CAR_Public/041230.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Thursday, December 30, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 257


                            Headlines

3C PATENT: LG Electronics Added As Defendant To Antitrust Suit
AA IMPORTER: Recalls 5,200 Children's Toys Due To Choking Hazard
ACRES GAMING: Plaintiffs File Third Amended NV Shareholder Suit
ALLOY INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
ALLOY INC.: NY Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement

AVAYA INC.: Deadline Passes For Filing Claims in Consumer Suit
BEA SYSTEMS: Shareholders Launch Consolidated Fraud Suit in CA
BETA ASSET: IL Court Issues TRO Over Fraudulent Ponzi Scheme
CSK AUTO: Former Employee Commences Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
FINISAR CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement

INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court Upholds NV Suit Certification Denial
INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated Lawsuit in CA
INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Consumer Fraud Suit
NEIGHBORCARE INC.: Shareholders Sue Over Omnicare Inc. Proposal
OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in CA

PFIZER INC.: Shareholders Show Interest in Filing ERISA Lawsuit
SANTA BARBARA: Discovery Proceeds in CA Consumer Loans Lawsuit
SANTA BARBARA: Asks Court To Nix Refund Anticipation Loans Suit
SEMPRA ENERGY: $24B Antitrust Suit Rumbles Ahead Despite Appeal
SKILLSOFT PUBLIC: NH Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement

SKILLSOFT PUBLIC: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
SMITH & WESSON: High Court Orders Dismissal of IL Handgun Suit
TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Consumers Sue Over Internet Service
TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Pact
TIVO INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement

WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC.: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

ACE LTD.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in PA, NY
CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in NJ
DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Mark Henzel Begins Securities Fraud Suit

PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Murray Frank Lodges MA Securities Suit

                          *********


3C PATENT: LG Electronics Added As Defendant To Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Handal & Associates filed an amendment to its national class
action lawsuit against the 3C Patent Group consisting of Sony
Corporation (NYSE: SNE) Philips Electronics (NYSE: PHG) and
Pioneer Corporation (NYSE: PIO), adding LG Electronics of South
Korea (066570.KS) as a defendant and several new claims related
to antitrust activities.  LG became the fourth member of the 3C
Group in 2002 by adding patents from its portfolio to the 3C DVD
Group.

The amended complaint states seven causes of action against the
members of the 3C DVD Patent Group including: Price Fixing,
Unlawful Tying, Group Boycott and Conspiracy to Monopolize in
violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act; a request for
a judicial declaration that the patents in the 3C DVD Patent
pool are invalid; and two claims for violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law.

"We see these violations of the law as a concerted effort to
control the DVD player market resulting in higher prices and
fewer products," stated Anton Handal, lead attorney, in a
statement.  "It is the consumer that ultimately ends up paying
for these unlawful acts and 3C must change its philosophy away
from licensing manufacturers."

The Plaintiffs, Wuxi Multimedia, and Orient Power (Wuxi) Digital
Technology Ltd are Chinese based manufactures of DVD products
and have been adversely affected by the acts of the 3D Patent
Pool. Wuxi Multimedia having been refused a license seeks a
Judicial Declaration that all of the patents in the 3C pool are
invalid under the doctrine of patent misuse. Orient Power (Wuxi)
Digital Technology Ltd, currently a 3C DVD Patent Pool licensee,
is seeking a refund, on behalf of itself and all other companies
in the class, of all DVD player royalties collected by the 3C
DVD group. The Plaintiffs seek a tripling of the damage as
allowed under the law.

For more details, visit the Website:
http://www.handal-litigation.com.


AA IMPORTER: Recalls 5,200 Children's Toys Due To Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
AA Importer, Inc. is cooperating with the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling 5,200 Push Along
Frog, Animal Organ, and Rock & Roll Kids Guitar Toys.  The toys
can easily break apart, exposing small parts.  This poses a
choking hazard to young children.

The recall includes three toys: Push Along Frogs, Animal Organs,
and Rock & Roll Kids Guitars.  The Push Along Frog toy has a
9.5-inch green plastic frog attached to a 15-inch, red plastic
handle.  A sticker on the front of the toy reads "Push Along
Forg" (sic).  The electronic Animal Organ comes in four
different styles, all about 11-inches long.  The style number,
written on the back of the toy begins with "666."  The
electronic guitars are about 14-inches long and have various
colored buttons.  "ROCK & ROLL KIDS" is written on stickers on
the front.  "MADE IN CHINA" is written on all three toys.

The items were sold at swap meets and flea markets in the Los
Angeles area from July 2003 through October 2004 for about $3.
For more details, contact AA Importer Inc. by Phone: toll-free
(866) 879-4667 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday.


ACRES GAMING: Plaintiffs File Third Amended NV Shareholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a third amended class action against Acres
Gaming, Inc. and its directors in the Clark County, Nevada,
District Court, styled "Paul Miller v. Acres Gaming
Incorporated, et al., (Case No.470016)."

The complaint alleged that Acres directors breached their
fiduciary duties to their stockholders in connection with the
approval of the merger transaction between Acres and
International Game Technology and sought to enjoin and/or void
the merger agreement among other forms of relief.

On September 19, 2003, the Court denied plaintiff's motion for a
temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent Acres stockholders
from voting on the merger.  On September 24, 2003, plaintiff
petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court to vacate the denial of the
TRO and to enjoin Acres from holding its stockholder vote on the
merger.  The Nevada Supreme Court denied the petition on
September 25, 2003.  The plaintiff's action also seeks damages.

On December 23, 2003, defendants filed a motion to dismiss
plaintiff's second amended complaint for failure to state a
claim on which relief may be granted.  On April 29, 2004, the
Court issued a ruling denying defendant's motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint.  On May 12, 2004 the State Court
issued an order denying defendants motion to dismiss.


ALLOY INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alloy, 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 and:

     (1) James K. Johnson, Jr.,

     (2) Matthew C. Diamond,

     (3) BancBoston Robertson Stephens,

     (4) Volpe Brown Whelan and Company,

     (5) Dain Rauscher Wessel and

     (6) Landenburg Thalmann & Co., Inc.

The complaint purportedly was filed on behalf of persons
purchasing Company stock between May 14, 1999 and December 6,
2000 and alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiff filed an amended complaint against
the Company, the individual defendants and the underwriters of
the Company's initial public offering.  The amended complaint
asserted violations of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and
mirrored allegations asserted against scores of other issuers
sued by plaintiffs' counsel.

Pursuant to an omnibus agreement negotiated with representatives
of the plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. Diamond and Mr. Johnson were
dismissed from the litigation without prejudice.  In accordance
with the Court's case management instructions, the Company
joined in a global motion to dismiss the amended complaint which
was filed by the issuers' liaison counsel.  By opinion and order
dated February 19, 2003, the District Court denied in part and
granted in part the global motion to dismiss.  With respect to
the Company, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b) claim and let
the plaintiffs proceed on the Section 11 claim.  The Company is
represented by Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, PC
in this matter.

