CAR_Public/041215.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, December 15, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 247

                          Headlines

ALABAMA: Judge Set To Rule On 1995 DOT Race Discrimination Case
ARGOSY GAMING: Lemon Bay Launches Suit Over Sale To Penn Gaming
BEXTRA: FDA Places New Boxed Warnings on Side Effects on Label
BUSINESS OBJECTS: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses Summary Judgment in Suit

CALPINE CORPORATION: Production of Documents Proceed in CA Suit
CALPINE CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
CALPINE ENERGY: Seeking Dismissal of Business Fraud Suits in CA
CAPTARIS INC.: Named As Third-Party Defendant in IL Fraud Suits
CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Settles Specialty Health Care Provider Suits

CITIZENS UTILITY: 490T SBC Clients Eligible For $12M Settlement
DEL SOL: NC A.G. Cooper Halts Telemarketing Scam, Consumer Fraud
DUKE ENERGY: FERC Approves $207.5M Western Markets Settlement
EDELBROCK CORPORATION: Working To Settle DE Securities Lawsuits
FLORIDA: Tomato, Pepper Farm Laborers To Receive Compensation

FRANKLIN ADVISERS: Pays $20 Mil, Settles SEC Brokerage Charges
GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
GEORGIA: Judge Denies State's Motion To Dismiss Foster Care Suit
INKINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Settlement For PA Stock Lawsuit
KENNETH COLE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court

KVH INDUSTRIES: TAPP Is Lead Plaintiff in Suit V. Firm, Officers
MCLEODUSA INC.: IA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
NEW JERSEY: Resident Arrested For Importing Illegal Flu Vaccines
NYFIX INC.: Asks CT Court To Dismiss Securities Violations Suit
OHIO: State General Assembly Passes New Tort Reform Legislation

PENNSYLVANIA: Lawyers Predict Lengthy Process For VIOXX Lawsuits
PETMED EXPRESS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in FL
PRICE LEGACY: Asks Court To Stay Suit V. PL Retail Acquisition
PRICE LEGACY: Plaintiffs File Amended MD PL Retail Merger Suit
ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: NY Attorney General Spitzer Issues Subpoena

SUMMIT PROPERTIES: Shareholders Launch NC Suit v. Camden Merger
TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Presents Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
TRINITY SOUTHERN: TX A.G. Abbot Obtains TRO Over Fake Diplomas
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Present Suit Settlement To DE Court
VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal

VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Dismisses Most of Stock Suit
VIOXX LITIGATION: Merck Agrees To Alter Consumer Refund Program
WAL-MART STORES: Commerce Asks Court To Reverse Sex-Bias Ruling

                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANCHOR GLASS: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
ENT & IMLER: Sommer Barnard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IN
GEOPHARMA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NY
JAKKS PACIFIC: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA

VIMPEL-COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Fraud Suit in NY
VIMPEL-COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges NY Securities Suit
VYMPEL COMMUNICATIONS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in CA

                         *********


ALABAMA: Judge Set To Rule On 1995 DOT Race Discrimination Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings began before U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson
to determine if the state Department of Transportation has
complied with a 1995 agreement to end a long-term racial
discrimination lawsuit, the Decatur Daily reports.

Before that hearing, Judge Thompson had ruled that the DOT was
in compliance with Article 16 of a 1995 settlement agreement in
Reynolds v. Alabama Department of Transportation. The ruling
addresses training needs for black employees at DOT who are
interested in job changes or promotion and also outlines
requirements needed to help black employees compete for jobs and
promotions, which the DOT now believes, it is in compliance.

The case had developed from a lawsuit by Johnny Reynolds, a
black DOT employee, who believed his race hurt his chances for
promotion at the department. Others blacks later joined the suit
and thus it became a class-action case.

Through the end of the 2003-04 fiscal year in September, the
state had paid $174 million in expenses and fines on the 19-
year-old case. Fines alone for not being in compliance in the
1995 consent decree cost the state $63,000 per week.

In the hearing, Russell Adams, attorney for Mr. Reynolds and
other black employees and potential employees, argued however
that the DOT has not completed those steps.  More than 15
provisions of the 1995 settlement agreement are under discussion
in the hearing expected to continue through Thursday with some
articles of the consent decree expiring on December 31 while
others will continue beyond that time.  Judge Thompson had
called the hearing to help settle questions both sides have
about issues in articles that will expire at the end of the
month.


ARGOSY GAMING: Lemon Bay Launches Suit Over Sale To Penn Gaming
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lemon Bay Partners initiated a class action lawsuit against
Argosy Gaming Company, its directors and officers accusing them
of breaching their fiduciary duty by not representing the full
Company value, currently trading at $46.70 a share, Madison
County Record reports.

According to the complaint, historically when companies are
taken private, shareholders receive a substantial premium to
market price. The complaint further states the proposed sale to
Penn Gaming Co. is unfair because the gains will not be equally
shared with Argosy's public shareholders.

A transaction of all outstanding Argosy shares at $47 per share
would have an aggregate value of $2.2 billion, including $805
million of debt.

Lemon Bay also claims the consideration of $47 to be paid to
class members is unfair and inadequate as the intrinsic value of
the Company's stock is materially in excess of $47 per share
offered by Penn, considering "the Company's prospects for growth
and profitability in light of its business, earning power,
present and future," according to the suit. Furthermore, Lemon
Bay also alleges that financial advisor Morgan Stanley, which
stood to gain millions of dollars from Penn's acquisition of
Argosy, did not give impartial advice on Argosy's value and that
individuals who were primarily involved in negotiations with
Penn stand to gain additional cash payments upon the
consummation of the sale of Argosy to Penn.

Under the terms of the sale agreement, unvested options held by
all directors of Argosy will be accelerated so that they will be
fully vested immediately prior to the effective time and
consequently converted into the right to receive cash. While the
individual defendants have not disclosed the amount they will
receive as a result from unvested stock options, they have
disclosed the amount they will receive from all stock options as
follows:

     (1) William F. Cellini, $101,275

     (2) Richard J. Glasier, $5,803,327

     (3) Edward F. Brennan, $64,255

     (4) George L. Bristol, $64,255

     (5) F. Lance Callis, $101,275

     (6) Jimmy F. Gallagher, $101,275

     (7) James B. Perry, $46,250

     (8) John B. Pratt, Sr., $101,275

     (9) Michael W. Scott, $67,480

Lemon Bay also alleges that Mr. Glasier, who also was
principally involved in negotiations, will receive compensation
of $10,000 per month as a result of a consulting agreement with
Penn and that Mr. Cellini has also negotiated to be named to
Penn's board of directors.

"By causing Argosy to enter into the sale agreement with Penn
because of the personal benefits they will receive, the
individual defendants have deprived plaintiff and the class of
the opportunity to realize the higher price other buyers might
be willing to pay for Argosy shares, or the value that their
shares would have if the Company remains independent" the
complaint states.

Lemon Bay claims the defendants failed to make an informed
decision, as no market check of Argosy's value was obtained. "In
agreeing to the sale agreement, the individual defendants failed
to properly inform themselves of Argosy's highest transactional
value and failed to do so because of their hurry to sign the
sale agreement and thereby obtain the personal benefits they
will receive thereunder," the complaint states.

The defendants violated the fiduciary duties they owe to the
shareholders of Argosy, and their agreement to the terms of the
sale agreement demonstrate a clear absence of the exercise of
due care and of loyalty to Argosy's public shareholders, the
suit claims.

Judi Ann Ringhofer of Vernon Hills recently filed a similar
class action lawsuit against Argosy in Madison County Circuit
Court.


BEXTRA: FDA Places New Boxed Warnings on Side Effects on Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
Important new information on side effects associated with the
use of Bextra, a COX-2 selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory
drug (NSAID) which is indicated for the treatment of
osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis and dysmenorrhea (menstrual
pain) is being placed on a "boxed" warning on the product label,
strengthening previous warnings about the risk of life-
threatening skin reactions and a new bolded warning
contraindicating the use of Bextra in patients undergoing
coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery will be added to the
label, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced in a
statement.

In addition, the FDA will also seek input from the public and
from outside experts on the appropriate uses for Bextra and
other NSAIDs at a previously-announced Advisory Committee
meeting, to be held early in 2005.

Boxed and bolded warnings provide healthcare professionals and
patients with important information on drugs that may be
associated with serious side effects in a way that maximizes the
drug's benefits and minimizes its risks.

The new boxed warning in the label states that patients taking
Bextra have reported serious, potentially fatal skin reactions,
including Steven-Johnson Syndrome and toxic epidermal
necrolysis.  These skin reactions are most likely to occur in
the first 2 weeks of treatment, but can occur any time during
therapy.  In a few cases, these reactions have resulted in
death.

The labeling advises doctors that Bextra should be discontinued
at the first appearance of a skin rash, mucosal lesions (such as
sores on the inside of the mouth), or any other sign of allergic
reactions. The new boxed warning also states that Bextra
contains sulfa, and patients with a history of allergic
reactions to sulfa may be at a greater risk of skin reactions.

As of November 2004, FDA had received reports of a total of 87
cases in the United States of severe skin reactions in
association with Bextra, including Stevens-Johnson Syndrome and
toxic epidermal necrolysis. Twenty of the 87 cases involved
patients with a known allergy to sulfa. Of these 87 cases, 36
hospitalizations were reported, including 4 deaths. Other Cox-2
selective inhibitors and traditional NSAIDs such as naproxen and
ibuprofen also have a risk for these rare, serious skin
reactions, but the reported rate of these serious side effects
appears to be greater for Bextra than for other COX-2 agents.

In addition to highlighting serious skin reactions, the
strengthened label warnings also highlight new data about
cardiovascular risks. A recently-completed study conducted by
Pfizer, which included over 1,500 patients treated after CABG,
showed an increased cardiovascular risk in patients treated with
Bextra compared to placebo. Observed cardiovascular events
included thromboembolic events such as myocardial infarction
(heart attack), cerebrovascular accident (stroke), deep vein
thrombosis (blood clots in the leg), and pulmonary embolism
(blood clot in the lung).

Pfizer submitted the final report of the new CABG study to FDA
on November 5, 2004. The report confirms the risk of the
intravenous form (about 2 percent of patients had such an
adverse event) and also shows that oral Bextra is associated
with a lower, but some, risk (about 1 percent of patients)
immediately following CABG surgery--a very specific medical
setting. In the placebo group, about 0.5 percent of patients had
an adverse cardiovascular event. Bextra is not approved for use
in the treatment of postoperative pain of any type; however, FDA
believes that these new findings should be made available to
healthcare professionals and patients, and the bolded warning
specifically contraindicates Bextra for treatment of pain
immediately following CABG.

FDA urges health care providers and patients to report adverse
event information to FDA via the MedWatch program by phone
(1-800-FDA-1088), by fax (1-800-FDA-0178), or by the Internet
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/index.html. Reports can also be
made directly to Pfizer, Inc., Peapack, N.J. at 1-800-323-4204.


