CAR_Public/041227.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, December 27, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 254


                            Headlines

ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Disabilities Advocates Commence ADA Suit in CO
CANADA: Credit Union Member Lodges Lawsuit V. Overdraft Charges
CHICO'S FAS: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
CISCO SYSTEMS: Shareholders File Consolidated TX Securities Suit
EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Teachers' Lawsuits Consolidated in LA Court

FARMLAND NATIONAL: Trial in Antitrust Lawsuit To Proceed in SD
FLORIDA: Tobacco Industry Loses Appeal In Precedent Setting Case
HAWAII: Counties Settle Public Workers' Overtime Claims For $3M
HOT TOPIC: Customers Launch TN Suit Over Jewelry's Lead Content
HOT TOPIC: Former Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court

LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Death Benefits Elimination
LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: EEOC Files CA Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
MCG CAPITAL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal Of Securities Suit
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Nashua Lawyer Challenges Marriage License Fees
PENNSYLVANIA: Settles Suit Over Placement Of Disabled Students

PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Several Suits Over PA Deli Product Recall
PRICESMART INC.: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Parties Enter Mediation in Stock Lawsuit
RADIX MARINE: Faces IL Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
REALTORS ASSOCIATION: Realtor Lodges Suit in WI Over MLS Tie-In

REGENCY AFFILIATES: DE Court Dismisses Claims in Investor Suit
ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS: Recalls 425T Valves Due To Injury Hazard
ROGERS WIRELESS: Canadian Consumers Lodge Suit Over Access Fees
SALESFORCE.COM: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
SEITEL INC.: Working on Settlement of TX Securities Fraud Suit

SEITEL INC.: TX Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Trespass Suit
SNAP-ON TOOLS: Judge Rules Claims Not Bound To Arbitration
SODEXHO INC.: DC Judge Sets April Trial Date For Race-Bias Suit
STANDARD INSURANCE: Celebrity Lodges Suit Over Disability Claims
SUPERIOR ROOFING: Immigrants Cheated Out Of Pay Lodge Suit in MA

TENET HEALTHCARE: Settles Phony Heart Surgery Claims For $395M
TORCH OFFSHORE: Appeals Court Nixes Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal
TOYOTA MOTOR: NJ Superior Court Certifies Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
UMAREX-GERMANY: Recalls 24T Air Pistols Due To Injury Hazard
VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Reaches $88M Phantom Phone Bill Settlement

WAL-MART STORES: Suit Certification Review Expected Early 2005
WAL-MART STORES: TX Court Approves Settlement For COLI Lawsuit
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Women Employees' Title VII Lawsuit in GA


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ANCHOR GLASS: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Suit in FL
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
ENT & IMLER: Sommer Barnard Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IN
IMPAX LABORATORIES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in CA
TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in CA

                           *********


ARCHSTONE-SMITH: Disabilities Advocates Commence ADA Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several national nonprofit groups championing the rights of
people with disabilities initiated a lawsuit against Archstone-
Smith Trust, a Douglas County-based real estate investment trust
for constructing thousands of apartments that they say are
inaccessible to people with physical handicaps, the Denver Post
reports.

The suit is thought to be one of the largest aimed at enforcing
accessibility requirements for multifamily housing as stipulated
by the Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act,
a federal legislation that went into effect in the early 1990s.
The suit charges the Company of designing and building more than
100 apartment complexes in 18 states, including Colorado and the
District of Columbia that are inaccessible to people with
disabilities.  The suit also faults Archstone-Smith for alleged
construction defects, such as bathrooms and doorways that are
too narrow and mailboxes that are too high for people using
wheelchairs.

Though declining to directly comment on the suit, Archstone-
Smith spokeswoman Heather Campbell told the Post that when the
trust develops a community, it is "fully compliant with ADA and
FHA requirements" because "you need to be to get your (building)
permits filed."

According to Joseph Sellers, a lawyer for Cohen Milstein
Hausfeld & Toll, tape measures used to determine the
accessibility of 30 complexes show that Archstone-Smith's
construction fails to meet "enormously detailed federal
guidelines." The Washington law firm specializing in class-
action law joined the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights and Urban Affairs to file the case, both of whom brought
the suit on behalf of the American Association of People with
Disabilities, the Equal Rights Center and the United Spinal
Association.

Mr. Sellers said volunteer inspectors found violations that
rendered 29 of the 30 buildings examined in four states and
Washington, D.C., "grossly inaccessible to the disabled." He
also stated that further research much of it gleaned from
Archstone-Smith's website, revealed that the Company has used
similar design and construction to build 111 complexes since
1991, when housing regulations to support the disabled were in
effect. As a result, according to Mr. Sellers his firm
extrapolated to add complexes in 14 other states to the case.

The suit alleges that three Archstone-Smith properties in
Colorado violate federal housing guidelines: Archstone Dakota
Ridge, 13310 W. Coal Mine Ave., Littleton; Archstone Riverfront
Park, 1460 Little Raven St., Denver; and Stonegate, 11815 Ridge
Parkway, Broomfield. Mr. Sellers said the Colorado properties
are among those that his team has not examined in person, but he
was quick to point out that those inspections will probably
happen in the next year as the suit unfolds.

Archstone-Smith, which owns about 250 complexes with 90,000
units and reported more than $433 million in net income last
year, is the nation's third-largest apartment real estate
investment trust, trailing Equity Residential and AIMCO.


CANADA: Credit Union Member Lodges Lawsuit V. Overdraft Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
A member of a B.C. Credit Union launched a proposed class action
against North Shore Credit Union, Community Savings Credit
Union, Chemainus Credit Union, Comox Valley Credit Union,
Kootenay Savings Credit Union, Vernon & District Credit Union,
Greater Vancouver Credit Union and Village Credit Union seeking
the recovery of unlawful overdraft fees.

This action alleges that the Credit Unions charged overdraft
fees that are illegal under the Criminal Code. The Criminal
Code, in s. 347(1) prohibits the charging of interest at a rate
greater than 60% but permits Banks and Credit Unions to charge
an overdraft fee up to $5.00. The Statement of Claim alleges
that the Credit Unions rendered overdraft charges of up to
$25.00 to members and claims that these overdraft charges are
unlawful because they are in excess of the $5.00 overdraft
charge permitted by the Criminal Code and result in the receipt
of interest in excess of 60%. The Plaintiff is seeking to
recover, on behalf of and for the benefit of all members of the
Credit Unions who have been charged overdraft fees, any unlawful
interest collected by those Credit Unions as a result of those
overdraft charges.

The claims made in this action are similar to those made in
actions already commenced against Vancouver City Savings Credit
Union and Coast Capital Savings Credit Union. The action against
VanCity was settled on November 17, 2004; with VanCity setting
aside a fund of $2.8 million that will be used to compensate its
members.

"If the Credit Unions have charged overdraft fees that are
contrary to the Criminal Code, then they should repay those
unlawful fees to their members," said Paul Bennett of Hordo &
Bennett, the law firm representing the Plaintiffs in these
actions against the Credit Unions.


CHICO'S FAS: Reaches Settlement For CA Employee Wardrobing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chico's FAS, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action
filed against it in the Superior Court for the State of
California, County of San Francisco, styled "Charissa Villanueva
v. Chico's FAS, Inc."

The Complaint alleges that the Company, in violation of
California law, has in place a mandatory uniform policy that
requires its employees to purchase and wear Chico's clothing and
accessories as a condition of employment.

It is the Company's position that no such mandatory uniform
policy exists, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  The Company
encourages but does not require its associates to wear Chico's
clothing; although many Chico's associates choose to wear
Chico's clothing, others do not.

No rulings on class certification were made, and no trial date
was set.  Although the Company believed it had strong defenses
to the allegations in this case, the Company agreed to
participate in a voluntary private mediation on November 10,
2004.  A settlement was reached at the mediation, and the
parties are in the process of preparing and finalizing the
settlement documents.  The settlement must be approved by the
Court at both a preliminary and a final approval hearing before
it becomes final.


CISCO SYSTEMS: Shareholders File Consolidated TX Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cisco Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors
continue to face the consolidated shareholder class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The consolidated action is purportedly brought on behalf of
those who purchased the Company's publicly traded securities
between August 10, 1999 and February 6, 2001.  Plaintiffs allege
that defendants have made false and misleading statements,
purport to assert claims for violations of the federal
securities laws, and seek unspecified compensatory damages and
other relief.

The suit arose out of defendants' manipulative conduct,
fraudulent course of business and false statements regarding
Cisco's business - including its orders and demand for its
products, the reasons for and the impact of the growth in its
inventories, the quality of and accounting for its "vendor
financing" program, the development and sales of its new
Monterey fiber optic switch, the capability of its Cerent
product, its success in penetrating the customer service
software market, its success in penetrating the
telecommunications service provider market with new fiber optic
products, the success and continuation of Cisco's acquisition
program, and Cisco's forecasted growth and its F01-F02(1)
revenues, net income and earnings per share ("EPS"), as well as
Cisco's actual reported financial results throughout the Class
Period.

In addition, beginning on April 23, 2001, a number of purported
shareholder derivative lawsuits were filed in the Superior Court
of California, County of Santa Clara, and in the Superior Court
of California, County of San Mateo.  There is a procedure in
place for the coordination of such actions (one of which has
been dismissed and is currently on appeal).  Two purported
derivative suits were filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, and those federal court
actions have been consolidated.

The consolidated federal court derivative action was dismissed
by the court, and plaintiffs have appealed from that decision.
The complaints in the various derivative actions include claims
for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets,
mismanagement, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
California Corporations Code; seek compensatory and other
damages, disgorgement, and other relief; and are based on
essentially the same allegations as the class actions.

The suit is styled "In Re Cisco Systems, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. c-01-20418-JW, filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose
Division, under Judge James Ware.

