CAR_Public/050126.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, January 26, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 18

                           Headlines

ABIT COMPUTER: CA Court To Hold June 2005 Suit Fairness Hearing
ASSAIL TELEMARKETING: Inks Pact For FTC Consumer Fraud Charges
AUSTRALIA: Tasmanian Abuse Victim Considers Filing Suit
BOEING CO.: WA Court Grants Certification to Race Bias Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Santee Wins Judgment on Mobile Homes Rental Lawsuit

CALIFORNIA: Workers Union To Fight V. Overtime Wage Violations
CARLE FOUNDATION: Uninsured Patients Lodge IL Overcharging Suit
FEDERATED INVESTORS: Mulling Deal With SEC, NY A.G. Spitzer
HEALTHSOUTH: Former CEO's Trial Over $2.7B Fraud Set To Begin
ILLINOIS: High Court Committee Hears Class Action Proposals

ILLINOIS: Will Pay Half Of Fees in Judges' Suit Over Pay Raises
IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Securities, Derivative Suits
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Law Firms Fight Over Attorney's Fees
MERCK & CO.: Judges To Decide How To Handle Numerous Vioxx Cases
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Injury Lawsuit Over January Train Crash

PAIN RELIEVERS: Group Petitions FDA For Ban on Celebrex, Bextra
SOUTH KOREA: Celebrities Launch Libel Suit Over "X-File" Report
UNITED STATES: Republican Senators Reintroduce Tort Reform Bill
VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit For Aggressive Email Blocking


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

51JOB INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
51JOB INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
CIB MARINE: Leiter Group Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. IL
CITADEL SECURITITY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in TX
CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Milberg Weiss Launches Securities Suit in NJ

CONEXANT SYSTEMS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in NJ
HUFFY CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in OH
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NJ
SILICON STORAGE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA

SIPEX CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
SUPPORTSOFT INC.: Shepherd Finkelman Files Securities Suit in CA
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in AZ
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
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in AZ
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Ballon Stoll Lodges Securities Suit in NY
UNITEDGLOBALCOM: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in DE

UNITEDGLOBAL INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in DE


                           *********

ABIT COMPUTER: CA Court To Hold June 2005 Suit Fairness Hearing
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California for Alameda County will hold on
June 1,2005 fairness hearing for the settlement of the class
action filed against Abit Computer (USA) Corporation, over its
allegedly defective motherboards.

The suit alleges that the Company manufactured, marketed, and
sold select models of its motherboards containing an allegedly
defective component, namely, a capacitor, which was allegedly
prone to failure.  The Company has denied and continues to deny
these allegations and has asserted a number of affirmative
defenses.

Members of the proposed Settlement class are customers within
the United States who purchased one of the following specified
Abit Motherboard models during the period January 1, 1999 to the
present: BE6, BE6II, BF6, BX-133, KA7, KA7-100, SE6, VH6, VH6II,
VH6T, VP6, KT7-RAID, KT7A, KT7A-RAID, VL6, VT6X4, SA6R, AND
BX133-RAID.  However, the Settlement Class shall not include any
persons or entities purchasing Abit Motherboards for resale
purposes.

As part of the proposed Settlement, Class Members who submit a
timely Claim Form will be entitled to send their motherboard
into Abit or one of its repair facilities and have their
motherboard repaired at no cost to the Class Member. The repairs
and all associated costs, including parts, labor, and shipping,
will be paid for by Abit. In addition, Abit will extend the
warranty on the repairs and on the capacitors for a period of
two years following the repairs. Class Members who have already
incurred direct out-of-pocket expenses as a result of the faulty
capacitor on the motherboard are entitled to receive
reimbursement from Abit for the repairs directly related to the
faulty capacitor and all associated costs to the repairs
including parts, labor, and shipping provided such costs are
reasonable and verifiable.

Members must submit their Claim Form no later than February
15,2006 in order for them to take advantage of the benefits of
the Settlement.  If a member does not wish to remain a part of
the Class, he must submit your request for exclusion from the
Class in writing postmarked by May 1, 2005.  If a member wants
to remain in the Class, but wants to object to the terms of the
proposed Settlement, he must file his objection in writing with
the Court postmarked no later than May 1, 2005.  Any member of
the Class that objects to the proposed Settlement terms and
submits a timely objection to the Court by the date indicated
above can, but is not required to, appear at the Fairness
Hearing, either in person or through his own attorney, to
comment on or object to the proposed Settlement.

The Court will hold a Fairness Hearing at the Rene C. Davidson
Alameda County Courthouse 1225 Fallon Street, Oakland, CA 94612
at 11:00 AM on June 1, 2005 to determine whether the Settlement
is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be finally
approved.


ASSAIL TELEMARKETING: Inks Pact For FTC Consumer Fraud Charges
--------------------------------------------------------------
Officers of a Company that directed an international
telemarketing network that defrauded hundreds of thousands of
consumers through the deceptive telemarketing of bogus advance-
fee credit cards are banned from telemarketing for life as part
of federal court orders settling Federal Trade Commission
charges.  Another alleged leader of this massive scam, who has a
prior history involving telemarketing fraud, also agreed to a
lifetime telemarketing ban.

The Assail Telemarketing Network engaged in more than $100
million in deceptive telemarketing sales, including the sale of
hundreds of thousands of fraudulent advance-fee credit card
packages using names such as Advantage Capital, Capital First,
and Premier One.

The FTC alleged in its complaint that the defendants operated
the advance-fee credit card scam through a network of
telemarketing boiler rooms, Canadian front men, and outsourced
fulfillment and customer service centers.  The FTC alleged that
the defendants' telemarketers contacted consumers with poor
credit records and told them that they were guaranteed to
receive a MasterCard for an advance fee.  Consumers, however,
did not receive a MasterCard or any other legitimate payment
device.  The FTC's complaint alleged that the defendants
maintained their own telemarketing boiler rooms and also kept
contract boiler rooms in the United States, Canada, India, and
the Caribbean.

The FTC announced settlements with four of the individuals
responsible for the scheme.  Three of these settlements are with
officers of Assail, Inc.: Joel Best, Vice President; Michael
Henriksen, Chief Financial Officer; and Clifford Dunn, General
Manager.  The fourth settlement is with Lawrence Silverman, who
the FTC alleged played a critical role creating the deceptive
corporate structure of the scheme, and his Company, relief
defendant Lamar Holdings, Inc. (Lamar).

The FTC alleged that each of these defendants played important
roles in planning and implementing the scam. The settlements
with each of the individual defendants permanently bans them
from engaging in any telemarketing activities in the future and
also contain monetary judgments.

The settlements with Assail officers Dunn, Best, and Henriksen
contain a suspended $30 million judgment, which would be payable
in full if the court finds that they have made any material
misrepresentations on sworn financial statements submitted to
the FTC. The settlement with Silverman, who was previously
prosecuted in the State of Florida and placed on probation in
connection with his involvement in a prior telemarketing fraud,
includes a $50 million suspended monetary judgment and $1.9
million disgorgement order, which will be triggered if he is
found to have misrepresented his or Lamar's financial condition.
The settlement with Lamar also contains a $1.9 million suspended
judgment to account for the $1.9 million in proceeds traceable
to Silverman that were deposited with Lamar.

In addition to the telemarketing bans, all of the stipulated
orders announced today prohibit the defendants from:

     (1) Making false or misleading representations in
         connection with the sale of any good or service;

     (2) Misrepresenting that they are associated with any
         credit card Company, bank, or financial institution, or
         that they can guarantee a consumer a credit card,
         improve a consumer's credit, or give consumers
         discounts on products or services;

     (3) Conducting any unauthorized billing of consumers;

     (4) Obtaining consumers' personal information by pretending
         to verify a consumer's financial information; and

     (5) Selling their customer lists.

Finally, each of the orders contains various record-keeping
provisions to assist the FTC in monitoring the defendants'
compliance.

These settlements were finalized shortly after the court entered
a $106 million judgment against Assail, Inc. and its President,
Kyle Kimoto. The $106 million judgment was entered after the
court found that Kimoto concealed more than $3 million from the
FTC that he should have disclosed as part of his settlement with
the FTC. The court also recently incarcerated an associate of
Kimoto, James Fales, for civil contempt for his actions in
assisting Kimoto to conceal some of those assets by transferring
them overseas, including an effort to buy diamonds in South
Africa. Two other associates of Kimoto, Richard Fritzler, Sr.
and Richard Friztler II, along with their Company, Nevada
Corporate Services, Inc., avoided a contempt hearing by agreeing
to pay $300,000 that the FTC alleged they had received for
helping Kimoto hide these funds.

