CAR_Public/050104.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, January 4, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 2


                            Headlines

ACTION PERFORMANCE: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in NM
CALIFORNIA: Court Rejects Motion For Added Refund in Tax Case
CALIFORNIA: Judge To Decide On Cosmetics Price-Fixing Settlement
CANADA: Former Baptist Mission Students Proceed With Abuse Suit
COMMONWEALTH ENERGY: Forges Pact With CA Investor Suit Plaintiff

CROWN FINANCIAL: Reaches Tentative MOU For Investor Fraud Suit
EN POINTE: CA Court Limits Claims in Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
FARMERS GROUP: CEO Points to Tort Reform As Top Insurance Issue
FARMER'S MUTUAL: Lodges Suit V. Firms Due To Unsolicited Faxes
FEDEX CORPORATION: CA Court Certifies Workers' Overtime Lawsuit

GLOBIX CORPORATION: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
HAWAII: Ex-Parking Program Aides File Suit V. Police Department
ILLINOIS: President Visiting IL To Push For Liability Reforms
KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
MEDITERRANEAN PROPERTIES: ISA Supports $1.2M Shareholder's Suit

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Deadline Looms For $1.1B CA Settlement
MISSOURI: Council For Blind Files Suit, Alleges Funds' Misuse
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Denial of CA Lawsuit Certification Appealed
NAVISITE INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
OHIO: Court Rules Tobacco Settlement Bans Matchbooks Ads

OPTIO SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
ORACLE CORPORATION: Trial in Securities Suit Set September 2006
PANTRY INC.: Moves To Transfer Wage Lawsuit To NC Federal Court
PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
PFIZER INC.: Scott + Scott Files Suit Over Celebrex Disclosures

RESOURCE ENERGY: Named As Defendant in NY Royalty Owners' Suit
SOUTH KOREA: KSE Requires Listed Firms To Disclose Developments
THARALDSON MOTELS: Employees Lodge Suit V. Owner Over Stock Plan
TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeds in NE Securities Lawsuit
TYSON FRESH: Court Hears Summary Judgment Appeal in Cattle Suit

TYSON FOODS: OK Court Yet To Hear Appeal of Grand Lake Lawsuit
TYSON FOODS: DE Court's Lawsuit Summary Judgment Ruling Appealed
ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: CO Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
U.S. MINT: EEOC Upholds Class Status For Sex Discrimination Suit
WAL-MART STORES: NJ Judge Allows Immigrants To Sue Collectively

WHITE ELECTRONIC: AZ Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ANCHOR GLASS: Weiss & Lurie Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
UTSTARCOM INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA


                            *********


ACTION PERFORMANCE: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suits in NM
---------------------------------------------------------------
Action Performance Companies, Inc. faces a class action filed in
the United States District Court in New Mexico, styled "The
Cornelia Crowell, GST Trust v. Action Performance Companies,
Inc., et al."  The complaint names as defendants the Company and
certain of its officers, including a former officer.

The complaint alleges the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business during
the period from July 23, 2003, to October 22, 2003, resulting in
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages
and equitable relief.


CALIFORNIA: Court Rejects Motion For Added Refund in Tax Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Third District Court of Appeal upheld a lower-court ruling
that rejected Roseville resident Phil Ozenick's claim for a
class-action lawsuit seeking a tax refund to customers who were
illegally charged a 5 percent utility user tax by the city from
November 2000 to February 2002, the Sacramento Bee reports.

According to legal observers, if Mr. Ozenick won the appeal,
Roseville may have had to pay about $10 million to customers of
water, sewer, electricity, garbage pickup, natural gas,
telephone and cable service.

The city had offered $8 million in refunds from taxes collected
from March 2002 to March 2003 after the courts ruled that the
utility users tax was illegal. Customers accepted about $6
million of the available refunds while others entitled to the
refunds decided to let the city keep the remaining $2 million.

Before the courts abolished the utility user tax in 2003, the
money had been the city's third-largest revenue source, behind
income generated by property and retail taxes. Roseville used
the tax to help pay for services such as police, fire, parks and
libraries.

City Attorney Mark Doane was pleased with the appeal court's
latest ruling, which was issued on December 16. He told the
Sacramento Bee, "this could have meant another major hit to the
general fund. We need the money so that the city can provide
services to the citizens."

Mr. Ozenick told the Sacramento Bee he was disappointed that
residents received only a one-year refund when the tax was
illegally charged for a longer period - from November 2000 until
March 1, 2003. He also told the Sacramento Bee, "I don't know
why the court would hold against the class-action request,
because the city has not really returned all of the money that
was illegally collected. The city charged the tax for more than
two years after the courts had ruled against their collection.
The city just kept charging it while it appealed the decision."


CALIFORNIA: Judge To Decide On Cosmetics Price-Fixing Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class-action lawsuit alleging that Est‚e Lauder, L'Or‚al,
Chanel and other luxury cosmetics makers have been committing
consumer fraud by keeping prices too high may soon result in
giveaways of up to $175 million worth of free products, the
Charlotte Observer reports.

The suit, which if settled may also result in lower prices for
high-end cosmetics, is to be decided upon by a California
federal judge on January 11. Barring any appeals, consumers
could begin lining up at cosmetics counters by summer to claim
free perfumes, lip liners, eye creams and other products,
according to preliminary plans. Under the proposed settlement,
anyone who bought high-end makeup between 1994 and 2003 would be
eligible for a free product of the manufacturers' choice valued
from $18 to $25.

San Francisco lawyers began the case in 1998 after hearing about
cosmetics pricing practices that prevent consumers from getting
discounts on the products. According to court papers, cosmetics
makers ensure that department stores will sell their products at
manufacturer's suggested retail price by guaranteeing stores
will earn a profit margin of 40 percent of the price and
agreeing to buy back unsold products from the stores. As a
result, no two chains hold competing promotions at the same
time, and the products are never marked down.

Francis Scarpulla of San Francisco, a lead attorney in the case,
told the Observer "There should be complete, free and open
competition. That's what's best for consumers."

The cosmetics companies have denied any wrongdoing. A
spokeswoman for The Est‚e Lauder Cos. Inc., one of the largest
manufacturers in the case, referred all inquiries to a Web site
set up to update consumers about the proceedings,
http://www.cosmeticssettlement.com.

Defendants named in the suit include Boucheron (USA) Ltd.,
Chanel Inc., Christian Dior Perfumes Inc., Clarins U.S.A. Inc.,
Conopco Inc., The Est‚e Lauder Cos. Inc., Guerlain Inc., L'Or‚al
USA Inc. (formerly known as Cosmair Inc.), and Parfums Givenchy
Inc., Mr. Scarpulla said. He further adds that the manufacturers
have begun selecting the products they plan to offer consumers,
but the list won't be final until after a judge approves the
settlement and 30 days elapse without notice of an appeal.

Mr. Scarpulla stated that customers would not be required to
provide a receipt but would likely sign some form of
certification saying they had purchased the products during the
qualifying time period and that shoppers would be eligible for
one free product for each manufacturer they had purchased
products from during the 10-year window.

He told the Charlotte Observer, "If you have purchased products
from all nine defendants, then you would go to each of their
counters, and you'd get one free product from each of them." But
customers who purchased from more than one brand of the same
manufacturer, such as Est‚e Lauder-owned Clinique and M.A.C.,
would only be eligible for one of the Est‚e Lauder freebies, he
said.

Attorneys in the cosmetics case are hoping that the lawsuit
results in widespread changes in how department-store makeup
prices are set changes that are likely to harm department store
companies' bottom lines by removing a secure profit margin, Mr.
Scarpulla point out. The lawyers targeted selected retailers,
but their hope is to change pricing policies everywhere the
products are sold, he said.


CANADA: Former Baptist Mission Students Proceed With Abuse Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Former students of the Whitehorse Baptist Mission School are
joining forces to sue the government and the people that they
say abused them, CBC North reports.  The class-action suit was
filed in Yukon Supreme Court on Christmas Eve, just days after
federal authorities revealed they were rejecting claims by
Baptist Mission School students.

According to Whitehorse lawyer Dan Shier, Ottawa's recent denial
of responsibility for the Baptist institution has left him
little choice but to sue. He told CBC North, "I think it will
put pressure on the federal government when they start looking
at the materials we have uncovered through access-to-information
requests. The students didn't know that they were in a specific
class of school, whether it was an Indian day school or a
residential school or a religious institution. It didn't matter
to them. They were taken from their families, put in these
schools under the Indian Act, and they were abused, so to be
fair to everybody the process should be equal to all."

