CAR_Public/041229.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, December 29, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 256

                          Headlines

ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Reaches One Settlement, Six Suits Remain
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Proceeds in CA Overtime Wage Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Overtime Wage Suit
ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Bias Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2005
AGILE SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement

AMERITRADE INC.: Opposes Plaintiffs' Appeal of NE Suit Dismissal
AMERITRADE INC.: NV Court Dismisses Lawsuit for Consumer Fraud
BLUE COAT: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
F5 NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
GAMESTOP CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Overtime Suit Settlement

GE SECURITY: Recalls Smoke 246.8T Alarms For Production Defect
GENESCO INC.: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
INITIO INC.: SEC Files, Settles Securities Lawsuit V. Former CEO
INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
MANDALAY RESORT: Appeals Court Upholds Suit Certification Denial

MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA State Court
ONI SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
ROBOTIC VISION: SEC Files Administrative Proceedings V. Ex-CFO

ROBOTIC VISIONS: Ex-Controller Faces Administrative Proceedings
STARWAY INC.: Recalls Dried Vegetables For Undeclared Sulfites
WET SEAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in C.D. CA
WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: IL Court Briefs Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
ZILA CORPORATION: Named As Defendant in AZ Zicam Consumer Suit


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
CHARLOTTE RUSE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
GEOPHARMA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY

GEOPHARMA, INC.: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Suit in FL
GEOPHARMA INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
GEOPHARMA INC.: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
PFIZER INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
ROYAL GROUP: Murray Frank Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY


                          *********


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Reaches One Settlement, Six Suits Remain
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. continues to face six actions filed on
behalf of purported classes of employees and former employees of
the Company, alleging that the Company required its associates
to wear and pay for a "uniform" in violation of applicable law.
In each case, the plaintiff, on behalf of his or her purported
class, seeks injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of
economic and liquidated damages.

Two of these cases, "Jennifer M. Solis v. Abercrombie & Fitch
Stores, Inc." and A&F California, LLC," and "Sarah Stevenson v.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.," allege violations of California law
and were filed on February 10, 2003 and February 4, 2003 in the
California Superior Courts for Los Angeles County and San
Francisco County, respectively.  An answer was filed in the
Solis case on March 26, 2003.  Pursuant to a Petition for
Coordination, the Solis and the Stevenson cases were coordinated
by order issued November 17, 2003.

"Shelby Port v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc.," which alleges
violations of Washington law, was filed on or about July 18,
2003 in the Washington Superior Court of King County.  The
defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the Port
case on September 5, 2003.  The plaintiff filed an amended
complaint on August 9, 2004, adding three new named plaintiffs
and subsequently filed a second amended complaint on or about
October 20, 2004.  The defendant filed its answer to the second
amended complaint on November 19, 2004.  The plaintiffs filed a
motion to certify a class of employees in the state of
Washington on November 10, 2004.

"Jadii Mohme v. Abercrombie & Fitch," which alleges violations
of Illinois law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in the Illinois
Circuit Court of St. Clair County.  A first amended complaint
was filed in the Mohme case on September 10, 2003 to change the
defendant to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." from
"Abercrombie & Fitch."  An answer to the first amended complaint
was filed in the Mohme case on September 26, 2003.

"Holly Zemany v. Abercrombie & Fitch," which alleges violations
of Pennsylvania law, was filed on July 18, 2003 in the
Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County.  A first
amended complaint was filed in the Zemany case on September 9,
2003 to change the defendant to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores,
Inc." from "Abercrombie & Fitch."  A second amended complaint
was filed on November 10, 2003, adding some factual allegations.
The defendant filed an answer to the second amended complaint on
January 22, 2004.

In "Michael Gualano v. Abercrombie & Fitch," which was filed in
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania on March 14, 2003, the plaintiff alleges that the
"uniform," when purchased, drove associates' wages below the
federal minimum wage.  The complaint purports to state a
collective action on behalf of part-time associates under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.  A first amended complaint was filed
in the Gualano case on September 9, 2003, to change the
defendant to "Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc." from
"Abercrombie & Fitch."  An answer to the first amended complaint
was filed in the Gualano case on September 24, 2003.

Jadii Mohme and Holly Zemany have stayed their claims in state
court and joined their claims with Michael Gualano along with
four other named plaintiffs in four other states in a second
amended complaint, which the defendant has answered.  The
parties are in the process of settling these claims.  On
November 17, 2004, the United States District Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania gave final approval of the
settlement, and dismissal of the case with prejudice was
entered.  The Mohme and Zemany cases are in the process of being
dismissed with prejudice pursuant to the terms of the
settlement.  The settlement resolves all claims of hourly
employees in the states of Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois,
Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania under their respective
state laws and their claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Discovery Proceeds in CA Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. in the California Superior
Court for Los Angeles County, styled "Bryan T. Kimbell,
individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated and
on behalf of the public v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc."

The suit seek injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of
economic and liquidated damages and alleges that California
general and store managers were entitled to receive overtime pay
as "non-exempt" employees under California wage and hour laws.
An answer was filed in the Kimbell case on September 4, 2002 and
the parties are in the process of discovery.  The trial court
has ordered a class of store managers in California certified
for limited purposes.


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Overtime Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio to dismiss the class action
filed against it and Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., styled
"Melissa Mitchell, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and
Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc."

The suit involves overtime compensation and seeks injunctive
relief and unspecified amounts of economic and liquidated
damages.  The plaintiffs allege that assistant managers and
store managers were not paid overtime compensation in violation
of the Fair Labor Standards Act and Ohio law.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Mitchell case on
July 28, 2003.  The case was transferred from the Western
Division to the Eastern Division of the Southern District of
Ohio on April 21, 2004.  The plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint to add Scott Oros as a named plaintiff on October 28,
2004.

The suit is styled "Mitchell, et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch, et
al, case no. 2:04-cv-00306-EAS-NMK," filed in the U.S. District
Court Southern District of Ohio (Columbus), under Judge Edmund
A. Sargus, referred to Norah McCann King.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bryan L. Clobes, Miller Faucher & Cafferty LLP, One
         Logan Square, Suite 1700, 18th & Cherry Streets,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103, Phone: 215-864-2800, Fax: 215-
         864-2810, E-mail: bclobes@millerfaucher.com

     (2) Elmer Morton Goldman, 3509 Montgomery Road, Suite 1
         Loveland, OH 45140, Phone: 513-683-2611, E-mail:
         elmergoldman@cs.com

     (3) James F. Keller, Gottesman & Associates, 2121 URS
         Center, 36 E 7th Street, Cincinnati, Oh 45202, Phone:
         513-651-2121, E-mail: jfk@zgottesmanlaw.com

     (4) Zachary Gottesman, 2121 CBLD Center, 36 East 7th
         Street, Cincinnati, OH 45202, Phone: 513/651-2121, E-
         mail: zg@zgottesmanlaw.com

     (5) John William Ferron, Ferron & Associates, 580 N Fourth
         Street, Suite 450, Columbus, OH 43215-2125, Phone: 614-
         228-5225 Fax: 614-228-3255, E-mail:
         jferron@ferronlaw.com

Lawyer for the defendants are Allen Shawn Kinzer and Mark A.
Knueve, and Thomas Brennan Ridgley of Vorys Sater Seymour &
Pease, PO Box 1008, 52 E Gay Street, Columbus, OH 43216-1008,
Phone: 614-464-6400, Fax: 614-464-8318, Email: askinzer@vssp.com
or maknueve@vssp.com or tbridgley@vssp.com


ABERCROMBIE & FITCH: Bias Suit Fairness Hearing Set April 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
Final fairness hearing for the settlement of the discrimination
class action filed against Abercrombie & Fitch Co. is set for
April 2005 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  Three suits were initially filed on
behalf of a purported class alleged to be discriminated against
in hiring or employment decisions due to race, national origin
and/or gender.