The Company participated in Court-ordered mediation with the
other issuer defendants, the issuers' insurers and plaintiffs to
explore whether a global resolution of the claims against the
issuers could be reached.  In June 2004, as a result of the
mediation, a Settlement Agreement was executed on behalf of
issuers (including the Company), insurers and plaintiffs and
submitted to the Court.  Any definitive settlement, however,
will require final approval by the Court after notice to all
class members and a fairness hearing. If such approval is
obtained, all claims against the Company and the individual
defendants will be dismissed with prejudice.

The suit is styled "In re Alloy Online, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, case no. 01 Civ. 9742," filed in
relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas),"
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York, under Judge Shira A. 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

Representing the Company is Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky
and Popeo, P.C., Chrysler Center, 666 Third Avenue, New York, NY
10017, Phone: 212/935-3000, Fax: 212/983-3115.


ALLOY INC.: NY Court Approves Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York approved the settlement of the consolidated securities
class action filed against Alloy, Inc. and:

     (1) James K. Johnson, Jr.,

     (2) Matthew C. Diamond,

     (3) Samuel A. Gradess

On March 8, 2003, several putative class action complaints were
filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between August 1, 2002 and January 23, 2003, and, among
other things, allege violations of Section 10(b) and Section
20(a) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder
stemming from a series of allegedly false and misleading
statements made by the Company to the market between August 1,
2002 and January 23, 2003. At a conference held on May 30, 2003,
the Court consolidated the actions.

On August 5, 2003, Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action
complaint naming the same defendants, which supersedes the
initial complaint.  Relying in part on information allegedly
obtained from former employees, the Consolidated Complaint
alleges, among other things, misrepresentations of our business
and financial condition and the results of operations during the
period from March 16, 2001 through January 23, 2003, which
artificially inflated the price of the Company's stock,
including without limitation, improper acceleration of revenue,
misrepresentation of expense treatment, failure to properly
account for and disclose consignment transactions, and improper
deferral of expense recognition.  The Consolidated Complaint
further alleges that during the class period the individual
defendants and the Company sold stock and completed acquisitions
using the Company's stock.

The parties have entered into a stipulation providing for the
settlement of the claims against all defendants including the
Company, for $6.75 million.  That amount, which was paid by the
Company's insurers, is being held in escrow pending entry of an
order and judgment following a hearing on the fairness of the
proposed settlement.  That hearing took place on November 5,
2004 and the District Court approved the stipulation and
settlement and ordered that the class action litigation be
dismissed with prejudice on December 2, 2004.

The suit is styled "Plunkett v. Alloy Inc., et al., Case No.
1:03-cv-02422-WHP," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William H.
Pauley III.

Lawyer for the plaintiff is Gustavo Bruckner of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY
10017, Phone: (212) 545-4600.  Lawyers for the defendants are
Roy L. Regozin and Howard G. Sloane of Cahill, Gordon & Reindel,
L.L.P., 80 Pine Street, New York, NY 10005, Phone:
(212) 701-3000, E-mail: rregozin@cahill.com or
PSloane@Cahill.com


AVAYA INC.: Deadline Passes For Filing Claims in Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The time period for filing claims in the settlement of the class
action filed against Avaya, Inc. and its former parent Lucent
Technologies, Inc. expired in October 2004.

Three separate purported class action lawsuits were initially
filed against Lucent, one in state Court in West Virginia, one
in federal Court in the Southern District of New York and
another in federal Court in the Southern District of California.
The case in New York was filed in January 1999 and, after being
dismissed, was re-filed in September2000.  The case in West
Virginia was filed in April 1999 and the case in California was
filed in June 1999, and amended in 2000 to include the Company
as a defendant.  The Company has assumed Lucent's obligations
for all of these cases under their Contribution and Distribution
Agreement.

All three actions are based upon claims that Lucent sold
products that were not Year 2000 compliant, meaning that the
products were designed and developed without considering the
possible impact of the change in the calendar from December 31,
1999 to January 1, 2000.  The complaints allege that the sale of
these products violated statutory consumer protection laws and
constituted breaches of implied warranties.

A class was certified in the West Virginia state Court matter.
The certified class in the West Virginia matter includes those
persons or entities that purchased, leased or financed the
products in question.  In addition, the Court also certified as
a subclass all class members who had service protection plans or
other service or extended warranty contracts with Lucent in
effect as of April 1, 1998, as to which Lucent failed to offer a
free Year 2000-compliant solution.

The federal Court in the New York action has issued a decision
and order denying class certification, dismissing all but
certain fraud claims by one representative plaintiff.  No class
claims remain in this case at this time.

The federal Court in the California action also issued an
opinion and order granting class certification.  The class
includes any entities that purchased or leased certain products
on or after January1, 1990, excluding those entities who did not
have a New Jersey choice of law provision in their contracts and
those who did not purchase equipment directly from defendants.
The federal Court in the California action issued an order
staying the action pending the outcome of the West Virginia
matter.

In May 2004, the Company entered into a settlement agreement
with the plaintiffs in all of the actions.  Under the general
terms of the agreement, eligible class members who acquired
certain products between 1990 and 1999 may receive credits up to
$110 million or a cash alternative.  The credits are valid for a
three-year period and can be applied toward a 45 percent
discount on purchases of new Avaya products and/or a 30 percent
discount on Avaya maintenance services. Alternatively, eligible
class members may receive a one-time cash payment equal to 25
percent of the credits to which they may be entitled.

The state Court in West Virginia approved the settlement in July
2004 and issued an order of final approval of the settlement.
The claims process commenced in August 2004 and the time period
for filing claims expired in October 2004.  The Company is now
in the process of analyzing the claims to determine the credits
and/or payments for which class members may be eligible.

Pursuant to the terms of the Contribution and Distribution
Agreement, Lucent is responsible for 50% of the costs related to
these matters in excess of $50 million, including attorneys'
fees.  The Company has notified Lucent that costs incurred in
these matters, including costs expended since these matters
commenced in 1999, have exceeded the $50 million threshold.
Accordingly, Lucent will be responsible for a portion of the
cost of the settlement.


BEA SYSTEMS: Shareholders Launch Consolidated Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bea Systems, Inc. and certain of its officers face a
consolidated securities class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, on
behalf of purchasers of the Company's publicly-traded securities
from November 13, 2003 through May 13, 2004.

The consolidated complaint filed by the lead plaintiff generally
alleges that defendants made false statements about the
Company's operating results and business, while concealing
material information.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages.