The suit lists the initials and enrollment years of 23 former
students, who all say they were physically abused. Five of those
individuals claim a male supervisor and a nightwatchman also
sexually abused them while three other individuals say
classmates or student perpetrators sexually abused them. The
Baptist Indian Mission School operated in downtown Whitehorse
from 1946 until it closed in 1962. Federal authorities say they
will only accept claims from residential schools and dormitories
they operated directly. No date has been set to hear the suit.


COMMONWEALTH ENERGY: Forges Pact With CA Investor Suit Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
Commonwealth Energy Corporation reached a settlement with the
lead plaintiff in the stockholder class action filed against it
in in the United States District Court for the Central District
of California entitled "Donald Coltrain, et al. v. Commonwealth
Energy Corporation, et al. (Case number CV03-8560-FMC (RNBx))."

The complaint purports to be a class action against the Company
for violations of section 709 of the California Corporations
Code.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company failed to
correctly count approximately 39,869 votes cast at the 2003
annual meeting and, as a result, the Board of Directors was not
properly elected.  Instead, the plaintiffs allege that four
different persons would have been seated on the Board had the
votes been tabulated in the manner advocated by the plaintiffs.

The suit is styled "Donald Coltrain, et al v. Commonwealth
Energy, et al, Case no. 2:03-cv-08560-NM-RNB," filed in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California, under Judge Nora M. Manella.

Representing the plaintiffs are Bill Suojanen and Wendy Reed of
Suojanen Law Offices, 120 Columbia, Suite 100, Aliso Viejo, CA
92626, Phone: 949-448-7529 and Email: billsuojanen@yahoo.com and
Gino P. Pietro of Pietro & Associates, 575 Anton Blvd, Suite 300
Costa Mesa, CA 92626, Phone: 714-432-6364.

Representing the Company are Daniel M. Glassman, Michael J.
Rozak and Peter M. Stone of Paul Hastings Janofsky & Walker, 695
Town Ctr Dr, 17th Fl, Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1924, Phone:
714-668-6200, Fax: 714-979-1921, E-mail:
michaelrozak@paulhastings.com.


CROWN FINANCIAL: Reaches Tentative MOU For Investor Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Crown Financial Group, Inc. entered a memorandum of
understanding to settle the consolidated class action filed
against the Company and certain of its directors in the United
States District Court in New Jersey.

On June 6, 2002, the plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint
against the Company and directors:

     (1) Martin Meyerson,

     (2) Kenneth Koock,

     (3) Estate of Eugene Whitehouse,

     (4) Jeffrey Meyerson,

     (5) Bertram Siegel,

     (6) Martin Leventhal and

     (7) Alfred Duncan

In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged fraud claims under the
federal securities law relating to the Company's disclosures,
and alleged failures to disclose certain information relating to
prior litigations involving the Company, the efforts of the
Company's subsidiary, eMeyerson.com, Inc., to develop an
electronic trading program through a license agreement with
TradinGear.com, Inc., and a litigation arising from eMeyerson's
termination of that agreement, and other matters.  Plaintiffs
seek damages in excess of $15 million for the alleged class.

Subsequently, a virtually identical class action lawsuit was
filed by other plaintiffs against the same defendants in the
same court, styled "Choung v. M.H. Meyerson & Co., Inc., et al.,
U.S. District Court of New Jersey, 02 Civ. 3622."  On September
24, 2002, the District Court consolidated the two cases under
the caption, "In re M.H. Meyerson & Co. Securities Litigation,"
Master File No. 02-CV-2724.

Upon the Company's motion, and pursuant to an Order of the U.S.
District Court dated September 29, 2003, the consolidated action
was dismissed with leave to amend within thirty days.  On
October 30, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint.  On June 3, 2004, the court granted the
plaintiffs' motion to file a Third Amended Complaint to include
facts arising from the Company's restatement of its financial
results for fiscal 2001, 2002 and 2003 and the interim periods
ended April 30, 2003 and July 31, 2003.  In an effort towards
settling the above claims, the parties have entered into a
memorandum of understanding tentatively outlining the parties'
obligations under a future settlement of this matter.
Discussions are very preliminary and no assurances can be made
that the parties will settle this matter or that any such
settlement will be approved and accepted by the court.


EN POINTE: CA Court Limits Claims in Shareholder Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California limited the claims in the securities class action
filed against En Pointe Technologies, Inc., five of its
directors, one current officer, and certain former officers
along with seven unrelated parties.

The suit alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations
regarding the Company and that the individual defendants
improperly benefited from the sales of shares of the Company's
common stock and seeking a recovery by our stockholders of the
damages sustained as a result of such activities.  The suit is
styled "In Re En Pointe Technologies Securities Litigation,
United States District Court, Southern District of California
Case No. 01CV0205L (CGA))."

In an amended complaint, the plaintiffs limited their claims the
Company and its Chief Executive Officer.  In response to a
motion to dismiss, the Court further limited plaintiffs'
claims to allegations of market manipulation and insider
trading.


FARMERS GROUP: CEO Points to Tort Reform As Top Insurance Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tort reform is one of the most important issues that needs to be
addressed in Congress, and significant, fundamental changes are
likely to result from the current investigations into insurance
industry practices, according to retiring Chief Executive
Officer, Martin D. Feinstein, of Farmers Group Inc, the BestWire
Services reports.

Mr. Feinstein, 56, will retire as chief executive officer of
Farmers on March 31, 2005, after 34 years with the company. Paul
N. Hopkins, 48, the current president of Farmers, will succeed
Feinstein. Mr. Feinstein began his career at Farmers, now the
nation's third-largest personal lines property/casualty
insurance group, as a claims trainee, going on to eventually
lead it as chairman and CEO.  James J. Schiro, chief executive
officer of Zurich Financial Services Group, parent company of
Farmers, has asked Feinstein to stay on to consult with him and
to serve as chairman of Farmers until midyear.

In a recent interview with BestWire/BestWeek, Mr. Feinstein was
asked about his view on the various efforts at tort reform. The
Farmers CEO answered, "I think that tort reform is one of the
most important issues that needs to be addressed in Congress. I
think people have a right to pursue litigation, if they have
been wronged. But, through the class-action lawsuits, and the
way it is currently operating today in America, it rises to the
nature of causing an additional cost that is passed on to
consumers because of the way they are pursued. There is
legislation that was in Congress that would better manage that
situation going forward, and I know that Farmers will continue
to work with other companies to get legislation to outline and
define how that best can be managed. Not to take away the right
and privilege of consumers, but to manage it in a way that is
more reasonable in the marketplace."


FARMER'S MUTUAL: Lodges Suit V. Firms Due To Unsolicited Faxes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Farmer's Mutual Insurance Co., of North Market Street,
Elizabethtown initiated a lawsuit against the National
Republican Congressional Committee and a York furniture company,
accusing them of sending unsolicited junk faxes, The Patriot-
News reports.

The Lancaster County-based insurance company filed the suit in
Dauphin County alleging a violation of the federal Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, a law that bars companies from sending
unsolicited faxes and establishes a $500 penalty for each
violation.

According to Company Vice President Hansel H. Anderson, his
office received an unsolicited fax from the NRCC in February.
Mr. Anderson said that he believes the NRCC "routinely faxes"
advertisements to his office and others.

The faxes solicited donations for the NRCC, the Republican
Party's chief fund-raising committee, which focuses on electing
Republican candidates to the U.S. House of Representatives.

Scott B. Cooper of the Harrisburg law firm Schmidt, Ronca and
Kramer said junk faxes cost companies money in wasted paper and
fax machine supplies. Mr. Cooper is representing a Lower Paxton
Twp. physician who sued fax.com, a company that specializes in
bulk fax transmissions. The physician, Leland F. Patterson, also
sued a Tempe, Arizona company, which advertises pharmaceutical
products via fax.

Mr. Cooper told The Patriot-News, "The more people hear and know
about it, the more people are going to realize you should not
send junk faxes that are not authorized." Referring to what he
called "paper spam," Cooper said, "It disrupts people's
business. It costs ink, it costs toner, it adds up over time."