BUSINESS OBJECTS: Shareholders File Stock Fraud Suits in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Business Objects, S.A. and certain of its officers and directors
face four securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

Between June 2 and July 1, 2004, four purported class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Courts for
the Northern District of California, the Southern District of
California, and the Southern District of New York.  The
complaints allege violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
plaintiffs seek to represent a putative class of investors in
the Company's American depositary receipts (ADRs) who purchased
the ADRs between April23, 2003 and May5, 2004.

The complaints generally allege that, during that Class Period,
the Company and the individual defendants made false or
misleading statements in press releases and SEC filings
regarding, among other things, the Company's acquisition of
Crystal Decisions, its Enterprise 6 product and the Company's
forecasts and financial results for the three months ended March
31, 2004.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Rosenbaum Partners LP v. Business Objects S. A. et al.,
         3:04-cv-02863-MJJ, under Judge Martin J. Jenkins,

     (2) Judkins et al v. Business Objects S. A. et al., 5:04-
         cv-03103-JW, under Judge James Ware

     (3) City of Pontiac Policemen and Firemen Retirement System
         v. Business Objects S.A. et al., 3:04-cv-02401-MJJ,
         under Judge Martin J. Jenkins,

     (4) Campagnuola v. Business Objects S.A., et al, 5:04-cv-
         03085-JW, under Judge James Ware

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

    (ii) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore,401 East
         Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, W-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

   (iii) Geller Rudman, PLLC, 197 South Federal Highway, Suite
         200, Boca Raton, FL, 33432, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         888.262.3131, E-mail: info@geller-rudman.com

    (iv) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (Los
         Angeles), 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles,
         CA, 90071, Phone: 213.617.9007, E-mail: 213.617.9185,
         E-mail: info@lerachlaw.com

     (v) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins (San
         Diego), 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA, 92101,
         Phone: 619.231.1058, Fax: 619.231.7423, E-mail:
         info@lerachlaw.com

    (vi) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, e-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

   (vii) Spector, Roseman & Kodroff (Philadelphia), 1818 Market
         Street; Suite 2500, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, Phone:
         215.496.0300, Fax: 215.496.6610, e-mail:
         classaction@srk-law.com


CALPINE CORPORATION: CA Court Refuses Summary Judgment in Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California denied Calpine Corporation's motion for summary
judgment in the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its officers.

Since March 11, 2002, 14 shareholder lawsuits have been filed.
Weisz v. Calpine Corp., et al., filed March 11, 2002, and
Labyrinth Technologies, Inc. v. Calpine Corp., et al., filed
March 28, 2002, are purported class actions on behalf of
purchasers of Company stock between March 15, 2001 and December
13, 2001.  Gustaferro v. Calpine Corp., filed April 18, 2002, is
a purported class action on behalf of purchasers of Calpine
stock between February 6, 2001 and December 13, 2001.

The eleven other actions were filed between March 18, 2002 and
April 23, 2002.  The complaints in these 11 actions are
virtually identical - they are filed by three law firms, in
conjunction with other law firms as co-counsel.  All 11 lawsuits
are purported class actions on behalf of purchasers of Calpine's
securities between January 5, 2001 and December 13, 2001.  The
suits are styled:

     (1) Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund v.  Calpine Corp.,

     (2) Lukowski v. Calpine Corp.,

     (3) Hart v. Calpine Corp.,

     (4) Atchison v. Calpine Corp.,

     (5) Laborers Local 1298 v. Calpine Corp.,

     (6) Bell v. Calpine Corp.,

     (7) Nowicki v. Calpine Corp.

     (8) Pallotta v. Calpine Corp.,

     (9) Knepell v. Calpine Corp.,

    (10) Staub v. Calpine Corp., and

    (11) Rose v. Calpine Corp.

The complaints in these 14 actions allege that, during the
purported class periods, certain Calpine executives issued false
and misleading statements about Calpine's financial condition in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(1) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as well as Rule 10b-5.  These actions seek an
unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of
relief.

In addition, a fifteenth securities class action, Ser v.
Calpine, et al., was filed on May 13, 2002, (the "Ser action").
The underlying allegations in the Ser action are substantially
the same as those in the above-referenced actions.  However, the
Ser action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Calpine's 8.5% Senior Notes Due February 15, 2011
and the alleged class period is October 15, 2001 through
December 13, 2001.  The Ser complaint alleges that, in violation
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(the "Securities Act"), the Supplemental Prospectus for the 2011
Notes contained false and misleading statements regarding
Calpine's financial condition.  This action names Calpine,
certain of its officers and directors, and the underwriters of
the 2011 Notes offering as defendants, and seeks an unspecified
amount of damages, in addition to other forms of relief.

All 15 of these securities class action lawsuits were
consolidated in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  Plaintiffs filed a first
amended complaint in October 2002. The amended complaint did not
include the Securities Act complaints raised in the bondholders'
complaint, and the number of defendants named was reduced.  On
January 16, 2003, before the Company's response was due to this
amended complaint, plaintiffs filed a further second complaint.

This second amended complaint added three additional Calpine
executives and Arthur Andersen LLP as defendants.  The second
amended complaint set forth additional alleged violations of
Section 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 relating to
allegedly false and misleading statements made regarding
Calpine's role in the California energy crisis, the long term
power contracts with the California Department of Water
Resources, and Calpine's dealings with Enron, and additional
claims under Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act
relating to statements regarding the causes of the California
energy crisis.  The Company filed a motion to dismiss this
consolidated action in early April 2003.

On August 29, 2003, the judge issued an order dismissing, with
leave to amend, all of the allegations set forth in the second
amended complaint except for a claim under Section 11 of the
Securities Act relating to statements relating to the causes of
the California energy crisis and the related increase in
wholesale prices contained in the Supplemental Prospectuses for
the 2011 Notes.  The judge instructed plaintiff, Julies Ser, to
file a third amended complaint, which he did on October 17,
2003. The third amended complaint names Calpine and three
executives as defendants and alleges the Section 11 claim that
survived the judge's August 29, 2003 order.

On November 21, 2003, Calpine and the individual defendants
moved to dismiss the third amended complaint on the grounds that
plaintiff's Section 11 claim was barred by the applicable one-
year statute of limitations.  On February 4, 2004, the judge
denied the Company's motion to dismiss but has asked the parties
to be prepared to file summary judgment motions to address the
statute of limitations issue.  The Company filed its answer to
the third amended complaint on February 23, 2004.

In a separate order dated February 4, 2004, the Court denied
without prejudice Mr. Ser's motion to be appointed lead
plaintiff.  Mr. Ser subsequently stated he no longer desired to
serve as lead plaintiff.  On April 4, 2004, the Policemen and
Firemen Retirement System of the City of Detroit ("P&F") moved
to be appointed lead plaintiff, which motion was granted on May
14, 2004.

In July 2004 the Court issued an order for pretrial preparation
establishing a trial date on November 7, 2005. On August 31,
2004, Calpine filed a motion for summary judgment, which was
denied on November 3, 2004.  Discovery is under way.

The suit, styled "Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund, et al. v.
Calpine Corporation, et al., Case No. 4:02-cv-01321," is pending
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, under Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, 747 Chestnut Ridge
         Road, Chestnut Ridge, NY, 10977, Phone: 845.356.2570.,
         Fax: 845.356.4335,

     (2) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net

     (3) Marc S. Henzel, 210 West Washington Square, Third
         Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19106, Phone: 215.625.9999,
         Fax: 215.440.9475, e-mail: Mhenzel182@aol.com

     (4) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach, LLP (S.F.,
         CA), 100 Pine Street - Suite 2600, San Francisco, CA,
         94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534

     (5) Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes & Lerach LLP (San Diego,
         CA), 600 West Broadway, 1800 One America Plaza, San
         Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800.449.4900, E-mail:
         support@milberg.com

     (6) Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Eiger, P.C.,
         200 N LaSalle St Ste 2100, Chicago, IL, 60601, Phone:
         312.346.3100,

     (7) Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

     (8) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (9) Scott & Scott LLC, P.O. Box 192, 108 Norwich Avenue,
         Colchester, CT, 06415, Phone: 860.537.5537, Fax:
         860.537.4432, E-mail: scottlaw@scott-scott.com

    (10) Stull, Stull & Brody (Los Angeles), 10940 Wilshire
         Boulevard - Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone:
         310.209.2468

    (11) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
         212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com

    (12) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


CALPINE CORPORATION: Production of Documents Proceed in CA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Limited production of documents is proceeding in the class
action filed against Calpine Corporation, its directors and
certain investment banks in the state superior Court of Santa
Clara County, California, styled "Hawaii Structural Ironworkers
Pension Fund v. Calpine, et al."

The suit's underlying allegations are substantially the same as
the federal securities class actions described above.  However,
the Hawaii action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
purchasers of Calpine's equity securities sold to public
investors in its April 2002 equity offering.

The Hawaii action alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus filed by Calpine, which became effective on April 24,
2002, contained false and misleading statements regarding
Calpine's financial condition in violation of Sections 11, 12
and 15 of the Securities Act.  The Hawaii action relies in part
on Calpine's restatement of certain past financial results,
announced on March 3, 2003, to support its allegations.  The
Hawaii action seeks an unspecified amount of damages, in
addition to other forms of relief.

The Company removed the Hawaii action to Federal Court in April
2003 and filed a motion to transfer the case for consolidation
with the other securities class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California in
May 2003. Plaintiff sought to have the action remanded to state
Court, and on August 27, 2003, the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California granted plaintiff's
motion to remand the action to state Court.  In early October
2003 plaintiff agreed to dismiss the claims it has against three
of the outside directors.

On November 5, 2003, Calpine, the individual defendants and the
underwriter defendants filed motions to dismiss this complaint
on numerous grounds.  On February 6, 2004, the Court issued a
tentative ruling sustaining the Company's motion to dismiss on
the issue of plaintiff's standing.  The Court found that
plaintiff had not shown that it had purchased Calpine stock
"traceable" to the April 2002 equity offering.  The Court
overruled the Company's motion to dismiss on all other grounds.
On March 12, 2004, after oral argument on the issues, the Court
confirmed its February 2, 2004 ruling.

On February 20, 2004, plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and
in late March 2004, the Company and the individual defendants
filed answers to this complaint.  On April 9, 2004, the Company
and the individual defendants filed motions to transfer the
lawsuit to Santa Clara County Superior Court, which motions were
granted on May 7, 2004.  Limited document production has taken
place.  Negotiations have been taking place between counsel and
further production of documents will occur once the Court enters
a protective order governing the use of confidential information
in this action.


CALPINE CORPORATION: Asks CA Court To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California to dismiss the class action
filed against it and the Calpine Corporation Retirement Savings
Plan (the 401(k) plan), styled "Phelps v. Calpine Corporation,
et al."