Beginning on June 15, 2004, several derivative lawsuits were
filed by purported Company shareholders in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California and the
Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County.  The
complaints name certain of the Company's present and former
officers and directors as defendants and name the Company as a
nominal defendant.  These complaints are based on the same
facts and circumstances as the Class Action and generally allege
that the named directors and offices breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company.  The state Court actions have been stayed
pending the outcome of the federal action.

Seven cases were originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge Susan
Ilston, namely:

     (1) Curtis v. BEA Systems, Inc. et al, 3:04-cv-02275-SI,

     (2) Dan v. Chuang et al, 3:04-cv-02340-SI

     (3) Sved et al v. BEA Systems, Inc. et al, 3:04-cv-02361-SI

     (4) Pardo v. BEA Systems, Inc. et al, 3:04-cv-02414-SI,

     (5) Sandhaus v. BEA Systems, Inc. et al, 3:04-cv-02431-SI

     (6) Stroll v. BEA Systems, Inc. et al, 3:04-cv-02562-SI,

     (7) Cook v. BEA Systems, Inc. et al, 3:04-cv-02898-SI,

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

    (iv) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbin (San
         Francisco), 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600, San Francisco,
         CA, 94111, Phone: 415.288.4545, Fax: 415.288.4534, E-
         mail: info@lerachlaw.com

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

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

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

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

Representing the Company is Claudia N. Main of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, One Market Street, Spear Tower, Suite 3300
San Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-947-2053, E-mail:
cmain@wsgr.com and Ignacio E. Salceda of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich
& Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050, Phone:
650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail: isalceda@wsgr.com


BETA ASSET: IL Court Issues TRO Over Fraudulent Ponzi Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
The Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer of U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, entered an Order temporarily
restraining Brad A. Weaver, a Chicago resident, and his Company,
Beta Asset Management, Inc., from violating Section 17(a) of the
Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule
10(b)(5) thereunder.  The Order also freezes their assets.

The Commission's complaint alleges that since March 2003, Mr.
Weaver and Beta Asset Management, Inc. have raised more than $10
million by telling at least five investors that they could
profitably trade in the "error accounts" of a broker-dealer at
no risk.  The Defendants' so-called error account trading
strategy did not and could not have existed.  The complaint
further alleges that the Defendants induced investors to "roll-
over" their alleged error account trading profits into a limited
partnership.  The Defendants represented that the limited
partnership had $30 million in assets at an offshore Company.
Contrary to their representations, the limited partnership never
had more than $30,000 in assets at the offshore Company.

The complaint also alleges that the Defendants have repeatedly
delayed making requested payouts to investors strongly
suggesting that the Defendants are currently attempting to raise
money from new investors to repay current investors, as in a
ponzi scheme.

The suit is styled "SEC v. Brad A. Weaver and Beta Asset
Management, Inc., Civil Action No. 04 C 8279, N.D. Ill."


CSK AUTO: Former Employee Commences Overtime Wage Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
CSK Auto Corporation faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court in San Diego, California by a sales associate in
California who resigned in January 2003.  The suit purports to
be a class action on behalf of all current and former California
hourly store employees claiming that plaintiff and those
similarly situated were not paid for:

     (1) all time worked (i.e. "off the clock" work),

     (2) the minimum reporting time pay when they reported to
         work a second time in a day,

     (3) all overtime due,

     (4) all wages due at termination, and

     (5) amounts due for late or missed meal periods or rest
         breaks.

Plaintiff also alleges that the Company violated certain record
keeping requirements arising out of the foregoing alleged
violations. The lawsuit claims these alleged practices are
unfair business practices, and requests back pay, restitution,
penalties for violations of various Labor Code sections and for
failure to pay all wages due on termination, and interest for
the last four years, plus attorney fees and that the Company be
enjoined from committing further unfair business practices.


FINISAR CORPORATION: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Finisar 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 and:

     (1) Jerry S. Rawls, President and Chief Executive Officer,

     (2) Frank H. Levinson, Chairman of the Board and Chief
         Technical Officer,

     (3) Stephen K. Workman, Senior Vice President and Chief
         Financial Officer, and

     (4) an investment banking firm that served as an
         underwriter for the Company's initial public offering
         in November 1999 and a secondary offering in April 2000

The suit was initially filed on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from November 17, 1999
through December 6, 2000.  The complaint, as subsequently
amended, alleges violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
prospectuses incorporated in the registration statements for the
offerings failed to disclose, among other things, that:

     (i) the underwriter had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriter allocated to those
         investors material portions of the shares of the
         Company's stock sold in the offerings and

    (ii) the underwriter had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriter agreed to allocate
         shares of the Company's stock sold in the offerings to
         those customers in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional shares of the Company's
         stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

No specific damages are claimed.  Similar allegations have been
made in lawsuits relating to more than 300 other initial public
offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000, which were consolidated
for pretrial purposes.  In October 2002, all claims against the
individual defendants were dismissed without prejudice.

On February 19, 2003, the Court denied the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint.  In July 2004, the Company and the
individual defendants accepted a settlement proposal made to all
of the issuer defendants.  Under the terms of the settlement,
the plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against
participating defendants in exchange for a contingent payment
guaranty by the insurance companies collectively responsible for
insuring the issuers in all the related cases, and the
assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain claims the
issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.  Under the
guaranty, the insurers will be required to pay the amount, if
any, by which $1 billion exceeds the aggregate amount ultimately
collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter defendants in
all the cases.  If the plaintiffs fail to recover $1 billion and
payment is required under the guaranty, the Company would be
responsible to pay its pro rata portion of the shortfall, up to
the amount of the self-insured retention under its insurance
policy, which may be up to $2 million.  The timing and amount of
payments that the Company could be required to make under the
proposed settlement will depend on several factors, principally
the timing and amount of any payment by the insurers pursuant to
the $1 billion guaranty.  The settlement is subject to approval
of the Court, which cannot be assured.


INTERNATIONAL GAME: Court Upholds NV Suit Certification Denial
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
denial of class certification to a class action filed against
International Game Technologies, and other video poker and slot
machine manufacturers in the United State District Court for the
District of Nevada.

Three suits were initially filed, one filed in the US District
Court of Nevada, entitled "Larry Schreier v. Caesars World,
Inc., et al," and two filed in the US District Court of Florida,
entitled "Poulos v. Caesars World, Inc., et al." and "Ahern v.
Caesars World, Inc., et al."  The suits were later consolidated
into a single action.  The Court granted the defendants' motion
to transfer venue of the consolidated action to Las Vegas.

The actions allege that the defendants have engaged in
fraudulent and misleading conduct by inducing people to play
video poker machines and electronic slot machines, based on
false beliefs concerning how the machines operate and the extent
to which there is an opportunity to win on a given play. The
amended complaint alleges that the defendants' acts constitute
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, and also give rise to claims for common law fraud and
unjust enrichment, and seeks compensatory, special, incidental
and punitive damages of several billion dollars.