"Eduardo Gonzalez, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co." was filed
on June 16, 2003 in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.  The plaintiffs subsequently
amended their complaint to add A&F California, LLC, Abercrombie
& Fitch Stores, Inc. and A&F Ohio, Inc. as defendants.  The
plaintiffs allege, on behalf of their purported class, that they
were discriminated against in hiring and employment decisions
due to their race and/or national origin. The plaintiffs seek,
on behalf of their purported class, injunctive relief and
unspecified amounts of economic, compensatory and punitive
damages.

A second amended complaint, which added two additional
plaintiffs, was filed on January 9, 2004.  The defendants filed
an answer to the second amended complaint on January 26, 2004.
A third amended complaint was filed June on 10, 2004, restating
the original claims and adding two individual, but not class,
claims of gender discrimination.  The defendants filed an answer
on June 21, 2004.  On November 8, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a
fourth amended complaint, adding an additional plaintiff and
claims on behalf of those who asserted they were discriminated
against in hiring and employment decisions as managers due to
their race and/or national origin.  On November 11, 2004, the
defendants answered the fourth amended complaint.

Two other class action employment discrimination lawsuits have
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, both on November 8, 2004.  In "Elizabeth
West, et al. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc., et al.," the
plaintiffs allege gender (female) discrimination in hiring or
employment decisions and seek, on behalf of their purported
class, injunctive relief and unspecified amounts of economic,
compensatory and punitive damages.

The other was brought by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (the "EEOC") and alleges race, ethnicity and gender
(female) discrimination in hiring or employment decisions.  The
EEOC complaint seeks injunctive relief and, on behalf of the
purported class, unspecified amounts of economic, compensatory
and punitive damages.

On November 8, 2004, the Company signed a consent decree
settling these three related class action discrimination
lawsuits, subject to judicial review and approval.  The monetary
terms of the consent decree provide that the Company will set
aside $40.0 million to pay to the class, approximately $7.5
million for attorneys' fees, and approximately $2.5 million for
monitoring and administrative costs to carry out the settlement.
As part of the consent decree, the Company also agreed to
implement a series of programs and initiatives that are designed
to achieve greater diversity throughout its stores.  The
preliminary approval order was signed by Judge Susan Illston of
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on November 16, 2004, and that order scheduled a
final fairness and approval hearing for April 14, 2005.

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California, under Judge Susan Ilston.
They are styled

     (1) Gonzalez et al v. Abercombie & Fitch Co. et al., case
         no. 3:03-cv-02817

     (2) West et al v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. et al,
         case no. 3:04-cv-04730-SI

     (3) U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v.
         Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. et al, case no. 3:04-
         cv-04731-SI


AGILE SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Agile Software Corporation asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, Bryan D. Stolle and Thomas P. Shanahan
and others including underwriters Morgan Stanley and Deutsche
Bank Securities.  The case is now captioned "In re Agile
Software, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01
CIV 9413 (SAS)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs electronically served an amended
complaint.  The amended complaint is brought purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased the Company's common stock
from August 19, 1999 through December 6, 2000.  It names as
defendants the Agile Defendants; and several investment banking
firms that served as underwriters of the Company's initial
public offering and secondary offering.

The complaint alleges liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the offerings did not disclose that
the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers to
purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for excess
commissions paid to the underwriters; and the underwriters had
arranged for certain customers to purchase additional shares in
the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  The amended complaint
also alleges that false analyst reports were issued.  No
specific damages are claimed.

The Company is aware that similar allegations have been made in
other lawsuits filed in the Southern District of New York
challenging over 300 other initial public offerings and
secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000.  Those cases
have been consolidated for pretrial purposes before the
Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.

On July 15, 2002, the Agile Defendants (as well as all other
issuer defendants) filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on the motions to dismiss.
The Court denied the motions to dismiss claims under the
Securities Act of 1933 in all but 10 of the cases.  In the case
involving the Company, these claims were dismissed as to the
initial public offering, but not the secondary offering.  The
Court denied the motion to dismiss the claim under Section 10(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
184 other issuer defendants, on the basis that the amended
complaints in these cases alleged that the respective issuers
had acquired companies or conducted follow-on offerings after
the initial public offerings.  As a consequence, the Court
denied the motion to dismiss the Section 20(a) claims against
the individual defendants.  The motion to dismiss the Section
10(a) claims was granted with prejudice as to the individual
defendants.

The Company has decided to accept a settlement proposal
presented to all issuer defendants.  In this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the Agile
Defendants, in exchange for a contingent payment by the
insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the
issuers in all of the IPO cases, and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.  The Agile Defendants will not be
required to make any cash payments in the settlement, unless the
pro rata amount paid by the insurers in the settlement exceeds
the limits of the insurance coverage, a circumstance which the
Company does not believe will occur.  The settlement will
require approval of the Court, which cannot be assured, after
class members are given the opportunity to object to the
settlement.

The suit is styled "In re Agile Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 CIV 9413 (SAS)," related to
"In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92
(SAS)" filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

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


AMERITRADE INC.: Opposes Plaintiffs' Appeal of NE Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ameritrade Holdings Corporation asked for a summary dismissal of
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed
against the Company in the District Court of Douglas County,
Nebraska, claiming the Company was not able to handle the volume
of subscribers to its Internet brokerage services.  The
complaint, as amended, sought injunctive relief enjoining
alleged deceptive, fraudulent and misleading practices,
equitable relief compelling the Company to increase capacity,
and unspecified compensatory damages.

In May 2001, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment in
the matter, which the plaintiffs opposed.  The District Court
granted summary judgment for the Company on January 2, 2002, and
the plaintiffs appealed.  On August 1, 2003, the Nebraska
Supreme Court reversed the District Court's grant of summary
judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further
proceedings.  The Nebraska Supreme Court did not decide whether
the plaintiffs' claims have merit.

On October 8, 2003, the Company filed with the District Court a
renewed motion for summary judgment.  On August 13, 2004, the
District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' class action
allegations and the claims of fraud, misrepresentation, unjust
enrichment and injunction.  The District Court stayed the case
pending arbitration of individual claims of breach of contract
under the customer agreements.  Plaintiffs appealed.  On
November 1, 2004, the Company filed a motion for summary
dismissal of the appeal for lack of jurisdiction on the ground
that the District Court's order is not presently eligible for
appeal.