The Phelps action is brought on behalf of a purported class of
participants in the 401(k) Plan.  The Phelps action alleges that
various filings and statements made by the Company during the
class period were materially false and misleading, and that
defendants failed to fulfill their fiduciary obligations as
fiduciaries of the 401(k) Plan by allowing the 401(k) Plan to
invest in Calpine common stock.  The Phelps action seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, in addition to other forms of
relief.

In May 2003 Lennette Poor-Herena, another participant in the
401(k) Plan, filed a substantially similar class action lawsuit
as the Phelps action also in the Northern District of
California.  Plaintiffs' counsel is the same in both of these
actions, and they have agreed to consolidate these two cases.

On January 20, 2004, plaintiff James Phelps filed a consolidated
ERISA complaint naming Calpine and numerous individual current
and former Calpine Board members and employees as defendants.
Pursuant to a stipulated agreement with plaintiff, Calpine filed
its response, in the form of a motion to dismiss.

The two suits are pending in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, under Judge Saundra
Brown Armstrong, styled:

     (1) Poor-Herena v. Calpine Corporation et al, 4:03-cv-02316

     (2) Phelps v. Calpine Corporation et al., 4:03-cv-01685

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Joseph H. Meltzer, F. Andre Delfi, Richard S.
         Schiffrin, Gerald D. Wells, III and Edward W. Ciolko,
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three Bala Plaza East, Suite
         400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610-667-7706, Fax:
         610-667-7056

    (ii) Robert S. Green and Robert A. Jigarjian, Green Welling
         LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA
         94104, Phone: 415/477-6700, Fax: 415-477-6710 E-mail:
         CAND.USCOURTS@CLASSCOUNSEL.COM

Lawyer for the defendant is Robert L. McKague of Morrison &
Foerster LLP, 755 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304, Phone:
650/813-5835, Fax: 650-494-0792, E-mail: rmckague@mofo.com


CALPINE ENERGY: Seeking Dismissal of Business Fraud Suits in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Calpine Energy Services, Inc. is working for the dismissal of
the class actions filed against it and other energy traders and
energy companies, alleging violations of the California Business
& Professions Code Section 17200.

The lead case is T&E Pastorino Nursery v. Duke Energy Trading
and Marketing, L.L.C., et al.  This purported class action
complaint filed in May 2002 alleges that defendants exercised
market power and manipulated prices in violation of California
Business & Professions Code.  The suit seeks injunctive relief,
restitution, and attorneys' fees.  The Company also has been
named in eight other similar complaints for violations of
Section 17200.  All eight cases were removed from the various
state Courts in which they were originally filed to the United
States District Court in California for pretrial proceedings
with other cases in which the Company is not named as a
defendant.  The Company considers the allegations to be without
merit, and filed a motion to dismiss on August 28, 2003.  The
Court granted the motion, and plaintiffs have appealed.

Prior to the motion to dismiss being granted, one of the
actions, captioned Millar v. Allegheny Energy Supply Co., LLP,
et al., was remanded to state superior Court of Alameda County,
California. On January 12, 2004, the Company was added as a
defendant in Millar.  This action includes similar allegations
to the other Section 17200 cases, but also seeks rescission of
the long-term power contracts with the California Department of
Water Resources.  Upon motion from another newly added
defendant, Millar was recently removed to federal Court.  It has
now been transferred to the same judge that is presiding over
the other Section 17200 cases, where it will be consolidated
with such cases for pretrial purposes.  The Company anticipates
filing a timely motion for dismissal of Millar as well.


CAPTARIS INC.: Named As Third-Party Defendant in IL Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Captaris, Inc. continues to face three class actions filed in
Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois, alleging violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

On July 29, 2003, Travel 100 Group, Inc. ("Travel 100") filed
three lawsuits in Circuit Court in Cook County, Illinois, one
against Mediterranean Shipping Company ("Mediterranean"), a
second against The Melrose Hotel Company ("Melrose") and a third
against Oceania Cruises ("Oceania").

The complaints are substantially identical in form and allege
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act in
connection with the receipt of facsimile advertisements that
were transmitted by MediaTel.  Each complaint seeks injunctive
relief and unspecified damages and certification as a class
action on behalf of Travel 100 and others similarly situated
throughout the United States that received the facsimile
advertisements.

Under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act a court can impose
liability of $500 per fax on a party that sends a fax without
the consent of the recipient.  A court can increase the
liability to $1,500 per fax if the sending of the fax is
willful.  MediaTel contracted with a third party to provide
facsimile advertising services for Mediterranean.  The third
party, in turn, contracted with Mediterranean.  Melrose
contracted directly with MediaTel for transmission of the
facsimiles.

In its answer filed on September 23, 2003, Mediterranean named
the Company as a third-party defendant and asserted that to the
extent that Mediterranean is liable, Captaris should be liable
under theories of indemnification or contribution for any
damages suffered by Mediterranean.  Similarly, in its answer
filed on October 14, 2003, Melrose named Captaris, as well as
PTEK, as third-party defendants based on allegations of breach
of contract and claims for contribution.

In response to Mediterranean's third-party complaint, Captaris
filed its answer on November 3, 2003, denying the allegations
filed by Mediterranean and further answering by way of
affirmative defenses that to the extent Captaris is found liable
for any damages allegedly suffered by plaintiffs or any third-
party plaintiffs in this action, Captaris is entitled to
indemnification and/or contribution from other non-parties to
this action.  Captaris filed a similar answer to Melrose's
complaint on November 20, 2003.

On September 8, 2004, Oceania filed an Answer and Third-Party
Complaint against Captaris and MediaTel making similar
allegations to those made in the other two cases in its counts
for fraud, indemnification and contribution.  Captaris and
MediaTel have until November 15, 2004, to respond to Oceania's
Third-Party Complaint.


CIGNA HEALTHCARE: Settles Specialty Health Care Provider Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
CIGNA HealthCare reached a settlement in lawsuits brought on
behalf of a nationwide class of specialty health care providers
and certain state and national associations. The agreement must
be approved by the United States District Court in Miami.

The agreement follows CIGNA HealthCare's settlement in September
2003 of similar class action suits filed on behalf of some
700,000 physicians across the country.

"Our principal imperative as a provider of health and wellness
benefits is to help health care providers achieve the best
possible medical outcomes for our members - to help them treat
the whole person," said W. Allen Schaffer, M.D., CIGNA's chief
clinical officer. "This agreement makes it easier for us to work
closely with specialty providers to meet that objective, ensure
patient safety and deliver the high-quality care patients need
and expect."

The settlement encompasses and brings to final resolution all
specialty health care provider claims asserted in various cases
that were transferred to U.S. District Court in Miami. The
health care providers covered by the settlement include
chiropractors, psychologists, counselors, podiatrists,
acupuncturists, optometrists, physical and occupational
therapists, nurse midwives, nurse practitioners, nurse
anesthetists, nutritionists, orthotists, prosthetists,
audiologists, speech and hearing therapists and others. While
the exact size of the class is undetermined, a notice regarding
the settlement will be mailed to at least 210,000 specialty
health care providers.

Under the settlement agreement, CIGNA HealthCare will, among
other things:

     (1) Establish a fund of $11.55 million from which class
         members can obtain compensation in an amount based on
         the volume of claims they submitted to CIGNA HealthCare
         over a period of nearly 15 years;

     (2) Further enhance its specialty health care provider
         claims processing and adjudication systems and
         processes;

     (3) Continue to expand and improve its on-line referral,
         certification and claims management capabilities for
         specialty health care providers;

     (4) Provide via the Internet detailed information about
         CIGNA HealthCare's specialty health care provider claim
         coding policies, fee schedules and related payment
         guidelines;

     (5) Refrain from reducing its fee specialty health care
         provider schedules for participating providers more
         than once in a calendar year, in most circumstances;

     (6) Implement an independent, external review process to
         resolve billing disputes fairly and expeditiously; and

     (7) Establish a specialty health care provider advisory
         committee to maintain open and frequent communication
         between CIGNA HealthCare and the providers and to
         address relevant issues and concerns.

"We believe this agreement greatly benefits podiatric physicians
and their patients now and in the future," said APMA President
Lloyd S. Smith, DPM. "By agreeing to this settlement, CIGNA has
taken steps to improve its relations with providers and the
quality of care for its members."

CIGNA Corporation previously recorded charges related both to
this settlement and the physician class action lawsuits settled
earlier this year. The settlement though will have no additional
impact on CIGNA's financial results.


CITIZENS UTILITY: 490T SBC Clients Eligible For $12M Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Approximately 490,000 SBC customers who subscribed to the now-
defunct SimpliFive calling plan are eligible for $25 in
compensation, a total of about $12 million, under a class action
settlement being announced to customers in their December phone
bills, according to the Citizens Utility Board.

The settlement stems from a complaint CUB brought before the
Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) in 2000, charging the
Company's marketing of the plan was misleading. The ICC agreed
and ordered the Company to refrain from selling the plan as a
money-saving option for consumers.

But the commission ruled it had no authority to order refunds
for consumers who had been overcharged on the plan.
Subsequently, private attorneys filed a class action lawsuit
seeking compensation for SimpliFive customers. CUB monitored the
lawsuit and helped negotiate the final settlement.

"We're pleased to see that consumers who were misled into
subscribing to SimpliFive will get some compensation," CUB
Executive Director Martin Cohen said. "And we hope SBC and the
other phone companies will think twice before they try to
mislead consumers in the future."

Under SimpliFive, which has not been offered since 2002,
consumers paid a nickel per call for all calls up to eight miles
away and five cents per minute for all other local calls. In its
ICC complaint, CUB argued that only SBC customers who made a
large volume of local toll calls would save money under the
plan. The others who subscribed would pay more.

Data collected during the case confirmed this prediction.
According to SBC's own figures, 47 percent of all SimpliFive
customers paid more on the plan than they would have on SBC's
standard rates.

"Due to the complexity of SBC's rates, most customers had no way
of knowing whether they lost or saved money on the plan," Cohen
added. "But the Company has stated that all customers who
believe they lost money will be compensated."

In Court, SBC valued the settlement at $12 million based on all
490,000 customers filing a claim. According to SBC, claim forms
will be mailed out in December phone bills. To obtain
compensation, eligible customers must sign and return the form.

CUB is a nonprofit statewide utility watchdog organization
created by the state legislature to represent the interests of
residential and small-business utility customers. For more
information about CUB and its efforts to protect consumers over
the last 20 years, visit http://www.CitizensUtilityBoard.orgor
call CUB's Consumer Hotline at 1-800-669-5556.


DEL SOL: NC A.G. Cooper Halts Telemarketing Scam, Consumer Fraud
----------------------------------------------------------------
A fraudulent telemarketer convincing Hispanic customers they
would win a free computer if they bought overpriced compact
discs and fake designer perfume has been ordered to stop, North
Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced in a statement.

"It's wrong to use the lure of a free prize to trick people into
giving up their hard-earned money," Cooper said.  "These fraud
artists took advantage of unsuspecting North Carolina consumers,
and we must stop them."