In a separate lawsuit, Farmer's Mutual also sued Office
Furniture Outlet of North Franklin Street, York. In this
lawsuit, Farmer's Mutual claims that on July 4, Office Furniture
Outlet sent it an unsolicited advertisement via fax.  Both of
Farmer's Mutual's lawsuits ask judges to certify them as class-
action lawsuits. Class-action certification could result in a
blanket order, affecting people who feel they have been
similarly affected.


FEDEX CORPORATION: CA Court Certifies Workers' Overtime Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
California State Court granted class certification for the
overtime wage lawsuit filed against FedEx Corporation, styled
"Foster et al, v. FedEx Corporation."

The suit alleges violations of California's s wage-and-hour
laws.  The plaintiffs in these lawsuits are employees of FedEx
operating companies who allege, among other things, that they
were forced to work "off the clock" and were not provided work
breaks or other benefits.  The plaintiffs generally seek
unspecified monetary damages and injunctive relief.  The suit
was filed on behalf of a class of all hourly FedEx Express
employees in California from October 15, 1998 to present.


GLOBIX CORPORATION: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit filed
against Globix Corporation, entitled "In re Globix Corp
Securities Litigation, No. 02-CV-00082."

This lawsuit also named as defendants its former officers Marc
Bell, Peter Herzig (who remains a director of Globix) and Brian
Reach.  The suit asserts claims under sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder on behalf of all persons or entities who
purchased Company securities between November 16, 2000 and
December 27, 2001.  The lawsuit alleged that the defendants had
failed to disclose the true state of the company's financial
condition during this period.

Under the settlement, which remains subject to appeal, the
Company has agreed to pay $3,500,000 (all of which would be
covered by insurance) to settle all claims against it. A motion
for reconsideration of the fee award has been filed by those
plaintiffs' law firms whose fees were not included in the
settlement.

On June 25, 2002, the Company entered into a Stipulation and
Order with the lead plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit.  The
Stipulation and Order provides that 229,452 shares of the
Company's common stock and $1,968,000 in aggregate principal
amount of the 11% senior notes will be held in escrow pending
the outcome of the class action lawsuit.


HAWAII: Ex-Parking Program Aides File Suit V. Police Department
---------------------------------------------------------------
A group of former Honolulu Police Department volunteers has
filed suit against the department, claiming it has gutted a
handicapped-parking program they once helped to enforce, the
Honolulu Advertiser reports.

The program, which was started as a two-year pilot project
administered by the Honolulu Police Department in the late
1990s, empowered volunteers, trained by the department, to cite
for illegal parking in stalls designated for the disabled with
special placards displayed in their vehicles, thereby freeing
police officers from that task. Through volunteers and uniformed
officers, the department issues 3,300 to 3,500 citations
annually for illegal disabled parking. Each citation carries a
$255 fine.

George Fox, a former parking enforcement program volunteer, who
is disabled, says recent changes in Honolulu police policy
"effectively kills the program," the Advertiser states.

Mr. Fox, William Frankovic and Eugene Galves Sr. are suing the
Police Department, alleging that about 45,000 disabled people
have been denied their statutory and constitutional right to
receive police services because of the department's failure to
administer the parking enforcement program properly to benefit
the disabled. Mr. Frankovic and Mr. Galves are volunteers with
the program, Mr. Fox, who had resigned from it four months ago
said.  The new rules, he tells the Honolulu Advertiser, means
that "You no longer can write a citation if someone in or around
the vehicle could be the driver, you no longer can ask for
identification, and if you are in the process of writing a
citation and someone who could be the driver approaches, you
have to leave."

The new Police Department policy requires parking enforcement
volunteers to call 911 and ask for a uniformed officer when a
driver of a car to be cited is present. "It takes an average of
20 minutes for officers to arrive," Mr. Fox said. "You can't
keep a driver there for 20 minutes."

"Their reasoning," Mr. Fox said of police administrators, "is
concern about volunteer safety, because they don't want
confrontation. But the fact is thousands of citations have been
written. Hundreds of (disabled parking) placards have been
confiscated without incident in the four or five years of the
program. It just doesn't happen. No one's been assaulted."

Mr. Fox further said that about one-third of 50 people recently
cited were using placards of deceased relatives or friends, a
percentage that reflects the illegal use of placards. Attorney
Shawn Luiz filed the class-action suit just recently in federal
court.


ILLINOIS: President Visiting IL To Push For Liability Reforms
-------------------------------------------------------------
President George W. Bush is scheduled to travel to Illinois to
push for revisions in medical liability law that according to
him, are needed to eliminate frivolous lawsuits that are driving
up the cost of health care, the Associated Press reports.

Though no other details of the trip were released, White House
spokesman Trent Duffy did state that President Bush would
deliver a speech on the subject in Collinsville that is located
in Madison County, which is nationally known for large monetary
awards to plaintiffs in civil lawsuits.

The American Tort Reform Association listed the county as the
No. 1 U.S. judicial hellhole this year for a second consecutive
year. Just last year, a Madison County judge ordered cigarette
maker Philip Morris USA to pay $10.1 billion for misleading
Illinois smokers into believing light cigarettes are less
harmful than regular brands.

Limiting class-action lawsuits and medical liability claims were
among the issues lawmakers left unfinished in the 108th
Congress. Caps on damage awards of varying types have been
implemented in 27 states, but a proposed federal cap, though
successful in the House, was defeated because of Democratic
opposition in the Senate.  Republicans strengthened their
majorities in both chambers and intend to work again with the
president to impose a nationwide cap on pain and suffering
awards.


KEYNOTE SYSTEMS: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keynote Systems, 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 the Company, certain of its officers and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

In August 2001, hundreds of suits were filed against over 300
issuers of securities including the Company, certain of its
officers, and the underwriters of its initial public offering.
These lawsuits were essentially identical, and were brought on
behalf of those investors who purchased the Company's securities
between September 24, 1999 and August 19, 2001.  These
complaints alleged generally that the underwriters in certain
initial public offerings, including the Company, allocated
shares in those initial public offerings in unfair or unlawful
ways, such as requiring the purchaser to agree to buy in the
aftermarket at a higher price or to buy shares in other
companies with higher than normal commissions.  The complaint
also alleged that the Company had a duty to disclose the
activities of the underwriters in the registration statement
relating to its initial public offering.

The plaintiffs' counsel and the issuer defendants' counsel
reached a preliminary agreement to settle these actions,
including the Company, without any payments by the Company. The
settlement awaits approval by the Court.

The suit is styled " In re Keynote Systems, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ 7666 (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:

     (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


MEDITERRANEAN PROPERTIES: ISA Supports $1.2M Shareholder's Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Israel Securities Authority revealed that it would take part
in funding a NIS 5-million ($1.2M) class action suit against
Mediterranean Properties & Investments (MPI) and its owner,
Mishor Hahof Building and Properties, controlled by Eyal Yona
and Amnon Barzilai, the Ha'aretz reports.

Occasionally, the authority has joined such suits when it
believes that it is in the public interest, and that the courts
will award the suit class action status. In 2003 alone, it had
funded $150,000 in class action suits.

The suit was filed by former MPI shareholder Rami Ackerman
charging that Mr. Yona and Mr. Barzilai, whose Mishor Hahof
already held 87.5 percent of MPI, forced through a buyout of
publicly held shares at the artificially low price of NIS 1.38
per share, six months after Mishor had bought out shares held by
Shamrock Holdings for NIS 2.27 at a company valuation of $125
million. Furthermore, the suit charges that the value of the
shares based on independent capital at the time of the buyout
was NIS 2.14 per share.

The defendants, however responded that the offer price was at
the very least a fair price, and that claims to the contrary
that the offer was low are based solely on speculative
assumptions.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Deadline Looms For $1.1B CA Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
As the deadline approaches to file antitrust-settlement claims
with Microsoft Corporation, only an estimated 700,000 out of 14
million eligible customers have applied for a piece of the $1.1
billion the software giant agreed to pay out, the Mercury News
reports.

The money is part of a class-action suit settlement that claimed
the Redmond, Washington company overcharged customers for
products using monopolistic muscle and its Windows operating
system. The suit was filed on behalf of California customers who
purchased Windows, the Office productivity suite and other
Microsoft software from February 1995 to December 2001.

In January 2003, the Company agreed to pay as much as $1.1
billion in vouchers, which consumers and businesses can use for
cash reimbursements after buying some computer products,
including those from rivals, such as Apple Computer. The
vouchers are similar to the rebates consumers use when buying
new computer equipment.