AMERITRADE INC.: NV Court Dismisses Lawsuit for Consumer Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Nevada
dismissed the class action filed against Ameritrade Inc., Knight
Trading Group, Inc. and certain individuals on behalf of persons
who became clients of the Company during the period from March
29, 1995 through September 30, 2003.

As it pertains to the Company, the principal allegations of the
complaint were that:

     (1) the Company had an indirect and direct equity interest
         in Knight, to which it directed most of its orders for
         execution;

     (2) the Company failed to accurately disclose the nature of
         its relationship with Knight and the consideration it
         received from Knight for directing order flow to
         Knight; and

     (3) clients of Ameritrade did not receive best execution of
         their orders from Knight and the Company.

The plaintiff claimed that the Company's conduct violated
certain provisions of the federal securities laws, including
Sections11Ac, 10(b) and 3(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act"), and SEC rules promulgated thereunder.
Plaintiff further claimed the individual defendants, including a
present director and a former director of the Company, were
liable under Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act as "controlling
persons" for the claimed wrongs attributed to the Company and
Knight.  In his prayer for relief, plaintiff requested monetary
damages and/or rescissionary relief in the amount of $4.5
billion against all defendants, jointly and severally.

In January 2004, the Company, Knight and the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint and to deny
class certification or strike the class action allegations.  In
July 2004 the District Court granted the Company defendants'
motion to deny class certification and to stay the action
pending arbitration.  The District Court ruled that plaintiff
had to amend the complaint to delete all references to class
members.  The District Court ruled that if plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, the Company defendants could reassert a
motion to compel arbitration and, if the motion were filed, the
claims against the Company defendants would be stayed pending
arbitration.  The District Court also granted the Knight
defendants' motion to dismiss and to strike to the extent of
denying certification of a plaintiff class.  The District Court
ruled that plaintiff had to file an amended complaint that
deleted all references to class members and that cured all
additional defects.  The plaintiff did not file an amended
complaint as required by the District Court.  The defendants
filed renewed motions to dismiss.  The Court then granted the
motions and dismissed the case. The plaintiff did not appeal
within the time allowed.

The suit is styled "Nutek, Inc., et al. v. Ameritrade, Inc., et
al., case no. CV-S-03-0321 - PMP-RJJ," filed in the United
States District Court in Nevada, under Judge Philip M. Pro


BLUE COAT: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Coat Systems, Inc. (formerly CacheFlow, Inc.) asked the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York to grant preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its officers and directors and the firms that underwrote the
Company's initial public offering.

The consolidated suit, styled "In re CacheFlow, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1-01-CV-
5143," alleges that the underwriters obtained excessive and
undisclosed commissions in connection with the allocation of
shares of common stock in the Company's initial public offering,
and maintained artificially high market prices through tie-in
arrangements which required customers to buy shares in the
after-market at pre-determined prices.

The complaints allege that the Company and its current and
former officers and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933, and Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934, by making material false and misleading statements in
the prospectus incorporated in the Company's Form S-1
Registration Statement filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission in November 1999.  Plaintiffs seek an unspecified
amount of damages on behalf of persons who purchased the
Company's stock between November 19, 1999 and December 6, 2000.

A lead plaintiff has been appointed for the consolidated cases
pending in New York.  On April 19, 2002 plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint.   Various plaintiffs have filed similar
actions asserting virtually identical allegations against over
300 other public companies, their underwriters, and their
officers and directors arising out of each company's public
offering. The lawsuits against the Company, along with these
other related securities class actions currently pending in the
Southern District of New York, have been assigned to Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin for coordinated pretrial proceedings and are
collectively captioned "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92."

Defendants in these cases have filed omnibus motions to dismiss.
On February 19, 2003, the Court denied in part and granted in
part the motion to dismiss filed on behalf of defendants,
including the Company.  The Court's order did not dismiss any
claims against the Company.  As a result, discovery may now
proceed.  The Company's officers and directors have been
dismissed without prejudice in this litigation.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement and release of claims
against the issuer defendants, including the Company, was
submitted for preliminary approval by the Court. Under the
settlement, the plaintiffs would dismiss and release all claims
against participating defendants, including the Company, in
exchange for a contingent payment undertaking by the insurance
companies collectively responsible for insuring the issuer
defendants in the coordinated action, and assignment or
surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the issuer
defendants may have against the underwriters.  Pursuant to the
undertaking, the insurers would be required to pay the amount,
if any, by which $1 billion exceeds the total amount ultimately
collected by the plaintiffs from the non-settling defendants in
the coordinated action.  The settlement is subject to a number
of conditions, including certification of a class for settlement
purposes and Court approval.

The suit is styled "In re CacheFlow, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1-01-CV-5143,"
related to "IN re IPO Allocation Securities Litigation, Civil
Action No. 21-MC-92." filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira N.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

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


F5 NETWORKS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
F5 Networks, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, certain of its officers and directors and the
investment banking firms that underwrote the Company's initial
and secondary public offerings.

In July and August 2001, a series of putative securities class
action lawsuits were filed in United States District Court,
Southern District of New York.  These cases, which have been
consolidated under "In re F5 Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 7055," assert that the
registration statements for the Company's June 4, 1999 initial
public offering and September 30, 1999 secondary offering failed
to disclose certain alleged improper actions by the underwriters
for the offerings.

The consolidated, amended complaint alleges claims against the
Company and those of the Company's officers and directors named
in the complaint under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933, and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  Other lawsuits have been filed making
similar allegations regarding the public offerings of more than
300 other companies.  All of these various consolidated cases
have been coordinated for pretrial purposes as "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-
92."

In October 2002, the directors and officers were dismissed
without prejudice.  The issuer defendants filed a coordinated
motion to dismiss these lawsuits in July 2002, which the Court
granted in part and denied in part in an order dated February
19, 2003.  The Court declined to dismiss the Section 11 and
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company.  In
June 2004, a stipulation of settlement for the claims against
the issuer defendants, including the Company, was submitted to
the court.  The settlement is subject to a number of conditions,
including approval by the Court.

The suit is styled "In re F5 Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. 01 CV 7055," related to "IN
re IPO Allocation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-
92." filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

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


GAMESTOP CORPORATION: CA Court Approves Overtime Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Los Angeles County Superior Court in California granted
preliminary approval to the settlement of a class action filed
against Gamestop Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiary
Gamestop, Inc.

On May 29, 2003, former Store Manager Carlos Moreira filed a
class action lawsuit, alleging that GameStop's salaried retail
managers were misclassified as exempt and should have been paid
overtime.  Mr. Moreira is seeking to represent a class of
current and former salaried retail managers who were employed by
GameStop in California at any time between May 29, 1999 and
September 30, 2004.   The suit alleged claims for violation of
California Labor Code sections 203, 226 and 1194 and California
Business and Professions Code section 17200.  The suit is
seeking recovery of unpaid overtime, interest, penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs.

During court-ordered mediation in March 2004, the parties
reached a settlement which, if finally approved by the court,
would define the class of current and former salaried retail
managers and would result in a cost to the Company of
approximately $2,750.  On September 30, 2004, the court granted
preliminary approval of the settlement.  The matter is now in
the claims administration process.  A final hearing on the
fairness of the settlement is set for January 28, 2005.