The lead plaintiff is Plumbers and Pipefitters National.  The
suit names as defendants the Company and:

     (1) John T. Chambers,

     (2) Larry R. Carter,

     (3) Gary J. Daichendt,

     (4) Judith L. Estrin,

     (5) Carl Redfield

     (6) Michelangelo Volpi

     (7) Carol A. Bartz,

     (8) Steven M. West,

     (9) Edward R. Kozel,

    (10) Robert L. Puette,

    (11) Donald J. Listwin,

    (12) Donald T. Valentine and

    (13) Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP

Co-lead counsels are:

     (i) William S. Lerach, Darren J. Robbins, Spencer A.
         Burkholz and Daniel S. Drosman of MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD
         HYNES & LERACH LLP, 401 B Street, Suite 1700, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619/231-1058, Fax: 619/231-7423

    (ii) Fredric G. Levin, J. Michael Papantonio, Timothy M.
         O'brien of LEVIN, PAPANTONIO, THOMAS, MITCHELL, ECHSNER
         & PROCTOR, P.A., 316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600,
         Pensacola, FL 32501, Phone: 850/435-7000, Fax: 850/436-
         6084


EDUCATIONAL TESTING: Teachers' Lawsuits Consolidated in LA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawsuits accusing Educational Testing Services of incorrectly
telling teachers in Ohio and elsewhere that they failed a key
professional exam have been consolidated before a federal judge
in New Orleans, the Associated Press reports.

The ruling by Judge Sarah Vance to consolidate the case allows
for more evidence to be gathered into how Princeton, New Jersey-
based ETS administered the Praxis Principles of Learning and
Teaching for Grades 7 to 12 test. Furthermore, the ruling makes
it easier for affected Louisiana teachers to monitor the
process, the plaintiffs' attorneys said.

According to attorney Dawn Barrios of New Orleans, "The biggest
excitement is that we finally got a home for the case. We can
finally move forward."  Although representatives of ETS declined
to comment, indications are high that the Company asked for the
suits to be consolidated in Judge Vance's court.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ruled on December
16 that combining the class action suits in Judge Vance's court
would allow the "just and efficient conduct of this litigation."

As previously reported in the July 20, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the testing Company admitted that grading
errors during nine testing sessions between January 2003 and
April 2004 resulted in notices to 4,100 teacher candidates in 19
states that they failed the exam when they actually passed. The
teachers included 1,200 in Ohio, 550 in Pennsylvania and 450 in
Louisiana. More than 20 lawsuits total were filed in Ohio and
other states against the Company.

One of the affected teachers, Raffael Billet, a teacher from
West Hazleton, northeastern Pennsylvania, filed a suit in the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. It had alleged that the
Company breached their contract and was negligent in
administering the tests, which are used to evaluate the skills
of prospective teachers in 19 states.

According to the suit, about 10% of the 40,000 people who took
the tests from January 2003 through April 2004 were given
incorrect grades. The Company promptly apologized for the
mistake and said that it had begun notifying people who received
faulty scores and refunding their $115 test fees.

Grading errors involved an essay part of the exam, scored by
hand instead of by machine, that was critiqued more harshly than
it should have been, ETS officials have said. Many of the people
who were given faulty scores took the test a second time and
passed, while some other teachers were delayed or prevented from
getting jobs because of the error.

Raffael Billet's attorney, Michael Fantini, told AP he would ask
a judge to certify the suit as a class action on behalf of every
person in the United States who received an incorrect grade.

Commenting on the consolidation of the cases, lawyers Richard
Arsenault and J.R. Whaley, representing other plaintiffs, in a
prepared statement said, "The centralized Louisiana court will
help us deliver justice to the teachers by streamlining the
proceedings, eliminating duplicate efforts and conserving
resources."


FARMLAND NATIONAL: Trial in Antitrust Lawsuit To Proceed in SD
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Farmland National Beef (FNB) and
other cattle producers is proceeding to trial in the United
States District Court for the District of South Dakota.  The
suit also names as defendants ConAgra Beef Company, Tyson Foods,
Inc. and Excel Corporation.

On July 1, 2002, a lawsuit was seeking certification of a class
of all persons who sold cattle to the defendants for cash, or on
a basis affected by the cash price for cattle, during the period
from April 2, 2001 through May 11, 2001 and for some period up
to two weeks thereafter.  The case was filed by three named
plaintiffs on behalf of a putative nationwide class that the
plaintiffs estimate is comprised of hundreds or thousands of
members.

The complaint alleges that the defendants, in violation of the
Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921, knowingly used, without
correction or disclosure, incorrect and misleading boxed beef
price information generated by the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) to purchase cattle offered for sale by the
plaintiffs at a price substantially lower than was justified by
the actual and correct price of boxed beef during this period.
The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $50.0 million from all
defendants as a group on behalf of the class.

The Company answered the complaint and joined with the three
other defendants in moving to dismiss this action.  An amended
complaint was filed and FNB joined in the other defendants'
motion to dismiss.  The joint motion to dismiss was denied, and
the judge ruled that the plaintiffs adequately alleged a
violation of the Packers and Stockyards Act of 1921.  The case
was certified as a class action matter in June 2004.


FLORIDA: Tobacco Industry Loses Appeal In Precedent Setting Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent decision that could clear the way for damage trials
on up to 3,000 similar claims, a Florida appeals court upheld a
$500,000 award to a flight attendant who blamed secondhand smoke
on airliners for her bronchitis and sinus disease, the Durant
Democrat reports.

The ruling for former TWA attendant Lynn French was a test case
interpreting a $349 million settlement reached in 1997 between
the tobacco industry and nonsmoking attendants. The agreement
resolved claims blaming illnesses on exposure to in-flight smoke
before smoking was banned on domestic flights in 1990.

Upon the issuance of the ruling, Marvin Weinstein, Ms. French's
trial attorney told Durant Democrat, "The court agreed with us,
and we're happy with it. Based on this, I think there are a lot
more they're going to be paying."

Lawyers for the cigarette makers challenged the trial mechanics
in Ms. French's trial two years ago, and attendants put their
claims for compensatory damages on hold while waiting for the
ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeal.

According to John Sorrells, spokesman for Altria Corporate
Services Inc., whose Altria Group Inc. is the parent of Philip
Morris, the tobacco industry leader, the nation's biggest
cigarette makers have not decided whether to ask the full court
to review the ruling by a three-judge panel.

The panel's unsigned opinion states that the 1997 settlement of
a class-action lawsuit in 1991 was intended to dispose of legal
questions such as whether the industry had a duty to warn
attendants about the potential dangers of on-the-job cigarette
smoke. Under that settlement, juries must presume that
secondhand smoke causes several diseases. Attendants must prove
they suffer from one of them and their illness was caused by
their on-the-job exposure, "which of course is what their
treating physician will testify to," Mr. Weinstein explains.

In return for tobacco concessions, the attendants agreed to drop
all claims to punitive damages, the bulk of the settlement money
eventually ended up in the creation of a foundation to research
smoke-related subjects.

When Lynn French went to trial seeking compensation for her
respiratory problems in 2002, the tobacco companies disputed the
legal questions the jury would have to decide. However, the
appeals court agreed with Ms. French's interpretation and backed
the $500,000 award set by the trial judge, who had reduced the
jury's original $5.5 million award.

The court further wrote in its opinion that forcing attendants
to prove the harms of second-hand smoke exposure "a thousand
times over is an absurd result that we will not adopt. Tobacco's
position "defies logic."

"This is the big fight. This is the big decision," said attorney
Joel Perwin, who argued the appeal for attendants. "We've
certainly got light at the end of the tunnel." Another attorney
for the attendants, Steve Hunter, said the decision would keep
cigarette makers on a defensive footing about secondhand smoke.

The court also decided that cigarette makers Philip Morris,
Lorillard, as well as R.J. Reynolds and Brown & Williamson,
which recently merged into Reynolds American Inc., are jointly
liable for the verdict, striking down a decision by Circuit
Judge Fredricka Smith splitting the award based on their market
share.

Six attendants' claims for compensatory damages have gone to
juries. The tobacco industry won four verdicts, and one of them
is awaiting retrial.


HAWAII: Counties Settle Public Workers' Overtime Claims For $3M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maui and Big Island officials have finalized two settlements
worth a total of $3 million to compensate police, firefighters
and a handful of other public workers for overtime the counties
allegedly failed to pay them, the Honolulu Advertiser reports.

According to Alex Garcia, Oahu unit chairman of the State of
Hawaii Organization of Police Officers, a settlement proposal in
a similar case is still being negotiated by Kaua'i County, and a
much larger claim for alleged failure to pay proper overtime pay
to Honolulu police and firefighters is still pending,

Furthermore, Mr. Garcia said the amount allegedly owed by
Honolulu could total four or five times the $1.8 million
settlement agreed to by the Hawaii County Council and Mayor
Harry Kim's administration.

Ted Hong, a lawyer representing the Big Island and Kaua'i
counties in the cases told the Honolulu Advertiser that Federal
Magistrate Kevin Chang had approved the settlements in both the
Maui and Big Island cases in U.S. District Court in Honolulu
just recently.

A total of 221 current and former police officers and
firefighters and other county employees joined in the class-
action suit on the Big Island, and that group will receive
payments ranging from $1,500 to $32,500 before lawyers' fees,
according to county records, while some other county employees
will receive smaller amounts. The highest payments generally
went to employees who worked the most overtime during the years
covered by the lawsuit, or to senior employees who earn the
highest pay, Mr. Hong said. Court records indicate that the
lawyers' fees amount to about a third of each individual
payment.

On the other hand, the Maui County settlement requires that the
county pay $1.2 million to cover similar claims by 122
plaintiffs. The individual employees in that case will receive
payments ranging from $2,700 to $34,000.

Big Island officials agreed to the settlement to resolve claims
under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act that from 1999 to
2002 the county failed to pay police and firefighters the
correct overtime rate, and didn't pay the county employees
properly for hours they were required to work.

The lawsuit alleged Hawaii County didn't pay police or
firefighters for time they spent on activities such as mandatory
medical exams, serving as instructors for classes, work-related
travel, briefings before and after their shifts, missed meal
breaks, or cleaning and maintaining county vehicles, according
to records on file with the Big Island County Clerk.

Bobby Lee, president of the Hawaii Fire Fighters Association,
said many of the Big Island firefighters' claims concerned
overtime when firefighters were called back to work because of
personnel shortages. Another issue was firefighters who earned
time off in lieu of overtime pay, but were unable to take that
comp time off because of staff shortages.

Mr. Lee also said about 600 Oahu firefighters or more than half
of Honolulu's fire crew members have signed up to participate in
the similar suit pending against Honolulu.


