 19, 2004. On that day,
before the market opened, JAKKS issued a press release
announcing its third-quarter 2004 results and that the Company
was "engaged in discussions with WWE" over the validity of its
toy and video games license, stating that the discussions are an
outgrowth of certain litigation that has been pending between
WWE and WWE's former licensing consultant and a former WWE
employee. In the press release, JAKKS stated that if the
discussions with WWE are not satisfactorily concluded, the
litigation is likely to be commenced by WWE. In reaction to this
news, the price of JAKKS common stock declined precipitously,
falling $5.34 per share, or 22%, from its previous day's closing
price of $24.15, to close at $18.81. On the same day, October
19, 2004, after the market closed, Reuters published an article
reporting that WWE filed a complaint against JAKKS and the
Individual Defendants, among others, alleging that they had
perpetrated a massive bribery scheme involving lucrative
licensing deals, in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organization Act and anti-bribery laws. On the following
trading day, October 20, 2004, the price of JAKKS stock
plummeted again in reaction to this news, falling $5.85 per
share, or 31% from its closing price on October 19, 2004, to
close at $12.96. Defendants were motivated to engage in this
illegal and fraudulent bribery scheme in order for Company
insiders, including defendants, to sell hundreds of thousands of
shares of their personally-held JAKKS securities at artificially
inflated prices and to reap over $37.6 million in proceeds.
During the Class Period, defendant Jack Friedman himself sold
960,635 shares of JAKKS stock for proceeds of over $19.3
million.

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.


JAKKS PACIFIC: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of the JAKKS Pacific, Inc. (Nasdaq: JAKK) ("JAKKS"
or the "Company") from February 16, 2000 through October 19,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges JAKKS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that JAKKS had obtained its lucrative WWE licenses
         through an illegal bribery scheme;

     (2) that JAKKS' success was predicated upon unsustainable
         business tactics;

     (3) that discovery of these unsustainable business tactics
         would have material impact on the Company's business
         model; especially, the revenue that JAKKS received from
         the WWE licenses;

     (4) that the Company's revenues and earnings would have
         been significantly less had the Company not engaged in
         the bribery scheme; and

     (5) that as a result of JAKKS' unsustainable business
         tactics and bribery scheme, the terms of the WWE
         licenses could be materially modified, or revoked in
         its entirety, and the Company would be exposed to
         significant liability in the form of damages sought by
         WWE.

On October 19, 2004, JAKKS issued a press release announcing
that it was "engaged in discussions with WWE concerning the
restructuring of its toy license and with WWE and THQ with
respect to the restructuring of the JAKKS THQ Joint Venture
video games license agreement with WWE." On news of this, shares
of JAKKS fell from $24.15 per share to $18.81 per share despite
the fact that JAKKS reported "record" results for the third
quarter and increased its earnings guidance for the fiscal year.
Then, later that day, the WWE Action was filed. The filing of
the WWE Action was made public after the market closed on
October 19, 2004. The next trading day, October 20, 2004, in
response to the news that the problems with the WWE were much
more pronounced and serious than the impression conveyed by
JAKKS' third quarter financial release, the price of JAKKS
common stock declined precipitously, falling from $18.81 per
share to $12.96 per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


JAKKS PACIFIC: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of JAKKS Pacific, Inc. ("JAKKS" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:JAKK) between October 26, 1999 and
October 19, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit
was filed against JAKKS and certain officers and directors
("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Defendants issued a series of false and misleading statements
during the Class Period. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the statements were false and misleading because
they failed to disclose that the Company had obtained their
license with World Wrestling Entertainment ("WWE") as a result
of its participation in an illicit bribery scheme, and that this
scheme would substantially impact the Company's past and future
operating results.

In response to the announcement of problems with the WWE, the
price of JAKKS stock fell dramatically, falling from $24.15 on
October 18, 2004 to $18.81 per share on October 19, 2004.

