CAR_Public/041213.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Monday, December 13, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 246

                          Headlines

BEELMAN RIVER: Employee Files Overtime Lawsuit in Madison County
BIO-MED DEVICES: Recalls Breathing Circuits Due To Defects
BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in CA
BROWN & BROWN: Named As Defendant in NY Marsh & McLennan Lawsuit
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Federal Jury Dismisses "Collusion" Claims

CALLAWAY GOLF: Consumers File Antitrust, Fraud Suits Over NPIP
CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS: FTC Seeks To Halt Consumer Fraud Practices
COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Sam Wyly Files Motion To Re-Open Settlement
CORTLAND BANCORP: OH High Court Nixes Review of Suit Dismissal
DT INDUSTRIES: Court Enters Judgment V. Mr. Rambahal, Mr. Kofton

GEORGIA: Ex-Gov. Barnes Files Suit Over Gift Cards, Certificates
HILB ROGAL: Named As Defendant in NY Insurance Brokers Lawsuit
HOME PRODUCTS: Shareholders File Suit V. JRT Acquisition Merger
ILLINOIS: Roselle Wants Out Of Suit V. Ford Motor's Police Cars
ILLINOIS: Madison County Suit Filings Down, ICJL Head Cautions

IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Terminates FL Antitrust Lawsuit Settlement
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues To Face Litigation Over Fen-Phen
IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Working To Resolve AWP Fraud Litigation
IVAX PHARMACUETICALS: Faces Claims, Probe Over Antibiotic Prices
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Appeals $800M Consumer Suit Judgment

MBNA CORPORATION: Court Certifies Conversion Fee Antitrust Suit
MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: NJ Court Approves Securities Settlement
MEDQUIST: Transcription Fraud Lawsuit Bolsters Hospitals' Case
MGM MIRAGE: NV Court Hears Motion To Decertify Shareholder Suit
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Cities File Antitrust Violations Suit

NORTON MCNAUGHTON: Recalls 157.3T Sweaters Due To Injury Hazard
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs To File FL Consolidated Suit
PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs File Amended PA Securities Suit
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: PA Court Stays New Securities Fraud Suit
SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Stock Fraud Suit

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Suit in AZ Court
UICI: TX Court Considers Consolidation of Securities Fraud Suits
WESTPOINT STEVENS: GA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
WFS FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Suits in TN, CA
WFS FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA Securities Suit

ZIX CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in TX

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTOBYTEL INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
GEOPHARMA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in CA
PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files MA Securities Suit
PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in MA

SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SUPPORTSOFT, INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
UTSTARCOM INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
UTSTARCOM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA


                            *********


BEELMAN RIVER: Employee Files Overtime Lawsuit in Madison County
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ronald Nash, of Edwardsville, filed a class action complaint
against Beelman River Terminals of Venice alleging the Beelman
failed to pay overtime to hourly employees, the Madison County
Record reports.

Mr. Nash is represented by Elizabeth Heller of Edwardsville.
The suit, the 70th class action suit filed in Madison County
Circuit Court in 2004, was filed on behalf of employees who
worked for Beelman for more than 40 hours in any one week from
November 2001 through Nov 17, 2004.

Mr. Nash, who is seeking an award of compensatory damages,
restitution and all other monetary relief authorized by law or
reference, together with punitive damages and interest, and a
Court order requiring Beelman to comply with Illinois minimum
wage laws and pay its employees accordingly, claims that Beelman
employed more than 100 hourly employees during the time period
covered in the class definition, many of which are Madison
county residents and that common questions of law and fact
predominate over questions only affecting individual members of
the class, such as whether;

     (1) Beelman failed to pay employees time and-a-half for all
         hours worked over 40 hours per week as required by the
         Illinois Minimum Wage Law;

     (2) Beelman's failure to pay time-and-a-half for overtime
         labor was in violation of minimum wage laws;

     (3) Members of the class suffered an ascertainable loss by
         reason of Beelman's failure to pay overtime as
         required;

In justifying the class action case, which has been assigned to
Circuit Judge George Moran Jr., the complaint states, "...the
actual damages suffered by each class member may be relatively
small, compared to the burden and expense of individual
prosecution of this complex and extensive litigation, absent a
class action."


BIO-MED DEVICES: Recalls Breathing Circuits Due To Defects
----------------------------------------------------------
Bio-Med Devices, Inc. of Madison, CT is voluntarily recalling
Patient Breathing Circuits with Catalog Numbers: 80011, 80015,
8002A, 8002A-7, 8002A-9, DENTL, 3030-5, 4408 (built between
September 22, 2004 and December 2, 2004, as indicated by last
six digits of lot number MMDDYY). The device contains a 22mm x
22mm adapter made, and recalled, by Unomedical (of McAllen, TX),
who has found a potential blockage problem (in a small
percentage of parts of this type) which could contribute to
serious or life threatening injury to patient. Our firm has not
received any complaints or reports of adverse events.

The product is distributed to hospitals and through distributors
nationwide. Bio-Med has suspended sales until the Company is
certain that the affected product has been removed from
distribution. Distributors and hospitals that have purchased the
affected products are urged to return the product to Bio-Med
Devices at 170 Fort Path Rd, Madison, CT 06437 for replacement.

Distributors and hospital personnel with questions may contact
the Company at (203) 458-0202.


BIOLASE TECHNOLOGY: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Biolase Technology, Inc. and certain of its officers face
several putative shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California.  The complaints purport to seek unspecified damages
on behalf of an alleged class of persons who purchased the
Company's common stock between October 29, 2003 and July 16,
2004.

The complaints allege that the Company and its officers violated
federal securities laws by failing to disclose material
information about the demand for our products and the fact that
the Company would not achieve the alleged forecasted growth.
The claimed misrepresentations include certain statements in the
Company's press releases and the registration statement the
Company filed in connection with our public offering of stock in
March 2004.


BROWN & BROWN: Named As Defendant in NY Marsh & McLennan Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brown & Brown, Inc. was named as a defendant in a putative class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, styled "OptiCare Health
Systems, Inc. v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, et al., Civil
Action No. 04 CV 06954 (DC)."

The Complaint added the Company, as well as six other insurance
intermediaries and four commercial insurance carriers and their
affiliates, as defendants in a case initially filed against
three of the largest U.S. insurance intermediaries (Marsh &
McLennan, AON and Willis Group).  The Complaint refers to an
action that was filed against Marsh & McLennan by the New York
State Attorney General on October 14, 2004, and alleges various
improprieties and unlawful acts by the various defendants in the
pricing and placement of insurance, including:

     (1) alleged manipulation of the market for insurance by,
         among other things rigging bids and "steering" clients
         to particular insurers based on considerations other
         than the customers' interests;

     (2) alleged entry into unlawful tying arrangements pursuant
         to which the placement of primary insurance contracts
         was conditioned upon commitments to place reinsurance
         through a particular broker; and

     (3) alleged failure to disclose contingent commission and
         other allegedly improper compensation and fee
         arrangements.

The Complaint includes the Company in a group together with the
other defendant insurance intermediaries, and does not allege
that any separate, specific act was only committed by Brown &
Brown, Inc.  The action asserts a number of causes of action,
including violations of the federal antitrust laws, multiple
state antitrust and unfair and deceptive practices statutes, and
the federal racketeering (RICO) statute, as well as breach of
fiduciary duty, misrepresentation, conspiracy, aiding and
abetting, and unjust enrichment, and seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief.  The Complaint also contains a separate
breach of contract claim directed only at the Marsh & McLennan
affiliates.

The plaintiff, allegedly a client of a Marsh & McLennan
subsidiary, seeks to represent a putative class consisting of
all persons who, between August 26, 1994 and the date a class is
certified in the case, engaged the services of any of the
insurance intermediary defendants or any of their subsidiaries
or affiliates, and who entered into or renewed a contract of
insurance with any of the insurance carrier defendants.  The
plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, including treble damages,
as well as attorneys' fees and costs.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: Federal Jury Dismisses "Collusion" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal jury recently threw out a class-action claim alleging
that Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad conspired with a
Portland, Oregon law firm to limit payments to railroad workers
who suffered hearing loss, the Associated Press reports.

"We're very happy to have that behind us," Burlington Northern
vice president and general counsel Paul Hoferer said. "It's nice
to be exonerated," he adds.

In the early 1990s, the railroad paid settlements averaging
about $25,000 to 2,800 workers in Washington, Oregon and Montana
who suffered some hearing loss on the job. That group had sued
in 2001, claiming Burlington Northern had reached a secret deal
with the Portland law firm that represented the workers to limit
their payments.

Burlington Northern and the firm Bricker, Zakovics, Querin,
Thompson and Ritchie denied they had any such deal, and a jury
agreed in U.S. District Court in Seattle.

Though some Burlington Northern workers did not return to work
because they suffered such severe hearing loss, the 2,800
involved in this case stayed on the job, according to Mr.
Hoferer.  Craig Spiegel, a lawyer representing the workers, did
not return a call seeking comment, AP reports.