In December 1997, the Court denied the motions that would have
dismissed the Consolidated Amended Complaint or that would have
stayed the action pending Nevada gaming regulatory action.  The
defendants filed their consolidated answer to the Consolidated
Amended Complaint in February 1998.  In March 2002, the Court
directed that certain merits discovery could proceed.  In June
2002, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.  An appeal of that denial was filed timely with
the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

All briefings were completed and oral arguments were heard in
January 2004.  On August 10, 2004, a three-judge panel of the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld US District Court Judge
Roger Hunt in his denial of class certification.  The class
plaintiffs did not appeal the decision and are proceeding with
only their individual claims.


INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Amended Consolidated Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated class action
against Intuit, Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County
of Santa Clara, styled "Intuit/Quicken Sunsetting Litigation,
Master File No. 1-04-CV-016394."

On March 19, 2004, plaintiff Anthony Flannery, on his behalf and
on behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated,
filed a complaint against Intuit in Santa Clara Superior
Court, styled "Anthony Flannery v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No.
1-04-CV-016394."  The suit alleges that the Company's retirement
of certain services and live technical support associated with
its Quicken 1998, Quicken 1999 and Quicken 2000 products
constituted a breach of express and implied warranties and
violated sections 17200 and 17500 of the California Business and
Professions Code, as well as the Consumer Legal Remedies Act.
The complaint sought certification as a class action, as well as
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, disgorgement of
profits, restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees from
the Company.

On April 21, 2004, plaintiff Daniel Mason, on his behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed
a complaint against the Company in Santa Clara Superior Court,
styled "Daniel J. Mason v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-
CV-018345."  The suit makes allegations virtually identical to
those of Anthony Flannery.  On July 14, 2004, the Court
consolidated the two cases pursuant to stipulation of the
parties.

On July 29, 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated First Amended
Complaint.  On October 8, 2004, the Company responded to
plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint by filing demurrers.  By
Order dated November 12, 2004, the Court granted the demurrers
and dismissed all counts of the First Amended Complaint, holding
that the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted.  The Court however allowed plaintiffs until
December 10, 2004 to file a Second Amended Complaint.

The suit is styled "In Re Intuit/Quicken Sunsetting Litigation
(Flannery V. Intuit, Inc.), styled "1-04-CV-016394."
Representing the plaintiffs are Todd M. Schneider, Sarah Colby
and Joshua Konecky of Schneider & Wallace, 180 Montgomery
Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca 94109 and Laurence D. King
and Lori Brody of Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, 11601 Wilshire
Blvd., Suite 300, Los Angeles, Ca 90025.  Representing the
Company are Claude M. Stern, Thomas Wallerstein, of Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart Et Al, 555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 560,
Redwood Shores, Ca 94065-2139


INTUIT INC.: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff filed a second amended class action against Intuit,
Inc. in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara,
styled "Cynthia Belotti v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil No. 1-04-
CV-020277."

On May 24, 2004, plaintiff Cynthia Belotti, on her behalf and on
behalf of a class of persons allegedly similarly situated, filed
a complaint against the Company, alleging that the Company's
retirement of certain add-on business services and live
technical support associated with its QuickBooks 2001 and
QuickBooks 2002 products constituted a breach of express and
implied warranties and violated sections 17200 and 17500 of the
California Business and Professions Code.  The complaint sought
certification as a class action, as well as damages,
disgorgement of profits, restitution, injunctive relief and
attorney's fees from Intuit.

On July 13, 2004, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint that
added Ental Precision Machining, Inc., as plaintiff; plaintiffs'
counsel has also dismissed without prejudice all claims on
behalf of Cynthia Belotti.  On October 8, 2004, the Company
responded to plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by filing
demurrers.  By Order dated November 12, 2004, the Court granted
the demurrers and dismissed all counts of the First Amended
Complaint, holding that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted.  The Court allowed plaintiff
until December 10, 2004 to file a Second Amended Complaint.

The suit is styled "Cynthia Belotti v. Intuit Inc., et al, Civil
No. 1-04-CV-020277."  Representing the plaintiffs are Todd M.
Schneider, Sarah Colby and Joshua Konecky of Schneider &
Wallace, 180 Montgomery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, Ca
94109 and Laurence D. King and Lori Brody of Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, 11601 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 300, Los Angeles, Ca
90025.  Representing the Company are Claude M. Stern, Thomas
Wallerstein, of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Et Al, 555 Twin Dolphin
Drive, Suite 560, Redwood Shores, Ca 94065-2139


NEIGHBORCARE INC.: Shareholders Sue Over Omnicare Inc. Proposal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Neighborcare, Inc. and certain of its directors face a class
action filed in the Supreme Court of New York, County of New
York, alleging breach of fiduciary duty.

The suit specifically alleges that the Company's Board of
Directors breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff and
the class and aided and abetted such breaches in connection with
a proposal by Omnicare, Inc. to acquire all of the Company's
outstanding common stock.


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs File Consolidated Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated securities class action against
OmniVision Technologies, Inc., styled "In re OmniVision
Technologies, Inc., No.C-04-2297-SC," in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California.

On June 10, 2004, the first of several putative class actions
filed against the Company and certain of its present and former
directors and officers on behalf of investors who purchased the
Company's common stock at various times from February 2003
through June 9, 2004.  Those actions were later consolidated.

The consolidated complaint asserts claims on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock between June 11, 2003
and June 9, 2004, and seeks unspecified damages.  The
consolidated complaint generally alleges that defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by allegedly engaging in improper accounting practices
that purportedly led to the Company's financial restatement.


PFIZER INC.: Shareholders Show Interest in Filing ERISA Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Several shareholders and plan participants of Pfizer, Inc. are
contacting Scott + Scott, LLC, the plaintiff firm in the class
action lawsuit filed on behalf of participants and beneficiaries
of the Merck & Co., Inc. (NYSE:MRK) Savings and Security Plan
and the Employee Stock Purchase and Security Plan, voicing
similar concerns to the Merck suit, Scott + Scott said in a
statement.

The Merck lawsuit has been filed to recover losses that current
and former Merck employees have suffered in their retirement
accounts.  Merck plans to slash 5,100 jobs at the Company by
year end and plans to take other drastic measures to cut costs
at the Company.  The retirement losses and job cuts are due in
large part to Merck's deteriorating outlook following the recall
of Vioxx, one of Merck's best-selling drugs, and due to Scott +
Scott's ongoing investigation of this case, there are other
factors that have most probably contributed to this situation.
The lawsuit against Merck has been filed in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Pfizer (NYSE: PFE), with its new Research and Development World
Headquarters in New London, Connecticut and its Groton,
Connecticut Campus employs well over 4,000 workers. Scott +
Scott, LLC, Connecticut's premier shareholder and employee
rights class action law firm has its home office in nearby
Colchester, CT.

Pfizer Inc. said it found an increased risk of heart attacks and
strokes for patients taking high dosages of its top-selling
arthritis painkiller Celebrex, the same problem that led to the
withdrawal of its one-time competitor Vioxx. The Company said it
has no plans to remove Celebrex from the market, but the
disclosure on Friday sent Pfizer's shares tumbling because of
fears that it could cripple sales of what had been the most-
prescribed drug for treating arthritis.

Shares of Pfizer, a member of the Dow index and the world's
largest pharmaceutical maker, plunged $3.23, or 11.15 percent,
to $25.75 in late afternoon trading on the New York Stock
Exchange. The decline wiped out almost $25 billion of Pfizer's
market value. Both Celebrex and Vioxx are a type of drug called
cox-2 inhibitors. Vioxx was pulled from the market in September
because it doubled patients' risk of heart attack and strokes.
In the Celebrex study not done by the Company, a 2,000 patient
study, 15 individuals taking 400 mgs, 20 patients taking 800 mgs
and 6 patients on placebo suffered either a cardiac-related
death, heart attack or stroke.

A separate cancer study done by Pfizer found no increased heart
risk with patients taking 400mg of Celebrex per day. Those
safety claims may cause problems for Pfizer. Citing recent
Company statements, including a Nov. 4 press release touting the
drug's safety, members of Congress asked Pfizer on Friday for
documents regarding Celebrex and Bextra, the Company's other
Cox-2 inhibitor. They want to know what information Pfizer had
about the NCI study when it made the safety statements.

For the first nine months of the year, worldwide sales of
Celebrex more than doubled from a year earlier to $2.3 billion,
accounting for 6 percent of Pfizer's total sales of $37.6
billion during that period. The withdrawal of Vioxx has been a
financial and public relations disaster for Merck. Its legal
liabilities are estimated at up to $18 billion, and its shares
have dropped by nearly one-third since the recall announcement
in late September. Vioxx had been a blockbuster drug for Merck,
its No. 2 earner with annual global sales of $2.5 billion,
amounting to 11 percent of the Company's $22.49 billion in
revenue last year. Earlier this month, the Food and Drug
Administration said it was adding a warning to the labels of
another Pfizer drug, Bextra, noting a risk of potential heart
problems associated with the use of Bextra in people who have
recently had heart bypass surgery. Bextra is also a cox-2
inhibitor type of drug. Phizer shareholders who acquired or
purchased their shares after November 1, 2000 including acquired
Pharmacia stock on April 3, 2000 or Esperion Therapeutics in
February of 2004 would be included in this impending lawsuit.

The law firm invited Pfizer shareholders and plan participants
to contact Attorney Neil Rothstein by Phone: 800-404-7770 (EST)
or 800-332-2259 (PST), or visit the website: http://www.scott-
scott.com.


SANTA BARBARA: Discovery Proceeds in CA Consumer Loans Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against Santa
Barbara Bank & Trust (SBB&T) and Jackson Hewitt Tax Service,
Inc. in the Superior Court of California, Santa Barbara County.

On April 4, 2003, Canieva Hood and Congress of California
Seniors filed the suit in connection with the provision of
refund anticipation loans, seeking declaratory relief as to the
lawfulness of the practice of cross-lender debt collection, the
validity of Santa Barbara's cross-lender debt collection
provision and whether the method of disclosure to customers with
respect to the provision is unlawful or fraudulent.  Jackson
Hewitt was joined in the action for allegedly collaborating, and
aiding and abetting, in the actions of SBB& T.

The Company filed a demurrer to the complaint.  The Court denied
the demurrer and granted leave to plaintiffs to amend their
complaint.  The Company has answered the amended complaint,
denying any liability.  The case is in its discovery and
pretrial stage.

Ms. Hood has also filed a separate suit against the Company and
Cendant Corporation on December 18, 2003 in the Ohio Court of
Common Pleas (Montgomery County) and is seeking to certify a
class in the action.  The allegations relate to the same set of
facts as the California action.  In January 2004, the Company
filed a motion to remove this case to federal Court in Ohio and
also moved the federal Court to stay, or dismiss, the Ohio
action while permitting the California action to proceed.  The
case was remanded to state Court where the Company filed a
motion to stay or dismiss, which was denied.


SANTA BARBARA: Asks Court To Nix Refund Anticipation Loans Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Santa Barbara Bank & Trust asked the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, County of New York to dismiss the class action
filed against it and Jackson Hewitt Tax Service, Inc.

On June 18, 2004, Myron Benton brought a purported class action
in connection with disclosures made in connection with the
provision of refund anticipation loans, alleging that the
disclosures and related practices are fraudulent and otherwise
unlawful, and seeking equitable and monetary relief.


SEMPRA ENERGY: $24B Antitrust Suit Rumbles Ahead Despite Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
A final attempt by Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE) to stop a major $24
billion antitrust class action lawsuit from going to trial has
failed, following the denial of a writ of mandate last week by
the California Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District,
plaintiffs' attorneys announced in a statement.  As a result,
Sempra will now face a jury next year relating to charges of
conspiracy and market manipulation that precipitated
California's energy crisis in 2000 and 2001. The civil action
seeks treble damages of approximately $24 billion.

The emergency appeal was filed October 15, 2004 by Sempra in
response to the denial by San Diego Superior Court Judge J.
Richard Haden of the Company's attempts to obtain summary
judgment and to escape all liability. The trial judge rejected
Sempra's argument that there was insufficient evidence of a
conspiracy to proceed to trial. Sempra, a Fortune 500 Company,
has unsuccessfully pursued various avenues to halt the legal
action which, in the words of its own counsel, was "life
threatening" with the potential to "put San Diego's largest
Company out of business." Sempra's net worth was $3.8 billion at
December 31, 2003.

The lawsuit claims that Sempra and two owned companies, Southern
California Gas Company (SoCalGas) and San Diego Gas & Electric
(SDG&E), conspired with El Paso Natural Gas Corp (EPNG) to
prevent competition for cheaper and more plentiful Canadian
natural gas and to protect their respective market dominance
over the supply and transportation of natural gas both into and
within California, reaping enormous profits at the expense of
California consumers and businesses.

Economists have estimated that plaintiffs in the case have
suffered $9 billion in damages due to these excessive energy
costs in 2000 and 2001. This amount, under California antitrust
law, is automatically trebled after credits for payments by
other defendants.