HOT TOPIC: Customers Launch TN Suit Over Jewelry's Lead Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Retailer Hot Topic, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Circuit Court of Shelby County, Tennessee, claiming the Company
is liable due to alleged lead content in its costume jewelry.
The plaintiff in the Tennessee case seeks unspecified money
damages on behalf of the alleged class.

This complaint is an alleged class action, with counts of
negligence and breach of implied warranty.  Similar claims had
been made, prior to service upon the Company, against other
retailers in the same jurisdiction by plaintiffs represented by
the same law firm.  Currently, proceedings in this Tennessee
case against the Company are on hold, pending events and
potential resolution relating to the previously existing similar
lawsuits against other retailers.


HOT TOPIC: Former Employees Lodge Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Retailer Hot Topic, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California by a former
Torrid employee on behalf of a purported class.  The lawsuit
asserts claims for failure to provide adequate meal or rest
breaks, improper payment of overtime wages, failure to timely
pay wages at end of employment and unfair business practices.
The lawsuit seeks compensatory damages, statutory penalties,
punitive damages, attorneys' fees and injunctive relief.

On October 21, 2004, the Company filed an answer denying the
material allegations of the complaint.  Discovery has not yet
been conducted, and at the present time, the Company is unable
to predict the outcome of this matter, the Company said in a
disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission.


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suits Over Death Benefits Elimination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies faces three class actions filed in New
Jersey and Oklahoma federal courts, in connection with the
elimination of the death benefit from its U.S. management
pension plan in early 2003.  The elimination of these benefits
reduced the future pension obligations by approximately $450
million.

The benefit was paid out of the pension plan assets to certain
qualified surviving dependents, such as spouses or dependent
children of management retirees who retired before 1998.  The
suits allege that the Company wrongfully terminated this death
benefit and request that it be reinstated, along with other
remedies.  This case is in the early stages.

The suits are styled:

     (1) FOSS v. LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES, et al, Case No. 2:03-cv-
         05017-WGB, filed in the United States District Court in
         New Jersey, under Judge William G. Bassler

     (2) Berendt et al. v. Lucent Technologies, Inc., Case no.
         2:04-cv-01099-WGB-MCA, under Judge William G. Bassler

     (3) Chastain, et al. v. AT& T, filed in the U.S. District
         Court in the Western District of Oklahoma


LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES: EEOC Files CA Gender Discrimination Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lucent Technologies, Inc. faces a class action filed by the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the United
States District Court in California, styled "EEOC v. Lucent
Technologies Inc."

The case alleges gender discrimination in connection with the
provision of service credit to a class of present and former
Lucent employees who were out of work because of maternity prior
to 1980 and seeks the restoration of lost service credit prior
to April 29, 1979, together with retroactive pension payment
adjustments; corrections of service records; back pay, other
damages and attorneys fees and costs.


MCG CAPITAL: Appeals Court Affirms Dismissal Of Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
MCG Capital Corporation (Nasdaq: MCGC) reports that the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has affirmed the
dismissal by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of a securities class action lawsuit filed against MCG
Capital and certain of its officers and directors.

MCG Capital is a solutions-focused financial services Company
providing financing and advisory services to a variety of small-
and medium-sized companies throughout the United States with a
focus on growth oriented companies. Currently, our portfolio
consists primarily of companies in the communications,
information services, media, technology and business services
industry sectors. Our capital is generally used by our portfolio
companies to finance acquisitions, recapitalizations, management
buyouts, organic growth and working capital.


NEW HAMPSHIRE: Nashua Lawyer Challenges Marriage License Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nashua lawyer Mark M. Rufo has asked a Hillsborough County
Superior Court judge to strike down the New Hampshire's
marriage-license fee as an unconstitutional "stealth tax" on
married people, the Union Leader reports.

According to Mr. Rufo, the license fee is being imposed on one
class of people, those who are married, to pay for services for
people who are not necessarily married. He states that when a
bride and groom purchase a marriage license from a town or city
clerk for $45, the state's portion of the fee ($38) directly
funds the N.H. Coalition Against Domestic and Sexual Violence.
The roughly $335,000 collected annually goes to the Department
of Health and Human Services to fund the domestic violence
program and never goes into the general fund. The domestic
violence coalition, with a total budget of $3 million, operates
in 14 communities, providing emergency shelters and other
services for people fleeing abusive relationships.

Furthermore, Mr. Rufo says the law mandates that fees can only
pay for services used by the people paying the fees he cited for
example hunting license fees, which is used only to support
hunting enforcement activities. "If the money goes to any other
purpose, it becomes a tax," he adds.

However, Assistant Attorney General Orville B. Fitch argued that
the state does have real expenses related to marriage such as
keeping vital records on marriages and divorce that exceed the
amount of money raised by license fees. In addition, he said,
domestic violence in marriage poses a public safety expense for
the state. "As long as the state has expenses related to
marriage . . . it is not a tax," Mr. Fitch said.

Even attorney Kenneth M. Brown, representing the Coalition
Against Domestic and Sexual Violence, said more than half of the
people served are married. "These services are vital to
families, married or otherwise, and they save lives," he said
after the hearing.

This is Mr. Rufo's second attempt to have the marriage license
fees overturned. Back in 2001, Supreme Court Justice Richard E.
Galway, then a judge at the Hillsborough County Superior Court-
South, upheld the marriage-license statute's constitutionality,
ruling the charge constitutes a "fee for a special service
provided by the state, rather than a tax designed as a general
revenue raising measure." Mr. Rufo appealed that case to the
state Supreme Court, but the justices differed on its
constitutionality in a 2-2 vote and since they were deadlocked,
the matter remains unsettled.

On the other hand, Mr. Fitch justified that the funding vehicle
is an "accounting choice" made by the Legislature, and if the
court were to rule the marriage-license fee is a tax, the state
would adjust its bookkeeping method so that the money goes into
the general fund.

After the hearing, Mr. Rufo asserted that the state "picks your
pocket for $38" and you don't know where the money is going. He
said when people pay for a marriage license, they have no idea
they are funding a special interest group.

Mr. Rufo is asking the court to certify his lawsuit (Cenatiempo
v. John Stephen, commissioner of Health and Human Services) as a
class-action case and states that he is not being paid by the
plaintiffs, Nicholas Cenatiempo and Mary Cenatiempo.

If the case is ever certified as a class action and Mr. Rufo
wins it, according to legal experts, everyone who took out a
marriage license presumably since 1994 when the current fee
statute was enacted would be entitled to a refund minus the one-
third that would be paid to Mr. Rufo in legal fees.

Judge Gillian Abramson told the lawyers she was not deciding the
class-action question at this stage in the case and stated that
she was hearing arguments solely on whether the marriage license
fee is constitutional.


PENNSYLVANIA: Settles Suit Over Placement Of Disabled Students
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Pennsylvania Department of Education recently settled a
federal class-action lawsuit that advocates for the disabled say
and hope will result in more disabled students being placed in
regular classrooms with the support to help them succeed, the
Associated Press reports.

Filed in federal court in Philadelphia just recently, the
settlement still requires the approval of Judge Eduardo Robreno.
If approved, the settlement will require the state Department of
Education to introduce policies and practices under which
schools will try to find ways to place disabled students in a
regular class with the aid of a modified curriculum or other
such support.

Originally filed in 1994 and certified, as class action in 1995,
twelve disabled children and their parents and six advocacy
organizations are plaintiffs in the suit.

Upon the announcement of the settlement, Judith Gran, a lawyer
with the Public Interest Law Center in Philadelphia who served
as the plaintiff's lead attorney told AP, "Kids with
disabilities just benefit tremendously from being educated with
their peers in a regular classroom."

Statewide, there are 285,000 disabled children, most of whom are
in public schools. But only 15 percent of mentally retarded
children, a subset of children deemed to be disabled, spend 80
percent or more of their day in a regular classroom, a rate
behind that of many other states, Ms. Gran said. Typically,
those children do not receive special support to remain in those
regular classes, she adds.

Although the plaintiffs interpreted the federal law, called
IDEA, or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, to say
that all children should be allowed in regular classrooms,
regardless of their abilities, the state Department of Education
has said in the past that each child should be evaluated.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Faces Several Suits Over PA Deli Product Recall
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corporation faces several lawsuits filed over
its recall of cooked deli products produced from its Franconia,
Pennsylvania Plant from May 1, 2003 through October 11, 2002.

In October 2002, a limited number of USDA environmental samples
from our Franconia, Pennsylvania plant tested positive for
Listeria.  As a result, the Company voluntarily recalled all
cooked deli products produced at the plant from May 1, 2002
through October 11, 2002.  No illnesses have been linked to any
recalled products, and none of such products have tested
positive for the strain of Listeria associated with an outbreak
in the Northeastern U.S. that occurred during the summer of
2002.