CALLAWAY GOLF: Consumers File Antitrust, Fraud Suits Over NPIP
--------------------------------------------------------------
Callaway Golf Co. faces several class actions filed in various
Courts over its unilateral sales policy called the "New Product
Introduction Policy (NPIP), which the Company adopted in the
fall of 1999.

The NPIP sets forth the terms on which the Company chooses to do
business with its customers with respect to the introduction of
new products.  Currently pending cases include:

     (1) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 2001-24-IV,
         pending in Tennessee state Court ("Lundsford I");

     (2) Foulston v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 02C3607, pending in
         Kansas state Court;

     (3) Murray v. Callaway Golf Sales Company, Case
         No. 3:04CV274-H, pending in the United States Court for
         the Western District of North Carolina; and

     (4) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Civil Action No. 3:04-cv-
         442

Lundsford I was filed on April 6, 2001, and asserts a punitive
class action by the plaintiff on behalf of himself and on behalf
of consumers in Tennessee and Kansas who purchased select
Callaway Golf products covered by the NPIP on or after March 30,
2000.  Plaintiff asserts violations of Tennessee and Kansas
antitrust and consumer protection laws and is seeking damages,
restitution and punitive damages.  The Court has not made any
determination that the case may proceed in the form of a class
action.

In Foulston, filed on November 4, 2002, plaintiff seeks to
assert an alleged class action on behalf of Kansas consumers who
purchased Callaway Golf products covered by the NPIP and seeks
damages and restitution for the alleged class under Kansas law.
The trial Court in Foulston stayed the case in light of
Lundsford I.  The Foulston Court has not made any determination
that the case may proceed in the form of a class action.

The complaint in Murray was filed on May 14, 2004, alleging that
a retail golf business was damaged by the alleged refusal of
Callaway Golf Sales Company to sell certain products after the
store violated the NPIP, and by the failure to permit plaintiff
to sell Callaway Golf products on the internet.  The proprietor
seeks compensatory and punitive damages associated with the
failure of his retail operation.  The Company removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, and has answered the complaint denying
liability.

Lundsford II was filed on September 28, 2004 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.
The complaint in Lundsford II asserts that the NPIP constitutes
an unlawful resale price agreement and an attempt to monopolize
golf club sales prohibited by federal antitrust law.  The
complaint also alleges a violation of the state antitrust laws
of Tennessee, Kansas, South Carolina and Oklahoma.  Lundsford II
seeks to assert a nationwide class action consisting of all
persons who purchased Callaway Golf clubs subject to the NPIP on
or after March 30, 2000.  Plaintiff seeks treble damages under
the federal antitrust laws, compensatory damages under state
law, and an injunction.  The Lundsford II Court has not made a
determination that the case may proceed in the form of a class
action.


CAPITAL ACQUISITIONS: FTC Seeks To Halt Consumer Fraud Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) asked a U.S. District Court
to order a halt to the harassing, intimidating, deceptive, and
illegal `debt collection' practices of Capital Acquisitions &
Management (CAMCO), in the face of more than 2,000 consumer
complaints.

At the agency's request, the Court has frozen the assets of the
Company and its principals and appointed a receiver to oversee
the corporate records and assets, pending trial. The FTC will
seek a permanent halt to the illegal threats and lies the
defendants use to attempt to collect "time-barred" debts - debts
so old that they are beyond the statute of limitations, and
cannot appear on credit reports - and debts consumers never
incurred and did not owe.

In March 2004, the FTC charged that CAMCO, RM Financial, and
their principals were threatening and harassing thousands of
consumers to get them to pay old, unenforceable debts or debts
they did not owe. The agency alleged that their abusive and
deceptive collection practices violated federal law, including
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The companies and
individuals paid a $300,000 civil penalty to settle the FTC
charges, and were barred from engaging in abusive, deceptive,
and illegal collection practices in the future.

In the eight months since that settlement, the FTC has received
more than 2,000 consumer complaints about CAMCO's illegal
tactics - three times more than the agency received in the two
years before the settlement.

In papers filed with the Court, the agency charged that as much
as 80 percent of the money CAMCO collects comes from consumers
who never owed the original debt in the first place. Many
consumers pay the money to get CAMCO to stop threatening and
harassing them, their families, their friends, and their co-
workers.

According to the FTC, CAMCO buys old debt lists that frequently
contain no documentation about the original debt and in many
cases no Social Security Number for the original debtor. CAMCO
makes efforts to find people with the same name in the same
geographic area and tries to collect the debt from them -
whether or not they are the actual debtor. In papers filed with
the Court, the FTC alleges that CAMCO agents told consumers -
even consumers who never owed the money - that they were legally
obligated to pay. They told consumers that if they did not pay,
CAMCO could have them arrested and jailed, seize their property,
garnish their wages, and ruin their credit. All of those threats
were false, according to the FTC.

According to the FTC, grossly abusive behavior, including
shouting and profanity, are commonplace tactics with CAMCO.
Collectors told consumers:

     (1) We're "going to hound you `til the day you die;"

     (2) We will "continue to hunt you;" and

     (3) "We'll get you one way or another."

CAMCO collectors also ignored restrictions on who and when they
could call.

The FTC suit asks the Court to order a permanent bar on the
operation's illegal activities and order redress for consumers.

In addition to CAMCO, the complaint names RM Financial Services,
Inc., Capital Properties Holdings, Inc., Caribbean Asset
Management, Ltd., Reese Waugh, Jerome Kuebler, Eric Woldoff,
George Othon, and Jeffrey Garrington.

CAMCO's offices are located in Rockford and Schaumberg,
Illinois. RM Financial is based in Marietta, Georgia. Caribbean
Asset Management is based in Montego Bay, Jamaica.

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was
5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois Eastern Division, in Chicago,
Illinois.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580
or visit the Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Claudia
Bourne Farrell, Office of Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2181 or
Steven Baker or David O'Toole, Midwest Region, Phone:
312-960-5634


COMPUTER ASSOCIATES: Sam Wyly Files Motion To Re-Open Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers for Texas billionaire Sam Wyly recently filed a motion
in federal Court in Central Islip seeking to reopen a Court-
approved settlement between Computer Associates and class-action
shareholders, so Mr. Wyly can pursue past executives and
directors who may have improperly benefited from CA's accounting
improprieties, the Newsday reports.

According to Mr. Wyly's attorneys, the action seeks to void
elements of a securities class-action settlement reached in
which CA issued 5.7 million shares to settle four years of
claims of improper accounting against the Company, directors and
executives. In December, a federal judge approved the
settlement, which released former executives and directors, past
and present, from future legal claims related to the accounting
problems.

CA reached the settlement just a month before the Company
disclosed $2.2 billion in improperly booked contracts in October
2003, when it fired its chief financial officer, Ira Zar, and
two other officers. The Company in September reached a deferred
prosecution agreement with federal authorities in which it will
pay $225 million to shareholders and have an outside monitor for
18 months. Disbursements of stock in the class-action settlement
were expected to begin this week.

William Brewer, an attorney for Mr. Wyly at Bickel & Brewer in
Dallas, said he expects this week to file a similar motion to
void releases of executives and directors in a separate
derivative suit Mr. Wyly filed on behalf of the Company in July.

Mr. Brewer also stated that he was surprised CA itself hadn't
filed to void the releases, saying, "CA should be pursuing these
various individuals and wrongdoers."

In his most recent motion, Mr. Wyly contended that the
settlement and class action judgments were "based on fraud,"
since a former CA general counsel, Steve Woghin, who has since
admitted a role in the accounting fraud, represented CA during
the settlement. Woghin in September pleaded guilty to two counts
of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and obstruction of
justice.

In making his case, Mr. Wyly's lawyers referred extensively to a
published report in which an outside lawyer for CA revealed that
Mr. Woghin "improperly withheld the documents implicating CA
executives while he negotiated the deal releasing those
executives and him from liability for their misdeeds."

The published interview with CA's outside counsel at Sullivan &
Cromwell, said a person familiar with the case, could subject
all the attorney's investigative notes to discovery in Mr.
Wyly's motion.

Wyly-affiliated companies said in the filing they suffered
damages as a result of the accounting fraud in excess of $100
million, in addition to an untold impact on his 3 million
options.


CORTLAND BANCORP: OH High Court Nixes Review of Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Ohio Supreme Court refused plaintiffs' motion for review of
a lower Court ruling dismissing the class actions filed against
Cortland Savings and Banking Company, styled "Slentz, et al
(Plaintiffs) versus Cortland Savings and Banking Company
(Defendant)" and "McDonagh, et al (Plaintiffs), versus Cortland
Savings and Banking Company (Defendant)."

These class action cases originated with filings in the Northern
District of Ohio Eastern Division of the Federal Court system.
In addition to their alleged Federal claims, Plaintiffs alleged
State law claims which were included as pendent causes of
action.  On October 20, 1997 the federal judge presiding over
these cases filed a judgment entry dismissing all federal claims
against the Bank without prejudice.  The judgment of the
district Court was appealed by Plaintiffs.

