---

             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

           Tuesday, September 28, 2004, Vol. 6, No. 192

                          Headlines


3M CORPORATION: 150 People Wish To Join Cancer Chemicals Suit
LPHACOM INC.: Settles SEC OH Fraud Complaint, Pays $8.24M Fine
ANTIDEPRESSANTS: FDA To Decide on Appropriate Warnings For Drugs
BLUE CROSS: Montana Doctors Resign in Protest of Radiology Suit
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Cochlear Implants Due To Injury Risk

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Rejects Lawsuit Over Lead in Water
ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. Ex-CEO, Controller
FANNIE MAE: Shareholders Launch Lawsuits Over Securities Fraud
FRITO-LAY: Recalls Queso Dip Due To Microorganism Contamination
ISRAEL: Car Importers Forge Settlement Of Owners' Antitrust Suit

KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 1,000 Lunchables Snacks Due To Mislabeling
M&M FINANCIAL: Beaumont Attorney Lodges TX Securities Fraud Suit
NEWMONT MINING: Indonesian Unit Faces Mining Operations Lawsuit
PACIFIC GOLF: CA Judge Assess $5.9M Penalty For Bond Fraud Suit
PRIME HOSPITALITY: Enters Into MOU To Settle BREP IV Acquisition

ROYAL MACCABEES: Judge Approves $1.75M Overcharging Settlement
SECURITY LIFE: Agrees To Settle Lawsuit Over Inflated Premiums
STATION CASINOS: Reaches Settlement For Hotel Surcharges Lawsuit
TENNESSEE: Suit Seeks Injunction V. Driving Certificates Program
UNITED STATES: More non-US Companies Facing Securities Suits

UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Urge Settlement Hearing Expansion
UNITED STATES: NHTSA Stalls Plan To Share Info on Vehicle Deaths

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in MN
COMMUNITY BANCORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY
CP SHIPS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
FANNIE MAE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DC
FANNIE MAE: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DC

FANNIE MAE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
FANNIE MAE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DC
INTERACTIVECORP: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles J. Piven Files CA Securities Suit
MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Stock Suit

MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. CA
NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
NETFLIX INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
NETOPIA INC.: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
NETOPIA INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA

OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in CA
RADIATION THERAPY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL
SHAW GROUP: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Lawsuit in E.D. LA
STAAR SURGICAL: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in NM
STAAR SURGICAL: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM

STONEPATH GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in PA
TEAM TELECOM: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WA
WHITE ELECTRONICS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ


                         *********

3M CORPORATION: 150 People Wish To Join Cancer Chemicals Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than 150 people hope to join the lawsuit filed by the law
firm of Edwards Mitchell and Reeves against 3M Corporation over
a family of synthetic chemicals used in the manufacture of
Teflon otherwise known as sulfonated perfluorochemicals or PFCs
and previously used in 3M's Scotchgard and many other nonstick
and stain-resistant products that some health experts believe
causes cancer, the Decatur Daily reports.

The rush to counsel stemmed from a lawsuit that was filed by
three Decatur residents in September 10.  The law firm of
Beasley Allen Crow Methvin Portis & Miles, which represents the
trio hopes to convert the case into a class action that,
according to its complaint, could include thousands of people.

According to attorney Greg Reeves, whose firm is assisting the
Montgomery firm in pursuing the claim, Vanessa Chandler, Woodrow
Johnson and Stanley Martin are the named plaintiffs in the suit
that was filed in the Morgan County Circuit Court.

In their complaint against 3M and several of its officers, the
Decatur residents, who all live near the 3M plant on State Docks
Road in Northwest Decatur claim that environmental tests
performed last month revealed high levels of PFCs in their soil.
The plaintiffs allege their fear of the possible health effects
of the chemical caused them emotional distress and that its
presence has damaged the value of their property.  The
plaintiffs also allege the chemical causes liver problems,
testicular tumors, breast tumors, prostate problems, birth
defects and reproductive problems.


ALPHACOM INC.: Settles SEC OH Fraud Complaint, Pays $8.24M Fine
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission settled civil fraud
charges against AlphaCom, Inc., Robert Snyder and James Stamp
for their fraudulent sale of AlphaCom securities, and against
Relief Defendant Gary Kendron. On Sept. 15, 2004, a federal
court in Cleveland, Ohio entered Final Judgments enjoining
AlphaCom, Snyder and Stamp from violations of the antifraud,
securities registration, and reporting provisions of the federal
securities laws. AlphaCom and Snyder were ordered to pay
disgorgement of $8.24 million and $662,000 respectively. Payment
was waived based upon their demonstrated inability to pay.
Snyder was barred from serving as an officer or director of a
public company. Relief Defendant Gary Kendron was also ordered
to pay disgorgement and prejudgment interest totaling $225,000.
The defendants consented to the entry of Final Judgments without
admitting to or denying the complaint's allegations.

The complaint alleged that from September 1997 through October
2000, AlphaCom, Snyder and Stamp raised $8.9 million from the
sale of AlphaCom securities by falsely representing that
AlphaCom owned exclusive rights to novel Internet technologies.
In reality, AlphaCom did not own the technologies. In addition,
the complaint alleged that Snyder and AlphaCom misrepresented
that investors' funds would be used for AlphaCom's business,
when in fact Snyder used nearly $1 million for a personal loan
and to buy a house.

The complaint further alleged that the defendants failed to
register the sale of AlphaCom securities with the Commission,
Snyder and Stamp acted as unregistered broker-dealers and
AlphaCom and Snyder failed to file required financial statements
and periodic reports with the Commission. The action is titled,
SEC v. Robert Snyder, AlphaCom, Inc., James Stamp, and Gary
Kendron, Civil Action No. 1:03CV1349 (U.S.D.C. N.D. Ohio) (LR-
18895).


ANTIDEPRESSANTS: FDA To Decide on Appropriate Warnings For Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will soon
determine the appropriate warning for antidepressants to
highlight links between the drugs and increased suicidal
thoughts and actions of children, a top official told Congress
last week, the Associated Press reports.

A panel of advisers to the FDA earlier recommended placing a
"black box" warning on all drugs used to treat depressed
children, over their link to increased suicidal thoughts and
actions, after the FDA received data saying that antidepressants
taken by children will cause an extra 2% to 3% to have increased
suicidal thoughts.

Relative risks of suicidal behavior were highest among youths
taking Luvox, Effexor and Paxil and lower among youths taking
Celexa and Zoloft.  Prozac, earlier thought to be the most
benign antidepressant for youth, also increases the odds of
suicidal thoughts and actions, an earlier Class Action Reporter
story (September 19,2004) states.

The "black box" warning is among the most strident in the FDA
arsenal.  The new warning should make clear that antidepressants
have been linked to two to three more children per 100 having
heightened suicidal thoughts and behaviors.  The warning should
reach doctors no matter how they get drug information and would
extend to drug advertising directed at patients.

The agency is likely to follow the recommendations of federal
advisers who want black boxes.  "We take this advice very
seriously," said Dr. Robert Temple, director of the Office of
Medical Policy within the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and
Policy, on Thursday, AP reports.

Dr. Temple spoke after an often contentious House Energy and
Commerce investigations subcommittee hearing, but would not
pinpoint a date for agency action.  "We've still got to write
this stuff," he said.

Testifying before a House subcommittee, Dr. Temple said patients
also would receive information guides with every prescription on
how to balance the risk of suicide with the benefits of treating
depression, AP reports.

According to epidemiologist Andrew Mosholder, who works in the
FDA's Division of Drug Risk Evaluation, his bosses asked him to
soften his recommendation that most anti-depressant use by
children be discouraged because of increased suicidal behavior
among young people who took the drugs.  He testified that during
discussions with his managers in March, "alternative conclusions
were offered to me, which I declined to incorporate into my
written document," AP states.

Instead of discouraging the use of all but one anti-depressant,
Prozac, for children, he was told to suggest that children use
such medications "with caution," Dr. Mosholder told the
subcommittee.  He said his reviews showed that Prozac, the only
drug approved to treat depressed children, also posed the least
risk.

It's standard for superiors to review conclusions to ensure
they're supported by the evidence, countered Dr. Paul Seligman,
acting director of the agency's Office of Drug Safety, outside
the hearing room.  "That was done in this case. There was never
any pressure to change what he wrote," Dr. Seligman said, AP
reports.


BLUE CROSS: Montana Doctors Resign in Protest of Radiology Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Missoula, Montana's largest group of neurosurgeons and a
prominent group of general surgeons dropped their contracts with
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana in protest of the health
insurance giant's class action against Missoula radiologists,
the Casper Star Tribune reports.

Blue Cross, four Missoula-area employers and five individuals
filed the suit against Missoula Radiology, after a drawn-out
dispute with 12 radiologists over reimbursement rates that led
to the group's departure from the Blue Cross network in June
2003.  The suit charges the group with "predatory monopoly."

The suit alleges that because the radiologists have exclusive
contracts with both Missoula hospitals and are half-owners of
the only outpatient radiology clinic in Missoula, Advanced
Imaging, Blue Cross members in the area have paid $1.3 million
in out-of-pocket costs that they wouldn't owe if the
radiologists were in Blue Cross' network.  Patients can't go to
another radiology practice because there isn't one in Missoula.

In response to the suit, the seven-member Missoula Neurological
Associates mailed its resignation letter to Blue Cross on
Monday.  Missoula neurosurgeon Nick Chandler told the Star
Tribune that the lawsuit is an arrogant attempt to bully the
radiologists into becoming part of Blue Cross' network.

"As a neurosurgeon, I think their fees are very much in keeping
with the Montana marketplace and are fair and reasonable," he
said.  "My practice resigned because they show a complete lack
of respect for the providers, and we are so appalled by this
that we don't want to be associated with them in a business
relationship."

Dr. Chandler added that the lawsuit also sets a dangerous
precedent in insurance company-health care provider
negotiations.  Should Blue Cross prevail, he said, the stage is
set for doctor-network relationships to boil down to one
sentence: If you won't be our customer, we'll sue you.

"If they can sue you to force you to participate, we've lost our
only protection against managed care organizations," Dr.
Chandler told the Star Tribune.  "If they prevail, then
basically all the providers in the state have lost their only
protection in managed care contracts."

Surgeon Louis Kattine's six-surgeon group also resigned from
Blue Cross, after 11 years of being with the insurer, in support
of Missoula's radiologists and in opposition to the idea that
physicians can be sued to be forced to join an insurance
network, he said.

"This is a new low as far as tactics," Dr. Kattine, president of
the practice, told the Star Tribune.  "I and the rest of the
members of the group feel that they are not an organization that
wants to work with physicians . If they're not willing to meet
physicians halfway, well, how can we work with them? If they
want to say, 'Be a provider or else,' then we'd rather not be a
provider."

The resignations are of concern, but they misunderstand the
purpose of the lawsuit, Blue Cross vice president of government
affairs Tanya Ask and provider network administrator Paul
Pedersen told the Star Tribune in a phone interview from Blue
Cross' Helena office.

The suit asks the court to break up the radiologists' practice
because it's the only one in Missoula and so is a monopoly that
causes higher prices for patients, Mr. Pedersen said.  "The suit
isn't about participation," he said.  "It's about tying up the
marketplace . It's all about the dissolution of a monopoly .
It's not about par (participation) or non-par. We respect the
business decisions a provider group makes. It's the conduct
within the marketplace that we can't condone."

The company has also had a lengthy dispute with Missoula's
anesthesiology group, which will not sign on with Blue Cross
because of its contract, but the anesthesiologists are not named
in the suit, the Star Tribune reports.

Dirk Visser, CEO of Allegiance Benefit Plan Management, a
Missoula firm that manages self-insurance plans for employers,
calls Blue Cross' action against the radiologists "outrageous,"
the Star Tribune reports.

"It's strictly a bully tactic to bring the radiologists to their
knees," he said. "I hope the radiologists can stand . No. 1,
what gives anybody in the United States of America the right to
dictate the price they pay for goods and services? . We have
said the marketplace does this . Where does it stop? Are they
next going to sue the physical therapists? The
anesthesiologists? The pharmacists? Where does it stop?"

Blue Cross executives insist that legal action is not their new
way of doing business.  The radiologists' problem is different
from average providers' in that they have a monopoly in
Missoula.

"We've had a number of physicians who have been non-par for
years," Ms. Ask told the Star Tribune. "The issue is physicians
getting together and tying up a marketplace, not just not
participating."

Blue Cross will visit with the canceling groups and try to
dissuade them, Ms. Ask and Mr. Pedersen said.  Non-participation
hurts the insured person because the insurance company
reimburses less to out-of-network providers than in-network
providers. That leaves insured people a larger balance to pay.


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: Recalls Cochlear Implants Due To Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Boston Scientific Corporation (NYSE: BSX) announced that its
subsidiary, Advanced Bionics Corporation of Sylmar, California,
is voluntarily recalling worldwide all unimplanted CLARIONr and
HiResolutionr cochlear implants. Boston Scientific acquired
Advanced Bionics in June. The recall does not affect patients
who have already received a cochlear implant. The Company is
recalling the devices due to the potential presence of moisture
in the internal circuitry, which can cause the device to stop
functioning. The Company is not aware of any patient injuries
resulting from the potential presence of moisture, but the
malfunction may require replacement of the device. The total
number of devices shipped but not implanted is estimated to be
440. The Company is working with the U. S. Food and Drug
Administration and is notifying officials in other countries.

The recalled devices include all unimplanted CLARION and
HiResolution models. The Company initiated the recall after a
review of internal complaint records and analysis of returned
product revealed the potential problem.

The signs and symptoms that a cochlear implant might be starting
to fail include: a sudden sensation of discomfort or pain, a
sudden loud noise or popping sound, an intermittent functioning,
a complete loss of sound, and in a child, unwillingness to wear
the external headpiece. If a user experiences any of these, he
or she should try the backup cable, external headpiece, and then
the sound processor. If signs or symptoms persist, the external
headpiece should be removed and the user should contact his or
her hearing care provider. Hearing clinics have a simple and
quick way to test whether a cochlear implant is fully
functional.

The products were distributed to hospitals and cochlear implant
centers worldwide. Advanced Bionics is notifying the recipients
via telephone, facsimile and mail.

Advanced Bionics is also sending letters to physicians and
patients who are using these devices. In the United States,
cochlear implant users have cards that identify the make and
model of their device.

Clinician and patient inquiries may be directed to Advanced
Bionics at 1-877-454-5038, between the hours of 5 AM and 5 PM
Pacific Time, Monday through Friday.

Cochlear implants are devices used to treat the profoundly deaf.
The technology consists of an external sound processor, which
captures and processes sound information from the environment
and transmits the digital information through the skin to the
implant. The implant delivers digital pulses of electrical
current to precise locations on the auditory nerve, which the
brain perceives as sound.

Advanced Bionics generated revenues of $56 million in 2003.

Boston Scientific is a worldwide developer, manufacturer and
marketer of medical devices whose products are used in a broad
range of interventional medical specialties. For more
information, please visit: http://www.bostonscientific.com


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Rejects Lawsuit Over Lead in Water
--------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. ruled that the city
government has no direct power over daily operations of the D.C.
Water and Sewer Authority (WASA), which provide the city's
water, the Washington Times reports.

In a 24-page opinion filed on August 31, the judge further ruled
that the D.C. government should not be held accountable for high
the levels of lead in the city's tap water or for delays in
notifying tens of thousands of city residents about the
contamination.

The ruling was in response to a class-action suit filed in March
by several Capitol Hill residents, who claim that the WASA and
D.C. officials failed to protect residents against dangerous
levels of lead in the water supply.

In his ruling the judge pointed out that WASA is a separate
entity from the District and was solely responsible for the
actions and due to their status of being independent entities
the District cannot be sued for acts for which it was not
responsible.

Judge Kennedy also wrote in his ruling that "The mayor's ability
to appoint WASA's board members and the mayor and D.C. Council's
ability to review and make recommendations concerning WASA's
budget simply do not mean that the District controls WASA's
finances or that the District can be sued." This according to
the judge was his basis for ruling against the Plaintiffs.

Furthermore, Judge Kennedy pointed out that the plaintiffs also
failed to offer any evidence that the District was required to
disclose information about lead contamination. He said WASA, not
the District, was charged with complying with federal guidelines
for notifying residents about lead contamination.

Earlier this year WASA drew the ire of D.C. residents after they
learned about tests that found widespread lead contamination in
the city's tap water.

Immediately after learning of the report, the Paul, Hastings,
Janofsky & Walker LLP law firm sued on behalf of Capitol Hill
residents Amy Harding-Wright and Ellen Shaw and Hill East Inc.,
a community activist group, saying agency officials knew about
possible lead contamination as far back as summer 2001. The
lawsuit also accused the D.C. government of failing to inform
residents about the problem.


ELECTRO SCIENTIFIC: SEC Lodges Fraud Suit V. Ex-CEO, Controller
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed financial fraud
charges against James T. Dooley, who served as Chief Financial
Officer and Chief Operating Officer and then Chief Executive
Officer of Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. (ESI), and James
E. Lorenz, III, the company's former Corporate Controller. The
Commission alleges that Dooley and Lorenz engaged in a scheme to
falsely inflate ESI's declining financial results by covering up
significant expenses through various accounting devices. The
accounting fraud caused ESI to issue press releases and file
quarterly reports with the Commission containing materially
false financial statements. After the fraud was discovered,
ESI's net income for the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2002, was
restated from $158,000 to a net loss of $3,394,000, and ESI's
net loss for the quarter ended Nov. 30, 2002, was restated from
$9,548,000 to $12,908,000. The Commission's complaint alleges
that Dooley and Lorenz violated or aided and abetted violations
of the antifraud, internal controls, and books-and-records
provisions of the federal securities laws. The complaint also
charges that Dooley and Lorenz lied to ESI's outside auditors
and that Dooley falsely certified that ESI's Commission filings
were truthful. The complaint seeks an injunction, civil monetary
penalties, disgorgement, and an order barring Dooley and Lorenz
from serving as an officer or director of a public company.

In a separate settled enforcement action, the Commission charged
that John E. Isselmann, Jr., ESI's former General Counsel,
failed to provide important information to ESI's Audit
Committee, Board, and auditors regarding the key accounting
transaction that enabled ESI to report a profit rather than a
loss in the quarter ended Aug. 31, 2002. The Commission's
lawsuit against Isselmann alleges that he omitted to state
necessary material facts to ESI's auditors. Under the
settlement, Mr. Isselmann agreed to pay a $50,000 civil penalty
and consented to an injunction against similar securities law
violations.  The actions are titled, SEC v. James T. Dooley and
James E. Lorenz, III, Case No. CV 04-1352 HA (D. Ore.) and SEC
v. John E. Isselmann, Jr., Case No. CV 04-1350 MO (D. Ore.) (LR-
18896; AAE Rel. 2109).


FANNIE MAE: Shareholders Launch Lawsuits Over Securities Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mortgage company Fannie Mae and its top executives including
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Franklin Raines face a rash
of securities class actions, for billions of dollars in stock
loses stemming from the Company's faulty accounting, Reuters
reports.

Four class action were filed in federal courts, after The Office
of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) issued a report
saying that the mortgage giant had serious accounting problems
which could cast doubt on the Company's past earnings reports
and even its financial soundness.

The OFHEO regulators' report was issued after an eight-month
investigation.  The report also raised the possibility of
deliberate accounting maneuvers designed to bring bigger bonuses
to executives.

The report states that the Company violated generally accepted
accounting principles (GAAP) in its computations for
transactions involving derivatives, financial instruments that
it uses to hedge against interest-rate and other risk.   The
company allegedly also used an improper "cookie jar" reserve in
accounting for some items, a practice which, according to the
SEC, gives an inaccurate picture of a company's financial
performance, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (September
27,2004) reports.

The suits allege that the Company misrepresented its financial
results by manipulating accounting so the company appeared as a
low-risk, steadily growing company to investors.

"The Company issued numerous other false and misleading
statements and presented the public with materially false and
misleading financial statements that created the illusion that
Fannie Mae was a safe and steady earner and largely immune to
interest rate fluctuations," said Milberg Weiss Bershad &
Shulman LLP in a statement.  The prominent firm filed its suit
on Friday on behalf of Fannie Mae shareholders in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia.

However, it would take time for these suits to work their way
through the courts, Arthur Hellman, a professor at the
University of Pittsburg School of Law in a telephone interview,
told Reuters.  First, the court would select a lead plaintiff.
Also, if Fannie Mae files a motion to dismiss the suits, which
Mr. Hellman expects that it would do, the plaintiffs'
examination of the company's records would stop.  "So I assume
that nothing is going to happen (in these lawsuits)
immediately," he said.

Fannie Mae spokeswoman Janice Daue would not comment on the
suits, Reuters reports.


FRITO-LAY: Recalls Queso Dip Due To Microorganism Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frito-Lay announced the voluntary recall of Tostitos Monterey
Jack Queso Dip due to the potential for the product to be
underprocessed. While no illnesses have been reported, there is
a possibility that the product could be contaminated with
harmful microorganisms. The company is now retrieving the
product from its distribution system and store shelves.

The recall extends to only Tostitos Monterey Jack Queso Dip
distributed nationally. This is a white cheese dip in a 15 ¬-
ounce glass jar with a blue label. The specific jars have a
freshness date of April 8, 2005 through June 16, 2005, which is
printed on the shoulder of the jar below the lid. Product within
these time codes should not be eaten even if it does not look or
smell spoiled.

No other Tostitos dip and salsa products are affected. Tostitos
Tortilla Chips are not affected.

The company has notified the Food and Drug Administration of its
voluntary action and is in the process of identifying and
correcting the cause of the potential underprocessing.

Consumers with this product should return it for a full refund
to the retail outlet where it was purchased. Consumers who want
more information may call Frito-Lay Consumer Affairs,
1-800-352-4477.


ISRAEL: Car Importers Forge Settlement Of Owners' Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several Israeli car importers agreed to settle seven class
actions filed on behalf of car buyers, over the importers
restrictive trade practices, Haaretz News reports.  The
companies included in the suit are:

     (1) Delek Motors (importers of Mazda and Ford),

     (2) Middle East Car Agency (Fiat),

     (3) Universal Motors Israel (Chevrolet),

     (4) Colmobil and Colmotor (Mercedes and Mitsubishi),

     (5) Machshirei T'nua (Suzuki) and

     (6) Telcar (Daihatsu)

The suits, filed on behalf of all those who bought new cars,
during the period 1995-2002, of the following makes: Mazda,
Suzuki, Fiat, Chevrolet, Daihatsu, Miutsubishi and Hyundai,
protested against the restriction imposed on all buyers of new
cars from the exclusive importers that the owner can only have
the vehicle serviced at or repaired by garages exclusively
approved by the importer.  These clauses were stipulated in the
purchase agreement, and failing to abide by the restriction
would absolve the owner of the vehicle's guarantee.

The suit charges that the clause was illegal and an act of a
cartel.  The suit further stated that it also imposed a
restrictive practice on the approved car mechanics, who could
only repair the vehicles with the parts imported exclusively via
the car importer.  The lawsuits claimed that the only difference
between the approved parts and alternatives - often from the
same manufacturer - was the importer's signature, Haaretz News
reports.

Under the settlement, around 410,000 car buyers will receive
benefits in kind worth up to NIS 620 million from the vehicle
importers, making this one of the largest settlements in
Israel's history.  The benefits will include a NIS 1,500
reduction on a new vehicle of the same make and model, or a 20-
25 percent reduction in repairs for the next year.  The
importers of these vehicles will offer the car owners the
reductions on all repairs in the company's approved dealers and
garages during the next year.  Alternatively, the owners may
chose the NIS 1,500 discount off a new purchase.


KRAFT FOODS: Recalls 1,000 Lunchables Snacks Due To Mislabeling
---------------------------------------------------------------
A Kraft Foods Global, Inc. establishment in Davenport, Iowa, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 1,000 packages of ham and
swiss cheese ready-to-eat complete meals (Lunchables) due to
mislabeling, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service announced.

According to the product label, a fruit roll is included in the
package.  Instead, the package contains a Butterfinger bar, a
snack made with peanuts, a common allergen.  The product being
recalled is 3.4 oz. and 6.75 fluid oz. packages of "Oscar Mayer
Lunchables Low Fat CRACKER STACKERS Ham and Swiss Cheese, Fruit
Roll, Capri Sun Fruit Punch."  Each package bears the use by
date and establishment number "15 NOV 2004 EB Est. 537C" and is
stamped with the packaging code "00 44700 2441."  The packages
were produced on August 17, 2004, and were sent to a
distribution center in Minnesota.

The problem was discovered by consumers, who notified the
company.  FSIS has received no reports of allergic reactions
associated with consumption of this product.

Media with questions about the recall should contact Company
Senior Director of Corporate Affairs, Kathy Knuth, at
1-847-646-2666.  Consumers with questions about the recalled
product may call the company's Consumer Response Group at
1-866-771-1511, or visit the Company's website:
http://www.kraft.com/specialreport/lunchables.

Consumers with other food safety questions can phone the toll-
free USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern
Time), Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


M&M FINANCIAL: Beaumont Attorney Lodges TX Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney Mitchell Toups filed a class-action lawsuit against
Mark Montana and his firm, M&M Financial Inc., as well as two
affiliated California businesses, alleging that their negligence
may have defrauded five clients of millions of dollars, the
Brazosport Facts reports.

The Beaumont attorney hopes to recover the millions his five
clients that include four Brazoria County residents and an
Austin woman, who invested in M&M, the satellite of a Houston
branch office of Crown Capital Securities Ltd.

Mr. Montana, who was a registered representative with Crown
Capital, an SEC-registered broker-dealer since August 2000 is
the subject of an SEC complaint over the funneling of as much as
$20 million from its clients into an illegal pyramid scheme. He
is currently jailed at the Brazoria County Detention Center
after a judge revoked his bond on September 17 in an unrelated
case of criminally negligent homicide.

Mr. Toups believes the negligence of Crown Capital and its
general partner, Delta Capital Holdings, allowed Mr. Montana to
bilk unwitting clients.

Filed in district court, the investors' lawsuit alleges Mr.
Montana used Crown's name on M&M's Web site and his business
letterhead to entice new clients to buy liquid securities. It is
seeking actual damages and unlimited punitive damages.

The lawsuit additionally alleges Crown and Delta failed to
properly audit and supervise Mr. Montana.

Mr. Toup expects that the class-action suit will expand to
include other clients who invested with M&M Financial.


NEWMONT MINING: Indonesian Unit Faces Mining Operations Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.T. Newmont Minahasa Raya (N.M.R.), Newmont Mining
Corporation's Indonesian subsidiary, faces a class action,
claiming $550 million in damages and reparation for alleged
environmental pollution in a gold mine in the Indonesian island
of Sulawesi, the Epoch Times reports.

The local people have accused the mine of leaking mercury and
arsenic into the water supply, causing widespread illness.  The
company denied the charges, saying the water was regularly
checked for mercury contamination and that the levels are well
within international standards.

"We consider the allegations are baseless, because our studies,
our monitoring data, shows that there is no pollution in Buyat
Bay as a result of our operations," said Kasan Mulyono, N.M.R.'s
spokesman, the Epoch Times reports.  "The water quality is good
and the fish are safe to eat, and there is no indication of
health problems from our environmental discharge."

Last week, five executives of the Company were detained in
Indonesia over the charges.  The five men, three Indonesians, an
American and an Australian, all worked for N.M.R.  N.M.R.
President Richard Ness was taken in for questioning by the
police in Jakarta on Friday.  He says his company did not use
mercury in the refining process, although illegal miners on a
neighboring river system do.  The United States Embassy in
Jakarta on Friday criticized the arrests, saying they are
inappropriate, given the company's pledge to cooperate with the
investigation, the Epoch Times reports.

The mine was a major employer in the area, but it closed at the
end of August, after exhausting the gold-bearing ore in the
area.  N.M.R., owned by the U.S.-based Newmont Mining
Corporation, is currently carrying out reclamation work on the
mine site.


PACIFIC GOLF: CA Judge Assess $5.9M Penalty For Bond Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Securities and Exchange Commission, U.S.
District Judge Cormac J. Carney in Los Angeles found a Southern
California real estate developer and its manager committed
securities fraud and ordered them to pay a total of $5.9 million
in penalties. The Court found that the developer, Pacific Golf
Community Development LLC (Pacific Golf), and its manager,
Manoucher Sarbaz, misled purchasers of municipal bonds used to
finance a portion of the planned Rancho Lucerne housing
development and golf course.