Wake County Superior Court Judge Howard Manning granted AG
Cooper's request to bar Del Sol, a telemarketing firm based in
Covina, California from calling North Carolina consumers.  The
lawsuit alleges that Del Sol broke state law by telling
consumers that they had to make a purchase in order to collect a
prize, by misleading customers about the merchandise they
purchased, and by failing to register as a telemarketer in North
Carolina.  In addition to today's preliminary injunction, Cooper
is asking the Court to make Del Sol pay refunds to consumers and
civil penalties to the state.

According to the lawsuit, Del Sol called hundreds of Hispanic
consumers in North Carolina to tell them that they had won a
free laptop computer.  In order to claim their prize, the
scammers said, consumers needed to purchase more than $200 worth
of designer perfume, music CDs, and other items.  While
consumers who placed orders did receive merchandise such as
knock-off perfume and some CDs, none of them received a computer
as promised.

The original consumer complaint filed with Cooper's office about
Del Sol came from Honorario Martinez, a minister who preaches at
a Spanish-speaking church in Lee County.  Based on this
complaint, Cooper's office investigated and discovered that at
least 419 Hispanic consumers in North Carolina had been bilked
by Del Sol?s phony pitch since May of 2004.

According to Mr. Martinez's complaint, the bilingual
telemarketer who called him said she needed to speak with him
urgently.  The telemarketer then told him that he had won a
computer but had to purchase two watches, 10 religion-based CDs
and 10 bottles of name-brand perfume for a total of $229 before
he could receive his prize.  When the shipment arrived, it
included some CDs, perfume and watches but did not include a
computer.  Instead, Mr. Martinez got a device that could be used
to receive Internet access via television but required the
purchase of additional equipment in order to work.

"People who are new to our state need to know that our laws
protect them when they do business here," said Cooper.  "If you
have questions or if you believe you've been the victim of
fraud, let my office know about it.  We're here to help."

Cooper also encouraged consumers to add their home and cell
phone numbers to the Do Not Call Registry to cut down on
unwanted telemarketing calls.  Consumers can sign up in either
English or Spanish online at www.nocallsnc.com or by calling
(888) 382-1222 toll-free from the number the wish to register.


DUKE ENERGY: FERC Approves $207.5M Western Markets Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) approved a
previously announced settlement between Duke Energy (NYSE: DUK)
and the states of California, Washington and Oregon; FERC staff;
California's three largest investor-owned utilities; and other
parties, according to the Company.

The settlement, announced in July, resolves refund proceedings
and other significant litigation related to the western energy
markets during 2000-2001. The private litigation components of
the settlement agreement are subject to Court approval.

"We have made excellent progress in 2004 addressing and closing
out regulatory and legal issues," said Fred Fowler, Duke Energy
president and chief operating officer. "FERC's approval of the
Western Markets Settlement is a major milestone in resolving
these issues. Duke Energy can now fully focus on its core
business of meeting current and future energy needs in the
western United States and elsewhere."

As part of the settlement, Duke Energy will provide $207.5
million in cash and credits. In exchange, the parties will
forego all claims relating to refunds or other monetary damages
for sales of electricity during the settlement period, and
claims alleging Duke Energy received unjust or unreasonable
rates for the sale of electricity during the settlement period,
January 2000 through June 2001.

Duke Energy recorded a $105 million pre-tax charge in the second
quarter of 2004 to reflect the settlement agreement.

Specifically the settlement resolves:

(1) All western refund proceedings pending before FERC

     (2) Market price investigations by attorneys general in
         California, Washington and Oregon

     (3) Private electricity-related class action suits filed on
         behalf of California, Washington, Oregon, Idaho and
         Utah ratepayers

     (4) Natural gas price issues raised by the California
         attorney general, Pacific Gas and Electric Company,
         Southern California Edison and San Diego Gas & Electric
         Company.

For more information about Duke Energy contact Peter Sheffield
by Phone: 980/373-4503 or 704/382-8333 visit their Web site:
http://www.duke-energy.com.


EDELBROCK CORPORATION: Working To Settle DE Securities Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edelbrock Corporation is working to settle consolidated
shareholder class action filed against it and its directors in
the Court of Chancery for New Castle County, Delaware on behalf
of its shareholders.

On April 13, 2004, an action styled as "Robert Garfield v. O.
Victor Edelbrock, et al., No.374-N" was filed, alleging that
terms of the proposal to acquire the shares of the Company not
already owned by the shareholder/plaintiff presented by Mr.
Edelbrock are unfair and inadequate and that the defendants
other than Mr. Edelbrock have responded to that proposal in a
manner that violates their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff
class.  The action seeks to enjoin consummation of the
transaction contemplated by the proposal or, if it has been
consummated, rescission of the transaction and/or damages.

On April 13 and 15, 2004, respectively, two other purported
class actions making similar allegations and seeking
substantially similar relief were filed in the same Court and
styled as "William Steiner v. Edelbrock Corporation, et al.,
No.377-N;" and "Roger Delgado v. Edelbrock Corporation, et al.,
No.388-N."  The three actions have been consolidated into a
single action.

On July 30, 2004, the parties to the consolidated action entered
into a memorandum of understanding ("MoU") with respect to a
proposed settlement of these actions.  The parties have been
negotiating the final forms of settlement documents to implement
the terms of the MoU.  Plaintiffs' counsel has also reviewed
documents they deemed relevant and taken three depositions to
confirm their understandings with respect to the transaction and
related factual matters.  Under the terms of the proposed
settlement, which is subject to Court approval, the plaintiffs'
counsel will be entitled to $425,000 in fees and expenses in the
aggregate.


FLORIDA: Tomato, Pepper Farm Laborers To Receive Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mexican consulate in Miami, Florida is calling on farm laborers
who worked between 1998 and 2000 on tomato and pepper crops in
the West Palm Beach area to collect the compensation due them,
the EFE News Services reports.

According to the consulate, the indemnities, which range from
$10 to $10,000, is the judgment awarded in a class-action suit
brought by the Florida Legal organization dedicated to
counseling the poor. A total of 17,000 workers were benefited by
the Court decision that pays them wages they lost by being
deported before receiving their last paycheck and for having
been swindled by their employers, the consulate further stated.

"Some workers had deductions from their wages for Social
Security, with which they were never registered since they were
undocumented," Mexican consul Jorge Lomonaco told EFE. The
contractor simply kept the amount deducted from these employees.
Other workers "did not receive the total amount of the minimum
wage. Many of the laborers did piecework, which means they were
paid for the number of buckets of produce they picked," the
consul added.

Workers are paid a certain amount - which can range from a few
cents to a dollar - for each bucket of fruit or vegetables they
harvest, and their pay is based on how many buckets they fill in
an hour or a day. "This means that sometimes they earn more than
the hourly minimum wage, but those who aren't so fast get less
than the minimum wage at the end of the day," Mr. Lomonaco said.

The Mexican official further said, "State law (in Florida)
specifies a fixed hourly sum and the employer is obliged to pay
the minimum amount. He can pay more but he cannot pay less,
regardless of how many buckets have been filled."

If someone worked during those dates for any of these
contractors - Roy Rodriguez, Maria Sanchez, Maria Medrano and
Candido Mu¤oz - and considers that they are owed any wages, he
or she should contact the consul Edgardo Briones and Jesus de
Lara at the Protection Department of the Mexican consulate.


FRANKLIN ADVISERS: Pays $20 Mil, Settles SEC Brokerage Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed settled charges
against Franklin Advisers, Inc. (FA) and Franklin Templeton
Distributors, Inc. (FTDI) (collectively, Franklin), the
investment adviser and principal underwriter and distributor
affiliated with the Franklin Templeton mutual funds, alleging
that Franklin, without proper disclosure, used fund assets to
compensate brokerage firms for recommending the Franklin
Templeton mutual funds over others to their clients. This
practice is known as compensating brokerage firms for shelf
space. As part of the settlement, Franklin agreed to pay a $20
million penalty and undergo compliance reforms.

The Commission's order finds, and Franklin neither admits nor
denies, that between 2001 and 2003, FTDI had shelf space
agreements with 39 broker-dealers pursuant to which FTDI
allocated $52 million from brokerage commissions related to
trades of fund shares (which were fund assets) to the broker-
dealers in exchange for shelf space. Franklin did not adequately
disclose these agreements to the fund boards or the fund
shareholders.

The use of brokerage commissions to compensate brokerage firms
for marketing created a conflict of interest between FA and the
funds because FA benefited from the increased management fees
resulting from increased fund sales, and consequently had an
incentive to use these brokerage firms, whether or not the
brokerage firms were best for the fund shareholders. FA was
required, but failed, to disclose adequately the arrangements to
the boards so they could approve this use of fund assets, and to
shareholders so they could be informed when making investment
decisions.

FTDI aided and abetted FA's violations. FTDI benefited from the
arrangements by avoiding paying for shelf space out of its own
assets. FTDI had the opportunity to disclose these agreements to
the boards but failed to do so.

The $20 million civil penalty will be distributed to the
Franklin funds whose assets were used to pay for shelf space.
Franklin will also undertake compliance measures designed to
protect against future violations. These measures include
retaining an Independent Distribution Consultant to develop a
Distribution Plan to distribute the total penalty ordered and
appointing an employee to design and implement policies and
procedures governing Franklin's shelf space arrangements.

The order finds that FA violated Section 206(2) of the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940, and that FA and FTDI violated
Sections 34(b) and 17(d) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
and Rule 17d-1 thereunder, and requires FA and FTDI to cease and
desist from violating these provisions. FA and FTDI consented to
entry of the order without admitting or denying the findings.


GEMSTAR-TV GUIDE: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California granted final approval to the settlement of the
securities class action filed against Gemstar-TV Guide
International, Inc., styled "In re Gemstar-TV Guide
International Inc. Securities Litigation, in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, Master
File No. 02-CV-2775 MRP (PLAx)."

The suit alleges violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the 1934 Act) and the Securities Act of 1933 (the 1933
Act).  The alleged claims were brought under Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the 1934 Act, Section 11 of the 1933 Act and SEC Rule
10b-5 and seek unspecified monetary damages.  The suit alleges
violations of the securities laws in connection with the
Company's accounting for certain transactions which were
subsequently restated between November 2002 and March 2003.  The
amended complaint seeks money damages on behalf of a purported
class of holders of the Company's securities during the relevant
time period, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (May
11,2004) stated.

In September 2004, prior to final approval of the settlement and
pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company
elected to substitute cash for 2,052,545 shares of Gemstar
common stock by paying $12.5 million into an escrow account.  On
September 15, 2004, the Court entered a final judgment that
approved the settlement of the claims against the Company,
dismissed the action against the Company with prejudice and
certified a class for settlement purposes.