"Sempra has now burned the last of its available bridges in a
desperate ploy to make this case disappear and hide its
outrageous conduct," stated Thomas V. Girardi, of Girardi &
Keese in Los Angeles, one of the lead plaintiffs' counsel. "The
Company's delaying tactics over the past four years have only
served to bolster the case we are eager to bring before a San
Diego jury -- reflecting a conscious, cartel-like arrangement in
which these Sempra entities colluded to both restrict the supply
of natural gas and gouge the people of California through
unnecessarily higher prices."

The evidence against Sempra presented by the plaintiffs includes
details of a clandestine meeting at a Phoenix, Arizona Embassy
Suites hotel involving 11 senior executives from SoCalGas, SDG&E
and El Paso in September 1996. Plaintiffs will offer evidence
that, without any legal counsel present, the executives
unlawfully agreed they would cooperate rather than compete with
each other in supplying and delivering natural gas -- resulting
in an artificially constrained supply of natural gas and
escalating prices to Californians of gas and ultimately
electricity produced from natural gas.

The trial date, anticipated for next summer, is expected to be
set early next month. El Paso, the largest natural gas pipeline
Company in the U.S., previously settled the antitrust conspiracy
charges against it in December 2003, agreeing to pay $1.7
billion for the benefit of 13 million Californians.

Plaintiffs in the class action include the People of the State
of California; the City and County of Los Angeles; San
Bernardino County; the cities of Long Beach, Burbank, Glendale,
Culver City, Vernon and Upland; Continental Forge Company; and
numerous other companies and individuals. The case also includes
a class of more than 13 million California consumers who paid
excessive gas and electric bills.

Plaintiffs' counsels, in addition to Girardi, include lead
counsel Pierce O'Donnell of O'Donnell & Shaeffer LLP in Los
Angeles; Walter Lack of Engstrom, Lipscomb & Lack; Lance
Astrella of Astrella & Rice P.C.; Brad Baker of Baker, Burton &
Lundy, P.C.; M. Brian McMahon; Michael J. Ponce; Douglas A.
Stacey; J. Tynan Kelly; Maxwell Blecher of Blecher & Collins,
P.C.; Los Angeles City Attorney Rockard Delgadillo; Long Beach
City Attorney Robert F. Shannon; and Los Angeles County Counsel
Lloyd W. Pellman.


SKILLSOFT PUBLIC: NH Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of New
Hampshire granted final approval to the settlement of the class
action filed against SkillSoft Public Limited Co., styled "In re
SmartForce PLC Securities Litigation."  The suit also names as
defendants certain of its current and former officers and
directors.

The suit alleges the Company misrepresented or omitted to state
material facts in its SEC filings and press releases regarding
its revenues and earnings and failed to correct such false and
misleading SEC filings and press releases, which are alleged to
have artificially inflated the price of the Company's ADSs.

The settlement consists of

     (1) the payment of $30,500,000 in cash;

     (2) SkillSoft's adoption of specified corporate governance
         improvements;

     (3) the Settling Defendants' cooperation with Lead
         Plaintiffs' prosecution of claims asserted against
         EYCA; and

     (4) SkillSoft's assignment to the Class of all rights or
         benefits the Company may have against EYCA arising out
         of the facts and circumstances alleged in this Action
         and EYCA's audits and quarterly reviews of the
         financial statements SmartForce issued for fiscal years
         1999, 2000, 2001 and the first two quarters of fiscal
         year 2002.

The significant corporate governance improvements Lead
Plaintiffs negotiated (the "Corporate Governance Reforms") are
designed to assure the independence of the Board of Directors
and several of its principal committees, and to require the
Board to take specific monitoring actions designed to prevent
the recurrence of securities law violations such as those
alleged in this action. The Company's Board of Directors has
already adopted the Corporate Governance Reforms.

Under the terms of the settlement, the Company has agreed to pay
$30.5 million, with one-half paid in August 2004 (following
preliminary approval of the settlement by the Court) and the
second-half to be paid in fiscal 2006.  The Company is in
discussions with its insurers regarding their potential
reimbursement for a portion of the settlement amount.


SKILLSOFT PUBLIC: Shareholders Lodge Stock Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
SkillSoft Public Limited Co. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On November 18, 2004, Jody Glidden, Michael LeBlanc and Trish
Glidden filed the suit against lawsuit against the Company, and:

     (1) David C. Drummond,

     (2) Gregory M. Priest,

     (3) Patrick E. Murphy and

     (4) Jack Hayes

Plaintiffs had previously opted out of the class action
settlement that received final approval from the Court on
September 29, 2004.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company
misrepresented or omitted to state material facts in its SEC
filings and press releases regarding the Company's revenues and
earnings and failed to correct such false and misleading SEC
filings and press releases, which are alleged to have
artificially inflated the price of the Company's ADSs in
connection with its acquisition of IC Global in early 2001.  The
lawsuit seeks compensatory damages of approximately $3.7 million
and other unspecified damages.

The suit is styled "Glidden et al v. Skillsoft PLC et al, 3:04-
cv-04913-CRB," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Charles R. Breyer.
Lawyer for the defendant is Ignacio E. Salceda, Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
isalceda@wsgr.com.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are Sophie N. Froelich, Katrina June
Lee, Esq. and Stephen N. Roberts, Nossaman, Guthner, Knox &
Elliott, LLP, 50 California Street, 34th Floor, San Francisco,
CA 94111-4799, Phone: 415/398-3600, Fax:  415-398-2438, E-mail:
sfroelich@nossaman.com, klee@nossaman.com or
sroberts@nossaman.com.


SMITH & WESSON: High Court Orders Dismissal of IL Handgun Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Illinois Supreme Court ordered a lower Court to dismiss all
the claims in the class actions filed against Smith & Wesson
Corporation and other handgun manufacturers, for failure to
state a claim.

A suit, styled "Anthony Ceriale, Special Administrator of the
Estate of Michael Ceriale, Deceased v. Smith & Wesson Corp., et
al.," was originally filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
Illinois.  The complaint alleges that Chicago Police Officer
Michael Ceriale was shot with a handgun by a gang member while
conducting narcotics surveillance.  The complaint, brought as a
putative class action against a number of manufacturers and
distributors, alleges that firearms manufacturers have created a
public nuisance resulting in illegal possession and use by
unauthorized persons.  An unspecified amount of damages and
injunctive relief are demanded.

On December 31, 2001, the Illinois Court of Appeals issued an
opinion dismissing all claims except for public nuisance as to
those defendants that manufactured or sold the firearms used in
the Ceriale shooting (the Company and Chuck's Gun Shop).  On
October 2, 2002, the Illinois Supreme Court granted our Petition
for Leave to Appeal.  Briefing was completed in the Illinois
Supreme Court on August 19, 2003.  Oral argument was heard by
the Illinois Supreme Court on September 10, 2003.  The suit was
later consolidated with the Young and Smith suits below for
appeal purposes only.