However, following this recall, a number of demands and cases
have been made and filed alleging injuries purportedly arising
from the consumption of products produced at this facility.
These include:

     (1) "Lawese Drayton, Individually and as Personal
         Representative of the Estate of Raymond Drayton,
         deceased, Plaintiff, v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, Inc. d/b/a JL Foods Co,
         Inc., Defendants," filed in the United States District
         Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on April
         15, 2003;

     (2) "Laron Harvey, by his mother and natural guardian,
         Shakandra Hampton, and Shakandra Hampton in her own
         right v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack Lambersky
         Poultry Company, Inc.," which was filed in the
         Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas on May 5, 2003, and
         has since been removed to the U.S. District Court of
         the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia;

     (3) "Ryan and Dana Patterson v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
         and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al" which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
         Division, Passaic County, on August 12, 2003;

     (4) "Jamar Clarke, an infant under the age of fourteen (14)
         years, by his mother and natural guardian, Wanda
         Multrie Clarke, and Wanda Multrie Clarke, individually
         v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation d/b/a Wampler Foods,
         Inc., H. Schrier and Co., Inc., Board of Education of
         the City of New York and Public School 251" which was
         filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
         County of Queens, on August 1, 2003;

     (5) "Peter Roselle, as Administrator and Prosequendum for
         the heirs-at-Law of Louis P. Roselle, deceased; and
         Executor of the Estate of Louis P. Roselle, deceased,
         and individually v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation,
         Wampler Foods, Inc., Jack Lambersky Poultry Company,
         Inc., d.b.a. J.L. Foods Co. Inc." which was filed in
         the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Union
         County, on June 14, 2004;

     (6) "Jody Levonchuk, administratrix of the Estate of Joseph
         Cusato v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack
         Lambersky Poultry Company." which was filed in the U.S.
         District Court for the Eastern District of
         Pennsylvania, on July 28, 2004;

     (7) "Mary Samudovsky v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and
         Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, Inc., et al," which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
         Division: Camden County, and served on October 26,
         2004;

     (8) Nancy Cirigliano and Scott Fischer v. Pilgrim's Pride
         Corporation and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al,"
         which was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey,
         Union County, on August 10, 2004;

     (9) "Dennis Wysocki, as the Administrator of the Estate of
         Matthew Tyler Wysocki, deceased, and Dennis Wysocki and
         Karen Wysocki, individually v. Pilgrim's Pride
         Corporation and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al,"
         which was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
         New York, County of New York, on July 30, 2004;

    (10) "Randi Carden v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation and Jack
         Lambersky Poultry Company, et al," which was filed in
         the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden County, on
         August 10, 2004; and

    (11) "Catherine Dillon, individually and as guardian ad
         litem for her infant son, Brian Dillon, and Joseph
         Dillon, individually" v. Pilgrim's Pride Corporation
         and Jack Lambersky Poultry Company, et al," which was
         filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Essex
         County, on September 10, 2004

There is also a pending claim by the Estate of Frank Niemtzow
from the previously filed and voluntarily dismissed class action
suit.  Neither the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome nor the
amount of ultimate liability, if any, with respect to any of
these cases can be determined at this time. These cases are in
various stages of litigation, and we believe we have meritorious
defenses to each of the claims, which we intend to vigorously
defend. After considering our available insurance coverage, we
do not expect any of these matters to have a material impact on
our financial position, operations or liquidity.


PRICESMART INC.: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California approved the settlement for the consolidated
shareholder class action filed against Pricesmart, Inc. and
certain of its former directors and officers.

Following the announcement of the restatement of its financial
results for fiscal year 2002 and the first three quarters of
fiscal 2003 in November 2003, the Company received notice of six
class action lawsuits filed on behalf of certain of its current
and former holders of the Company's common stock, and a seventh
class action lawsuit filed against it and certain of its former
directors and officers purportedly on behalf of certain holders
of the Company's Series A preferred stock and a class of common
stock purchasers.

These suits generally allege that the Company issued false and
misleading statements during fiscal years 2002 and 2003 in
violation of federal securities laws.  All of the federal
securities actions were consolidated by an order dated September
9, 2004, which also appointed a lead plaintiff on behalf of the
proposed class of common stock purchasers.  The lead plaintiff
is to file a consolidated complaint in late November 2004, and
the Company will have until late January 2005 to move to dismiss
or otherwise respond to the consolidated complaint.

On September 3, 2004, the Company entered into a Stipulation of
Settlement with respect to the action brought on behalf of a
purported sub-class of plaintiffs comprised of unaffiliated
purchasers of the Company's Series A Preferred Stock.  Terms of
the settlement include:

     (1) dismissal of the Series A Preferred lawsuit;

     (2) the entry of an order releasing claims that were or
         could have been brought by the Series A subclass
         arising out of or relating to the purchase or ownership
         of the Series A preferred stock;

     (3) the Series A Preferred subclass will be offered the
         opportunity to exchange their Series A preferred stock
         for shares of the Company's common stock valued at such
         purpose at a price of $10.00 per share; and

     (4) the payment by the Company of attorneys' fees and costs
         in the amount of $325,000 (to be funded by the
         Company's director and officer liability insurance

The suit is styled "In Re Pricesmart, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 03-CV-2260," filed in the U.S. District
Court Southern District of California (San Diego), assigned to
Judge John A. Houston, and referred to Magistrate Judge Barbara
Lynn Major.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Kirk B. Hulett, Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, 550 West C
         Street, Suite 1600, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone:
         (619)338-1133

    (ii) Jeffrey R. Krinsk, Finkelstein and Krinsk, 501 West
         Broadway, Suite 1250, San Diego, CA 92101-3593, Phone:
         (619) 238-1333

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (a) Julia E. Parry, Latham and Watkins LLP, 600 West
         Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA 92101-8197, Phone:
         (619) 236-1234

     (b) James G. Bohm, Bohm Francis Kegel and Aguilera, 695
         Town Center Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92626, Phone: (949)
         253-0000

     (c) Elizabeth Ann Warke Brem, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, 4
         Park Plaza, Suite 1400, Irvine, CA 92614-8557, Phone:
         (949) 451-3800

     (d) Koji F. Fukumura, Cooley Godward, 4401 Eastgate Mall,
         San Diego, CA 92121-9109, Phone: (858) 550-6000


QUALITY DISTRIBUTION: Parties Enter Mediation in Stock Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the securities class actions filed against Quality
Distribution, Inc. (QDI) entered mediation for the settlement of
the suits, pending in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida.

On February 24, 2004, a putative class action lawsuit titled
"Meigs v. Quality Distribution, Inc., et al.," was filed in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Tampa Division, against the Company, Thomas L. Finkbiner,
President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board,
and Samuel M. Hensley, former Senior Vice President and Chief
Financial Officer.

The plaintiff purports to represent a class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock traceable to its November 2003 initial
public offering.  The complaint alleges that, in connection with
the IPO, QDI filed a registration statement with the SEC that
incorporated a materially false or misleading prospectus.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that the prospectus
materially overstated QDI's financial results for the years
ended December 31, 2001, December 31, 2002, and the nine months
ended September 30, 2003.

In addition, the complaint alleges that these financial
statements were not prepared consistently with generally
accepted accounting principles.  Accordingly, it asserts claims
(and seeks unspecified damages) against all defendants based on
alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933
and against Mr. Finkbiner and Mr. Hensley as "control persons,"
under the Securities Act's Section 15 by virtue of their
positions at QDI.

On May 11, 2004, the Court consolidated Meigs with a
substantially identical action titled "Cochran v. Quality
Distribution, Inc.," also pending in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.  On June 28, 2004, the
Court appointed Jemmco Investment Management LLC as lead
plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of
1995.  Plaintiffs currently must file a consolidated amended
complaint on or before December 1, 2004.

A second suit, "Steamfitters Local 449 Pension & Retirement
Security Funds v. Quality Distribution, Inc., et al.," was filed
in the Circuit Court for the Thirteenth Judicial Circuit in and
for Hillsborough County, Florida, on March 26, 2004.  In
addition to QDI, Mr. Finkbiner and Mr. Hensley, the suit names
as defendants the other signatories to the registration
statement, namely:

     (1) Anthony R. Ignaczak,

     (2) Joshua J. Harris,

     (3) Michael D. Weiner,

     (4) Marc J. Rowan,

     (5) Marc E. Becker, and

     (6) Donald C. Orris,

     (7) Credit Suisse First Boston LLC,

     (8) Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., and

     (9) Deutsche Bank Securities Inc.

The Steamfitters complaint alleges substantially identical facts
to those in the Meigs complaint and also includes the same
claims, plus an additional claim for rescission or damages based
on an alleged violation of Section 12 of the Securities Act.  On
April 28, 2004, the defendants removed the action to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.  On
June 25, 2004, that court remanded the case to state court.  On
August 26, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Eleventh Circuit dismissed defendants' appeal from the remand
order for lack of jurisdiction.  Defendants moved for
reconsideration of the court's dismissal order.  On November 15,
2004, the Eleventh Circuit denied the Company's motion for
reconsideration.  The parties have agreed that the defendants'
response to the complaint is currently due on or before November
30, 2004.

The actions' allegations stem from the disclosures in a Form 8-K
that QDI filed on February 2, 2004, stating that QDI had
discovered irregularities at Power Purchasing, Inc., a non-core
subsidiary that, through its subsidiary, American Transinsurance
Group, Inc. (collectively, "PPI"), primarily assisted
independent contractors in obtaining various lines of insurance,
for which PPI derived fees as an insurance broker.  On July 14,
2004, QDI's Board of Directors received a letter from a putative
QDI shareholder demanding that the Company take steps to remedy
alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and corporate
waste arising from the PPI irregularities.  The letter also
demands that the Company file a professional malpractice suit
against its outside independent registered certified public
accountants, PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP.  By letter dated July
21, 2004, the Company has requested certain information from the
putative shareholder and has not received a response.

On October 18 and 19, 2004, the Company, its insurance carriers,
counsel to the plaintiffs in aforementioned lawsuits, and other
interested persons engaged in a mediation in an attempt to
resolve all of the pending and threatened litigation.
Thereafter, on October 29, 2004, plaintiffs in Meigs submitted
to the court an unopposed motion for extension of time to file a
consolidated amended complaint, stating that the parties had
made substantial progress toward resolving their disputes.  The
court granted this motion, and the consolidated amended
complaint is now due on or before November 30, 2004.

The suits are filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, namely:

     (i) Meigs v. Quality Distribution, et al,
         8:04-cv-00335-SCB-MSS, filed under Judge Susan Bucklew

    (ii) Cochran v. Quality Distribution, et al, 8:04-cv-00817-
         SCB, filed under Judge Susan Bucklew

   (iii) Steamfitters Local v. Quality Distribution, et al,
         8:04-cv-00961-RAL filed under Richard A. Lazarra

RADIX MARINE: Faces IL Suit Over Unsolicited Fax Advertisements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Radix Marine, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Circuit
Court of the Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Dupage County, State
of Illinois, styled "Spencer vs. Radix Marine, Inc."

The suit alleges the Company sent out unsolicited advertisements
via telephone facsimile machines in violation of the United
States Telephone Consumer Protection Act.  The complaint seeks
to have class action certified.  Each member of the affected
class, could assert a claim of $500.

In a disclosure with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Company asserted that it did not authorize the sending of the
unsolicited material.  Management has retained an attorney to
represent them in this matter and believes that class action
status will not be granted.


REALTORS ASSOCIATION: Realtor Lodges Suit in WI Over MLS Tie-In
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a highly anticipated legal battle over whether or not the
nation's most powerful trade groups - Realtors - can require
membership in its local, state and national affiliates to access
its Multiple Listing Service databank of houses for sale and
sold, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

San Francisco antitrust attorney David Barry represents Realtor
Jay Reifert of Excel-Exclusive Buyer Agency in Madison, who late
recently sued the Realtors Association of South Central
Wisconsin Inc. and its Multiple Listing Service affiliate in
Madison's U.S. District Court for alleged antitrust violations.

The lawsuit challenges a longtime Realtor tradition: Buy trade
group membership and get permission to tap into the Multiple
Listing Service's detailed data on homes sold and listed for
sale. The suit seeks class-action status on behalf of the
estimated 3,000 Realtor members in that trade group chapter and
up to $15 million in damages.

Mr. Barry told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that he has filed
similar cases this year in federal district courts in Kentucky,
Florida and Washington. Though none of them have been
adjudicated final arguments in the Kentucky case are scheduled
for May.

The Wisconsin case seeks $5,000 per trade group member for
alleged violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, specifically
charging that tying MLS access to Realtor membership is a
monopolistic abuse.

Realtor membership costs $500 per year, Barry said. A National
Association of Realtors lawyer said that's not true everywhere;
each local chapter determines its own levy.

The Realtor-MLS membership requirement violates federal monopoly
law, as defined by a 1991 federal appeals court ruling in the
11th Circuit serving Florida, Alabama and Georgia, Mr. Reifert's
attorney contends.

"The court says if you're a monopolist, you can't force someone
to buy a different product, too. The practice is called tie-in,
and this is a classic tie-in violation," Mr. Barry pointed out.
"There isn't another MLS, or anything that comes close. There
are other information services, but none provide historical
data. Not only can MLS give (comparable sales), you can look up
details like the condition of the porch, whether there's an
observatory on the roof, any special features. You can tweak the
data to get an accurate estimate of what your house is worth."

However, Ralph W. Holmen, associate general counsel for the
National Association of Realtors in Washington, D.C., said the
practice is perfectly logical and legal in 46 states. California
outlawed the requirement under state antitrust law, and the 1991
federal ruling outlawed it for Florida, Alabama and Georgia, he
adds. "But what Mr. Barry fails to mention is that there's a
whole other series of court decisions finding it isn't a
violation to require Realtor association membership for MLS
access, at least two federal appellate decisions (in the 1st and
5th circuits) and several state supreme court decisions," Mr.
Holmen said.

The National Association of Realtors' lawyer cited two factors
in the Realtors' logic:

     (1) The first is consistency. "It's a common-sense
         principle that one ought to be a member of an
         association that creates and offers a service to you."
         Most, though not all, MLS operations were created by
         and are run by local chapters, Mr. Holmen said.

     (2) The second is stability. "Realtor membership requires a
         commitment to abide by a code of ethics; included is a
         provision to arbitrate rather than litigate disputes
         with other members, and not solicit customers of other
         members. We think those two provisions are important to
         the function of Multiple Listing Service."

Even if his side loses and Holmen is adamant that it won't, the
association attorney said his clients are confident most members
won't bolt. "There was no major exodus" in the four states where
mandatory membership was outlawed, Mr. Holmen was quick to add.


REGENCY AFFILIATES: DE Court Dismisses Claims in Investor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery for New Castle County dismissed
all but one claim in the derivative and class action filed
against Regency Affiliates, Inc.'s former directors, Royalty
Holdings LLC and certain of its affiliates, Statesman Group,
Inc.  The suit names the Company only as a nominal defendant.

The complaint alleged, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties by the former director defendants and Statesman Group,
Inc. in connection with:

     (1) the exercise by Statesman Group, Inc. in 2001 of an
         option to acquire shares of common stock of the
         Company,

     (2) the 2001 sale of rock aggregate by the Company to IMR
         and

     (3) the October 2002 recapitalization of the Company

The complaint also alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
current director defendants in connection with the payment by
the Company in 2003 of accrued compensation owed to William R.
Ponsoldt, Sr. for periods prior to the October 2002
recapitalization of the Company.  The complaint also alleged
that Royalty Holdings LLC and its affiliates knowingly
participated in the breaches of fiduciary duties by the former
director defendants relating to the October 2002
recapitalization of the Company.

In addition to other damages, plaintiffs sought unspecified
compensatory and/or rescissory damages against all defendants, a
declaration that all Company stock issued to Statesman Group,
Inc., William R. Ponsoldt, Sr., Royalty Holdings LLC
and any person affiliated with the foregoing is void, an order
rescinding any payments in any form made by the Company to
William R. Ponsoldt, Sr. or any of his affiliates or family
members, an order rescinding the October 2002 recapitalization
of the Company, and an order rescinding Statesman Group, Inc.'s
2001 option exercise and rescinding the option itself.

On November 5, 2004 the court dismissed all claims alleged in
the complaint (other than the claim relating to the 2001 rock
aggregate sales), determining that all of the dismissed claims
were derivative in nature and could therefore not be maintained.
Management believes that the sole surviving claim is without
merit.

The defendants in the lawsuit other than Statesman Group, Inc.
are entitled to be indemnified by the Company for damages, if
any, and expenses, including legal fees, as they may incur as a
result of the lawsuit, subject to certain circumstances under
which such indemnification is not available.  In addition, the
Company's insurance carrier has denied the Company's claims for
coverage with regards to the lawsuit.


ROBERTSHAW CONTROLS: Recalls 425T Valves Due To Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robertshaw Controls Company of Long Beach, California is
cooperating with the United States Consumer Product Safety
Commission by voluntarily recalling about 425,000 Robertshaw
7000 Series Gas Control Valves.

If the pilot light goes out, the gas valve could stick in an
open position, permitting gas to continue to flow. This can
result in a gas explosion and fire, which could result in severe
personal injury or property damage. The firm has received three
4reports of flash fires, involving three reports of injuries.
The injuries involved first and second degree burns.

The 7000 Series Gas Valves that are being recalled are installed
in gas appliances including residential space heaters, wall
heaters, boilers, fireplaces, pool heaters, infrared heaters and
furnaces, and commercial heating applications such as commercial
cooking appliances, fryers, commercial water heaters, and
poultry brooders. The recalled valves were manufactured between
February 2003 and September 2004 and have production dates
beginning with code 0306 and ending with 0436.

However, not all 7000 Series valves manufactured during the
indicated timeframe are being recalled. Of particular note are
model numbers containing the letters "MV." Recalled gas valves
include "MV" models that also include the letters "LP" and model
numbers 7000AMV; 7000BMV; 7000BMV-S7CL; 7000MVLC; and
7000MVRCLC. All "MV" valves with the indicated date codes that
have been converted to Liquid Propane (LP) gas use are also
included in the recall. NOT included in the recall are model
numbers 7010 and above; model numbers containing the letters "D"
or "BV;" and model numbers containing the letters "MV" except
for the ones listed above. A full list of recalled model numbers
is available at www.robertshaw.com or can be obtained by calling
(800) 232-9389.

Assembled in Mexico, the valves were sold at all gas appliance
retailers and distributors; food service equipment manufacturers
and dealers; specialty retailers, such as fireplace, pool and
spa dealers; and poultry equipment manufacturers. The gas
control valves and components were also sold separately through
gas appliance service providers.

Free repair or replacement if necessary. If you smell gas near
the appliance or in the building, immediately leave the area and
call your gas Company or a certified gas technician to
investigate the cause. If you do not smell gas, check the pilot
lights on your gas appliances. If any pilot lights are out, do
not attempt to relight. Have the appliance examined by a
qualified technician. Have the date-code of your 7000 gas valve
ready when you contact Robertshaw.

Consumer Contact: Call Robertshaw toll-free at (800) 232-9389
from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. CT, Monday through Friday, or visit
http://www.robertshaw.comto review a list of affected
appliances and register for the recall.


ROGERS WIRELESS: Canadian Consumers Lodge Suit Over Access Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Rogers Wireless faces a proceeding brought under the Class
Actions Act in Saskatchewan, Canada, involving allegations by
wireless customers of breach of contract, misrepresentation and
false advertising arising out of the charging of system access
fees.

The suit also names other providers of wireless communications
in Canada, including the Company and its subsidiary Microcell
Telecommunications, Inc.  The proceeding seeks unquantified
damages from the defendant wireless communications service
providers.  The proceeding has not been certified as a class
action and it is too early to determine whether the proceeding
will qualify for certification as a class action.


SALESFORCE.COM: Faces Consolidated Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
salesforce.com, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, styled "In re salesforce.com,
inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-04-3009 JSW (N.D. Cal.)."

On July 26, 2004, a purported class action complaint was
filed against the Company, its chief executive officer and its
chief financial officer, entitled Morrison v. salesforce.com, et
al.  The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased
salesforce.com common stock between June 21, 2004 and July 21,
2004, inclusive.  The claims are based on allegations that the
Company failed to disclose a declining trend in its revenues and
earnings.

Subsequently, several other substantially similar class action
complaints were filed in the same district based on the same
facts and allegations, asserting claims under Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The time for filing motions for appointment of a lead plaintiff
and lead plaintiff's counsel has expired, and only one such
motion is currently pending before the Court.  Pursuant to an
order of the Court, the lead plaintiff shall have sixty days to
file a consolidated amended complaint following the entry of an
order appointing a lead plaintiff and lead plaintiff's counsel.

The suit is styled "In re salesforce.com, inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. C-04-3009 JSW," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California under
Judge Jeffrey S. White.  Chuo Zho has been appointed as lead
plaintiff in the suit.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (New York),
         200 Broadhollow, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747, Phone:
         631.367.7100, Fax: 631.367.1173,

     (2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place, 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364,

     (3) Green & Jigarjian LLP (proposed liaison counsel), 235
         Pine Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA, 94104,
         Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax: 415.477.6710,

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

Representing the Company is John P. Stigi, III of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: (650) 493-9300, E-mail: jstigi@wsgr.com


SEITEL INC.: Working on Settlement of TX Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Seitel, Inc. and certain of its former and current
officers and directors are finalizing the settlement of the suit
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas.

Eleven suits were initially filed, alleging violations of the
federal securities laws.  The suits were later consolidated and
the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead counsel for
plaintiffs, who subsequently filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  The amended suit added the Company's previous
auditors, Ernst & Young LLP, as a defendant.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that during a
proposed class period of May 5, 2000 through April 1, 2002, the
defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
and Exchange Act of 1934 by overstating revenues in violation of
generally accepted accounting principles.  The plaintiffs sought
an unspecified amount of actual and exemplary damages, costs of
court, pre- and post-judgment interest and attorneys' and
experts' fees.

The class representatives and the Debtors have entered into a
memorandum of understanding, which contemplates allowance of a
"class claim" to assert the rights of the class in the Chapter
11 Cases and an ultimate settlement for cash to be funded out of
the Debtors' cash and directors' and officers' insurance
policies.  The memorandum of understanding was approved upon
notice and a hearing by order of the Bankruptcy Court dated
December 10, 2003.  The Company funded its portion of the
settlement amount ($980,000) to an escrow account in 2003.  The
parties are in the process of finalizing their form of
settlement agreement, and then must obtain the Bankruptcy
Court's and District Court's approval of the same.

The suit is styled "Kornfeld, et al v. Seitel Inc, et al., Case
No. 4:02-cv-01566," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas under Judge Vanessa D.
Gilmore.


SEITEL INC.: TX Appeals Court Upholds Dismissal of Trespass Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The San Antonio Court of Appeals in Texas upheld the dismissal
of the class action filed against Seitel, Inc., its subsidiary
Seitel Data, Ltd. and other defendants for geophysical trespass
entitled "Juan O. Villarreal v. Grant Geophysical, Inc., et al.,
Cause No. DC-00-214."

The suit was filed in the 229th District Court of Starr County,
Texas, and names several other defendants.  The plaintiffs
allege that certain defendants conducted unauthorized 3-D
seismic exploration of the mineral interests by obtaining
seismic data on adjoining property, and sold the information
obtained to other defendants.  The plaintiffs sought an
unspecified amount of damages.

All defendants obtained summary judgments dismissing the
plaintiffs' claims, and the plaintiffs appealed to the San
Antonio Court of Appeals under Cause No. 04-02-00674-CV.  During
the pendency of the Company's bankruptcy proceedings, the San
Antonio Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision as
to the Company's co-defendants and stayed the appeal as to the
Company.  The Texas Supreme Court denied plaintiffs Petition for
Certiorari, refusing to hear the matter.

The San Antonio Court of Appeals will not reinstate plaintiffs'
appeal as to the Company's summary judgment against plaintiffs
until the plaintiffs obtain a certified order lifting the
bankruptcy stay.  The plaintiff filed an unliquidated claim
(amount unspecified) in the Chapter 11 Cases.  The Company
objected to this claim which remains pending.


SNAP-ON TOOLS: Judge Rules Claims Not Bound To Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
In a groundbreaking legal opinion, New Jersey Superior Court
Judge Mathias E. Rodriguez has determined that the wives of
Snap-on Tools dealers have an independent legal right to sue the
franchisor in court before a jury, in connection with their own
fraud claims against the Company and, accordingly, are not bound
to bring their claims in arbitration.

Prior to Judge Rodriguez's decision, Snap-on had argued that
claims of the spouses, like those of their tool dealer husbands,
had to be brought in a proceeding before the American
Arbitration Association.

"This decision has nationwide implications for all 3,400 current
Snap-on dealers, as well as all former dealers and their wives
who claim that they were defrauded in their franchise agreement
by Snap-on," said Gerald A. Marks, the Red Bank, N.J.-based
attorney representing the three plaintiffs in the case before
Judge Rodriguez. The plaintiffs in the New Jersey case are:
Nancy Casey of Middletown, Abbye Goldwasser of New Brunswick and
Maritza Franco of Scotch Plains. Marks now plans to institute
additional suits on behalf of the wives of other Snap-on
franchisees in New York, Florida, California, Ohio, and other
states nationwide.

"The wives wanted to present their claims before a jury because
the terms of the arbitration clause limits their legal rights by
shortening the time to bring suit, limits the scope of pre-trial
discovery and prevents the wives from banding together in either
a joint or class action," Mr. Marks explained. "A jury trial
offers the most objective forum for the spouses to prove their
claim that Snap-on had engaged in a consistent, deliberate
policy of inducing families to invest their money into a
franchised tool route, when Snap-on knew that the territory
contained an insufficient amount of customers, or that a
previous dealer had failed in that very same route."

Commenting on the Court's decision, Susan Kezios, President of
the American Franchisee Association, said, "The gates of justice
are now open to wives and other family members who were hurt by
Snap-on's wrongful action. Like many other franchise companies,
Snap-on will no longer be able to hide adverse decisions against
it through the arbitration process. This confidential process
does not permit a finding of franchisor wrongdoing in one
arbitration to be used in another, as is the case in normal
court proceedings."


SODEXHO INC.: DC Judge Sets April Trial Date For Race-Bias Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle recently ruled that
Sodexho Inc., a food and facilities management Company based in
Gaithersburg, will go on trial in the spring on allegations that
the Company discriminated against African American managers and
employees, the Washington Post reports.

According to Kerry Alan Scanlon, a lawyer for the plaintiffs,
court records would show that the federal judge rejected
Sodexho's motion for summary judgment and promptly set a
tentative trial date of April 25.

Filed on behalf of 2,600 employees, Sodexho recently stated that
they are confident that a jury will rule in their favor when the
class-action lawsuit goes to trial. To enforce their confidence
in a trail going their way, Leslie Aun, a Sodexho spokeswoman,
said, "Obviously, we're disappointed the judge ruled against us.
The judge has not issued a ruling that Sodexho is right or wrong
in terms of the central charges of the case, but we are still
confident that when all the facts are heard that it will be made
load and clear that Sodexho does not discriminate."

In her decision, Judge Huvelle wrote that the Company failed to
overcome "the mountain of evidence" that Sodexho's decision-
makers chose managers arbitrarily.

Sodexho has been in a viciously battling to keep the lawsuit out
of court since 13 black managers filed it in 2001. After Judge
Huvelle granted the plaintiffs class-action status in 2002,
Sodexho fruitlessly appealed the certification to the Supreme
Court, which declined to hear the case in October 2003.

Other companies that have faced similar lawsuits have avoided
trial and settled out of court. Sodexho officials and Mr.
Scanlon have been negotiating a settlement for the past year.
"Sodexho continues to be open to any agreements in the best
interests of our people," Ms. Aun told the Washington Post.


STANDARD INSURANCE: Celebrity Lodges Suit Over Disability Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a class-action lawsuit that was recently filed in federal
court, Bo Black, the one-time Queen of Summerfest is claiming
that Standard Insurance Co. of Portland, Oregon, has refused to
pay her disability claim of about $90,000 annually even though
she cannot work because of heart problems and anxiety disorders,
the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports.

In her 15-page claim, Ms. Black says she gave notice from her
Summerfest job and filed for disability insurance in early
August 2003, a good month before Milwaukee World Festival fired
her. In other words, according to Ms. Black, they couldn't fire
her she had already quit.

In a much-publicized board action, the board voted 14-7 to give
Ms. Black her walking papers in September 2003 after nearly 20
years of running the Big Gig although she did remain on the
payroll until the end of the year.

At the board meeting, there was no mention that she may have
already turned in her resignation. Ms. Black's lawyer Stephen
Kravit explains, "What was being discussed at the time was a
reduced or more ceremonial position. It's not clear to me that
she could have done (even) that."

The tension-filled drama between Ms. Black and the Summerfest
board dragged on for months and was the topic of conversations
from George Webbs to the Wisconsin Club. But board President
Howard Schnoll recently stated that he didn't recall exactly
what the board voted on in September 2003.

However, according to a Summerfest insider, who apparently had a
better memory, Ms. Black was lobbying to keep her full-time job
up until she was voted out. The insider's evidence: "Why else
would you go through that vote to be humiliated?"

In the suit, the 58-year-old Milwaukee celebrity said she quit
her Summerfest post because of her numerous medical problems.

The suit further states, "Ms. Black has received treatment and
remains under close medical care and supervision due to
cardiovascular impairments. Despite her efforts to return to
work, she was unable to maintain her employment and based on
ongoing symptoms, which had not abated despite treatment, she
submitted her resignation in 2003. Furthermore, the suit states,
"Ms. Black has also been diagnosed with other impairments that
preclude her ability to perform the duties of her regular
occupation."

In early 2001, Ms. Black went public with the news that she
would have surgery to remove an aneurysm on her ascending aorta.
Her husband, former Milwaukee Brewers manager Tom Trebelhorn,
blamed her condition on her ongoing feud with then-Mayor John
Norquist.

She claims in her court file that she also is suffering from
"anxiety disorders." "One might speculate the anxiety disorder
was highly exacerbated" by the conflict with the Summerfest
board, Mr. Kravit said.

The suit states that she sought disability benefits of $7,500 a
month, which is a little less than half what she, was paid at
Summerfest. But Standard Insurance rejected the claim, the suit
says, after making a single payment this year.

The suit further stated that Ms. Black appealed the insurer's
decision in August, providing information from her doctor, her
psychologist and the finding by the Social Security
Administration that she is deserving of the disability payments,
but still her appeal was tossed just last month.

Mr. Kravit and Ms. Black's second attorney, Chicago insurance
law specialist Mark DeBofsky, are asking the federal court to
make this a class-action case, arguing that Standard Insurance
has denied countless other claimants without proper medical
justification. In their suit, the attorneys contend that a
competing insurance group has been fined $15 million and ordered
to re-evaluate more than 200,000 claims for similar reasons. The
same group was also chastised for not giving sufficient weight
to disability rulings by Social Security.


SUPERIOR ROOFING: Immigrants Cheated Out Of Pay Lodge Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit has been initiated in Middlesex Superior
Court against the Shirley, Massachusetts-based Superior Roofing
Industries Inc. alleging that the Company withheld an estimated
$1 million in overtime pay and regular wages from Brazilian
workers over the last several months, while paying the Americans
who worked beside them higher wages and time-and-a-half when
they logged more than 40 hours per week, the Boston Globe
reports.

Filed on behalf of 50 Brazilian workers, the suit claims that
Superior, one of the largest roofing companies in Massachusetts
asked the workers, who typically earned $10 to $16 per hour, to
travel farther to punch a time clock, causing them to lose 90
minutes to two hours' worth of wages daily.

However, Sean Green, owner of the roofing firm, denied the
allegations and even pointed out that he frequently sponsors
immigrants, providing them with jobs and helping them to become
US citizens. He contends, "They wanted more money, but it all
depends on experience. If people come in with no experience,
they start at a lower pay scale."

According to Boston lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan, a partner at
Pyle, Rome, Lichten, Ehrenberg & Liss-Riordan PC, most of the
allegations stem from "the fact that the Brazilian workers were
never paid overtime, just straight time for all hours, even
though they were working 60 and 70 hours per week." Under
Massachusetts law, companies are required to pay most hourly
employees who work more than 40 hours in a week about 1.5 times
the regular rate of pay for all hours over 40.

The case was filed after news reports emerged about millions of
low-wage employees across the country that are giving employers
free work time, even though federal and state laws prohibit such
practices.

Benjamin E. Goldman, a partner at Squire Sanders & Dempsey LLP
in Los Angeles, who specializes in employment law explains that
workers who are unaware of their rights often do not receive
paid meal breaks, overtime, paid travel time, or they are told
to clock out earlier or between breaks, resulting in lower
wages. He even adds that such practices are said to be more
common if immigrants are involved.

In the lawsuit, Josiel Ferreira, 20, of Lowell, said he began
working at Superior Industries in July 2003 and quit a year
later, after learning from an American co-worker that he and
others on the job were not receiving the same benefits. Mr.
Ferreira, whose wages increased to $16 per hour from $10 over
the course of the year, said that in summer he and his Brazilian
co-workers labored from 6 a.m. to 8 or 9 p.m. He also recounted
in the suit, how they journeyed from their homes to the
Company's shop in Shirley and were then transported to job
sites, where they were allowed to punch in. According to him,
the American workers punched in at the office and were then
transported to the job sites.

Upon the suit's filing, Middlesex Superior Court Judge Peter
Lauriat barred the Company from transferring assets outside its
ordinary course of business without court approval. Judge
Lauriat granted the temporary order after the workers' attorneys
said they were worried that the Company, which owns several
other firms, might transfer funds to avoid paying damage claims.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Settles Phony Heart Surgery Claims For $395M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation recently agreed to pay $395 million
to settle 769 claims (In re Tenet Healthcare III, J.C.C.P.
4301), that doctors at its Redding, California, hospital
performed unnecessary heart surgeries, the NY Lawyer reports.

Though it still needs to be approved by 95 percent of the
plaintiffs and a Shasta County judge, the massive settlement
will essentially end litigation against the health care giant in
connection with the surgeries.

According to Luke Ellis of Gillin, Jacobson, Ellis & Larsen of
Orinda, Calif., which represents 186 of the plaintiffs, once
approved, the settlement money will immediately go into an
interest-accruing fund, and plaintiffs can expect to see payouts
as early as January. He also noted that the cases were resolved
relatively quickly.

The questionable surgeries came to light when FBI agents raided
Tenet's Redding Medical Center in October 2002, and many of the
lawsuits were filed just last year.

Mr. Ellis lauded the settlement by saying, "You could spend
years litigating these cases, since the alleged victims range in
age from mid-60s to 90, a protracted legal battle would have
meant that many of them would "never get a chance to have
[their] day in court."

In a statement, Trevor Fetter, Tenet's president and chief
executive officer, characterized the settlement as "the fair and
honorable way to conclude this very sad chapter."

How much money each plaintiff will receive is confidential, and
Mr. Ellis declined to discuss attorney's fees. According to the
San Francisco attorneys, the other lawyers did not seek class
action status, because it's hard to make personal injury fit
into that rubric. "Every injury is different," he adds. "Every
injury is complicated."

Along with the plaintiff suits, Tenet was also under
investigation by state and federal authorities for its practices
in Redding. It settled with government investigators over the
summer for $54 million.

In addition, plaintiffs' lawyers sued a number of physicians in
connection with the heart operations. They reached a
confidential agreement with cardiologists several months ago,
and litigation against four surgeons is slated to begin next
summer.

Of the 769 plaintiffs, most are former patients, but 94 are
surviving family members who filed wrongful death cases. Mr.
Ellis said he didn't expect to have any trouble getting
plaintiffs to sign on to the agreement.

The procedures at issue include bypasses, valve replacements and
catheterizations. Ellis said they often created additional
medical problems and caused depression in those who underwent
them.

"The heart is a metaphysical part of your body. It's not just an
organ," he said. The lead plaintiff firm is Redding's Reiner,
Simpson, Timmons & Slaughter. Also representing plaintiffs are
Barr & Mudford of Redding, and Moriarty & Leyendecker of
Houston, Texas. San Francisco behemoth Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein represents 10 plaintiffs and Mr. Ellis said that they
were also included in the settlement.


TORCH OFFSHORE: Appeals Court Nixes Stock Suit Dismissal Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to re-
hear plaintiffs' appeal of its decision dismissing stockholder
class action filed against Torch Offshore, Inc., styled "Karl L.
Capps, et. al. v. Torch Offshore, Inc. et. al., No. 02-00582."

Several purported Company stockholders filed the suit in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana regarding the Company's initial public offering.  This
lawsuit alleges violations of federal securities laws and seeks
unspecified monetary damages.

The lawsuit was dismissed on December 19, 2002 for failure to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted.  The
plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit.  On July 26, 2004, the Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit dismissed the case.  On August 6, 2004, the
plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit for a re-hearing, but on August 25, 2004 the re-hearing
was denied.  A mandate was issued on September 2, 2004 closing
the case.

The suit, styled "Karl L. Capps, et. al. v. Torch Offshore, Inc.
et. al., No. 02-00582," is filed in the United States District
Court in Louisiana, New Orleans Division, under Judge Judge
Martin L. C. Feldman.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are William Paul Wilkins of Koederitz
& Wilkins, 8702 Jefferson Hwy., Suite A, Baton Rouge, LA 70809,
Phone: 225-928-9111 and Andrew M. Schatz, Jeffrey S. Nobel,
Wayne T. Boulton, Patrick A. Klingman, and Robert A. Izard of
Schatz & Nobel, PC, 330 Main St., Hartford, CT 06106, Phone:
860-493-6292.

Lawyers for the defendants are Robert Leland Redfearn, Jr. of
Simon, Peragine, Smith & Redfearn, LLP, Energy Centre, 1100
Poydras St., 30th Floor, New Orleans, LA 70163-3000, Phone:
(504) 569-2030; Rebecca L. Robertson, David D. Sterling of Baker
Botts LLP, One Shell Plaza, 910 Louisiana St., Suite 3200,
Houston, TX 77002-4995, Phone: (713) 229-1234 and Thomas K.
Potter, III, Gregory D. Latham, Amy L. Glovinsky, Jones, Walker,
Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre, Place St. Charles, 201
St. Charles Ave., 50th Floor New Orleans, LA 70170-5100, Phone:
(504) 582-8000.


TOYOTA MOTOR: NJ Superior Court Certifies Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
New Jersey Superior Court granted class certification to a
lawsuit filed against Toyota Motor Insurance Services (TMIS),
styled "Jorge v Toyota Motor Insurance Services."

The suit claims that the TMIS Gold Plan Vehicle Service
Agreement (VSA) is unconscionable on its face and violates the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  In September 2004, the case was
certified as a class action consisting of all New Jersey
consumers who purchased a VSA.  The plaintiffs are seeking
injunctive relief as well as actual damages and treble damages.


UMAREX-GERMANY: Recalls 24T Air Pistols Due To Injury Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
Umarex, of Arnsburg, Germany and the Crosman Corporation, of
East Bloomfield, NY are cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
about 24,000 Walther CP Sport, CP99, and Nighthawk CO2 Air
Pistols.

The air pistols' safety might move from the engaged or "safe"
position to the disengaged or "fire" position when the trigger
is pulled once or more and then released. This poses a risk of
serious injury if the air pistol is loaded and unintentionally
fired.

The recalled air pistols include the Walther models CP Sport,
CP99, and Nighthawk manufactured throughout 2003. The recalled
models have a serial number of "J3," which is located on the
right side of the air pistol. The Walther CP Sport and CP99 CO2
air pistols capture the look and feel of a Walther firearm. The
Nighthawk air pistol is outfitted with a compensator, red dot
sight, flashlight and a mounting system. If there is an asterisk
inscribed next to the serial number, the air pistol is not part
of the recall.

Manufactured in Germany, the air pistols were sold at all
sporting goods stores and gun shops nationwide sold the CP
Sports and CP 99s from February 2003 through July 2004 and the
Nighthawks from October 2003 through July 2004 for between $85
and $300.

Consumers should stop using these air pistols immediately and
contact the Company to receive a free inspection and repair or
replacement unit.

Consumer Contact: Known purchasers have received a notification
from Crosman of this recall. Consumers who have not received
direct notification should call the Company toll-free at
(866) 583-7340 anytime or visit the Company's Web site at
http://www.crosman.comto receive instructions for returning the
pistol and receiving a repair or replacement.


VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Reaches $88M Phantom Phone Bill Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
US telecom giant Verizon recently agreed to pay $88 million to
settle a four-year-old class-action lawsuit claiming it had
fraudulently charged customers rent for long-defunct and
obsolete rotary-dial phones, the Agence France-Presse reports.

Brought by 170,000 customers, the protracted suit had alleged
that the Company's unit Verizon California, previously called
GTE California, racked up tens of millions of dollars in profits
by continuing to charge them for obsolete telephones they no
longer possessed.

According to the customers, a "rental equipment" charge was
added on bills for up to 13 years after California's phone
industry was deregulated in 1988, at which time customers
stopped renting phones and bought their own.

The $4-$5 per-month charge that continued to appear on bills
cost some customers as much as $1,000 a month, says Marc
Coleman, one of the lawyers for the customers. "GTE reaped tens
of millions of dollars in profit by failing to properly label
its telephone changes," he adds.

Verizon California stressed that it had not admitted to any
wrongdoing linked to the lawsuit and had quit the phone rental
business in 2001.