Under the settlement, two-thirds of the unclaimed money will be
used to buy computer equipment or pay for teacher training and
curriculum development for financially stressed California
schools. Microsoft gets to keep the rest.

According to Eugene Crew, one of the lead plaintiff attorneys in
the case with Townsend Townsend & Crew in San Francisco, "These
are not coupons. These are vouchers that will allow you to buy
any computer product and get cash back." Though no one knows the
total value of the claims made so far, he estimates that 80
percent of those eligible are businesses, which stand to reap a
considerable amount of money. "Some of the biggest companies
that have a lot of computer desktops will have huge claims -- $1
million, $2 million, $3 million," he adds.

Robert Grossman, Crew's co-counsel in the suit, said 80 percent
of the state's largest companies have already filed claims.
However scores of smaller businesses that could garner thousands
of dollars or much more have yet to act.

Another reason for the minimal response from Microsoft customers
could also be that people and companies don't realize how much
money is at stake, said Howard Yellen, an attorney who started
Settlement Recovery Center in San Francisco to assist companies
filing claims for a fee. His Company launched a radio campaign
to alert customers of the settlement. Mr. Yelen told Mercury
News, "I think the public is jaded to settlements that don't
benefit them." Furthermore, he criticized Microsoft for not
working harder to inform the public. "They've worked hard to
keep those claims low. From their standpoint, there are hundreds
of millions of dollars at stake and perceived public opinion,"
Mr. Yellen said.

The software giant, though, says the settlement has been
repeatedly publicized through the media, as well as in e-mail
and letters.

According to Robert Rosenfeld, an attorney with Heller Ehrman
White & McAuliffe in San Francisco, which represents Microsoft,
one reason for the low response is that Californians want the
settlement to assist schools, which is where most of the
unclaimed money would go. It also validates the Company's
position that it did not overcharge customers, he adds. He also
told Mercury News, "This is a bit of a referendum on whether
people feel they were overcharged. We don't believe there is a
sense out there that these products are too expensive.
Microsoft's strategy has always been high volume, low price."


MISSOURI: Council For Blind Files Suit, Alleges Funds' Misuse
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Missouri Council of the Blind initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status claiming that the state has raided millions
of dollars from the Blind Pension Fund to pay for unauthorized
and totally unrelated expenses, the Associated Press reports.

The Council has asked a St. Louis circuit judge to stop the
state Department of Social Services from any more unauthorized
spending of the pension fund with a hearing on the matter being
scheduled.

In the suit, the St. Louis-based Council of the Blind, and four
individual blind plaintiffs from St. Louis, contend that
Missouri has used the state Blind Pension Fund improperly,
including for balancing the state budget, paying tax refunds,
leasing buildings, and paying fringe benefits to department
employees. Furthermore, the suit is alleging that the state
department, over at least a decade, has diverted $24 million
from the pension fund, which was set up in the 1920s by the
state constitution to aid low-income blind people.

According to Thomas Kennedy III, one of the attorneys
representing the plaintiffs, the fund currently pays a monthly
benefit of $479, but it appears blind pensioners should be
receiving $100 more a month.

The lawsuit, which was filed on October 7, 2004, is seeking
class-action status to represent more than 2,000 pension
recipients.

The pension fund derives its revenue from a property tax, which
this year will generate $22 million. Mr. Kennedy said that state
officials - in recent depositions - could not explain the
diversion of money from the fund or where the interest on the
balance has gone.


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Denial of CA Lawsuit Certification Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court for the State of
California for the county of San Diego's denial of class
certification for the lawsuit filed against National Securities
Corporation, relating to a series of private placements of
securities in Fastpoint Communications, Inc. designated as Case
No GIC 791372.

In August 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
violations of state statutory and common law as well as of
Section 12 of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. ss. 77l.
Plaintiffs are seeking approximately $14.0 million, but no
specific amount of damages has been sought against the Company
in the complaint.  The complaint asserts claims in connection
with the Company's role as placement agent in a series of
private placements of securities in Fastpoint.  Plaintiffs
allege that the private placement memoranda contained false and
misleading statements or omitted facts necessary to make
statements not misleading.

In January 2004, the court entered an order denying class
certification.  As a result of this order denying class
certification, the only remaining claims against the Company are
the individual claims asserted by the two class representatives
totaling $60,000.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal of this order
and it is in the process of being briefed.  The action in the
lower court, including a pending motion for summary judgment,
has been stayed.


NAVISITE INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Navisite, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the consolidated securities class action filed against it,
certain of its officers and directors and the underwriters of
its initial public offering.

On June 21, 2001, David Federico filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York a lawsuit
against the Company and:

     (1) Joel B. Rosen, former chief executive officer,

     (2) Kenneth W. Hale, former chief financial officer,

     (3) Robertson Stephens

     (4) J.P. Morgan Chase,

     (5) First Albany Companies, Inc.,

     (6) Bank of America Securities, LLC,

     (7) Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,

     (8) B.T. Alex. Brown, Inc.,

     (9) Chase Securities, Inc.,

    (10) CIBC World Markets,

    (11) Credit Suisse First Boston Corp.,

    (12) Dain Rauscher, Inc.,

    (13) Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.,

    (14) The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,

    (15) J.P. Morgan & Co.,

    (16) J.P. Morgan Securities,

    (17) Lehman Brothers, Inc.,

    (18) Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,

    (19) Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co.,

    (20) Robert Fleming, Inc. and

    (21) Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

The suit generally alleges the defendants violated the anti-
trust laws and the federal securities laws by conspiring and
agreeing to raise and increase the compensation received by the
underwriter defendants by requiring those who received
allocation of initial public offering stock to agree to purchase
shares of manipulated securities in the after-market of the
initial public offering at escalating price levels designed to
inflate the price of the manipulated stock, artificially
creating an appearance of demand and high prices for that stock,
and initial public offering stock in general, leading to further
stock offerings.

The suit also alleges the defendants arranged for the
underwriter defendants to receive undisclosed and excessive
brokerage commissions and that, as a consequence, the
underwriter defendants successfully increased investor interest
in the manipulated initial public offering of securities and
increased the underwriter defendants' individual and collective
underwritings, compensation, and revenue. The suit further
alleges that the defendants violated the federal securities laws
by issuing and selling securities pursuant to the initial public
offering without disclosing to investors that the underwriter
defendants in the offering, including the lead underwriters, had
solicited and received excessive and undisclosed commissions
from certain investors.  The suit seeks unspecified monetary
damages and certification of a plaintiff class consisting of all
persons who acquired shares of the Company's common stock
between October 22, 1999 and
June 12, 2001.

Those five cases, along with lawsuits naming more than 300 other
issuers and over 50 investment banks which have been sued in
substantially similar lawsuits, have been assigned to the
Honorable Shira A. Scheindlin for all pretrial purposes.  On
September 6, 2001, the Court entered an order consolidating the
five individual cases involving the Company and designating
Werman v. NaviSite, Inc., Et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-5374 as
the lead case.

A consolidated, amended complaint was filed thereafter on
April 19, 2002 on behalf of plaintiffs Arvid Brandstrom and
Tony Tse against underwriter defendants Robertson Stephens (as
successor-in-interest to BancBoston), BancBoston, J.P. Morgan
(as successor-in-interest to Hambrecht & Quist), Hambrecht &
Quist and First Albany and against the Company and Mr. Rosen,
Mr. Hale and Mr. Eisenberg (collectively, the "NaviSite
Defendants").

Plaintiffs uniformly allege that all defendants, including the
NaviSite Defendants, violated the federal securities laws (i.e.,
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5) by issuing and selling
the Company's common stock pursuant to the October 22, 1999,
initial public offering, without disclosing to investors that
some of the underwriters of the offering, including the lead
underwriters, had solicited and received extensive and
undisclosed agreements from certain investors to purchase
aftermarket shares at pre-arranged, escalating prices and also
to receive additional commissions and/or other compensation from
those investors.  At this time, plaintiffs have not specified
the amount of damages they are seeking in the Class Action
Litigation.

Between July and September 2002, the parties to the IPO
Securities Litigation briefed motions to dismiss filed by the
underwriter defendants and the issuer defendants, including
NaviSite.  On November1, 2002, the Court held oral argument on
the motions to dismiss. The plaintiffs have since agreed to
dismiss the claims against Mr. Rosen, Mr. Hale and Mr. Eisenberg
without prejudice, in return for their agreement to toll any
statute of limitations applicable to those claims.