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


MEDQUIST INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased
the securities of MedQuist, Inc. (Other OTC: MEDQ.PK)
("MedQuist") between April 23, 2002 and November 2, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, MedQuist
violated federal securities laws by issuing materially false or
misleading public statements. On November 2, 2004, Medquist
announced that on October 29, 2004, the Company's Board of
Directors concluded that the Company's previously issued
financial statements, including the 10-K reports for 2002 and
2003, as well as the encompassed Forms 10-Q for the
corresponding period, and all earnings releases and
communications should no longer be relied upon. These statements
by the Company followed the conclusion of Debevoise & Plimpton
LLP and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, that the way Medquist billed
for services created ambiguities in how client accounts were
calculated and which in turn led to incorrect billing.

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


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

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

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

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

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

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

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

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

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


SOURCECORP INC.: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. announces that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of
Sourcecorp, Inc. (Nasdaq: SRCP) ("Sourcecorp" or the "Company")
securities during the period between May 7, 2003 and October 27,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Additional defendants are
Company President and CEO Ed. H. Bowman, Jr. and Company
Executive VP and CFO Barry Edwards.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Sourcecorp, Bowman and Edwards violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, which were known to them or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that defendants prematurely recognized revenue in its
         Information Management and Distribution Division;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

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

On October 27, 2004, the Company announced its need to restate
its previously certified financial results. As a result of the
restatement, the Company will have to adjust its revenues and
diluted EPS for 2003 by at least $5.4 million or $0.19 per
share. For the six months ending June 30, 2004, the adjustment
may amount to $2.8 million or $0.10 per share. Immediately
following this announcement, Sourcecorp's stock fell $5.95 per
share, or almost 30%, on unusually high trading volume of
833,200 shares, from its closing price of $22.21 on October 26,
2004, to a closing price of $16.25 on October 27, 2004.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Max Jodry
of BARON & BUDD, P.C. by Phone: 1-800-222-2766 by E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.baronandbudd.com.


TOMMY HILFIGER: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired Tommy Hilfiger Corp. (NYSE:
TOM) ("Tommy Hilfiger" or the "Company") securities (the
"Class") between November 3, 1999 through September 24, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that, unbeknownst to investors, the
Company's United States subsidiary padded commissions paid to
non-U.S. subsidiaries for the improper purpose of shifting
millions of dollars in reportable revenue from high to low tax
rate jurisdictions. Consequently, throughout the Class Period,
the Company's liability and provision for income taxes was
materially understated, its net income was materially
overstated, and the risk that the Company would be forced to pay
material fines and penalties was concealed from the investing
public. Moreover, all statements made by defendants with respect
to the Company's operating performance, including the Company's
financial statements, were materially false and misleading, and
inherently unreliable, because defendants failed to disclose
that tax evasion was a key element of the Company's business
model. Defendants' scheme enabled insiders, including
defendants, to sell thousand of their shares of Tommy Hilfiger
at artificially inflated prices for proceeds in excess of $100
million.

The truth emerged on September 24, 2004 after the market closed.
On that date, the Company announced that its U.S. subsidiary,
Tommy Hilfiger U.S.A. Inc. ("THUSA"), had received a grand jury
subpoena issued by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern
District of New York seeking documents generally relating to
THUSA's domestic and/or international buying office commissions
since 1990. On this news, Tommy Hilfiger stock dropped 21.79
percent from a closing price of $13.17 on September 24, 2004 to
a closing price of $10.30 on September 27, 2004, the next
trading day.

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


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities 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 Tripath Technology, Inc.
("Tripath" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TRPH) between January 29,
2004 and October 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending before in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against defendants
Tripath, Adya Tripathi (Chairman, CEO, and President), and David
Eichler (CFO). According to the complaint, defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by
issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the market
during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Tripath is a semiconductor company
that focuses on providing power amplification to the digital
media consumer electronics and communications markets. The
Company owns the patented technology called Digital Power
Processing (DPP(R)) which leverages modern advances in digital
signal processing and power processing in audio, DSL, and
wireless communication products. Throughout the Class Period,
Tripath reported quarter after quarter of record results in
publicly disseminated press releases and SEC filings. Defendants
attributed the results to the sale of its products and design
wins (the selection of Tripath products for design into its
customers' new products) in the communications and home
entertainment system markets. Unbeknownst to the Class, however,
the Company's seeming success was the result of improper
accounting that artificially inflated Tripath's reported
results.