Pursuant to the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company
relinquished control over the cash portion of the settlement
amount held in escrow.  Following the final Court approval of
the settlement, the Company issued 328,407 shares from treasury
stock and made a payment of an additional $0.3 million in cash
to meet the stock trading price guarantee associated with such
shares to the plaintiffs' counsel for a portion of the
attorneys' fees.  The remaining 1,724,138 shares of Gemstar
common stock, plus any additional shares to be issued or cash
to be paid to meet the stock trading price guarantee, having an
aggregate value of $10.5 million, will be issued at a future
date in accordance with the terms of the settlement agreement.

As previously reported, the plaintiff class will retain all of
its claims against Dr. Yuen, Ms. Leung, and the Company's former
independent public accountants, and the settlement does not
resolve the related shareholder derivative suits or the non-
consolidated securities fraud cases still pending against the
Company.

The suit is styled "In Re: Gemstar-TV Guide, et al v. , et al.,
Case No. 2:02-cv-02775-MRP-PLA," under Judge Mariana R.
Pfaelzer.  Lawyers for the defendant is Stanley S. Arkin of
Arkin & Kaplan, 590 Madison Ave, 35th Fl, New York, NY 10022,
Phone: 212-333-0200, fax: 212-333-2350.  Lawyer for the
plaintiffs is Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (San
Diego, CA), 12544 High Bluff Drive, Suite 150, San Diego, CA,
92130, Phone: 858.793.0070, Fax: 858.793.0323, E-mail:
blbg@blbglaw.com


GEORGIA: Judge Denies State's Motion To Dismiss Foster Care Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Court Judge Marvin Shoob has declined to dismiss a
lawsuit that seeks to force reforms in Georgia's foster care
system stating, "the Court finds ample evidence to create
genuine issues for trial," the Associated Press reports.

Filed in June 2002, the suit seeks an overhaul of the state
Division of Family and Children Services in DeKalb and Fulton
counties. It was filed on behalf of nine children and was
expanded in August 2003 by Judge Shoob to cover about 3,000
other foster children as a class action.

In his latest ruling, Judge Shoob also rejected the state's
request to exclude reports and testimony of experts used by the
New York-based advocacy group Children's Rights, which filed the
suit. According to the judge, whether the state's practices
deprive children of their constitutional rights "is an ultimate
legal issue to be decided by the Court based upon all the
evidence presented at trial." He further stated "Plaintiffs'
experts' opinions regarding the applicable standards governing
child welfare practice and state defendants' current level of
performance as measured against those standards will clearly
assist the Court in making that determination."

The state of Georgia had argued that there was no single set of
national standards on how child welfare systems should perform,
and therefore the experts could not testify about whether
Georgia departed from national professional standards.

The lawsuit claims that Georgia's current system fails to work
with families well enough to reunite children safely with
parents and fails to move children to adoption within a
reasonable length of time. The plaintiffs' lawyers hope that a
Court victory would lead Judge Shoob to demand vast improvements
in the foster care system, with continued Court supervision.

However, the State continues to argue that it has taken steps to
improve foster care and that Court-ordered reforms could make
the reforms more costly.


INKINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Settlement For PA Stock Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Inkine Pharmaceuticals, Inc. reached a settlement for the class
action filed against it in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, on behalf of a putative class of holders of
InKine equity shares who have purportedly been denied certain
claimed preemptive rights during the last six years.

On March 15, 2004, the Company withdrew a public offering of six
million shares of its common stock.  The decision to withdraw
the offering was made when it came to the Company's attention
that its certificate of incorporation did not contain any
provision exempting the Company from providing preemptive rights
in connection with certain securities offerings.

On October 12, 2004, the Company entered into an agreement with
an undisclosed third party who will fund the settlement of
damages and costs incurred in connection with the class action
lawsuit.  The Company has also entered into, and filed with the
Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, a settlement
agreement with the class of InKine shareholders.  At this time,
there can be no assurance that those conditions will be met and
that the settlement will receive final Court approval.


KENNETH COLE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles,
alleging that the individual plaintiffs and other purported
class members worked hours for which they were entitled to
receive, but did not receive, overtime compensation under
California law.

The Company has retained counsel, is preparing a formal response
to the complaint, and plans to defend the action vigorously, the
Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.


KVH INDUSTRIES: TAPP Is Lead Plaintiff in Suit V. Firm, Officers
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Teamster Affiliates Pension Plan (TAPP), is the lead
plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit filed against KVH
Industries (Nasdaq: KVHI), the Company's President, CEO, and
Director, Martin Kits van Heyningen, and the Company's CFO,
Patrick Spratt.

The complaint alleges that KVH and its officers, among other
things, issued materially false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial results and the strong demand
for one of the Company's new products. The complaint further
alleges that the Company failed to disclose to shareholders
material facts about the financial condition of the Company in
order to complete a $51.5 million public offering of KVH common
stock. The lawsuit covers the class period of Oct 1, 2003-July
2, 2004.

"We believe actions by top officers at KVH Industries have
harmed shareholders, including thousands of Teamster families,"
said C. Thomas Keegel, Teamster General Secretary-Treasurer, who
also serves as Trustee for the Teamsters Affiliates Pension
Plan. "We will always fight to protect the retirement security
of our members and their families."

For more details, contact Samuel Rudman of Lerach, Coughlin,
Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins by Phone: (631) 367-7100 or by
E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.


MCLEODUSA INC.: IA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Iowa refused to dismiss the consolidated securities class action
filed against McLeodUSA, Inc.'s officers, namely:

     (1) Former Chairman Clark E. McLeod,

     (2) President Stephen C. Gray (then also Chief Executive
         Officer),

     (3) Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Chris A. Davis
         (then Chief Operating and Financial Officer) and

     (4) former Chief Financial and Accounting Officer J. Lyle
         Patrick

The suit is styled "In Re McLeodUSA Incorporated Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. C02-0001 (N.D. Iowa)."  The suit
alleged the defendants misled investors about the Company's
financial performance and that the Company routinely backdated
contracts and booked non-existent orders to meet revenue
forecasts, according to an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(May 7,2003).

The Individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint in the Iowa Class Action, which was
denied by the district judge.

The suit is styled "New Millenium Fund, et al v. McLeodUSA Inc,
et al., Case No. 1:02-cv-00001-MWB," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, under Judge
Mark W. Bennett.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew L Barroway, Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, Three
         Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004,
         Phone: 610 667 7706, Fax: 667 7056

     (2) David L Phipps, Whitfield & Eddy, PLC, 317 Sixth Avenue
         Suite 1200, Des Moines, IA 50309-4110, Phone: 515 288
         6041, fax: 246 1474, E-mail: phipps@whitfieldlaw.com

     (3) Peter C. Riley and Tom J. Riley, Tom Riley Law Firm,
         4040 First Avenue NE, PO Box 998, Cedar Rapids, IA
         52406-0998, Phone: 319 363 4040, fax: 363 9789, E-mail:
         peterr@trlf.com or rtom@trlf.com

     (4) Steven G Schulman of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
         Lerach, LLP, One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY
         10119-0165, Phone: 212 594 5300 Fax: 868 1229

     (5) Joseph H Weiss, Weiss & Yourman, 551 Fifth Avenue, New
         York, NY 10176, Phone: 212 682 3025, Fax: 682 3010

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (i) Kevin H Collins, Richard S. Fry, Diane Kutzko of
         Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, 115 Third Street, SE, PO Box
         2107 Suite 500, Cedar Rapids, IA 52406-2107, Phone: 319
         365 9461, Fax: 365 8443, E-mail:
         khc@shuttleworthlaw.com or rsf@shuttleworthlaw.com or
         dhk@shuttleworthlaw.com

    (ii) Samuel A. Gunsburg, David B. Hennes, Sherita M. Perry,
         Mark J. Stein, Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson
         LLP, One New York Plaza New York, NY 10004, Phone: 212
         859 8674, Fax: 212 859 8584, E-mail:
         David.Hennes@friedfrank.com or
         Sherita.Perry@friedfrank.com or steinma@ffhsj.com


NEW JERSEY: Resident Arrested For Importing Illegal Flu Vaccines
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael J. Garcia, Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security for
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE); Office of
Criminal Investigations for the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA); and detectives from the Atlantic County Prosecutor's
Office announced the arrest of Mahmoud Abuarqoub, 37, of Somers
Point, N.J. Abuarqoub was arrested as he entered the country at
the Philadelphia International Airport Saturday for the illegal
importation of 810 doses of unapproved flu vaccine into the
United States.

"This arrest puts an end to Mahmoud Abuarquob's alleged efforts
to profit from America's flu vaccine shortage," said Mr. Garcia.
"This plot to import unapproved vaccine for sale at grossly
inflated prices threatened to put America's flu vaccine supplies
at risk. Protecting this country from illegal and potentially
dangerous imports is a priority for ICE and the Department of
Homeland Security."

A criminal complaint against Abuarqoub filed today in U.S.
District Court in Camden alleges that Abuarqoub imported the
Aventis Vaxigrip flu vaccine from Saudi Arabia Nov. 17.
Abuarqoub, a naturalized United States citizen born in Jordan,
had approached a medical professional working at Somers Point
Memorial Hospital attempting to sell flu vaccines imported from
Europe.

Abuarqoub indicated that he was representing "SAFAD Corporation"
and initially offered to sell 20,000 units of Aventis Vaxigrip
flu vaccine at $65 per unit ($1.3 million total). Abuarqoub
displayed copies of a Vaxigrip container and a printout from
Aventis to the hospital. The hospital contacted law enforcement
instead.  With the hospital cooperating with law enforcement,
Abuarqoub agreed that he would sell the hospital 1600 doses of
the flu vaccine at a cost of $55 per unit.

On November 17, ICE agents seized the package containing the
vaccine after it arrived at JFK Airport, N.Y. The package was
addressed to Abuarqoub at his residence. ICE and FDA agents
delivered the package to the address in Somers Point, then
executed a search warrant of the residence seizing records and
other material related to the investigation.  Abuarqoub was out
of the country at the time of the search warrant execution,
allegedly arranging for purchase and delivery of additional flu
vaccine doses.  Abuarqoub faces up to five years in prison and
up to $10,000 in fines if convicted. Abuarqoub is presumed
innocent until proven guilty in a Court of law.

Anybody with knowledge of similar attempts to import and
distribute unapproved vaccines should contact ICE at
1-866-DHS-2ICE (866-347-2423), or call the FDA at 301-827-6242.


NYFIX INC.: Asks CT Court To Dismiss Securities Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nyfix, Inc. asked the United States Distirct Court for the
District of Connecticut to dismiss an amended securities class
action filed against it.  The suit, initially styled "JOHNSON ET
AL. V. NYFIX, INC., ET AL.," also names as defendants the
Company's Chairman and CEO, its former CFO, its current CFO and
certain of its directors.

The complaint was initially filed as a purported class action
claim on behalf of all buyers of the Company's stock between
March 30, 2000 and March 30, 2004 and seeks an unspecified
amount of damages.  The complaint alleged violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
("Exchange Act"), based on the issuance of a series of allegedly
false and misleading financial statements and press releases
concerning, among other things, the Company's investment in
NYFIX Millennium.