On March 2, 1999 the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit affirmed the decision of the district federal
Court to grant summary judgment in favor of the defendant bank
and to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' Federal Claims. While awaiting
the ruling of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Plaintiffs
asserted their alleged State law claims by filing suit in the
Common Pleas Court of Trumbull County seeking damages of
approximately $4.3 million.

On September 30, 2002 the Bank received notice that The Court of
Common Pleas in Trumbull County, Ohio had ordered the dismissal
of all Plaintiffs' claims in Slentz, et al (Plaintiffs) versus
Cortland Savings and Banking Company (Defendant), and McDonagh,
et al (Plaintiffs) versus Cortland Savings and Banking Company
(Defendant), and granted Summary Judgment on all counts of
Plaintiffs' Complaint in both cases.

Plaintiffs appealed the judgment rendered by the Common Pleas
Court of Trumbull County.  The Company and the Plaintiffs filed
all permitted briefs with the 11th District Court of Appeals and
oral arguments were made before the Court of Appeals on October
20,2003.  On March 4, 2004, the Company received notice that the
11th District Court of Appeals had upheld the decision of the
Court of Common Pleas in Trumbull County, Ohio in favor of the
Bank.

On April 15, 2004 the Plaintiffs appealed the 11th District
Court's decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.  On July 14, 2004
the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that it would not accept the
Plaintiffs' cases for review and for briefing on the merits.
Plaintiffs failed to file a motion for reconsideration with the
Ohio Supreme Court by the July 26, 2004 deadline.


DT INDUSTRIES: Court Enters Judgment V. Mr. Rambahal, Mr. Kofton
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission recently reported that
that Judge Richard E. Dorr of the U.S. District Court in the
Western District of Missouri, entered final judgments against
Defendants Richard Rambahal and Paul H. Kofton, pursuant to
their consent, for their roles in financial fraud schemes
perpetrated at DT Industries, Inc. (DTI).

At the time of the illegal conduct, DTI was headquartered in
Springfield, Missouri. The final judgments permanently enjoin
Mr. Rambahal and Mr. Kofton from violating the anti-fraud
provisions, among others, of the federal securities laws. The
final judgments also order Mr. Rambahal to pay $29,120 in
disgorgement and order Mr. Kofton to pay $9,870 in disgorgement
and a $35,000 civil penalty. The Commission's complaint alleged
that Mr. Rambahal, Kofton and others engaged in separate
fraudulent schemes at three of DTI's subsidiaries to
artificially inflate DTI's financial position. Specifically, the
Commission's complaint alleged that at various times between
1996 and 2000, Mr. Rambahal and Mr. Kofton knowingly or
recklessly failed to properly recognize costs associated with
various projects in order to reach their subsidiary's projected
earnings targets set by DTI. The Commission's complaint also
alleged that Mr. Rambahal and Mr. Kofton attempted to conceal
their   schemes in various ways, including the creation of false
supporting documentation and that Mr. Rambahal's and Mr.
Kofton's conduct resulted in material misstatements to DTI's
financial statements that it filed with the Commission.  This
case is still pending against Defendant Michael Lesniewski. The
action is titled, SEC v. Richard Rambahal et al., Civil Action
No. 04-3086-cv-RED, U.S.D.C., W.D. MO. (LR-18995).


GEORGIA: Ex-Gov. Barnes Files Suit Over Gift Cards, Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------
Former Gov. Roy Barnes initiated a lawsuit in Atlanta against
Simon Property Group, which owns several malls in the area
including Lenox Square over fees and expirations dates on gift
cards and gift certificates on behalf of two Atlanta area
shoppers, the WXIA-TV, GA reports.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status that if granted
would likely expand the case to thousands of Georgians, fees and
expiration dates on Simon's gift cards and certificates are
illegal and should be stopped.

According to the National Retail Federation, gift cards are
expected to account for $17.2 billion in holiday sales, or 8
percent of the total.

While gift cards sold by many retailers do not expire or lose
value over time, some do. Simon gift cards for instance lose
$2.50 in value each month, starting seven months after purchase
and then expire after a year.

Andrea Nay-Richardson, one of the plaintiffs, bought $400 in
Simon gift certificates at Lenox Square in May 2001 and wound up
keeping them for herself. Upon trying to use one in 2002, she
was told it had expired and was worthless, the lawsuit said.
While the other plaintiff, Betty Benson, claims she also lost
money after her employer gave her a $75 Simon gift card that
expired before she used it.

The lawsuit claims the value of an unused gift card is unclaimed
property that must be turned over to the state so the owner can
reclaim it. Mr. Barnes even pointed out that, "It's like any
other abandoned property in the state. It's a long-standing law
in Georgia and even if it's never claimed or used, it belongs to
Georgia, not Simon."

Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that the expiration dates also
violate Georgia law requiring Simon to honor cards for five
years, that administrative fees are not properly disclosed and
that the Company does not incur expenses of $2.50 per month on
cards not used after seven months.

Simon sells gift cards at its more than 300 malls nationwide.
The Company converted its gift cards recently to Simon Visa gift
cards, which now list expiration dates on the front of cards.


HILB ROGAL: Named As Defendant in NY Insurance Brokers Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hilb Rogal & Hobbs Co. was named as defendant in the class
action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, brought by OptiCare Health Systems Inc.
against the 10 largest U.S. insurance brokers and four of the
largest commercial insurers.

The amended complaint alleges unlawful conduct by all defendants
in connection with the pricing and placing of insurance,
including antitrust violations, deceptive trade practices,
breach of fiduciary duty and violations of the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations statute.


HOME PRODUCTS: Shareholders File Suit V. JRT Acquisition Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Home Products International, Inc. faces two class actions filed
in Delaware and Illinois Court, over the Company's proposed
merger with JRT Acquisition, Inc.  The suit also names as
defendants JRT and the Company's board of directors.

On June 3, 2004, a complaint was filed in the Court of Chancery
for the State of Delaware, alleging that in entering into the
JRT Agreement, its board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties of loyalty, due care and good faith.  The complaint,
which includes a request for a declaration that the action be
maintained as a class action, seeks, among other relief,
injunctive relief enjoining the transaction from being
consummated.

On June 4, 2004, a complaint was filed in the Chancery Division
of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against the
Company and its directors.  The complaint purports to be filed
by a stockholder and alleges that in entering into the JRT
Agreement, the Company's board of directors breached their
fiduciary duties of loyalty, due care, independence, good faith
and fair dealing.  The complaint, which includes a request for a
declaration that the action be maintained as a class action,
seeks, among other relief, injunctive relief enjoining the
transaction from being consummated.


ILLINOIS: Roselle Wants Out Of Suit V. Ford Motor's Police Cars
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the hopes of once again buying police squad cars from Ford
Motor Co., Roselle officials recently approved a resolution to
dismiss attorneys representing the villages in a lawsuit against
the car Company, the Chicago Tribune reports.

For the last few years, Roselle and other municipalities across
the country have been involved in a class-action lawsuit against
Ford because of problems with exploding fuel tanks in high-speed
accidents.

According to Village Administrator Robin Weaver said
municipalities hired attorneys to represent them in the lawsuit
and that the Courts ruled in favor of Ford. Village officials
are procedurally bound to release the old attorneys and find new
representation to completely disengage from the lawsuit.  "So
we're dismissing the attorneys representing us in the case and
hiring a new Downstate attorney to represent us," he told the
Chicago Tribune.


ILLINOIS: Madison County Suit Filings Down, ICJL Head Cautions
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a review of lawsuits filed in the Madison County Circuit
Court's civil law division, a significant decrease in cases over
$50,000 have been filed year-to-date over previous years
fuelling speculations that there is an emerging trend in the
Court, the Madison County Record reports.

However, calling it a trend may be premature, according to
Illinois Civil Justice League (ICJL) President Ed Murnane. "It's
difficult to measure trends in one year. Certainly one can see
peaks and valleys or blips on the radar. There are a lot of
reasons why (the numbers) could be down," Mr. Murnane added.

A peak was reached in 2003, when 2,102 total cases (over
$50,000) were filed, including asbestos and class action suits.
That compares to 1,350 suits filed so far this year. While last
year there were 106 class action suits filed in Madison County,
only 69 have been filed so far in 2004.

Though hoping against hope that it's an emerging trend, Mr.
Murnane was quick to point out that itvis really premature too
call it so. Mr Murnane told the Madison County Record, "I think
that the increased attention to the judicial system in Madison
County eventually was bound to have an impact. Maybe the high
level of attention on the judicial system, the medical
malpractice issue, the Supreme Court race--maybe that in part is
contributing to the decline."

Since 1999 when 1,246 cases were filed, there has been a steady
increase in the amount of cases filed in Madison County, with
the exception of 2002 when only 1,729 cases were filed. In 2000,
there were 1,313 suits filed and in 2001 there were 1,876 filed.

Mr. Murnane also pointed out that "It could also be that
plaintiff's lawyers in Madison County, as well as attorneys
across the country, may think the Courts here are not as
friendly as they were accustomed to, and they may be looking
somewhere else."

Aside from Madison County neighboring St. Clair County has also
seen a slight decrease in cases filed. In 2003, a total of 831
cases were filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court, and as of
December 8 there have only been 698.


IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Terminates FL Antitrust Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) terminated the settlement
agreement for the class action filed against it in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
styled "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. vs. Abbott Laboratories,
Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Zenith Goldline
Pharmaceuticals, Inc."

The suit alleges a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act.  Plaintiffs purport to represent a class
consisting of customers who purchased a certain proprietary drug
directly from Abbott Laboratories during the period beginning on
October 29, 1998.  Plaintiffs allege that, by settling patent-
related litigation against Abbott in exchange for quarterly
payments, the defendants engaged in an unlawful restraint of
trade.  The complaint seeks unspecified treble damages and
injunctive relief.

Eighteen additional class action lawsuits containing allegations
similar to those in the Louisiana Wholesale case were filed in
various jurisdictions between July 1999 and February 2001, the
majority of which have been consolidated with the Louisiana
Wholesale case.  On March 13, 2000, the Federal Trade Commission
("FTC") announced that it had issued complaints against, and
negotiated consent decrees with, Abbott Laboratories and Geneva
Pharmaceuticals arising out of an investigation of the same
subject matter that is involved in these lawsuits.  On December
13, 2000, plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue
of whether the settlement agreement constituted a per se
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act in the
Louisiana Wholesale case was granted, but on September 15, 2003,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
reversed the order.  The appellate Court also issued a ruling
de-certifying the class.

On remand and following class discovery, the District Court
entered an order on June 23, 2004, denying the Direct Purchaser
Plaintiffs' renewed motion for class certification.  In light of
these orders, the Company elected to terminate the Settlement
Agreement and requested the return of the settlement payment
less notice and Settlement Fund administrative fees.  The FTC
took no action against IPI.  To date, sixteen of the actions
naming IPI have either been settled or dismissed.


IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Continues To Face Litigation Over Fen-Phen
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPI) continues to face in a number
of individual and class action lawsuits in both state and
federal Courts involving the diet drug combination of
fenfluramine and phentermine, commonly known as "fen-phen."

Generally, these lawsuits seek damages for personal injury,
wrongful death and loss of consortium, as well as punitive
damages, under a variety of liability theories including strict
products liability, breach of warranty and negligence.

The Company did not manufacture either fenfluramine or
phentermine, but did distribute the brand equivalent version of
phentermine manufactured by Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc. (Eon)
and Camall Company.  Although IPI had a very small market share,
to date, IPI has been named in approximately 5,546 cases and has
been dismissed from approximately 5,078 of these cases, with
additional dismissals pending.

Currently Eon is paying for approximately 50% of IPI's costs in
defending these suits and is fully indemnifying IPI against any
damages IPI may suffer as a result of cases involving product
manufactured by Eon. In the event Eon discontinues providing
this defense and indemnity, IPI has its own product liability
insurance. While IPI's insurance carriers have issued
reservations of rights, IPI believes that it has adequate
coverage.


IVAX PHARMACEUTICALS: Working To Resolve AWP Fraud Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (IPUI) is working to resolve
litigation alleging fraud in the way pharmaceutical companies
report their Average Wholesale Price (AWP).

On July 12, 2002, an action purporting to be a class action
styled "John Rice v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al." (the
"Rice Action") was filed against the Company and others in the
Superior Court of the State of California, alleging violations
of California's Business & Professional Code et seq. Plaintiffs
allege that each defendant reported an AWP to Medicare and
Medicaid which materially misrepresented the actual prices paid
to defendants by physicians and pharmacies for prescription
drugs.  The complaint seeks unspecified damages, including
punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

Two other class actions, Thompson v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc.,
et al. (the "Thompson Action") and Turner v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., et al. (the "Turner Action"), containing
similar allegations against IPI and others were filed in
California Courts in August and September 2002, respectively, as
well.  All three cases were removed to federal Court and
transferred to the Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale
Price Multi-District Litigation in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts.

On November 23, 2003, the plaintiff in the Rice Action dismissed
his action against IPI and other defendants without prejudice.
On January 9, 2004, the Court denied the motions filed by the
plaintiffs in the Thompson Action and the Turner Action to
remand the cases to state Court and further ruled that the
claims in these actions were preempted by the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).  In February 2004, the
plaintiffs in the Thompson Action and the Turner Action also
dismissed their actions against IPI and other defendants.

On September 29, 2003, the Company received a copy of a summons
and complaint filed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts against
IVAX Corporation, and various other manufacturers of generic
pharmaceutical products, alleging that all defendant
manufacturers inflated the prices of generic pharmaceutical
products paid for by the Massachusetts Medicaid Program through
alleged fraudulent promotion, marketing and sales practices,
resulting in millions of dollars in overpayments.  The complaint
also alleges that the defendant manufacturers reported
understated drug pricing to the federal government, which had
the effect of reducing rebate payments to the Commonwealth under
rebate agreements.

The complaint alleges violations of the Massachusetts Medicaid
False Claims Act, the Massachusetts False Claims Act and common
law fraud, along with claims for unjust enrichment, breach of
contract and breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing.
The Commonwealth seeks injunctive relief, restitution, treble
damages, civil penalties, attorneys' fees, and investigative and
litigation costs.  A motion to dismiss this action was filed on
January 29, 2004, and is pending.

On September 15, 2003, IPI and Ivax Corporation was served with
an Amended Complaint filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts in the case styled County of
Suffolk vs. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al. and on August 25,
2003, Ivax was served with a similar complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York in the case styled County of Westchester vs. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc. et al.

In each of these cases, the plaintiffs allege that the
defendants violated the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act ("RICO"), the Federal Medicaid Statute, New
York Social Services Law, New York Department of Health
Regulations, and New York General Business Law.  The plaintiffs
also seek the recovery of damages for unfair trade practices,
fraud, breach of contract and under the theory of unjust
enrichment. The plaintiffs also seek unspecified damages,
including treble and punitive damages, civil penalties,
declaratory and injunctive relief and restitution, allegedly
suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the defendants'
alleged unlawful scheme to overcharge for prescription
medications paid for by Medicaid.  The plaintiffs allege that
through promotional, discounting, and pricing practices, the
defendants reported false and inflated average wholesale prices
or wholesale acquisition costs and failed to report their best
prices as required by federal and state rebate statutes
resulting in the plaintiffs overpaying for certain medications.

A motion to dismiss these actions was filed. On October 27,
2004, the Court in County of Suffolk v. Abbott Laboratories,
Inc. issued a memorandum and order granting the motion to
dismiss Ivax and IPI.

On August 5, 2004, New York City filed an action against 44
pharmaceutical companies and their subsidiaries, including Ivax
Corporation and IPI, seeking unspecified damages, including
treble damages, resulting from alleged violations of federal and
state Medicaid law, Medicaid and common law fraud, breach of
contract, unfair and deceptive trade practices and unjust
enrichment.  The City alleges that through the defendants'
alleged unlawful scheme to inflate average wholesale prices and
reporting false and inflated pricing information, the City
overpaid for certain medications.

On November 1, 2004, the plaintiff in State of Wisconsin v.
Amgen Inc., et al. filed a First Amended Complaint in Dane
County, Wisconsin Circuit Court. The case against 21
pharmaceutical companies relates to average wholesale price
reporting, discounts and rebates. The Amended Complaint adds
Ivax Corporation and IPI as defendants. To date, neither entity
has been served.

The Amended Complaint alleges claims for violations of Wisconsin
law, including claims for deceptive sales practices, deceptive
pricing, secret discounts in violation of antitrust law, medical
assistance fraud, and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff seeks
damages, treble damages, forfeiture, restitution, disgorgement
of profits, attorneys' fees and costs, and other unspecified
relief on behalf of the State of Wisconsin, its citizens, and
Wisconsin organizations that pay for prescription drugs.

IPI, along with numerous other pharmaceutical companies, has
received inquiries from and responded to requests for records
and information from the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the
United States House of Representatives in connection with the
Committee's investigation into certain industry and IPI
practices regarding AWP. IPI has also received correspondence
from the States of Nevada, Kentucky, Florida, and Illinois, on
behalf of itself and eight other states, indicating that the
Office of the Attorney General ("OAG") for these states are
investigating allegations of purportedly improper pricing
practices related to the average manufacturer price and best
price calculations.  Ivax Corporation or its subsidiaries have
not been named as a defendant in a suit filed by or on behalf of
these states, but as a result of the investigation the OAG for
the states have advised the Corporation that it is required to
maintain all records related to the investigation.  On July 20,
2004, the OAG for the State of Florida issued subpoenas to IPI
and five other pharmaceutical companies requesting materials to
assist in its investigation.


IVAX PHARMACUETICALS: Faces Claims, Probe Over Antibiotic Prices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Norton Healthcare Limited, trading as IVAX Pharmaceuticals UK,
faces several claims and an investigation filed in the United
Kingdom over prices charged by several generic drug companies
for penicillin-based antibiotics and warfarin sold in the United
Kingdom from 1996 to 2000.

In April 2002, the Company received notice of an investigation
by United Kingdom National Health Service officials.  This is an
investigation by the Serious Fraud Office of the United Kingdom
involving all pharmaceutical companies that sold these products
in the United Kingdom during this period.

In December 2002, the Secretary of State for Health, on behalf
of itself and others, filed a civil claim for damages and
interest against Norton Healthcare, Norton Pharmaceuticals and
other defendants alleging that certain of their actions
adversely affected competition in the sale and supply of
warfarin in the United Kingdom between 1996 and 2000.  This
claim seeks damages against all defendants in the approximate
aggregate amount of 28,600 Pounds Sterling (approximately
$51,823 at the September 30, 2004, currency exchange rate), plus
interest and costs.

In December 2003, the Secretary of State for Health, on behalf
of itself and others, filed a civil claim for damages and
interest against Norton Healthcare, Norton Pharmaceuticals and
other defendants alleging that certain of their actions which
adversely affected competition in the sale and supply of
penicillin in the United Kingdom between 1996 and 2000.  This
claim seeks damages against all defendants in the approximate
amount of 30,500 Pounds Sterling (approximately $55,266 at the
September 30, 2004, currency exchange rate), plus interest and
costs.

In July 2004, the Secretary of State for Health, on behalf of
itself and others, filed a civil claim for damages and interest
against Norton Healthcare, Norton Pharmaceuticals and other
defendants alleging that certain of their actions adversely
affected competition in the sale and supply of ranitidine in the
United Kingdom between 1996 and 2000.  This claim seeks damages
against all defendants in the approximate amount of 69,252
Pounds Sterling (approximately $125,485 at the September 30,
2004, currency exchange rate), plus interest and costs.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Appeals $800M Consumer Suit Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International Incorporated ("MasterCard") and Visa
U.S.A., Inc. ("Visa") appealed the California Superior Court
ruling ordering them to return the 1% currency conversion fee to
the class members on a "claims made basis."

The two companies apply a currency conversion rate, equal to a
wholesale rate plus 1%, to credit card transactions in foreign
currencies for conversion of the foreign currency into U.S.
dollars.  They require member banks to disclose the 1% add-on to
the wholesale rate if the bank chooses to pass it along to the
credit cardholder.  The suit, styled "Schwartz v. Visa and
MasterCard," claims that this 1% "fee" is not adequately
disclosed under federal and California law.  The plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The trial Court issued a decision holding that the federal
disclosure requirement is not applicable but that the failure to
disclose the fee on each statement that includes a fee is unfair
under California law.  The Court held a hearing on restitution
of the fees to cardholders.  In March 2004, the Court ordered
MasterCard and Visa to return the 1% currency conversion fee to
the class members on a "claims made basis," meaning that members
of the class must make a valid claim in order to be entitled to
the return of the fee.  If all members of the class were to make
valid claims, the reported aggregate amount MasterCard and Visa
would have to return is approximately $800 million.


MBNA CORPORATION: Court Certifies Conversion Fee Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted class certification to the lawsuit filed
against MBNA Corporation, MBNA American Bank, N.A., and other
card issuers, styled "In Re Currency Conversion Fee Antitrust
Litigation."

The plaintiffs claim that the defendants conspired in violation
of the antitrust laws to charge foreign currency conversion fees
and failed to properly disclose the fees in solicitations and
applications, in initial disclosure statements and on cardholder
statements, in violation of the Truth-in-Lending Act.  The
plaintiffs claim that the bank defendants and MasterCard and
Visa conspired to charge the 1% foreign currency conversion fee
assessed by MasterCard and Visa and an additional fee assessed
by some issuers.

Unlike most other issuers, in the United States the
Corporation's banking subsidiaries do not charge the additional
fee on consumer credit cards in addition to the fee charged by
MasterCard and Visa, but do charge such an additional fee on
business credit cards.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

In July 2003, the Court granted a motion to dismiss certain
Truth-in-Lending Act claims against the Corporation and other
defendants, but denied a motion to dismiss the antitrust claims
against the defendants.


MEASUREMENT SPECIALTIES: NJ Court Approves Securities Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
granted final approval to the settlement of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Measurement Specialties,
Inc., styled "In re: Measurement Specialties, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 02 Civ. No. 1071 (D.N.J.)."

On March 20, 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey against the
Company and certain of its present and former officers and
directors.  The complaint was subsequently amended to include
the underwriters of the Company's August 2001 public offering as
well as its former auditors.  The lawsuit alleged violations of
the federal securities laws.  The lawsuit sought an unspecified
award of money damages.

After March 20, 2002, nine additional similar class actions were
filed in the same Court.  The ten lawsuits were consolidated
into one case.  Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended
Complaint on September 12, 2002.  The underwriters made a claim
for indemnification under the underwriting agreement.

On April 1, 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principle
to settle this class action lawsuit.  Pursuant to the agreement,
the case has been settled as to all defendants in exchange for
payments of $7,500 from the Company and $590 from Arthur
Andersen, the Company's former auditors. Both the Company's
primary and excess D&O insurance carriers initially denied
coverage for this matter.  After discussion, the Company's
primary D&O insurance carrier agreed to contribute $5,000 and
the Company's excess insurance carrier agreed to contribute
$1,400 to the settlement of this case.


MEDQUIST: Transcription Fraud Lawsuit Bolsters Hospitals' Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Royal Philips Electronics NV (PHG), the world's largest
electronics Company, was recently alerted that a fourth class
action suit was filed against its U.S. transcription asset,
MedQuist (MEDQ.PK), in less than sixty days. A chain of
litigation was first sparked by Greenberg Traurig's initial
September 9th class action suit filed on behalf of hospitals
defrauded by MedQuist. After MedQuist modified its financial
statements, two separate shareholder suits - one of which quotes
heavily from Greenberg Traurig's hospital suit verbatim - were
filed against the Mount Laurel, New Jersey Company. The
transcriptionists' suit, unrelated to Greenberg Traurig's suit,
is the latest volley in the fight and explicitly reveals
MedQuist was defrauding both its hospital clients and its own
employees. It is unclear how the latest suit will impact the
ongoing SEC investigation of MedQuist.

Eleven days after the electronics giant wrote down $753 million
for MedQuist, MedQuist's own transcriptionists, who number more
than 10,000 across the nation and are paid per line they
transcribe, filed a class action suit in Atlanta against the
Company asserting they were underpaid for their work.

According to the transcriptionists' suit "MedQuist did not pay
Plaintiffs and the Class on the same line counting basis that
MedQuist billed customers. In fact, for a transcribed report,
MedQuist paid employees for one line count and billed its
customers for a higher line count."

"The transcriptionists' suit is a hugely significant development
for the hospitals' case," said Mark Hogge of Greenberg Traurig's
D.C. office. "Their suit along with ours alleges facts that at
the same time that MedQuist was fraudulently inflating invoices
to hospital clients, it was also fraudulently deflating the
amount it was paying its own transcriptionists, all to increase
the bottom line profits."

Royal Philips purchased a majority of MedQuist's common stock in
May 2000 and now owns 71 percent of the Company. A majority of
MedQuist's Board of Directors were appointed by Philips.
MedQuist was delisted from NASDAQ over the summer but has since
resumed trading. In other recent news, Philips recently sold its
entire stake in Vivendi Universal, the French media and
telecommunications giant, for nearly $950 million USD.

A review conducted for the MedQuist Board of Directors
identified a number of issues relating to the Company's billing
practices, including using ratios and formulas as a surrogate
for counting lines in reports, which caused some clients to be
billed more than the counting method provided for in the
contracts. In addition, the counting methods were not disclosed
to the clients according to MedQuist press releases. (release
date July 30, 2004) "Any hospital that has done business with
MedQuist needs to contact us immediately," said Mr. Hogge.

Mark Hogge can be reach at Greenberg Traurig's Washington, D.C.
office at (202) 530-8591.


MGM MIRAGE: NV Court Hears Motion To Decertify Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court for Clark County, Nevada heard MGM Mirage's
motion to decertify the class in the lawsuit filed against it
and certain former directors and principal stockholders of its
subsidiary that owns and operates the Boardwalk Hotel and
Casino.

On September 28, 1999, a former stockholder of the Company's
subsidiary filed an amended class action, alleging that Mirage
induced the other defendants to breach their fiduciary duties to
Boardwalk's minority stockholders by devising and implementing a
scheme by which Mirage acquired Boardwalk at significantly less
than the true value of its shares.  The complaint sought an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages from Mirage and
punitive damages from the other defendants, whom the Company is
required to defend and indemnify.

In June 2000, the Court granted the Company's motion to dismiss
the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted.  The plaintiff appealed the ruling to the Nevada
Supreme Court.  The parties filed briefs with the Nevada Supreme
Court, and oral arguments were conducted in October 2001.  In
February 2003, the Nevada Supreme Court overturned the District
Court's order granting the Company's motion to dismiss the
complaint and remanded the case to the District Court for
further proceedings on the elements of the lawsuit involving
wrongful conduct in approving the merger and/or in the valuation
of the merged corporation's shares.  The Nevada Supreme Court
affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the plaintiff's
claims for lost profits and mismanagement.  The Nevada Supreme
Court's ruling relates only to the District Court's ruling on
the Company's motion to dismiss and is not a determination of
the merits of the plaintiff's case.  The plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, and in October 2003, the District Court
certified the action as a class action.

The parties have undertaken written discovery and have taken the
deposition of the class representative, Harvey Cohen.  As a
result of Cohen's deposition, the Company has filed a Motion to
Decertify the Class which is scheduled to be heard on November
16, 2004.  Additional discovery and depositions are underway in
the meantime.  The trial date for this action is currently set
for January 31, 2005.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: CA Cities File Antitrust Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Microsoft Corporation faces a class action initially filed in
the San Francisco Superior Court in California, alleging
antitrust violations in connection with the Microsoft operating
system or word processing and spreadsheet software.  The suit
was later removed to the United States District Court for the
District of California.

On August 27, 2004, the City and County of San Francisco, the
City of Los Angeles, and Los Angeles, San Mateo, Contra Costa
and Santa Clara Counties filed a putative class action on behalf
of all governmental entities, agencies and political
subdivisions of the State of California who indirectly purchased
Microsoft operating system or word processing and spreadsheet
software during the period from February 18, 1995, until the
date of trial in the action.

The plaintiffs seek treble damages under California's Cartwright
Act and the disgorgement of unlawful profits under its Unfair
Competition Act resulting from Microsoft's alleged combinations
to restrain trade, deny competition and monopolize the world
markets for PC operating systems and word processing and
spreadsheet applications (and productivity suites including
these applications).


NORTON MCNAUGHTON: Recalls 157.3T Sweaters Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norton McNaughton of Squire, Inc., of New York, N.Y. is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 157,300 Energie Brand
Hooded Sweaters.

The hooded sweaters have drawstrings, posing a strangulation
hazard to children. In February 1996, the CPSC issued guidelines
to help prevent children from strangling or getting entangled on
the neck and waist drawstrings of upper garments such as jackets
and sweatshirts. The Wisconsin Bureau of Consumer Protection
identified these garments.

The recalled hooded drawstring sweaters were sold in a variety
of colors and youth sizes S, M, L and XL. They were sold in
either the pullover-hooded style or with a zipper. The RN Number
33364 and the word "energie," together with a small red flower,
are printed on the collar tags. Only sweaters with drawstrings
are included in this recall.

Manufactured in South Korea, Taiwan and China, the sweaters were
sold at various retailers nationwide from July 2004 through
November 2004 for between $15 and $25.

Consumers can remove the drawstrings to eliminate the hazard or
return the hooded drawstring sweater to the store where
purchased for a full refund.

Consumer Contact: Call Norton McNaughton toll-free at
(800) 258-5663 anytime or visit the Web site at
http://www.nortonmcnaughton.com.


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs To File FL Consolidated Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to file a consolidated securities class action
filed against Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its
officers in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida.

On August 7, 2003, an individual filed a lawsuit on behalf of a
purported class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from October 29, 2001 through April 28, 2003.
The complaint alleges that, during the subject period, the
Company and its officers named as defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading
statements in its public disclosures regarding Noven's
MethyPatch product.

Following the filing of plaintiff's complaint, five other
substantially similar complaints were filed against Noven and
its officers.  In response to a joint motion, in January 2004,
the Court entered an order consolidating the six related
actions. Pursuant to this order, plaintiffs must file a
consolidated class action complaint not later than 60 days after
the entry of an order appointing lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.  An order appointing lead plaintiff and lead counsel
has not yet been entered.


PRINTCAFE SOFTWARE: Plaintiffs File Amended PA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
PrintCafe Software, Inc. in the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, adding additional Company
directors as defendants.

The suit was initially filed in June 2003 against the Company,
now a wholly owned subsidiary of Electronics For Imaging, Inc.,
and certain of Printcafe's officers.  The complaint alleges that
the defendants violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 due to allegedly false and misleading
statements in connection with Printcafe's initial public
offering and subsequent press releases.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: PA Court Stays New Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania stayed the new class action filed against Safeguard
Scientifics, Inc., styled "Mandell v. Safeguard Scientifics,
Inc., et al.," pending Court's ruling on summary judgment on the
consolidated securities class action filed before it.

On June 26, 2001, the Company and Warren V. Musser, the
Company's former Chairman, were named as defendants in a
putative class action filed in the same Court.   Plaintiffs
allege that defendants failed to disclose that Mr. Musser had
pledged some or all of his Safeguard stock as collateral to
secure margin trading in his personal brokerage accounts.
Plaintiffs allege that defendants' failure to disclose the
pledge, along with their failure to disclose several margin
calls, a loan to Mr. Musser, the guarantee of certain margin
debt and the consequences thereof on Safeguard's stock price,
violated the federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs allege claims
under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

On August 17, 2001, a second putative class action was filed
against the Company and Mr. Musser asserting claims similar to
those brought in the first proceeding.  In addition, plaintiffs
in the second case allege that the defendants failed to disclose
possible or actual manipulative aftermarket trading in the
securities of Safeguard's companies, the impact of competition
on prospects for one or more of Safeguard's companies and the
Company's lack of a superior business plan.

These two cases were consolidated for further proceedings under
the name "In Re: Safeguard Scientifics Securities Litigation"
and the Court approved the designation of a lead plaintiff and
the retention of lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated and amended complaint.  On May 23, 2002,
the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated and
amended complaint for failure to state claim upon which relief
may be granted.  On October 24, 2002, the Court denied the
defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that, based on the
allegations of plaintiffs' consolidated and amended complaint,
dismissal would be inappropriate at that juncture.  On December
20, 2002, plaintiffs filed with the Court a motion for class
certification.  On August 27, 2003, the Court denied plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

On September 12, 2003, plaintiffs filed with the United States
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit a petition for permission
to appeal the order denying class certification.  The Company
filed its opposition to that petition on September 23, 2003.  On
November 5, 2003, the Third Circuit denied plaintiffs' petition
and declined to hear the appeal.  On November 18, 2003,
plaintiffs' counsel moved to intervene new plaintiffs and
proposed class representative in the consolidated action, which
motion was denied by the Court on February 18, 2004.

On July 12, 2004, Mandell v. Safeguard Scientifics, Inc., et al.
was filed against Safeguard and Mr. Musser in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The new
complaint asserts similar claims to those asserted in the
consolidated and amended class action complaint.  The complaint
also asserts individual claims on behalf of two individual
plaintiffs who had attempted unsuccessfully to intervene in the
consolidated action.


SAFEGUARD SCIENTIFICS: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Stock Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Safeguard Scientifics, Inc. asked the Court of Chancery of the
State of Delaware to dismiss the class action filed against it,
CompuCom Systems, Inc. and members of CompuCom's board of
directors.

The suit was filed on behalf of CompuCom's minority stockholders
seeking to enjoin the proposed merger of CompuCom with Platinum
Equity, LLC on the ground that the members of the board of
directors of CompuCom and Safeguard have allegedly breached
fiduciary duties to CompuCom and its minority stockholders.

On July 27, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an amended class action
complaint, asserting claims similar to those brought in the
original complaints and adding claims relating to CompuCom's
disclosure in its Schedule 14A filed with the Securities &
Exchange Commission on July 15, 2004.  On July 27, 2004, the
plaintiffs also filed a motion for expedited proceedings and
discovery in connection with the injunctive relief sought and
requested that a preliminary injunction hearing be held before
August 19, 2004, the date of the special meetings of the
shareholders of the Company and the stockholders of CompuCom
relating to the CompuCom merger.

Defendants filed their opposition to the motion on July 28,
2004.  On July 29, 2004, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion
to expedite.  On September 13, 2004, plaintiffs filed a Second
Amended Complaint alleging substantially similar claims.  On
November 5, 2004, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Second
Amendment Complaint.


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Shareholders Lodge Fraud Suit in AZ Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Swift Transportation Co., Inc. and certain of its officers and
directors face a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona, styled "Davidco
Investors, LLC v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. et al."

The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws related
to disclosures made by Swift regarding driver pay, depreciation,
fuel costs and fuel surcharges, its stock repurchase program and
the effects of The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's
new hours-of-service regulations and Swift's safety rating.  The
complaint seeks unquantified damages on behalf of the putative
class of persons who purchased Swift's common stock between
October 16, 2003 and October 1, 2004.