Another suit, styled "Stephen Young, Special Administrator of
the Estate of Andrew Young, individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated persons v. Bryco Arms, et al.," was
filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The
complaint alleges that a juvenile gang member with a handgun
killed the plaintiff's decedent.  The complaint also alleges
that firearms manufacturers have created a "public nuisance" by
"oversupplying" the handgun market resulting in illegal
possession and use by gang members and juveniles.  An
unspecified amount of damages and certain injunctive relief are
demanded.

On December 31, 2001, the Illinois Court of Appeals issued an
opinion dismissing all claims except for public nuisance as to
those defendants who manufactured or sold the firearms used in
the Young shooting (Bryco, and Breit & Johnson).  This case had
been consolidated with the Ceriale and Smith cases described
herein for purposes of appeal only.

Another suit, styled "Obrellia Smith, Administrator of the
Estate of Salada Smith, Deceased, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons v. Navegar, Inc. et al.,"
was filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois.  The
complaint alleges that the plaintiff's decedent was murdered
with a handgun by a gang member.  The complaint also alleges
that firearms manufacturers have created a "public nuisance" by
intentionally supplying handguns to the underground market for
use by gang members and juveniles.  An unspecified amount of
damages and certain injunctive relief are demanded.

On December 31, 2001, the Illinois Court of Appeals issued an
opinion dismissing all claims except for public nuisance as to
the Defendant who manufactured or sold the firearms used in the
Smith shooting (Navegar).  This case had been consolidated with
the Ceriale and Young cases described herein for purposes of
appeal only.

On November 18, 2004, the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the
judgment of the appellate Court and remanded the case to the
circuit Court with instructions to grant Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss for failure to state a cause of action.  The time period
for plaintiff to file an appeal to the United States Supreme
Court has not yet expired.


TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Consumers Sue Over Internet Service
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tippingpoint Technologies, Inc. faces a class action filed in
the Texas State Court in Travis County, Texas on behalf of all
persons who purchased an Internet appliance from the Company and
subscribed to the related Internet service.

The complaint alleges that, among other things, the Company
disseminated false and misleading advertisements, engaged in
unauthorized billing practices and failed to provide adequate
technical and customer support and service with respect to our
Internet appliance and service business.  The complaint seeks an
unspecified amount of damages.


TIPPINGPOINT TECHNOLOGIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
TippingPoint Technologies, 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, two of its current and former officers
and directors, as well as the managing underwriters in its
initial public offering.


The lawsuit, which is part of a consolidated action that
includes over 300 similar actions, is captioned "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Brian Levey vs.
TippingPoint Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 01 CV 10976."  The
principal allegation in the lawsuit is that the defendants
participated in a scheme to manipulate the initial public
offering and subsequent market price of Company stock by
knowingly assisting the underwriters' requirement that certain
of their customers had to purchase stock in a specific initial
public offering as a condition to being allocated shares in the
initial public offerings of other companies.

The purported plaintiff class for the lawsuit is comprised of
all persons who purchased Company stock from March 17, 2000
through December 6, 2000.  The suit seeks rescission of the
purchase prices paid by purchasers of shares of its common
stock.

On September 10, 2002, Company counsel and counsel for
plaintiffs entered into an agreement pursuant to which the
plaintiffs dismissed, without prejudice, its former and current
officers and directors from the lawsuit.  In May 2003, a
memorandum of understanding was executed by counsel for
plaintiffs, issuer-defendants and their insurers setting forth
terms of a settlement that would result in the termination of
all claims brought by plaintiffs against the issuer-defendants
and individual defendants named in the lawsuit.  In August 2003,
the Company's Board of Directors approved the settlement terms
described in the memorandum of understanding.

In May 2004, the Company signed a settlement agreement on behalf
of TippingPoint Technologies, Inc. and its current and former
directors and officers with the plaintiffs.  This settlement
agreement formalizes the previously approved terms of the
memorandum of understanding and, subject to certain conditions,
provides for the complete dismissal, with prejudice, of all
claims against the Company and its current and former directors
and officers.  Any direct financial impact of the settlement is
expected to be borne by the Company's insurers.  The settlement
is subject to numerous conditions, including final approval by
the Court.


TIVO INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
TiVo, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to approve the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its officers and directors and the underwriters involved in
the Company's initial public offering.

On June 12, 2001, a securities class action lawsuit, styled
"Wercberger v. TiVo et al.," was filed on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's common stock from September
30, 1999, the time of its initial public offering, through
December 6, 2000.  The central allegation in this action is that
the underwriters in the initial public offering solicited and
received undisclosed commissions from, and entered into
undisclosed arrangements with, certain investors who purchased
TiVo common stock in the initial public offering and the after-
market.  The complaint also alleges that the TiVo defendants
violated the federal securities laws by failing to disclose in
the initial public offering prospectus that the underwriters had
engaged in these allegedly undisclosed arrangements.

More than 150 issuers have been named in similar lawsuits. In
July 2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss all complaints against
issuers and individual defendants affiliated with issuers
(including the TiVo defendants) was filed by the entire group of
issuer defendants in these similar actions.  On October 8, 2002,
TiVo's officers were dismissed as defendants in the lawsuit.

On February 19, 2003, the Court in this action issued its
decision on defendants' omnibus motion to dismiss.  This
decision dismissed the Section 10(b) claim as to TiVo but denied
the motion to dismiss the Section 11 claim as to TiVo and
virtually all of the other issuer-defendants.

On June 26, 2003, the plaintiffs announced a proposed settlement
with the Company and the other issuer defendants.  The proposed
settlement provides that the plaintiffs will be guaranteed $1.0
billion dollars in recoveries by the insurers of the Company and
other issuer defendants.  Accordingly, any direct financial
impact of the proposed settlement is expected to be borne by the
Company's insurers in accordance with the proposed settlement.
In addition, the Company and the other settling issuer
defendants will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that
they may have against the underwriters.  If recoveries in excess
of $1.0 billion dollars are obtained by the plaintiffs from the
underwriters, the Company's and the other issuer defendants'
monetary obligations to the class plaintiffs will be satisfied.

Furthermore, the settlement is subject to a hearing on fairness
and approval by the Federal District Court overseeing the IPO
Litigation. Due to the inherent uncertainties of litigation and
assignment of claims against the underwriters, and because the
settlement has not yet been approved by the Federal District
Court, the ultimate outcome of the matter cannot be predicted.

The suit is styled " In Re Tivo, Inc. Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, case no. 01 Civ. 5269 (Sas)(Jgk)," filed
in relation to "IN re IPO Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92
(Sas)," in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge Shira A. 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


WILLIAMS-SONOMA INC.: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior
Court of California, San Francisco County, styled "Alvarez, et
al. v. Williams-Sonoma, Inc., et al."