On July 20, 2004, the Court appointed three different plaintiffs
to be the lead plaintiffs, as Fuller & Thaler Asset Management
withdrew as the named plaintiff.  The action became styled
JOHNSON, ET AL. V. NYFIX, INC., ET AL.  The newly named
plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint, which
added, among other things, allegations of violations of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.  The new
allegations are based fundamentally on the same allegations as
the plaintiffs asserted in the original complaint.


OHIO: State General Assembly Passes New Tort Reform Legislation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio's General Assembly recently passed tort reform bill, a 140-
plus-page document that covers everything from frivolous fast-
food lawsuits to limiting the amount juries may award victims of
"non catastrophic" injuries, the BestWire Services reports.

According to the Washington, D.C.-based American Tort Reform
Association, the bill's passage is the culmination of a
multiyear effort by state legislators and the Ohio Alliance for
Civil Justice to enact comprehensive reform that will promote a
more hospitable legal environment,

"This should signal to other states also having difficulties
that it can be accomplished," said Gretchen Schaefer, a
spokeswoman for ATRA.

The main provisions of the Ohio bull include:

     (1) A $500,000 cap on "pain and suffering," or
         noncatastrophic awards;

     (2) Broader judicial authority in reviewing noneconomic
         damage awards for catastrophic injuries;

     (3) A 10-year limit for product-liability claims;

     (4) Protection for the food industry from frivolous obesity
         lawsuits; and

     (5) Modification of the state's collateral-source rule to
         mitigate noneconomic damages.

Ohio Gov. Robert Taft, a long-time advocate of tort reform who
was expected to sign the bill, said in a statement that the bill
is sure to improve the state's business climate and create jobs.

"A comprehensive lawsuit reform plays a central role in our
success," Taft said. "A fair and effective civil justice system
is an essential part of promoting and sustaining an attractive
business climate in Ohio."

Sean McManamy, assistant vice president of the Midwestern region
for the American Insurance Association, said Ohio is among the
first states to tackle an issue that has begun to strangle the
legal process in some parts of the nation -- such as in
Missouri, where doctors are leaving the state in droves, and in
Madison County, Ill., which has become the butt of jokes for the
exorbitant number of class-action lawsuits that flow though its
legal system.

"When a state implements broad tort reform legislation like Ohio
did, what it's doing is making insurance costs more stable and
more predictable, and that is going to benefit the insurance
consumer," McManamy said.

In the realm of medical malpractice, Ohio became among the first
in the nation to create a fund to address the growing issue,
authorizing establishment of the Medical Liability Underwriting
Association. The law allows for the transfer of $12 million from
the Ohio Joint Underwriting Association, a medical-malpractice
insurance Company created by statute in 1975 that was being
terminated (BestWire April 16, 2004).

In September, Ohio moved the truly sick to the head of the
asbestos-lawsuit line with passage of lawsuit reform that
requires asbestos cases filed by individuals showing symptoms of
illness from exposure to asbestos to be the first cases heard
(BestWire, Sept. 24, 2004).

Other states taking the lead when it comes to legal reform
include Texas and Mississippi.

Gov. Haley Barbour signed Mississippi's much-hailed tort-reform
bill into law on June 16. Among other provisions, the new law
places a $500,000 cap on awards for noneconomic damages in
medical-malpractice lawsuits.

According to ATRA, the Texas Legislature modeled its law after
one enacted in California nearly three decades ago that has
helped keep that state's doctors where their patients need them.
The law limits the award of noneconomic damages in medical-
malpractice cases to $250,000 against all doctors and health-
care practitioners and $250,000 per facility against health-care
facilities such as hospitals and nursing homes, with an overall
limit of $550,000 against health-care facilities.


PENNSYLVANIA: Lawyers Predict Lengthy Process For VIOXX Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers predict that Vioxx lawsuits will probably be handled
through mass tort, which is different from class action thus
making for a very lengthy legal process, the Patriot-News
reports.

Class-action lawsuits typically involve a large group of people
who claim harm by a common cause, such as being overcharged by a
bank, but the value of the damage to each person isn't enough to
justify a lawsuit. On the other hand, mass torts involve a large
group claiming harm by a common cause, such as a defective
product, where the alleged damage to each person varies and must
be determined individually.

The Vioxx lawsuits probably would be consolidated in one federal
Court were discovery should be held on such matters as what
Merck knew about the drug's harmful effects and what kind of
problems occurred among users. The plaintiffs' lawyers will then
form a network to share information.

Eventually, several test cases would go to trial and based on
their outcomes, Merck and victims' lawyers would gauge the
strength of their positions. If Merck fares well in the early
cases, it might opt to fight all the claims, but if not Merck
might be inclined to settle cases.

When that happens, plaintiffs' lawyers would forward details of
individual cases to Merck and negotiate settlements. Payouts
would vary according to personal circumstances. For example, an
elderly person previously disabled would likely receive less
than a young person disabled by a heart attack because of Vioxx.
Several Harrisburg lawyers though predict that it will be at
least two years before people who file lawsuits receive money
with attorneys typically receiving 33 percent of awards, plus
expenses.


PETMED EXPRESS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
PetMed Express, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
face six shareholder class action lawsuits filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws.

Five of the class action shareholder complaints contain
substantive allegations identical to the complaint filed on
August 17, 2004.  These complaints allege violations of the
anti-fraud provision contained in Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, thereunder and
assert violations of Section 20(a) of that act against the
individual defendants as controlling persons.

The actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock between June 18, 2003 and July 26, 2004,
and the complaints generally allege that the defendants made
false or misleading statements concerning the Company's
business, prospects, and operations and failed to disclose,
among other things:

     (1) that the Company's business allegedly depends on
         veterinarians, who are the Company's competitors, to
         authorize prescriptions,

     (2) that the Company's business model, which, in part,
         requires veterinarians to authorize prescriptions,
         caused veterinarians to incur certain costs and
         burdens, which were supposedly shifted from the Company
         to the veterinarians,

     (3) the existence of a supposed increase in veterinarian
         refusals to comply with Company requests for
         prescription authorization,

     (4) the Company's alleged inability to guarantee the
         quality of, and maintain control over, pet medications
         and the negative impact this was having on veterinarian
         willingness to authorize prescriptions, and

     (5) that the foregoing allegations were adversely impacting
         the Company.

The complaints also allege that the individual defendants were
motivated to engage in the alleged violations so that they could
affect sales of their shares of the Company's common stock at
artificially inflated prices.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
monetary damages.

The sixth class action shareholder complaint also alleges
violations of the anti-fraud provision contained in Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and asserts violations of Section 20(a) of that act
against the Company and the individual defendants as controlling
persons.

The action has purportedly been brought on behalf of purchasers
of the Company's common stock between June 16, 2003 and July 26,
2004 and generally alleges that the defendants made false or
misleading statements concerning the Company's business,
prospects and operations and failed to disclose, among other
things, that the Company supposedly diverted costs to
veterinarians which would ultimately cost the Company decreased
sales in future periods, and that the defendants allegedly
risked the quality, safety, or efficacy of the Company's drugs,
resulting in veterinarians declining to refill prescriptions
through the Company, which would ultimately cost the Company
decreased revenue.

The complaint also alleges that the individual defendants were
motivated to engage in the alleged violations to obtain
financing for the Company and so that they could effect sales of
their shares of the Company's common stock at artificially
inflated prices.  The plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary
damages.


PRICE LEGACY: Asks Court To Stay Suit V. PL Retail Acquisition
--------------------------------------------------------------
Price Legacy Corporation asked the Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego to stay the class action filed against it
and each of its current members and one past member of its board
of directors.

On August 25, 2004 and August 26, 2004, two purported class
action complaints were filed, styled "Jeanne M. Calamore v.
Price Legacy Corporation, Jack McGrory, James F. Cahill, Murray
Galinson, Charles L. Goldberg, Robert N. Goodman, Keene Wolcott,
Jacklyn Horton, and Giles H. Bateman (Case No. GIC834768) and
Carl E. Atkinson, Jr. v. Price Legacy Corporation," and "Jack
McGrory, James F. Cahill, Murray Galinson, Charles L. Goldberg,
Robert N. Goodman, Keene Wolcott, Jacklyn Horton, and Giles H.
Bateman v. Price Legacy Corporation (Case No. GIC834830)."  The
suits were consolidated by the Court.

The operative complaint alleges the defendants breached their
fiduciary duty to their stockholders in connection with the
proposed merger pursuant to which the Company will be acquired
by PL Retail LLC.  The complaint challenges the sufficiency of
the merger consideration, the adequacy of disclosures and the
independence of the directors, and seeks a preliminary and
permanent injunction of the merger transaction and unspecified
damages from the defendants.   The discovery process has been
ongoing.

On October 27, 2004, the defendants filed a demurrer to the
plaintiff's complaint contending that the complaint fails to
state a valid cause of action against any of the defendants and
is fatally uncertain.  The demurrer is set for hearing on
January 14, 2005.  On October 27, 2004, the defendants also
filed a motion to stay the action.  The motion to stay is set
for hearing on January 21, 2005.


PRICE LEGACY: Plaintiffs File Amended MD PL Retail Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action against Price Legacy
Corporation, the members of its Board of Directors and The Price
Group in the Circuit Court for Baltimore City, Maryland, styled
"Robert Allen v. Price Legacy Corporation, Jack McGrory, Murray
Galinson, Keene Wolcott, Charles Goldberg, Robert N. Goodman,
Giles H. Bateman, Jacklyn Horton, and The Price Group LLC (Case
No. 24-C-04-007204 OT)."

The amended suit alleges that the defendants breached their
fiduciary duty to the Company's stockholders in connection with
the proposed merger pursuant to which the Company will be
acquired by PL Retail LLC.  The amended complaint challenges the
sufficiency of the merger consideration, the adequacy of
disclosures and the independence of the directors, and seeks a
preliminary and permanent injunction of the merger transaction,
the imposition of a constructive trust, and unspecified damages
from the defendants.


ST. PAUL TRAVELERS: NY Attorney General Spitzer Issues Subpoena
---------------------------------------------------------------
Though no charges have been filed, New York Attorney General
Eliot Spitzer recently issued a fourth subpoena to St. Paul
Travelers Companies Inc., and officials at the insurance firm
stated that his office is investigating whether they improperly
dropped liability coverage for attorneys, the Associated Press
reports.

At least five other insurance companies have received similar
subpoenas in lieu of Mr. Spitzer expansion oh his investigation
of the industry on accusations of bid rigging and kickbacks
among insurers and brokers that first surfaced in late October.

The other firms that were subpoenaed are CNA Financial Corp.,
General Electric Company's Employers Reinsurance Corp., Hartford
Financial Services Group, American Financial Group Inc. and Arch
Capital Group Inc.

Insurance analysts believe that the attorney general is
responding to complaints from attorneys that large insurers have
limited malpractice coverage and raised premiums in an effort to
limit the number of class-action lawsuits against their clients.

According to Robert Hartwig, chief economist for the industry-
sponsored Insurance Information Institute in New York, "More
lawyers are suing lawyers, it's not as if attorneys have been
singled out. The fact is, attorneys have been caught up in the
same explosion of litigation that has affected other
professional service firms."

However, some legal groups suspect that insurance companies are
raising rates and dropping coverage to protect themselves.


SUMMIT PROPERTIES: Shareholders Launch NC Suit v. Camden Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Summit Properties, Inc. faces a class action currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, Charlotte Division, over its proposed merger
with Camden Property Trust.

The suit, filed on October 6, 2004 in the General Court of
Justice, Superior Court Division, of the State of North
Carolina, County of Mecklenburg by an alleged Summit
stockholder, also names as defendants Camden and each member of
Summit's board of directors.  The suit principally alleges that
the merger and the acts of the Summit directors constitute a
breach of the Summit defendants' fiduciary duties to Summit
stockholders.  The plaintiff in the lawsuit seeks, among other
things:

     (1) a declaration that each defendant has committed or
         aided and abetted a breach of fiduciary duty to the
         Summit stockholders,

     (2) to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Merger,

     (3) to rescind the Merger in the event that it is
         consummated

     (4) an order to permit a stockholders' committee to ensure
         an unspecified "fair procedure, adequate procedural
         safe-guards and independent input by plaintiff" in
         connection with any transaction for Summit shares,

     (5) unspecified compensatory damages and

     (6) attorneys' fees

On November 3, 2004, Camden removed the lawsuit to the North
Carolina federal Court, and filed an Answer and Counterclaim for
declaratory judgment denying the plaintiff's allegations of
wrongdoing.

The suit is styled "Krantz v. Summit Properties In, et al, Case
No.  04-CV-558," filed in the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina, under Judge H. Brent
McKnight.

Lawyer for the defendants are George V. Hanna, III of Moore &
Van Allen, 100 No. Tryon St., Suite 4700, Charlotte, NC 28202-
4003, Phone: 704/331-1000 and Stephen D. Poss and John O. Farley
of Goodwin Proctor, LLP, Exchange Place, Boston, MA 02109,
Phone: 617/570-1000.

Lawyer for the plaintiffs is Bruce M. Simpson of James, McElroy
& Diehl, 600 S. College St., Charlotte, NC 28202, USA, Phone:
704/372-9870.


TRANSMETA CORPORATION: Presents Lawsuit Settlement To NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Transmeta Corporation presented formal settlement documents for
the securities class action filed against it, certain of its
directors and officers, and certain of the underwriters for its
initial public offering to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York.  The suit is styled "In re
Transmeta Corporation Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Case No. 01 CV 6492."

The complaints allege that the prospectus issued in connection
with the Company's initial public offering on November 7, 2000
failed to disclose certain alleged actions by the underwriters
for that offering, and alleges claims against the Company and
several of its officers and directors under Sections 11 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and under Sections
10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended.

Similar actions have been filed against more than 300 other
companies that issued stock in connection with other initial
public offerings during 1999-2000.  Those cases have been
coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

In July 2002, the Company joined in a coordinated motion to
dismiss filed on behalf of multiple issuers and other
defendants.  In February 2003, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the coordinated motion to dismiss, and issued an
order regarding the pleading of amended complaints.  Plaintiffs
subsequently proposed a settlement offer to all issuer
defendants, which settlement would provide for payments by
issuers' insurance carriers if plaintiffs fail to recover a
certain amount from underwriter defendants.

Although the Company and the individual defendants believe that
the complaints are without merit and deny any liability, but
because they also wish to avoid the continuing waste of
management time and expense of litigation, they accepted
plaintiffs' proposal to settle all claims that might have been
brought in this action.  The Company and the individual
Transmeta defendants expect that their share of the global
settlement will be fully funded by their director and officer
liability insurance.  Although the Company and the Transmeta
defendants have approved the settlement in principle, it remains
subject to several procedural conditions, as well as formal
approval by the Court.  It is possible that the parties may not
reach a final written settlement agreement or that the Court may
decline to approve the settlement in whole or part.


TRINITY SOUTHERN: TX A.G. Abbot Obtains TRO Over Fake Diplomas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott obtained a temporary
restraining order and asset freeze in District Court against a
for-profit "university" that fraudulently represents itself as
an accredited institution.

The Attorney General's lawsuit alleges Trinity Southern
University of Dallas and owners Craig B. and Alton S. Poe are
operating a "diploma mill" in which they market, promote and
churn out bachelor's, master's and doctorate "degrees" via
advertisements on the university's Web site. These "degrees" are
being issued solely on the basis of a "student's" testimony
about skills and experience.

"This unaccredited university offers `degrees' for sale and
charges from $300 to $500 for what amounts to worthless paper,"
said Attorney General Abbott.  "Texans who want an education
deserve to receive proper credentials, and I'll make every
effort under the law to see that this wrongful practice stops
for good."

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board has also been
aware of this alleged fraud against the public and referred its
information to the Attorney General for legal action.  The
university's Web site claims that a prospective student has "no
classes to attend, no tests to take." Despite having no
classroom time to endure, the university assures students that,
once "qualified" based on their experience, they will receive a
bachelor's degree comprised of 115-120 credit hours.  Those
pursuing master's and Ph.D. degrees will be mailed transcripts
reflecting 36-48 hours of course credit. The university even
tries to assure students its degree program is not a scam.  The
Web site's "question and answer" page says the university
accepts credit cards and a "no questions asked" 30-day
guarantee.

The suit, which also seeks temporary and permanent injunctions,
penalties and restitution for students, is filed under the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.  In addition to having its
accounts frozen, the university was ordered to stop accepting
payments from students and promoting unlawful services.  A
temporary injunction hearing has been scheduled for December 27.

For more details, contact Angela Hale, Paco Felici, Jerry
Strickland, or Tom Kelley by Phone: (512) 463-2050.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: To Present Suit Settlement To DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Valeant Pharmaceuticals, Inc. intends to present the settlement
of the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
Ribapharm, Inc., and certain directors and officers of Ribapharm
in the Delaware Court of Chancery, styled "In re Ribapharm Inc.
Shareholders Litigation, Consol. C.A. No.20337."

Another similar suit is proceeding in coordination with the
consolidated case in which the plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the Company breached its fiduciary duties as a
controlling stockholder of Ribapharm in connection with its
tender offer for the shares of Ribapharm it did not already own.

On August 4, 2003, the Company and the plaintiffs reached an
agreement in principle to settle these lawsuits for a nominal
amount and, after settlement papers are prepared, will present
that settlement to the Court of Chancery for its approval.

In June 2003, a purported class action on behalf of certain
stockholders of Ribapharm was filed against the Company in the
Delaware Court of Chancery seeking a declaration that the
shareholders rights plan is valid and enforceable.  The Company
and the plaintiffs reached an agreement in principle to settle
this lawsuit which will be completed in combination with
the settlement "In re Ribapharm Inc. Shareholders Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 20337."

In June 2003, a purported class action was filed in the Superior
Court of Orange County, California, against the Company,
Ribapharm and certain of Ribapharm's officers and directors
asserting the same claims, on behalf of the same class of
plaintiffs and against the same defendants as in the seven
lawsuits filed in Delaware that are described above.

The settlement of the Delaware tender offer litigation has been
designed to release the claims brought in this lawsuit, although
the decision as to the effect of that release will be subject to
the discretion of the California Court.  The Delaware Court has
scheduled a hearing for December 2, 2004 to consider the
fairness of the settlement of the Delaware actions.  If the
settlement is approved, the Delaware cases will be dismissed
with prejudice.  The Company and the other defendants in the
California action will then ask the California Court to dismiss
the California action based on the release approved by the
Delaware Court.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Appeal CA Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Central District of California's dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Valeant Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. and certain of its current and former executive officers.

Since July 25, 2002, multiple class actions have been filed
against the Company and some of its current and former executive
officers alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing false and misleading
financial results to the market during different class periods
ranging from May 3, 2001 to July 10, 2002, thereby artificially
inflating the price of the Company's stock.

The lawsuits generally claim that the Company issued false and
misleading statements regarding the Company's earnings prospects
and sales figures (based upon "channel stuffing" allegations),
its operations in Russia, the marketing of Efudex, and the
earnings and sales of its Photonics division.  The plaintiffs
generally seek to recover compensatory damages, including
interest.

All the actions have been consolidated to the Central District
of California.  On June 24, 2004, the Court dismissed the Second
Amended Complaint. The plaintiffs have filed a notice of appeal
to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.


VALEANT PHARMACEUTICALS: CA Court Dismisses Most of Stock Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Orange County Superior Court in California dismissed most of
the claims in a class action filed against Valeant
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and some of its current and former
directors and former executive officers.

On May 9, 2003, a bondholder filed the suit, alleging that the
defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 by making false and misleading statements in connection
with an offering of 6-1/2% Convertible Subordinated Notes due
2008 in November 2001, thereby artificially inflating the market
price of the Notes.  The plaintiffs generally seek to recover
compensatory damages, including interest.

On June 24, 2004, the Court granted the motion to strike and
permitted plaintiffs to amend the complaint to comply with
certain notice requirements.  The Court also held that
plaintiffs must, but did not, provide particular facts in the
complaint to show that the defendants violated the securities
law.  Ultimately, the Court dismissed most of the claims but
granted the plaintiffs until September 4, 2004 to file an
amended complaint.  The Court denied the defendants' motion to
dismiss with respect to one claim involving the impairment of
the Company's Russian assets.

The Company and plaintiffs have agreed to extend the time for
plaintiffs to file another complaint pending preliminary
approval of an agreement in principle among the parties to
settle the matter for approximately $3,200,000.  If plaintiffs
ultimately file another complaint, the Company expects to file
an additional motion to dismiss.  In that case, the Company also
expects further motion practice and limited discovery regarding
the surviving Russian assets impairment claim.


VIOXX LITIGATION: Merck Agrees To Alter Consumer Refund Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of Michigan Attorneys General Mike Cox's efforts,
drug manufacturer Merck has agreed to significantly alter its
consumer refund program for unused Vioxx, AG Cox announced in a
statement.

On September 30, 2004, drug manufacturer Merck announced the
immediate withdrawal of its blockbuster prescription pain drug,
Vioxx, from the United States and global markets.  Merck
withdrew Vioxx because of reports that Vioxx substantially
increased some Vioxx users' risks of heart attack and strokes
and created a consumer refund program.  The program was designed
to reimburse consumers for any Vioxx they had on hand at the
time of the recall.

Among other things, the program required consumers to return all
unused Vioxx to Merck in order to qualify for a refund.  While
Cox was pleased that consumers would be reimbursed for unused
Vioxx, he felt the refund program contained too many hurdles
before reimbursement would occur.  Based on action from Cox's
office in coordination with seven other state Attorneys General,
Vioxx has changed its refund program.