UICI: TX Court Considers Consolidation of Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
UICI and certain officers and current and former directors face
four purported class action suits filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Texas, styled:

     (1) Dolores Miele, on behalf of herself and all others
         similarly situated, v. UICI, Gregory T. Mutz, Ronald L.

         Jensen, et al, filed on May 26, 2004 and pending in the
         United States District Court, Northern District of
         Texas, Dallas Division as Case No. 3-04-CV-1149-P;

     (2) Lois Johnston, v. UICI, Gregory T. Mutz, Ronald L.
         Jensen, et al, filed on June 3, 2004 and pending in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Texas, Fort Worth Division, as Case No. 04-CV-418-Y;

     (3) Mohammad A. Chaudhry, individually and on behalf of all
         others similarly situated, v. UICI, Inc., Gregory T.
         Mutz, Ronald L. Jenson, et al, filed July 1, 2004 and
         pending in the United States District Court for the
         Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, as
         Case No. 04-CV-484-Y; and

     (4) Ronald Antosko v. UICI, Gregory T. Mutz, Ronald L.
         Jenson, et al, filed July 20, 2004 and pending in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Texas, Dallas Division, as Case No. 304CV1575-D

The Johnston and Chaudry cases have been transferred to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas,
Dallas Division, and the Court is considering consolidation of
the four cases into a single action.  In each of the cases,
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and a purported class of
similarly situated individuals, have alleged that, among other
things, UICI failed to disclose all material facts relating to
the condition of the Company's former AMS subsidiary, in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.


WESTPOINT STEVENS: GA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against WestPoint
Stevens, Inc. and certain of its former officers and directors.

The Amended Complaint asserts claims against all Defendants
under section 10(b) of the Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder and against the Company and Defendant
Holcombe T. Green, Jr. as "controlling persons" under section
20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Amended Complaint alleges that,
during the putative class period (i.e., February 10, 1999, to
October 10, 2000), the Company and certain of its officers and
directors caused false and misleading statements to be issued
regarding, inter alia, alleged overcapacity and excessive
inventories of the Company's towel-related products and customer
demand for such products and that certain Individual Defendants
wrongfully sold or pledged Company stock at inflated prices for
their benefit.

The Amended Complaint refers to the Company's press releases and
quarterly and annual reports on Securities Exchange Commission
Forms 10-Q and 10-K, which discuss the Company's results and
forecasts for the fiscal years 1999 and 2000.  Plaintiffs allege
that these press releases and public filings were false and
misleading because they failed to disclose that the Company
allegedly "knew sales would be adversely affected in future
quarters and years."

Plaintiffs also allege in general terms that the Company
materially overstated revenues by making premature shipments of
products.  On June 6, 2002, Defendants filed Motions to Dismiss
Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.  On February 3, 2003, the Court
denied Defendants' Motions to Dismiss.  The Company's insurance
carrier has reached an agreement to settle the Geller action at
no cost to the Company.  The settlement has received preliminary
approval from the Court, has been approved by the Bankruptcy
Court and awaits final approval through a fairness hearing
before the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia.

In the opinion of management, settlement of the previously
disclosed shareholder actions under existing insurance coverage
is probable.  As a result of the settlement in principle
(subject to Court approval) of the Geller case, during the
second quarter of 2004, the Company recorded a liability of
$4,250,000 for its legal obligation to fund the settlement and a
related receivable of $4,250,000 for the reimbursement from its
insurance carrier.


WFS FINANCIAL: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Suits in TN, CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
WFS Financial, Inc. reached a settlement for the class actions
filed against it, alleging claims under the Equal Credit
Opportunity Act and unfair competition.

One suit is pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennesse, styled "Lee, et al. v. WFS
Financial Inc, No. 3-02-0570."  The suit was filed on June 17,
2002, raising claims under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.
Another suit, styled "Thompson, et al. v. WFS Financial Inc,
Civil Action Number RG03099926," is pending in the California
Superior Court, County of Alameda. Civil Action No, RG03088926,
a putative class action raising claims under California's Unfair
Competition Law and related claims

The Company has reached a settlement in both cases.  The
settlements will be final after Court approval of the settlement
in Lee, et al. v. WFS Financial Inc.


WFS FINANCIAL: Plaintiffs File Consolidated CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a corrected consolidated class action against
WFS Financial, Inc. and Westcorp in the Orange County,
California Superior Court, styled "In re WFS Financial
Shareholder Litigation, Case No. 04CC00559."

Beginning on May 24, 2004 and continuing thereafter, a total of
four separate purported class action lawsuits relating to the
announcement by Westcorp and WFS that Westcorp was commencing an
exchange offer for the outstanding public shares of WFS were
filed against Westcorp, WFS, and individual board members of
Westcorp and WFS.

On June 24, 2004, the actions were consolidated.  On July 16,
2004, the Court granted a motion by plaintiff Alaska Hotel &
Restaurant Employees Pension Trust Fund, in Case No.04CC00573,
to amend the consolidation order to designate it the lead
plaintiff in the litigation.  Lead plaintiff filed a
consolidated amended complaint on August 9, 2004, and then filed
the present "corrected" consolidated amended complaint on
September 15, 2004.

All of the defendants have filed demurrers challenging the legal
sufficiency of the pending complaint, which are scheduled for
hearing.  All of the shareholder-related actions allege, among
other things, that the defendants breached their respective
fiduciary duties and seek to enjoin or rescind the transaction
and obtain an unspecified sum in damages and costs, including
attorneys' fees and expenses.


ZIX CORPORATION: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suits in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
Zix Corporation faces several shareholder class actions and one
purported shareholder derivative lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas.  The suits
also name as defendants certain of the Company's current and
former officers and directors.

The purported shareholder class action lawsuits, which seek
unspecified monetary damages on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between October 30, 2003 and May 4, 2004,
were instituted September 3, 2004, September 13, 2004, September
16, 2004, September 21, 2004 and October 5, 2004.  These
lawsuits allege that the defendants made materially false and
misleading statements and/or omissions in violation of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act during this time period. The
named defendants are:

     (1) Zix Corporation,

     (2) John A. Ryan,

     (3) Daniel S. Nutkis,

     (4) Steve M. York,

     (5) Russell J. Morgan,

     (6) Wael Mohamed,

     (7) Dennis F. Heathcote and

     (8) Ronald A. Woessner

The purported shareholder derivative lawsuit, which was
instituted September 29, 2004, relates to the allegedly
materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions that
are the subject of the purported shareholder class action
lawsuits.  The derivative lawsuit names the Company as a nominal
defendant and as actual defendants the individuals named in the
purported shareholder class action lawsuits mentioned above as
well as the Company's outside directors, Michael E. Keane, James
S. Marston, Antonio R. Sanchez III and Ben G. Streetman. The
suit seeks to require the Company to initiate legal action for
unspecified damages against the individual defendants named in
the purported shareholder class action lawsuits. The suit also
alleges breaches of fiduciary duty, abuse of control, insider
selling and misappropriation of information and seeks
contribution and indemnification against the individual
defendants.

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

AUTOBYTEL INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Autobytel, Inc.
("Autobytel" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: ABTLE) between July 24,
2003 and October 21, 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 Central District of California against defendants
Autobytel, Hosni Printer (CFO) and Jeffrey A. Schwartz (CEO,
President). 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 Autobytel's Class Period earnings
announcements and reports were materially false and misleading
for the following reasons:

     (1) the Company did not reduce revenue by the estimated
         provision for customer credits, contrary to defendants'
         express representations;

     (2) As a result of the foregoing, Autobytel's reported
         class period revenue and earnings were materially
         overstated, thereby deceiving investors as to the
         Company's true operating results; and

     (3) As a result of the foregoing, the earnings and
         shareholders' equity reported in the Prospectus were
         materially inflated, violated Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles and failed to give a fair
         representation of Autobytel's true results and
         financial condition.

Defendants' fraud was revealed on October 21, 2004. On that day,
after the close of ordinary trading, Autobytel issued a press
release announcing that its audit committee is supervising an
internal review of the Company's recognition credits as revenue.
In response to this announcement, the price of Autobytel common
stock plummeted, from $8.81 per share on October 21, 2004 to
$6.88 per share on October 22, 2004, a one day drop of 22%, on
unusually heavy trading volume (over 3.5 million shares).

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.


GEOPHARMA INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of GeoPharma Inc. ("GeoPharma")
(NASDAQ:GORX) common stock during the period between December 1,
2004 and December 2, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges GeoPharma and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. GeoPharma manufactures, packages, repackages and
distributes a wide array of health-related products. GeoPharma's
wholly owned subsidiary, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, manufactures
and distributes over-the-counter and generic drugs.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused GeoPharma's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of a false and misleading press
release about FDA approval of Mucotrol, a product in development
the Company had previously described publicly as a prescription
"drug." On December 1, 2004, prior to the market opening, the
Company issued a press release announcing that "Belcher
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of GeoPharma,
Inc. has received approval from the United States Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA") for Mucotrol(TM), a prescription product
for the management of oral mucositis/stomatitis .... It is
estimated that approximately 300,000 cancer patients in the U.S.
suffer from mucositis associated with cancer treatments. Based
on this, the estimated U.S. oncology market potential for
Mucotrol(TM) sales are between $75 million and $300 million per
annum and the estimated global market is between $250 million
and $1 billion per annum."