GE SECURITY: Recalls Smoke 246.8T Alarms For Production Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
GE Security, Inc. is cooperating with the United States Consumer
Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 246,800 smoke
detector systems.  The smoke alarms can fail to activate during
a fire or emergency, if installed in combination with certain
control panels.

The recalled smoke detection systems involve hard-wired S10A ESL
smoke detectors that are incompatible with certain ITI control
panels as well as certain S09A/S10A listed ESL smoke detectors
that may be incompatible with control panels from other
manufacturers. Model numbers are printed on the back of the
smoke detectors. Inside the ITI control panel is a label that
lists the name and model number of the unit.

The following model names and model numbers of ITI control
panels are incompatible when installed with the following model
numbers of ESL smoke detectors: 429C, 429CT, 511C, 521B (when
SW1 is OFF), 521BXT (when SW1 is OFF), 521NB*, 521NBXT*,
521NCSXT, 711U, 711UT, 721U, 721UT

*In addition, the models 521NB and 521NBXT detectors, if
installed in the S09A configuration, may self-adjust to an S10A
configuration. Thus, these two model detectors may not be
compatible with other manufacturer's control panels that are
only S09A compatible.  ITI Control Panel Model Names and Model
Numbers Concord: 60-734-01, 60-801, 60-801-01, 60-792-01-95R-
16Z, 60-792-01-95R-32Z, 60-792-95R-32Z; Advent: 60-562 (-01
through -06), Concord Express: 60-806-95R-16Z, 60-806-95R

Distributors, dealers and installers of security systems sold
these items nationwide from June 2002 through October 2004. The
smoke detectors and the control panels were sold separately as
individual components, and were also sold together as part of a
security system for between $180 and $1,150.

Consumers should contact their system installer or service
provider to arrange for a free repair or replacement to make the
smoke detectors and control panel systems compatible.  For more
information, contact the Company by Phone: (800) 648-7422
between 6 a.m. and 5 p.m. PT Monday through Friday or visit the
firm's Web site: http://www.gesecurity.com/S10ANOTICE


GENESCO INC.: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Genesco, Inc. faces an overtime wage class action filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California, Los Angeles, styled
"Schreiner vs. Genesco Inc., et al."

The suit alleges violations of California wages and hours laws,
and seeking damages of $40 million plus punitive damages.  The
Company has retained counsel and is assessing the allegations in
the complaint, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.


INITIO INC.: SEC Files, Settles Securities Lawsuit V. Former CEO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled civil
action against Martin Fox of Oradell, N.J., charging
manipulation of the common stock of Initio, Inc.  The complaint,
filed in federal district court in New Jersey, alleges that Fox,
the CEO of Initio, manipulated the closing bid price of Initio
common stock to $1.00 or more with the aim of satisfying
NASDAQ's listing requirements for the Small-Cap Market.

Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Fox
consented to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining
him from future violations of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and ordering that he pay a
$25,000 civil penalty.  Fox also agreed to a permanent bar from
serving as an officer or director of a public company.  The
Commission's investigation is continuing.

The suit is styled "U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Martin Fox, Case No. 04-Civ-6296, D. N.J., Martini, J., filed
December 23, 2004.


INRANGE TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inrange Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the shareholder class action filed
against it and certain of its officers.

The consolidated suit seeks recovery of damages caused by
Inrange's alleged violation of securities laws, including
section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of
the Exchange Act of 1934.  The complaint, which was also filed
against the various underwriters that participated in Inrange's
initial public offering (IPO), is identical to hundreds of
shareholder class actions pending in this court in connection
with other recent IPOs and is generally referred to as "In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation."  The complaint
alleges, in essence, that the underwriters combined and
conspired to increase their respective compensation in
connection with the IPO by receiving excessive, undisclosed
commissions in exchange for lucrative allocations of IPO shares,
and trading in Inrange's stock after creating artificially high
prices for the stock post-IPO through "tie-in" or "laddering"
arrangements (whereby recipients of allocations of IPO shares
agreed to purchase shares in the aftermarket for more than the
public offering price for Inrange shares) and dissemination of
misleading market analysis on Inrange's prospects.

The suit further alleged that Inrange violated federal
securities laws by not disclosing these underwriting
arrangements in its prospectus.  The defense has been tendered
to the carriers of Inrange's director and officer liability
insurance, and a request for indemnification has been made to
the various underwriters in the IPO.  At this point the insurers
have issued a reservation of rights letter and the underwriters
have refused indemnification.  The court has granted Inrange's
motion to dismiss claims under section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 because of the absence of a pleading of
intent to defraud.

The court granted plaintiffs leave to replead these claims, but
no further amended complaint has been filed.  The court also
denied Inrange's motion to dismiss claims under section 11 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The court has also dismissed
Inrange's individual officers without prejudice, after they
entered into a tolling agreement with the plaintiffs.  On July
25, 2003, the Company's board of directors conditionally
approved a proposed partial settlement with the plaintiffs in
this matter.

In June 2004, a stipulation of settlement was submitted to the
court for preliminary approval.  The settlement would provide,
among other things, a release of Inrange and of the individual
defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful
in the complaint.  Inrange would agree to undertake other
responsibilities under the partial settlement, including
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims Inrange may have against its underwriters.  Any
direct financial impact of the proposed settlement is expected
to be borne by Inrange's insurers.  The settlement was approved
subject to a number of conditions, including the participation
of a substantial number of other issuer defendants in the
proposed settlement, the consent of Inrange's insurers to the
settlement, and the completion of acceptable final settlement
documentation.  Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a
hearing on fairness and approval by the court overseeing the IPO
litigations.

The suit is styled "In re Inrange Technologies, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation," related to "IN re IPO
Allocation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92."
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

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


MANDALAY RESORT: Appeals Court Upholds Suit Certification Denial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a
lower court ruling denying class certification for the lawsuit
filed against Mandalay Resort Group and other manufacturers,
distributors and casino operators of video poker and electronic
slot machines.

On April 26, 1994, William H. Poulos brought a class action in
the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
Orlando Division captioned "William H. Poulos, et al. v. Caesars
World, Inc. et al."  On May 10, 1994, another plaintiff filed a
class action complaint in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of Florida in "William Ahearn, et al. v.
Caesars World, Inc. et al."  alleging substantially the same
allegations against 48 defendants, including the Company.  On
September 26, 1995, a third action was filed against 45
defendants, including the Company, in the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada in "Larry Schreier, et al. v. Caesars
World, Inc. et al." The court consolidated the three cases in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under the
case captioned "William H. Poulos, et al. v. Caesars World, Inc.
et al."

The consolidated complaints allege that the defendants are
involved in a scheme to induce people to play electronic video
poker and slot machines based on false beliefs regarding how
such machines operate and the extent to which a player is likely
to win on any given play.  The actions included claims under the
Federal Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,
as well as claims of common law fraud, unjust enrichment and
negligent misrepresentation, and seek unspecified compensatory
and punitive damages.

A motion for class certification was filed in March 1998.  On
June 26, 2002, the Motion for Class Certification was denied.
Subsequently, the Plaintiffs sought permission from the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals to appeal the issue of class
certification.  The Court of Appeals granted the Plaintiffs'
motion. On August 10, 2004, the Ninth Circuit entered its order
affirming the district court's denial of the motion for class
certification.  The time period for filing a motion for
rehearing of that ruling has since passed.