On October 22, 2004, after the market closed, Tripath disclosed
in a press release and a concurrent SEC filing on Form 8-K that
net revenues for the third quarter 2004 would be "significantly
below prior guidance of $4 - $4.5 million" and that the
Company's net loss in the same period would be "significantly
greater than previously anticipated." Moreover, the Company
disclosed that it was reviewing the return of $1.3 million in
products to the Company's distributor. The Company had already
recognized as revenue proceeds from the sale of the products in
the second quarter of 2004. The Company further announced it
might need to restate its revenues for the second quarter 2004,
and that its auditor, BDO Seidman, LLP, had resigned on October
18, 2004, citing "material weaknesses in Tripath's internal
controls concerning the effectiveness of Tripath's Audit
Committee and Tripath's ability to estimate distributor sales
returns in accordance with SFAS no. 48." In reaction to this
news, the price of Tripath common stock fell $0.75 per share, or
49%, from its closing price of $1.52 on October 22, 2004 to
close at $0.77 per share on its next trading day, October 25,
2004. The closing price of Tripath shares on October 22, 2004
represented a $7.07, or 90%, decline from its Class Period high
of $7.84 reached on January 29, 2004. Defendants were motivated
to engage in this illegal and fraudulent scheme in order for
Company insiders, including the defendants Tripathi and Eichler,
to sell thousands of shares of their personally-held Tripath
securities at artificially inflated prices, reaping over $2.1
million in proceeds.

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.


UTSTARCOM INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of UTStarcom,
Inc. (Nasdaq:UTSI) between April 16, 2003 through and including
August 11, 2004 (the "Class Period"), including all purchasers
in the January 8, 2004 stock offering and the September 16, 2003
debt offering.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant UTStarcom and
one or more of its officers and/or directors. The action charges
that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market throughout the Class Period, which statements had the
effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the
above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410-986-0036
by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


UTSTARCOM, INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of UTStarcom,
Inc. ("UTStarcom") (NASDAQ: UTSI) common stock during the period
between April 16, 2003 and August 11, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges UTStarcom and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. UTStarcom designs, manufactures and sells
telecommunications equipment and products, and provides services
associated with their operation.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused UTStarcom's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, UTStarcom was able to
raise proceeds of $475 million through a secondary offering and
the Company insiders were able to reap $56 million in illegal
insider trading proceeds. The true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the Company had massive supply chain constraints
         delaying legitimate revenue recognition;

     (2) the Company's prime margins were eroding in China;

     (3) the Company lacked internal control over its ability to
         analyze revenue recognition criteria;

     (4) the Company was in violation of Nasdaq rules requiring
         that the Board of Directors have a majority which is
         independent;

     (5) the Company's Japanese-related revenue projections were
         overstated by $290 million; and

     (6) as a result, defendants' projections for FY 2004 and
         2005 were grossly inflated.

On August 10, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that it had "filed a request with the Securities and
Exchange Commission for a five-day extension with respect to the
filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2004 .... Specifically, in connection with its second
quarter closing and review process, UTStarcom identified a
single equipment sale transaction in a single geographical sales
market in the amount of approximately $1.9 million that was
initially proposed to be recorded as revenue for the second
quarter. Upon further analysis, UTStarcom determined that this
transaction did not meet the qualification requirements for
recognition within the second quarter and as a result did not
include this as revenue in the release of its second quarter
results." The stock dropped to $15.37 per share on this news.

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

                            *********


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  * * *