The settlements end the litigation against the named defendants
in this massive scam. In total, 13 individuals or entities are
under lifetime telemarketing bans, including Assail Inc., its
four officers, a major telemarketing boiler room operator and
his companies, the three front companies, a Canadian
facilitator, and Silverman.

The Commission votes to approve consent settlements as to
defendants Cliff Dunn, Joel Best, Lawrence Silverman and relief
defendant Lamar Holdings, and Michael Henriksen were 5-0. The
settlements were filed in the U.S. District Court, Western
District of Texas, Waco Division, and approved by the court.

For more details, contact the FTCs Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580
or by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Brenda Mack, Office
of Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2182 or Daniel Salsburg or
Robert Kaye, Bureau of Consumer Protection by Phone:
202-326-3402 or 202-326-2215.


AUSTRALIA: Tasmanian Abuse Victim Considers Filing Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
A West Australian woman is considering the filing of a legal
class action over abuse in Tasmanian children's homes, The
Mercury reports.

Last year, the Ombudsman issued a report into child abuse in
Tasmania.  The State Government has offered payment following
the report.  Ms. Kathleen Dyer, 40, was part of those who had
been offered payment.  Ms. Dyer was raised in Tasmania but moved
to Perth and was interviewed in Adelaide last year as part of
the ombudsman's review.

She began counseling recently but was told funds for counseling
would stop once she received her payment.  Ms. Dyer said she was
told there was a $10 million cap on compensation for victims,
something the State Government denied, according to The Mercury.
Since more victims have come forward, the total is understood to
be closer to $15 million.

Ms. Dyer is not convinced the waiver victims have to sign can
prevent legal action.  "I'm furious. I'm keen to hear from
anyone who would be interested (in a class action). Perhaps all
those children in care who were not wards of the state and got
nothing could also be part of it," Ms. Dyer told The Mercury.

State Government spokesman Stewart Prins told the Mercury, "The
State Government has accepted all recommendations for ex-gratia
payments (from ombudsman's report assessor Peter Cranswick) and
there is no cap on the total amount for the ex-gratia payments."
The vast majority of people accepted the payment and have agreed
not to take further action.

Ms. Dyer wrote a letter to Premier Paul Lennon stating her
position.  In her letter to the Premier, Ms Dyer said, "Every
claimant should receive $60,000 instead of the insult that is
currently being offered."

The Care Leavers Network of Australia, a national group
representing victims of abuse in government and non-government
homes, is holding its first Tasmanian public meeting on February
5 from 1 pm in the Patrons Room at the Glenorchy showgrounds,
the Mercury reports.  Secretary Leonie Sheedy said Mr. Cranswick
would speak at the meeting. She has also invited Mr. Lennon.


BOEING CO.: WA Court Grants Certification to Race Bias Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Washington
granted class certification to the lawsuit filed against Boeing
Co. on behalf of its current and former African-American
employees, the Associated Press reports.

The suit, filed in March 1998, alleges the Company discriminated
against and harassed their black workers at its Auburn, Everett
and Renton, Washington facilities.  The suit sought $82 million
in damages.  In 1999, the Company agreed to settle the case for
$11 million without admitting any wrongdoing.  However, some
plaintiffs objected to the settlement over attorney's fees, and
the appeals court ruled in their favor.

Judge Marsha Pechman's ruling allows about 15,000 African
American salaried workers employed by the Chicago-based Company
from June 6, 1994, to the present to unite under one complaint
to seek damages.  The suit, however, doesn't include executives
and technicians represented by the Society of Professional
Engineering Employees in Aerospace.  The Seattle law firm Hagens
Berman told AP the plaintiffs are seeking back pay, punitive
damages and an injunction ordering the Company not to
discriminate.

Boeing spokesman Ken Mercer told AP "The certification decision
is a procedural ruling and not based on the merits of the
complaint. Boeing is confident it will prevail at trial on the
issues."

The judge ruled the certification doesn't include workers at
companies acquired by Boeing such as McDonnell Douglas Corp. and
Rockwell International.

Hagens Berman said it plans to file a separate complaint in
Chicago against Boeing with similar allegations. The pending
suit will cover workers at Boeing's non-heritage sites and
employees at former McDonnell Douglas and Rockwell facilities.

The suit is styled "Williams, et al v. Boeing Company, et al,
case no. 2:98-cv-00761-MJP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington, under Judge Marsha
J. Pechman.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bruce A. Harrell, Oscar Edward Desper III, of HARRELL
         CONNELL DESPER HUNTER & PAULEY, 1325 4th Ave., Ste 600,
         Seattle WA 98101-2359, Phone: 206-583-0050, E-mail:
         bharrell@seattlecounsel.com or
         odesper@seattlecounsel.com

     (2) Steven J. Toll and Christine E. Weber, COHEN MILSTEIN
         HAUSFELD & TOLL, 1100 New York Ave NW Ste 500,
         Washington DC 20005, Phone: 202-408-4600, E-mail:
         stoll@cmht.com or cwebber@cmht.com

     (3) Craig R. Spiegel, Ivy D. Arai, Jeffrey Todd Sprung,
         Steve W. Berman of HAGENS BERMAN, 1301 5th Ave. Ste
         2900, Seattle WA 98101, Phone: 206-623-7292, Fax: FAX
         623-0594, Email: craigs@hagens-berman.com,
         ivy@hagens- berman.com, jeff@hagens-berman.com,
         steve@hagens-berman.com

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (i) Barbara Berish Brown of PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY &
         WALKER, 1299 Pennsylvania Ave NW Ste 1000, Washington
         DC 20004 Phone: 202-508-9500, Fax: FAX 1-202-508-9700,
         Email: barbarabrown@paulhastings.com

    (ii) C. Geoffrey Weirich, PAUL HASTINGS JANOFSKY & WALKER,
         600 Peachtree Street NE, Ste 2400, Atlanta GA 30308-
         2222, Phone: 404-815-2400, Fax: FAX 1-404-815-2424, E-
         mail: geoffweirich@paulhastings.com

   (iii) Jeffrey Alan Hollingsworth, Sonja Lengnick of PERKINS
         COIE, 1201 3rd Ave, Ste 4800, Seattle WA 98101-3099,
         Phone: 206-583-8888, Fax: FAX 583-8500, E-mail:
         JHollingsworth@perkinscoie.com or
         SLengnick@perkinscoie.com

    (iv) Michael Reiss, Rebecca Shapiro Cohen, Elizabeth A.
         Sullivan, Robert F. Porcarelli or Sheehan H. Sullivan
         Weiss, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP, 1501 4th Ave, Ste
         2600, Seattle WA 98101-1688, Phone: 206-622-3150, Fax:
         FAX 628-7699, E-mail: mikereiss@dwt.com or
         rebeccashapirocohen@dwt.com, robertporcarelli@dwt.com
         or sheehansullivanweiss@dwt.com

    (v) Harry James Franklyn Korrell, III, DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE
        LLP, 1501 4TH AVE, STE 2600, Seattle WA 98101-1688,
        Phone: 206-622-3150, Fax: FAX 628-7699 E-mail:
         harrykorrell@dwt.com


CALIFORNIA: Santee Wins Judgment on Mobile Homes Rental Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego Superior Court Judge Roger T. Benitez ruled in favor
of the city of Santee in the lawsuit challenging the city's
mobile home rent-control ordinance, SignOnSanDiego reports.

Manufactured Home Communities (MHC), owners of the Meadowbrook
Mobile Estates, sued the city last year, alleging the ordinance
was unconstitutional.  The city has countered that it has the
right to regulate rents to protect a low-and fixed-income
constituency from unfair price increases.

Judge Benitez said he would grant the city's request for a
summary judgment to dismiss the case, Mayor Randy Voepel told
SignOnSanDiego.  The judge will issue a formal, written ruling
in a couple of weeks.

"It's within our power to regulate mobile home parks," said Mr.
Voepel, interpreting the judge's ruling.  Though happy with the
decision, the mayor expects the case to be appealed. He said
MHC's strategy is to outspend opponents in court to get them to
change the law.  "The next step is the 9th Circuit Court of
Appeals; I'm almost positive of that," Voepel said. "They've
made it very clear they think they can break us."

A call to MHC attorney William Dahlin of Orange County was not
returned yesterday, SignOnSanDiego reports.

Caught in the middle are Meadowbrook's tenants, 32 of whom
attended the federal court hearing.  Each month they pay their
rents with the words "under protest" written on the checks, Jim
Montague, president of the Meadowbrook Home Owners Association,
told SignOnSanDiego.