MARVELL TECHNOLOGY: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marvell Technology Group, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, certain of its officers and directors
and the underwriters of the Company's June 29,2000 initial
public offering (IPO).

On July 31, 2001, a putative class action suit was filed against
two investment banks that participated in the underwriting of
the Company's IPO.  That lawsuit, which did not name the Company
or any of its officers or directors as defendants, was filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  Plaintiffs allege that the underwriters received
"excessive" and undisclosed commissions and entered into
unlawful "tie-in" agreements with certain of their clients in
violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.

Thereafter, on September 5, 2001, a second putative class action
was filed in the Southern District of New York relating to the
Company's IPO.  In this second action, plaintiffs named three
underwriters as defendants and also named as defendants the
Company and two of its officers, one of whom is also a director.
Relying on many of the same allegations contained in the initial
complaint in which the Company was not named as a defendant,
plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated various
provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

In both actions, plaintiffs seek, among other items, unspecified
damages, pre-judgment interest and reimbursement of attorneys'
and experts' fees.  These two actions relating to the Company's
IPO have been consolidated with hundreds of other lawsuits filed
by plaintiffs against approximately 55 underwriters and
approximately 300 issuers across the United States.  A
consolidated amended class action complaint against the Company
and its two officers was filed on April 19, 2002.  Subsequently,
defendants in the consolidated proceedings moved to dismiss the
actions.

In February 2003, the trial court issued its ruling on the
motions, granting the motions in part, and denying them in part.
Thus, the cases may proceed against the underwriters and the
Company as to alleged violations of section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 and section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  Claims against the individual officers have been
voluntarily dismissed without prejudice by agreement with
plaintiffs.  On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced that a
settlement among plaintiffs, the issuer defendants and their
directors and officers, and their insurers had been structured,
a part of which the insurers for all issuer defendants would
guarantee up to $1 billion to investors who are class members,
depending upon plaintiffs' success against non-settling parties.

The Company's board of directors has approved the proposed
settlement, which will result in the plaintiffs' dismissing the
case against the Company and granting releases that extend to
all of its officers and directors.  Definitive settlement
documentation was completed in early June 2004 and first
presented to the court on June 14, 2004.  A motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement has been filed, briefed
and is pending.

The suit is styled "In re Marvell Technology Group, Inc. Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation," related to "IN re IPO
Allocation Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 21-MC-92."
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira N. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

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

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

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


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. continues to face a class action filed
in the Superior Court of California for the County of Orange,
designated as Case No. 03CC00132.

The suit was brought as a purported class action and alleges
several causes of action, each based on the factual allegation
that in the State of California the Company misclassified its
managers and assistant managers as exempt from the application
of certain California labor statutes.  Because of this alleged
misclassification, the suit alleges that the Company failed to
pay overtime compensation and provide the required rest periods
to such employees.  The suit seeks, among other things,
declaratory and injunctive relief along with an accounting as to
alleged wages, premium pay, penalties, interest and restitution
allegedly due the class defendants.


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in CA State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Men's Wearhouse, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles,
designated as Case No. BC313038, alleging two causes of action,
each based on the factual allegation that the Company requests
or requires, in conjunction with a customer's use of his or her
credit card, the customer to provide personal identification
information which is recorded upon the credit card transaction
form.

The Suit seeks:

     (1) civil penalties pursuant to the California Civil Code;

     (2) an order enjoining the Company from requesting or
         requiring that a customer provide personal
         identification information which is then recorded on
         the transaction form;

     (3) permanent and preliminary injunctions against the
         Company requesting or requiring that a customer provide
         personal identification information which is then
         recorded on the transaction form;

     (4) restitution of all funds allegedly acquired by means of
         any act or practice declared by the Court to be
         unlawful or fraudulent or to constitute a violation of
         the California Business and Professions Code;

     (5) attorney's fees; and

     (6) costs of suit

The Court has not yet decided whether the action may proceed as
a class action.  The court has determined that the claim for
restitution may not proceed.


ONI SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
ONI Systems Corporation asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, Hugh C. Martin, its former chairman,
president and chief executive officer; Chris A. Davis, its
former executive vice president, chief financial officer and
administrative officer; and certain underwriters of its initial
public offering.

The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that the
underwriter defendants violated the securities laws by failing
to disclose alleged compensation arrangements (such as
undisclosed commissions or stock stabilization practices) in the
initial public offering's registration statement and by engaging
in manipulative practices to artificially inflate the price of
the Company's common stock after the initial public offering.
The amended complaint also alleges that ONI and the named former
officers violated the securities laws on the basis of an alleged
failure to disclose the underwriters' alleged compensation
arrangements and manipulative practices.  No specific amount of
damages has been claimed.

Similar complaints have been filed against more than 300 other
issuers that have had initial public offerings since 1998, and
all of these actions have been included in a single coordinated
proceeding.  Mr. Martin and Ms. Davis have been dismissed from
the action without prejudice pursuant to a tolling agreement.

In July 2004, following mediated settlement negotiations, the
plaintiffs, the issuer defendants (including the Company), and
their insurers entered into a settlement agreement, whereby the
plaintiffs' cases against the issuers are to be dismissed. This
settlement is subject to court approval and will not require the
Company to pay any fees or other amounts.  The settling parties
have moved the court for approval of the settlement, which
motion has been opposed by the underwriter defendants.


ROBOTIC VISION: SEC Files Administrative Proceedings V. Ex-CFO
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e)
of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against CA Frank D. Edwards,
the former CFO of Robotic Vision Systems, Inc., of Nashua, New
Hampshire.

On November 18, 2004, the Commission filed a complaint against
Mr. Edwards in SEC v. Baker, et. al., Civil Action No. 04-12444-
DPW.  According to the Commission's complaint, between December
1999 and September 2000, Robotic entered into approximately 36
purported sales to its distributors and customers that deferred,
conditioned or even negated their obligation to pay for the
products, and which resulted in the company improperly
recognizing approximately $4.74 million in revenue.

The Commission's complaint further alleged that Edwards
participated in the preparation of Robotic's financial
statements and knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the
financial statements contained materially false or misleading
revenue figures arising out of the ACIM transactions with non-
standard terms.  The Commission's complaint also alleged that
Edwards failed to disclose to Robotic's auditors relevant
information about the transactions with non-standard terms, and
that Edwards violated or aided and abetted violations of the
books and records and internal control provisions of the
Exchange Act.

On November 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts entered a judgment against Edwards enjoining
him from, among other things, violating the antifraud, internal
controls and books and records provisions of the federal
securities laws.  Based on the entry of the injunction, the
Order suspended Edwards from appearing or practicing before the
Commission as an accountant, with a right to apply for
reinstatement after five years from the date of the Order.
Edwards consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting
or denying any of the findings in the Order.


ROBOTIC VISIONS: Ex-Controller Faces Administrative Proceedings
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission issued an Order
Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Rule 102(e)
of the Commission's Rules of Practice, Making Findings, and
Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against CPA Laurence D.
Cohen, the former Corporate Controller of Robotic Vision
Systems, Inc., of Nashua, New Hampshire.