The potential class consists of current and former store
managers and assistant store managers in California Williams-
Sonoma brand stores.  The lawsuit alleges that the employees
were improperly classified under California's wage and hour and
unfair business practice laws and seeks damages, penalties under
California's wage and hour laws, restitution and attorneys' fees
and costs.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


ACE LTD.: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Fraud Suit in PA, NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, and in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of ACE
Limited (NYSE: ACE) publicly traded securities during the period
between October 28, 2003 and October 13, 2004.

The complaint charges ACE and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. ACE is a holding Company that, through its subsidiaries,
provides a range of insurance and reinsurance products to
insureds worldwide through operations in the United States and
almost 50 other countries.

The complaint alleges that ACE and its top officers violated the
federal securities laws by disseminating false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's results and operations
during the Class Period. The true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) that the Company was paying illegal and concealed
         "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
         "contingent commission agreements;"

     (2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants
         violated applicable principles of fiduciary law,
         subjecting the Company to enormous fines and penalties
         totaling potentially tens -- if not hundreds -- of
         millions of dollars; and

     (3) that as a result, the Company's prior reported revenue
         and income was grossly overstated.

On October 14, 2004, Eliot Spitzer announced he had charged
several of the nation's largest insurance companies and the
largest broker with bid rigging and pay-offs that he claimed
violated fraud and competition laws. On this news, the Company's
shares plummeted 9%.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in S.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action 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 Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class action 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 Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a securities
class action on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Conexant Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: CNXT) between March 1, 2004 and
November 4, 2004, inclusive seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The action is pending in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
against the Company, Dwight W. Decker (Chairman), Armando Geday
(CEO) and J. Scott Blouin (Chief Accounting Officer).

The complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period
representations about the Company's operations, made in Conexant
press releases, were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose the following adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company was stuffing the channel with
         products, such that its revenues did not reflect the
         true, end-user demand for its products;

     (2) that the Company's inventory glut would lead to lowered
         revenues as distributors and retailers would need to
         exhaust existing inventory before purchasing new
         products from Conexant;

     (3) that the combined Company was suffering from serious
         operating deficiencies, particularly in the wireless
         local area network ("WLAN") division of Globespan that
         was not effectively integrated into the combined
         Company's operations, causing the Company to lose its
         leadership position in the WLAN market;

     (4) that, contrary to defendants express representations
         that the Globespan integration was "on schedule" and
         that "outstanding progress" was being made in that
         regard, integration of the Globespan acquisition was
         mishandled, causing such a massive drain on the Company
         that, by the end of the Class Period, the outlook for
         the much larger combined Company was worse than
         Conexant's stand-alone prospects.

On November 4, 2004, defendants issued a press release
announcing disappointing results for the fourth quarter of 2004,
including a loss of $367.5 million ($0.79 per share) which was
blamed on poor demand, inventory buildup and failed product
launches. Later that day, the Company held a conference call to
discuss its fourth quarter results. Defendant Geday's response
to an analyst's question revealed that the Company's inventory
glut was not a recent phenomenon, but had been building for as
long as five quarters.

In reaction to the Company's press release and conference call,
the price of Conexant securities dropped to $1.60 per share on
November 5, 2004 from $1.76 on November 4, 2004. As detailed in
the complaint, earlier announcements that only partially
disclosed the facts about Conexant's business had already taken
a heavy toll on Conexant's stock price, which traded as high as
$7.77 per share during the Class Period.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
and Andrei V. Rado, by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl.
New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit the Website:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


DOBSON COMMUNICATIONS: Mark Henzel Begins Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Henzel initiated a securities class action lawsuit was
filed in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma on behalf of purchasers of Dobson
Communications, Inc. (NASDAQ: DCEL) common stock during the
period between May 19, 2003 and August 9, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Dobson and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Dobson is a rural and suburban wireless communications
services provider offering wireless calling, voice privacy and
call security, tri-mode handsets and roaming.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements describing the
Company's financial prospects and the continued growth in the
Company's roaming minutes, which are based on increased minutes
of use. As alleged in the complaint, these statements were
materially false and misleading because defendants knew, but
failed to disclose that:

     (1) the Company's growth in roaming minutes was
         substantially declining, and the Company had
         experienced negative growth in October 2003;

     (2) AT&T, the Company's largest roaming customer, had
         notified defendants that it wanted to dispose of its
         equity interest in Dobson that it had held since
         Dobson's IPO, significantly decreasing AT&T's interest
         in purchasing roaming capacity from Dobson;

     (3) Bank of America intended to dispose of its substantial
         equity interest in Dobson as soon as AT&T disposed of
         its equity interest in Dobson;

     (4) the Company had been missing sales quotas and losing
         market share throughout the Class Period; and

     (5) the Company lacked the internal controls required to
         report meaningful financial results.

On February 17, 2004, defendants announced that the Company had
fallen materially short of hitting its earnings projections
forecast in October 2003 and that it would drastically reduce
its 2004 projections. Defendants now admitted that roaming
revenue had declined from a 36% growth rate in April 2003 over
April 2002 to a 22% decline by October 2003, causing the Company
to miss EBITDA expectations by $9.5 million. On this news, the
Company's shares plunged by 36% on extremely high trading
volume. Then, on August 9, 2004, Dobson issued a press release
announcing its second quarter financial results. The Company
reported a net loss of $15.9 million per share, or $(0.12) per
share. Dobson also dramatically cut its forecasts for subscriber
additions. In response to this news, the price of Dobson stock
plunged an additional 55% per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel, by Mail: 273
Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone:
610.660.8000 or 888.643.6735 by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com


PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Murray Frank Lodges MA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class action lawsuit on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of Praecis
Pharmaceuticals Inc. (Nasdaq:PRCS) between November 25, 2003 and
December 6, 2004, inclusive, in the United States District Court
in Massachusetts.

The suit alleges that the Company knowingly or recklessly failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts:

     (1) the Company failed to effectively communicate with and
         educate physicians about the drug;

     (2) the distribution of the Company's drug, Plenaxis, was
         limited by the Food and Drug Administration,
         significantly decreasing the likely market for the
         drug;

     (3) the Company, despite high enrollment in the PLUS
         program, had problems persuading physicians to
         prescribe the drug, concerns about the drug's use and
         reimbursement for the therapy;

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (5) as a result, the defendants' projections for fiscal
         2004 were not reasonably founded.

On December 6, 2004, the Company stated that it would remove
previously announced short- and long-term sales and earnings
guidance, and that it did not anticipate providing further
guidance until it has more sales data on Plenaxis's sales. On
this news, shares of Praecis fell $.56 per share, over 25%, on
December 6, 2004, to close at $1.61 per share.

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

                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *