CAR_Public/050103.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, January 3, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 1

                           Headlines

AIRGATE PCS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. GA
AMERIGAS PROPANE: Court Allows Additional Class Members in Suit
ARIBA INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuits Settlements
ARIBA INC.: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
ARIBA INC.: To Ask DE Court To Dismiss FreeMarkets Merger Suit

ARIBA INC.: Limited Discovery Taken in FreeMarkets Stock Lawsuit
CANADA: Truckers Commence Bias Suit Over Meal Allowance in B.C.
COMDISCO INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Suit V. Execs
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits Filed in MD
FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits in IL

FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Mutual Fund Lawsuits Filed in Various Courts
HMO LITIGATION: FL Court Moves Racketeering Trial To Sept. 2005
INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: TX Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
MET-RX SUBSTRATE: Faces Suit Over Pro-hormone Supplements in CA

MET-RX USA: Asks FL Court To Junk Pro-Hormone Supplements Suit
MICROMUSE INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
NASSDA CORPORATION: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
NASSDA CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court
NASSDA CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in CA Court

NATIONAL AUTO: Working To Settle Shareholder Lawsuits in DE, NY
NBTY INC.: Plaintiffs To File Consolidated Securities Suit in NY
NETWORK ENGINES: MA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
NETWORK ENGINES: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
PEOPLES ENERGY: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit

PFIZER INC.: IL Consumer Launch Injury Suit Over Arthritis Drug
RESOURCE AMERICA: Discovery Proceeds in NY Property Owners Suit
REXALL SUNDOWN: Trial in Nutrition Bars Litigation Set Jan. 2005
STAR GAS: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in CT
STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement

TYCO INTERNATIONAL: NH Court Dismisses Securities Suit in Part
VISTACARE INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in AZ
VITAMIN WORLD: Discovery Proceeds in NY Hormone Supplement Suit

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Class Period in Securities Fraud Suit Expanded
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in NJ
JAKKS PACIFIC: Lerach Couglin Updates NY Securities Fraud Suit
PFIZER INC.: Emerson Poynter Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
SOURCECORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit in TX

SOURCECORP INC.: Lerach Coughlin Updates TX Securities Lawsuit
TRI-PATH TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in CA


                            *********


AIRGATE PCS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in N.D. GA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action against
Airgate PCS, Inc. and certain of its officers in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

In May 2002, putative class action complaints were filed against
the Company and:

     (1) Thomas M. Dougherty,

     (2) Barbara L. Blackford,

     (3) Alan B. Catherall,

     (4) Credit Suisse First Boston,

     (5) Lehman Brothers,

     (6) UBS Warburg LLC,

     (7) William Blair & Company,

     (8) Thomas Wiesel Partners LLC and

     (9) TD Securities

The complaints do not specify an amount or range of damages that
the plaintiffs are seeking.  The complaints seek class
certification and allege that the prospectus used in connection
with the secondary offering of Company stock by certain former
stockholders of iPCS, a former subsidiary of the Company, on
December 18, 2001 contained materially false and misleading
statements and omitted material information necessary to make
the statements in the prospectus not false and misleading. The
alleged omissions included:

     (i) failure to disclose that in order to complete an
         effective integration of iPCS, drastic changes would
         have to be made to the Company's distribution channels,

    (ii) failure to disclose that the sales force in the
         acquired iPCS markets would require extensive
         restructuring and

   (iii) failure to disclose that the "churn" or "turnover" rate
         for subscribers would increase as a result of an
         increase in the amount of sub-prime credit quality
         subscribers the Company added from its merger with
         iPCS.

On July 15, 2002, certain plaintiffs and their counsel filed a
motion seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.
Subsequently, the court denied this motion without prejudice and
two of the plaintiffs and their counsel filed a renewed motion
seeking appointment as lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On
September 12, 2003, the court again denied that motion without
prejudice and on December 2, 2003, certain plaintiffs' and their
counsel filed a modified renewed motion seeking appointment as
lead plaintiffs and lead counsel.  On August 17, 2004 the court
granted the plaintiff's motion.

Pursuant to a consent scheduling order agreed to by the parties,
lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action
complaint on October 15, 2004 (the "Consolidated Complaint"). As
did the original complaints filed in these actions, the
Consolidated Complaint alleges that the Company's registration
statement and prospectus relating to the December 2001 offering
misrepresented and/or omitted adverse facts regarding the
anticipated effects of the Company's acquisition of iPCS.  The
Consolidated Complaint also asserts that the registration
statement/prospectus was false and misleading in certain other
respects not previously alleged.

The legal claims asserted in the Consolidated Complaint remain
the same as those in the original complaints, i.e., the
registration statement/prospectus violated Sections 11, 12(a)(2)
and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  In addition, the class
that lead plaintiffs seek to represent remains the same, and the
named defendants remain the same.

In the event that any defendant moves to dismiss, lead
plaintiffs are to serve their opposition by January21, 2005, and
defendants' reply briefs are due on or before February22, 2005.
No further dates have been set in the case.


AMERIGAS PROPANE: Court Allows Additional Class Members in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia allowed
plaintiffs in the class action filed against AmeriGas Propane LP
to include customers acquired from Columbia Propane in August
2001 as additional potential class members, and to amend their
complaint to name additional parties consistent with such
ruling.

In July 2001, a suit was filed agains the Company styled
"Swiger, et al. v. UGI/AmeriGas, Inc. et al., Civil Action No.
98-C-298."  Plaintiffs Samuel and Brenda Swiger and their son
sustained personal injuries and property damage as a result of a
fire that occurred when propane that leaked from an underground
line ignited.  The suit sought to recover an unspecified amount
of compensatory and punitive damages and attorney's fees, for
themselves and on behalf of persons in West Virginia for whom
the defendants had installed propane gas lines, allegedly
resulting from the defendants' failure to install underground
propane lines at depths required by applicable safety standards.

The court recently granted the plaintiffs' motion to include
customers acquired from Columbia Propane in August 2001 as
additional potential class members, and to amend their complaint
to name additional parties consistent with such ruling.  In
2003, the defendants settled the individual personal injury and
property damage claims of the Swigers.  Class counsel has
indicated that the class is seeking compensatory damages in
excess of $12 million plus punitive damages, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees.


ARIBA INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuits Settlements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the settlement of the securities class actions filed against it
and FreeMarkets, Inc., which the Company acquired.

Between March 20, 2001 and June 5, 2001, a number of purported
shareholder class action complaints were filed against the
Company, certain of its former officers and directors and three
of the underwriters of our initial public offering.  These
actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock in the period from June 23, 1999, the
date of the Ariba IPO, to December 23, 1999 (in some cases, to
December 5 or 6, 2000), and make certain claims under the
federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
relating to the Ariba IPO.

In addition, since July 31, 2001, a number of purported
shareholder class action complaints were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against FreeMarkets, Inc., certain of its officers and directors
(the "FreeMarkets Individual Defendants") and the underwriters
of FreeMarkets' initial public offering (the "FreeMarkets IPO").
These actions purport to be brought on behalf of purchasers of
FreeMarkets' common stock in the period from December 9, 1999,
the date of the FreeMarkets IPO, to December 6, 2000 (in some
cases, to July 30, 2001), and make claims relating to the
FreeMarkets IPO similar to the claims made in the Ariba IPO
actions.

On June 26, 2001, the Ariba IPO actions were consolidated into a
single action bearing the title "In re Ariba, Inc. Securities
Litigation, 01 CIV 2359." Similarly, the FreeMarkets IPO actions
were consolidated into a single action bearing the title
"Steffey v. FreeMarkets, Inc. et al., 01 CIV 7039."  On August
9, 2001, those consolidated actions were further consolidated
(for pretrial purposes), with cases brought against additional
issuers (who numbered in excess of 300) and their underwriters
that made similar allegations regarding the IPOs of those
issuers.

On February 14, 2002, the parties signed and filed a stipulation
dismissing the consolidated action without prejudice against the
Company, FreeMarkets and certain Individual Defendants, which
the Court approved and entered as an order on March 1, 2002. On
April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint in
which they dropped their claims against Ariba, FreeMarkets and
all of the Ariba Individual Defendants and the FreeMarkets
Individual Defendants under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act, but elected to proceed with their claims against such
defendants under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The amended consolidated complaint alleges that the prospectuses
pursuant to which shares of common stock were sold in the Ariba
IPO and the FreeMarkets IPO, which were incorporated in
registration statements filed with the SEC, contained certain
false and misleading statements or omissions regarding the
practices of the Company's and FreeMarkets' underwriters with
respect to their allocations to their customers of shares of
common stock in the IPOs and their receipt of commissions from
those customers related to such allocations.

The complaint further alleges that the underwriters provided
positive analyst coverage of Ariba and FreeMarkets after their
respective IPOs, which had the effect of manipulating the market
for Company stock and FreeMarkets' stock, respectively.
Plaintiffs contend that such statements and omissions from the
prospectuses and the alleged market manipulation by the
underwriters through the use of analysts caused the post-IPO
stock prices of Ariba and FreeMarkets to be artificially
inflated.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages in unspecified
amounts as well as other relief.

On July 15, 2002, Ariba, FreeMarkets and the Ariba Individual
Defendants and the FreeMarkets Individual Defendants, along with
other issuers and their related officer and director defendants,
filed a joint motion to dismiss based on common issues.  On
November 18, 2002, during the pendency of the motion to dismiss,
the Court entered as an order a stipulation by which all of the
Individual Defendants were dismissed from the case without
prejudice in return for executing a tolling agreement.  On
February 19, 2003, the Court rendered its decision on the motion
to dismiss, granting a dismissal of the remaining Section 10(b)
claims against Ariba and FreeMarkets without prejudice.
Plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to file an amended
complaint.

On June 24, 2003, a special litigation committee of the Ariba
Board of Directors approved a Memorandum of Understanding (the
"MOU") reflecting a settlement in which the plaintiffs agreed to
dismiss the case against Ariba with prejudice in return for the
assignment by Ariba of claims that it might have against its
underwriters.  No payment to the plaintiffs by Ariba was
required under the MOU.

On June 25, 2003, a special litigation committee of the
FreeMarkets Board of Directors approved a substantively
identical MOU with respect to FreeMarkets. After further
negotiations, the essential terms of the MOUs were formalized in
a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement, which has been
executed on Ariba's and FreeMarkets' behalf and on behalf of the
Ariba Individual Defendants and the FreeMarkets Individual
Defendants. The settling parties filed formal motions seeking
preliminary approval of the proposed settlement on June 25,
2004. The underwriter defendants, who are not parties to the
proposed settlement, filed a brief objecting to the settlement's
terms on July 14, 2004. In the meantime, the plaintiffs and
underwriters have continued to litigate the consolidated action.

The litigation is proceeding through the class certification
phase by focusing on six cases chosen by the plaintiffs and
underwriters. Neither Ariba nor FreeMarkets is a focus case. The
Court issued an order on October 13, 2004 certifying classes in
each of the six focus cases.


ARIBA INC.: CA Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California heard Ariba, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its current and former officers and directors.

Beginning January 21, 2003, a number of purported shareholder
class action complaints were filed, all purporting to be brought
on behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
in the period from January 11, 2000 to January 15, 2003.  The
complaints bring claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act,
relating to the Company's announcement that it would restate
certain of its consolidated financial statements, and also, in
the case of two complaints, relating to its acquisition activity
and related accounting.

Specifically, these actions allege that certain of the company's
prior consolidated financial statements contained false and
misleading statements or omissions relating to its failure to
properly recognize expenses and other financial items, as
reflected in the then proposed restatement. Plaintiffs contend
that such statements or omissions caused Company stock price to
be artificially inflated.  Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
as well as other relief.

On July 11, 2003, the Court entered two orders that consolidated
the cases for all purposes into a single action captioned "In re
Ariba, Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. C-03-00277 JF,"
appointed a lead plaintiff, and approved the lead plaintiff's
selection of counsel.  On September 15, 2003, the lead plaintiff
filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint, which restated the
allegations and claims described above and added a claim
pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Exchange Act, based on the
allegation that the Company failed to disclose certain payments
and executive compensation items in the Company's January 24,
2002 Proxy Statement.  Prior to the hearing on defendants'
motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, the parties
stipulated that plaintiff would withdraw its complaint and file
a further amended complaint by April 16, 2004.

Plaintiffs' allegations of wrongdoing in this further amended
complaint are limited to the Company's alleged failure to
disclose certain payments and executive compensation items.
Defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's further amended
complaint was filed on June 18, 2004.  A hearing on the motion
took place on October 29, 2004, and the motion is now under
submission.

The suit is styled "In re Ariba, Inc. Securities Litigation,
5:03-cv-00277," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California under Judge Jeremy Fogel.

Lawyers for the defendants are Jeffrey S. Facter, Raymond A.
Just of Shearman & Sterling, 555 California Street, Suite 2000
San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415-616-1100 or E-mail:
jfacter@shearman.com or rjust@sherman.com; and Bruce B. Kelson,
Shearman & Sterling LLP, 525 Market Street, 15th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94105, Phone: 415-616-1100, Fax: 415-616-1199, E-
mail: bkelson@shearman.com.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs 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) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505,

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

     (4) Emerson Poynter LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock, AR,
         72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
         tanya@emersonfirm.com

     (5) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311,
         Los Angelos, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com

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

     (7) 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

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

     (9) 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

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

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

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

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

    (14) Weiss & Yourman (Los Angeles, CA), 10940 Wilshire Blvd
         - 24th Floor, Los Angeles, CA, 90024, Phone:
         310.208.2800, Fax: 310.209.2348, E-mail: info@wyca.com


ARIBA INC.: To Ask DE Court To Dismiss FreeMarkets Merger Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ariba, Inc. intends to ask the Delaware Chancery Court to
dismiss the shareholder class action filed against it and the
former FreeMarkets, Inc. board members.  The suit was filed on
behalf of stockholders who held FreeMarkets common stock from
January 23, 2004 through July 1,2004.

The complaint alleges various breaches of fiduciary duty and a
violation of the Delaware General Corporation Law on the part of
the former FreeMarkets board members in connection with the
Company's merger with FreeMarkets, which was consummated on July
1, 2004.  The plaintiff in this action contends, among other
things, the FreeMarkets board members breached their fiduciary
duties to FreeMarkets' common stockholders by:

     (1) negotiating the merger with the Company so as to
         provide themselves with downside protection against a
         decline in the Company's market price through a
         beneficial option exchange formula while failing to
         provide the common stockholders protection in the event
         of a drop in the price of the Company's stock,

     (2) contractually obligating themselves to recommend
         unanimously that FreeMarkets' stockholders approve the
         merger,

     (3) failing to disclose to FreeMarkets' stockholders
         certain material information before the merger closed,
         and

     (4) breaching their duties of loyalty to the common
         stockholders in various other respects.

As FreeMarkets' corporate successor, the Company is alleged to
be liable for the FreeMarkets board member's violation of the
Delaware General Corporation Law.  Plaintiff seeks disgorgement
of benefits by the individual defendants, as well as monetary
and rescissory damages from all of the defendants, jointly and
severally.  The defendants' Motion to Dismiss the complaint is
due to be submitted to the Delaware Chancery Court on January
14, 2005.


ARIBA INC.: Limited Discovery Taken in FreeMarkets Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Limited discovery has been taken in the consolidated securities
class action filed against FreeMarkets, Inc. and two of its
executive officers in the United States District Court in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.  Ariba, Inc. has acquired FreeMarkets,
Inc.

Beginning in April 2001, eleven securities fraud class action
complaints were filed, all of which assert the same claims, stem
from FreeMarkets' announcement on April 23, 2001 that, as a
result of discussions with the SEC, it was considering amending
its fiscal year 2000 financial statements for the purpose of
reclassifying fees earned by FreeMarkets under a service
contract with Visteon.  All of the cases have been consolidated
into a single proceeding.

On October 30, 2001, FreeMarkets filed a motion seeking to
dismiss all of the cases in their entirety.  On January 17,
2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss.  On March 10,
2004, the Court certified the case as a class action.  The
certification order is now on appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit.


CANADA: Truckers Commence Bias Suit Over Meal Allowance in B.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian federal government faces a multi-billion dollar
class action filed in Kelowna Supreme Court in British Columbia,
on behalf of truckers and others who travel to make a living,
the Penticton Western reports.

Lawyer Tom Johnston filed the suit, alleging that the government
favored its own employees over ordinary truckers, by granting
them a larger meal allowance than others.  The suit alleges that
the government paid their own employees $73.10/day, while
allowing only a maximum of $22.50/day for other workers.

"It is about fairness and equality," Mr. Johnston told Penticton
Western.  "It is similar to the same-sex marriage cases, only
this is economic equality."

The $50 dollar difference in wages allegedly amounts to an
"undeclared perk" for civil servants and politicians, Mr.
Johnston asserted, adding that it is a waste of government money
comparable to the federal sponsorship scandal and the lavish
travel budget for Governor-General Adrienne Clarkson.

Ron Smith, owner-operator of Smitty's Income Tax Service in
Penticton and one of 11 plaintiffs listed, told Penticton
Western that $22.50 is not enough to cover meal expenses
incurred on the road.

About 1,900 people are part of the suit, Mr. Johnston said,
adding some 300,000 workers would be impacted if the suit is
successful.  The economic impact would also be considerable, he
told Penticton Western.  "If we are successful, it will put tons
of money back in the economy where it should be instead of in
the hands of the government," he said.  "It is a waste."


COMDISCO INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For Suit V. Execs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division to grant class
certification to the lawsuit filed against two of Comdisco,
Inc.'s officers, alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On February 7, 2001, a purported class action complaint was
filed against the Company, Nicholas K. Pontikes, and John J.
Vosicky, alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.  The suit is
styled "Blitzer v. Comdisco, et al., No. 01-C-0874."  Nicholas
K. Pontikes is a former chief executive officer and director of
Comdisco, Inc.; John J. Vosicky formerly served as a director,
executive vice president, and chief financial officer of
Comdisco, Inc. In addition, fourteen other similar purported
class action lawsuits were filed against the same defendants in
the same court.  Those individual class action lawsuits, along
with the first-filed Blitzer case, were dismissed and the
complaints were combined into a single action, captioned "In re:
Comdisco Securities Litigation, No. 01-C-2110."