In a brief communiqu‚, the Company said, "Although Verizon
California did not engage in any wrongdoing with respect to that
program, settling this issue was in the best interest of our
customers and our Company. The court has determined that the
settlement was fair and reasonable and we agree."

Filed in 2000, the lawsuit was initially dismissed and then
reinstated on appeal, which would eventually lead to a Los
Angeles Superior Court judge giving his final approval to the
deal recently. Under the term of the class-action settlement,
each of the customers will get about $500, while lawyers were
awarded fees of $1.79 million.

Upon approval of the settlement, another lawyer for the
plaintiffs, Dan Stormer told Agence France-Presse, "Our hope is
that this sends a message that you cannot defraud, on a massive
scale, hundreds of thousands of people and get away with it."


WAL-MART STORES: Suit Certification Review Expected Early 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed to a
discretionary review of a lower court ruling granting class
certification to the lawsuit filed against Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., styled "Betty Dukes, Patricia Surgeson, Cleo Page, Deborah
Gunter, Karen Williamson, Christine Kwapnoski and Edith Arana,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., case no. 01-02252 MJJ."

The suit was filed in June 2001 in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Martin Jenkins.  The case was brought on behalf of all past and
present female employees in all of the Company's retail stores
and wholesale clubs in the United States.  The complaint alleges
that the Company has engaged in a pattern and practice of
discriminating against women in promotions, pay, training and
job assignments.  The complaint seeks, among other things,
injunctive relief, compensatory damages including front pay and
back pay, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees.

Following a hearing on class certification on September 24,
2003, on June 21, 2004, the District Court issued an order
granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  The class, which was certified by the
District Court for purposes of liability, injunctive and
declaratory relief, punitive damages, and lost pay, subject to
certain exceptions, includes all women employed at any Wal-Mart
domestic retail store at any time since December 26, 1998, who
have been or may be subjected to the pay and management track
promotions policies and practices challenged by the plaintiffs.
The class as certified currently includes approximately 1.6
million present and former female Associates.

The Company stated in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission that it believes that the District Court's
ruling is incorrect.  The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit has granted the Company's petition for
discretionary review of the ruling.  If the Company is not
successful in its appeal of class certification, or an appellate
court issues a ruling that allows for the certification of a
class or classes with a different size or scope, and if there is
a subsequent adverse verdict on the merits from which there is
no successful appeal, or in the event of a negotiated settlement
of the litigation, the resulting liability could be material to
the Company.  The plaintiffs also seek punitive damages which,
if awarded, could result in the payment of additional amounts
material to the Company. However, because of the uncertainty of
the outcome of the appeal from the District Court's
certification decision, because of the uncertainty of the
balance of the proceedings contemplated by the District Court,
and because the Company's liability, if any, arising from the
litigation, including the size of any damages award if
plaintiffs are successful in the litigation or any negotiated
settlement, could vary widely, the Company cannot reasonably
estimate the possible loss or range of loss which may arise from
the litigation.

Plaintiffs are being represented by:

     (1) Brad Seligman and Jocelyn Larkin, The Impact Fund,
         website: http://www.impactfund.org

     (2) Joseph M. Sellers, Christine Webber and Charles
         Tomkins, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld and Toll, P.L.L.C.,
         Website: http://www.cmht.com

     (3) Sheila Tomas and Debra Smith of Equal Rights Advocates,
         Website: http://www.equalrights.org/

     (4) Steve Stemerman and Betty Lawrence of Davis, Cowell and
         Bowe,

     (5) Stephen Tinkler & Charlie Firth of Tinkler & Firth,
         Website: http://www.tinklerfirth.com/

     (6) Merit Bennett of Merit Bennett, P.C., Website:
         http://www.meritbennett.com/

     (7) Debra Gardner of The Public Justice Center, Website:
         http://www.publicjustice.org/

For more information, also visit the Website:
http://www.walmartclassaction.com.


WAL-MART STORES: TX Court Approves Settlement For COLI Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas State Court granted final approval to the settlement of
three class actions filed against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. over its
Corporate-Owned Life Insurance (COLI) policies.

Four suits were initially filed, three of which are pending in
Texas, and one in Oklahoma.  In each lawsuit, the plaintiffs
seek a declaratory judgment that the Company and the other
defendants who purchased Corporate-Owned Life Insurance ("COLI")
policies lacked an insurable interest in the lives of the
employees who were insured under the policies, and seek to
recover the proceeds of the policies under theories of unjust
enrichment and constructive trust.  In some of the suits, the
plaintiffs assert other causes of action, and seek punitive
damages.

In January 2004, the parties to the first-filed Texas lawsuit
signed a settlement agreement, which received final approval
from the court on October 28, 2004.  The settlement will include
all Texas COLI claimants who do not opt out of the settlement
class.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Women Employees' Title VII Lawsuit in GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. continues to face a class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia, styled "Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc."

The suit was filed on October 16, 2001, and the class was
certified on August 23, 2002. On September 30, 2003, the court
denied the Company's motion to reconsider that ruling.  The
class is composed of female Wal-Mart Associates who were
participants in the Associates Health and Welfare Plan at any
time from March 8, 2001, to the present and who were using
prescription contraceptives.  The class seeks amendment of the
Plan to include coverage for prescription contraceptives, back
pay for all members in the form of reimbursement of the cost of
prescription contraceptives, pre-judgment interest, and
attorneys' fees.  The complaint alleges that the Company's
Health Plan violates Title VII's prohibition against gender
discrimination in that the Health Plan's Reproductive Systems
provision does not provide coverage for prescription
contraceptives.



                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ANCHOR GLASS: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Suit 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
Corporation ("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's by Phone:
888-657-9960 or visit their Web site: http://www.vianalelaw.com.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Ademi & O'Reilly Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Conexant Systems, Inc.
("Conexant") (Nasdaq:CNXT) publicly traded securities during the
period between March 1, 2004 and November 4, 2004 (the "Class
Period"), and former GlobespanVirata, Inc. ("Globespan")
shareholders who received shares of Conexant in the merger.

The complaint charges Conexant and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Conexant is a fabless semiconductor Company. The complaint
alleges that on March 1, 2004, Conexant completed its
acquisition of Globespan in a merger transaction claiming that
"We have made outstanding progress toward integrating the
organizations, systems, technologies and processes of Conexant
and GlobespanVirata over the past two months and are in a strong
position as we begin combined operations today." In fact, as
would later be admitted, the merger had not been successful and
the Company was facing severe integration problems with respect
to the combined companies' parallel DSL and wireless technology
offerings, as well as their sales and administration functions.
Additionally, Conexant would claim throughout the Class Period
that its wireless LAN ("WLAN") business was experiencing reduced
growth, citing competition from Taiwan-based chip suppliers
when, in fact, its WLAN business, which had been the premier and
top producer for wireless local area networks, was not being
integrated properly in the merger, and defendants were
neglecting to develop and build products, resulting in massive
loss of market share.

On November 4, 2004, Conexant released its financial and
operational results for the fourth quarter ended October 1,
2004, reporting that its "fourth fiscal quarter 2004 revenues of
$213.1 million decreased 20 percent from the third fiscal
quarter revenues of $267.6 million," and stating that
"'Conexant's sequential decline in revenues to $213.1 million in
the fourth fiscal quarter was largely due to excess channel
inventory that resulted from lower-than-expected customer demand
...'" On this news Conexant stock fell 10% on November 5, 2004.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: 866-264-3995 by
E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Conexant.php.


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-
0678-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, by Phone: (317) 713-3500.


IMPAX LABORATORIES: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit against IMPAX Laboratories, Inc. ("IMPAX" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:IPXL) and individual defendants Barry D.
Edwards (IMPAX CEO and a Director) and Cornel C. Spiegler (IMPAX
CFO), on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased the
securities of IMPAX during the period from May 5, 2004 to
November 3, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case,
Civil Action Number 04 5252 in the United States District Court,
Northern District of California, is assigned to Judge Charles R.
Bryer.

The Class Period ends on November 3, 2004, when IMPAX shocked
the investing public by postponing its ``release of 2004 third
quarter financial results to Tuesday, November 9, 2004 in order
to allow its independent auditors more time to complete their
review of the Company's third quarter financial statements,
including the timing of certain customer credits on buproprion
products marketed by a strategic partner.' Investor reaction was
swift and negative, with IMPAX stock falling more than 22% on
November 4, 2004 on high trading volume.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: 866-264-3995 by
E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/IMPAX.php.


TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY: Ademi & O'Reilly Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Tripath
Technology, Inc. ("Tripath") (NASDAQ:TRPH) common stock during
the period between January 29, 2004 and October 22, 2004 (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Tripath and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Tripath develops and supplies digital amplifiers for three
markets based on proprietary technology, called Digital Power
Processing (DPP).

The complaint alleges that starting in September of 2003,
Tripath announced that it would be introducing a "revolutionary"
architecture platform for digital audio amplifiers, which it
labeled as "Godzilla." Following this announcement, for nearly a
year, Tripath consistently reiterated the potential of Godzilla
and the Company's on-schedule execution of its strategy to
market and manufacture Godzilla. In fact, Tripath was not close
to a single sale of Godzilla during 2004. Additionally,
throughout the Class Period, Tripath's financial results were
false and misleading because of improper revenue recognition and
because of inadequate and deficient internal controls, resulting
in the resignation of its independent auditor.

On October 22, 2004, Tripath announced that it might have to
restate its financial statements for the second quarter of 2004,
that it was reducing its guidance for the third quarter of 2004
by $4-$4.5 million, and that its former independent accountants,
BDO Seidman, LLP, had resigned after issuing a letter "asserting
material weaknesses in Tripath's internal controls concerning
the effectiveness of Tripath's Audit Committee and Tripath's
ability to estimate distributor sales returns in accordance with
SFAS no. 48."

Market reaction was swift and negative, with the price of
Tripath common stock falling 49%, from its closing price of
$1.52 on October 22, 2004 to close at $0.77 per share on its
next trading day, October 25, 2004. The closing price of Tripath
shares on October 22, 2004, represented a $7.07, or 90%, decline
from its Class Period high of $7.84 reached on January 29, 2004.

For more details, contact Guri Ademi by Phone: 866-264-3995 by
E-mail: gademi@ademilaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.ademilaw.com/cases/Tripath.php.


                            *********


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  * * *