On November 19, 2004, the Commission filed a complaint against
Cohen in SEC v. Baker, et al., Civil Action No. 04-12444-DPW.
According to the Commission's complaint, between December 1999
and September 2000, Robotic entered into approximately 36
purported sales to its distributors and customers that deferred,
conditioned or even negated their obligation to pay for the
products, and which resulted in the company improperly
recognizing approximately $4.74 million in revenue.

The Commission's complaint further alleged that Cohen
participated in the preparation of Robotic's financial
statements and knew, or was reckless in not knowing, that the
financial statements contained materially false or misleading
revenue figures arising out of the ACIM transactions with non-
standard terms.  The Commission's complaint also alleged that
Cohen failed to disclose to Robotic's auditors relevant
information about the transactions with non-standard terms, and
that Cohen violated or aided and abetted violations of the books
and records and internal control provisions of the Exchange Act.

On November 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts entered a judgment against Cohen enjoining him
from, among other things, violating the antifraud, internal
controls and books and records provisions of the federal
securities laws.  Based on the entry of the injunction, the
Order suspended Cohen from appearing or practicing before the
Commission as an accountant, with a right to apply for
reinstatement after five years from the date of the Order.
Cohen consented to the issuance of the Order without admitting
or denying any of the findings in the Order.


STARWAY INC.: Recalls Dried Vegetables For Undeclared Sulfites
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starway Incorporated, located at 137 Grattan Street, Brooklyn,
NY 11237, is recalling Red Diamond brand Dried Chinese Vegetable
because the product contains undeclared sulfites. People who
have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.

The recalled Red Diamond brand Dried Chinese Vegetable, a
product of China, is distributed in uncoded and heat-sealed 3
oz. plastic bags. The product was distributed nationwide.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by NYS Dept. of
Agriculture & Markets Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of
the product by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the presence
of undeclared sulfites in Red Diamond brand Dried Chinese
Vegetable in packages which did not declare sulfites on the
label. The consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving
has been reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

Consumers who have purchased the packages of Red Diamond brand
Dried Chinese Vegetable should return it to the place of
purchase. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
718-417-1788.


WET SEAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in C.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Wet Seal, Inc. faces six securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between January 7, 2003 and August 19, 2004.  The
suits also name certain present and former executives of the
Company as defendants.

The complaints allege violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 of the Exchange Act, on the
grounds that, among other things, the Company failed to disclose
and misrepresented material adverse facts, which were known to
the defendants or disregarded by them.

On November 17, 2004, the Court consolidated the actions and
appointed lead plaintiffs and counsel.  Pursuant to stipulations
with plaintiffs' counsel, the lead plaintiffs have until January
18, 2005 to file a consolidated amended complaint that will
become the operative pleading in the case.  The Company will
then have 60 days after receipt of the amended complaint to file
a formal response with the Court.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP, 1055 West Seventh Street, Suite
         2800, Los Angeles, CA, 90017, Phone: 213-955-9500, Fax:
         213-955-9511, E-mail: info@lrklawyers.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Boca Raton), The
         Plaza - 5355 Town Center Road, Suite 900, Boca Raton,
         FL, 33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400, E-
         mail: info@milbergweiss.com

     (3) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles), 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071,
         Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185,
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (5) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

     (6) Robbins Umeda & Fink, LLP, 1010 Second Avenue, Suite
         2360, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone: 800-350-6003, E0-
         mail: info@ruflaw.com

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


WHITEHALL JEWELLERS: IL Court Briefs Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois has finished briefing on Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.'s
motion to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed
against it and certain of its current and former officers.

On February 12, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund, et al.
v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al., Case No. 04 C 1107," was
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois against the Company and certain of the Company's
current and former officers.  The complaint makes reference to
the litigation filed by Capital Factors and to the Company's
November 21, 2003 announcement that it had discovered violations
of Company policy by the Company's Executive Vice President,
Merchandising, with respect to Company documentation regarding
the age of certain store inventory.  The complaint further makes
reference to the Company's December 22, 2003 announcement that
it would restate results for certain prior periods.

The complaint purports to allege that the Company and its
officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue and inventory during the putative class
period of November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003.  The complaint
purports to allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("1934 Act") and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

On February 18, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Michael Radigan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1196," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers,
charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue and inventory during the
putative class period of November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003.
The factual allegations of this complaint are similar to those
made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund
complaint above.

On February 20, 2004, a putative class action complaint
captioned "Milton Pfeiffer, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc.
et al., Case No. 04 C 1285," was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the Company
and certain of the Company's current and former officers,
charging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the
Company and its officers made false and misleading statements
and falsely accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory,
and vendor allowances during the putative class period of
November 19, 2001 to December 10, 2003.  The factual allegations
of this complaint are similar to those made in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund complaint above.

On April 6, 2004, the District Court in the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters case, No. 04 C 1107 consolidated the Pfeiffer and
Radigan complaints with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
action, and dismissed the Radigan and Pfeiffer actions as
separate actions.  On April 14, 2004, the court granted the
plaintiffs up to 60 days to file an amended consolidated
complaint.  The Court also designated the Greater Pennsylvania
Carpenters Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the action and
designated Greater Pennsylvania's counsel as lead counsel.

On June 10, 2004, a putative class action complaint captioned
"Joshua Kaplan, et al., v. Whitehall Jewellers, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 04 C 3971," was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against the Company and
certain of the Company's current and former officers, charging
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and alleging that the Company and
its officers made false and misleading statements and falsely
accounted for revenue, accounts payable, inventory, and vendor
allowances during the putative class period of November 19, 2001
to December 10, 2003.  The factual allegations of this complaint
are similar to those made in the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund complaint above.

On June 14, 2004, lead plaintiff Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters
Pension Fund in Case No. 04C 1107 filed a consolidated amended
complaint.  On July 14, 2004, the District Court in the Greater
Pennsylvania Carpenters action consolidated the Kaplan complaint
with the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters action, and dismissed
the Kaplan action as a separate action.  On August 2, 2004,
Whitehall filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint.  No ruling on the motion to dismiss has yet been
received.


ZILA CORPORATION: Named As Defendant in AZ Zicam Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zila Corporation was named as one of the defendants in a class
action filed against Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. in the Superior
Court of the State of Arizona for Maricopa County, over its
Zicam Cold Remedy Product.  The suit also names as defendants
several other manufacturers and retailers, including Zila Swab
Technologies, Inc., dba Innovative Swab Technologies (IST).

The lawsuit alleges that the Zicam Cold Remedy Product
manufactured by Matrixx Initiatives, Inc., a former customer of
IST, caused damage to the sense of smell and/or taste of the
plaintiffs.  Other defendants in the lawsuit include
manufacturers and retailers.  IST had produced swabs and
containers for the Zicam Cold Remedy Product for a limited
period ending in March 2004.



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California, and in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Charlotte Russe
Holding Inc. (NasdaqNM: CHIC) between January 22, 2004 and
December 6, 2004 (the "Class Period"), including all persons who
acquired shares in the April 20, 2004 equity offering.