In connection with the confirmation process for the Plan for
Comdisco, Inc., the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action
agreed to dismiss the action with respect to Comdisco, Inc., but
maintained all rights, if any, against Nicholas K. Pontikes,
John Vosicky, and any person not released from liability by the
Plan.  This resolution was made effective pursuant to a
stipulation and agreed order dated June 13, 2002.

On November 15, 2002, the lead plaintiff in the consolidated
lawsuit filed an Amended Class Action Complaint under Master
File No. 01 C 2110.  The Company was not named as a defendant in
the Amended Complaint, which included claims against only
Nicholas K. Pontikes and John J. Vosicky.  On December 10, 2002,
Mr. Pontikes and Mr. Vosicky filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint.  The court denied that motion on March 31,
2003.  Since that time, the parties have been engaged in
discovery.  On November 5, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a
Motion for Class Certification.  Discovery regarding class
certification is underway.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuits Filed in MD
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc., certain of its subsidiaries, certain
Franklin Templeton mutual funds, current and former officers,
employees, and directors have been named in multiple lawsuits in
different federal courts in Nevada, California, Illinois, New
York, and Florida, alleging violations of various federal
securities laws and seeking, among other things, monetary
damages and costs.

Specifically, the lawsuits claim breach of duty with respect to
alleged arrangements to permit market timing and/or late trading
activity, or breach of duty with respect to the valuation of the
portfolio securities of certain Templeton Funds managed by
Company subsidiaries, resulting in alleged market timing
activity.  The lawsuits are styled as class actions, or
derivative actions on behalf of either the named Funds or the
Company.

Additionally, Franklin Templeton Investments Corporation
("FTIC") was recently served with a class action market timing
complaint in Quebec, Canada, entitled "Huneault v. AGF Funds,
Inc., et al., Case No. 500-06-000256-046," filed on October 25,
2004 in the Superior Court for the Province of Quebec, District
of Montreal.

To date, more than 240 similar lawsuits against at least 19
different mutual fund companies have been filed in federal
district courts throughout the country.  Because these cases
involve common questions of fact, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) ordered the creation of a
multidistrict litigation in the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland, entitled "In re Mutual Funds
Investment Litigation" (the "MDL").  The Judicial Panel then
transferred similar cases from different districts to the MDL
for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

As of December 13, 2004, the following lawsuits are pending
against the Company (and in some instances, against certain of
the Funds) and have been transferred to the MDL:

     (1) Kenerley v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-770 GPM, filed on November 19, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois;

     (2) Cullen v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al., Case No.
         03-859 MJR, filed on December 16, 2003 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois and transferred to the United States District
         Court for the Southern District of Florida on March 29,
         2004;

     (3) Jaffe v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. CV-S-04-0146-PMP-RJJ, filed on February 6, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;

     (4) Lum v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C 04
         0583 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

     (5) Fischbein v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0584 JSW, filed on February 11, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

     (6) Beer v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case No.
         8:04-CV-249-T-26 MAP, filed on February 11, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the Middle District of
         Florida;

     (7) Bennett v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-S-04-0154-HDM-RJJ, filed on February 12, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the District of
         Nevada;

     (8) Dukes v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al., Case
         No. C 04 0598 MJJ, filed on February 12, 2004, in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

     (9) McAlvey v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0628 PJH, filed on February 13, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

    (10) Alexander v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0639 SC, filed on February 17, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

    (11) Hugh Sharkey IRA/RO v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04 CV 1330, filed on February 18, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Southern
         District of New York;

    (12) D'Alliessi, et al. v. Franklin AGE High Income Fund, et
         al., Case No. C 04 0865 SC, filed on March 3, 2004 in
         the United States District Court for the Northern
         District of California;

    (13) Marcus v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0901 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;

    (14) Banner v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No. C
         04 0902 JL, filed on March 5, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the Northern District of California;

    (15) Denenberg v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. C 04 0984 EMC, filed on March 10, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of California;

    (16) Hertz v. Burns, et al., Case No. 04 CV 02489, filed on
         March 30, 2004 in the United States District Court for
         the Southern District of New York

Plaintiffs in the MDL filed consolidated amended complaints on
September 29, 2004.  It is anticipated that defendants will file
motions to dismiss in the coming months.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suits in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Various subsidiaries of Franklin Resources, Inc., as well as
certain Templeton Funds, have been named in multiple lawsuits
filed in state courts in Illinois, alleging breach of fiduciary
duty with respect to the valuation of the portfolio securities
of certain Templeton Funds managed by such subsidiaries.  The
suits are styled:

     (1) Bradfisch v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No.
         2003 L 001361, filed on October 3, 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
         Illinois;

     (2) Woodbury v. Templeton Global Smaller Companies Fund,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 2003 L 001362, filed on October
         3, 2003 in the Circuit Court of the Third Judicial
         Circuit, Madison County, Illinois;

     (3) Kwiatkowski v. Templeton Growth Fund, Inc., et al.,
         Case No. 03 L 785, filed on December 17, 2003 in the
         Circuit Court of the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St.
         Clair County, Illinois;

     (4) Parise v. Templeton Funds, Inc., et al., Case No. 2003
         L 002049, filed on December 22, 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of the Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County,
         Illinois

These lawsuits are state court actions and are not subject to
the MDL.


FRANKLIN RESOURCES: Mutual Fund Lawsuits Filed in Various Courts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Franklin Resources, Inc. certain of its current and former
officers, employees, and directors face multiple lawsuits
alleging violations of various securities laws and pendent state
law claims relating to the disclosure of directed brokerage
payments and/or payment of allegedly excessive advisory,
commission, and distribution fees.  These lawsuits are styled as
class actions and derivative actions brought on behalf of
certain Funds.

The suits are styled:

     (1) Stephen Alexander IRA v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et
         al., Case No. 04-982 JLL, filed on March 2, 2004 in the
         United States District Court for the District of New
         Jersey;

     (2) Strigliabotti v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case
         No. C 04 0883 SI, filed on March 4, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Northern District of
         California;

     (3) Tricarico v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         CV-04-1052 JAP, filed on March 4, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the District of New Jersey;

     (4) Miller v. Franklin Mutual Advisors, LLC, et al., Case
         No. 04-261 DRH, filed on April 16, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of
         Illinois and transferred to the United States District
         Court for the District of New Jersey on August 5, 2004
         (plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this action, without
         prejudice, on October 22, 2004);

     (5) Wilcox v. Franklin Resources, Inc., et al., Case No.
         04-2258 WHW, filed on May 12, 2004 in the United States
         District Court for the District of New Jersey;

     (6) Bahe, Custodian CGM Roth Conversion IRA v.
         Franklin/Templeton Distributors, Inc. et al., Case No.
         04-11195 PBS, filed on June 3, 2004 in the United
         States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts

The United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
consolidated for pretrial purposes three of the above lawsuits
(Stephen Alexander IRA, Tricarico, and Wilcox) into a single
action, entitled "In re Franklin Mutual Funds Fee Litigation."
Plaintiffs in those three lawsuits filed a consolidated amended
complaint on October 4, 2004.


HMO LITIGATION: FL Court Moves Racketeering Trial To Sept. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
United States District Court in Miami, Florida judge Federico
Moreno postponed the trial in the racketeering class action
filed against seven major health maintenance organizations,
after appeals of his earlier rulings delayed certain activities
leading to trial, the Florida Sun-Sentinel reports.

The suit, styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation, MDL
1334," names as defendants Humana, Inc., Aetna, Inc., Aetna-
USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human Health Plan, Inc.,
Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential Insurance Company of
America, United Health Group, United Health Care and Wellpoint
Health Networks, Inc.  Two earlier defendants, Cigna and Aetna,
have entered settlements with the plaintiffs in pacts
collectively valued at $1.1 billion.

A group of physicians filed the suit, alleging violations of the
federal racketeering act, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations (RICO), conspiracy to violate RICO and aiding and
abetting a scheme to violate RICO.  In addition to these RICO
claims, the complaint includes counts for breach of contract,
violations of various state prompt payment laws and equitable
claims for unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 23,2004) states.  The
lawsuit alleges that the HMOs conspired to violate the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act by
systematically denying, diminishing or delaying payments to
doctors through the use of computer claims-processing programs.

Trial was initially set for March 2005, but Judge Moreno ruled
that he will start the case on September 6, after taking of
depositions, providing witness lists and handling procedural
motions have caused delays in certain milestones leading to
trial.

Last September, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in
Atlanta upheld class-action status and in November, upheld the
judge's ruling in November that HMOs cannot force arbitration of
claims brought on behalf of the 600,000 to 700,000 physicians
who form the class.  The companies, except for two not covered
under the arbitration ruling, have appealed to the U.S. Supreme
Court, but are preparing for trial at the same time, Kent
Jarrell, a spokesman for the defendants told the Sun-Sentinel.

"The burden of proof under the racketeering statues is much
higher," and that could work to the HMOs' advantage, Mr. Jarrell
told the Sun-Sentinel.  But the so-called RICO statutes are a
two-edged sword, he said, because they call for treble damages
if the defendants lose.

Lawyers for the doctors are working "around the clock" to meet
the judge's deadlines, co-lead counsel Archie Lamb told the Sun-
Sentinel.

"We have to have all of our work done by May," he said. A
pretrial conference is scheduled for June 7, followed by a
summer hiatus.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


INTEGRATED ELECTRICAL: TX Court Orders Stock Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed
against Integrated Electrical Services, Inc. and certain of its
officers and directors.

On August 20, 2004, August 23, 2004, September 10, 2004,
September 15, 2004, and October 4, 2004, Corinne Orem, Elaine
English, Park Partners, L.P., Jack Zimny, and James Elmore,
respectively, each filed a putative class action complaint,
alleging that the defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and seeking a class
determination for purchasers of IES stock between November 10,
2003 and August 13, 2004.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
amounts of compensatory damages, interest and costs, including
legal fees.

On November 19, 2004, these cases were consolidated. A motion to
appoint a lead plaintiff is pending before the court, and once
an appointment is made plaintiff will have sixty days to file a
consolidated amended complaint.  Defendants will have sixty days
from the filing of this consolidated amended complaint to
respond.

The suits are filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Texas, under Judge David Hittner.  The
suits are styled:

     (1) Park Partners LLP v. Integrated Electrical Services Inc
         et al, 4:04-cv-03558,

     (2) Zimny v. Integrated Electrical Services Inc et al,
         4:04-cv-03602,

     (3) Elmore v. Integrated Electrical Services Inc et al,
         4:04-cv-03842,

     (4) Orem v. Integrated Electrica, et al, 4:04-cv-03342,

     (5) English v. Integrated Electrica, et al, 4:04-cv-03352

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185,

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

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

    (iv) Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. (Washington,
         DC), 1100 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 500, West Tower,
         Washington, DC, 20005, Phone: 202.408.4600, Fax:
         202.408.4699, E-mail: lawinfo@cmht.com,

     (v) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com,

    (vi) Hoeffner & Bilek, LLP, 440 Louisiana - Suite 720,
         Houston, TX, 77002, Phone: 713.227.7720,

   (vii) 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,

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

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


IRVINE SENSORS: CA Court Approves Securities Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California approved the settlement of the consolidated class
action filed against Irvine Sensors Corporation, certain of its
current and former officers and directors, and an officer and
director of its former subsidiary Silicon Film Technologies,
Inc.

The amended complaint alleged that defendants made false and
misleading statements about the prospects of Silicon Film during
the period January 6, 2000 to September 15, 2001, inclusive.
The amended complaint asserted claims for violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, and SEC Rule 10b-5, and sought damages of an
unspecified amount.

Defendants' time to answer or otherwise respond to the amended
complaint was September 2002, at which time the Company filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint.  This motion was heard
on May 5, 2003, at which time the Court dismissed the amended
complaint, but granted the plaintiffs leave to further amend
their complaint within 20 days.  The plaintiffs filed a second
amended complaint on May 27, 2003, reasserting the claims made
previously, primarily on the basis of purported greater
particularity.  The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint on June 24, 2003.  This motion was
denied on September 22, 2003, and the defendants filed their
answer to the second amended complaint on October 6, 2003,
denying all of the substantive allegations of that complaint.
In January 2004, the lead plaintiffs and defendants entered into
a memorandum of understanding to settle the litigation for a
monetary payment, without admissions as to the merits of either
defendants' or plaintiffs' position.


MET-RX SUBSTRATE: Faces Suit Over Pro-hormone Supplements in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Met-Rx Substrate Technology, Inc., a subsidiary of Rexall
Sundown, Inc., faces a putative consumer class action filed in
California state court, claiming that the advertising and
marketing of certain pro-hormone supplements were false and
misleading, or alternatively, that the pro-hormone products
contained ingredients that were controlled substances under
California law.  Plaintiffs seek equitable and monetary relief.

On June 18, 2004, this case was coordinated with several other
cases brought against other companies relating to the sale of
products containing androstenediol, one of the pro-hormones
contained in the Met-Rx products.  The coordinated proceedings
have recently been assigned to a coordination judge for further
proceedings.  No trial date has been set, and the Court has not
yet certified a class.

In March 2004, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in New
Jersey against the Company, claiming that the advertising and
marketing of certain pro-hormone supplements were false and
misleading and that plaintiff and the putative class of New
Jersey purchasers of these products were entitled to damages and
injunctive relief.  Because these allegations are virtually
identical to allegations made in the putative nationwide class
action previously filed in California, the Company moved to
dismiss or stay the New Jersey action pending the outcome of the
California action.  The motion was granted, and the New Jersey
action is stayed at this time.


MET-RX USA: Asks FL Court To Junk Pro-Hormone Supplements Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
MET-Rx USA, Inc., a subsidiary of Rexall Sundown, Inc., asked
Florida state court to dismiss the class action filed against
it, alleging that the advertising and marketing of certain pro-
hormone supplements were false and misleading, that the products
were ineffective, and alternatively, that the products were
anabolic steroids whose sale violated Florida law.

The Company has moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a cause of action.  Plaintiff seeks equitable and monetary
relief.  Because this action is in its early stages, no
determination can be made at this time as to its final outcome,
nor can its materiality be accurately ascertained, the Company
said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


MICROMUSE INC.: Asks CA Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Micromuse, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it and certain of its
current and former directors.

Between January 12, 2004 and March 5, 2004, seven securities
class action complaints were filed.  In July 2004, the District
Court consolidated the various actions, named Massachusetts
Laborer's Pension Fund as lead plaintiff and appointed the law
firm of Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco, Burt & Pucillo as
lead plaintiff's counsel.  In September 2004, lead plaintiff
Massachusetts Laborer's Pension Fund filed a consolidated
amended complaint on behalf of a purported class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock.  The alleged class period is
January 18, 2001 through May 18, 2004.

The consolidated amended complaint seeks an unspecified amount
of damages and asserts causes of action for alleged violations
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5, arising out of the Company's
restatement of its previously issued financial statements for
the fiscal years ended September 30, 2001 and 2002 and for the
quarters ended December 31, 2000 through June 30, 2003, and the
Company's adjustment of its preliminary consolidated financial
statement information for the quarter and fiscal year ended
September 30, 2003, as initially announced on October 29, 2003,
and the Company's adjustment of preliminary financial
information for the quarter ended December 31, 2003, as
announced on February 10, 2004.

The lead complaint is styled "Michele Ghyselink, individually
and on behalf of all other similar situated v. Micromuse, Inc.,
et al., case no. CV 04-00136," under Judge Saundra Brown
Armstrong.  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) Brian Felgoise, 230 South Broad Street, Suite 404 ,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.735.6810, Fax:
         215/735.5185,

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

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

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

     (6) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (7) Glancy and Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, suite 311,
         Los Angeles, CA, 90067, Phone: 310-201-9150, E-mail:
         info@glancylaw.com

     (8) Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer, LLP (New York, NY), 805 Third
         Avenue, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10022, Phone:
         212.687.1980, Fax: 212.687.7714, E-mail:
         info@kaplanfox.com

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

    (10) 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,

    (11) 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

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

Representing the company is Dale E. Barnes, Jr., McCutchen Doyle
Brown & Enersen LLP, Three Embaracadero Center, San Francisco,
CA 94111-4067, Phone: 415-393-2000, E-mail: dbarnes@mdbe.com.


NASSDA CORPORATION: To Ask CA Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nassda Corporation intends to ask the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California to dismiss the
amended securities class action filed against it and certain of
its officers and directors.

The first suit, filed in July 2004, asserts claims against the
company, Sang S. Wang, An-Chang Deng, Tammy Shu-Hua Liu and Yen-
Son Huang on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased
Company stock between December 13, 2001 and June 11, 2004.  The
class action alleges that the named defendants violated certain
provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making
materially false and misleading representations in press
releases and financial statements filed with the SEC relating to
our financial results.  The complaint's allegations derive from
allegations contained in the complaint concerning the 053
Patent.

A second class action was filed on September 9, 2004 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California.  On September 27, 2004, one plaintiff moved for lead
plaintiff status in the first filed class action.  These two
cases were consolidated on October 7, 2004.  On November 4,
2004, the judge granted the motion of NECA-IBEW Pension Fund
(The Decatur Plan) for appointment as lead plaintiff.  Plaintiff
must file a consolidated complaint by January 14, 2005, and
defendants' motion to dismiss is currently due January 28, 2005.


NASSDA CORPORATION: Faces Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nassda Corporation and certain of its officers and directors
face a class action complaint filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware.  This complaint, brought by Robert
Israel, alleges that defendants entered into the merger
agreement with Synopsys for inadequate consideration.

The complaint also alleges that the merger agreement was an
unlawful plan to shield the Company's board of directors and
certain members of its management from liability to Synopsys in
the State Court Action and Federal Court Actions, and to shield
them from liability to the company for claims asserted by the
plaintiff in the pending derivative action.  Plaintiff seeks to
enjoin the proposed merger, or alternatively seeks damages if
the proposed merger is consummated.


NASSDA CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suit in CA Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nassda Corporation and certain of its officers and directors
face a stockholder class action filed in the Superior Court of
California, Santa Clara County, by stockholder Frank A. Lettieri
arising out of defendants' conduct in selling the company to
Synopsys at an allegedly inadequate and unfair price.

Defendants allegedly arrived at an unfair price so that at least
two of its directors could avoid or significantly reduce their
exposure in a pending lawsuit.  As a result of this conduct,
defendants allegedly breached fiduciary duties. Defendants
allegedly structured the terms of the proposed merger to fit the
needs of Synopsys, instead of seeking to obtain the highest
price reasonably available to the Company.

The complaint seeks an injunction of the acquisition, and the
implementation of a procedure to ensure the highest possible
price for stockholders.  The complaint also seeks to direct the
individual defendants to exercise their fiduciary duties to
obtain a transaction in the best interest of the stockholders at
the highest price.  The complaint seeks to rescind the proposed
merger and to impose a constructive trust upon any benefits
improperly received by defendants as a result of improper
conduct.


NATIONAL AUTO: Working To Settle Shareholder Lawsuits in DE, NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
National Auto Credit, Inc. (NAC) is working on the settlement of
the shareholder complaints filed against it in Delaware and New
York courts, alleging the Company's directors breached their
fiduciary duty to shareholders.

On July 31, 2001, NAC received a derivative complaint filed by
Academy Capital Management, Inc., a shareholder of NAC, with the
Court of Chancery of Delaware.  The company was named as a
nominal defendant, and named as defendants James J. McNamara,
John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y.L. Toh, Donald
Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, and Thomas F.
Carney, Jr.

The Academy Complaint principally seeks:

     (1) a declaration that the Director Defendants breached
         their fiduciary duties to NAC,

     (2) a judgment voiding an employment agreement with James
         J. McNamara and rescinding a stock exchange agreement
         in which NAC acquired ZoomLot Corporation,

     (3) a judgment voiding the grant of stock options and the
         award of director fees allegedly related thereto,

     (4) an order directing the Director Defendants to account
         for alleged damages sustained and profits obtained by
         the Director Defendants as a result of the alleged
         various acts complained of,

     (5) the imposition of a constructive trust over monies or
         other benefits received by the Director Defendants and

     (6) an award of costs and expenses

On August 16, 2001, NAC received a complaint filed by Levy
Markovich ("Markovich"), a shareholder of NAC, with the Delaware
Chancery Court on or about August 16, 2001, against James J.
McNamara, John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y. L. Toh,
Donald Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, and Thomas
F. Carney, Jr. and NAC as a nominal defendant.

The Markovich Complaint principally seeks:

     (i) a declaration that the Director Defendants have
         breached their fiduciary duties to NAC,

    (ii) a judgment voiding an employment agreement with James
         J. McNamara and rescinding a stock exchange agreement
         in which NAC acquired ZoomLot Corporation,

   (iii) a judgment voiding the grant of options and the award
         of directors fees allegedly related thereto,

    (iv) an order directing the Director Defendants to account
         for alleged damages sustained and alleged profits
         obtained by the Director Defendants as a result of the
         alleged various acts complained of,

     (v) the imposition of a constructive trust over monies or
         other benefits received by the directors, and

    (vi) an award of costs and expenses

On August 31, 2001, NAC received a complaint filed by Harbor
Finance Partners ("Harbor"), a shareholder of NAC, with the
Delaware Chancery Court on or about August 31, 2001, against
Thomas F. Carney, Jr., Mallory Factor, John A. Gleason, Donald
Jasensky, William S. Marshall, James J. McNamara, Henry Y. L.
Toh, Peter T. Zackaroff, Ernest C. Garcia, and ZoomLot
Corporation as Defendants and NAC as a nominal defendant.  The
Harbor Complaint principally seeks:

     (a) a judgment requiring the Director Defendants to
         promptly schedule an annual meeting of shareholders
         within thirty (30) days of the date of the Harbor
         Complaint;

     (b) a judgment declaring that the Director Defendants
         breached their fiduciary duties to NAC and wasted its
         assets;

     (c) an injunction preventing payment of monies and benefits
         to James J. McNamara under his employment agreement
         with NAC and requiring Mr. McNamara to repay the
         amounts already paid to him thereunder;

     (d) a judgment rescinding the agreement by NAC to purchase
         ZoomLot and refunding the amounts it paid;

     (e) a judgment rescinding the award of monies and options
         to the directors on December 15, 2000 and requiring the
         directors to repay the amounts they received allegedly
         related thereto;

     (f) a judgment requiring the defendants to indemnify NAC
         for alleged losses attributable to their alleged
         actions; and

     (g) a judgment awarding interest, attorney's fees, and
         other costs, in an amount to be determined

On October 12, 2001, NAC received a derivative complaint filed
by Robert Zadra, a shareholder of NAC, with the Supreme Court of
the State of New York on or about October 12, 2001 against James
J. McNamara, John A. Gleason, William S. Marshall, Henry Y. L.
Toh, Donald Jasensky, Peter T. Zackaroff, Mallory Factor, Thomas
F. Carney, Jr., and NAC as Defendants.  On May 29, 2002 the
complaint was amended to include class action allegations (the
"Zadra Amended Complaint").

The Zadra Amended Complaint contains allegations similar to
those in the Delaware actions concerning the Board's approval of
the employment agreement with James McNamara, option grants and
past and future compensation to the Director Defendants, and the
ZoomLot transaction.  The Amended Complaint seeks a declaration
that as a result of approving these transactions the Director
Defendants breached their fiduciary duties to NAC; a judgment
enjoining defendants from proceeding with or exercising the
option agreements; rescission of the option grants to
defendants, if exercised; an order directing the Director
Defendants to account for alleged profits and losses obtained by
the Director Defendants as a result of the alleged various acts
complained of; awarding compensatory damages to NAC and the
class, together with prejudgment interest, and an award of costs
and expenses.

By order of the Delaware Chancery Court on November 12, 2001,
the Academy, Markovich and Harbor Complaints were consolidated
under the title "In re National Auto Credit, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation," Civil Action No. 19028 NC (Delaware Chancery Court)
("Delaware Consolidated Action") and the Academy Complaint was
deemed the operative complaint.

The parties in the New York action thereafter engaged in
settlement negotiations and the parties entered into a
stipulation of settlement in December 2002, proposing to settle
all class and derivative claims.  In January 2003, the New York
Supreme Court entered an order which, among other things,
conditionally certified a class of shareholders for settlement
purposes, approved the form of notice of the proposed
settlement, and scheduled a hearing to approve the settlement.
Notice of the proposed settlement was given to the shareholders
of the Company and members of the class as per the court's order
in January and February 2003. Hearings on the proposed
settlement were held on May 13, 2003 and October 15, 2003. One
of the Plaintiffs in the Delaware Consolidated Action, and
several other shareholders, appeared and objected to the terms
of the settlement, but all of these objections were denied by
the New York Supreme Court, which, after hearing all the
evidence, found that the settlement was fair, reasonable and in
the best interests of the Company, the class and the Company's
shareholders, and approved the terms of the proposed settlement
in a written Order and Judgment entered January 8, 2004 ("the
January 2004 Order").

The provisions of the settlement have not been implemented since
Objectors have filed an appeal of the January 2004 Order with
the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, First
Division (the "NY Appellate Court").  The NY Appellate Court
scheduled a preliminary conference in September 2004 to review
the appeal.  The appeal has been noticed for the January 2005
term of the NY Appellate Court.  Oral argument on the appeal is
expected to be heard in February or March 2005 and a decision is
expected to be rendered by the NY Appellate Court later in 2005.

A motion to dismiss the Delaware Consolidated Action was filed
in 2002 but was denied by the Delaware Chancery Court in January
2003.  The Delaware Chancery Court then stayed further
proceedings in the Delaware Consolidated Action pending issuance
of the New York Supreme Court's decision on the settlement.  In
January 2004, NAC re-filed a motion to dismiss the Delaware
Consolidated Action, asserting that the New York Supreme Court's
January 2004 Order, approving the settlement of the class and
derivative action, precluded further proceedings in Delaware. In
a decision rendered in August 2004, the Delaware Chancery Court
determined that because the New York Supreme Court's January
2004 Order conditioned entry of a final judgment in New York
upon the dismissal of the Consolidated Derivative Action, the
January 2004 Order was not a final judgment for claim preclusion
purposes.


NBTY INC.: Plaintiffs To File Consolidated Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to file a consolidated securities class action
against NBTY, Inc. and certain of its officers and directors in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York.

During the period from June 24, 2004 through September 3, 2004,
six separate shareholder class actions were filed against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
shareholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between February 9, 2004 and July 22, 2004.  The actions allege
that the Company failed to disclose material facts during the
Class Period that resulted in a decline in the price of the
Company's stock after June 16, 2004 and July 22, 2004,
respectively.

These actions are stayed pending the Court's decision on the
unopposed motions, filed in August 2004, to consolidate the six
class actions and to appoint lead plaintiffs and lead counsel
for the plaintiffs.  The Company, officers and directors intend
to file a motion to dismiss the actions once consolidated.


NETWORK ENGINES: MA Court Refuses To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Massachusetts refused to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
Network Engines, Inc. and certain individual Network Engines
defendants.  The suit generally concerns the timing of the
announcement of an amendment to the Company's agreement with EMC
Corporation regarding the resale of EMC-approved Fibre Channel
HBAs.

In its March 17, 2004 order, the court selected Wing Kam Yu,
Blake Kunkel, and Thomas Cunningham as lead plaintiffs and
appointed Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP (now Milberg
Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP) as plaintiffs' lead counsel.  The
lead plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint on June
4, 2004.  The defendants on August 13, 2004 filed a motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated complaint.  The plaintiffs on
October 12, 2004 filed an opposition to the defendants' motion
to dismiss.  The defendants filed a reply to the plaintiff's
opposition on November 12, 2004.  The court on November 22, 2004
denied the Company's motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint.

The suit is styled "Morgan v. Network Engines Inc. et al., case
no. 1:03-cv-12529-JLT," filed in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Joseph L. Tauro.

Lawyers for the defendants are Robin L. Alperstein of Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New York,
NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800, Fax: 212-230-8888; and Daniel W.
Halston and John A. Litwinski, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and
Dorr LLP, 60 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone:
617-526-6654, Fax: 617-526-5000, E-mail:
daniel.halston@wilmerhale.com or john.litwinski@wilmerhale.com.

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs are Rachel S. Fleishman and
Carlos F. Ramirez of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, One
Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY 10119-0165, Phone:
212-594-5300.


NETWORK ENGINES: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Network Engines, 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, Lawrence A. Genovesi (the Company's Chairman
and former Chief Executive Officer), Douglas G. Bryant (the
Company's Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance
and Administration), and the following underwriters of our
initial public offering:

     (1) FleetBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.,

     (2) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

     (3) Goldman Sachs & Co.,

     (4) Lehman Brothers, Inc. and

     (5) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

An amended class action complaint, captioned In re Network
Engines, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 01
Civ. 10894 (SAS), was filed on April 20, 2002.  The suit alleges
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by
issuing and selling securities pursuant to the Company's initial
public offering in July 2000, or IPO, without disclosing to
investors that the underwriter defendants had solicited and
received excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
investors.  The suit also alleges that the underwriter
defendants entered into agreements with certain customers
whereby the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate to those
customers shares of the Company's common stock in the offering,
in exchange for which the customers agreed to purchase
additional shares of common stock in the aftermarket at pre-
determined prices.

The suit alleges that such tie-in arrangements were designed to
and did maintain, distort and/or inflate the price of our common
stock in the aftermarket.  The suit further alleges that the
underwriter defendants received undisclosed and excessive
brokerage commissions and that, as a consequence, the
underwriter defendants successfully increased investor interest
in the manipulated IPO securities and increased the underwriter
defendants' individual and collective underwritings,
compensation and revenues.  The suit seeks damages and
certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all persons who
acquired shares of the Company's common stock between July 13,
2000 and December 6, 2000.

In July 2002, Network Engines, Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas
G. Bryant joined in an omnibus motion to dismiss challenging the
legal sufficiency of plaintiffs' claims.  The motion was filed
on behalf of hundreds of issuer and individual defendants named
in similar lawsuits. Plaintiffs opposed the motion, and the
court heard oral argument on the motion in November 2002.  On
February 19, 2003, the court issued an opinion and order denying
the motion as to Network Engines.  In addition, in October 2002,
Lawrence A. Genovesi and Douglas G. Bryant were dismissed from
this case without prejudice.

On July 9, 2003, a Special Committee of our Board of Directors
authorized Network Engines to negotiate a settlement of the
pending claims substantially consistent with a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, all issuer
defendants and their insurers.  The Company negotiated the
settlement, which provides, among other things, for a release of
Network Engines and the individual defendants for the conduct
alleged in the amended complaint to be wrongful.  The company
would agree to undertake other responsibilities under the
settlement, including agreeing to assign, or not assert, certain
potential claims that the Company may have against the
underwriters.

The suit is styled " In re Network Engines, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 10894 (SAS)," 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:

     (i) 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

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

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

    (iv) 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

     (v) 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

    (vi) 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


PEOPLES ENERGY: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Energy Corporation asked an Illinois state court to
dismiss the amended class action filed against it and its
subsidiary The Peoples Gas and Light Coke Company, by a Peoples
Gas customer alleging, among other things, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
related to matters at issue in Peoples Gas' gas reconciliation
proceedings.  The suit seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.

On September 22, 2004, the Court granted a motion to dismiss all
counts against Peoples Gas.  On October 21, 2004, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint against the Company. On November 22,
2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint.


PFIZER INC.: IL Consumer Launch Injury Suit Over Arthritis Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pfizer, Inc. faces a class action filed in Madison County
Circuit Court in Illinois, over its popular arthritis drug
Celebrex, The Belleville News-Democrat reports.  The suit is
believed to be the first of its kind.

In the past two weeks, the United States Food and Drug
Administration has advocated limiting the use of Celebrex after
a study found it may cause an increased risk of heart attacks
when used in high doses.  The Company has stopped its ad
campaign for the pain reliever, which is one of its top-selling
drugs.

Granite City, Illinois resident Patricia A. Morris, represented
by the St. Louis law firm Marker Armstrong LLP and the Kansas
City, Mo., law firm Davis, Bethune & Jones LLC, filed the suit,
alleging that Celebrex can cause serious side effects, including
increased risk of heart damage and strokes.

The suit alleges that the Company negligently ". marketed
Celebrex despite the fact that the risk and the effect thereof
on the body were so unreasonably high and severe that no
reasonable pharmaceutical company, exercising due care, would
have done so," the News-Democrat reports.

The suit seeks medical monitoring for the class members to
enable early detection and treatment of any injury or disease
and "such other and further relief as the nature of the case may
require or as may be determined to be just, equitable and proper
by this court."  The lawsuit also states that a question for the
court is whether Pfizer is liable for punitive damages.

For now, the only plaintiff in the case is Morris.  The
plaintiff attorneys are asking the court to certify the case as
a class action that would include all Illinoisans who have taken
Celebrex but have not had any physical injury.

A spokesman for Pfizer did not immediately return a call
Wednesday from a reporter, the News-Democrat states.  In a
statement issued after the Celebrex study was released, Pfizer
chairman and CEO Hank McKinnel said, "Pfizer is taking immediate
steps to fully understand the results and rapidly communicate
the new information to regulators, physicians and patients
around the world."  McKinnel added that the study results
contradicted results from other studies on Celebrex.


RESOURCE AMERICA: Discovery Proceeds in NY Property Owners Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Resource America, Inc. in the New York Supreme Court, Chautauqua
County, by individuals, putatively on their own behalf and on
behalf of similarly situated individuals, who leased property to
the Company.

The complaint alleges that the Company is not paying landowners
the proper amount of royalty revenues derived from the natural
gas produced from the wells on leased property.  The complaint
seeks damages in an unspecified amount for the alleged
difference between the amount of royalties actually paid and the
amount of royalties that allegedly should have been paid.
Plaintiffs were certified as a class in December 2003; an appeal
of that certification is pending.


REXALL SUNDOWN: Trial in Nutrition Bars Litigation Set Jan. 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Rexall Sundown, Inc. and
certain of its subsidiaries over various nutrition bars is set
for January 25,2005 in California State Court.

The suits were filed in 2002 on behalf of all California
consumers who bought various nutrition bars.  Plaintiffs allege
misbranding of nutrition bars and violations of California
unfair competition statues, misleading advertising and other
similar causes of action.  Plaintiffs seek restitution, legal
fees and injunctive relief.


STAR GAS: Shareholders Commence Securities Fraud Lawsuits in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Star Gas Partners LP, several of its subsidiaries, officers and
directors face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut on
behalf of a purported class of unitholders.  The suits are
pending under Judge Janet Bond Atherton and are styled:

     (1) Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No 3:04-cv-
         01766-IBA, et. al,

     (2) Feit v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1832
         (filed on 10/29/2004),

     (3) Lila Gold v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1791
         (filed on 10/22/2004),

     (4) Jagerman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1855
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (5) McCole, et al v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1859 (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (6) Prokop v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1785
         (filed on 10/22/2004),

     (7) Seigle v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1803
         (filed on 10/25/3004),

     (8) Strunk v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1815
         (filed on 10/27/2004),

     (9) Harriette S. & Charles L. Tabas Foundation v. Star Gas,
         et al, Civil Action No. 04-1857 (filed on 11/3/2004),

    (10) Weiss v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1807
         (filed on 10/26/2004),

    (11) White v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1837
         (filed on 10/9/2004),

    (12) Wood v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1856
         (filed on 11/3/2004)

    (13) Yopp v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1865
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

    (14) Kiser v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1884
         (filed on 11/9/2004), and

    (15) Lederman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1873
         (filed on 11/5/2004)

The plaintiffs generally allege that the Partnership violated
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended, and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by purportedly failing to disclose,
among other things:

     (i) problems with the restructuring of Star Gas's dispatch
         system and customer attrition related thereto;

    (ii) that Star Gas's heating oil division's business process
         improvement program was not generating the benefits
         allegedly claimed;

   (iii) that Star Gas was struggling to maintain its profit
         margins in its heating oil division;

    (iv) that Star Gas's second quarter 2004 profit margins were
         not representative of its ability to pass on heating
         oil price increases; and

     (v) that Star Gas was facing an inability to pay its debts
         and that, as a result, its credit rating and ability to
         obtain future financing was in jeopardy.