By stipulation entered by the Court on November 18, 2002, Mr.
Rosen, Mr. Hale and Mr. Eisenberg were dismissed without
prejudice from the Class Action Litigation.  On February 19,
2003, an opinion and order was issued on defendants' motion to
dismiss the IPO Securities Litigation, essentially denying the
motions to dismiss of all 55 underwriter defendants and of 185
of the 301 issuer defendants, including NaviSite.

On June 30, 2003, the Company's Board of Directors considered
and authorized negotiations to settle the pending Class Action
Litigation substantially consistent with a memorandum of
understanding negotiated among class plaintiffs, the issuer
defendants and the insurers for such issuer defendants.  Among
other contingencies, any such settlement would be subject to
approval by the Court.

Plaintiffs filed on June 14, 2004, a motion for preliminary
approval of the Stipulation And Agreement Of Settlement With
Defendant IssuersAnd Individuals.  The Preliminary Approval
Motion has been fully briefed but the Court has not ruled upon
or set a date for oral argument, if any, on the Preliminary
Approval Motion.

The suit is styled " In re Navisite, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ 5374 (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


OHIO: Court Rules Tobacco Settlement Bans Matchbooks Ads
--------------------------------------------------------
Matchbooks given out at bars and stores cannot bear advertising
for cigarettes or other tobacco products under the 1998
settlement involving 46 states and the major tobacco companies,
according to a recent ruling by the Ohio Supreme Court, the
Associated Press reports.

The unanimous high court ruling had stated that the promotional
matchbooks fit the definition of merchandise and are governed by
the ban on youth-oriented tobacco marketing in the settlement.

The state of Ohio had initiated a lawsuit against the North
Carolina-based R.J. Reynolds over matchbooks advertising the
company's cigarette brands, saying they were marketing
merchandise prohibited in the settlement.

However Reynolds, a subsidiary of Reynolds American Inc.,
contended the matchbooks were not banned by the detailed
agreement, which ended class action lawsuits brought by the
states.

Subsequently, Reynolds won in Franklin County Common Pleas
Court, which held that free matchbooks were not merchandise. But
the 10th Ohio District Court of Appeals in Columbus reversed
that ruling, and the Supreme Court agreed. The ruling by the
Ohio Supreme Court had quoted the matchbook manufacturer's
promotional materials saying, "For every person who picks up a
matchbook, there are eight other people who typically see it."

According to Company spokesman Mark Smith, Reynolds, whose
brands include Camel, Winston, Salem and Doral, they had ceased
matchbook advertising during the case.

The states that signed the settlement agreement with the
companies are supposed to get the $206 billion over 25 years,
including $10 billion for Ohio. In addition, the tobacco
companies promised not to market to children and teens.


OPTIO SOFTWARE: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Optio Software, Inc. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval
to the settlement of the consolidated securities class action
filed against it, certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of the company's initial public offering.

On November 13, 2001, a lawsuit styled "Kevin Dewey vs. Optio
Software, Inc., et. al." was filed against the underwriters in
Optio's initial public offering as well as Optio and certain
officers and directors of Optio, by a single plaintiff
purportedly on behalf of persons purchasing Optio's common stock
between December 14, 1999 and December 6, 2000 and seeks class
action status.  Optio is a co-defendant with approximately 300
other issuers in this suit.

The complaint includes allegations of violations of Section 11
of the Securities Act of 1933 by all named defendants, Section
12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 by the underwriter
defendants, Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 by the
individual defendants, and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the underwriter defendants.

The complaint alleges that Optio's prospectus was materially
false and misleading because it failed to disclose, among other
things, that:

     (1) the underwriters had solicited and received excessive
         and undisclosed commissions from certain investors in
         exchange for which the underwriters allocated to those
         investors material portions of a limited number of
         Optio shares issued in connection with the Optio
         initial public offering; and

     (2) the underwriters had entered into agreements with
         customers whereby the underwriters agreed to allocate
         Optio shares to those customers in the Optio initial
         public offering in exchange for which the customers
         agreed to purchase additional Optio shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

The complaint seeks unspecified amounts for compensatory damages
as a result of Optio's alleged actions, as well as punitive
damages and reimbursement for the plaintiff's attorney's fees
and associated costs and expenses of the lawsuit.  A proposal to
settle the claims against Optio and other companies and
individual defendants in the litigation was conditionally
accepted by Optio. The completion of the settlement is subject
to a number of conditions, including Court approval.

Under the settlement, the plaintiffs will dismiss and release
all claims against participating defendants in exchange for a
contingent payment guaranty by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in the action,
and the assignment or surrender to the plaintiffs of certain
claims the issuer defendants may have against the underwriters.
Under the guaranty, all the insurers for all the issuers will be
required to pay an amount equal to $1.0 billion less any amounts
ultimately collected by the plaintiffs from the underwriter
defendants in all the cases.  The disposition of this matter is
limited to Optio's $300,000 corporate insurance deductible. The
Company has completed payment of the insurance deductible
through payment of legal fees.

The suit is styled "In re Optio Software, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, (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


ORACLE CORPORATION: Trial in Securities Suit Set September 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Oracle Corporation and certain of its officers and directors is
set for September 11, 2006 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California.

Stockholder class actions were initially filed against the
Company and Chief Executive Officer on and after March 9, 2001.
On June 20, 2001, the court consolidated the class actions into
a single action and appointed a lead plaintiff and class
counsel.  A consolidated amended complaint, adding the Company's
then Chief Financial Officer (who currently is Chairman of its
Board of Directors) and a former Executive Vice President as
defendants, was filed on August 3, 2001.

The consolidated amended complaint was brought on behalf of
purchasers of Company stock during the period from December 15,
2000 through March 1, 2001.  Plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants made false and misleading statements about the
Company's actual and expected financial performance and the
performance of certain of its applications products, while
certain individual defendants were selling Oracle stock in
violation of federal securities laws.  Plaintiffs further
alleged that certain individual defendants sold Oracle stock
while in possession of material non-public information.

On March 12, 2002, the court granted the Company's and the
individual defendants' motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.  On April 10, 2002, plaintiffs filed a
first amended consolidated complaint, brought on behalf of
purchasers of Company stock during the period from December 14,
2000 through March 1, 2001.  On September 11, 2002, the court
granted defendants' motion to dismiss that complaint.

On October 11, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint.  In this second amended complaint, the plaintiffs
added allegations that the defendants engaged in accounting
violations and made misstatements about the Company's financial
performance, beginning on December 14, 2000 through March 1,
2001.  On March 24, 2003, the court dismissed the second amended
complaint with prejudice.  Plaintiffs appealed that dismissal
and, on September 1, 2004, the United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit reversed the dismissal order and remanded
the case for further proceedings.  The Company and the
individual defendants petitioned for rehearing of the Ninth
Circuit's decision, and on October 21, 2004, the petition for
rehearing was denied.


PANTRY INC.: Moves To Transfer Wage Lawsuit To NC Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pantry, Inc. removed the class action filed against it in the
Superior Court for Forsyth Country, State of North Carolina,
styled "Constance Barton, Kimberly Clark, Wesley Clark, Tracie
Hunt, Eleanor Walters, Karen Meredith, Gilbert Breeden, LaCentia
Thompson, and Mathesia Peterson, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of classes of those similarly situated vs. The Pantry,
Inc.," to the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina.

The suit seeks class action status and asserts claims on behalf
of The Pantry's North Carolina present and former employees for
unpaid wages under the North Carolina Wage and Hour laws. The
suit also seeks an injunction against any unlawful practices,
damages, liquidated damages, costs and attorneys' fees.

The Company filed an Answer denying any wrongdoing or liability
to plaintiffs in any regard.  On August 17, 2004, the Copmpany
filed a Notice of Removal, removing the case to the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
The Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case to the
Superior Court for Forsyth County, which is presently pending
before the federal district court.


PARAMETRIC TECHNOLOGY: MA Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts dismissed the consolidated securities class action
filed against Parametric Technology Corporation and certain of
its current and former officers and directors.

Shareholders filed several suits in the second and third
quarters of 2003, claiming violations of the federal securities
laws based on alleged misrepresentations regarding the company's
reported financial results for the fiscal years 1999, 2000 and
2001 and its announced results for 2002.  The consolidated
amended complaint was filed in the fourth quarter of 2003 and
sought unspecified damages.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated action
with prejudice and the court held a hearing on our motion in the
third quarter of 2004.  On November 3, 2004, the court granted
the motion to dismiss and entered an order dismissing the
consolidated action. The plaintiffs did not file a notice of
appeal from the court's order within the applicable period of
time for them to do so, which should conclude the litigation.

The suit is styled "Miller et al. v. Parametric Technology, et
al., case no. 1:03-cv-10290-WGY," filed in the United States
District Court in Boston, Massachusetts under Judge William G.
Young.

Lawyers for the defendants are Henry B. Gutman, Jason S. Stone
and Kerry L. Konrad of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, 425
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-455-2000; and
Ruth T. Dowling of Palmer & Dodge, LLP, 111 Huntington Avenue
Boston, MA 02199, Phone: 617-239-0657, Fax: 617-227-4420
Email: rdowling@palmerdodge.com.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Ademi & O'Reilly, LLP, 3181 South 27th Street,
         Milwaukee, WI, 53215, Phone: 866.264.3995, Fax:
         414.482.8001, E-mail: inquiry@ademilaw.com

     (2) 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

     (3) 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,

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

     (5) Chitwood & Harley, Mail: 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E.,
         2900 Promenade II, Atlanta, GA, 30309, Phone:
         888.873.3999,

     (6) Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, 100 Park
         Avenue, New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 212.907.0700, Fax:
         212.818.0477, E-mail: info@glrslaw.com

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

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

     (9) Spector, Roseman, & Kodroff (San Diego), 600 West
         Broadway, Suite 1800, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone:
         619.338.4514,

    (10) 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

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


PFIZER INC.: Scott + Scott Files Suit Over Celebrex Disclosures
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott LLC, a Colchester law firm recently initiated a
class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court against Pfizer, Inc.
on behalf of shareholders who lost money after a federal study
found that taking high doses of the popular arthritis painkiller
Celebrex could present an increased risk of heart attack or
stroke, TheDay.com reports.

In the suit, the firm alleges that Pfizer violated the federal
securities laws "by issuing materially false and misleading
statements" during the period from October 31, 2000 and December
16, 2004. Furthermore, the suit names two individuals, Henry A.
McKinnell, who was chairman of the board and chief executive
officer and John L. LaMattina, president of the Global Research
and Development headquarters in New London as defendants.

According to the suit, "Specifically, as stated in the
complaint, Mr. LaMattina was responsible for scientific
reporting concerning the safety of Celebrex." The suit further
claims that a study done by Pfizer showed no increase risk of
heart attack or stroke by people taking Celebrex. However, a
study of 2,000 patients done by the National Cancer Institute
found that patients found a possible link between high doses of
Celebrex and increased risk of heart attack or stroke.
Subsequently, Pfizer disclosed results of the cancer study on
December 17, stating the possible risk of heart attack or stroke
in patients who take 400 to 800 milligrams of Celebrex.

Shares of Pfizer stock dropped 11 percent or around $3.23 the
day following the revelation and thus losing $25 billion in
market value. The stock has rebounded since then and was listed
at $26.89 at the close of business. Celebrex has remained on the
market in the wake of the controversy, but the company pulled
advertisements for the drug.


RESOURCE ENERGY: Named As Defendant in NY Royalty Owners' Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Resource Energy, Inc. is named as a defendant in a proposed
class action originally filed in February 2000 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 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.  The action is
currently in its discovery phase.


SOUTH KOREA: KSE Requires Listed Firms To Disclose Developments
---------------------------------------------------------------
Disclosures On Legal Status Mandatory For Listed Firms
Listed companies that become subject to the class action lawsuit
from this year will be required to make filings to the main
exchange concerning the developments of the lawsuit, according
to the Korea Stock Exchange (KSE), the Korea Times reports.

Furthermore, the KSE adds that shares of companies that are sued
in the class action lawsuit or that are found to have engaged in
accounting irregularities will be suspended for trading
temporarily. It also revealed that it is revising the disclosure
system so as to better inform investors with the latest
developments of a company that is subject to the class action
lawsuit. Under the system, the KSE said that firms will be
required to make filings on whether a lawsuit was filed against
the company, whether it was accepted by the court and what the
court's rulings were. Parallel to the company disclosures, the
exchange will also make public disclosures directly on the same
information after being notified by the court to protect
investors in case the companies do not make the proper filings.

The exchange also revealed that it would suspend trading of a
company in a class action lawsuit for 30 minutes if important
developments of the lawsuit occur during the market's normal
trading hours. The trading of companies that are involved in
accounting irregularities will also be halted by the exchange
with the shares being demoted to the supervised issue category.

An official form the KSE told the Korea Times, "Investors should
be aware of companies which are caught up in lawsuits and found
to have committed accounting irregularities. We strengthened the
disclosure system so that we can provide the important
information promptly to investors."

Under the class action lawsuit system, listed companies will be
responsible for questionable market activities such as unfair
disclosure, stock price manipulation, insider trading and
accounting irregularities. A group of at least 50 shareholders
holding a combined 0.01 percent of the company's outstanding
shares are eligible to file lawsuits but the court's ruling will
be applied to all shareholders alike.

Companies with at least 2 trillion won in assets will be subject
to the law from next year and the law will be applied to those
with less that 2 trillion won from 2007.


THARALDSON MOTELS: Employees Lodge Suit V. Owner Over Stock Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
The owner of a motel development company in Fargo, ND, was
recently named in a federal class action lawsuit, which accuses
him of cheating Company employees enrolled in a stock ownership
plan, the Associated Press reports.

Filed by Raymond Hans, a former employee of Tharaldson Motels
Inc., the suit says that Gary Tharaldson, other Company managers
and directors sold employees overpriced stock. It further says
that Mr. Tharaldson and other company officials borrowed money
against the employees' stock ownership plan, reducing its value.

But, Mr. Tharaldson denied the allegations and stated that the
company he founded has handled its employee stock plan properly.
$500 million in the Company's common stock was sold to employees
in January and December 1999.

Mr. Hans filed the civil suit in U.S. District Court in Las
Vegas. The suit is a class-action complaint filed on behalf of
thousands of employees invested in Tharaldson Motels' stock
ownership plan.

Furthermore, the suit says that the stock was sold not to
benefit Company employees, but to siphon available cash flow and
sell off old motels. It adds that the money was used to finance
the construction of new properties owned by Mr. Tharaldson's
other companies.


TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: Discovery Proceeds in NE Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated securities class
action filed against Transaction Systems Architects, Inc. and
certain individuals in the United States District Court for the
District of Nebraska.

In November 2002, two class action complaints were filed,
alleging violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
Pursuant to a Court order, the two complaints were consolidated
as "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction Systems Architects,
Inc., et al.," with Genesee County Employees' Retirement System
designated as the Lead Plaintiff.

The First Amended Consolidated suit, filed on June 30, 2003,
alleges that during the purported class period, the Company and
the named defendants misrepresented the Company's historical
financial condition, results of operations and its future
prospects, and failed to disclose facts that could have
indicated an impending decline in the Company's revenues.  The
Consolidated Complaint seeks unspecified damages, interest,
fees, costs and rescission.  The class period alleged in the
Consolidated Complaint is January 21, 1999 through November 18,
2002.

The Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the Consolidated Complaint.  In response, on December
15, 2003, the Court dismissed, without prejudice, Gregory
Derkacht, the Company's President and Chief Executive Officer,
as a defendant, but denied the motion to dismiss with respect to
the remaining defendants, including the Company.  On February 6,
2004, the Court entered a mediation reference order requiring
the parties to mediate before a private mediator.  The parties
held a mediation session on March 18, 2004, which did not result
in a settlement of the matter.

The suit is styled "Desert Orchid Partners v. Transaction
Systems Architects et al, case no. 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT," filed
in the United States District Court in Nebraska, under Judge
Joseph F. Bataillon.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Gerald L. Friedrichsen of FITZGERALD, SCHORR LAW FIRM,
         13220 California Street, Suite 400, Omaha, NE 68154-
         5228, Phone: (402) 342-1000, Fax: (402) 342-1025,
         Email: gfriedrichsen@fitzlaw.com.

     (2) Louis Gottlieb of GOODKIND, LABATON LAW FIRM - NEW
         YORK, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         907-0872, Fax: (212) 883-7072, Email:
         lgottlieb@glrslaw.com

     (3) Marc I. Gross of POMERANTZ, HAUDEK LAW FIRM, 100 Park
         Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, NY 10017, Phone: (212)
         661-1100, Fax: (212) 661-8665, Email:
         migross@pomlaw.com

     (4) David W. Rowe, KINSEY, RIDENOUR LAW FIRM, P.O. Box
         85778, Lincoln, NE 68501-5778, Phone: (402) 438-1313,
         Fax: (402) 438-1654, Email: drowe@krbklaw.com

     (5) Emily C. Komlossy, GOODKIND, LABATON LAW FIRM -
         FLORIDA, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 813, Fort
         Lauderdale, FL 33304, Phone: (954) 630-1000, Fax: (954)
         565-1312 Email: ekomlossy@glrslaw.com

     (6) Jonathan M. Plasse of GOODKIND, LABATON LAW FIRM -
         FLORIDA, 2455 East Sunrise Boulevard, Suite 813, Fort
         Lauderdale, FL 33304, Phone: (212) 907-0863, Fax: (212)
         883-7063 Email: jplasse@glrslaw.com

Lawyers for the defendants are Elizabeth L. Yingling and Joel
Held of BAKER, MCKENZIE LAW FIRM, 2001 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300
Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: (214) 978-3000, Fax: (214) 978-3099,
Email: elizabeth.l.yingling@bakernet.com or
joel.held@bakernet.com and Thomas J. Culhane of ERICKSON,
SEDERSTROM LAW FIRM, 10330 Regency Parkway Drive, Suite 100
Omaha, NE 68114, Phone: (402) 397-2200, Fax: (402) 390-7137,
Email: tculh@eslaw.com.


TYSON FRESH: Court Hears Summary Judgment Appeal in Cattle Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States 11th Circuit Court of Appeal heard oral
arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the judgment in favor of
Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. (TFM, formerly IBP, Inc.) in the cattle
growers antitrust class action filed against the Company.

In July 1996, certain cattle producers filed a class action
styled "Henry Lee Pickett, et al. v. IBP, Inc." in the U.S.
District Court, Middle District of Alabama, seeking
certification of a class of all cattle producers.  The complaint
alleged that TFM "used its market power and alleged captive
supply agreements to reduce the prices paid by TFM on purchases
of cattle in the cash market in alleged violation of the Packers
and Stockyards Act (PSA).

Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as
actual and punitive damages.  Plaintiffs submitted an amended
expert report on November 19, 2003, showing alleged damages on
all cash market purchases by TFM of approximately $2.1 billion.
Trial of this matter began on January 12, 2004, and concluded on
February 10, 2004.  On February 17, 2004, a jury returned a
verdict against TFM on liability and gave an "advisory" verdict
on damages that estimated the impact on the cash market (i.e., a
group larger than the class) to be $1.28 billion.

On February 25, 2004, TFM filed a renewed motion requesting the
Court to enter a judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) for TFM.  On
March 1, 2004, the plaintiffs filed motions asking the Court to
enter the $1.28 billion advisory verdict as an award of damages
to the plaintiffs and requesting prejudgment interest.  On March
22, 2004, the Court denied the plaintiff's motions for entry of
a damages award.  On April 23, 2004, the Court granted TFM's
JMOL motion, and held:

     (1) TFM had legitimate business reasons for using "captive
         supplies,"

     (2) there was "no evidence before the Court to suggest that
         [TFM's] conduct is illegal," and

     (3) "plaintiffs failed to present evidence at trial to
         sustain their burden with respect to liability and
         damages."

The plaintiffs have appealed the Court's entry of judgment in
favor of TFM to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, and oral
arguments were heard by the Circuit Court on December 17, 2004.

The suit is styled "Pickett, et al v. Tyson Fresh Meats, et al,
2:96-cv-01103-LES-CSC," filed in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama under Judge Lyle E.
Strom, presiding.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Andrew Clay Allen, Joe R. Whatley, Peter Harrington
         Burke, Whatley Drake, LLC, PO Box 10647, Birmingham, AL
         35202-0647, Phone: 205-328-9576, Fax: 328-9669, Email:
         aallen@whatleydrake.com, jwhatley@whatleydrake.com or
         measterwood@whatleydrake.com

    (ii) David Alan Domina, Norah M. Kane, Domina Law PC, 1065
         North 115th Street, Suite 150, Omaha, NE 68154, Phone:
         402-493-4100, Fax: 402-493-9782, E-mail:
         dad@dominalaw.com or nmk@dominalaw.com,

   (iii) Ernest Clayton Hornsby, Jr., Morris Haynes & Hornsby
         The Financial Center, 505 North 20th Street, Suite
         1150, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: 205-324-4008, Fax:
         205-324-0803, Email: chornsby@bellsouth.net

    (iv) Larry Wade Morris, Morris, Haynes & Hornsby, PO Box
         1660, Alexander City, AL 35011-1660, Phone: 256-329-
         2000, Fax: 329-2015, Email: paralegal888@yahoo.com

     (v) Pierce Jackson Harris, Jr., Randy Beard, Beard & Beard
         PO Box 88, Guntersville, AL 35976-0088, Phone: 256-582-
         3189, Fax: 256-582-6787, Email: pj@beardandbeard.com or
         randy@beardandbeard.com

    (vi) Stephen K. Griffith, Knight Griffith McKenzie Knight
         McLeroy & Little LLP, PO Box 930, Cullman, AL 35056,
         Phone: 256-734-0456, Fax: 256-734-0466 or Email:
         skgriff@knight-griffith.com

Defending the Company are Sidley Austin Brown & Wood, 1501 K
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005, Phone: 202-736-8000, Fax: 202-
736-8711, Email: fvolpe@sidley.com and Nathan Hodne, Tyson
Foods, Inc., Asst. General Counsel, 2210 West Oaklawn Drive
Springdale, AR 72762, Phone: 479-290-4706, Fax: 479-290-7967
Email: Nathan.Hodne@Tyson.com


TYSON FOODS: OK Court Yet To Hear Appeal of Grand Lake Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Supreme Court has yet to hear defendants appeal of
class certification for the lawsuit filed against Tyson Foods,
Inc. on behalf of owners of Grand Lake O' the Cherokee's
littoral (lakefront) property.

R. Lynn Thompson and Deborah S. Thompson filed the suit on
October 23, 2001 in the District Court for Mayes County,
Oklahoma, against the Company, alleging that it "or entities
over which it has operational control" conduct operations in
such a way as to interfere with the putative class action
plaintiffs' use and enjoyment of their property, allegedly
caused by diminished water quality in the lake.  Plaintiffs are
seeking injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs.
Simmons Foods, Inc. (Simmons) and Peterson Farms, Inc.
(Peterson) have been joined as defendants.

The Company and Simmons are seeking leave to file a third party
complaint against entities that contribute wastes and wastewater
into Grand Lake.  The class certification hearing was held in
October 2003. On December 11, 2003, the trial court entered an
order granting class certification.  On January 12, 2004, the
Company, Simmons and Peterson filed a Petition in Error (the
Petition) in the Oklahoma Supreme Court which challenges and
seeks appellate level review of the trial court's certification
order.

The suit is styled, "R. Lynn Thompson v. Tyson Foods, Inc., case
no. CJ-01-00452," filed in the District Court for Mayes County,
Oklahoma under Judge James D. Goodpaster.


TYSON FOODS: DE Court's Lawsuit Summary Judgment Ruling Appealed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware's summary judgment in favor of Tyson Foods,
Inc. in the consolidated securities class action filed against
the Company and officers Don Tyson, John Tyson and Les Baledge,
styled "IN re Tyson Foods, Inc. Securities Litigation."

Between June 22 and July 20, 2001, various plaintiffs commenced
actions, seeking monetary damages on behalf of a purported class
of those who sold IBP, inc. (IBP) stock from March 29, 2001,
when the Company announced its intention to terminate its merger
agreement with IBP, through June 15, 2001, when a Delaware state
court rendered its Post-Trial Opinion ordering the merger to
proceed.

Plaintiffs in the various actions alleged that the defendants
violated federal securities laws by making, causing or allowing
to be made, certain allegedly false and misleading statements in
a March 29, 2001, press release issued in connection with the
Company's attempted termination of the Merger Agreement.  The
plaintiffs alleged that, as a result of the defendants' alleged
conduct, purported class members were harmed by an alleged
artificial deflation in the price of IBP's stock during the
proposed class period.

On December 4, 2001, the plaintiffs in the consolidated action
filed a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.  On January 22,
2002, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
complaint.  By memorandum order dated October 23, 2002, the
court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion
to dismiss.  On October 6, 2003, the court certified a class
consisting of those who purchased IBP securities on or before
March 29, 2001, and subsequently sold such securities from March
30 through June 15, 2001, inclusive, and sustained damages as a
result of such transaction.

Following the conclusion of discovery in the case, plaintiffs
and defendants each filed motions for summary judgment.  On June
17, 2004, the court rendered an opinion in favor of defendants
and against plaintiffs on all of plaintiffs' claims, and entered
an order to that effect.  On June 28, 2004, defendants filed a
motion requesting the court to modify its order to include
judgment in defendants' favor against the class and on July 30,
2004, the court entered such an order.


ULTIMATE ELECTRONICS: CO Court Partially Dismisses Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
granted in part Ultimate Electronics, Inc.'s motion to dismiss
the consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers and directors, styled "re Ultimate
Electronics, Inc. Securities Litigation."

On April 7, 2003, Howard Fisher filed a complaint against the
Company and three of its officers and directors in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado. The
complaint is a purported class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period
between March 13, 2002 and August 8, 2002.

As initially filed, the complaint sought damages for alleged
violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), Rule 10b-
5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and section 20(a) of the
Exchange Act.

On May 30, 2003, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
asserted in the complaint.  The Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
("AEPF"), which had been appointed as the lead plaintiff to
represent the putative plaintiff class, responded to the
Company's motion to dismiss by filing an amended complaint on
August 11, 2003.  In the amended complaint, AEPF asserts claims
against the Company and all of the Company's directors during
the relevant period for alleged violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act.  AEPF asserts that the
prospectus, dated April 30, 2002, for the Company's 2002 public
offering of common stock failed to disclose material facts that
were required to be disclosed and contained false and misleading
statements.  The amended complaint seeks to recover unspecified
monetary damages, an award of rescission or rescissory damages
and an award of attorneys' fees, costs and prejudgment and post-
judgment interest.

On September 11, 2003, the Company moved to dismiss all claims
asserted by AEPF in the amended complaint.  On September 27,
2004, the court granted the motion in part and dismissed the
Section 12(a)(2) claims and certain claims brought under Section
11.  The court denied the motion as to other Section 11 claims
and the Section 15 claim.


U.S. MINT: EEOC Upholds Class Status For Sex Discrimination Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has cleared the way
for a judge to hear a class-action complaint alleging sexual
discrimination against 32 female employees at the U.S. Mint by
denying an appeal by the Treasury Department, the Associated
Press reports.

According to attorney Lynn Feiger, who represents the women
challenging working conditions at the downtown Denver mint,
barring a review or an appeal, both sides have 120 days for
discovery of evidence and testimony.

The mint has 171 full-and part-time female workers, 32 of them
signed a complaint last year against their employer, saying they
are forced to work in an environment hostile toward women and
that managers discriminate against them through unfair job
assignments, promotions, discipline, terminations and sexual
harassment. Attorney Feiger pointed out that damages for
emotional abuse can reach $300,000 for each employee.

The initial complaint included charges of openly displayed
pornography, unwanted sexual advances and sexual discrimination
by male workers and male managers. The women are also alleging
that the abusive behavior has been going on for years.


WAL-MART STORES: NJ Judge Allows Immigrants To Sue Collectively
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Joseph A. Greenaway of Newark, New Jersey
has given undocumented Wal-Mart Stores contract workers the
right to seek out colleagues and form a group to collectively
sue the Company for unpaid overtime and minimum wage violations,
the Bloomberg News reports.

The federal judge gave lawyers for Wal-Mart janitors six months
to notify eligible workers that they may join the suit against
Wal-Mart. Judge Greenaway will determine next summer whether the
group comprises workers with similar enough claims that they can
sue collectively.

According to attorney James Linsey, who brought the case against
the retail giant, the ruling will allow potentially "tens of
thousands" of former Wal-Mart employees from countries including
Mexico, Mongolia and the Czech Republic to participate in the
suit. But, Wal-Mart's lawyer, David Murray of Willkie Farr &
Gallagher in Washington, called the number "way off the mark."

In raids on 61 Wal-Mart stores in October 2003, U.S. officials
had arrested more than 250 suspected illegal immigrants. Federal
prosecutors in Pennsylvania are investigating whether Arkansas-
based Wal-Mart, knowingly hired contractors who used illegal
immigrants to clean its stores. The New Jersey suit was filed a
month after the raids.

The order also requires the Company to "produce the names,
addresses and nationalities of all Wal-Mart former and current
contract janitors since January 2000" and to provide information
on relevant contracts.

According to Mr. Linsey, his firm would notify potential
claimants through a Web site and ask for permission to post
notices at Wal-Mart stores. He also said he has also visited
Warsaw and Prague to find eligible former Wal-Mart employees.

By allowing the group to sue collectively, Judge Greenaway
rejected a motion by Wal-Mart to dismiss the labor-law count of
the four-count suit. However, the federal judge has yet to
decide whether to dismiss three other counts, which allege that
Wal-Mart engaged in racketeering, violated workers' civil rights
and falsely imprisoned the workers.


WHITE ELECTRONIC: AZ Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
ordered consolidated the securities class actions filed against
White Electronic Designs Corporation and certain of its current
and former officers and directors.  The suits are styled:

     (1) McJimsey v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et
         al. (Case No. CV04-1499-PHX-SRB),

     (2) Afework v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al
         (Case No. CV04-1558-PHX-JWS),

     (3) Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al.
         (Case No. CV04-1632-PHX-JAT), and

     (4) Sammarco v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et
         al. (Case No. CV04-1744-PHX-EHC)

The complaints allege, among other things, that between January
23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business, in
violation of the federal securities laws.  The complaints seek
unspecified monetary damages.

The Court has consolidated the four cases into one action.
Plaintiffs' motion for appointment of lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel is under submission with the Court.



                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ANCHOR GLASS: Weiss & Lurie Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Weiss & Lurie initiated a class action
lawsuit against Anchor Glass Container Corporation ("Anchor" or
the "Company") (NASDAQ:AGCC) and its officers was commenced in
the United States District Court, Middle District of Florida, on
behalf of purchasers of Anchor securities on behalf of persons
or individuals who purchased Anchor securities between September
25, 2003 and November 4, 2004, including purchasers who acquired
shares in the September 25, 2003 Initial Public Offering, please
read this notice.

The complaint charges the defendants with violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
alleging that defendants issued false and misleading statements
which artificially inflated the stock.

For more details, contact Mark D. Smilow, James E. Tullman, or
David C. Katz by Mail: The French Building, 551 Fifth Avenue,
Suite 1600, New York, NY 10176 or by Phone: (888) 593-4771 or
(212) 682-3025.


CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody has initiated a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Conexant Systems, Inc. ("Conexant")
(NASDAQ:CNXT) between March 1, 2004 and November 4, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), and former GlobespanVirata, Inc.
("GlobespanVirata") shareholders who received shares of Conexant
in the merger, against Conexant and certain officers and
directors of the Company.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements and failing to disclose material facts regarding the
Company's financial performance throughout the Class Period that
had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the
Company 's securities.

The Complaint specifically alleges that during the Class Period
Conexant failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 by Phone:
1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


UTSTARCOM INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of UTStarcom, Inc. ("UTStarcom" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:UTSI) between April 16, 2003 and September 20, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants misrepresented material
adverse facts during the Class Period, including, but not
limited to:

     (1) significant problems with the Company's internal
         controls;

     (2) problems related to the Company's revenue recognition
         polices and procedures; and

     (3) supply chain problems that delayed recognition of
         certain revenues. On September 16, 2004, UTStarcom
         filed its second-quarter 2004 financial results with
         the Securities and Exchange Commission stating, among
         other things, that a Company-initiated review of a $290
         million contract with Japan Telecom Co., Ltd. "led
         management to conclude that certain significant control
         deficiencies exist related to the review and evaluation
         of criteria related to revenue recognition. ..."

Four days later, on September 20, 2004, UTStarcom announced that
the Company was revising its financial guidance downward for
third-quarter and full-year 2004 and, moreover, would defer
recognition of the entire $290-million Japan Telecom contract,
rather than recognize revenue of $220 million in the second half
of 2004.

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


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2005.  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  * * *