CAR_Public/050105.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, January 5, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 3


                           Headlines

ACME SMOKED: Recalls Smoked Nova Salmon Due To Listeria Content
BANK OF AMERICA: To Appeal CA Court Ruling in Overdraft Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles City Files Suit V. Internet Travel Sites
CANADA CARE: FDA Lodges Complaint Over Illegal Prescription Drug
CHUBB CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Stock Lawsuit Dismissal

DELOITTE & TOUCHE: MD Judge Dismisses Claims Over Ahold's Fraud
DUNCAN-WILLIAMS: Bondholders Launch Securities Suit in W.D. TN
FIRST FEDERAL: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit in OH
FLORIDA: Judge Allows $4 Monthly Prison Banking Fee to Remain
FORD MOTOR: OH Judge Asked To Approve Civil Rights Settlement

GEORGIE BOY: Recalls Motor Homes For Windshield System Defect
GOODYEAR TIRE: Recalls Tires For Safety Standard Non-Compliance
ILLINOIS: Lakin Law Files Two More Suits in Final Hours Of 2004
INTEGRATED SURGICAL: Patients Lodge Suit Over Faulty Robot in CA
INTERNAL REVENUE: Suit Seeks Conversion Distribution Tax Refunds

INTERPOOL INC.: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
JENKENS & GILCHRIST: Reaches $81.55 M Settlement for Tax Lawsuit
KEMPS LLC: Recalls Party Mint Ice Cream Due To Plastic Content
KRISPY KREME: Knew Early Of Slowing Sales, NC Lawsuit Alleges
MAZDA MOTOR: Recalls Sport Utility Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard

NISSAN NORTH: Recalls SUVs For Tow Hitch Defect, Crash Hazard
NSAIDS: FDA Releases Recommendations on Safe Use of Painkillers
PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Grants Class Status To Inmate's Lawsuit
PORSCHE CARS: Recalls Passenger Cars Because of Seat Belt Defect
STERICYCLE INC.: Hearing on Prosecution Agreement Set Jan. 2005

TOYOTA MOTOR: To Replace Cars' Seat Belt Buckle Status Switches
UNITED STATES: NHTSA Collects $10.2 Million In Civil Penalties
VIOXX LITIGATION: Irish Solicitors Initiate Personal Injury Suit
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls Touareg Cars For Seat Belt Defect
VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls Cars Due To Hazard Switch Defect

VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls Passenger Cars Due To Fire Hazard


                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in NJ
PFIZER INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Files Securities Suit in CA

                          *********

ACME SMOKED: Recalls Smoked Nova Salmon Due To Listeria Content
---------------------------------------------------------------
Acme Smoked Fish Corporation located at 30 Gem Street -
Brooklyn, NY 11222 is recalling one hundred and two pounds (102
Lbs.) / 17 cases of Sliced Smoked Nova Salmon packed in 8 oz.
plastic cup/container coded with a sell-by-date of 12/24/04
distributed to Stop & Shop Supermarket located at 385 RT 25A &
Miller PI. Rd. - Miller Place, NY 11764 due to Listeria
monocytogenes contamination.

Listeria monocytogenes is a common organism found in nature. It
can cause serious complications for pregnant women. Other
problems can manifest in people with compromised immune systems.

The problem was discovered after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Market's Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by the Department's Food Laboratory
Personnel revealed the presence of Listeria monocytogenes. No
illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased the Acme Brand - Sliced Smoked Nova
Salmon packed in 8 oz. plastic cup/container coded with a sell-
by-date of 12/24/04 retailed at Stop & Shop Supermarket should
not consume it, but should return it to the place of purchase or
discard it. Consumers with questions may contact the company at
718-383-8585.


BANK OF AMERICA: To Appeal CA Court Ruling in Overdraft Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America (BAC:NYSE) intends to appeal the California
Superior Court for San Francisco County's ruling, ordering it to
pay $284 million to customers who were improperly charged
overdraft fees, TheStreet.com reports.

Disabled photojournalist Paul Miller filed the suit six years
ago.  Mr. Miller's income of roughly $640 per month came from
Social Security and Supplemental Security Income, according to
his attorneys Mark Johnson and Thomas Brandi,
Consumeraffairs.com reports.  A mix-up started when the bank
improperly credited Mr. Miller with $1,800, then deducted it
later, threw Miller's life into turmoil.

The suit eventually became a class action filed on behalf of
more than a million others who depend on the government checks
and said their accounts were tapped for bank charges, alleged
that government-issued funds are protected from such deductions.

The bank's attorney, Joseph Genshlea, argued that the bank's
policy was intended to protect its customers from problems such
as bouncing a check.  The bank further asserted that the fees
were charged because the accounts contained a mix of funds,
including Social Security checks.

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Anne Bouliane ruled the
bank's actions were improper, after finding that the lender
charged overdraft fees on customer accounts containing Social
Security deposits. The judge awarded Mr. Miller $275,000 and
also ruled that other affected customers could be entitled to an
award of $1,000 each.

"This ruling is not unexpected, but still we are disappointed in
the judge's ruling," BofA spokeswoman Shirley Norton told
TheStreet.com.  "The bank treats these accounts in the same way
as every other bank in the industry, and there is overwhelming
authority that the bank's practices are appropriate."


CALIFORNIA: Los Angeles City Files Suit V. Internet Travel Sites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Internet travel sites are cheating cities on taxes by pocketing
the difference between the hotel room tax they pay and the
amount collected from consumers, according to a recently filed
lawsuit by the city of Los Angeles, Reuters reports.

The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, alleges that
companies including Priceline.com, InterActiveCorp's Expedia,
Cendant's Orbitz and Sabre Holdings' Travelocity have underpaid
so-called transient occupancy taxes.

Though officials at the other companies could not be immediately
reached for comment, Kendra Thornton, a spokeswoman for Orbitz,
told Reuters, "The lawsuit has no merit," adding that the
company plans to aggressively defend itself against the
allegations.

Meanwhile, InterActiveCorp, in its latest quarterly U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission filing, said it "does not pay
occupancy tax on hotel customer payments that it retains for the
intermediary services it provides in connection with its
merchant hotel business." The company also said that discussions
relating to the practice are ongoing in various tax
jurisdictions, but it does not believe the issue would have a
material effect on its financial results.

The lawsuit claims that the Web sites contract with hotels for
rooms at negotiated discounted rates and then mark up their
inventory of rooms to sell them to the public. It further claims
that they charge and collect taxes from occupants based on the
marked-up rates, but only pay taxes to cities based on the
lower, negotiated rates.

The City of Los Angeles, which has a room tax of 14 percent,
also said in the lawsuit that the Web sites often charge more
money in fees and taxes than the appropriate occupancy tax rate.


CANADA CARE: FDA Lodges Complaint Over Illegal Prescription Drug
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, has
on behalf of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), filed a
civil complaint against Canada Care Drugs, Inc. (Canada Care),
Claire Ruggiero, and Christine Ruggiero for the illegal
importation of prescription drugs into the U.S.

Canada Care was previously affiliated with Rx Depot, Inc., a
company that was engaged in the illegal importation of
prescription drugs until November 6, 2003, when the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma
entered an order of preliminary injunction against the Company
and its affiliates to stop their illegal activity.

"By continuing to illegally import unapproved drugs, Canada Care
is putting at risk the health of patients who are expecting to
improve their health," said Dr. Lester M. Crawford, Acting FDA
Commissioner, in a statement.

According to the complaint filed in the Southern District of New
York, following the preliminary injunction order against Rx
Depot and its affiliates, which was made permanent with the
entering of a consent decree on August 20, 2004, Canada Care
severed its relationship with Rx Depot, but continued illegal
activity in violation of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA).

As is alleged in the complaint, FDA's investigation of Canada
Care's illegal importation operations has revealed several
products that pose a risk to the public health. In February and
August 2004, FDA made two undercover purchases of the FDA-
approved drugs Sporanox and Neurontin through Canada Care.

Instead of Neurontin, FDA received unapproved drugs called APO-
Gabapentin and Novo-Gabapentin. The unapproved drugs purchased
through the defendants pose a public health threat because, as
alleged in the complaint, FDA cannot assure the safety and
efficacy of unapproved drugs. Because unapproved drugs are not
subject to the FDA's oversight, the FDA has no knowledge how
unapproved drugs are made, what patient information is included
with the drug, or what the side effects of the drugs are, and as
a result they are more likely to be contaminated, counterfeit,
inherently ineffective, or contain different amounts of the
active ingredients from similar drugs that have been reviewed
and approved by the FDA.

In addition, as alleged in the complaint, the manner in which
the Sporanox shipment was sent by the foreign pharmacy posed a
potentially serious health threat to the patients who received
it. Patients should take it in treatment "pulses" of one week,
and then wait three weeks before resuming another pulse
treatment. Between treatments, patients should consult their
doctors to determine whether the treatment should be terminated
either because it is no longer necessary or because they are
experiencing liver or heart side effects. Because the foreign
pharmacy sent three packages of Sporanox at one time, patients
receiving the drugs could have taken all 84 tablets without
consulting their doctor in between "pulse" treatments - an
action that could have exposed them to serious and even fatal
side effects.

The complaint was filed in the United States District Court in
the Southern District of New York and seeks to enjoin Canada
Care from directly or indirectly importing or causing the
importation of U.S.-manufactured and unapproved, foreign-
manufactured prescription drugs into the U.S. in violation of
the FDCA. The government will also seek preliminary injunctive
relief and monetary relief in the form of restitution,
disgorgement, or both.

For more information, contact the FDA by Phone: 301-827-6242
(media inquiries) or 888-INFO-FDA (consumer inquiries).


CHUBB CORPORATION: Appeals Court Upholds Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower
court ruling dismissing the securities class action filed
against Chubb Corporation, alleging violations of federal
securities laws, Business Insurance Reports.

Prominent securities law firm Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
Rudman and Robbins LLP filed the suit, alleging fraudulent
activity related to Chubb's 1999 merger with management
liability underwriter Executive Risk Inc. Plaintiffs, led by the
California Public Employees' Retirement System, alleged that the
Company, Executive Risk and several of the Company's officers
defrauded investors by artificially inflating Chubb's share
price through accounting manipulations and false statements
between April 27 and October 15, 1999.  The Company allegedly
needed to keep its share price above a specified level to keep
its stock-for-stock merger with Executive Risk alive and to
avoid an alleged hostile takeover attempt.

The Company's then chief executive officer Dean R. O'Hare
allegedly issued misleading statements regarding the insurer's
efforts to reduce its combined ratio and improve profitability.
In several company statements and conference calls with stock
analysts between April and October 1999, Mr. O'Hare said that
the Chubb's efforts to improve its financial condition by
driving up standard lines rates and walking away from
unprofitable business were working faster than anticipated,
Business Insurance reports.

Chubb's combined ratio continued to soar, however, and the
insurer lost profitable accounts to insurers that offered
cheaper coverage, the plaintiffs alleged. Meanwhile, Chubb
continued to underwrite 60% of the unprofitable business the
insurer had planned to jettison, the plaintiffs charged.

On August 12, 2003, a federal district court ruled that the
plaintiffs' attorneys failed to show in their pleadings how or
why the Company's alleged misrepresentations were false, citing
requirements imposed by the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995.  The court also stated that many of the charges
leveled by the plaintiffs were consistent with the defendants'
public statements, which means the plaintiffs did not state a
claim for relief.  The court refused to give the plaintiffs an
opportunity to correct their pleadings, because the court
already had pointed out these problems after the plaintiffs
filed their original complaint and an amended complaint over the
previous three years.

On December 30, 2004, the appeals court agreed with the lower
court ruling, stating that giving the plaintiffs another
opportunity to correct their pleadings would be unfair to the
defendants.

Lerach partner Eric A. Isaacson, who represents the plaintiffs,
was unavailable for comment, Business Insurance reports.


DELOITTE & TOUCHE: MD Judge Dismisses Claims Over Ahold's Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Catherine C. Blake dismissed key investor
claims against several parties in the Ahold NV securities fraud
lawsuit, including auditors Deloitte & Touche, the Baltimore
Business Journal reports.  The federal judge specifically
dismissed claims that Deloitte engaged in deceptive conduct and
recklessly disregarded misstatements in Ahold's financial
documents.

The massive class-action suit itself stems from the Dutch
retailer's $1.1 billion earnings restatement last year. Fraud at
its Columbia-based U.S. Foodservice unit contributed $880
million of the restatement.

Plaintiffs argued Deloitte should be held liable for the
earnings restatement, because it signed off on Ahold's financial
statements. However, in her written opinion, Judge Blake wrote
that Deloitte stepped up oversight of Ahold audits after finding
weaknesses in Ahold's fraud prevention systems. The federal
judge further wrote that the plaintiffs failed to prove that
Deloitte knew of any deliberate wrongdoing and in fact,
Deloitte's work uncovered inflated rebates from vendors, a major
part of the Ahold fraud.

Lead plaintiffs' attorneys at Entwistle and Cappucci in New York
could not be reached for comment.

Judge Blake also dismissed claims against Henny de Ruiter,
former chair of Ahold's supervisory board, and former board
members Cor Boonstra and Roland Fahlin. The men did not sign any
Securities and Exchange Commission documents that contained
fraudulent statements, the federal judge wrote. Judge Blake also
dismissed some claims against former executives with Ahold
operations in the United States, including former Ahold USA CEOs
William J. Grize and Robert G. Tobin; former U.S. Foodservice
Chief Financial Officer Michael Resnick; and former U.S.
Foodservice CEO James L. Miller. Miller and Ahold are locked in
their own legal battle over his severance and benefits.

She however, denied a motion to dismiss any claims by foreign
individuals or companies who bought Ahold stock on non-U.S.
exchanges.

The plaintiff class consists of individuals and institutions
that bought Ahold stock between March 1998 and February 2003,
including Ahold's American depositary receipts. Lead plaintiffs
are the Public Employees' Retirement Association of Colorado and
Generic Trading of Philadelphia. The case is expected to be
ready for trial in 2006.


DUNCAN-WILLIAMS: Bondholders Launch Securities Suit in W.D. TN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Duncan-Williams faces a class action filed in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee, over bonds
the firm sold for an Alabama project, the Memphis Business
Journal reports.

The law firm of Falls & Veach filed the suit, alleging the
Germantown-based Company misrepresented and failed to disclose
material facts in connection with the sale of Capstone bonds to
plaintiffs and other purchasers.  The suit was filed purportedly
on behalf of purchasers of Duncan-Williams Series 2000 Municipal
bonds issued by Capstone Improvement District of Brookwood,
Alabama.

The Company employs more than 100 traders, strategists,
registered sales representatives, public finance professionals
and administrative personnel.  The Company solely manages
financings in excess of $145 million, and maintains more than
$150 million in lines of credit to support daily trading and
underwriting activities.  The firm was founded in 1969, and
maintains offices in Houston, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and
Charlotte, N.C., the Business Journal reports.


FIRST FEDERAL: Reaches Settlement For Consumer Fraud Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
First Federal Savings Bank of Eastern Ohio reached a settlement
for the class action filed against it in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division.

On June 20, 2003, Mark and Mindy Mumford filed the suit,
alleging alleges violations of the Electronic Funds Transfer Act
and the Ohio Revised Code and breaches of various duties in
connection with an electronic transfer of funds from the
plaintiffs' account and returned check charges.  The plaintiffs
seek unquantified damages, litigation costs and attorney fees on
behalf of all consumers who at any time after June 22, 2002, had
or will have a deposit account with First Federal to or from
which electronic transfers are or can be made and from which an
unauthorized electronic transfer was or may be made.

The suit is styled "USA v. 4118 Mainsville Road, et al, case no.
2:90-cv-00484-SSB-NMK," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, under
Judge Sandra S. Beckwith, presiding

Representing the plaintiffs is Kevin R. Conners of Vorys Sater
Seymour & Pease - 2, PO Box 1008, 52 E Gay Street, Columbus, OH
43216-1008, Phone: 614-464-6400, E-mail: krconners@vssp.com.
Representing the Company is Leonard W. Yelsky of Yelsky &
Lonardo, 75 Public Square, Suite 800, Cleveland, OH 44113,
Phone: 216-781-2550 Fax: (216) 781-6688 E-mail:
law@yelskylonardo.com


FLORIDA: Judge Allows $4 Monthly Prison Banking Fee to Remain
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Leon County Circuit Court in Florida upheld the $4-a-month
banking fee to be charged by the state's department of
corrections on prison bank accounts used to buy staples for
inmates, the Daytona Beach News Journal reports.

Two prisoners and Kindred Spirits, a non-profit group led by
ministers, filed the suit this summer, seeking to block the
state from collecting the fee on prison accounts used to buy
deodorant, underwear and shoes.  The suit alleged that the fees
were lumped into a legislative bill last spring that dealt with
other issues, such as private prisons.  The suit was filed on
behalf of Florida's 80,000 prison inmates.

Peggy Taylor, a DeLand retiree and wife of a prison inmate,
lives on Social Security and sends a few dollars when she can to
her husband's state-run bank account.  She told the News Journal
she has to scrape to pay her own bills and help out her husband,
but now she'll be socked for the bank fee as well.

However, Judge Nikki Ann Clark ruled that the law does not
violate part of the state constitution that requires bills to
deal only with single subjects.  She ruled the fee provision is
"logically connected to the subject of the act because it deals
with the authority to operate the Florida prison system."

Sterling Ivey, a spokesman for the state corrections agency,
told the News Journal the department did not collect the $4-a-
month fee until the lawsuit was resolved.  He said the
department would move ahead with collecting the money within
four to six weeks.  In a phone interview, Mr. Ivey said he did
not know if the fee would be retroactive.

Randall Berg Jr., executive director of the Miami-based Florida
Justice Institute, a public-interest law firm that represents
Kindred Spirits Charitable Trust in the lawsuit, said he will
appeal the judge's ruling, the News Journal reports.


FORD MOTOR: OH Judge Asked To Approve Civil Rights Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. could pay more than $10 million if a federal
judge approves settlement of a lawsuit that charges that the
auto manufacturer's method for selecting apprentices
discriminate against black employees, the Associated Press
reports.

The complaint, which was filed by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and attorneys for at least 11 Ford
employees against automaker and the United Auto Workers union
charges that since at least January 1, 1997, Ford has engaged in
unlawful employment practices at its Sharonville and former
Batavia, Ohio facilities. The UAW represents employees and
participated in a joint apprenticeship committee with Ford.

The complaint, which is seeking class action status alleges
Ford selected black employees at a much lower rate than it did
white employees for its apprenticeship training program. The
complaint charges that the impact of the selection process on
black employees "denies them eligibility and admission to the
apprenticeship program." It further charges that Ford's process
for selecting apprentices violates federal and state civil
rights laws and seeks class action status that could affect
3,400 current and former Ford employees nationwide.

The complaint and the motion requesting preliminary court
approval of the settlement agreement were filed December 27 with
U.S. District Judge Susan Dlott.

In the parties' motion for court approval it was reiterated that
the agreement isn't an admission by Ford or the UAW of any
liability or wrongdoing in the case. According to court
documents, representatives of Ford, the UAW, the EEOC and
attorneys representing the employees negotiated for more than a
year before reaching the agreement, according to court
documents.

Nathaniel R. Jones, a Cincinnati attorney representing the
employees told The Cincinnati Enquirer that the preliminary
settlement was "highly significant. An individual can file a
grievance and the effect is quite limited. If you want to bring
about institutional or system wide change, you have to go on a
broad, class basis." The newspaper said Ford issued a statement
denying that the apprenticeship test was discriminatory but
agreeing that the settlement will "enhance the test and
opportunities for all of our employees."

Under the proposed agreement, Ford would immediately stop using
its procedure for selecting apprentices at Ford facilities in
the United States and all parties would agree on an industrial
psychologist to serve as an expert in devising a new selection
system. Ford also would set aside 279 apprenticeship eligibility
positions for class members, and $2,400 would be paid to class
members allegedly harmed by the apprenticeship selection
procedure.

Court documents filed in the case also revealed that the
employees who brought the complaint would each receive $30,000
instead of $2,400 with the higher payment intended to compensate
them for their assistance in the case and for release of their
individual claims. Furthermore, Ford will also pay $1,100,000 to
cover all court costs and attorneys' fees in the case up to the
date of final approval. One year after final approval of the
settlement, Ford would pay the settlement class counsel $567,000
for implementing and monitoring the agreement.

The settlement class would include all current and former black
employees of the automaker, who took the company's test for
placement as an apprentice at any Ford facility since January 1,
1997 until the date of the court's preliminary approval of the
agreement.


GEORGIE BOY: Recalls Motor Homes For Windshield System Defect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Georgie Boy Mfg., LLC is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 22
GEORGIE BOY / CRUISE MASTER motor homes, model 2005.

Certain motor homes fail to comply with the requirements of
federal motor vehicle safety standard No. 104, "windshield
wiping and washing system."  While traveling at high speeds, the
windshield wipers could either skip across the windshield or
swing too far outward causing the blade to travel into the
radius of the windshield, causing the spline of the wiper arm
and the spindle to fail.  The result is a wiper stuck in the out
position.  Such a failure of the windshield wiper system could
impair visibility and could result in a crash.

Dealers will replace the windshield wiper system.  The recall is
expected to begin during December 2004.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-521-8733 or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


GOODYEAR TIRE: Recalls Tires For Safety Standard Non-Compliance
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, by voluntarily recalling
700 Dunlop Winter Sport M3 Tires, Size 255/40R19 100V.

These tires were cured without the required "DOT" stamp.  The
subject tires fail to comply with federal motor vehicle safety
standard No. 109, new pneumatic tires.  The customer may not
realize that the numbers on the sidewall are the DOT serial
numbers.

The Company will notify its customers and replace the tires with
compliant tires free of charge.  The recall is expected to begin
in January.  Owners who do not receive the free remedy within a
reasonable time should contact the Company by Phone:
330-796-3519, or the NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


ILLINOIS: Lakin Law Files Two More Suits in Final Hours Of 2004
---------------------------------------------------------------
Since courthouse was closed in observance of the New Year's
holiday, the Lakin Law Firm of Wood River filed two class action
lawsuits on December 30, thus bringing the year's total to 78
suits filed in Madison County Circuit Court, the Madison County
Record reports.

The cases are both against mortgage companies, namely Creve
Coeur Mortgage of Creve Coeur, Missouri and Fifth Third Mortgage
of Cincinnati, Ohio. Both cases are also challenging the each
defendants' practice of charging loan discount fees on home
mortgage loans without actually reducing the interest rate on
the borrowers' loans.

In the case against Fifth Third Mortgage, Michael and Helen
Stevens allege that Fifth Third charged them a $175 "loan
discount fee," but failed to lower the interest rate in exchange
for that fee.

Meanwhile in the Creve Coeur case, Jamie Kissell, an Illinois
resident, claims that company charged her a $640 loan discount
fee, while Rex Buckingham of Granite City claims that Creve
Coeur charged him a $404 fee. Both allege their interest rates
were not lowered in exchange for that fee.

In essence the plaintiffs are all alleging that the mortgage
companies should not be permitted to keep the loan discount fees
they collected since they did not lower interest rates for those
fees.

Furthermore, both complaints state, "The plaintiffs' on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated assert claims
against defendants' for breach of contract, violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act,
and the substantially similar consumer protection statutes of
other states, and for unjust enrichment." It further goes on to
state that while the plaintiffs do not challenge the dollar
amounts of defendants' discount fees, they do challenge the
practice of failing to reduce interest rates in exchange for
payment of those fees.

Ms. Kissell, Mr. Buckingham, and the Stevens further allege that
by using the term "loan discount fee" the mortgage companies
intended to create the impression that it had reduced the
interest rate in exchange for the fee. The also allege that the
defendants engaged in deceptive practices by concealing the fact
that it did not reduce interest rates in exchange for the fees
they charged.

The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking damages not to exceed
$75,000 to any individual class member, excluding attorney fees
and court costs.


INTEGRATED SURGICAL: Patients Lodge Suit Over Faulty Robot in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several German patients recently initiated a lawsuit against
financially besieged Integrated Surgical Systems Inc., alleging
that the Davis company's Robodoc surgical robot is "defective
and dangerous," according to a recent Company filing with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Sacramento Business
Journal reports.

The class action was filed in Yolo County Superior Court, six
months after Integrated Surgical System's product liability
insurance coverage was terminated because the Company could not
pay the premiums.

According to Chief Executive Officer Ramesh Trivedi, the Company
has retained a California-based attorney and is working on
reinstating its insurance, even though it's not yet clear if
that will help the Company pay for legal defense. Mr. Trivedi
told the Sacramento Business Journal, "We believe there is no
merit to this case. We will explore everything we need to do to
defend the case.."

The Robodoc joint replacement system incorporates presurgical
planning software with a computer-controlled robot that prepares
bones to receive hip and knee implants. Doctors have said that
it allows much greater precision than conventional techniques
but that it adds time to surgical procedures. The system, which
has been used for 14,000 to 15,000 surgeries around the world
and has been used by German surgeons since the 1950's, was
invented by William Bargar, an orthopedic surgeon at Sutter
General Hospital, and the late Hap Paul, who was a veterinarian
and University of California Davis assistant clinical professor
of human orthopedics.

About seven or eight patients are involved in the lawsuit. Mr.
Trivedi also told the Sacramento Business Journal, "It doesn't
detail what were the problems for each patient.

"Defending against a product liability can be expensive and time
consuming to management personnel," the company said in its
filing with the SEC. "We currently do not have the funds which
may be necessary to defend our company against the plaintiffs'
allegations," or to pay any judgment that might be imposed as a
result of the court case. If Integrated Surgical can't defend
its case, it might seek protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy
Code, the company further stated in the filing.


INTERNAL REVENUE: Suit Seeks Conversion Distribution Tax Refunds
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to ease the tax burden on policyholders who have
received cash and stock as a result of demutualizations, an
attorney has initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status
against the Internal Revenue Service in Federal Claims Court in
Washington, the National Underwriter reports.

Filed by Burgess J.W. Raby, a Tempe, Arizona-based lawyer on
behalf of an irrevocable trust created by a Rockville, Maryland
man, the lead plaintiff seeks a refund of the $5,725 in federal
income taxes paid for the year ended December 31, 2000. The tax
was the result of the sale of stock distributed by Sun Life
Assurance Company of Canada when that company demutualized in
2000.

The suit itself, which is the latest volley in a debate between
the IRS and a group of accountants and lawyers about the
valuation of distributions, is specifically seeking a refund for
taxes paid on distributions received when mutual insurance
companies converted to stock. IRS officials and some private tax
advisors disagree about whether a policyholder has a claim to
more than the value of his policy when a policyholder-owned
mutual insurer demutualizes.

Plaintiffs argue that the "the prosecution of separate actions
by individual class members not only would be prohibitively
expensive for both the class members involved and the defendant
but also would create the risk of inconsistent or varying
adjudications and the resulting prolongation of the resolution
of the technical tax issues involved in this matter."

However, the IRS claims the distributions are all taxable
because, among other reasons, there is no way to determine the
value of a policyholder's relationship to a mutual insurance
company besides looking at the benefits he receives from his
policy.

Representatives for the policyholders countered by pointing out
that the tax basis is a portion of the total premiums that have
been paid on the underlying life insurance policy. In their
petition, the plaintiffs further argue, "The position of
plaintiff and of the other class members is that part of that
part of the cost of the life insurance policy from which the
stock is derived becomes the tax basis of the stock."

The suit was filed in Federal Claims Court December 1, 2004, and
assigned to Judge George W. Miller. The IRS has 60 days from the
date of filing to respond to the lawsuit.

According to C.D. Ulrich, a Baxter, Minnesota, accountant who
supports the suit, a court decision in favor of the plaintiff
could mean that policyholders who received the distributions as
far back as 1986 would not have to pay taxes when they sold the
stock. The suit itself cites only taxes paid for the year 2000
and beyond because a statute of limitations applies, Mr. Ulrich
adds.

Furthermore, Mr. Ulrich told the National Underwriter that he is
recommending that potential class members protect their legal
position by filing for refunds if they have recently sold
insurer stock received through demutualizations. He also stated,
"Anyone who has reported gain based upon the IRS advice that
such cash or stock had a zero tax basis should consider filing a
refund claim in order that the statute of limitations not be
allowed to run on their potential refund prior to the ultimate
disposition" of the lawsuit."


INTERPOOL INC.: Asks NJ Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Interpool, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey to dismiss the consolidated securities
class action filed against it and certain of its current and
former officers and directors, alleging violations of federal
securities laws.

In February and March 2004, several lawsuits were filed by
purchasers of the Company's common stock, alleging violations of
the federal securities laws relating to the Company's reported
Consolidated Financial Statements for the years ended December
31, 2000 and 2001 and the nine months ended September 30, 2002,
which the Company announced in March 2003 would require
restatement.  Each of the complaints purported to be a class
action brought on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
securities during a specified period.

In April 2004, the lawsuits, which seek unspecified amounts of
compensatory damages and costs and expenses, including legal
fees, were consolidated into a single action with lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel having been appointed.  The
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint in September
2004, which includes allegations of purported misstatements and
omissions in the Company's public disclosures throughout an
expanded purported class period from March 31, 1999 through
December 26, 2003.

The four suits initially filed were captioned:

     (1) Hurtado et al. v. Interpool, Inc., et al., case no.
         3:04-cv-00321-SRC-TJB

     (2) Karcich v. Interpool, Inc., et al., case no. 3:04-cv-
         00544-SRC-JJH

     (3) Pisani v. Interpool, Inc., et al., case no. 3:04-cv-
         00573-SRC-TJB

     (4) Harris v. Interpool, Inc., case no. 3:04-cv-01007-SRC-
         TJB

The suits are pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey, under Judge Stanley R. Chessler.
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (i) Bernard M. Gross, 1500 Walnut Street, Suite 600,
         Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215.561.3600, Fax:
         215.561.3000, E-mail: bmgross@BernardMGross.com

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

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

    (iv) Hoffman & Edelson, 45 West Court Street, Doylestown,
         PA, 18901-4223, Phone: 215.230.8043,

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

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


JENKENS & GILCHRIST: Reaches $81.55 M Settlement for Tax Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Jenkens & Gilchrist, PC reached an $81.55
million settlement for a class action filed against it, related
to its tax shelter work, attorneys from the Dallas law firm of
Deary Montgomery DeFeo & Canada, LLP, in conjunction with
Whatley Drake, LLC, and Cory Watson Crowder & DeGaris, PC,
announced in a statement.

The settlement concludes negotiations that took over 14 months
to complete and represents two significant modifications to the
initial settlement, reached in April 2004.  The $81.55 million
settlement represents a $6.55 million increase from the initial
settlement. In addition, under the terms of the final
settlement, Jenkens & Gilchrist has agreed to settle with the
Class even though a number of individuals elected to opt out of
the settlement.  Under the initial settlement, Jenkens &
Gilchrist retained the right to terminate the settlement if any
Class Member elected to opt out of the settlement. Thus, the law
firm's decision to finalize the settlement with the existence of
opt outs represents a significant concession. According to lead
counsel David Deary, a partner with Deary Montgomery DeFeo &
Canada, LLP, the terms of the final settlement result in more
money for the Class and less Class Members participating in the
settlement.  On April 28, 2004, Jenkens & Gilchrist initially
agreed to pay $75 million to the Class. A New York federal court
preliminarily approved the $75 million settlement on May 14,
2004.

According to Mr. Deary, the $81.55 million settlement with
Jenkens is a major victory for the class of plaintiffs. "This
settlement provides Class Members with a substantial recovery
from Jenkens & Gilchrist in light of the law firm's
circumstances," says Mr. Deary.

According to Mr. Deary, the Jenkens & Gilchrist settlement has
provided his clients and Class Members with crucial information
on the role other accounting firms, law firms, and investment
firms played in promoting, selling, and implementing tax
strategies to the Class Members. Mr. Deary says, "The
information we received from Jenkens & Gilchrist as part of the
settlement has undoubtedly strengthened our clients' claims
against others who were integral players in the scheme. As a
result of this settlement, our clients possess a tremendous
amount of ammunition against the other defendants. Our clients'
claims against the other defendants are now backed by very
powerful, irrefutable evidence. This information can't be
measured by any amount of money."

The initial settlement reached with Jenkens & Gilchrist in April
2004, was well received by Class Members. Over 90% of Class
Members elected to participate in the settlement. As of today, a
substantial number of Class Members who initially elected to opt
out of the class settlement have retracted their opt out status,
and are now electing to participate in the settlement. Mr. Deary
states, "It is clear that Class Members believe this settlement
is in their best interest and support the settlement."

The settlement stems from two class action suits filed by Mr.
Deary and his trial team in federal courts in New York. Mr.
Deary and his trial team currently represent approximately 300
individuals and have filed 18 lawsuits across the country,
seeking hundreds of millions of dollars from numerous well-known
accounting firms, law firms, and investment firms, who designed,
promoted, sold, and implemented "bogus" tax shelters to their
long- time trusting clients.

Mr. Deary and his team's clients will continue to vigorously
pursue claims against, among others, accounting giants Ernst &
Young, BDO Seidman, Grant Thornton, and KPMG, banking giant Bank
One, law firms Sidley Austin Brown & Wood and Pryor Cashman
Sherman & Flynn, financial firms Lincoln Financial and American
Express, and investment firms such as the German-based worldwide
investment banking firm Deutsche Bank, and others. "Our clients
are now focused squarely on a substantial number of other major
players who have significant exposure and deeper pockets than
Jenkens & Gilchrist," says co- class counsel Joe Whatley.

According to Ernest Cory, co-class counsel, "Slowly but surely
our clients' trusted advisors will be forced to accept
responsibility and be held accountable. We will not stop until
we win."

The settlement is set for a final hearing on January 24, 2005.


KEMPS LLC: Recalls Party Mint Ice Cream Due To Plastic Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kemps LLC has issued a recall of Lunds Party Mint Ice Cream in
half-gallon containers, due to the slight possibility that
plastic pieces could be found in the product. This is a
voluntary recall, as there have been no reports of injury due to
the product.

This recall affects only the Party Mint flavor with the code
27142. The code information can be found on the plastic rim of
the lid. Product was manufactured at plant # 27-621. Consumers
who have product with this code number should return it to a
Lunds or Byerly's store for a complete refund.

Consumers who have questions about the recall can call toll-free
1-800-726-6455 between 9 AM and 4 PM.


KRISPY KREME: Knew Early Of Slowing Sales, NC Lawsuit Alleges
-------------------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts Inc. knew by January 2003 that sales were
slowing long before a May 2004 profit warning, according to
documents filed in a shareholder lawsuit, the Wilmington Star-
News reports.

Citing reports from unnamed employees, plaintiffs claim that the
Company knew its rapid expansion was saturating markets. Former
company and franchise employees even told plaintiff's lawyers
that the Winston-Salem, North Carolina-based company by mid-2003
was double-shipping wholesale orders to some grocers at the end
of quarterly reporting periods in order to boost sales and
earnings results temporarily, even though executives knew many
of the doughnuts would be returned for credit later.

According to a consolidated complaint that was filed on December
14 in U.S. District Court in Greensboro, North Carolina, a
former sales manager at Krispy Kreme's wholesale bakery in
Ravena, Ohio, "understood that it was commonplace at Krispy
Kreme to channel stuff in order to meet Wall Street
expectations."

The federal court had previously consolidated more than a dozen
lawsuits alleging Krispy Kreme and executives violated
securities laws by making false and misleading statements about
results and by failing to disclose conflicts of interest and to
appropriately account for some franchise acquisitions. The
consolidated suits named as defendants Chairman and Chief
Executive Scott Livengood, former Chief Operating Officer John
Tate, former Chief Financial Officer Randy Casstevens and
current CFO Michael Phalen.

Though many of the allegations in the most recent complaint
duplicate those in earlier lawsuits that were consolidated,
details, such as claims of channel stuffing, are new.

The lead plaintiffs, who seek class-action status for investors
who bought Krispy Kreme shares between Jan. 24, 2003, and May 6,
2004 and a jury trial for unspecified damages, includes the
Pompano Beach, Florida, Police & Firefighters Retirement System,
the Alaska Electrical Pension Fund and the St. Clair Shores,
Michigan, Police and Fire Retirement System.


MAZDA MOTOR: Recalls Sport Utility Vehicles Due To Crash Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mazda Motor Corporation is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 121,000
MAZDA / TRIBUTE sport utility vehicles, models 2002-2004.

On certain sport utility vehicles, the accelerator cable may
prevent the throttle from returning to the idle position.  An
unexpected increase in engine idle speed may increase stopping
distance and may result in a vehicle crash.

Dealers will replace the accelerator cable.  The recall is
expected to begin in January 2005.  For more details, contact
the Company by Phone: 1-800-222-5500, OPTION #4, or the NHTSA's
auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


NISSAN NORTH: Recalls SUVs For Tow Hitch Defect, Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nissan North America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, by recalling 131 Nissan
Xterra sport utility vehicles, model 2004.

On certain sport utility vehicles, the accessory tow hitch
attachment bolts may not have been tightened to the proper
specification.  This could cause the tow hitch to loosen or
separate from the vehicle, which could result in a crash without
warning.

Dealers will tighten the tow hitch.  The recall is expected to
begin January 3,2005.  For more details, contact the Company by
Phone: 1-800-647-7261 or contact the NHTSA's auto safety
hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


NSAIDS: FDA Releases Recommendations on Safe Use of Painkillers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a Public Health
Advisory summarizing its recent recommendations concerning the
use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug products (NSAIDs),
including those known as COX-2 selective agents. The public
health advisory is an interim measure, pending further review of
data that continue to be collected.

In addition, FDA announced that it is requiring evaluation of
all prevention studies that involve the Cox-2 selective agents
Celebrex (celecoxib) and Bextra (valdecoxib) to ensure that
adequate precautions are implemented in the studies and that
local Institutional Review Boards reevaluate them in light of
the new evidence that these drugs may increase the risk of heart
attack and stroke. A prevention trial is one in which healthy
people are given medicine to prevent a disease or condition
(such as colon polyps or Alzheimer's disease).

FDA is issuing an advisory because of recently released data
from controlled clinical trials showing that the COX-2 selective
agents (Vioxx, Celebrex, and Bextra) may be associated with an
increased risk of serious cardiovascular events (heart attack
and stroke) especially when they are used for long periods of
time or in very high risk settings (immediately after heart
surgery).  Preliminary results from a long-term clinical trial
(up to three years) suggest that long-term use of a non-
selective NSAID, naproxen (sold as Aleve, Naprosyn and other
trade name and generic products), may be associated with an
increased cardiovascular (CV) risk compared to placebo, the FDA
announced earlier this week.

Although the results of these studies are preliminary and
conflict with other data from studies of the same drugs, FDA is
making the following interim recommendations:

     (1) Physicians prescribing Celebrex (celecoxib) or Bextra
         (valdecoxib), should consider this emerging information
         when weighing the benefits against risks for individual
         patients.  Patients who are at a high risk of
         gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding, have a history of
         intolerance to non-selective NSAIDs, or are not doing
         well on non-selective NSAIDs may be appropriate
         candidates for Cox-2 selective agents.

     (2) Individual patient risk for cardiovascular events and
         other risks commonly associated with NSAIDs should be
         taken into account for each prescribing situation.

     (3) Consumers are advised that all over-the-counter (OTC)
         pain medications, including NSAIDs, should be used in
         strict accordance with the label directions. If use of
         an (OTC) NSAID is needed for longer than ten days, a
         physician should be consulted.

     (4) Non-selective NSAIDs are widely used in both over-the-
         counter (OTC) and prescription settings. As
         prescription drugs, many are approved for short-term
         use in the treatment of pain and primary dysmenorrhea
         (menstrual discomfort), and for longer-term use to
         treat the signs and symptoms of osteoarthritis and
         rheumatoid arthritis.

FDA has previously posted extensive NSAID medication information
at http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/analgesics/default.htm. FDA is
collecting and will be analyzing all available information from
the most recent studies of Vioxx, Celebrex, Bextra, and
naproxen, and other data for COX-2 selective and nonselective
NSAID products to determine whether additional regulatory action
is needed.  An advisory committee meeting is planned for
February 2005, which will provide for a full public discussion
of these issues.

FDA urges health care providers and patients to report adverse
event information to FDA via the MedWatch program by phone
(1-800-FDA-1088), by fax (1-800-FDA-0178), or by the Internet at
http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/index.html.The Public Health
Advisory is available online at
http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/nsaids.htm.


PENNSYLVANIA: Judge Grants Class Status To Inmate's Lawsuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit by Bucks County Prison inmates over an outbreak of
staph infections may continue as a class-action suit, according
to a recent ruling by a federal judge, the Associated Press
reports.

After the ruling, Angus Love of the Pennsylvania Institutional
Law Project told the Associated Press, "This suit is about
treating the people that have it and preventing future people
from getting it. It is not a prison issue. It's a public health
matter."

The two sides will meet with U.S. District Court Judge Clifford
Scott Green later this month to discuss a trial date and other
matters, Mr. Love adds. Meanwhile, a lawyer for the county did
not return calls for comment.


PORSCHE CARS: Recalls Passenger Cars Because of Seat Belt Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Porsche Cars North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
voluntarily recalling certain passenger cars, namely:

     (1) PORSCHE / CAYENNE, model 2003-2005

     (2) PORSCHE / CAYENNE S, model 2003-2005

     (3) PORSCHE / CAYENNE TURBO, model 2003-2005

Certain passenger cars fail to comply with the requirements of
federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 208, "Occupant crash
protection."  All three rear seat positions and the front
passenger position are equipped with seat belt retractors that
have a locking feature which converts the retractor from an
emergency locking retractor (ELR) mode to an automatic locking
retractor (ALR) mode for the purposes of child restraint
installation.  The belt may deactivate the ALR mode with certain
child restraints.  When involved in a crash, the child
restraints may not be properly secured, increasing the risk of
injury or death to the seat occupant.

The manufacturer has not yet provided a remedy or owner
notification schedule for this campaign.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-545-8039 or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


STERICYCLE INC.: Hearing on Prosecution Agreement Set Jan. 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hearing on the approval on the joint prosecution agreement for
the class action filed against Stericycle, Inc. is set for
January 25,2005 in the First Judicial District Court, Caddo
Parish, Louisiana.

On June 20, 2002, Larry F. Robb, individually, on behalf of a
class comprised of the Company's minority stockholders, and
derivatively on behalf of the Company, filed a suit, styled Robb
et al. v. Stericycle, Inc., et al, cause no.467704-A."  The
plaintiffs originally asserted numerous claims of minority
stockholder oppression, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust
enrichment against the Company, Waste Sytems Inc. (WSI), the
four affiliates of Stericycle who are or were directors of 3CI
Complete Compliance Corporation (the "Stericycle Affiliates")
and Otley L. Smith III, 3CI's President and Chief Executive
Officer.

As of January 8, 2004, the Board expanded the authority of the
Special Committee to grant the Special Committee the exclusive
power and authority on behalf of the Company to:

     (1) make all inquiries, conduct all investigations and
         gather all information related to the Louisiana Suit,
         the 1995 Action and the 2003 Action, or any actions or
         proceedings related to any of the foregoing;

     (2) make or approve all decisions of the Company related to
         the Louisiana Suit, the 1995 Action and the 2003
         Action, including the Company's filing, amending,
         maintaining, prosecuting or settling of any legal
         proceedings related to such suits; and

     (3) exercise such other power and authority that may be
         exercised by the full Board with regard to the
         foregoing.

The Special Committee is composed of Stephen B. Koenigsberg and
Kevin J. McManus, who are the independent directors on the Board
not affiliated with Stericycle or WSI.  Robert M. Waller,
previously a member of the Special Committee, for personal
reasons, resigned from the Board on March 11, 2004.  The Special
Committee appointed legal counsel to assist it in its
investigation of the Louisiana Plaintiffs' allegations and to
gather all information related to the Louisiana Suit.

After conducting an investigation into the facts, arguments and
other matters that in its view are related to the issues raised
in the Louisiana Suit, the Special Committee has determined that
the claims against Stericycle, WSI and the Stericycle Affiliates
(the "Louisiana Defendants") in the Louisiana Suit have merit
and warrant prosecution by the Company.

On December 10, 2004, the Company, at the direction of the
Special Committee, and the Louisiana Plaintiffs filed a motion
with the Louisiana Court seeking leave to file a joint petition
(the "Joint Petition"), which was granted on December 14, 2004.
The Joint Petition amends and supersedes the Plaintiffs' First
Amended Petition filed with the Court on October 27, 2003.
Pursuant to the Joint Petition, 3CI has realigned itself as a
plaintiff in the Louisiana Suit and joins on its own behalf in
the prosecution of the claims asserted by the Louisiana
Plaintiffs in the Louisiana Suit against Stericycle, WSI and the
Stericycle Affiliates, and Otley L. Smith III, 3CI's President
and Chief Executive Officer, previously named as a defendant in
the Louisiana Suit, has been non-suited.

The Louisiana Plaintiffs and 3CI allege in the Joint Petition
that the Louisiana Defendants wrongfully:

     (i) diverted 3CI's cash and assets,

    (ii) manipulated and increased 3CI's debt to WSI,

   (iii) directly and indirectly increased Stericycle's and
         WSI's percentage ownership of 3CI,

    (iv) forced 3CI to declare significant cash dividends on its
         Preferred Stock payable to WSI,

     (v) usurped 3CI's corporate opportunities,

    (vi) misappropriated 3CI's customers,

   (vii) unfairly competed with 3CI, and

  (viii) operated 3CI with the goal of maximizing Stericycle's
         profitability and furthering Stericycle's integration
         plan.

In the Joint Petition, the Louisiana Plaintiffs and 3CI jointly
pray for a judgment against the Louisiana Defendants for actual
damages and punitive damages; for forfeiture of all fees,
payments, warrants, Common Stock, and all other forms of value
which Stericycle and WSI have received from 3CI and its minority
stockholders; unwinding Stericycle's acquisition of the Shepherd
Parties' (as hereinafter defined) 3CI-related interests and
disgorging all benefits realized by Stericycle from that
transaction; returning to 3CI all shares of Common Stock
acquired by WSI pursuant to warrants; declaring the Preferred
Stock Dividends null and void; requiring a buyout of the
Company's minority stockholders; establishing a constructive
trust on all profits or benefits realized by the Louisiana
Defendants as the result of the disputed transactions;
disqualification of any Stericycle director, officer or other
representative from serving on the Board; attorney's and expert
witness fees; and pre- and post-judgment interest.  The
Louisiana Plaintiffs and 3CI also request injunctive relief in
order to remove the current Stericycle representatives from the
Board, prohibit Stericycle thereafter from electing any of its
representatives to the Board and require Stericycle and WSI to
vote their Common Stock for nominees to the Board who are
nominated by the independent directors on the Board.  The
Louisiana Court has set a trial date of September 12, 2005 if
the suit is tried before a jury, and a trial date of October 4,
2005, if the suit is tried to the judge.

In order to avoid any potential for confusion and conflict that
may arise if 3CI and the Louisiana Plaintiffs separately
prosecuted such claims against Stericycle, WSI and the
Stericycle Affiliates, 3CI, at the direction of the Special
Committee, has entered into an Agreement for Joint Prosecution
by and among the Company, the Louisiana Plaintiffs and The Wynne
Law Firm, legal counsel to the Louisiana Plaintiffs in the
Louisiana Suit (the "Joint Prosecution Agreement").

Pursuant to the Joint Prosecution Agreement, 3CI and the
Louisiana Plaintiffs have agreed to jointly prosecute the claims
asserted in the Louisiana Suit against Stericycle, WSI
and the Stericycle Affiliates and to seek monetary damages and
equitable remedies on behalf of both 3CI and the Louisiana
Plaintiffs.  The Joint Prosecution Agreement provides that two-
thirds of all services and other work performed in jointly
prosecuting these claims will be performed by the Louisiana
Plaintiffs and/or The Wynne Law Firm and one-third of such
services and other work will be performed by the Company.  In
addition, the Joint Prosecution Agreement provides that two-
thirds of any monetary recoveries (as defined in the Joint
Prosecution Agreement) received by 3CI and/or the Louisiana
Plaintiffs that are related to, or arise out of, the claims
asserted in the Louisiana Suit will be allocated to the
Louisiana Plaintiffs and one-third of any monetary recoveries
will be allocated to the Company.

Pursuant to the Joint Prosecution Agreement, none of 3CI
(directly or through its counsel), the Louisiana Plaintiffs or
The Wynne Law Firm may propose, accept or authorize a settlement
or compromise of any or all of the claims asserted in the
Louisiana Suit without the prior written consent of the other
parties.  The Joint Prosecution Agreement will become effective
on the date that all of the following have occurred:

     (a) the Louisiana Court certifies the Louisiana Plaintiffs'
         claims as a class action;

     (b) the Louisiana Court approves the Joint Prosecution
         Agreement; and

     (c) the Louisiana Court approves The Wynne Law Firm as
         counsel to the Louisiana Plaintiffs.

3CI or the Louisiana Plaintiffs may terminate the Joint
Prosecution Agreement at any time if a material disagreement
arises between the Company and the Louisiana Plaintiffs with
respect to the claims asserted in the Louisiana Suit, or if
either party in good faith believes that its or their best
interests would conflict if the parties continued to jointly
prosecute all or any of the claims.  Notwithstanding the
termination of the Joint Prosecution Agreement, 3CI's and the
Louisiana Plaintiffs' obligation pursuant to the Joint
Prosecution Agreement to share in any monetary recoveries
received shall continue in full force and effect.


TOYOTA MOTOR: To Replace Cars' Seat Belt Buckle Status Switches
---------------------------------------------------------------
Toyota Motor North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by
replacing a part on 150,061 passenger cars, namely:

     (1) LEXUS / ES 330, model 2004

     (2) LEXUS / ES330, model 2005

     (3) TOYOTA / CAMRY, model 2004-2005

On certain passenger vehicles equipped with a front passenger
power seat, when installing certain rear-facing infant child
seat bases onto the seat with an excessively high seatbelt
tension, it may be possible to unseat a component called the
buckle status switch from the seat belt buckle.  If the switch
becomes unseated, the front passenger occupant classification
system may mistake the rear-facing child restraint for an
unbelted adult occupant, and may not suppress the deployment of
the front passenger airbag.

Dealers will replace the front passenger seatbelt buckle status
switch.  This safety improvement campaign began on December
20,2004.  For more details, contact the company by Phone: 1-800-
331-4331.  This action is deemed a safety improvement campaign
and is not being conducted under the safety act.


UNITED STATES: NHTSA Collects $10.2 Million In Civil Penalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has
obtained civil penalties in 2004 totaling almost $10.2 million,
the agency announced in a statement.  The fines cover a variety
of violations by manufacturers, equipment suppliers, registered
importers and vehicle customizers.

Two manufacturers - Porsche and Ferrari - paid civil penalties
totaling more than $9 million for failing to meet Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) limits.  General Motors paid a civil
penalty of $1 million to settle charges that it failed to
conduct a timely recall to correct a safety defect. The problem
involved windshield wiper failure in 581,344 Trailblazers,
Bravadas, Envoys and Isuzu Ascenders manufactured in 2002 and
2003.

NexL, a California company, agreed to pay a civil penalty of
$100,000 for importing and selling motorcycle helmets that
failed to meet U.S. Department of Transportation standards. The
company also was charged with failing to conduct a timely
recall.  Two vehicle customizing firms agreed to pay a total of
$21,000 for removal of drivers' side air bags. NHTSA charged
both West Coast Customs of Inglewood, CA, and Unique Autosports
of Uniondale, NY, with removal of air bags to install video
monitors in the steering wheel. Federal law prohibits companies
from removing mandated safety equipment.

G&K Automotive Conversion, a registered importer in California,
agreed to pay $12,000 to settle allegations that it imported
ineligible vehicles, submitted inaccurate certificates of
conformity and improperly released vehicles for use on public
roads.

The complete list of civil penalties:

     (1) 07/21/2004 - West Coast Customs, (Inglewood, CA):
         Removal of driver's side frontal airbags and
         installation of customized steering wheel and video
         monitors. Paid $16,000 for violation of 49 U.S.C. 
         30122

     (2) 07/22/2004 - General Motors, (Detroit, MI): Failure to
         timely conduct a recall.  Paid $1,000,000 for
         violations of 49 U.S.C.  30118(c)(2), 30119(c)(2); 49
         CFR Part 573

     (3) 08/18/2004 - Unique Autosports (Uniondale, NY): Removal
         of driver's side frontal airbag and installation of
         video monitor.  Paid $5,000 for violations of 49 U.S.C.
          30122

     (4) 09/16/2004 - NexL (Watsonville, CA): Importation and
         sale of noncompliant motorcycle helmets; failure to
         timely conduct a recall. Paid $100,000 for violations
         of 49 U.S.C.  30118(c)(2), 30119(c)(2); 49 CFR Part
         573

     (5) 12/21/2004 - G & K Automotive Conversion: Importation
         of ineligible vehicles, submitting inaccurate
         certificates of conformity, and improperly releasing
         vehicles for use on the public roadway, Paid $12,000

     (6) 03/03/2004 - Porsche Cars, N.A: CAF Penalties 2002
         $4,357,782

     (7) 07/01/2004 - Ferrari Maserati, N.A. 2003 - CAF
         Penalties $1,139,710

     (8) 12/22/2004 - Porsche Cars, N.A. 2003 - CAF penalties
         $3,348,609

     (9) 12/22/2004 - Porsche Cars, N.A. 2003 - CAF
         penalties 189,634.50

The Combined Total for 2004 is $10,168,735.50.


VIOXX LITIGATION: Irish Solicitors Initiate Personal Injury Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In what could become an international class action against drug
company Merck, makers of the controversial painkiller, Vioxx, an
Irish firm of solicitors has recently teamed up with a major
American law, the Irish Examiner reports.

The Irish firm Malcomson Law, with offices in Dublin and Carlow,
has joined US law firm Lieff Cabraser to represent patients
prescribed Vioxx who suffered strokes and heart attacks. Both
will together represent affected Vioxx users in individual
lawsuits filed in US courts.

According to the lawyers' website, vioxx-withdrawal-
solicitor.ie, the firms will consider all submissions by those
who think they might have been adversely affected by the drug.

When Merck pulled its blockbuster pain medication off the market
in late September, it became the largest prescription drug
recall in history. The study that led to the recall of Vioxx
showed patients without a history of coronary heart disease or
other risk factors regularly taking Vioxx faced twice the risk
of a heart attack compared to patients not taking Vioxx. Vioxx
users with a history of cardiovascular problems were at a five-
fold increased risk.

The potential for cardiac side effects with Vioxx was known for
some time, with doctors having expressed concerns about its
safety and that of other Cox II inhibitor arthritis drugs.


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls Touareg Cars For Seat Belt Defect
----------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen of America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by recalling
50,493 Volkswagen Touareg passenger cars, model 2004-2005.

Certain passenger cars fail to comply with the requirements of
federal motor vehicle safety standard no. 208 "Occupant Crash
Protection."  All three rear seat positions and the front
passenger position are equipped with seat belt retractors that
have a locking feature which converts the retractor from an
emergency locking retractor (ELR) mode to an automatic locking
retractor (ALR) mode for the purposes of child restraint
installation.  The belt may deactivate the ALR mode with certain
child restraints.  When involved in a crash, the child
restraints may not be properly secured, increasing the risk or
injuries or death.

The manufacturer has not yet provided a remedy or owner
notification schedule for this campaign.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-822-8987 or the NHTSA's auto
safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls Cars Due To Hazard Switch Defect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen of America, Inc. is cooperating with the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily
recalling 350,000 passenger cars, namely:

     (1) VOLKSWAGEN / GOLF, model 2000-2002

     (2) VOLKSWAGEN / GTI, model 2000-2002

     (3) VOLKSWAGEN / JETTA, model 2000-2002

On certain passenger vehicles, the hazard switch and flasher
system function may degrade over time because of distortion and
material transfer of the contacts of certain hazard switch
relays which occur due to substantially increased electrical
current load from higher wattage turn signal bulbs.  This may
result in intermittent or inoperative turn signal and hazard
flasher function.

Dealers will replace the hazard flasher switch/relay kit.  The
recall is expected to begin February 2005.  For more details,
contact the Company by Phone: 1-800-822-8987 or contact the
NHTSA auto safety hotline: 1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).


VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA: Recalls Passenger Cars Due To Fire Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Volkswagen of America is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) by voluntarily recalling
19,284 passenger cars, namely:

     (1) VOLKSWAGEN / GOLF, model 2004-2005

     (2) VOLKSWAGEN / JETTA, model 2004-2005

     (3) VOLKSWAGEN / NEW BEETLE, model 2004-2005

     (4) VOLKSWAGEN / PASSAT, model 2004-2005

On certain passenger vehicles, the high-pressure diesel pumps
were produced with an improper fastener, which could allow
diesel fuel to escape from the pump.  Diesel fuel in the
presence of an ignition source may lead to a fire.

Dealers will replace the diesel pump.  The recall is expected to
begin during February 2005.  For more details, contact the
Phone: 1-800-822-2834 or NHTSA's auto safety hotline:
1-888-DASH-2-DOT (1-888-327-4236).



                 Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 31-February 1, 2005
IMPLEMENTING CORPORATE GOVERNANCE INITIATIVES, FINANCIAL
CONTROLS AND
INFORMATION MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES TO ENSURE REGULATORY
COMPLIANCE FOR THE
INSURANCE INDUSTRY
American Conferences
New York Marriott Marquis, New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


March 31-April 1, 2005
THE 4TH INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED FORUM ON RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS
American Conferences
The Warwick New York Hotel, New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 4-5, 2005
MANAGED CARE LIABILITY
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 7-8, 2005
THE 4TH NATIONAL ADVANCED GUIDE TO CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION
AND CLASS
ACTIONS
American Conferences
Le Meridien , Chicago, IL
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

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

April 18-19, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 11, 2005
BROKER AND INSURANCE COMPANY PRACTICES AND LIABILITIES
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 12-13, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

May 16-17, 2005
RUN-OFFS SEMINAR
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 16-17, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

June 9-10, 2005
NURSING HOME LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Amelia Island
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 9-10, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13-14, 2005
PPA & EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13-14, 2005
DRUG LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13-14, 2005
MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Marina Del-Ray, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

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

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

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

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



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

January 01-31, 2004
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


PFIZER INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit against Pfizer, Inc. (NYSE:PFE) in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of
those who purchased or acquired Pfizer, Inc. securities from
October 31, 2000 to December 16, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit against Pfizer alleges the Company violated the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements during the Class Period. New prescriptions
for Pfizer's pain killer Celebrex(R), the leader in a class of
drugs called cox-2 inhibitors, plummeted 56% last week just
after a federal study found a link between Celebrex(R) and a
heightened risk of heart attacks and strokes. This lawsuit also
names individual defendants Henry A. McKinnell who was Chairman
of the Board and Chief Executive Officer and John L. LaMattina,
who was President of Global Research and Development of Pfizer.
Specifically, as stated in the complaint, LaMattina was
responsible for scientific reporting concerning the safety of
Celebrix. This lawsuit comes just months after the firm filed a
lawsuit on behalf of the employees, former employees and
beneficiaries of Merck (NYSE:MRK) to protect their pension
benefits.

The suit was filed on behalf of Pfizer shareholders everywhere
due to its belief that, the Company, according to the complaint,
employs well over 4,000 workers at the facilities in New London,
CT and Groton, CT. Scott + Scott further states that the "world-
class, $294-million Pfizer Global Research & Development (PGRD)
headquarters can house up to 2,000 highly skilled employees. In
addition to senior management of the Research & Development
division, the facility serves as the center for the company's
global development team, responsible for demonstrating the
effectiveness and safety of drugs through clinical trials", such
as the introduction of Celebrex.

According to the allegations, Pfizer Inc. said it found an
increased risk of heart attacks and strokes for patients taking
high dosages of its top-selling arthritis painkiller Celebrex,
the same problem that led to the withdrawal of its one-time
competitor Vioxx--made by Merck. The company has since stated
that it has no plans to remove Celebrex(R) from the market, but
the disclosure last Friday sent Pfizer's shares tumbling because
of fears that it could cripple sales of what had been the most-
prescribed drug for treating arthritis, causing shareholders to
bring this action.

Shares of Pfizer, a member of the Dow index and the world's
largest pharmaceutical maker, plunged $3.23, or 11.15 percent,
to $25.75 upon this announcement. The complaint states that at
the time of the announcement, the decline wiped out almost $25
billion of Pfizer's market value. Both Pfizer's Celebrex(R) and
Merck's Vioxx(R) are a type of drug called cox-2 inhibitors.
Vioxx was pulled from the market in September because it doubled
patients' risk of heart attack and strokes. Further, in an
independent National Cancer Institute study of 2000 patients,
not done by Pfizer, 15 individuals taking 400 mgs, 20 patients
taking 800 mgs and 6 patients on a placebo suffered a cardiac-
related death, heart attack or stroke.

The complaint alleges that in a separate study done by Pfizer,
the Company found no increased heart risk with patients taking
400mg of Celebrex(R) per day. Further it is alleged that those
safety claims may cause problems for Pfizer--citing recent
company statements, including a Nov. 4 press release touting the
drug's safety. Members of Congress have asked Pfizer for
documents regarding Celebrex(R) and Bextra(R), the company's
other Cox-2 inhibitor. They want to know what information Pfizer
had about the NCI study when it made the safety statements.

Plaintiff contends that the Company has declared in the first
nine months of the year, worldwide sales of Celebrex(R) more
than doubled from a year earlier to $2.3 billion, accounting for
6 percent of Pfizer's total sales of $37.6 billion during that
period. The withdrawal of Vioxx(R) has been a financial and
public relations disaster for Merck. Its legal liabilities are
estimated at up to $18 billion, and its shares have dropped by
nearly one-third since the recall announcement in late
September. Vioxx(R) had been Merck's No. 2 earner with annual
global sales of $2.5 billion, amounting to 11 percent of the
company's $22.49 billion in revenue last year. Earlier this
month, according to the complaint, the Food and Drug
Administration said it was adding a warning to the labels of
another Pfizer drug, Bextra(R), noting a risk of potential heart
problems associated with the use of Bextra(R) in the people who
have recently had heart bypass surgery. Bextra(R) is also a cox-
2 inhibitor type of drug. Pfizer shareholders who acquired or
purchased their shares after October 31, 2000 and up to November
16, 2004 are included in this lawsuit.

Earlier today, the Wall Street Journal reported that Pfizer's
new drug called Lyrica, to be used for the treatment of nerve
pain, "was likely to be classified" a controlled substance. A
classification such as this by the Drug Enforcement Agency could
cause advertising, prescribing, stocking and dispensing problems
or difficulties, according to the article. Pfizer had hoped that
sales of Lyrica would replace the smaller sales of Neurontin
which last year became a generic drug. Pfizer and Merck were not
the only pharmaceutical companies to get negative news as it was
reported in the British Medical Journal on Friday that it had
sent documents provided by an anonymous source to the U. S. Food
and Drug Administration that the producer of the anti-depressant
Prozac, Eli Lilly & CO. (NYSE:LLY), knew since the 1980's that
the drug had "troubling side effects." Scott + Scott has not
filed suit against Lilly at this time.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein or David R. Scott by
Phone: 800-404-7770 (EDT) or 800-332-2259 (PDT) or 619-233-4565
(California) or Connecticut 860-537-3818 (Connecticut) or by E-
mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com or drscott@scott-scott.com.


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on behalf of all securities purchasers of
SupportSoft, Inc. (Nasdaq: SPRT) between January 20, 2004 and
October 1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges SupportSoft, Radha R. Basu, and Brian M.
Beattie with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company failed to close two $4.5 million
         transactions, due to major flaws in SupportSoft's
         internal controls;

     (2) that the Company was experiencing sales execution
         issues;

     (3) that SupportSoft's product pipeline was heavily
         weighted toward perpetual deals;

     (4) that due to the saturation of the domestic broadband
         market, the Company was facing a more challenging
         software spending environment of authorization
         signatures and longer sales cycles; and

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

On October 4, 2004, SupportSoft announced preliminary financial
results for the quarter ended September 30, 2004. The Company
expected total revenues for the third quarter 2004 to be in the
range of $11.9 million to $12.3 million versus $13.5 million for
the same period last year. GAAP loss per share was expected to
be in the range of $0.01 to $0.04, this was well below
expectations. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
SupportSoft fell $3.41 per share, or 35.45 percent, to close at
$6.21 per share.

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


SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities
of SupportSoft, Inc. ("SupportSoft" or the "Company") (NasdaqNM:
SPRT - News) between January 20, 2004 and October 1, 2004 (the
"Class Period"). The Complaint names the following Defendants:
SupportSoft, Radha R. Basu and Brian M. Beattie.

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements to the market
regarding its financial performance.

The Complaint alleges that Defendants' statements were false and
misleading because the Company failed to disclose that its
business model was in fact not materially differentiated from
other enterprise software companies, that its customers were
implementing additional hurdles to contract approvals and that
it was experiencing execution difficulties. On October 4, 2004,
the Company announced its preliminary financial results for the
third quarter 2004, which ended on September 30, 2004.

The Company announced that it now expected total revenues for
the third quarter of 2004 to be between $11.9 million and $12.3
million -- as compared to $13.5 million for the same period in
2003. The Company claimed that an alleged "tightness in IT
spending" and "more complex approval processes"' were the
reasons for this significant miss in earnings. On this news, the
Company's share price dropped precipitously from $9.62 per share
to $6.21 per share -- a drop of 35.4% on extremely heavy trading
volume.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. or James C.
Shah, Esq. by Phone: 866/540-5505 or 877/891-9880 or by E-mail:
jmiller@classactioncounsel.com or jshah@classactioncounsel.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  * * *