The Complaint alleges that Charlotte Russe violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically the complaint alleges that the
Charlotte Russe's statement were false or misleading because it
failed to disclose that the fact that the strategic
repositioning of Rampage stores was failing to produce tangible
results and because other measures, promoted by management as
actions designed to improve operations, were proving futile in
both merchandising and store organizations. On September 9,
2004, Charlotte Russe revised its financial guidance for the
quarter ending September 25, 2004. On this news, Charlotte Russe
shares fell from a close of $14.63 per share on September 8,
2004, to close at $11.20 per share on September 9, 2004. On
December 6, 2004, Charlotte Russe Executive Vice President Donna
Desrosiers resigned and Charlotte Russe forecasted a decline in
comparable store sales for the quarter ending December 25, 2004.
On this bad news, Charlotte Russe fell from a close of $10.91
per share on December 5, 2004, to close at $10.09 per share on
December 6, 2004.

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


CHARLOTTE RUSE: Schatz & Nobel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of
Charlotte Russe Holding Inc. (NasdaqNM: CHIC) ("Charlotte
Russe") between January 22, 2004 and December 6, 2004 (the
"Class Period"), including all persons who acquired shares in
the April 20, 2004 equity offering.

The Complaint alleges that Charlotte Russe violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically the complaint alleges that the
Charlotte Russe's statement were false or misleading because it
failed to disclose that the fact that the strategic
repositioning of Rampage stores was failing to produce tangible
results and because other measures, promoted by management as
actions designed to improve operations, were proving futile in
both merchandising and store organizations. On September 9,
2004, Charlotte Russe revised its financial guidance for the
quarter ending September 25, 2004. On this news, Charlotte Russe
shares fell from a close of $14.63 per share on September 8,
2004, to close at $11.20 per share on September 9, 2004. On
December 6, 2004, Charlotte Russe Executive Vice President Donna
Desrosiers resigned and Charlotte Russe forecasted a decline in
comparable store sales for the quarter ending December 25, 2004.
On this bad news, Charlotte Russe fell from a close of $10.91
per share on December 5, 2004, to close at $10.09 per share on
December 6, 2004.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased the publicly
traded securities of Conexant Systems, Inc. (NasdaqNM: CNXT)
between March 1, 2004 and November 4, 2004 (the "Class Period"),
including all former holders of GlobespanVirata, Inc.
("Globespan") who acquired Conexant shares in the merger
completed March 1, 2004.

The complaint alleges that Conexant violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading statements concerning its
integration with Globespan. Specifically, the complaint alleges
that Conexant repeatedly stated that the integration was
successful when in fact there were significant problems with
respect to the combined companies' parallel DSL and wireless
technology offerings, as well as their sales and administration
functions. The complaint alleges that Conexant issued false and
misleading statements when it claimed that its wireless LAN
("WLAN") business was experiencing reduced growth due to
competition from Taiwan-based chip suppliers when, in fact, the
problem was actually caused by the combined companies' WLAN
business not being properly integrated in the merger.

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 from a close of
$1.76 on November 4, 2004, to close at $1.60 on November 5,
2004.

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


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Conexant Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: CNXT) ("Conexant" or the
"Company") between March 1, 2004 and November 4, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Conexant, Dwight W. Decker, and Armando
Geday with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the merger between Conexant and GlobespanVirata
         was plagued by integration problems;

     (2) that the performance of the Company's WLAN unit, the
         top producer of WLAN chips, was being materially
         impacted by the GlobespanVirata merger rather than a
         merely difficult market;

     (3) that the integration issues with the merger caused the
         Company to experience diminished revenue streams as
         demand for products diminished;

     (4) that Conexant remained vulnerable to the effects of
         weak bargaining power, commoditization and pricing
         pressures across most of its product portfolio, despite
         the company's continuing efforts to achieve
         differentiation based on product features and
         functionalities in several main target markets; and

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

On July 6, 2004, Conexant announced that it expected revenues
for its third fiscal quarter, which ended July 2, 2004, to be
lower than anticipated due primarily to weakness in its wireless
local area network ("WLAN") business. The news shocked the
market. Shares of Conexant fell $1.77 per share, or 43.38
percent, on July 6, 2004, to close at $2.31 per share. On
November 4, 2004, Conexant released its financial and
operational results for the fourth quarter ended October 1,
2004. Fourth fiscal quarter 2004 revenues of $213.1 million
decreased 20 percent from the third fiscal quarter revenues of
$267.6 million. This announcement sent shares of Conexant
tumbling $0.16 per share, or 9.09 percent on November 5, 2004,
to close at $1.60 per share.

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


GEOPHARMA INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of GeoPharma Inc.
(NASDAQ: GORX) common stock during the period between December
1, 2004 and December 2, 2004 (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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


GEOPHARMA, INC.: Vianale & Vianale Lodges Securities Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Vianale & Vianale LLP commenced a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in a Tampa, Florida federal court on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of GeoPharma, Inc.
("GeoPharma") (NASDAQ: GORX) between July 13, 2004 to December
2, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On July 13,
2004, before the market opened for trading, GeoPharma and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc., issued a
press release reporting that GeoPharma had met with success in a
clinical study of its drug, MF5232, later named "Mucotrol," in
treating patients with mucositis. Mucositis is an inflammation
of the mucosa of the mouth that develops in cancer patients
receiving radiation therapy and some patients with HIV/AIDS. In
the press release, GeoPharma's President, Dr. Kotha Sekharam,
described Mucotrol (which he invented), as a "drug." The stock
rose 13% on the news and closed on July 13, 2004 at $5.44.

On December 1, 2004, GeoPharma announced in a press release that
its subsidiary, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc., had received FDA
approval for its "prescripition drug," Mucotrol. GeoPharma
estimated that sales to the U.S. oncology market for Mucotrol
could reach $75 million to $300 million per year. GeoPharma
stock rose to $11.25, or 153%, on the news. On December 2, 2004,
however, financial reporters learned after questioning the
Company that Mucotrol was not a "drug" at all, but a device,
making it far less attractive to market than a new drug.
GeoPharma's claim that it had obtained FDA approval of Mucotrol
was also untrue, as well as GeoPharma's announcement of
potential annual U.S. sales of $75 million to $300 million.
GeoPharma recanted its claim that Mucotrol was a drug in a
December 2, 2004 press release. GeoPharma's stock price dropped
from $11.25 to $6.81, on inordinate volume of 42 million shares
traded.

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


GEOPHARMA INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Files Stock Lawsuit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP filed a securities
class action in the United States District Court, Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased the securities of GeoPharma on December 1, 2004 to
December 2, 2004 against GeoPharma, Inc. (Nasdaq:GORX) and two
of the Company's senior officers.

According to the complaint, the Company and certain of its top
officials issued material misstatements about FDA approval of
Mucotrol, a product which is manufactured by the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc., which
manufactures both prescription and over-the-counter drugs. In a
press release issued on December 1, 2004, the Company and its
top officials created the impression that the Federal Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") had approved Mucotrol for marketing
in this country as a prescription drug.