"I know how expensive medications can be, and I will do
everything I can to help consumers save money when it comes to
their prescriptions," Cox said.  "I'm glad that Merck is working
with us to create a more user-friendly refund program. It
certainly is to the benefit of all citizens."

Effective last week, Merck has agreed to do the following for
former Vioxx patients:

     (1) Provide consumers who have Vioxx, upon request, with
         prepaid UPS mailers, which Merck can arrange to pick up
         at consumers' homes;

     (2) Allow consumers who destroyed unused Vioxx to certify
         in writing that they had unused Vioxx on September 30,
         2004, but that they later destroyed the product under
         doctors' orders or otherwise;

     (3) Allow consumers to file claims for a refund by March
         31, 2005 (the former deadline was December 31, 2004);

     (4) Make a good faith effort to notify consumers about the
         refund program in future advertisements or print
         notices about Vioxx;

     (5) Through Merck's sales staff, contact rheumatologists
         and primary care doctors who prescribed Vioxx with
         information about the modified refund program so the
         doctors can then distribute to patients that were
         taking Vioxx;

     (6) Work with HMOs and pharmacies to mail out updated
         refund notices to consumers who purchased Vioxx and who
         may be eligible for a product refund;

     (7) Directly contact any consumers whose refund claims were
         rejected by Merck because the consumers did not return
         the product, and tell those consumers they would be
         eligible to make a refund claim without returning the
         product.

Consumers seeking a refund for unused Vioxx should contact the
Merck Refund Center (National Notification Center) at
(800) 805-9542. Additional refund information can be found at
the Website:
http://www.vioxx.com/rofecoxib/vioxx/consumer/patient_refund_inf
ormation.jsp.  Attorney General Cox urges any former Vioxx user
to contact the Michigan Attorney General Consumer Protection
Division if they have any difficulty filing a claim with Merck
under the new program. The Division can be reached at:
Consumer Protection Division P.O. Box 30213, Lansing, MI 48909
Phone: 517-373-1140, Fax: 517-241-3771, Toll free: 877-765-8388
or visit the Website: http://www.michigan.gov/ag (online
complaint form)


WAL-MART STORES: Commerce Asks Court To Reverse Sex-Bias Ruling
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce recently asked the 9th U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals to reverse a sex-discrimination case ruling
against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the Big News Network.com reports.

As previously reported in the June 24, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the United States District Court in San
Francisco, California granted class certification to a lawsuit
filed against retail giant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. by six women,
alleging sex discrimination. That decision potentially adds as
many as 1.6 million plaintiffs to the legal action, making it
the largest class-action suit against a retailer in history.

Styled "Dukes v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. No. C-01-2252 MJJ," the
suit alleges that Bentonville, Arkansas-based, Wal-Mart,
including its Sam's Club division, systematically discriminates
against its female hourly and salaried employees across the
nation by denying them promotions and equal pay.

According to the Chamber's lawyers, the lower court's order
encourages companies to adopt quota-like policies that are
contrary to the purposes and spirit of Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce represents more than
three million businesses and business organizations.



                  Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

ANCHOR GLASS: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Lawsuit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in Tampa, Florida federal Court on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Anchor Glass Container
Corp. ("Anchor") (NASDAQ: AGCC) between September 25, 2003 and
November 4, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After twice emerging from
bankruptcy, Anchor (a glass bottle maker) sold 7.5 million
shares in an initial public offering ("IPO") on September 25,
2003. The Complaint alleges that Anchor's Prospectus for the IPO
was materially false because it failed to disclose Anchor's
excess inventory and misstated Anchor's ability to overhaul and
upgrade it manufacturing plants. Anchor used most of the $127.8
million it received from the IPO to buy back insiders' preferred
stock. After the IPO, Anchor continued issuing glowing press
releases about its sales and its contracts to provide glass
bottling to beverage makers. Nevertheless, Anchor failed to
disclose that it had built up a large excess inventory and would
therefore be forced to lower production, and that Anchor's
manufacturing plant in Connellsville, Pennsylvania was
materially impaired.

On November 5, 2004, in a complete reversal of its prior public
stance, Anchor reported:

     (1) a net loss of $5.9 million for its third quarter, or
         $(0.24) per share;

     (2) that its Connellsville facility had permanently ceased
         operation; and

     (3) that production would be "curtailed" to help lower
         inventory levels in the fourth quarter of 2004.

Anchor announced it would take a 4th quarter restructuring
charge of $45 to $55 million for asset impairment and employee
severance costs tied to the Connellsville exit. Anchor also
announced that CEO Richard Deneau had retired and that the board
had suspended quarterly common-stock dividend payments. Anchor's
stock dropped from $7.94 to $5.80, or 27%, on unusually heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Vianale & Vianale LLP by Phone:
888-657-9960 or visit their Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.com.


ENT & IMLER: Sommer Barnard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IN
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Sommer Barnard Attorneys, P.C. initiated a
securities fraud class action captioned Central Community Church
of God et al. v. Ent & Imler CPA Group, PC, Cause No. 1:03-cv-
0667-DFS-VSS in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Indiana on behalf of all persons
("Noteholders") who purchased between April 30, 1998 and April
30, 2002 (the "Class Period") Investment Notes offered by Church
Extension of the Church of God, Inc. ("CEG") through a series of
Offering Circulars (dated April 30, 1998; April 30, 1999; May 1,
2000; and November 1, 2001) and who suffered losses as a result
of their investment (the "Class").

The complaint charges Ent & Imler CPA Group, PC ("Ent & Imler"),
which acted as CEG's independent auditors from December 1997 to
September 2002, with violating the federal securities laws by
certifying CEG's consolidated financial statements which were
made a part of certain Offering Circulars, with Ent & Imler's
approval, and otherwise helping to prepare the Offering
Circulars. The complaint alleges that the Offering Circulars,
including the consolidated financial statements, contained
fraudulent misrepresentations and omissions that misled
Noteholders and concealed CEG's true financial condition,
including misrepresenting that the proceeds from the sale of
Investment Notes would be used primarily to fund church loans
and that CEG maintained a reserve of liquid assets equal to a
percentage of CEG's outstanding note obligations, and omitting
information that CEG was engaging in a series of high-risk
"bargain sale" transactions using inflated appraisals and other
means to exaggerate the value of the properties or businesses
acquired by CEG.

For more details, contact Edward W. Harris III or Mary T.
Doherty of Sommer Barnard Attorneys, P.C., One Indiana Square,
Suite 3500, Indianapolis, IN 46204 or by Phone: (317) 713-3500.


GEOPHARMA INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Securities Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of GeoPharma, Inc.
("GeoPharma" or the "Company") (NASDAQSC:GORX) between December
1, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against GeoPharma and Kotha Sekharam ("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 false and misleading statements with respect
to its product Mucotrol. In particular, on December 1, 2004,
GeoPharma announced that Mucotrol had been approved by the Food
& Drug Administration ("FDA"). In reaction to this news, shares
of GeoPharma skyrocketed to $11.25 per share. Soon thereafter,
journalists uncovered that the FDA had not approved any such
drug. It was then acknowledged by the Company that Mucotrol was
a "device" and not a drug, which is a material difference. In
addition, Mucotrol did not contain any medical ingredients. On
this news shares of GeoPharma declined, trading at $6.81 at
which point trading was halted.

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


JAKKS PACIFIC: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of the JAKKS Pacific, Inc. (NASDAQ:JAKK) ("JAKKS"
or the "Company") from February 16, 2000 through October 19,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Phone:
1-800-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Roy Jacobs Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & Associates initiated a class action
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, Radha R. Basu, the
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Brian M. Beattie, the
Chief Financial Officer ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
by issuing a series of false and misleading positive statements
to the investing public which touted the Company and its
continuing financial performance, but failed to disclose
material business problems.

While the defendants were making these positive statements,
defendants Basu and Beattie were selling their own Supportsoft
shares for proceeds of millions of dollars.

Having previously predicted revenues of $16.7 to $17.7 million
for the Third Quarter of 2004, on October 4, 2004, the Company
was forced to admit that actual revenues would be far below
those figures, in the range of $11.9 million to $12.3. 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. Accordingly, millions of dollars of shareholder
value has been lost as a result of the wrongful conduct alleged.
The Company's share price has not recovered.

For more details, contact Roy L. Jacobs, Esq. by Phone:
888-884-4490 or by E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.


VIMPEL-COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of Open Joint Stock Company
"Vimpel-Communications" (a/k/a Vympel Communicatii) (NYSE:VIP)
between March 25, 2004 and December 8, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant Vimpel-
Communications, Alexander V. Izosimov and Elena A. Shmatova. The
action charges that defendants violated federal securities laws
by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


VIMPEL-COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Vimpel-
Communications (NYSE: VIP) ("VimpelCom") between March 25, 2004
and December 8, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that VimpelCom violated United States
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the complaint alleges that VimpelCom
misrepresented or failed to disclose the fact that it had not
paid taxes due for certain of its Russian operations. On
December 8, 2004, VimpelCom announced that it had received
notice from Russian tax authorities that it owed approximately
$158 million for back taxes. On this news, VimpelCom fell from
$38.48 per share on December 7, 2004 to close at $30.10 per
share on December 8, 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.


VYMPEL COMMUNICATIONS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated "Yates v.
Vympel Communicatii," Civil Action No. 04-CV-9742, a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Vympel Communications ("Vympel" or the "Company")
(NYSE:VIP) between March 25, 2004 and December 8, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Vympel, Alexander V. Izosimov and Elena A.
Shmatova with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that Vympel was passing fifty percent (50%) of its
         revenues from its Moscow operations to its wholly owned
         subsidiary KB Impuls, thereby improperly deducting
         fifty percent (50%) of Moscow revenues as expenses to
         Vympel;

     (2) as such, Vympel was only paying taxes on fifty percent
         (50%) of the Moscow revenues rather than on all
         revenues from its Moscow operations, including revenues
         passed onto KB Impuls;

     (3) that this improper deduction caused Vympel to
         artificially inflate its financial results by at least
         US$534 million for fiscal years 2001-2003;

     (4) that as a result of this, the Company's financial
         results were in violation of generally accepted
         accounting principles ("GAAP");

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

     (6) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On December 8, 2004, Vympel announced that it had received an
act with preliminary conclusions of the review of Vympel's 2001
tax filing by its tax inspectorate, stating that the Company
owed an additional 2.5 billion rubles which is approximately
US$90 million in tax (plus 1.9 billion rubles or approximately
US$67 million in fines and penalties). A large portion of this
amount related to the deductibility of expenses incurred by
Vympel in connection with the agency relationship between Vympel
and its wholly owned subsidiary, KB Impuls, which held the GSM
license for the city of Moscow and the Moscow region. News of
this shocked the market. Shares of Vympel fell $8.38 per share,
or 21.78 percent, to close at $30.10 per share on unusually high
trading volume.

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


                            *********


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  * * *