The Company's stock jumped to $11.25 per share on this news, an
increase of 153%. Early in the afternoon, the stock tumbled and
was subsequently halted at $6.81 after FDA officials told media
outlets that they had no record of Mucotrol. The agency later
clarified, saying Mucotrol had been cleared for marketing on
November 24th -- not as a drug, but as a device. The FDA had
only granted Mucotrol so-called 510(k) marketing clearance
because of its substantial similarity to a product already on
the market.

On December 2, 2004, after the markets closed, the Company and
certain of the individual defendants held an investor conference
call to discuss the misstatements and omissions in its December
1, 2004 press release. On the call, GeoPharma's Chief Executive
Officer finally made it clear the Mucotrol was a device, not a
drug. The day after the conference call, the Company's stock
collapsed to as low as $5.37 per share.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 by E-mail:
wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/geopharma/.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP initiated a Federal
Securities fraud class action suit on behalf of all purchasers
of the common stock of IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. ("IMPAX" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:IPXL) between May 5, 2004 and November 3,
2004, both dates inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action, entitled Elnekave v. Impax Labs., et al., Case No.
(not yet assigned), is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, and names as
defendants, the Company, its Chief Executive Officer and
director, Barry R. Edwards, its Chairman, Charles Hsiao, its
President and director, Larry Hsu, its Senior Vice President of
Sales and Marketing, David S. Doll, its Chief Financial Officer
and Secretary, Cornel C. Spiegler, and director, David J.
Edwards.

The complaint charges defendants with violations of 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
that it overstated reported earnings and revenue during the
first two quarters of 2004. When the Company announced, on
November 3, 2004, that it was postponing release of its third-
quarter financial results, the Company's share price fell 23% to
$10.07 on relatively high trading volume of 4.2 million shares.
On November 9, 2004, the Company announced that it was restating
its reported revenues and earnings for the first and second
quarters of 2004. During the Class Period, Company insiders sold
their IMPAX shares for proceeds in excess of $32 million.

For more details, contact Craig Lowther of Wechsler Harwood
Shareholder Relations Department by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue,
8th Floor New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 by
E-mail: clowther@whesq.com.


PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files MA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Praecis
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: PRCS) ("Praecis") between
November 25, 2003 and December 6, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Praecis violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements concerning
the market for its drug Plenaxis. The complaint alleges that
Praecis misrepresented or failed to disclose the following
facts: that the distribution of Plenaxis had been severely
restricted by the FDA; that Praecis had failed to establish
effective messaging to educate physicians about Plenaxis'
indication and the appropriate patient population; and that
despite impressive enrollment numbers in the PLUS program,
Praecis had difficulties convincing physicians to prescribe
Plenaxis due to uncertainty over its use and concerns over
reimbursement.

On December 6, 2004, Praecis stated that it had decided to
remove its previous short and long term sales and earnings
guidance for Plenaxis, and that it did not anticipate providing
further guidance until a consistent trend for Plenaxis sales
emerges. On this news, shares of Praecis fell from a close of
$2.17 per share on December 3, 2004, to close at $1.61 per share
on the next trading day, December 6, 2004.

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.


PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of all securities purchasers
of Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq: PRCS) ("Praecis" or the
"Company") from November 25, 2003 through December 6, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Praecis, Malcolm Gefter, Kevin McLaughlin,
Edward English and William K. Heiden with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts which were known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the distribution of the Company's flagship drug,
         Plenaxis, had been severely restricted by the FDA,
         which significantly reduced the potential market for
         the therapy;

     (2) that the Company failed to establish effective
         messaging to educate physicians about the product's
         indication and the appropriate patient population;

     (3) that the Company, despite impressive enrollment numbers
         in the PLUS program, had difficulties convincing
         physicians to prescribe the product due to uncertainty
         over use and concerns over reimbursement;

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal control; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the defendants' fiscal
         2004 projections were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made.

On December 6, 2004, Praecis provided an update on the Company's
commercialization of Plenaxis in the United States. In the
update, the Company stated that its had decided to remove its
previous short- and long- term sales and earnings guidance, and
that it did not anticipate providing further guidance until a
consistent trend for Plenaxis sales emerges. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of Praecis fell $.56 per share, or
25.8 percent on December 6, 2004, to close at $1.61 per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: Three Bala
Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone:
1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Supportsoft, Inc. ("Supportsoft" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SPRT)
between January 20, 2004 and October 1, 2004, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Supportsoft and
Radha R. Basu and Brian M. Beattie ("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 to
the market during the Class Period. These statements were false
and misleading because the Company failed to disclose that its
business model was in fact not materially differentiated from
other enterprise software companies, that its customers were
implementing additional hurdles to contract approvals and that
it was experiencing execution difficulties.

On October 4, 2004, the Company announced its preliminary
financial results for the third quarter 2004, ended September
30, 2004. The Company announced that it expected total revenues
for the third quarter 2004 to be in the range of $11.9 million
to $12.3 million as compared to $13.5 million for the same
period the prior year. The Company claimed that a "tightness in
IT spending" and "more complex approval processes" was the
reason for the significant miss. On this news, the Company's
share price dropped from $9.62 per share to $6.21 per share,
representing a drop of 35.4% on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: 800-321-0476.


SUPPORTSOFT, INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Supportsoft, Inc.
(NasdaqNM: SPRT) ("Supportsoft") between January 20, 2004 and
October 1, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Supportsoft violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public statements
regarding Supportsoft's ability to generate sales. Specifically,
the complaint alleges Supportsoft failed to disclose that its
business model was not materially differentiated from other
enterprise software companies, that its customers were
implementing additional hurdles to contract approvals and that
it was experiencing execution difficulties.

On October 4, 2004, Supportsoft announced its preliminary
financial results for the third quarter 2004, reporting that it
expected total revenues to be in the range of $11.9 million to
$12.3 million as compared to $13.5 million for the same period
the prior year. On this news, Supportsoft stock fell from a
close of $9.62 per share on October 1, 2004 to close at $6.21
per share on the next trading day, October 4, 2004, on extremely
heavy trading volume.

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.


UTSTARCOM INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. announces that
a securities class action lawsuit was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
on behalf of purchasers of the common stock of UTStarcom, Inc.
("UTStarcom" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: UTSI) between April 16,
2003 through September 20, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period
concerning the Company's financial results and operations.
Specifically, the Complaint charges that defendants grossly
inflated the Company's projections for the fiscal years 2004 and
2005, thereby causing UTStarcom's shares to trade at
artificially inflated levels. However, defendants concealed from
the investing public that UTStarcom had massive supply chain
constraints delaying legitimate revenue recognition, its prime
margins were eroding in China, and its Japanese-related revenue
projections were overstated by $290 million. Defendants also
concealed that the Company lacked internal control over its
ability to analyze revenue recognizing criteria and was in
violation of Nasdaq rules requiring that the Board of Directors
have a majority which is independent.

On September 16, 2004, UTStarcom stated in a SEC filing that a
Company- initiated review of a deal with Japan Telecom "led
management to conclude that certain significant control
deficiencies exist related to the review and evaluation of
criteria related to revenue recognition, including process
deficiencies with respect to obtaining evidence of delivery" and
that "certain inventory transactions recorded in the quarter
ended June 30, 2004 were in error." News of significant problems
with the Company's internal controls caused UTStarcom shares to
drop 5.86% the next day, September 17, 2004. On September 20,
2004, UTStarcom announced that it was revising its financial
guidance downward for third-quarter and full-year 2004. News
that the entire $290 million in revenue from the Japan Telecom
deal was not eligible for recognition in 2004 caused UTStarcom
shares to drop $1.50, or 9.86%, in one day on very heavy volume,
to close at $13.70 on September 20, 2004.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 or by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


UTSTARCOM INC.: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of UTStarcom, Inc.
("UTStarcom" or the "Company") [Nasdaq: UTSI] between April 16,
2003 and August 11, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period")
against defendants UTStarcom and certain officers and directors
of the Company. The case name is Lebzetter v. UTStarcom, Inc.,
et al.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period the following
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 lacked internal control over its ability to
         analyze revenue recognition criteria;

     (2) the Company was in violation of Nasdaq rules requiring
         that the Board of Directors maintain an independent
         majority of directors;

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

     (4) as a result of (1) and (3) above, defendants'
         projections for FY 2004 and 2005 were grossly inflated.

On August 10, 2004, the Company announced in a press release the
following: "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
fell to $15.37 per share on this news.

For mor edetails, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., George Peters, or
Derek Behnke of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by
Mail: 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016 by Phone:
(800) 575-0735 by E-mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.whafh.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  * * *