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages including interest against the defendants jointly and
severally and an award of reasonable costs and expenses.


STRATOS LIGHTWAVE: Asks NY Court To Approve Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stratos Lightwave, 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 directors and executive
officers and the underwriters of its initial public offering.

Several suits were initially filed, the first of which was
captioned "Kucera v. Stratos Lightwave, Inc. et.al. No.01 CV
6821." Three other similar lawsuits have also been filed against
the Company and certain of its directors and executive officers.
The complaints are substantially identical to numerous other
complaints filed against other companies that went public during
the time of the Company's IPO.

The complaints generally allege, among other things, that the
registration statement and prospectus from the Company's June
26, 2000 initial public offering failed to disclose certain
alleged actions by the underwriters for the offering.  The
complaints charge the Company and two or three of its directors
and executive officers with violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and/or Section 10(b) and
Section 20(a) to the Security Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
The complaints also allege claims solely against the
underwriting defendants under Section 12(a)(2) of the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended.

In 2003, the Company agreed to a Memorandum of Understanding,
which reflects a settlement of these class actions as between
the purported class action plaintiffs, the Company and the
defendant officers and directors, and the Company's liability
insurer. Under the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding, the
Company's liability insurers will pay certain sums to the
plaintiffs, with the amount dependent upon the plaintiffs'
recovery from the underwriters in the IPO class actions as a
whole. The plaintiffs will dismiss with prejudice their claims
against the Company and its officers and directors, and the
Company will assign to the plaintiffs certain claims that it may
have against the underwriters.  The plaintiffs have filed with
the court a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement,
which, if granted, will lead to the mailing of class-wide
notices of the settlement and a hearing date for approval of the
settlement.  The issuers filed a statement joining in the
plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the settlement.
The underwriter defendants have opposed the motion, and the
court has not ruled on it.

The suit is styled "In Re Stratos Lightwave, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Case No. 01 Civ. 6821 (Sas)
(Ro)," 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


TYCO INTERNATIONAL: NH Court Dismisses Securities Suit in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New Hampshire granted in
part Tyco International, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the
consolidated securities class actions filed against it and
certain of its former directors and officers.

More than two dozen securities class actions were initially
filed, and now been transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of New Hampshire by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings.  In eight of the actions, plaintiffs have
moved to have their cases remanded to state courts.

On January 28, 2003, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs in the
New Hampshire securities actions filed "In Re Tyco International
Securities Litigation," a Consolidated Securities Class Action
Complaint against the Company certain of the Company's former
directors and officers and its former auditors in the United
States District Court for the District of New Hampshire.

As to the Company and certain of its former directors and
officers, the complaint asserts causes of action under Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Section 14(a) of that Act and Rule
14a-9 promulgated thereunder, as well as Sections 11 and
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933.  Claims against the
Company's former directors and officers are also asserted under
Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.

The complaint asserts that the Tyco defendants violated the
securities laws by making materially false and misleading
statements and omissions concerning, among other things:

     (1) Tyco's mergers and acquisitions and the accounting
         therefor, as well as allegedly undisclosed
         acquisitions;

     (2) misstatements of Tyco's financial results;

     (3) the impact of a new accounting standard (SAB 101,
         promulgated in 1999) on the Company's earnings
         performance;

     (4) compensation of certain of our former executives;

     (5) their improper use of our funds for personal benefit
         and their improper self-dealing real estate
         transactions;

     (6) their sales of Tyco shares;

     (7) payment of $20 million to one of the Company's former
         directors and a charity of which he is a trustee; and

     (8) the criminal investigation of the Company's former
         Chief Executive Officer

The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory damages,
rescission, disgorgement and attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 31, 2003, Tyco made a motion to dismiss the
consolidated class action complaint.  The other defendants moved
to dismiss shortly thereafter.  On October 14, 2004, the Court
granted Tyco's motion, in part, and denied it in part.  The
Court granted Tyco's motion to dismiss Count II of the
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleging a violation of Section
14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 14a-9
promulgated thereunder against all defendants.  The Court denied
Tyco's motion to dismiss Count I alleging a violation of
Section10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-
5 promulgated thereunder, as well as Counts V and VI alleging
violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of
1933.

In addition, the Court granted former director Michael
Ashcroft's motion to dismiss Count I alleging a violation of
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, Counts III and IV alleging a
violation of Sections 20(a) and 20A of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, respectively, and Count VII alleging a violation of
Section14 of the Securities Act of 1933.


VISTACARE INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vistacare, Inc. and two of its officers face several securities
class actions filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of persons who purchased publicly
traded securities of VistaCare, Inc. (Nasdaq:VSTA), between
November 6, 2003, and August 5, 2004, inclusive.

The suits allege violations of the federal securities laws
arising out of recent declines in the Company's stock price.
Specifically, the complaints allege claims in connection with
various statements and purported omissions to the public and to
the securities markets relating to the Company's August 2004
announcement of its decision to accrue an increased amount for
the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as a reserve for potential
liability due to the Medicare per-beneficiary Cap on
reimbursement for hospice services.


VITAMIN WORLD: Discovery Proceeds in NY Hormone Supplement Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against
Vitamin World, Inc. in New York State Court, alleging that it
engaged in deceptive trade practices and false advertising with
respect to the sale of certain pro-hormone supplements and that
plaintiffs were therefore entitled to equitable and monetary
relief pursuant to the New York General Business Law.

Similar complaints were filed against other companies in the
vitamin and nutritional supplement industry.  The Court has not
yet certified a class and the matter is currently in discovery.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases


CHARLOTTE RUSSE: Class Period in Securities Fraud Suit Expanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP expanded the class
period for the securities class action lawsuit on behalf of all
securities purchasers of Charlotte Russe Holding Inc. (NASDAQ:
CHIC).  The new class period is from October 23, 2003 through
December 6, 2004 inclusive.

The complaint charges the Company, Mark Hoffman, and Daniel
Carter with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Charlotte is a mall-based specialty retailer of apparel and
accessories targeting young women between the ages of 15 and 35.
The Company has two distinct store concepts: Charlotte Russe and
Rampage.

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 strategic repositioning of the Rampage stores
         was failing to produce tangible results;

     (2) that other measures, promoted by management, as actions
         designed to improve operations, were proving futile in
         both the merchandising and store organizations; and

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

On September 9, 2004, Charlotte reported revised guidance for
the fourth quarter of fiscal 2004 which would end on September
25, 2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Charlotte
fell $3.43 per share, or 23.44 percent, on September 9, 2004, to
close at $11.20 per share. Then on December 6, 2004, Charlotte
reported that Donna Desrosiers, Executive Vice President and GMM
for the Charlotte Russe chain, had resigned for personal
reasons. The Company also announced that, as a result of weaker
than expected sales during the quarter to date, it was now
forecasting that comparable stores sales would decline mid to
high single-digits during the first quarter of fiscal 2005
ending on December 25, 2004. The Company had previously guided
investors to expect a low single-digit comparable sales increase
for the quarter. On this news shares of Charlotte fell $0.82 per
share, or 7.52 percent, on December 7, 2004, to close at $10.09
per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by E-
mail: info@sbclasslaw.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 defendants Conexant, 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 firm's Website:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


JAKKS PACIFIC: Lerach Couglin Updates NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP updated the
securities class action filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of JAKKS Pacific, Inc. ("JAKKS") (NASDAQ:JAKK) common
stock during the period between February 17, 2004 and October
19, 2004.

The complaint charges JAKKS and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. JAKKS describes itself as a multi-line, multi-brand toy
company that designs, develops, produces and markets toys and
related products.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements concerning the
increasing sales of JAKKS's products licensed through the World
Wrestling Entertainment Inc. ("WWE").  As alleged in the
complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because defendants knew, but failed to disclose:

     (1) that the WWE was contending that the WWE licenses had
         been obtained through a pattern of commercial bribery;

     (2) that the Company's relationship with the WWE was being
         negatively impacted by the WWE's contention that the
         licenses it had granted to the Company were improperly
         obtained; and

     (3) given the foregoing, the Company was subject to the
         heightened risk that the WWE would seek some
         modification to its WWE licensing agreements or
         complete nullification of those agreements, which would
         negatively impact the Company's future financial
         results.