At this announcement, GeoPharma's stock jumped up 153% to $11.25
per share. The volume of shares traded was extraordinary -- 42
million shares, for a stock whose average daily volume was
22,000. In the afternoon of December 1, 2004, the stock price
dropped and trading was halted at $6.81, after it was disclosed
that the FDA had told the press that it had no record of
Mucotrol.

The FDA later stated that it had cleared Mucotrol for marketing
but only as a device, not a prescription drug. Apparently, this
approval was granted because of Mucotrol's similarity with a
product already on the market. On December 2, 2004, in a
conference call with investors after the close of the markets,
the defendants finally acknowledged that Mucotrol was a device,
not a prescription drug. On this disclosure, the Company's stock
fell as low as $5.37 on December 3, 2004.

The complaint alleges that GeoPharma and the Company's Chief
Executive Officer, Secretary and director, Mihir K. Taneja, and
Kotha Sekharam, President, principal spokesman and director of
the company, were privy to non-public information concerning the
Company's business, finances, products, markets and present and
future business prospects through their access to internal
corporate documents, conversations with and reports from other
corporate officers and employees, and attendance at management
and Board of Directors meetings and committees thereof. These
defendants knew or but for their recklessness would have known
that Mucotrol had been approved by the FDA as a device, not a
drug.

GeoPharma manufactures, packages and/or distributes private
label dietary supplements, overt-the-counter ("OTC") drugs,
pharmaceuticals and health and beauty care products for
companies under two related entitles: Innovative Health
Products, Inc. and Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Innovative
Health Products specializes in the development and manufacture
of nutritional supplements. According to the Company, Belcher
Pharmaceuticals is a FDA-registered drug development and
manufacturing facility for generic and OTC drugs. On May 18,
2004, the Company changed its name from Innovative Companies,
Inc., to GeoPharma, Inc.

For more details, contact Teresa Webb of Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP, by Phone: (888) 476.6529 or (888) 4.POMLAW
by E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com


GEOPHARMA INC.: Shalov Stone Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shalov Stone & Bonner LLP commenced a securities
fraud class action lawsuit on December 20, 2004, in Tampa,
Florida federal court on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of GeoPharma, Inc. ("GeoPharma") (NasdaqSC: GORX) between July
13, 2004 to December 2, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On July 13,
2004, before the market opened for trading, GeoPharma and its
wholly-owned subsidiary, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc., issued a
press release reporting that GeoPharma had met with success in a
clinical study of its drug, MF5232, later named "Mucotrol," in
treating patients with mucositis. Mucositis is an inflammation
of the mucosa of the mouth that develops in cancer patients
receiving radiation therapy and some patients with HIV/AIDS. In
the press release, GeoPharma's President, Dr. Kotha Sekharam,
described Mucotrol (which he invented), as a "drug." The stock
rose 13% on the news and closed on July 13, 2004 at $5.44.

On December 1, 2004, GeoPharma announced in a press release that
its subsidiary, Belcher Pharmaceuticals, Inc., had received FDA
approval for its "prescripition drug," Mucotrol. GeoPharma
estimated that sales to the U.S. oncology market for Mucotrol
could reach $75 million to $300 million per year. GeoPharma
stock rose to $11.25, or 153%, on the news. On December 2, 2004,
however, financial reporters learned after questioning the
Company that Mucotrol was not a "drug" at all, but a device,
making it far less attractive to market than a new drug.
GeoPharma's claim that it had obtained FDA approval of Mucotrol
was also untrue, as well as GeoPharma's announcement of
potential annual U.S. sales of $75 million to $300 million.
GeoPharma recanted its claim that Mucotrol was a drug in a
December 2, 2004 press release. GeoPharma's stock price dropped
from $11.25 to $6.81, on inordinate volume of 42 million shares
traded.

For more details, contact Lee S. Shalov, Esq. of Shalov Stone &
Bonner LLP by Mail: 485 Seventh Ave., Suite 1000, New York, NY
10018 by Phone: (212) 239-4340 or by E-mail: LShalov@lawssb.com.


PFIZER INC.: Emerson Poynter Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter, LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders
who purchased or otherwise acquired Pfizer, Inc ("Pfizer" or the
"Company") (NYSE:PFE) securities between November 1, 2000 and
December 16, 2004. In addition, Emerson Poynter LLP has
initiated an investigation into possible violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

The securities class action complaint alleges that defendants
misrepresented and omitted material facts about the safety and
marketability of Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra products. In fact,
on November 4, 2004, the Calgary Herald reported that,
"Celebrex, which was touted as a safe alternative pain drug
after Vioxx was pulled from the market, is suspected of causing
at least 14 deaths and numerous heart and brain side effects."
The New York Times also reported that a study revealed that
"...incidents of heart attacks and strokes among patients given
Pfizer's painkiller Bextra was more than double that of those
given placebos. Then, prior to the stock market opening on
December 17, 2004, Pfizer revealed that in a recent trial,
"patients taking 400mg and 800mg of Celebrex daily had an
approximately 2.5 fold increase in their risk of experiencing a
major or not-fatal cardiovascular event compared with those
patients taking placebos."

Yesterday, according to the Company's website, Pfizer
voluntarily pulled its Celebrex ads from all media after the
safety of the product came under question. The price of Pfizer's
shares dropped precipitously all day in response to this news.

For more details, contact Michelle Raggio, Charles Gastineau or
Tanya Autry of Emerson Poynter LLP by Phone: (800) 663-9817 by
E-mail: epllp@emersonpoynter.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.emersonpoynter.com.


ROYAL GROUP: Murray Frank Commences Securities Suit in S.D. NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP filed a securities class action
lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired the securities of Royal Group Technologies (NYSE:RYG)
between February 11, 1999 and October 13, 2004, inclusive in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.

The complaint alleges that defendants caused Royal Group's
shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the
issuance of false and misleading financial statements. The
statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants knew, but failed to disclose the following:

     (1) that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme and/or
         conspiracy whereby defendants used false invoices to
         steal money from the Company and defraud shareholders;

     (2) that the defendant's use of false invoices caused the
         Company to overstate inventory and allowed defendants
         to delay writedowns on these assets in order to
         maintain purportedly strong earnings results;

     (3) that defendants falsely portrayed that the Company's
         U.S. window business was strong;

     (4) that the Company materially overstated its financial
         results during the Class Period; and

     (5) that as consequence of the above, the defendants'
         projection for fiscal year 2003-2004 were materially
         overstated and were lacking an any reasonable basis
         when made.

On October 15, 2004, Royal Group disclosed the first Royal
Canadian Mounted Police production order for three Royal Group
current or former executives who faced allegations of defrauding
shareholders and creditors. The court documents named company
founder, controlling shareholder and non-executive chairman Vic
De Zen, former CFO Gary Brown and then current President and CEO
Douglas Dunsmuir. The investigation relates to allegations that
De Zen, Brown and Dunsmuir violated sections of the Criminal
Code for fraud and conspiracy by circulating or publishing a
prospectus or statement or account which they knew was false,
for a period between January 1996 and July 2004. The news
shocked the market. Shares of Royal Group fell $1.12 per share,
or 12.49 percent, on October 18, 2004, to close at $7.85 per
share.

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

                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Se¤orin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *