CAR_Public/050119.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, January 19, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 13


                           Headlines


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal MN Lawsuit Dismissal
ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: MN Court Nixes ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal
ALABAMA: Joins 48 States in State Farm Salvaged Cars Settlement
ALASKA: To Join 48 States, DC in Nationwide Consumer Settlement
ALYON TECHNOLOGIES: AR Joins Adult Site Billing Settlement

AUSTRALIA: Fire Chief Calls Wildfire Survivors "Ungrateful"
BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement Talks For Race-Bias Lawsuit Underway
CANADA: Consumer Groups Lodge Bottle Deposit Suit in B.C.
ERON CORPORATION: Former Company Officers' Fraud Suit Delayed
HEWLETT-PACKARD: TX Court Certifies Limited Class in Fraud Suit

HEWLETT-PACKARD: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuits
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties Move To Transfer Stock Suit To CA Court
HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Apartheid Suit
INTRAWARE INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
JANUS CAPITAL: Shareholders Lawsuit Alleges Firm Was Negligent

LIGHTSPAN INC.: Joins in Motion To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
JANUS CAPITAL: Shareholders Suit Alleges Firm Was Negligent
MICROSOFT COPRORATION: Seeks Dismissal of Novell Antitrust Suit
NATIONAL RESEARCH: AZ Joins Settlement To Student Info Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Jury Awards $1.2M To Former Bucks County Inmates

SIMON PROPERTY: CT AG Commences Consumer Fraud Complaint
SOUTH CAROLINA: Lawyers Place Ads For Train Derailment Victims
SYNOVIS LIFE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in MN Court
UNITED STATES: Suits V. Investment Banks Remain Fruitless
WEIDER NUTRITION: Reaches Consumer Fraud Lawsuits Agreement

WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Nears Fen-Phen Diet-Drug Suit Settlement


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ATHEROGENICS INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in GA
CITADEL SECURITY: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in TX
CITADEL SECURITY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in DE
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in DE

HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in CT
IPASS INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
OFFICEMAX INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in IL
OFFICEMAX INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL
PFIZER INC.: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in AZ
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Stock Suit in AZ


                          *********


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: Plaintiffs Appeal MN Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the consolidated securities
class action filed against ADC Telecommunications, Inc., styled
"In Re ADC Telecommunications, Inc. Securities Litigation."

On March 5, 2003, the Company was served with a shareholder
lawsuit brought by Wanda Kinermon that was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota.  The
complaint named the Company, William J. Cadogan, its former
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, and Robert E. Switz, its
Chief Executive Officer and former Chief Financial Officer, as
defendants.  After this lawsuit was served, the Company was
named as a defendant in 11 other substantially similar lawsuits.

The consolidated lawsuit purports to bring suit on behalf of a
class of purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities
from August 17, 2000 to March 28, 2001.  The complaint alleged
that the Company violated the securities laws by making false
and misleading statements about our financial performance and
business prospects during this period.  On November 24, 2003,
the Company filed a motion to dismiss this lawsuit, and the
court granted the motion and dismissed the case with prejudice
on May 17, 2004.

The suit is styled "In Re: ADC Telecommunications, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case no. 0:03-cv-01194-JNE-JGL," filed in
the United States District Court in Minnesota," under Judge Joan
N. Ericksen.

Lawyers for the defendants are Daniel James Brown, John Rock,
Mitchell Widell Granberg, Peter W. Carter of Dorsey & Whitney,
50 6th St S Ste 1500, Mpls, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-2600,
Fax: 6123408800, E-mail: brown.daniel@dorsey.com,
rock.john@dorsey.com, granberg.mitchell@dorsey.com,
carter.peter@dorsey.com.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

     (5) Kirby, McInerney & Squire LLP, 830 Third Avenue 10th
         Floor, New York Ave, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.317.2300,

     (6) Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, Attorneys at Law, E-
         1000 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota
         Street, St. Paul, MN, 55101, Phone: 800.465.1592, Fax:
         651.297.6543, E-mail: info@ralawfirm.com

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


ADC TELECOMMUNICATIONS: MN Court Nixes ERISA Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
refused to dismiss a consolidated class action filed against ADC
Telecommunications, Inc. and several of its current and former
officers, employees and directors.

This lawsuit was brought on behalf of a class of participants in
our Retirement Savings Plan who purchased the Company's common
stock as one of the investment alternatives under the plan from
February 2000 to present.  The lawsuit alleges a breach of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).

On February 2, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss this
lawsuit, which was denied by the court.  This case is now in the
discovery phase.

The suit is styled "In Re: ADC Telecommunications ERISA
Litigation," filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota, under Judge Ann D. Montgomery.

Lawyers for the Company are Andrew John Holly, Heather J. Klaas,
Stephen P. Lucke of Dorsey & Whitney - Mpls, 50 6th St S Ste
1500, Mpls, MN 55402-1498, Phone: 612-340-8830, Fax:
612-340-8800 or by E-mail: holly.andrew@dorsey.com,
klaas.heather@dorsey.com, or lucke.steve@dorsey.com

Lead plaintiff is Lorraine L. Osborne.  Law firms for the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) Scott & Scott, PO Box 192 Colchester, Ct 06415, Phone:
         860-537-5537, Fax: 1-860-537-4432

     (2) Schiffrin & Barroway, 3 Bala Plz E Ste 400, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706 E-mail:
         jmeltzer@sbclasslaw.com

     (3) Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Ln Ste 100, Little
         Rock, AR 72202-2037, Phone: 501-907-2555, Fax: 501-907-
         2556

     (4) Russell M. Spence, Jr of Spence Law Firm, 10 S 5th St
         Ste 700, Mpls, MN 55402, Phone: 612-375-1555 E-mail:
         rspence@spencelawfirm.com


ALABAMA: Joins 48 States in State Farm Salvaged Cars Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Alabama joined the ground-breaking agreement,
initiated by State Farm Mutual Insurance Co., to locate and
compensate consumers who purchased automobiles that should have
been sold with "salvage" or similarly qualified titles.
Nationwide, approximately 30,000 vehicle owners may be eligible
for payments in the settlement that totals $40 million, Alabama
Attorney General Troy King announced in a statement.

It is not yet known how many Alabama consumers may be affected,
and the amount of individual compensation will depend primarily
upon the current average value of a particular automobile. Most
payments are expected to range from $800 to $1,850. After
eligible consumers are identified, they will be notified by a
letter from Attorney General King and State Farm. It is
anticipated that current owners of eligible vehicles will be
contacted by fall of 2005 after the identification process is
completed, and that consumers who complete a claim form and are
approved will receive a compensation payment from State Farm
later this year or early 2006.

The 49-state agreement resulted after State Farm conducted an
internal review and, in a small percentage of cases, could not
confirm that proper titles had been assigned to vehicles which
had been "totaled" with the insurance Company taking ownership
due to extensive damage or theft. The Company contacted state
attorneys general about the situation and initiated the
agreement that was announced today.

"I commend State Farm for its honorable response in coming
forward to report this matter and work with the Attorneys
General to make the situation right," said Attorney General
King. "The value of a vehicle may be affected by previous damage
even after repairs are made, and if a car is sold with an
incorrectly labeled title, the consumer may have paid more than
the car is worth. It is rare for a Company to alert us to this
kind of problem and to be active in offering a solution. In the
next several months, State Farm will be working with state
authorities to determine who owns the affected cars and to
notify consumers who are due compensation. "

In most states, depending on factors such as vehicle age and
extent of damage, insurance companies taking ownership must
obtain "branded titles," indicating the vehicles are "salvage,"
"damaged," or similarly-named titles depending upon the various
labels used by different states. State Farm's records showed
that it had properly titled approximately 2.4 million vehicles
in recent years that may have required a "branded title," but
that it could not confirm whether a much smaller number may not
have been properly titled. Payment will go to the current owners
of vehicles that may require branded titles.

State Farm Vice President and Counsel Jeffrey W. Jackson said,
"Our cooperative effort with the state attorneys general
reflects a commitment to resolve salvage titling concerns in a
proactive manner, and demonstrates that State Farm is serious
about meeting our responsibilities under the various state
branded title laws. The agreement made by State Farm and the
attorneys general is the right thing to do for our policyholders
and the public."

In addition to the $40 million for consumers, State Farm also
will pay the expense for the major project of identifying the
vehicles, tracing the current owners, contacting owners, taking
claims from owners, and making compensation payments. In the
"Assurance of Voluntary Compliance," or agreement with the
states, State Farm also makes assurances about how it presently
conducts its practices, as well as in the future.

Under the agreement, State Farm will work with state departments
of motor vehicles in the coming months to determine in each
state the specific vehicles which require a branded title. The
owners of those vehicles will receive a letter from the
consumer's home state Attorney General and State Farm with a
claim form to complete and return to an independent Claims
Administrator Company already approved by the States to
administer the notification and compensation program. After all
claims are in, the amount each consumer will receive will be
finalized and checks mailed.

The final amounts received by consumers will depend on the
current value of their vehicle and how many consumers elect to
participate in the payment program. Payments will be made to the
owners of currently-registered vehicles and will be based on the
current average retail value of the vehicle. For example, owners
of vehicles worth between $1,001 and $2,000 will receive $600;
owners of vehicles worth between $5,001 and $6,000 will receive
$1,400; owners of vehicles worth between $10,001 and $11,000
will receive $2,700.

State Farm also is making a payment of a total of $1 million to
all the state participants for consumer education, future
consumer litigation, public protection, local consumer aid
funds, and attorney fees and costs.

For more information, contact Joy Patterson by Phone:
334.242.7491 or Suzanne Webb by Phone: 334.242.7351.


ALASKA: To Join 48 States, DC in Nationwide Consumer Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska will join the agreement between 48 other states plus the
District of Columbia and State Farm Mutual Insurance Company,
that will result in $40 million in compensation to thousands of
car, SUV, and truck owners nationwide, state Attorney General
Gregg Renkes said in a statement.

After titling research is complete an estimated 30,000 consumers
nationwide may be eligible for payments ranging from about $400
up to over $10,000, depending primarily on the current average
value of their vehicle, and the number of consumers who
participate in the compensation program. The states believe most
payments are likely to range from $800 to $1850.

The agreement was reached after State Farm approached the states
and indicated that, after an internal review, in a small
percentage of cases it was unable to confirm that it had
properly titled vehicles it had taken ownership of from
policyholders due to damage or theft.

"State Farm came forward with the problem and a workable
solution to make things right for its impacted policy holders,"
said Renkes.  "Hopefully this agreement will encourage other
companies to follow suit, when necessary, to make things right
for consumers."

In most states, depending on factors such as vehicle age and
extent of damage, insurance companies taking ownership in such
situations must obtain "branded titles," indicating the vehicles
are "reconstructed." State Farm's records showed that it had
properly titled approximately 2.4 million vehicles in recent
years that may have required a "branded title," but that it
could not confirm whether a much smaller number may not have
been properly titled. Payment will go to the current owners of
vehicles that may require branded titles.

In addition to the $40 million for consumers, State Farm also
will pay the expense for the major project of identifying the
vehicles, tracing the current owners, contacting owners, taking
claims from owners, and making compensation payments.  In the
"Assurance of Voluntary Compliance," or agreement with the
states, State Farm also makes assurances about how it presently
conducts its practices, as well as in the future.

Consumers who complete a claim form and are approved will
receive a compensation payment from State Farm later this year
or early 2006. Under the agreement, State Farm will work with
state departments of motor vehicles in the coming months to
determine in each state the specific vehicles which require a
branded title. The owners of those vehicles will receive a
letter from the consumer's home state Attorney General with a
claim form to complete and return to an independent Claims
Administrator Company already approved by the States to
administer the notification and compensation program. After all
claims are in, the amount each consumer will receive
will be finalized and checks mailed.
The final amounts received by consumers will depend on the
current value of their vehicle and how many consumers elect to
participate in the payment program.  Payments will be made to
the owners of currently registered vehicles and will be based
on the current average retail value of the vehicle.  It is
expected that current owners of eligible vehicles will be
contacted by Fall 2005, after the identification process is
completed.  State Farm also is making a payment of a total of $1
million to all the state participants for consumer education,
future consumer litigation, public protection, local consumer
aid funds, and attorney fees and costs.

For additional information regarding the details of the
settlement please contact Assistant Attorney General Ed Sniffen
by Phone: (907) 269-5200.


ALYON TECHNOLOGIES: AR Joins Adult Site Billing Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas joined the settlement forged with Alyon Technologies, a
New Jersey Company accused of illegally billing consumers for
access to adult Web sites without their consent or knowledge.
The settlement participants also include the Federal Trade
Commission and 22 other states.

Based on thousands of consumer complaints, including 110 in
Arkansas, the States and the FTC alleged that Alyon Technologies
billed $4.95 a minute for access to adult Web sites without
receiving prior authorization.  Alyon then billed the consumer
for the unwanted services, aggressively pursuing payment through
collection agencies and using threats of potential credit damage
for non-payment.

Those Internet users affected received pop-up ads or spam
offering free services, some involving adult content, others
featuring such unrelated services as free cell-phone ringtones.
If the user clicked on the ad, it immediately triggered the
download of modem-dialing software onto the computer.   The
software disconnected the user's Internet Service Provider, and
linked the user to a phone line in New Jersey.  Regardless of
whether consumers accessed any of Alyon's Web sites or not, the
$4.95-a-minute charges then began to accumulate.

In some cases, minors were the computer users who incurred the
illegal charges.  Alyon never made meaningful efforts to discern
the age of the computer users, and still tried to collect
payment even though such contracts with minors are legally
unenforceable.

Arkansas consumers have seen more than $23,000 in bills forgiven
as a result of the settlement.  Other consumer claims could
result in bills being dropped, as the settlement terms include a
claims-dispute process operated by Alyon for anyone who feels
that they have been illegally billed.  Nationwide, more than $17
million in consumer bills have been forgiven.

"Even as the technology to block spam and pop-up advertisements
improves, you still need to be cautious of where you click while
using the Internet," Beebe said.  "The fact that minors were
involved in some of these fraudulent billings should remind
parents to closely monitor their children's online activities."

Under the settlement terms, Alyon agrees to cease using
potentially deceptive means to download modem-dialing software
onto users' computers and to take stricter steps to obtain
proper authorization for its services.

For questions or more information about missing children in
Arkansas, contact the Attorney General's Office at 200 Catlett-
Prien Tower Building, 323 Center Street, Little Rock, AR 72201.
The office can be reached by calling (501) 682-1020 or
1-(800) 448-3014 or by visiting the website:
http://www.arkansasag.gov. TDD service is available for the
hearing-impaired 682-6073.


AUSTRALIA: Fire Chief Calls Wildfire Survivors "Ungrateful"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Euan Ferguson, chief officer of Australia's Country Fire
Service, called survivors of the country's recent wildfires
ungrateful after a report that some were considering legal
action against firefighters, the Ireland Online reports.

The fire brigade chief told Ireland Online it was premature to
blame his firefighters after the country's deadliest wildfires
in two decades left nine dead and injured 113 in South Australia
state's Eyre Peninsula, 250 miles west of Adelaide.  Residents
have expressed anger that water-bombing aircraft were sent to a
fire near Adelaide before them.

Mr. Gerguson told Ireland Online, "I don't think there's any
basis for any legal action. It's very premature for people to be
laying blame at the feet of those who give their lives and risk
their lives every day for the community. I think it's completely
inappropriate and I'm starting to feel that people are being a
little bit ungrateful."

According to an Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio report, an
unidentified Eyre Peninsula businessman has gathered the names
of some fire victims and contacted an Adelaide lawyer about
starting a class action suit against the fire service.

Mr. Ferguson stated "I'm satisfied that our response was
appropriate. We could have had every firefighting appliance and
every firefighter in South Australia and it still wouldn't have
stopped that fire occurring."

Residents suspect the fire was started by a tourist who stopped
his car in a field, where his hot exhaust pipe ignited long, dry
grass.  The Eyre Peninsula blaze was the worst wildfire to hit
Australia since 1983, when blazes, dubbed the Ash Wednesday
fires, left 75 people dead in South Australia and neighboring
Victoria state.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement Talks For Race-Bias Lawsuit Underway
----------------------------------------------------------------
Two major banks are discussing possible settlements of class
action lawsuits filed by black consumers who contend they were
charged more for auto loans than whites, according to The Wall
Street Journal, the San Diego Union Tribune reports.

Citing people familiar with the talks, the Journal reported that
any settlement could affect the price of loans taken by millions
of auto buyers, although no agreement appears to be near.

Plaintiffs' attorneys are asking the banks, Bank of America
Corp. and J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.'s Bank One unit to limit how
much auto dealers can add onto the financing rates both banks
charge. The lawsuits contend that dealers boost the cost of the
loans more for black borrowers than for whites, and that the
banks' policies allow for such discrimination.

Bank of America Company spokeswoman Shirley Norton refused to
comment on the suits, but told the Journal that the bank was "in
talks" about the case, but refused to characterize the
discussion as settlement talks or describe how far they had
progressed. Tom Kelly, a spokesman for J.P. Morgan Chase in
Chicago, on the other hand, said: "We are in discussions with
plaintiffs' attorneys to resolve the litigation."

According to the Journal's reports, any settlement could lead to
cheaper loans for all car buyers by curbing industry practices
that - beyond the discrimination allegations - are legal in most
states and burnish the dealers' bottom lines. Trials in the
separate cases are expected later this year.


CANADA: Consumer Groups Lodge Suit Over Bottle Deposits in B.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Consumers' Association of Canada has initiated a class-
action lawsuit against the British Columbia beverage industry,
retailers and Encorp Pacific, the not-for-profit operator of the
province's bottle-recycling operation, the Canada East reports.

According to the Consumers' Association, its legal action "on
behalf of all consumers in British Columbia," alleges illegal
use of bottle deposits and names dozens of companies including
Coca-Cola Bottling, Save-On Foods, Wal-Mart and London Drugs.

Bruce Cran, president of the Consumers' Association of Canada
stated, "The B.C. beverage container regulation is very clear:
deposits collected from consumers can only be used for one
purpose - paying refunds to consumers when containers are
returned. Since 1998 the industry has collected and used over
$70 million in consumer deposits for purposes that are not
authorized under the regulation."

Furthermore, the association alleges that consumer deposits were
used to pay damages after a lawsuit against the beverage
container agency for improper conduct in the operation of the
stewardship plan. It also alleges that the industry imposed a
recycling fee on top of the deposit, and since 1999 has
collected $60 million from this container-recycling levy without
legislative authorization.

Mr. Cran explains, "Simply stated, it's an illegal fee. The
industry shifted all its polluter-pay costs onto the backs of
consumers and did so without any legislative authority. It's
time the industry started paying its fair share of the costs for
managing its product."


ERON CORPORATION: Former Company Officers' Fraud Suit Delayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
The start of the massive and complex Eron Mortgage Ltd. fraud
trial has been delayed as both sides hope to pare down the
proceedings expected to take a year or more, the Canadian Press
reports.

Chief Justice Patrick Dohm of B.C. Supreme Court, who is sitting
in for trial judge Mary Ellen Boyd, who is hearing the case
without a jury, agreed to the adjournment in the case stemming
from Eron's collapse in October 1997. According to him, "There
have been ongoing discussions, but today I have formed the view
that a further four- or five-day delay will not interfere with
the trail process or bring any scandal upon the court."

Brian Slobogian and Frank Biller, respectively Eron's president
and vice-president, each face 14 counts of fraud, breach of
trust and misappropriation of funds after Eron went bankrupt
when the B.C. Registrar of Mortgage Brokers pulled its license
to operate. An estimated $220 million disappeared in the ensuing
insolvency and bankruptcy trustees were only able to recover a
fraction of it through the sale of Eron's over-mortgaged real
estate properties. Thousands of investors lost everything, some
even homes that they'd mortgaged to invest in Eron's projects on
the promise of returns as high as 24 per cent a year.

The trial was scheduled to begin with several weeks of legal
argument, or voir dire, on the admissibility of some types of
evidence.  Outside the court, lead prosecutor David Jardine
stated that the delay was due to discussion ongoing between
counsels.  He added, "We just thought Friday at 2 p.m. hopefully
would give us the opportunity to shorten the case in the long
run."

Mr. Jardine, who seemed to rule out negotiations toward a plea
agreement with the two accused, explained that the discussions
revolve primarily around witness admissions, issues usually
hashed out in pre-trial hearings. He also stated that the voir
dire portion of the trial could last two to six weeks, the
Canadian Press reports.

On the upcoming trial, Judge Boyd will be asked to rule on
whether Eron's real estate lawyers can be called to testify
about land titles they registered and transactions they handled
on the Company's behalf.

The Crown will also argue that evidence be admitted from the
B.C. Securities Commission hearing into Eron's collapse, which
found both defendants guilty of fraud, handing out hefty fines
and trading bans to the men.

It's a touchy question though, because the commission's quasi-
judicial proceedings compelled people, including the two
defendants, to testify under oath. Allowing some of that
evidence into the criminal trial raises the prospect of self-
incrimination.

The Crown has alleged that the two men were behind a scheme to
defraud Eron investors by re-mortgaging properties -- some
carried as many as four mortgages at once -- to repay early
investors and divert significant amounts to their own pockets.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: TX Court Certifies Limited Class in Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Texas State Court in Jefferson County certified as a class
action for injunctive relief only, the lawsuit filed against
Hewlett-Packard Co., styled "Alvis v. HP."

An Eastern Texas resident filed the suit in April 2001, alleging
the Company and Compaq Corporation sold computers containing
floppy disk controllers that fail to alert the user to certain
floppy disk controller errors.  That failure is alleged to
result in data loss or data corruption.

In February 2000, a similar suit captioned "LaPray v. Compaq"
was filed in state court in Jefferson County, Texas, making the
same allegations as the above suit.  Both complaints seek
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees.

In July 2001, a nationwide class was certified in the LaPray
case, which the Beaumont Court of Appeals affirmed in June 2002.
In May 2004, the Texas Supreme Court reversed the certification
of the nationwide class in the LaPray case and remanded the case
to the trial court.  The trial court has not set a new class
certification hearing.

A class certification hearing was held on July 1, 2003 in the
Alvis case, and the court granted plaintiffs' motion to certify
a nationwide class action.  The Company filed an appeal of that
certification with the 9th Court of Appeals in Beaumont, Texas,
which heard oral arguments on HP's appeal and received a
supplemental briefing based upon the LaPray opinion from the
Texas Supreme Court.  On August 31, 2004, the 9th Court of
Appeals in Texas reversed the lower court's decision certifying
a nationwide class and remanded the case to the trial court.  A
class certification hearing was held on January 6, 2005.  On
January 12, the court notified the parties that it will certify
a Texas-wide class action for injunctive relief only.

On June 4, 2003, "Barrett v. HP" and "Grider v. Compaq" were
each filed in state court in Cleveland County, Oklahoma, with
factual allegations similar to those in Alvis and LaPray.  The
complaints in Barrett and Grider seek, among other things,
specific performance, declaratory relief, unspecified damages
and attorneys' fees.

On November 5, 2003, the court heard HP's motion to dismiss
Barrett v. HP and Grider v. Compaq, which motion was
subsequently denied.  On December 22, 2003, the court entered an
order staying both the Barrett and Grider cases until the
conclusions of the Alvis and LaPray actions.  On July 28, 2004,
the Court lifted the stay in Grider, but took under advisement
the plaintiff's motion to lift the stay in Barrett.

On November 5, 2004, Scott v. HP was filed in state court in San
Joaquin County, California, with factual allegations similar to
those in Alvis and LaPray.  The complaint in Scott seeks class
certification, injunctive relief, unspecified damages (including
punitive damages), restitution, costs and attorneys' fees.

In addition, the Civil Division of the Department of Justice,
the General Services Administration Office of Inspector General
and other Federal agencies are conducting an investigation of
allegations that the Company and Compaq made or caused to be
made false claims for payment to the United States for computers
known by the Company and Compaq to contain defective parts or
otherwise to perform in a defective manner relating to the same
alleged floppy disk controller errors.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: IL Court Refuses To Dismiss Consumer Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Madison County Court in Illinois refused to dismiss two
class actions filed against Hewlett-Packard Co. (HP) and Compaq
Corporation, styled "Neubauer, et al. v. Intel Corporation,
Hewlett-Packard Company, et al." and "Neubauer, et al. v. Compaq
Computer Corporation."

The suits allege that the Company and Compaq (along with Intel)
misled the public by suppressing and concealing the alleged
material fact that systems that use the Intel Pentium 4
processor are less powerful and slower than systems using the
Intel Pentium III processor and processors made by a competitor
of Intel.  The court in the HP action has certified an Illinois
class as to Intel but denied a nationwide class. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys' fees and costs
and certification of a nationwide class against HP and Compaq.

The class action certification hearings against HP and Compaq
have not yet been scheduled.  In each action, HP and Compaq have
filed motions to dismiss the cases, which the court has denied.
HP and Compaq also have filed forum non conveniens motions,
which are pending.

Skold, et al. v. Intel Corporation and Hewlett-Packard Company
is a lawsuit in state court in Alameda County, California to
which the Company was joined on June 14, 2004, based upon
factual allegations similar to those in the Neubauer cases.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, restitution, attorneys'
fees and cost and certification of nationwide class.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Parties Move To Transfer Stock Suit To CA Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the class action filed against Hewlett-Packard
Company, styled "Hanrahan v. Hewlett-Packard Company and
Carleton Fiorina," seek to transfer the suit to the United
States District Court for the District of California.

The suit was filed on November 3, 2003 in the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut on behalf of a
putative class of persons who sold common stock of the Company
during the period from September 4, 2001 through November 5,
2001.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and generally alleges that
the Company and Ms. Fiorina violated the federal securities laws
by making statements during this period which were misleading in
failing to disclose that Walter B. Hewlett would oppose the
proposed acquisition of Compaq by HP prior to Mr. Hewlett's
disclosure of his opposition to the proposed transaction.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Apartheid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of the class action filed
against Hewlett-Packard Company and numerous other multinational
corporations in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, styled "Digwamaje et al. v. Bank
of America et al."

The suit was filed on behalf of current and former South African
citizens and their survivors who suffered violence and
oppression under the apartheid regime.  The lawsuit alleges that
the Company and other firms helped perpetuate, and profited
from, the apartheid regime during the period from 1948-1994 by
selling products and services to agencies of the South African
government.  Claims are based on the Alien Tort Claims Act, the
Torture Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act and state law.

The complaint seeks, among other things, an accounting, the
creation of a historic commission, compensatory damages in
excess of $200 billion, punitive damages in excess of $200
billion, costs and attorneys' fees.  On November 29, 2004, the
court dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint.  On December 23,
2004, the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

The suit is styled "Digwamaje v. IBM Corp., et al 02-CV-6218
(S.D.N.Y. 2002)," and is being coordinated with other apartheid
suits in "In REF SOUTH AFRICAN APARTHEID LITIGATION MDL NO.
1499(JES)."


INTRAWARE INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Intraware, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York to grant preliminary approval to
the settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against it, three of its present officers and the underwriters
of its initial public offering.  The suit is styled "In re
Intraware, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Civ. No. 01-9349 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)."

The amended complaint is brought purportedly on behalf of all
persons who purchased the Company's common stock from February
25, 1999 (the date of the Company's initial public offering)
through December 6, 2000.  The complaint alleges liability under
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the
grounds that the registration statement for the offerings did
not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters had agreed to allow certain customers
         to purchase shares in the offerings in exchange for
         excess commissions paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters had arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The amended complaint also alleges that the underwriters misused
their securities analysts to manipulate the price of the
Company's stock.  No specific damages are claimed.

Lawsuits containing similar allegations have been filed in the
Southern District of New York challenging over 300 other initial
public offerings and secondary offerings conducted in 1999 and
2000.  All of these lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrial
purposes before United States District Court Judge Shira
Scheindlin of the Southern District of New York.  On July 15,
2002, an omnibus motion to dismiss was filed in the coordinated
litigation on behalf of the issuer defendants, of which
Intraware and its three named current and former officers and
directors are a part, on common pleadings issues.

On or about October 9, 2002, the Court entered and ordered a
Stipulation of Dismissal, which dismissed the three named
current and former officers and directors from the litigation
without prejudice.  On February 19, 2003, the Court entered an
order denying in part the issuer defendants' omnibus motion to
dismiss, including those portions of the motion to dismiss
relating to Intraware.  No discovery has been served on the
Company to date.

In June and July 2003, nearly all of the issuers named as
defendants in the "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation," including the Company, approved a tentative
settlement proposal that is reflected in a memorandum of
understanding.  A special committee of the Company's Board of
Directors approved the memorandum of understanding in June 2003.
The memorandum of understanding is not a legally binding
agreement.  Further, any final settlement agreement would be
subject to a number of conditions, most of which would be
outside of the Company's control, including approval by the
Court.  The underwriter-defendants in the "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation," (collectively, the
"underwriter-defendants"), including the underwriters of the
Company's initial public offering, are not parties to the
memorandum of understanding.

The memorandum of understanding provides that, in exchange for a
release of claims against the settling issuer-defendants, the
insurers of all of the settling issuer-defendants will provide a
surety undertaking to guarantee plaintiffs a $1 billion recovery
from the non-settling defendants, including the underwriter-
defendants.  The ultimate amount, if any, that may be paid on
behalf of Intraware will therefore depend on the final terms of
the settlement agreement, including the number of issuer-
defendants that ultimately approve the final settlement
agreement, and the amounts, if any, recovered by the plaintiffs
from the underwriter-defendants and other non-settling
defendants.  If all or substantially all of the issuer-
defendants approve the final settlement agreement, the amount
our insurers would be required to pay to the plaintiffs could
range from zero to approximately $3.5 million, depending on
plaintiffs' recovery from the underwriter-defendants and from
other non-settling parties.

If the plaintiffs recover at least $1 billion from the
underwriter-defendants, our insurers would have no liability for
settlement payments under the proposed terms of the settlement.
If the plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion, the Company
believes its insurance will likely cover its share of any
payments towards satisfying plaintiffs' $1 billion recovery
deficit.

The suit is styled "In re Intraware, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-9349 (SAS)
(S.D.N.Y.)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (SAS) (S.D.N.Y.)," filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York under Judge Shira Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


JANUS CAPITAL: Shareholders Lawsuit Alleges Firm Was Negligent
--------------------------------------------------------------
Janus Capital Corporation faces a shareholder suit, alleging it
failed to collect millions of dollars in class-action settlement
payouts related to the stock market meltdown, the Rocky Mountain
Post reports.

The suit, one of more than 40 brought against mutual fund
operators by the same group of attorneys, charges that money
managers neglected their fiduciary duty to investors.  According
to securities attorney Randall Pulliam, the plaintiffs' lead
counsel at Baron & Budd in Dallas, "We've investigated this
matter for more than six months . and there seems to be no valid
excuse."

The 19-page suit maintains that Janus had valid claims "in many,
if not all" of 132 securities class-action cases in which cash
settlements were reached before going to trial.  Janus-managed
funds, which include Berger Financial's portfolios, were
invested in hundreds of Company stocks that nose-dived in value
during the market crash four years ago. The mutual fund giant
has seen its assets under management fall to $139 billion from a
peak of more than $300 billion.

Separately, Baron & Budd has hit other mutual fund players in
nine other states, including Dreyfus, Putman, American Funds and
MassMutual.  The Janus complaint, however, was among the first
out of the gate when it was filed in Denver federal court. It
follows a string of record-breaking settlements in securities
fraud suits that have provided an estimated $13 billion to
investors since 2000.

In 2003 alone, securities fraud class-action settlements
produced $5 billion in cash to investors, according to
Securities Class Action Services. Due to there tight hold of the
lion's share of publicly traded stocks it's logical to assume
that mutual fund companies and other institutional investors are
entitled to most of those payouts. However, unless a "proof of
claim" is filed within a court-imposed deadline, legal experts
note a large institutional shareholder will suffer the same
consequences of a non-filing individual class member -
forfeiting the right to collect anything.

According to the complaint, "because of defendants' refusal to
complete and submit a short form, monies contained in dozens of
Settlement Funds (that) rightfully belonged to the funds'
investors have gone unclaimed."

Kim Johnson, president of a lawsuit-tracking service called
Investor Responsibility Support Services Inc., said he'd be
surprised if Janus failed to file claims on most of the
settlement payouts its funds were eligible to receive. He adds,
"a small money manager may not be as diligent." Mr. Johnson, who
served as general counsel for the Colorado Public Employees'
Retirement Association before launching his Company three years
ago, said most large public pension funds are aggressive about
filing claims.

He pointed out that at PERA, which manages roughly $30 billion
in assets, settlement payouts generated about $1.5 million
annually, and that was three years ago.

However, Randall Thomas, a professor of law and business at
Vanderbilt University Law School and co-author of a just-
completed study that examined 118 class-action security
settlements, which found that less than a third of institutional
investors file claims, maintains institutional shareholders
aren't even close to reaping their potential in settlement
claims. He points out that the average recovery for the
institutional investor would have been $75,000 to $100,000 per
claim.

Nationally, he explains, the average size of a settlement in
shareholder suits have more than tripled since the mid-1990s,
from $8 million to $25 million. "It wouldn't surprise me if you
start seeing a lot more of these lawsuits," said Mr. Thomas,
referring to the Janus complaint.

With more on the table than ever before, the chief legal counsel
for the Wisconsin Investment Board said it pays to be
aggressive. "It's a relatively simple process," said Keith
Johnson, whose board manages $70 billion in assets and recovered
$4.4 million in settlement claims last year. Furthermore, he
states, "In a large portfolio of billions of dollars, it's not a
lot of money. But as fiduciaries, fund managers have an
obligation to bend over and pick up that nickel."


LIGHTSPAN INC.: Joins in Motion To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lightspan, Inc. joined in the motion to dismiss the securities
class action filed against Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB) and
several of CSFB's clients, including the Company, styled "Liu,
et al. v. Credit Suisse First Boston Corp., et al," pending in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

The complaint alleges that Credit Suisse First Boston, its
affiliates, and the securities issuer defendants (including
Lightspan, Inc.) manipulated the price of the issuer defendants'
shares in the post-initial public offering market.  The
securities issuer defendants (including Lightspan, Inc.) have
filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in September 2004 on the
grounds of multiple pleading deficiencies.  The court has not
yet ruled on the motion to dismiss.


JANUS CAPITAL: Shareholders Suit Alleges Firm Was Negligent
-----------------------------------------------------------
Denver's most prominent mutual fund Company, Janus Capital
Corp., has been accused in a shareholders suit of failing to
collect millions of dollars in class-action settlement payouts
related to the stock market meltdown, the Rocky Mountain Post
reports.

One of more than 40 brought against mutual fund operators by the
same group of attorneys, the suit charges that money managers
neglected their fiduciary duty to investors. According to
securities attorney Randall Pulliam, the plaintiffs' lead
counsel at Baron & Budd in Dallas, "We've investigated this
matter for more than six months . . . and there seems to be no
valid excuse."

The 19-page suit maintains that Janus had valid claims "in many,
if not all" of 132 securities class-action cases in which cash
settlements were reached before going to trial.

Janus-managed funds, which include Berger Financial's
portfolios, were invested in hundreds of Company stocks that
nose-dived in value during the market crash four years ago. The
mutual fund giant has seen its assets under management fall to
$139 billion from a peak of more than $300 billion.

Separately, Baron & Budd has hit other mutual fund players in
nine other states, including Dreyfus, Putman, American Funds and
MassMutual.

The Janus complaint, however, was among the first out of the
gate when it was filed in Denver federal court. It follows a
string of record-breaking settlements in securities fraud suits
that have provided an estimated $13 billion to investors since
2000.

In 2003 alone, securities fraud class-action settlements
produced $5 billion in cash to investors, according to
Securities Class Action Services. Due to there tight hold of the
lion's share of publicly traded stocks it's logical to assume
that mutual fund companies and other institutional investors are
entitled to most of those payouts. However, unless a "proof of
claim" is filed within a court-imposed deadline, legal experts
note a large institutional shareholder will suffer the same
consequences of a non-filing individual class member -
forfeiting the right to collect anything.

According to the complaint, "because of defendants' refusal to
complete and submit a short form, monies contained in dozens of
Settlement Funds (that) rightfully belonged to the funds'
investors have gone unclaimed."

Kim Johnson, president of a lawsuit-tracking service called
Investor Responsibility Support Services Inc., said he'd be
surprised if Janus failed to file claims on most of the
settlement payouts its funds were eligible to receive. He adds,
"a small money manager may not be as diligent." Mr. Johnson, who
served as general counsel for the Colorado Public Employees'
Retirement Association before launching his Company three years
ago, said most large public pension funds are aggressive about
filing claims.

He pointed out that at PERA, which manages roughly $30 billion
in assets, settlement payouts generated about $1.5 million
annually, and that was three years ago.

However, Randall Thomas, a professor of law and business at
Vanderbilt University Law School and co-author of a just-
completed study that examined 118 class-action security
settlements, which found that less than a third of institutional
investors file claims, maintains institutional shareholders
aren't even close to reaping their potential in settlement
claims. He points out that the average recovery for the
institutional investor would have been $75,000 to $100,000 per
claim.

Nationally, he explains, the average size of a settlement in
shareholder suits have more than tripled since the mid-1990s,
from $8 million to $25 million. "It wouldn't surprise me if you
start seeing a lot more of these lawsuits," said Mr. Thomas,
referring to the Janus complaint.

With more on the table than ever before, the chief legal counsel
for the Wisconsin Investment Board said it pays to be
aggressive. "It's a relatively simple process," said Keith
Johnson, whose board manages $70 billion in assets and recovered
$4.4 million in settlement claims last year. Furthermore, he
states, "In a large portfolio of billions of dollars, it's not a
lot of money. But as fiduciaries, fund managers have an
obligation to bend over and pick up that nickel."


MICROSOFT COPRORATION: Seeks Dismissal of Novell Antitrust Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
After paying Novell $536 million to head off another antitrust
suit, Microsoft Corporation is again attempting to have another
antitrust suit by Novell dismissed, the Web Services Journal
reports.

The suit Microsoft paid to settle would have charged it with
unfairly competing against Novell's flagship network operating
system NetWare. The new suit, Novell did wind up filing in early
November seeks damages on behalf of DR-DOS, the PC operating
system it briefly owned, and WordPerfect and QuattroPro, the
applications packages that Novell also bought, owned for a few
years and resold.

Microsoft's motion to dismiss, which was filed with the Utah
federal court where Novell brought suit, claims that Novell sold
the right to sue Microsoft on behalf of DR-DOS in 1996 to
Caldera Inc., a now-defunct sister Company of the SCO Group,
that Caldera did sue Microsoft and that Novell shared in the
multimillion-dollar settlement Microsoft made Caldera.

However, Microsoft argues that the previous settlement
specifically released it from the claims Novell is now seeking
to assert and that Novell's claim lacks "antitrust standing."
The software giant further argues that because Novell assigned
both its direct and indirect DR-DOS rights to Caldera, Novell
can't come along now, as it claims, and allege that WordPerfect
was somehow harmed by Microsoft's "suppression of...DR-DOS."

Furthermore, the Redmond, Washington-based Company is also
claiming that the charges Novell is making on behalf of the
WordPerfect word processor and Quattro Pro spreadsheet have
nothing whatsoever to do with the market that Microsoft was
convicted of maintaining its monopoly in by the government
antitrust case that Novell is trying commandeer to press its
claims. The Company says that the difference in markets is
"fatal" to Novell's claims and because they're different a four-
year statue of limitations kicks in, thus Microsoft contends
that Novell should have sued no later than March 2000.

The Company pointed out that among other things, the Justice
Department's suit was centered on Netscape, Java and Windows 98,
which was released in June of 1998, more than two years after
Novell sold WordPerfect and Quattro Pro to Coral in 1996. In
that case, the district court hearing the consumer class action
cases against Microsoft agreed that productivity apps and PC
operating systems are "separate markets," thus Microsoft calls
Novell's attempt to make its suit resemble the DOJ's complaint a
"sham."

A 30-page memorandum Microsoft attached to its short motion to
dismiss says that Microsoft "does not know whether, as part of
this transaction, Corel acquired the claims that Novell now
seeks to assert against Microsoft."  Novell, Microsoft says,
only sold DR-DOS, which it had bought from Digital Research in
1991, to Caldera on the condition that Caldera sues Microsoft.
A separate "license agreement" between Novell and Caldera,
signed the same day as the "asset purchase agreement," pledged
Caldera to paying Novell "a percentage of any recoveries from
lawsuits."

Because of the cloak-and-dagger nature of the deal and because
Novell's cut was never spelled out, Microsoft says, Novell had
to take the Canopy Group, Caldera's owner, to court to recover
its share of the settlement and in so doing a Utah appeals court
found that Caldera's promise to sue Microsoft was "the central
purpose of, and impetus for creating" the Novell-Caldera
transaction.

Microsoft claims "Novell has already recovered on the antitrust
claims it sold to Caldera" and shouldn't be allowed to double
dip especially since the "Utah courts have determined that
Novell engaged in deceptive conduct to hide its role in the
Caldera action." Microsoft says that for all it knows Novell
controlled the prosecution of the Caldera suit. In which case,
the legal theory of collateral estoppel would forbid re-
litigation.

Microsoft attached a copy of its January 7, 2000 settlement with
Caldera to the memorandum, but the amount it paid is redacted as
"confidential." When this paper broke the news of the
settlement, informed sources put the figure at $290 million, of
which Novell was supposed to receive around 18%.


NATIONAL RESEARCH: AZ Joins Settlement Over Student Information
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard joined a consumer
protection settlement forged with the National Research Center
for College and University Admissions (NRCCUA) after the Company
allegedly shared personally identifiable student data with
commercial marketers, contrary to its claims that it shared
information only with colleges, universities and other
educational institutions.

NRCCUA, a Missouri-based not-for-profit organization, surveys
and collects information from hundreds of thousands of high
school students each year. In 2001, more than two million high
school students completed its surveys.

NRCCUA collects personal information from high school students
throughout the United States by using a "Post Secondary Planning
Survey" that is distributed through high school teachers and
guidance counselors. The survey ask students for personal
information, such as their name, address, gender, grade point
average, date of birth, academic and occupational interests,
racial or ethnic background, and, in the event the student is
interested in attending a college with a religious affiliation,
the denomination of their choice.

" This case is significant because NRCCUA shared personal
information with commercial entities without letting the
students or their parents [know]," Goddard said.  "Information
is the gold of the new century, and it is becoming more
important to guard your personal information carefully.
Distributing information without disclosing with whom it is
being shared is just wrong."

Goddard said he also wanted parents to be aware this type of
information is gathered, and they have the right to tell schools
not to give certain surveys to their children. High school
students over 18 also have the same right to opt out of
completing these types of surveys.

Parents and students also have additional rights under the
Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regarding the
release of student information. Under FERPA, schools should
provide notice parents with prior notice of the survey as well
as information to "opt out" of participating in the survey.

NRCCUA marketed this data primarily to colleges and universities
that used mostly for recruitment purposes. NRCCUA has been
conducting this survey since at least 1988. In court documents
filed today, the state alleges that NRCCUA claimed it only sent
the information to its Office of member educational
institutions, when in fact it shared the data with commercial
companies that in turn engaged in their own marketing campaigns.
The settlement, through an Assurance of Voluntary Compliance
("AVC") requires the following:

     (1) NRCCUA is prohibited from misrepresenting how
         personally identifiable information will be collected,
         used or disclosed.

     (2) NRCCUA must disclose clearly and conspicuously why it
         collects information and the types of entities with
         which it will share the information.

     (3) NRCCUA must disclose this information in its privacy
         statements, questionnaires, survey instruments and
         other documents.

     (4) NRCCUA cannot use survey data if a parent of a minor
         high school student or an adult high school student
         decides to opt out of completing the survey.

     (5) If NRCCUA decides to use or allows others to use its
         survey data for non-educational marketing purposes,
         NRCCUA must send notice to parents/adult students
         letting them know how the survey may be used, and how
         the students/children can opt out of completing the
         survey.

As part of the settlement, NRCCUA will pay the Arizona Attorney
General's Office $10,000 to be used for consumer and public
protection education. The settlement also provides injunctive
relief should NRCCUA violate this settlement.

The 41 other states joining this settlement are Alaska, Alabama,
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii,
Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Maine,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, New Jersey,
New York, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, New Mexico,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South
Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Vermont, Washington,
Wisconsin, West Virginia, and Wyoming.


PENNSYLVANIA: Jury Awards $1.2M To Former Bucks County Inmates
--------------------------------------------------------------
A jury verdict that awarded $1.2 million to two former inmates
who contracted staph infections at Bucks County Prison has left
stunned county officials worried that at least nine pending
lawsuits could result in similar high price-tag verdicts, The
Morning Call reports.

The federal jury awarded the damages to Kevin Keller and
Benjamin Martin, who were incarcerated in the jail in the summer
of 2002 when an outbreak of methicillin-resistant staphylococcus
aureus was reported in the jail, also known as MRSA, the
infection has proved to be particularly resistant to treatment.

Mr. Keller and Mr. Martin, as well as other inmates and guards,
started filing their cases soon after the outbreak of MRSA. The
first case was filed one month after prison officials learned
that an MRSA epidemic was sweeping through the jail, causing
sufferers to break out in boils, lesions, high fevers and other
ailments. The outbreak and the resultant casualties of the
epidemic, eventually led to the filing of 13 lawsuits against
the county by guards and inmates, however until last week
commissioners seemed to have little concern over the cases,
since they had essentially won the first three cases by
persuading judges to dismiss two lawsuits and, in the third
case, reaching a modest out-of-court settlement.

County commissioners have vowed to appeal last week's verdict in
favor of Mr. Keller and Mr. Martin, but officials admit to being
suddenly very concerned about the prospects of high jury awards
in the remaining cases. According to county Commissioner Sandra
A. Miller, "The precedent here is the significant thing."
Another county official, Guy T. Matthews, county solicitor told
The Morning Call, "We are living in a country where juries have
awarded millions of dollars to people who have coffee spilled in
their laps. When you have a matter that goes to a jury, jurors
can do strange things."

As previously reported in the January 13, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Doylestown attorney Martha Sperling, who,
along with attorney Anita Alberts, represented the men in the
trial held in front of federal Judge John P. Fullam, in which a
federal court jury returned a verdict in favor of the two
inmates.

After the verdict was announced, Ms. Sperling added, "This is
just the beginning," noting that numerous other lawsuits against
the prison, including a class action one, are still active.

Filed against the county in 2003, the suit alleges that former
inmates Kevin Keller and Benjamin Martin had developed
infections from an antibiotic-resistant strain of Staphylococcus
aureus, or MRSA; that unsanitary conditions at the jail allowed
the bacteria to spread; and that the inmates were locked in
solitary confinement or given ibuprofen rather than the medical
care they needed. Treatment for the drug-resistant bacteria
often involved hospitalization and intravenous antibiotics.

Mr. Keller first developed golf-ball-sized infections under his
armpits, which later went away but then reappeared elsewhere.
The suit claimed he had asked to see a doctor on Friday, Aug.
28, 2002, while locked in solitary confinement, but was told he
couldn't see one until the following Tuesday.

A few days later, when the infection had swelled to the size of
a grapefruit, Mr. Keller was taken to Doylestown Hospital, where
doctors operated to drain and cut out the infected tissue. He
was hospitalized for a month. The suit is claiming that though
the hospital had recommended clean bandages and access to hot
water to clean and soak his wound, the jail denied them. Mr.
Sperling said the jury awarded him $800,000.

On the other hand, Mr. Martin the other plaintiff in the case
developed an abscess on his leg in August 2001. The suit claimed
that the prison's medical staff told him it was a spider bite.
But, when he was taken to Doylestown Hospital, he was told the
delay had caused the infection to go up into his hip and he
might lose his leg. The suit further claimed that he now suffers
nerve damage in both legs. The jury awarded him $400,000.

The jail's battle with MRSA began as early as 2001, when female
inmates began developing boils, eye infections and other skin
infections that would not heal. They charged that the county was
not adequately treating them.


SIMON PROPERTY: CT AG Commences Complaint Over Consumer Fraud
-------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and Treasurer
Denise L. Nappier have won a significant victory in their fight
to stop Crystal Mall owner Simon Property Group, L.P., from
imposing illegal expiration dates and fees on its gift cards.

AG Blumenthal, acting on behalf of Nappier and the Department of
Consumer Protection (DCP), sued Simon Property in November to
end the practices.  The federal Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency (OCC) this week rejected Simon Property's claim that
its cards are exempt from state laws prohibiting gift card
expiration dates and related fees. Simon Property argued
unsuccessfully that its gift cards are actually bank cards
issued by a federally chartered bank and therefore only subject
to federal regulation.

"The OCC's ruling assures that state law can be applied - and we
will do so aggressively - to protect consumers against Simon's
unconscionable fees and expiration dates," Blumenthal said. "The
OCC unequivocally rejected Simon Property's claim that federal
law preempts state protections or shields its violations. The
OCC's action leaves Company's case teetering on the edge of
collapse."

"From the outset, the reason for Connecticut's gift card law was
to protect consumers from having the value of gift cards eroded
or reduced, which was a common practice," Nappier said. "Not any
more. Retailers have complied, and many even advertise the fact
that gift cards in this state are now free of the previous fees.
There should be no doubt that Connecticut will continue to
protect its consumers, especially as gift card sales continue to
increase dramatically. The Office of the Comptroller of the
Currency's clear statement strongly supports Connecticut's
landmark law and the best interests of consumers."

Simon Property illegally subtracts $2.50 a month from Crystal
Mall gift cards on unused balances six months or older and
levies a $7.50 fee to reactivate an expired card. The Company
also fails to inform gift card purchases of two additional fees:
a 50-cent charge to check the card balance and a $5 fee to
replace a lost or stolen card.

Crystal Mall is located in Waterford, Connecticut.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Lawyers Place Ads For Train Derailment Victims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys seeking clients from the Graniteville train wreck and
chlorine spill placed more than a dozen advertisements including
two full-page notices in Sunday's edition of the Aiken Standard
along with several more ads in The Augusta Chronicle, The State
reports.

With headlines such as "Norfolk Train Derailment Prospective
Class Action Lawsuit," "Chlorine Victims - Thousands Put At
Risk," and "Attention Train Accident Victims," the newspaper
advertisements mostly featured South Carolina lawyers, though
some mentioned partnerships with out-of-state lawyers
specializing in train wrecks.

According to John Freeman, a University of South Carolina law
professor specializing in lawyer ethics, while the ads may not
violate state ethical rules, he wouldn't recommend that victims
immediately contact those lawyers. He told The State, "It is a
kind of feeding frenzy. If it helps people get adequate
representation, that's fine, but ultimately what could happen is
that victims are going to find themselves doubly victimized
because they're going to get hustled." Mr. Freeman said he fears
that victims could see their potential settlements or jury
awards reduced by excessive attorney fees, or be caught in the
middle of squabbles between lawyers competing for their
business.

Ethical rules for lawyers practicing in South Carolina prohibit
them from directly contacting clients either in person or by
mail or phone within the first 30 days of a disaster, according
to the S.C. Bar. F. Earl Ellis Jr., president of the state bar,
earlier warned that lawyers who violate the rules could face
disciplinary proceedings or be forced to refund their fees to
clients.

Mr. Freeman pointed out, advertisements asking prospective
clients to contact a lawyer generally are allowed if they are
not directed to named individuals, however, he stated that he
found a number of technical violations after recently reviewing
about 10 lawyer ads connected to the train wreck.

For lawyers whose main offices are out of state, Mr. Freeman
explained that they couldn't do business in South Carolina
unless they are either licensed in the state or team up with an
in-state lawyer.

To potential victims of the derailment, Mr. Freeman recommended
that they first ask around about finding a "good, reputable
lawyer." He adds, "Find someone who will work for you ... not
the flashy one, but the one who has your interests at heart."


SYNOVIS LIFE: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in MN Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Synovis Life Technologies, Inc. and certain of its executive
officers face several securities class actions filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota by
individual shareholders who seek to represent a class of
purchasers of the Company's common stock during the period from
October 16, 2003 to May 18, 2004.

The complaints generally allege that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing false or misleading
statements about the Company's business and prospects, which
artificially inflated the price of the Company's securities.  No
damages have been specified.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
concealed these materially adverse facts:

     (1) that the Company's surgical business was not on track
         for year-to-year growth and was actually declining;

     (2) that the performance of the Company's surgical business
         lagged because of disappointing sales of its Peri-
         Strips product;

     (3) that the performance of the Company's interventional
         business had little to zero growth prospects and was
         suffering because Synovis' largest customers were not
         placing orders due to inventory build-up; and

     (4) that as a result, the Company's projections of fiscal
         2004 EPS of $0.56-$0.60 and revenue of $75-$79 million
         had no reasonable basis and were false and misleading.

Defendants' misrepresentations were revealed on May 19, 2004,
when Synovis issued a press release reporting its revenue and
earnings for fiscal 2004, which were drastically below its
previously touted 2004 guidance.


UNITED STATES: Suits V. Investment Banks Remain Fruitless
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff lawyers thought they had found a pot of gold after 10
big Wall Street firms agreed to a $1.4 billion settlement in
2003 to resolve allegations that they promoted corporate
clients' stocks to win investment-banking business, the Wall
Street Journal reports.

Spending millions looking for clients who lost money on the
stocks and nearly two years later, the lawyers' hopes, and those
of most of their clients, so far have been dashed, as
securities-industry arbitration panels have rejected the vast
majority of cases decided so far.

Plaintiff lawyers typically get one-third of any award but go
empty-handed if the client loses. According to Richard Lott, a
lawyer with Levin, Papantonio, Thomas, Mitchell, Echsner &
Proctor, a large class-action firm in Pensacola, Florida, "We
bet big, and so far we have lost big."

Mr. Lott's firm and another pair of lawyers, James Hooper and
Robert Weiss, who are based in Orlando, Florida, and Jericho,
New York, respectively, have filed most of the arbitration cases
that stems from the stock-research settlement.

Mr. Lott had filed about 300 cases against Merrill Lynch & Co.
and says he has lost all 25 that have completed the process.
Meanwhile, Mr. Hooper and Mr. Weiss, both of whom filed 800
cases against Citigroup Inc. and its Smith Barney brokerage
unit, alleging total stock losses of about $50 million stemming
from the collapse of WorldCom Inc. have won just 37 cases and
lost 97. And now Citigroup is suing some of their clients to
recover its legal costs.

A Merrill Lynch spokesman says that investors who have filed
claims against that firm "did not lose money because of research
but because the market sharply declined." A Smith Barney
spokeswoman declined to comment, but the firm in the past has
argued that it is not responsible for the investors' losses.

In the 2003 settlement, the 10 Wall Street securities firms
agreed to pay $1.4 billion in fines, penalties, investor
education and restitution. Investors can make claims on the
restitution fund while simultaneously pursuing arbitration
claims against the firms. The settlement agreement detailed
evidence of analysts publicly promoting the stocks of their
firms' corporate investment-banking clients while privately
harboring deep misgivings about the securities.

Class-action lawyers moved quickly after the pact was signed,
spending millions of dollars on television and newspaper ads in
search of people who lost money on WorldCom and other stocks
mentioned in the settlement. The lawyers were trolling in
somewhat unfamiliar waters. Their expertise is class-action
suits involving faulty breast implants, diet drugs, tobacco and
the like.

Such suits are tried in state and federal courts. But Wall
Street firms require clients to agree ahead of time to take any
disputes to arbitration panels that are governed by rules
crafted by the National Association of Securities Dealers or, in
some cases, by the New York Stock Exchange. The panels aren't
required to follow state or federal laws, and the process
doesn't allow mass claims. But the lawyers thought they could
make lots of money efficiently anyway by filing nearly identical
claims for all their clients.

Now, to stem the losses, Mr. Hooper's firm has put an additional
1,900 Smith Barney cases on hold, pending the outcome of a
lawsuit he filed last month in state court in Florida, where he
focused his client-recruitment efforts in hopes of taking
advantage of its investor-friendly laws. He had assumed that the
arbitration panels would follow the spirit of the laws, but he
now contends that they haven't been doing so.

The suit asks a state judge to require the panels to follow
Florida's investor-protection laws, which prohibit brokerage
firms from profiting off untrue statements or omissions of
material facts about the stocks they sell. The lawyers'
arbitration claims contend that the Wall Street firms should
have told investors that their analysts had misgivings about the
stocks they were touting. The suit also requests guidance on
whether the state law requires aggrieved investors to prove that
they relied on bullish research to prevail.


WEIDER NUTRITION: Reaches Consumer Fraud Lawsuits Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Weider Nutrition International, Inc. reached an agreement to
settle the class actions filed against it in various states,
alleging that androstenedione and other purportedly similar
products were sold by defendants in violation of certain
statutes and utilizing false and misleading claims and
advertising.

Three suits were filed against the Company, namely:

     (1) Spitale et al. v. Weider Nutrition International, Inc.,
         in New Jersey State Court

     (2) Hannon et. al. v. Assorted Sports Science, Inc. et.
         al., in Florida State Court and

     (3) Mallory v. Weider Nutrition International, Inc. in
         Illinois state court

In February 2003, the Illinois court granted, without prejudice,
the Company's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
The plaintiffs subsequently re-filed their lawsuit in April
2003.

In November 2004, the Company reached an agreement in principal
with the plaintiffs to settle the matter on a nationwide basis.
In agreeing to settle this matter, the Company did not admit any
wrongdoing.  The terms of the settlement include the
establishment of a fund by the Company to be used towards
settlements with a nationwide class of plaintiffs.  The fund
will be distributed to potential claimants in cash or coupon
dependent upon the type of proof of purchase or product use
tendered by the potential claimant.  If cash claims exceed
$50,000, the Company may opt out (at its discretion) of the
settlement agreement, and the litigation may proceed or be
subject to further settlement negotiations.  The settlement
agreement also provides for the payment of plaintiffs' attorneys
fees and costs.

In late December 2004, the court granted preliminary approval to
the settlement agreement. In accounting for the settlement of
this matter, the Company has taken into consideration the cash
claim opt out provisions, cash and coupon redemption rates in
similar settlement arrangements and typical redemption rates for
coupons toward the purchase of its products.


WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS: Nears Fen-Phen Diet-Drug Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmaceutical firm Wyeth (WYE) has reached a tentative
framework with a group of plaintiffs' lawyers to settle nearly
all remaining liability cases stemming from allegations that
some of its diet drugs damaged heart valves, Reuters reports.

According to the newspaper, the deal would apply to cases
brought by more than 60,000 people who decided not to
participate in a national class-action settlement reached in
1999 and that attorneys for about 11,000 of the outstanding
lawsuits have agreed to the new approach.

Under the terms of the deal, which must first be approved by the
court, each plaintiff's lawyer would have to agree to settle all
of his or her cases, not just a portion of them, to qualify. The
article stated that the decisions would have to be made next
month, or cases would continue toward trial.

The cases alleged heart-valve damage from Wyeth's diet drugs
Redux and Pondimin, which were half of the combination known as
fen-phen, the article said. It further stated that the agreement
would establish two tracks for plaintiffs to follow to settle
remaining cases.

An expedited option would pay $20,000 on average to plaintiffs
who were unable or unwilling to demonstrate that they took the
Company's diet drugs for 90 days or more. While people who can
document they took the drugs for 90 days or longer would be paid
according to a grid that weighs the severity of health damage,
the article stated.

How much the new payments would cost the Company is unclear, but
according to a person familiar with the negotiations, Wyeth is
trying to conclude the settlement of outstanding cases for $2
billion or less.


                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

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


ATHEROGENICS INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in GA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of AtheroGenics, Inc. ("AtheroGenics" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
AGIX) between September 27, 2004 and December 31, 2004
inclusive, (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Georgia against defendants
AtheroGenics, Michael Henos, Russell Medford, Mark Colonnese,
and Robert Scott. The complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The class period begins on September 27, 2004 after
Defendants announced the interim results of a CART 2 study of
its AGI-1067 drug. The Complaint alleges, among other things,
that the Company's statements regarding the CART 2 study of AGI-
1067 were false and misleading because the interim results were
incomplete, misleading and resulted from manipulation of the
study. Plaintiffs claim that Defendants were motivated to
manipulate the study to produce results that would induce a
major pharmaceutical Company to partner with it to complete the
development and commercialization of AGI-1067. In response to
Defendants' promotion of the misleading interim results,
Atherogenics' stock price skyrocketed, rising 71% on unusually
heavy trading volume.

On November 22, 2004, Defendants were forced to admit that the
percentage of regression of plaque in patients using AGI-1067
was only slightly more than half as much as had been reported in
the interim results Defendants had heavily promoted just two
months earlier. In addition, Defendants revealed that the Phase
IIb results showed that the relative difference between
treatment with AGI-1067 and Standard of Care regime was not
statistically significant. The market was stunned, and the stock
price plummeted. Then, on January 3, 2005, the Company announced
that it had decided to increase the number of patients in the
Phase III study for the drug from 4000 to 6000 patients, that
the study would be longer in duration, and that the Company
needed to raise more cash to fund the study. On this news, the
Company's stock fell again, this time 20% to close at $18.72 on
unusually heaving trading. On January 5, 2005, the Company
disclosed in a SEC filing that the SEC and NASD had commenced
informal inquiries into the Company's September 27, 2004
announcement of interim results of the study.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 or by E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com OR Maya
Saxena by E-mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com OR Joseph E. White by
E-mail: jwhite@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


CITADEL SECURITY: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Citadel Security Software,
Inc. ("Citadel Security" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:CDSS),
between February 12, 2004 and December 16, 2004 inclusive (the
"Class Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Citadel Security
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J. Smith, Esq.
of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


CITADEL SECURITY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas on
behalf of all securities purchasers of Citadel Security
Software, Inc. (Nasdaq: CDSS) from February 12, 2004 through
December 16, 2004 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Citadel Security, Steven B. Solomon, and
Richard Connelly with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934. Citadel Security Software Inc. develops and markets
computer security and privacy software. Its information
technology ("IT") security computer software products include
security and management solutions for networks and personal
workstations designed to secure and manage personal computers
and local area networks. According to the complaint, the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that customer demand in the commercial portion of the
         Company's business was slowing;

     (2) that the much touted, sizable pipeline of potential
         contracts failed to materialize due to poor management
         execution;

     (3) that as a consequence of the above the Company's growth
         was lagging; and

     (4) therefore, the defendants' statements about the Company
         were lacking in any reasonable basis when made.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that during the Class
Period, defendants sold a total of 754,500 shares for proceeds
totaling more than $3 million.

On December 17, 2004, Citadel Security provided a financial
update for its year-ended December 31, 2004. More specifically,
the Company stated that based upon preliminary estimates,
Citadel now expects its revenue for the full year 2004 to be
between $15.2 million and $16.0 million, compared to previous
guidance of full-year revenue of $18.5 million to $21 million.
As a result, the Company will not meet its previously released
net income guidance for the second half of 2004 which was for
net income of $1.0 million to $2.0 million. The Company expects
to end 2004 with approximately $4.9 million of deferred
revenues, most of which will be earned in 2005.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of Citadel Security fell
$1.80 per share, or 41.96 percent, to close at $2.49 per share
on unusually high trading volume.

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.


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit, challenging the fairness of the recent merger
proposal made by the News Corporation (NYSE: NWS) ("News
Corp."), was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of
Delaware on behalf of all who held shares of Fox Entertainment
Group, Inc. (NYSE: FOX) ("Fox" or the "Company").

The complaint alleges that on January 10, 2005, Fox announced
that News Corp., which owns approximately 82% of Fox's
outstanding stock, had made a proposal to acquire all of the
Company's common stock that it does not already own in exchange
for 1.90 shares of News Corp's Class A shares (the "Buyout" or
"Buyout Proposal"). According to the complaint, the
consideration offered in the Buyout is wholly inadequate and
fails to offer fair value to the Company's shareholders for
their equity interests in Fox. In fact, the Buyout offers a mere
7% premium over Fox's closing stock price on January 7, 2005,
the last trading date prior to the announcement. Further, the
complaint also alleges that defendants have breached their duty
of loyalty to the Company's stockholders by abusing their
control of Fox to force Plaintiff and the Class to exchange
their equity interest in Fox at an unfair price.

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


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Kirby McInerney Lodges Securities Suit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware
on behalf of holders of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. (NYSE:FOX)
("Fox" or the "Company") shares, challenging the fairness of the
recent merger proposal made by the News Corporation (NYSE:NWS)
("News Corp.")

Investors allege that on January 10, 2005, Fox announced that
News Corp., which owns more than 80% of Fox's outstanding stock,
had made a proposal to acquire all of the Company's common stock
that it does not already own. The consideration offered in the
Buyout is wholly inadequate and fails to offer fair value to the
Company's shareholders for their equity interests in Fox. In
fact, the Buyout offers a mere 7% premium over Fox's closing
stock price on January 7, 2005, the last trading date prior to
the announcement. Further, the Defendants have breached their
duty of loyalty to the Company's stockholders by abusing their
control of Fox to force Plaintiff and the Class to exchange
their equity interest in Fox at an unfair price.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New
York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com.


HARTFORD FINANCIAL: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut on behalf of purchasers of The Hartford Financial
Services Group, Inc. (NYSE: HIG) publicly traded securities
during the period between November 5, 2003 and October 13, 2004.

The complaint charges Hartford Financial and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Hartford Financial is a diversified
insurance and financial services company. Through its
subsidiaries, the Company provides investment products and life
and property and casualty insurance to both individual and
business customers in the United States and internationally.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading financial
statements. The true facts, which were known by each of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows:

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

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

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

On October 14, 2004, New York Attorney General Elliot Spitzer
announced that he had charged several of the nation's largest
insurance companies and the largest broker with bid rigging and
pay-offs that he claimed violated fraud and competition laws. On
these revelations, the Company's shares fell to $56 per share, a
drop of 9%.

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


IPASS INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of the securities of iPass, Inc. (Nasdaq:
IPAS) between April 22, 2004 and June 30, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint alleges that at all relevant times, iPass
purported to provide "simple, secure and manageable connectivity
services" by connecting mobile workers' computers to the Web
through partnerships with local Internet service providers using
"narrowband" telephone dial-up access. With high-speed broadband
access to the Internet getting cheaper and more common among
consumers, it was vitally important to iPass that it make the
transition from "narrow band" dial-up service to broadband
service, and that the transition be executed properly. This
complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose a major
operational snafu that occurred in connection with defendants'
attempt to expand the Company's broadband service offerings and
that this snafu, which hindered access to the iPass service,
resulted in the loss of a material number of customers, and a
concomitant decline in the Company's revenue, earnings, and
growth prospects. Before investors found out about the snafu,
and its effect on iPass's business, Company insiders, who knew
of the snafu and its materially adverse effects on the Company's
business but did not let on, sold more than 170,000 shares of
their personally held iPass securities at prices within a one-
week period between $10.94 to $12.16 for proceeds well in excess
of $2 million. Upon disclosure of the snafu, on June 30, 2004,
iPass shares fell to $6.91.

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.


OFFICEMAX INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in IL
------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of OfficeMax Incorporated
("OfficeMax" or the "Company") (NYSE:OMX) between January 22,
2004 and January 11, 2005,inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of OfficeMax
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, Marc L. Ackerman, Esq. or Evan J. Smith, Esq.
of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 by E-mail:
clients@brodsky-smith.com.


OFFICEMAX INC.: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of purchasers of OfficeMax Inc.
(NYSE: OMX) publicly traded securities during the period between
November 9, 2004 and January 11, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges OfficeMax and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. OfficeMax, formerly Boise Cascade Corporation, is a
multinational contract and retail distributor of office supplies
and paper, technology products and office furniture.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
earnings. The true facts, which were known by each of the
defendants but concealed from the investing public during the
Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) that for a period of at least two years, millions of
         dollars worth of the Company's sales were fraudulently
         booked as legitimate sales;

     (2) that the Company was using (and manipulating its use
         of) "vendor allowances" (monies paid by suppliers for
         promotions, prime shelf space, discounts and rebates)
         in order to manipulate the Company's earnings and
         timing of revenue recognition;

     (3) that the Company's Q4 2004 results and those beyond
         were being eroded by the Company's internal
         investigation costs and the halting of the Company's
         abusive vendor allowance scheme;

     (4) that the Company lacked the necessary internal controls
         to insure all revenue reported complied with generally
         accepted accounting principles; and

     (5) that the Company had entered into a long term-paper
         supply contract with Boise Cascade, LLC, which,
         unbeknownst to investors, was not commensurate with the
         market rate.

As a result of defendants' false statements, OfficeMax shares
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $32.52 on December 16, 2004, whereby the Company's
top officers and directors arranged to sell nearly $1.5 billion
worth of the Company's notes.

On January 12, 2005, OfficeMax announced that its chief
financial officer had resigned and that it would postpone the
release of its earnings for the fourth quarter and full year
2004, pending the conclusion of an internal investigation into
issues relating to its accounting for vendor income.

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.



PFIZER INC.: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all purchasers of the
common stock of Pfizer, Inc. ("Pfizer" or the "Company")
(NYSE:PFE) between November 1, 2000 and December 16, 2004,
inclusive, (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants'
issued false and misleading statements and omissions concerning
the safety and marketability of Pfizer's Celebrex and Bextra
products. At all times during the Class Period, defendants were
aware that Celebrex and Bextra, drugs known as "Cox-2
inhibitors", posed serious undisclosed health risks to
consumers. Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the
undisclosed health risks posed by these drugs would limit their
marketability, and that potential financial liability Pfizer
faced from the harms these drugs caused posed a serious threat
to the Company's financial condition. Nonetheless, defendants
concealed these facts from the investing public, causing
Pfizer's stock to trade at artificially inflated levels
including a class period high of $48.06 per share, thereby
damaging Plaintiff and the Class.

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

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Phone:
1-800-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Federman & Sherwood Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Federman & Sherwood initiated a securities class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court of Arizona
against TASER International, Inc. (Nasdaq: TASR).

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws,
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5, including allegations of issuing a series of
material misrepresentations to the market which had the effect
of artificially inflating the market price. The class period is
from October 19, 2004 through January 10, 2005.

For more details, contact William B. Federman of FEDERMAN &
SHERWOOD by Mail: 120 N. Robinson, Suite 2720, Oklahoma City, OK
73102 by Phone: (405) 235-1560 by Fax: (405) 239-2112 by E-mail:
wfederman@aol.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.federmanlaw.com.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Murray Frank Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in AZ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court of Arizona on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of TASER International, Inc.
("TASER" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TASR) between May 29, 2003
and January 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges TASER, Phillips Smith, Patrick Smith, and
Thomas Smith 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 Company actively and continually obscured the
         truth about the safety of its TASERs;

     (2) that even after it was revealed that more than 70
         people had died in North America in TASER-related
         incidents, the Company vehemently asserted that its
         weapons were safe, in order to maintain profitability;

     (3) that the Defendants accelerated the Davidson's deal in
         the fourth quarter of 2004, in order to book the
         revenue, so TASER did not have to report its first
         quarter-to-quarter revenue decline in nearly two years;
         and

     (4) as a result, the Company lacked any reasonable basis
         for any statements it made regarding profitability and
         safety.

On January 6, 2005, just before midnight, TASER announced that
it was cooperating with an informal inquiry letter from the SEC
regarding the safety of TASER(r) products and a recent order
received from Davidson's, Inc. This news shocked the market.
Shares of TASER fell $4.90 per share, or 17.74 percent, on
January 7, 2005, to close at 22.72 per share. Then on Monday,
January 10, 2005, TASER shares tumbled another $2.67 per share
or 11.75 percent, to close at $20.05 per share. On January 11,
2005, TASER released a letter to its shareholders and customers
regarding the SEC investigation and the general state of the
Company. Following the announcement, shares of TASER were down
another $5.95 per share or 29.68 percent on January 11, 2005,
and last traded at $14.10 per share.

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


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court, District of Arizona, against TASER International, Inc.
("TASER" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:TASR) and certain of its
officers and directors, on behalf of purchasers of the common
stock of TASER during the period from August 10, 2004 to January
7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

TASER purports to develop, manufacture and market "non-lethal
weapons" for use in the law enforcement, military, private
security, and personal defense markets. The complaint alleges
that during the Class Period, defendants knowingly or recklessly
misrepresented the Company's prospects, financial results, and
operations, causing the Company's stock price to trade at
artificially inflated prices in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, defendants made
materially false and misleading statements regarding the safety
of TASER's products, and reported inflated revenues.

The true facts, which were known to each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public, were that:

     (1) "independent" studies touted by defendants as
         confirming the safety of TASER's products in fact
         raised reservations; and

     (2) the $1.5 million order of TASER devices from a
         distributor that was announced in the last days of the
         fourth quarter was orchestrated to help the Company
         meet analysts' estimates and create the illusion that
         the Company's stellar growth was continuing.

In the dead of night on January 6, 2005, defendants disclosed
that the SEC had launched an inquiry into the safety of TASER's
products and the $1.5 million order. The market reacted swiftly
-- TASER's share price fell almost 20% from a Class Period high
of $32.59 (adjusted for a two-for-one stock split) on December
30, 2004 to a closing price of $22.72 on January 7, 2005. On
January 11, 2005, TASER revealed that some orders in the first
half of 2005 may be delayed as customers test and evaluate
competitors' products. The stock fell even further on this news.
While plaintiff and other class members sustained massive
losses, a number of the individual defendants profited from
their misconduct. During the Class Period, insiders, including
defendants, sold over $96 million worth of TASER common stock.

For more details, contact Carolyn S. Moskowitz of Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Phone: (888) 476-6529 or by
E-mail: csmoskowitz@pomlaw.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  * * *