The park on Mission Gorge Road has 332 spaces dedicated to
seniors.  They have filed their own class action lawsuit against
MHC seeking to protect the rent-control ordinance.  "We are
optimistic," Montague said. "We are awaiting the final written
decision to know where we stand."

The ordinance uses a formula based on the annual rise in the
Consumer Price Index to cap rent increases. About 4,000 mostly
low-income, elderly residents live in Santee's 12 residential
parks and benefit from the city's mobile home rent-control
ordinance.


CALIFORNIA: Workers Union To Fight V. Overtime Wage Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two thousand janitors won a $22.4 million class action
settlement in the latest and largest lawsuit involving the
failure of janitorial subcontractors to pay their employees
according to overtime and minimum wage laws.  The janitors, who
will receive as much as $10,000 each in the settlement, were
employed by subcontractors of the national supermarket chains
Safeway, Vons, Albertsons, and Ralph's.

The landmark settlement is the largest of a growing number of
lawsuits over unlawful employment practices, known as "wage and
hour" claims, involving the practices of janitorial
subcontractors of major U.S. corporations.  The nation's largest
janitors' union, SEIU is leading an effort to police janitorial
companies - and the corporations that hire them - that skirt the
law.

The janitors who were hired to clean Ralph's, Safeway, Vons and
Albertsons grocery stores reported being assigned to work seven
days a week, sometimes 365 days a year, without any payment
whatsoever for the thousands of overtime hours worked every
year.  As a result, the hourly pay of many janitors often was
less than even the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.

According to the Los Angeles District Attorney, who pursued
criminal cases against some of the subcontractors, many janitors
were paid as little as $2.47 per hour. The supermarket chains
agreed to pay the settlement money because attorneys for the
janitors found enough information to show that the supermarket
chains exercised control over the janitors' working conditions,
even though the markets were not officially their direct
employers. Subcontractors are sometimes used by companies to
avoid liability for these types of practices.

The supermarkets' scheme was uncovered by SEIU which conducted
an investigation over a number of years and referred the case to
the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund (MCTF), a Los Angeles-
based industry watchdog group funded by SEIU and responsible
janitorial companies concerned with ensuring high standards in
the cleaning industry. Before pursuing the lawsuit, SEIU
repeatedly presented evidence of the wage and hour violations to
the supermarkets urging them to correct the practices, but the
supermarkets took no action.

"For a long time, big corporations felt immune [to] the actions
of their subcontractors, but we are now seeing a major shift,
and corporations are being held accountable in court for the
actions of their subcontractors," said Craig Becker, SEIU
Associate General Counsel.

Once rare, large-scale class action suits on behalf of workers
who are routinely denied overtime pay or paid below the minimum
wage are on the rise and could cost law-breaking employers
hundreds of millions of dollars over the next several years.
According to the Department of Labor, 2.2 million hourly workers
earn at or below the minimum wage, and complaints filed against
employers have risen dramatically over the last few years.

"Unscrupulous employers think no one is looking. They think they
can get away with robbing workers and breaking the law, but this
settlement proves they are wrong," said Lilia Garcia, the MCTF's
Executive Director. "Companies that don't pay minimum wage or
overtime drive down wages for the whole industry, making it
almost impossible for honest companies to compete. We are
watching, and we will go after companies that break the law."

In Chicago, a similar suit against United Parcel Service (UPS)
that could involve thousands of plaintiffs and millions of
dollars has now expanded to UPS facilities in Texas. According
to the suit, janitors cleaning UPS facilities in Illinois and
Texas were classified as "independent contractors" and worked as
much as 60 hours a week without being paid overtime. The
janitors' employer also illegally stripped money out of the
workers' wages to pay for workers' compensation insurance the
employer was required to provide by law. Workers were forced to
work off the clock, and not paid for all the time they worked.
Mr. Becker is counsel for the plaintiffs in the UPS case.

In August 2004, a janitorial Company that cleaned Target stores
agreed to pay $1.9 million in back wages to 775 employees
following charges the firm broke federal overtime laws. SEIU and
the MCTF conducted the original investigation and referred the
case to the Labor Department. The Federal Government has found
similar practices at Wal-Mart stores.

"The wealthiest companies in the U.S. are stealing wages from
some of the poorest workers in the country," said Stephen
Lerner, founder of SEIU's Justice for Janitors campaign.

With 1.7 million members, SEIU is the largest and fastest
growing union in the AFL-CIO and the nation's largest health
care union, largest building service union, and second largest
public employee union.

For more details, contact Renee Asher, by Phone: 1-301-581-0682,
or TJ Michels by Phone: 1-202-898-3321, or visit the Websites:
http://www.seiu.org/or http://www.justiceforjanitors.org/


CARLE FOUNDATION: Uninsured Patients Lodge IL Overcharging Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit brought by uninsured patients was filed
in Illinois state court against Carle Foundation Hospital
("Carle"), with widespread community support and outrage at
Carle's discriminatory treatment of uninsured patients,
including its highly controversial billing and debt collection
practices that has included issuing 'body attachments' arrest
warrants against uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay the
inflated rates Carle specifically charges the uninsured,
according to the Scruggs Law Firm, P.A.

The lawsuit, which was filed in the Illinois Circuit Court of
Champaign County, is the 65th lawsuit filed against 60 hospital
systems in state and federal courts as part of a nationwide
class action litigation that commenced on June 17, 2004. The
litigation currently spans 24 states.

The suit charges the hospital of forcing uninsured patients to
pay unreasonable and highly inflated rates, failing to provide
them with the opportunity to apply for charity care, and using
reprehensibly aggressive and humiliating collection tactics
against people who cannot afford to pay the inflated bills.
These practices violate the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and breach Carle's duty under
state law to only charge people the fair and reasonable value of
the services provided to them.

The suit depicts Carle's practice of regularly charging
uninsured patients rates that far exceed the amount charged to
other patients. Moreover, these inflated rates are concealed
from an uninsured patient when he or she is admitted to the
hospital. Carle forces these patients to "consent" to pay all
charges as they are admitted to the hospital, most of the time
under duress of pain and illness, without informing them that
they will be charged many times more than all other patients for
the same exact treatment. Carle's unlawful scheme also includes
efforts to dissuade uninsured patients from receiving financial
assistance from the hospital by routinely placing numerous
obstacles in the way that prevent patients from applying for
charity care. As a result, Carle issues inflated hospital bills
to thousands of uninsured patients who cannot afford to pay
them.

Beyond that, Carle then egregiously uses extreme 'anything but
community care' tactics to collect outstanding bills from even
the poorest patients, many of whom have been deemed indigent by
the courts of Champaign County, IL. Carle has filed hundreds of
lawsuits and garnished patients' wages and social security
checks. Since 1995, Carle has sought 164 arrest warrants, known
as 'body attachments,' for their patients who owe money to Carle
for missing a court hearing. 'Body attachments' are such an
extreme and abominable practice that even most private companies
will not use them. After mounting pressure from consumer
advocacy groups and nationwide media attention, the hospital
announced that it would stop the practice.

George Bellas, an attorney with Clifford Law Offices of Chicago
who is representing the plaintiffs, stated, "The basis of
Carle's nonprofit status, under which it reaps hundreds of
millions of dollars annually from taxpayers, is to provide
affordable care to those who need it in return for total tax
exemption. By charging uninsured patients inflated prices -- in
fact, rates far higher than anyone else -- and then using the
most aggressive and humiliating collection tactics imaginable
when they simply can't afford to pay the bills, Carle has
completely breached its legal and moral obligations and has
betrayed the communities it is supposed to be serving."

"The abusive practices heaped on the uninsured by hospitals such
as Carle are illegal, offend our sense of morality, and must be
stopped. To actively try to throw people in prison, to get a
judgment issued against them, and to go after their wages simply
because they are too poor to pay a medical bill is
unconscionable. Poor people who can't afford to pay for
necessary medical services shouldn't be sued in the first
place."

Carle is a 300-bed facility located in Urbana, IL that serves as
the primary teaching hospital for the University of Illinois
College of Medicine. It is the only locally owned and operated
hospital in the Champaign-Urbana area, and its purported focus
is to serve the community. Carle is a profitable hospital and
earned $13.9 million in 2002 alone. As of June 2002, Carle's
parent non-profit Company, The Carle Foundation, had $28.18
million in unrestricted cash assets in an account in the Cayman
Islands, a place known for its banking secrecy and financial
schemes.

The law firms representing the plaintiff are the Scruggs Law
Firm of Oxford, MI, Clifford Law Offices of Chicago, IL, and
Phebus & Koester of Champaign, IL.

For more details, contact Richard Scruggs of The Scruggs Law
Firm, P.A. by Phone: (662) 281-1212 OR George Bellas of the
Clifford Law Offices by Phone: (312) 899-9090 or visit
http://www.nfplitigation.com.


FEDERATED INVESTORS: Mulling Deal With SEC, NY A.G. Spitzer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Federated Investors is considering a settlement with federal and
New York authorities over its involvement in a scandal that has
tainted the $7.9 trillion mutual fund industry, the Pittsburgh
Post-Gazette reports.

According to the money manager, talks began last week with the
Securities and Exchange Commission and New York State Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer. It also revealed that the SEC was
considering civil action against two Federated officers who
permitted questionable trading by a hedge fund though neither
Federated nor the SEC has identified the employees.

Efforts to resolve the issue come 17 months after Mr. Spitzer
took on the industry with allegations that late trading and
market timing were harming mutual fund investors. The SEC has
proposed new regulations to prevent the abuses, but they have
not been implemented because of industry and investor opposition
to some aspects of the reforms.

Federated, which manages $178 billion in 135 mutual funds and
other accounts, disclosed in November 2003 that a review of
operations indicated clients and employees had engaged in or
permitted both practices. The Company established a $7.6 million
fund in February to compensate investors who may have been
harmed.

Federated spokesman J.T. Tuskan told the Post-Gazette it was
impossible to say how long talks with regulators would last and
what the outcome would be but he did point out that the Company
has spent about $25 million investigating the trading problems.
That figure though does not include the $7.6 million restitution
fund or penalties that could be imposed by regulators. The
Company is also currently facing class-action shareholder
lawsuits stemming from the allegations.

Regulators are pursuing a host of mutual funds over the same
types of trades and other activities, including funds that
compensate brokerage firms for recommending certain funds over
others regardless of their appropriateness or performance. The
allegations have cast a cloud over an industry perceived to be a
safe haven for the small investor.

The Company also has received inquiries about trading activities
from the National Association of Securities Dealers, the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and regulators in West
Virginia and Connecticut.


HEALTHSOUTH: Former CEO's Trial Over $2.7B Fraud Set To Begin
-------------------------------------------------------------
Opening arguments are set to begin in a Birmingham, Alabama
federal court for the Justice Department's upcoming trial of
former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy for allegedly
masterminding a $2.7 billion accounting fraud at the physical
therapy hospital chain, the USA Today reports.

To convince jurors that Mr. Scrushy masterminded the fraud,
prosecutors will rely on five former chief financial officers
who have entered guilty pleas and will testify that the former
CEO directed them to cook the books. Midlevel executives who
have already pleaded guilty and agreed to cooperate with the
government will back their testimony.

However, according to legal experts, even that might not be
enough to convince a jury that Mr. Scrushy broke the law, USA
Today states. They pointed out that most important part of the
trial, jury selection, which has already taken place, will most
likely determine the outcome of the trial.

Former federal prosecutor Steve Peikin, now at law firm Sullivan
& Cromwell, told USA Today that prosecutors need to get the jury
to "decide the case based on the evidence they hear in the
courtroom as opposed to a lot of noise that's gone back and
forth outside the courtroom," he adds, "with five former CFOs
implicating Mr. Scrushy, the defense will have a tall order to
try to convince the jury that all of them are falsely
incriminating their former boss."

While most white-collar criminal defendants lie low prior to
their trials, hoping to surprise prosecutors with their
courtroom strategy, Mr. Scrushy has gone in the opposite
direction. For the past year, he has hosted a 30-minute
television show that airs each morning on a local Birmingham
station. On the show titled, Viewpoint, Mr. Scrushy and his
wife, Leslie, discuss current events and God with a variety of
guests, mostly from local ministries.

Doug Jones, a Birmingham lawyer who has filed a class-action
lawsuit against Mr. Scrushy on behalf of shareholders, has
described the show as an "infomercial" designed to influence
potential jurors in the upcoming trial, USA Today reports.

Experts point out though that Mr. Scrushy's defense could
benefit from a botched attempt by the Securities and Exchange
Commission to freeze his assets in March 2003, when criminal
charges were first filed against several HealthSouth executives.
In that debacle, Mr. Scrushy successfully fought the charges at
the time, forcing SEC lawyers to divulge the contents of a
secret recording of conversations between Mr. Scrushy and one of
his lieutenants.

Mr. Scrushy who refused to comment for this article, has
maintained his innocence in comments to The Birmingham News and
Bloomberg News in recent weeks. His lawyers are expected to
portray him as a hands-off visionary, who created HealthSouth
through relentless hard work, only to be betrayed by a
conspiracy among his five CFOs, whom he had blamed in a 2003
interview with 60 Minutes for the accounting fraud.

Convincing jurors that he knew nothing about the fraud could be
a tough sell, John Coffee, a specialist in securities law at
Columbia University, told USA Today.  "At Enron, it is plausible
that (former chairman) Ken Lay was a hands-off, remote leader
who didn't get involved in day-to-day details. In the case of
Mr. Scrushy, it's most implausible to say he didn't know what
was going on. He's the Company's founder," he said.

For Mr. Scrushy's expected claim that the CFOs conspired without
his knowledge, Mr. Coffee comments, "It will be hard to believe
these people are all lying and conspiring, since some don't even
know each other."


ILLINOIS: High Court Committee Hears Class Action Proposals
-----------------------------------------------------------
An Illinois Supreme Court committee is considering whether
potential class-action lawsuits should meet a higher standard
before being granted the special status, the Associated Press
reports.

According to advocates, a stricter standard would create more
uniformity in which cases are given class action status. But
opponents contend that the stiffer requirements aren't needed
since many judges already use tough standards to decide which
cases get the special designation.

The rules committee of the state's high court recently heard
testimony from both sides on the proposal. The committee will
make a recommendation on the proposal to the Supreme Court,
which has not said when it will act. Under current court rules,
plaintiffs are required to show that the number of people in a
class is so large that individual suits would not be practical.


ILLINOIS: Will Pay Half Of Fees in Judges' Suit Over Pay Raises
---------------------------------------------------------------
The State of Illinois has agreed to pay half the $1.1 million in
legal fees incurred by state judges in their successful class-
action suit against Gov. Rod Blagojevich, who attempted to block
judicial pay raises, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

In exchange for the deal on legal fees, the judges agreed to
drop their claim to interest on more than $13 million in back
pay. They were awarded the back pay when the Illinois Supreme
Court ruled that Gov. Blagojevich, who had cut the raises from
the budget as part of his across-the-board freeze of government
salary increases, saying it would save $3.7 million from a
deficit-ridden state budget, acted unconstitutionally in 2003 by
blocking the raises.

The Illinois Supreme Court approved a plan that requires the
state to pay $572,000 to the three Chicago law firms that
represented nearly 1,000 state judges in the class action. That
plan requires the judges to pay the other half, an average of
$650 per judge.

William J. Harte, the lead attorney for the class, told the
Post-Dispatch the judges had attempted to avoid filing a suit
but were rejected when they approached the governor's staff.  He
said, "We attempted to reason with the governor's people, we
asserted that a pay raise was a constitutional right, and their
response was 'No'." Aside from Mr. Harte, the other plaintiffs'
attorneys in the case were Kevin M. Forde and Richard J.
Prendergast.

Illinois law gives automatic, annual cost-of-living raises to
legislators, statewide officers, judges and department heads.
Gov. Blagojevich had vetoed those raises for the 2003 and 2004
fiscal years, which runs from July 1 to June 30. The judges
promptly sued, saying that eliminating their cost-of-living
raises amounted to a pay cut, which is forbidden by the state's
constitution.

The Supreme Court sided with the judges, saying that allowing
the governor to freeze judicial salaries violated the principle
of separation of powers. The ruling affected judges statewide,
from the associate circuit level up to and including Supreme
Court justices. Judges earn annual salaries varying from
$127,247 for associate circuit judges to $158,103 for Supreme
Court justices.


IMCLONE SYSTEMS: Agrees To Settle Securities, Derivative Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
New York-based ImClone Systems Inc. agreed in principle to
settle two lawsuits related to the failed regulatory application
for its cancer drug Erbitux, the Associated Press reports.

According to Company officials, the settlements will cause the
biotechnology firm to take a charge of $55.4 million in the
fourth quarter. ImClone, which was at the center of a scandal
that sent Company founder Sam Waksal and his friend Martha
Stewart to jail, said it will pay $75 million in cash to settle
a class-action lawsuit that alleges the Company violated
securities laws by misleading investors on the approval status
of Erbitux.

ImClone also settled shareholder-derivative litigation and will
get an $8.5 million payment from its insurance carriers to pay
the class-action settlement, Company officials said.

Erbitux was rejected by the FDA in early 2002, sending ImClone
shares plummeting. Mr. Waksal, ImClone's chairman at the time,
was sentenced to jail for illegally selling ImClone shares ahead
of the FDA rejection, while Ms. Stewart was sentenced to jail
for five months for lying to prosecutors investigating
allegations that she knew of Erbitux's imminent rejection by the
FDA when she sold ImClone shares in December 2001.

Just recently, Mr. Waksal and his father, Jack Waksal, agreed to
pay $5 million in fines to the Securities and Exchange
Commission for their sale of ImClone stock.

For the fourth quarter of 2003, ImClone reported a loss of $26.3
million on sales of $19.8 million. Shares of ImClone slipped 55
cents to close at $36.98 Monday on the Nasdaq Stock Market.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Law Firms Fight Over Attorney's Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
The law firms that teamed up on the California consumer class
action against Microsoft Corporation are wrangling over their
share of attorney's fees, the New York Lawyer reports.

Three firms namely Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins, the Scarpulla Law Firm, and the Mogin Law Firm are
contending that Townsend and Townsend and Crew, the lead
plaintiffs' counsel, is trying to reduce what they are owed.

In November, San Francisco Superior Court Judge Paul Alvarado
ordered that the 35 law firms participating in the class action
should receive $112.4 million in fees and costs, which was
virtually less than half of the $270 million they had requested.

According to Lerach Coughlin, Judge Alvarado had specified that
the 11 firms that participated in the executive committee
overseeing the case should each receive two times their
"lodestar" -- the number of hours expended multiplied by
counsel's hourly rate. The lawyers had requested about five
times the lodestar, the New York Lawyer reports.  At stake for
the firms on the executive committee is a sum "in the low seven
figures," said Leonard Simon, of counsel at Lerach Coughlin.

Townsend partner Richard Grossman pointed out that the proposed
allocation of fees is in accordance with an agreement the
executive committee unanimously reached before filing a fee
petition, according to the New York Lawyer.

Judge Alvarado has agreed to review the issue, but in the
meantime, he withdrew a provision in his November order that
made Townsend responsible for allocating attorneys fees among
the plaintiffs' counsel.


MERCK & CO.: Judges To Decide How To Handle Numerous Vioxx Cases
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seven federal judges will descend on Fort Myers to make some key
decisions in the tidal wave of lawsuits filed against the
Company that manufactured Vioxx, the News-Press reports.

The U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is set hear
arguments from attorneys on how and where to handle scores of
lawsuits against Merck & Co. Inc., which marketed the arthritis
and pain medication. Vioxx was withdrawn from the market on
September 30 after a study showed the drug might cause heart
trouble. Some of those who are suing the Company accuse it of
selling the drug despite earlier indications it could be
harmful, even fatal.

According to documents filed in U.S. District Court in Fort
Myers, lawsuits against the Company are pending in at least 24
federal districts nationwide involving 378 plaintiffs and
thousands of others who are seeking to join a class action suit
against Merck & Co.

Merck & Co. attorney Sharon L. Kegerreis of Miami told News-
Press that so many lawsuits have been filed that it's necessary
for the panel to centralize the cases.  In a motion filed on
December 27, Ms. Kegerreis wrote that there are numerous
"overlapping factual issues and similar legal theories" in the
cases, and a failure to centralize them would cause a "waste of
judicial resources."

In Fort Myers, the law firm of Viles & Beckman represents
hundreds of Vioxx plaintiffs.  Mike Fallon, the firm's marketing
director, told the News-Press "The law firm has close to 1,000
Vioxx clients from around the country. We also have some
international clients."  Viles & Beckman is asking the court to
order Merck & Co. to provide free, ongoing health monitoring and
medical care for those who have taken Vioxx. The firm is also
seeking punitive damages and compensation for the plaintiffs'
medical bills, pain and suffering.

Mr. Kegerreis further wrote in the motion that the publicity
surrounding the withdrawal of Vioxx from the market "has spurred
the filing of additional lawsuits."


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Faces Injury Lawsuit Over January Train Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Motley Rice LLC and W. Mullins McLeod, Jr. have filed a lawsuit
seeking relief for persons with property damage resulting from
the Graniteville, South Carolina train disaster that killed two
people and injured 180 on January 6,2005.  Named as defendants
are:

     (1) railroad Norfolk Southern, the Union Tank Car Company
         which manufactured the tank cars carrying the chlorine
         in the deadly Graniteville train crash;

     (2) the Olin Corporation which manufactured and shipped the
         deadly chlorine; and

     (3) the Norfolk Southern employees, who allegedly failed to
         set the switch after they left their train on an active
         track.

Motley Rice LLC has also been retained to handle a number of the
personal injury and death cases as they relate to this
catastrophe and those claims are being handled in separate
lawsuits.

"We believe this lawsuit will encourage the defendants to accept
responsibility, and provide the property clean-up, replacement
or payment as they are obligated to do under the law," explained
founding member of Motley Rice, Ron Motley.

According to Motley Rice founding member, Joe Rice, "Our
community welcomed and trusted the railroad, but now our
community is damaged and our citizens need immediate help in the
clean-up and replacement of their property. This lawsuit seeks
to help South Carolinians with property in South Carolina. We
are hopeful that the named defendants will come forward quickly
and help these innocent victims as they attempt to return to
their homes."

According to W. Mullins McLeod, Jr., this is precisely why the
plaintiffs in the case are limited to state residents with
property in the evacuation zone. "The railroad, the tank car
Company, and the manufacturer and shipper of the chlorine all
have the obligation to ensure that in working in, and passing
through, our community and state they do not harm our property,"
stated McLeod.

The class action lawsuit seeks an immediate clean-up program for
all afflicted persons with damage to their real or personal
property. Buildings will need to be cleaned, painted, re-wired
and inspected. Personal property will need to be cleaned,
repaired or replaced. Destroyed goods such as food, clothing,
electrical and electronic equipment and furniture will need to
be replaced. "This community needs help now," said Rice.

"Railroads are entrusted with vast access and right-of-way in
our communities and our nation, but they have such rights only
insofar as they comply with the regulations governing safe
operations of both rail and hazardous materials transport," said
Motley Rice member Mary Schiavo, former Inspector General of the
U.S. Department of Transportation in Washington, D.C., which has
oversight authority over the railroads. "Norfolk Southern and
others failed to comply with those laws, regulations, and
standards, and failed to put in place known and recommended
practices which absolutely would have prevented this deadly
crash."

For more information on Motley Rice LLC call 1-800-768-4026 or
visit http://www.motleyrice.com.


PAIN RELIEVERS: Group Petitions FDA For Ban on Celebrex, Bextra
---------------------------------------------------------------
Advocacy group Public Citizen petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to immediately remove two widely prescribed
pain relievers, Celebrex and Bextra, from the market because
they increase the risk of heart attacks in patients.  The group
also urged the FDA to cancel plans to approve two other drugs in
the same class.

Celebrex (known generically as celecoxib) and Bextra
(valdecoxib) are among the vaunted class of drugs called COX-2
inhibitors, which are touted as anti-inflammatory agents that
cause less gastrointestinal damage than older, standby pain
relievers like aspirin or ibuprofen.  However, not only are
their gastrointestinal benefits insignificant, they elevate the
risk of heart attack, Public Citizen's petition says. In 2004,
more than 23.9 million prescriptions were filled in the United
States for Celebrex; 12.9 million for Bextra.

"If a drug offers no unique benefit compared to other drugs for
treating the same problem (in this case arthritis and pain) but
subjects patients to a unique risk, it must be removed from the
market," says the 12-page petition.

Vioxx, also a COX-2 inhibitor, was pulled from the market by
Merck last September after a clinical study showed that it
increased the risk of heart attacks.

Public Citizen's petition on Celebrex and Bextra examines the
results of 14 randomized control trials involving the five COX-2
inhibitors, as well as other published and unpublished
scientific information. The other two COX-2 inhibitors are
Prexige (lumiracoxib) and Arcoxia (etoricoxib), neither of which
has been approved for sale by the FDA. The petition says that
clinical studies suggest these drugs exhibit the same
cardiovascular toxicity as Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra, and
should not be approved.

"The Food and Drug Administration should immediately ban the
sale of Celebrex and Bextra, which put millions of people, many
of them elderly, at risk of heart attack," said Dr. Sidney
Wolfe, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group.
"These drugs are not only more expensive and more dangerous than
older, safer pain relievers, they are no better at protecting
the gastrointestinal tract."

Public Citizen has a long history of identifying unsafe or
ineffective drugs. Vioxx, for example, was the ninth
prescription drug to be taken off the market in the past seven
years that Public Citizen had previously warned consumers not to
use. For four of the drugs - Vioxx, Baycol, Rezulin and Serzone
- Public Citizen issued warnings more than two years before
their removal from the market. Public Citizen warned patients
not to use Celebrex three and half years before the government
announced that a study showed increased heart risks.

Public Citizen's Health Research Group recently launched a new
Web site, http://www.worstpills.org,that provides consumers
with comprehensive information about 538 drugs and warns them of
181 medications that should not be used because they are either
unsafe or ineffective.


SOUTH KOREA: Celebrities Launch Libel Suit Over "X-File" Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
South Korean celebrities filed a class action libel suit against
Dongseo Research and Cheil Communications, the country's leading
advertising Company, over a report containing intimate details
of the private lives of South Korea's top 99 entertainment
celebrities, Asia Pulse reports.

The Company commissioned the 113-page report, widely known as
the X-file, to help sponsors select the best models to assist
their advertisement strategies.  The controversial document,
which contains details ranging from plastic surgery records to
sexual scandal rumors, was based on interviews with 10 veteran
entertainment industry journalists.  However, the document was
leaked early this week and was rapidly circulating across the
internet to the consternation of the stars concerned.

59 celebrities filed the suit with the Seoul district court last
week on defamation and obstruction of business charges.  The
celebrities accused the two companies of circulating "groundless
information" without following due process by ascertaining the
truth of the rumors.  The stars ask that the Company be held
responsible for damage to the reputations of the show business
people by collecting and using their intimate details for
commercial purposes.

Hankyul law firm representing the entertainers said the
entertainers will also file a civil suit, joined by some of the
40 others who are not involved in the criminal lawsuit, Asia
Pulse reports.  Internet users who exchange the "X-files"
through peer-to-peer file-sharing programs, portal sites,
personal blogs and homepages could also be legally punished,
lawyers of Hankyul stressed.  The 10 journalists who provided
the information to the research firm were to be excluded from
the criminal suit, the law firm said.


UNITED STATES: Republican Senators Reintroduce Tort Reform Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Republican-controlled Senate reintroduced a piece of
legislation the week of January 24 that seeks to greatly curb
the number of class-action lawsuits, a bill the insurance
industry's representatives long have pursued on Capitol Hill,
BestWire Services reports.

At least three versions of the Class Action Fairness Act have
been introduced since 1988, but all have failed. Supporters of
the current version, Senate Bill 5, are heartened by the broader
majority in the Senate, where Republicans now need only five
Democratic defectors to shut down any threat of a filibuster.

The bill would remove most class actions from state courts,
where they now are heard, to federal courts, where it is thought
that most of them would be dismissed. Supporters of the bill say
it would eliminate the practice of forum shopping, in which
lawyers look to file their cases in jurisdictions where juries
are prone to handing out huge awards to plaintiffs.

Detractors of the class-action measure, meanwhile, have said it
would do little more than strip rights from the injured while
shielding corporate wrongdoing.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., announced the bill's
reintroduction at a press conference, where the measure is the
fifth among the GOP's first 10 bills on the Senate calendar.
Frist already had declared that class-action legislation would
be the first substantive measure the Senate would take up in the
new Congress (BestWire, Jan. 17, 2005).

Insurers cheered the reintroduction of the bill. Charles
Symington, a vice president with the Independent Insurance
Agents & Brokers of America, said the trade association was
pleased by the bill's reappearance and that "the existing class-
action system needs serious reforms" to prevent forum shopping
and other abuses.

The Class Action Fairness Coalition, a group of companies and
trade groups, said in a statement that the bill would "address
flagrant abuses in the legal system while protecting consumers'
rights and access to the courts." The coalition consists of
dozens of U.S. corporations, including several large insurers
such as Aegon USA and State Farm.

"We would prefer avoiding going to committee," where Democrats
could add amendments to the bill that would lower its chances of
passing, said Dennis Kelly, a spokesman for the American
Insurance Association. If that happens, Kelly said, the AIA and
other like-minded groups on Capitol Hill would work with the
bill's backers to fight the amendments.

The week of Jan. 17, representatives of the Financial Services
Roundtable, a consortium of companies and industry lobbies,
wrote to Frist, urging him to take up the bill in February and
get it passed. Included in the letter were executives from Aegon
USA, Chubb Corp., American International Group Inc., MassMutual
and State Farm.


VERIZON COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Suit For Aggressive Email Blocking
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philadelphia law firm Kohn, Swift & Graf are inviting Verizon
customers to join a class action arising from the Company's
"enthusiastic" email filtering polices, the Register reports.
The suit was filed on behalf of a DSL subscriber.

Since December 22, the Company's mail servers have been
configured to reject connections from Europe and other parts of
the world including China and New Zealand by default.  The
Company asserts that the measure was designed to reduce spam.
The Company reiterated that it is only following industry best
practice and applying blacklists as "narrowly" as possible.
Domains can be unblocked by request, but the move has been met
with criticism, the Register reports.

John Vincenzo, a spokesman for Verizon, told the Register that
the "vast majority" of Verizon's 4m dial-up and DSL customers
are happy with its "long standing" policy on spam and virus
filtering.  He conceded that some otherwise legitimate email has
been blocked but gave no indication that Verizon has any plans
to review its policy.  Mr. Vincenzo declined to comment on the
class action lawsuit or explain how Verizon's filtering worked,
beyond saying that the policy applied "globally."

Mr. Vincenzo asserted that spam complaints come from spammers
themselves.  In a statement published in the Register, the
Company said, "Spam is out of control. Leading providers of spam
protection tools such as MX Logic, Inc. and MessageLabs report
that some 80 to 90 percent of all e-mail today is spam."

"This is a major problem for Internet users in multiple ways.
Spam clogs our mailboxes daily to the point where it threatens
viability of e-mail as a communications tool. It also routinely
carries viruses, identity-theft scams, spyware, zombie bots and
other serious security threats," the statement continued.

"As an ISP, Verizon Online is working hard to address these
serious security threats on the Internet by closely monitoring
our network for incoming and outgoing spam and by working
cooperatively with others across the ISP industry on anti-spam
initiatives," the Company said.  "These round-the-clock efforts
include blocking spam and propagation of viruses from sources we
identify using methods that are consistent with industry
practices. This is a long-standing policy at Verizon Online."

"When we identify sources of spam or viruses, we block them as
narrowly as we can and, where possible, we work directly with
whoever manages that source to notify them of the issue. We then
continuously monitor the source and will lift the block as soon
as we are satisfied the threat has been resolved. In many cases,
this is resolved within two days; however, we will not remove a
block as long as a serious threat remains," the Company said.

"The entire ISP industry is working to combat spam and other
online security threats. Verizon Online is a member of various
coalitions, including the Messaging Anti-Abuse Working Group
that includes both large and small ISPs covering more than 100
million online subscribers. We also have aggressively pursued
spammers through legal action, and taken a leading role in
drafting legislation at the state and national level and working
with domestic and international law enforcement agencies to
combat spam other threats. In short, Verizon is committed to
protecting its customers and its network from the serious
security matters that threaten our use of the Internet
everyday," the statement asserted.  "Any spam blocking method
will, inevitably, also result in the blocking or delay of
otherwise legitimate email. This is yet another reason why
spammers are harmful to the Internet community. If a Verizon
Online customer believes they are not receiving legitimate e-
mail, they should call our technical support desk for assistance
and we will work with them to resolve their situation as quickly
as possible. Our Verizon Online web site also features an
Internet security page with practical tips and tools that can
help customers protect themselves from Internet threats. It can
be found at http://broadbandbeat.verizon.net/safety_security."

The Company added, "We believe that fighting spam is the right
thing to do for the safety and security of our more than 4
million broadband and dial-up customers . Some of the loudest
complaints you will see or hear about spam blocking come from
the spammers themselves, who lose significant income when their
efforts to flood the Internet with unsolicited e-mail are
foiled. Our customers expect and demand that we provide them
with as safe, secure and effective an Internet experience as
possible and we are firm in our commitment to do that."


                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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


51JOB INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated securities
class action was commenced on behalf of shareholders who
purchased, converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the common
stock of 51job, Inc. (Nasdaq:JOBS) between November 4, 2004 and
January 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant 51job, Donald
Lucas, Rick Yan and Kathleen Chien. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For mor edetails, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: Baltimore, Maryland by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by
E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


51JOB INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of 51Job, Inc. (Nasdaq:
JOBS) ("51Job") between November 4, 2004 and January 14, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that 51Job violated United States
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that 51Job
failed to disclose the fact that it improperly recognized
recruitment-advertising revenue in 3Q04. Moreover, the Complaint
alleges 51Job failed to disclose the fact that the drop in late-
December advertising suggested that many Chinese firms have
adopted a more Western schedule for hiring and, as a result of
this market shift, 51Job was forced to sharply lower its profit
outlook.

On January 18, 2005, 51Job announced softness in sales for the
latter part of the month of December 2004, the exit of the
peripheral stationery and office supplies business and updated
guidance for the fourth quarter of 2004. It disclosed that
fourth quarter total revenues are now expected to be between
RMB117 and RMB121 million, compared with RMB140 million, the
low-end of its previous forecasted range. On this news, shares
of 51Job fell from a close of $43.82 per share on January 14,
2005, to close at $28.32 per share on January 18, 2005, the next
trading day.

For more details, contact Schatz & Nobel by Phone:
(800) 797-5499 by E-mail: sn06106@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.snlaw.net.


CIB MARINE: Leiter Group Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in C.D. IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Leiter Group initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court, Central District of Illinois Peoria
Division on behalf of all persons who purchased or held shares
of CIB Marine Bancshares ("CIB") common stock between August 27,
1999 and August 1, 2004 ("Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that CIB and other defendants
("Defendants") violated the federal securities laws by issuing
materially false and misleading statements during the Class
Period, In violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. The complaint alleges that the Defendants failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the loan loss allocation account
and artificially inflated net income during the Class Period
and, as a result, it expects to allocate a net loss for the
years prior and restate its financial statements. The Complaint
also alleges counts of fraud and breaches of fiduciary duties.
Named as Defendants in the multi-count complaint are: CIB MARINE
BANCSHARES, INC., J.MICHAEL STRAKA, DONALD M TRILLING, STEVEN C.
HILLARD, JOHN T. BEAN, DEAN M. KATSAROS, W. SCOTT BLAKE, NORMAN
E. BAKER, HOWARD E. ZIMMERMAN, JERRY D. MAAHS, JOSE ARAUJO,
STEVEN KLITZING, MICHAEL RECHKEMMER, DONALD STRAKA, PATRICK
STRAKA, and KPMG, LLP.

For more details, contact Samuel B. Zabek at The Leiter Group by
Phone: 309-673-2922 or by E-mail: classaction@leitergroup.com.


CITADEL SECURITITY: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, on behalf of all persons who
purchased the securities of Citadel Security Software, Inc.
("Citadel" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: CDSS) between February 12,
2004 and December 16, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period")
against defendants Citadel and certain officers of the Company.

The case name and index number are Heller v. Citadel Security
Software, Inc., et al and 05-cv-0142.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

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

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

     (2) that the much touted, sizable pipeline of potential
         contracts did not materialize due to poor management
         execution;

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

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

The Complaint also 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 provided a financial update for
its year-ended December 31, 2004. 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. 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.

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, or Derek Behnke of Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Phone: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-
mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.


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

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

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

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

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

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

On November 4, 2004, defendants issued a press release
announcing disappointing results for the fourth quarter of 2004,
including a loss of $367.5 million ($0.79 per share) which was
blamed on poor demand, inventory buildup and failed product
launches. Later that day, the Company held a conference call to
discuss its fourth quarter results. Defendant Geday's response
to an analyst's question revealed that the Company's inventory
glut was not a recent phenomenon, but had been building for as
long as five quarters. In reaction to the Company's press
release and conference call, the price of Conexant securities
dropped to $1.60 per share on November 5, 2004 from $1.76 on
November 4, 2004.

As detailed in the complaint, earlier announcements that only
partially disclosed the facts about Conexant's business had
already taken a heavy toll on Conexant's stock price, which
traded as high as $7.77 per share during the Class Period.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


HUFFY CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
on behalf of purchasers of Huffy Corp. ("Huffy") (OTC:HUFCQ.PK)
common stock during the period between April 16, 2002 and August
13, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges certain of Huffy's officers and directors
with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Huffy is
a diversified sporting goods Company. The Company markets
basketball equipment, sports balls and other outdoor games under
various brand names.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous positive statements concerning the
Company's growth and long-term prospects. As alleged in the
Complaint, these statements were materially false and misleading
because Defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them at all relevant times:

(1) that the Company was experiencing problems integrating
         the McCalla and Gen-X acquisitions such that the
         Company was experiencing rising expenses and was not
         generating the benefits from the acquisitions that it
         had represented to investors;

     (2) that the Company's Canadian operations were engaged in
         improper accounting practices, thereby overstating the
         Company's revenues and income. Specifically, the
         Company was failing to properly account for customer
         returns and reductions, was failing to timely write
         down the value of bad debt and was overstating the
         value of its inventory;

     (3) that the legacy costs associated with certain of the
         Company's discontinued operations were continuing to
         mount and were increasingly draining cash from the
         Company;

     (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, in addition to
         continued weakness in the Company's core lines of
         business, the Company's financial condition was
         dramatically eroding such that it was approaching
         insolvency and would soon have to file for bankruptcy;
         and

     (5) based on the foregoing, Defendants lacked a reasonable
         basis for their positive statements concerning the
         Company's increased sales growth and long term growth
         prospects.

On August 13, 2004, Huffy issued a press release announcing
that, in the course of its review of the Corporation's financial
statements for the first quarter of 2004, it determined that
certain accounting entries, estimated in the range of $3.5 to
$5.0 million related primarily to customer deductions, credits
and reserves for inventory valuation and doubtful account
receivables for Huffy Sports Canada (formerly known as Gen-X
Sports) were more properly reflected in the period ended
December 31, 2003 rather than in the first quarter of 2004. In
response to this announcement, the next trading day, the price
of Huffy common stock declined from $0.58 per share to $0.35 per
share, a decline of 40 percent.

Then, on August 16, 2004, the Company announced that the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") has determined that trading of
Huffy common stock should be suspended immediately and that the
NYSE will take steps to remove Huffy as a listed Company on the
NYSE. Finally, on October 20, 2004, the Company announced that
the Company and all of its United States and Canadian
subsidiaries have filed voluntary petitions for protection under
Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 or by
E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/huffy/.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiaed a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired shares of
Pharmos Corp. ("Pharmos" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PARS)
securities during the period from August 23, 2004 through
December 17, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey. The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Mail: Baltimore, Maryland by Phone: (410) 986-0036 or by
E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiaed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of Pharmos
Corp. ("Pharmos" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PARS) securities
during the period from August 23, 2004 through December 17,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Pharmos and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect -- during the Class
Period -- of artificially inflating the price of Pharmos's
shares.

During the Class Period, defendants concealed the fact that
Dexanabinol, the Company's flagship drug product, in Phase III
trials for Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) trial was not exhibiting
materially favorable reaction. Prior to disclosing this
information to the public, Pharmos sold $16.75 million worth of
stock in a private placement. Furthermore, the Company's CEO
sold 20% of his holdings and its President sold almost 50% of
his holdings. Such sales occurred after the close of Phase III
enrollment and after the six month post-enrollment period
concluded. On December 20, 2004, just weeks after insiders sold
400,000 shares of stock, they announced Dexanabinol was not
found to be materially effective in Phase III testing.
Furthermore, after years of touting the effectiveness of
Dexanabinol, the Company abruptly ceased its effort to gain
approval for Dexanabinol for TBI.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of KIRBY McINERNEY &
SQUIRE, LLP by Phone: 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 or visit their Web site:
http://www.kmslaw.com/newcases/6.html.


SILICON STORAGE: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
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 Silicon Storage Technology,
Inc. ("Silicon Storage" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SSTI), between
March 30, 2004 and December 20, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

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 Silicon Storage
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


SIPEX CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Sipex Corporation (Nasdaq: SIPX) ("Sipex" or the
"Company") between April 10, 2003 and January 20, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Sipex, Douglas M. McBurnie, Walid
Maghribi, Phillip A. Kagel, and Clyde R. Wallin 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 inappropriately recognized revenue on
         sales for which price protection, stock rotation and/or
         return rights were granted;

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

     (3) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times.

On January 20, 2005 Sipex announced that the Company may restate
its financial statements for the fiscal year ended December 31,
2003 and the fiscal quarters ended April 3, 2004, July 3, 2004
and October 2, 2004 due to the possible improper recognition of
revenue during these periods on sales for which price
protection, stock rotation and/or return rights may have been
granted. The news shocked the market. Shares of Sipex fell $0.90
per share, or 23.44 percent, on January 21, 2005 to close at
$2.94 per share, on unusually high volume.

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 or 1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail:
info@sbclasslaw.com.


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

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, Defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements to the market
regarding its financial performance. The Complaint alleges that
Defendants' statements were false and misleading because the
Company failed to disclose that its business model was in fact
not materially differentiated from other enterprise software
companies, that its customers were implementing additional
hurdles to contract approvals and that it was experiencing
execution difficulties. On October 4, 2004, the Company
announced its preliminary financial results for the third
quarter 2004, which ended on September 30, 2004. The Company
announced that it now expected total revenues for the third
quarter of 2004 to be between $11.9 million and $12.3 million --
as compared to $13.5 million for the same period in 2003. The
Company claimed that an alleged "tightness in IT spending" and
"more complex approval processes"' were the reasons for this
significant miss in earnings. On this news, the Company's share
price dropped precipitously from $9.62 per share to $6.21 per
share -- a drop of 35.4% on extremely heavy trading volume.

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


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for Arizona against Taser International, Inc. ("Taser" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: TASR), Dr. Phillips W. Smith, Patrick W.
Smith, Thomas P. Smith, Kathleen Hanrahan and Daniel Behrendt on
behalf of purchasers of Taser securities during the period
between April 6, 2004 and January 10, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market concerning the safety of
its Taser guns between April 6, 2004 and January 10, 2005,
inclusive. The complaint also alleges that defendants engaged in
channel stuffing at the end of the fourth quarter of 2004 in
order to meet sales projections and analyst's expectations.

The truth began to emerge on January 6, 2005 when Taser stunned
the public by announcing that it had received an informal
inquiry letter from the SEC regarding the Company's statements
concerning the safety of its products and a $1.5 million order
of Taser devices received from one of the Company's
distributors, which was booked in late December 2004. As a
result of the January 6 announcement, shares of the Company's
common stock fell $4.90, or 18%, to close at $22.72 per share.
Then, on January 11, 2005, Taser further shocked investors when
it announced that orders for the first half of 2005 may be
delayed while law enforcement agencies test competitors'
products. In the wake of this announcement, shares of the
Company's common stock fell an additional $5.95, or 30%, to
close at $14.10 per share. During the Class Period, Defendants
engaged in massive insider trading.

For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. of Chitwood &
Harley by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888 by E-mail:
lsa@classlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.classlaw.com.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of TASER International Inc. ("TASER" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ:TASR) between November 4, 2004 and January 6,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against TASER and certain officers and directors ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges
Defendants issued a series of materially false and misleading
statements because they failed to disclose that contrary to
Defendants' representations, studies conducted on the Company's
TASER devices were inconclusive as to the safety of the devices,
that the Company's revenues and earnings would be negatively
impacted once the truth became known, that the "last minute"
order of TASER devices the Company received from one of its
distributors was done to help the Company meet sales goals.

On January 6, 2004, after the market closed, Defendants
indicated that they had received a letter from the Securities &
Exchange Commission announcing that the regulator had begun an
informal inquiry regarding the Company's statements concerning
the safety of its weapons as well as a recent order received
from one of its distributors. Shares of TASER fell dramatically,
shedding $4.90 per share, or 18% in very heavy trading.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.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.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Spector Roseman Files Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of the
common stock of Taser International, Inc. ("Taser" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq: TASR) between October 18, 2004 through
January 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") against Taser
and certain officers and directors of the Company.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market between October 18, 2004 and
January 6, 2005, thereby artificially inflating the price of
Taser securities. Throughout the Class Period defendants issued
numerous statements describing the safety of its products which
were materially false and misleading because they failed to
disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts,
among others:

     (1) that the Company's Taser M26 and X26 are unsafe;

     (2) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that the Company's Taser M26 and X26 have safety
         concerns;

     (3) that defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact
         that the Company's M26s and X26s severe safety concerns
         were likely to limit the long term marketability of the
         Taser M26 and X26; and

     (4) that the defendants failed to warn the public of the
         potential harm of the Company's M26 and X26, in order
         to preserve the Company's profits from the "stun" guns.

On January 6, 2005, after the market closed, the Company issued
a press release entitled "Taser International, Inc. Cooperates
with SEC Informal Inquiry." In the press release, the Company
disclosed that the Securities and Exchange Commission is
beginning an inquiry into claims and statements made by Taser on
the safety of its stun guns. Further, as stated in the press
release, the SEC is also looking into an end of year order
totaling $1.5 million.

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 or by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Ballon Stoll Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C. initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of TASER International, Inc. ("Taser" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:TASR) during the period of time from January
7, 2005, through and including January 14, 2005 (the "Class
Period"), pursuing remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending before the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York against defendants TASER
International, Inc., Dr. Phillips W. Smith (Chairman), Patrick
W. Smith (C.E.O. and Director), Thomas P. Smith (President and
Director), and Daniel Behrendt (C.F.O.). According to the
complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that defendants made statements during the
class period that were materially false and misleading
throughout the period from October 18, 2004, through January 6,
2005. Namely, defendants claimed increasing demand for its
products and touted those products' safety when, in fact,
defendants knew that studies had raised reservations with regard
to the safety of Taser's products and consequently, orders of
its product had been delayed. On January 6, 2005, Taser
announced it had received a formal inquiry letter from the SEC
regarding Taser's claims of safety and a $1.5 million order of
its products from one of the Company's distributors. As a result
of this announcement, Taser's common stock fell by $4.90 per
share (18%) to $22.72. Subsequently on January 7, 2005,
defendants further announced that orders for the first half of
2005 would be delayed and that one of Taser's distributor's had
purchased $700,000 in order to help Taser out. Thereafter,
Taser's common stock fell by an addition $5.95 (30%) to $14.10
per share. Moreover, defendants disclosed on January 8, 2005,
that they had granted options to acquire Taser stock to police
officials in departments which were considering and then
purchased Taser products in the prior year.

For more details, contact Irving Bizar or Robert S. Schwartz of
Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C. by Mail: 1450 Broadway, 14th
Fl., New York, NY 10018 or by Phone: (212) 575-7900.


UNITEDGLOBALCOM: Faruqi & Faruqi Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware, on
behalf of its client and all persons or institutions who held
shares of UnitedGlobalCom, Inc. ("UnitedGlobal" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:UCOMA) challenging the fairness of the recent
merger proposal made by Liberty Media International, Inc.
("Liberty Media"), which owns approximately 53% of
UnitedGlobal's outstanding common stock.

Among other things, plaintiff's Complaint alleges that the
consideration to be paid to Class members in the transaction is
unconscionable and unfair and grossly inadequate because the
intrinsic value of UnitedGlobal's common stock is materially in
excess of the amount offered given the stock's current trading
price and the Company's prospects for future growth and
earnings. Additionally, the Complaint alleges defendants have
breached their duty of loyalty to UnitedGlobal stockholders by
using their control of UnitedGlobal to force plaintiff and the
Class to exchange their equity interest in UnitedGlobal at an
unfair price, and deprive UnitedGlobal's public shareholders of
maximum value to which they are entitled. The Complaint alleges
further that defendants have also breached their duties of
loyalty and due care by not taking adequate measures to ensure
that the interests of UnitedGlobal's public shareholders are
properly protected from overreaching.

For more details, contact Anthony Vozzolo, Esq. of Faruqi &
Faruqi, LLP by Phone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330 by E-
mail: Avozzolo@faruqilaw.com.


UNITEDGLOBAL INC.: 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 Liberty Media International, Inc. ("Liberty
Media"), in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware on
behalf of all who held shares of UnitedGlobalCom, Inc.
("UnitedGlobal" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: UCOMA).

The complaint alleges that on January 18, 2005, UnitedGlobal
announced that Liberty Media has made a proposal to acquire all
of the Company's common stock that it does not already own at a
price of approximately $3.65 billion (the "Buyout" or "Buyout
Proposal"). UnitedGlobal shareholders would receive 0.2155
shares of Liberty Global Inc., the successor entity, for each
share of UnitedGlobal, and investors in Liberty Media would get
one share of Liberty Global Inc. for each share they hold.
Liberty Media also offered a cash alternative of $9.58 per share
UnitedGlobal stock, limited to 20% of the total offer. 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 UnitedGlobal. In
fact, the Company's stock traded in excess of the Buyout price
as recently as the day prior to the announcement, and has been
trading at or over that price for at least the past month.
Moreover, the complaint alleges that Liberty Media had timed the
proposal to freeze out UnitedGlobal's public shareholders in
order to capture for itself UnitedGlobal's future potential
without paying an adequate or fair price to the Company's public
shareholders and that Liberty Media timed the announcement of
the proposed buyout to place an artificial lid on the market
price of UnitedGlobal's stock so that the market would not
reflect UnitedGlobal's improving potential, thereby purporting
to justify an unreasonably low price.

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


                            *********


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  * * *