On October 19, 2004, JAKKS issued a press release announcing
that it was "engaged in discussions with WWE concerning the
restructuring of its toy license and with WWE and THQ with
respect to the restructuring of the JAKKS THQ Joint Venture
video games license agreement with WWE." In response to the
announcement of the problems with the WWE licenses, the price of
JAKKS stock declined from $24.15 per share to $18.81 per share.
Then, after the market closed for trading, it was reported that
the WWE had just filed a lawsuit against JAKKS which alleged
that the videogame license and certain toy licenses that the WWE
previously granted to JAKKS were obtained through a pattern of
racketeering and commercial bribery and seeking, among other
things, that the licensing agreements be declared void.
Following this announcement, on the next day of trading, the
price of JAKKS common stock continued to fall to close at $12.96
per share on extremely heavy trading volume.

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, on November 16, 2004,
JAKKS issued a press release announcing that it entered into a
worldwide licensing agreement with WWE to develop and market
WWE(R) TV Games. The press release gave the impression that
JAKKS and WWE had resolved their differences. However, it was
later disclosed, by WWE, that the deal was only an amendment to
an earlier agreement that is now in dispute and the litigation
between the two companies is continuing.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.


PFIZER INC.: Emerson Poynter Launches Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a securities class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of purchasers of Pfizer Inc (NYSE: PFE)
(NYSE:PFE) publicly traded securities during the period between
October 31, 2000 and December 16, 2004.

The complaint charges Pfizer and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Pfizer is a research-based, global pharmaceutical company
that discovers, develops, manufactures and markets prescription
medicines for humans and animals, as well as consumer healthcare
products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and omissions regarding
the safety and marketability of Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra
COX-2 inhibitor products. Throughout the Class Period,
defendants were made aware of strong indicators that Pfizer's
COX-2 inhibitor drugs posed serious undisclosed health risks to
patients who were prescribed the drugs. As a result of the
defendants' false statements, Pfizer's stock traded at inflated
levels 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 although the information does not appear in the
         U.S. package insert and prescribing information,
         Celebrex increases the potential for causing adverse
         cardiovascular events, since it is a selective COX-2
         inhibitor capable of creating a metabolic imbalance
         between prothrombic cyclo-oxygenase-1 (COX-1) and
         antithrombotic cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) metabolism;

     (2) that prior clinical studies, including the CLASS study
         where concurrent low-dose aspirin therapy, ibuprofen or
         diclofenac controls were employed, were flawed and
         defective, since non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug
         ("NSAID") use also impacts the metabolic balance
         between COX-1 and COX-2 metabolism, potentially
         lowering the observed number of cardiovascular events
         in those studies;

     (3) that even as defendants promoted Celebrex to
         physicians, patients and investors on the basis of its
         safety and efficacy, health authorities continued to
         receive alarming reports of observed cardiovascular and
         cerebrovascular adverse reactions in patients not
         predisposed to cardiovascular disease;

     (4) that even as defendants heralded the safety of Celebrex
         following the recall of Vioxx, another anti-arthritic
         drug marketed by Merck, defendants knew that, unlike
         the scientifically valid clinical studies triggering
         the Vioxx recall, previous clinical trials pointing to
         the cardiovascular safety of Celebrex, including the
         CLASS study, were so flawed and defective that
         additional clinical studies looking at cardiovascular
         safety were required; and

     (5) that even as defendants intensified their retail
         advertising campaign and public statements following
         the Vioxx recall, including publishing full-page
         advertisements in major newspapers heralding the safe
         use of the drug, overwhelming and indisputable data and
         results pointed to a class-specific cardiovascular
         health risk for COX-2 inhibitors, including the adverse
         cardiovascular safety data defendants had already
         generated for Bextra, the Company's other selective
         COX-2 inhibitor drug, and nearly completed specific
         safety studies of Celebrex that would demonstrate that
         Celebrex suffered from the class-specific
         cardiovascular risks attributable to COX-2 inhibitors.

On December 17, 2004, Pfizer announced it had "received new
information . about the cardiovascular safety of its COX-2
inhibitor Celebrex (celecoxib) based on an analysis of two long-
term cancer trials." On this news, Pfizer shares fell to as low
as $22 per share.

For more details, contact the shareholder relations department
of Emerson Poynter LLP by Phone: 1-800-663-9817 or by E-mail:
epllp@emersonpoynter.com.


SOURCECORP INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway File Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action on behalf of all securities purchasers of the SOURCECORP
Incorporated (NASDAQ: SRCPE) from May 7, 2003 through October
26, 2004 inclusive in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas.

The complaint charges SOURCECORP, Ed H. Bowman, Jr. and Barry L.
Edwards with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its net
         income and earnings per share;

     (2) that defendants prematurely recognized revenue in its
         Information Management and Distribution Division;

     (3) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the true financial
         condition of the Company; and

     (5) that as a result, the value of the Company's net income
         and financial results were materially overstated at all
         relevant times.

On October 27, 2004, SOURCECORP announced that based on
information provided by, and the recommendation of, corporate
management, the Company's Audit Committee concluded on October
25, 2004 that the Company's previously issued financial
statements and related independent auditors' report for the year
ended December 31, 2003, as well as its previously issued
financial statements for the 2004 quarterly periods ended March
31, 2004 and June 30, 2004, should no longer be relied upon. The
Company, under the guidance of the Audit Committee, had
initiated an investigation of the financial results of one of
the Company's operating subsidiaries in the Information
Management Division of the Company's Information Management and
Distribution reportable segment. Following this announcement,
shares of SOURCECORP fell $6.59 per share, or 29.67 percent.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq., by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or 1-610-667-7706, or by
E-mail at info@sbclasslaw.com.


SOURCECORP INC.: Lerach Coughlin Updates TX Securities Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP updated the
class action commenced in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of
SOURCECORP, Incorporated (NASDAQ:SRCPE) common stock during the
period between May 7, 2003 and October 27, 2004.

The complaint charges SOURCECORP and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. SOURCECORP provides value-added business process
outsourcing solutions to clients across the United States. The
Company targets information intensive industry segments such as
healthcare, legal, financial services and government.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period
defendants issued numerous positive statements and filed
quarterly reports with the SEC which described the Company's
increasing financial performance. These statements were
materially false and misleading because they failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had improperly and prematurely
         recognized revenue prior to the delivering
         contractually required output to a certain customer;

     (2) that the Company improperly and prematurely recognized
         revenue for services that were performed and delivered
         to customers that were in excess of the volume and/or
         revenue limits set by the contract with the customer
         and of which there is no assurance that the customer
         will ever make payment;

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain its true financial
         condition; and

     (4) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's revenues and earnings for 2003 and the first
         two quarters of 2004 were materially overstated at all
         relevant times and will now have to be restated.

On October 27, 2004, the Company shocked the market when it
issued a press release announcing that based on information
provided by, and the recommendation of, corporate management,
the Company's Audit Committee concluded on October 25, 2004 that
the Company's previously-issued financial statements and related
independent auditors' report for the year ended December 31,
2003, as well as its previously-issued financial statements for
the 2004 quarterly periods ended March 31, 2004 and June 30,
2004, should no longer be relied upon.

Specifically, the Company admitted that the Information
Management Division of its Information Management and
Distribution reportable segment had improperly and prematurely
recognized revenue prior to the delivery of contractually
required output to a certain customer; and for services which
were performed and delivered to certain customers in excess of
the volume and/or revenue limits set by the contract.  Due to
its improper revenue recognition practices, the Company will
have to adjust its revenues and diluted earnings per share for
2003 by at least $5.4 million and $0.19 respectively.  For the
six months ended June 30, 2004, the Company may have to adjust
its revenues and diluted earnings per share by at least $2.8
million and $0.10 respectively.

Upon this shocking news, shares of the Company's stock fell
$5.96 per share, or almost 30%, to close at $16.25 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

Following that announcement, on November 16, 2004, the Company
received a Nasdaq Staff Determination letter indicating that the
Company had failed to timely file its quarterly report on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2004, as required by
Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14), and that the Company's
common stock is therefore subject to delisting from The Nasdaq
Stock Market. The Company now trades under the ticker symbol
SRCPE.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit the firm's Website:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.


TRI-PATH TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a securities class action in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all securities purchasers of Tripath
Technology Inc. (NasdaqNM:TRPH) from January 29, 2004, through
October 22, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Tripath, Adya Tripathi, and David Eichler,
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company improperly recognized revenue from
         sales of product that was eventually returned to the
         distributor;

     (2) that as a result of this, the Company had to increase
         its sales return reserve for the third quarter and had
         to take a charge of approximately $4.0 - $4.5 million
         for excess inventory;

     (3) that the Company's financial results were in violation
         of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

     (4) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls,
         especially the ability to adequately estimate
         distributor sales returns in accordance with SFAS no.
         48; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times
         and the defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their
         statements regarding the Company.

On October 22, 2004, Tripath announced that net revenues for the
third quarter of 2004 would be significantly below prior
guidance of $4 - $4.5 million. Moreover, Tripath announced that
it may have to restate its revenue for the quarter ended June
30, 2004. In addition, Tripath planed to take a charge of
approximately $4.0 - $4.5 million for excess inventory. News of
this shocked the market. Shares of Tripath fell $.75 per share,
or 49.34 percent, on October 25, 2004, to close at $.77 per
share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. by Mail: Three Bala Plaza East, Suite 400, Bala
Cynwyd, PA  19004 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 (toll free) or
1-610-667-7706 or by e-mail: info@sbclasslaw.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  * * *