In a 24-page decision, Judge Carney found that Pacific Golf and
Sarbaz knew that land purchased with the bond proceed and
pledged as security for repayment was not worth $28,000 per acre
- the amount stated in documents offering the bonds to the
public. The Court found that various companies controlled by
Sarbaz acquired the land for an average price of $1,812 per
acre. The Court further found that Pacific Golf and
Sarbaz had no reasonable basis for their projections that they
could sell hundreds of lots within the development each year.
The Court observed that, to date, not a single lot had been sold
nor had the golf course been completed. The Court found that
more than $53 million in bonds were in default.

The Court entered a judgment ordering Pacific Golf to pay a
civil penalty of $4,900,000 and ordering Sarbaz to pay a civil
penalty of $980,000. The Court also issued an injunction that
ordered both parties to refrain from fraudulent activities in
the future.

A third defendant in the action, appraiser Lee Andrew Hill,
settled with the Commission prior to trial. As part of the
settlement, the Court ordered Hill to refrain from future
securities fraud.

The case against Pacific Golf and Sarbaz was the second action
brought by the Commission concerning municipal bonds sold for
the Rancho Lucerne development. In December 2000, the Commission
sued the an investment banker, David Fitzgerald, and the
underwriter of the Rancho Lucerne bond offerings, Pacific
Genesis Group, for misrepresentations to investors purchasing
the bonds. Judge Charles Breyer found the defendants liable and
ordered Fitzgerald and the firm to refund the proceeds of a $13
million bond offering. Later, the Court entered judgments
against Fitzgerald and Pacific Genesis pursuant to settlements.

In the case against Pacific Golf and Sarbaz, the Court found
violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933,
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5. The action is titled, SEC v. Manoucher Sarbaz, et al.
Case No. CV 03-881 CJC (C.D. Cal.)] (LR-18898).


PRIME HOSPITALITY: Enters Into MOU To Settle BREP IV Acquisition
----------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Hospitality Corporation and the other defendants entered
into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) to settle the purported
class action litigation brought in connection with the Company's
acquisition by BREP IV Hotels Holding L.L.C., an affiliate of
The Blackstone Group ("Blackstone"). The litigation was brought
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, New Castle
County, against the Company, the Company's directors and
Blackstone.

The settlement will not affect the amount of merger
consideration to be paid in the merger or any other terms of the
merger.

In connection with the settlement, the Company has agreed to
make certain additional disclosures to its stockholders, which
will be included in a proxy statement supplement that will be
mailed to stockholders of the Company. Subject to the completion
of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the plaintiffs,
the memorandum of understanding contemplates that the parties
will enter into a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement
will be subject to customary conditions including court approval
following notice to the stockholders of the Company and
consummation of the merger. In the event that the parties enter
into a settlement agreement, a hearing will be scheduled at
which the court will consider the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the settlement which, if finally approved by the
court, will resolve all of the claims that were or could have
been brought in the actions being settled, including all claims
relating to the merger, the merger agreement and any disclosure
made in connection therewith.


ROYAL MACCABEES: Judge Approves $1.75M Overcharging Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Boston gave preliminary approval to a $1.75
million settlement in a class action lawsuit against Royal
Maccabees Life Insurance Company, now known as Reassure America
Life Insurance Company.

The suit alleged that Royal Maccabees had overcharged employers
who had purchased group insurance for their employees between
1992 and 1998. Employers will be entitled to refunds from the
Settlement Fund after the Court grants final approval to the
settlement, which is expected in early 2005. The overcharges
occurred when an employee turned the age of 65, which triggered
a reduction in the life insurance and disability benefits
available to such an employee.

"This is a victory for many small businesses who were
unknowingly paying premiums for insurance which was not in
effect," said Fredric L. Ellis, lead counsel for the class. "The
settlement sends a message that insurance companies have a duty
to be fair and honest in their dealings with policyholders."

For more details, contact Attorney Fredric L. Ellis by Phone:
(617) 523-4800


SECURITY LIFE: Agrees To Settle Lawsuit Over Inflated Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------------
Security Life of Denver Insurance Co. reached a$26.4 million
settlement of a class action filed on behalf of 191
policyholders in 34 states, charging the Company with inflating
their premiums, the Associated Press reports.

In September, the family of the late Virginia mining company
magnate Gene Dixon Jr. filed the class action that was later
joined by other policyholders.  They accused the company not
only of overcharging on premiums but of covering up the
practice.

Under the settlement, each policyholder will receive about
$138,000 in awards, if shared evenly.  The Company also agreed
to pay $7.5 million in legal fees, pending approval by
policyholders and the court.  The company did not admit to any
wrongdoing.  Attorneys for both sides confirmed the agreement
but said they could offer little comment, AP reports.

"The parties agree that all aspects of the settlement are fair
and reasonable to the policyholders and to Security Life," said
Richard Podoll, a lawyer representing the policyholders,
according to AP.


STATION CASINOS: Reaches Settlement For Hotel Surcharges Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Station Casinos forged a proposed settlement for the consumer
class action filed against it over its hidden surcharges for
electricity and resort fees, the Quad-City Times reports.  The
suit alleges that the extra fees were not fair because customers
were not told about them in advance.

Under the settlement, the hotel chain would give $5.50 in
coupons good for room discounts to 940,000 eligible former
guests who stayed in the hotels between April 1, 2001, and April
4, 2004.

"When people are given a room rate, it should include all
mandatory charges," Los Angeles attorney Mitch Kalcheim, whose
firm initiated the action, told the Quad-City Times.  Station
Casinos had no comment.

Mr. Kalcheim, whose firm stands to reap $550,000 if the
settlement is approved, has filed similar surcharge lawsuits
against the Stardust, Tropicana and Circus-Circus hotels in Las
Vegas, the Quad-City Times reports.  Other law firms have
launched similar suits against several hotel chains, namely:

     (1) Starwood - with brands such as Westin and Sheraton,
         Starwood has settled one energy surcharge lawsuit and
         has two resort fee lawsuits pending, spokeswoman K.C.
         Kavanagh says;

     (2) Hilton - The chain offered coupons to settle an energy
         surcharge case.  "We thought we did notify people,"
         Hilton spokeswoman Kathy Shepard told the Quad-City
         Times.  "We had signs on the reservations desk. We told
         them online.  But there's always somebody who didn't
         get informed."

     (3) Wyndham - Not enough customers took advantage of the
         $15 coupons offered by Wyndham as part of its 2002
         settlement over energy surcharges. The rest of the $1.5
         million set-aside will be donated to charity,
         spokeswoman Darcie Brossart says. Some Wyndhams still
         have resort fees.

State attorneys general, in some cases, have taken action.  On
Friday, Missouri received a $50,000 check from Marriott from a
settlement on energy surcharges, the Quad-City Times reports.


TENNESSEE: Suit Seeks Injunction V. Driving Certificates Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
An attorney for the plaintiffs in a federal class action filed
against the state of Tennessee over its new "certificate of
driving" program, asked United States District Court Judge Todd
J. Campbell, to halt the program saying it was unconstitutional,
the Williamson County Review Appeal reports.

Lawyer Jerry Gonzalez asked the court to issue a preliminary
injunction against the program.  He asserted that the cards
issued in the program - which is for people who pass the state's
driving test, but can't prove U.S. citizenship - is
unconstitutional.  He further alleged that the state is using
the crutch of homeland security to enforce a discriminatory
program.

The suit alleges that residents were not only turned down for a
license, some of them had their identification documents
confiscated and were belittled by clerks at license testing
stations.

Plaintiff Geraldin Gurdian presented her Nicaraguan passport,
Florida driver's license and permanent resident card to a
Tennessee Department of Safety clerk at a driver's testing
station.  The clerk allegedly told her she was going to keep the
documents.  When Ms. Gurdian asked for a telephone number so she
could retrieve her documents, the clerk laughed and said "you
don't even know English," and "honey, they will contact you,"
the Review Appeal reports.

The suit alleges that confiscation of documents is a common
practice that violates a person's Fourth Amendment rights
against unreasonable search and seizure.

"The government thinks it can run a flag up the pole, call it
homeland security and everybody will bow down and nobody will
know what they're doing," Mr. Gonzalez told the judge Thursday.

The purple card includes the traditional driver's photo with a
label that reads, "Certificate of Driving - For Driving Purposes
Only, Not Valid for Identification."  Mr. Gonzalez said the
"driving only" phrasing is like a red flag to businesses like
insurance and rental car companies - four of which he knows
won't accept the card.  "Because the card says for driving only,
they're automatically limited," he said, according to the Review
Appeal.

Mr. Gonzalez is also asking that people who already have their
driving certificates should be allowed to reapply and be
eligible for a license.  Others applying for a license should be
allowed to choose.

The state has asked the court to dismiss the suit and a ruling
is expected by next week.  The suit is styled "Lulac, et al. vs.
Bredesen, et. al., No. 3-04-0613."


UNITED STATES: More non-US Companies Facing Securities Suits
------------------------------------------------------------
A record number of non-US companies faces securities class
actions this year, according to a PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC)
study published on Monday, the Financial Times reports.  The
study follows reports that foreign companies have started to
revise plans to list shares on Wall Street or consider delisting
their shares due to increased regulatory burden.

According to the study, 21 cases have been filed this year, and
PwC forecasts that by the end of the year the previous high of
23 in 2002 will be exceeded.  15 class actions were filed last
year.  The study further discovered that more than 65 per cent
of the cases filed against foreign companies were related to
accounting issues.

According to Grace Lamont, the PwC partner who headed the study,
the report doesn't necessarily mean any "particular hostility
towards European or non-US companies."  She attributed the rise
to just the "general environment."  She said, "This reiterates
the cost of compliance in the US and increased risk areas."

She told the Financial Times that the implications of reporting
on internal controls as mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and
the shift towards International Financial Reporting Standards in
Europe could open up other areas of vulnerability for companies.
However, she added that there was no evidence of an increased
number of voluntary delistings and deregistrations with the
Securities and Exchange Commission by non-US companies.

In the past, companies such as Porsche of Germany, Japan's Fuji
Film and Daiwa Securities have cited increased regulatory
burdens in the wake of Sarbanes-Oxley as a main reason for
withdrawing plans to list shares in the US, FT.com reports.

While most of last year's lawsuits targeted the high-technology
and banking sectors, this year's actions are spread across a
variety of sectors. The companies involved include Royal
Dutch/Shell, Nortel Networks, Nokia, Adecco and Parmalat.

PwC said that the increased familiarity of law firms with the
issues faced by foreign companies as well as increased co-
operation between U.S. regulators and their counterparts abroad
were the main factors behind increased legal action against non-
U.S. companies.  It noted that US-style class action lawsuits
were being exported to Europe and other parts of the world,
FT.com reports.


UNITED STATES: Black Farmers Urge Settlement Hearing Expansion
--------------------------------------------------------------
A black farmers' organization urged Congress to expand an
upcoming hearing on a federal racial discrimination settlement
to include top officials of the United States Department of
Agriculture and the Bush administration, the Sun Herald reports.

In 1999, the USDA agreed to settle for $2.3 billion a class
action filed by black farmers who were allegedly shut out of
federal farm programs.  To file a claim, farmers had to prove
they applied for a USDA loan between 1981 and 1996 and were
rejected because of racial discrimination.

The Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association Inc., based
in Covington, Tennessee, seeks to overturn the settlement or
have it modified, due to its alleged flaws.  Thomas Burrell, the
group's president, urged farmers to demand more than $50,000
each - and for those whose claims were rejected by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture to consider re-filing, the Sun Herald
states.

"The problem is, this lawsuit is not being managed by folks like
us," Mr. Burrell told the audience in a seminar held Saturday in
Jackson, Mississippi.

Mr. Burrell said the hearing does not include Agriculture
Secretary Ann Veneman and others in the Bush administration who
should be asked questions.  The group meeting in Jackson signed
a petition calling on the committee to call Veneman and others
to Tuesday's meeting.

Earlier this week, various black farm groups nationwide formed a
coalition to pursue claims that the government discriminates
against them in loans and farm programs.  The new group, the
Congress of Black Farmer Organizations, contends the Agriculture
Department has continued discriminatory practices and failed to
live up to a sweeping civil rights case settled five years ago.
In addition to the National Black Farmers Association, the new
black coalition includes the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists
Association, the Federation of Southern Cooperatives and the
Arkansas Land Development Fund, the Sun Herald reports.

The move comes just as the House Judiciary Committee prepares to
hear testimony on the alleged failure of the earlier consent
decree.  It also comes less than two weeks after the filing of a
new class action lawsuit that revived many of the same issues.

The Agriculture Department has steadfastly asserted that its
record on civil rights laws has been exemplary during President
George W. Bush's administration.  It cited numerous initiatives
it has undertaken to give black farmers a greater voice in the
agencies organizational structure and its efforts to funnel more
business to minority farmers.


UNITED STATES: NHTSA Stalls Plan To Share Info on Vehicle Deaths
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
deferring a plan to reveal information on vehicle-related deaths
and injuries to the public, pending a court ruling on exactly
what data should be disclosed, the Associated Press reports.

Following the 2000 recall of Firestone tires, Congress demanded
a system that requires automakers and others to submit data on
deaths, injuries, consumer complaints, property damage and
warranty claims.  This spring, the NHTSA announced that it would
complete its early warning system by October 1.  Later, the
NHTSA agreed to keep warranty claims and consumer complaints
confidential after automakers said releasing that data could
harm competition.

In March, the consumer group Public Citizen sued for access to
the information.  The Rubber Manufacturers Association then
asked to intervene in the suit, on behalf of tire makers,
seeking to keep information on deaths, injuries and property
damage confidential.  The court agreed and ordered the U.S.
Department of Transportation to respond to the Rubber
Manufacturers' claims by September 28.

NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson said Friday the agency decided to wait
until the courts decide what information should be public.
"We're caught in the middle because we've got lawsuits that are
180 degrees from each other," Mr. Tyson said, according to AP.
Mr. Tyson also said NHTSA is collecting the data and that the
system led to a recall of 490,000 Bridgestone/Firestone tires
earlier this year.

"The information is in the hands of the people it was intended
for, which is this agency and the defect investigators who are
responsible for identifying and seeking remedies for defects as
soon as possible," he added.

Sally Greenberg, senior product safety counsel for Consumers
Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, said NHTSA is going too
far.  "I think it's hard to understand why the government is
holding back information," she said, according to AP.  "The
spirit of the (law) was really to get information out there so
that both the government and individuals can have access to
safety information to keep them safer."


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

CERIDIAN CORPORATION: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Stock Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of all persons
who purchased or acquired Ceridian Corp. (NYSE: CEN) ("Ceridian"
or the "Company") securities (the "Class") between April 17,
2003 and July 19, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Plaintiff alleges that during the Class Period defendants
artificially inflated the price of Ceridian stock by issuing
financial statements that were materially false and misleading
for the following reasons:

     (1) the Company had been capitalizing software costs
         instead of expensing such costs at its U.S. Human
         Resource Solutions business;

     (2) as a result of inappropriately capitalizing costs,
         Ceridian's reported earnings and assets were
         artificially inflated;

     (3) contrary to defendants' express representations, the
         Company's reported financial statements were not made
         in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles and did not fairly present the Company's
         results and financial condition; and

     (4) the Company's seeming success was, in fact,
         attributable in material part to defendants' accounting
         manipulations.

On July 19, 2004, Ceridian issued a press release announcing
that it had launched an internal investigation examining the
Company's capitalization and expensing of costs. According to
the press release, the Company would not issue financial results
until the review was completed, noting that the outcome may
impact Ceridian's financial statements for the second quarter of
2004 and prior periods. Ceridian's stock price declined sharply
in response to this disclosure, falling from $20.34 per share on
July 19, 2004 to $18.21 per share on July 20, 2004, a one day
drop of 10.4%, on unusually heavy trading volume of over 6.8
million shares. During the Class Period, defendants Eickhoff,
the Company's CFO, sold a total of 165,298 shares of Ceridian
common stock for proceeds of $2,961,607, while defendant Turner,
the Company's CEO, sold 51,000 shares for proceeds of
$1,014,560.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: CEN@bernlieb.com


COMMUNITY BANCORP: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York on behalf of all those who
purchased publicly traded securities of New York Community
Bancorp Inc. (NYSE: NYB) ("NYB" or the "Company") between June
27, 2003 and May 9, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges NYB, Joseph R. Ficalora, and Michael P.
Puorro with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. NYB serves as the holding company for New York
Community Bank ("the Bank"). The Bank's principal business
consists of accepting retail deposits from the general public in
the areas surrounding its branch offices and investing those
deposits, together with funds generated from operations and
borrowings, into multi-family, commercial real estate, and
construction loans. More specifically, the complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that defendants manipulated the Company's financial
         results in order to appear more attractive for
         potential merger deals;

     (2) that this was accomplished through leveraged growth
         funded by short-term funding;

     (3) the Company's projections about growth and interest
         rate sensitivity were lacking in any reasonable basis
         when made; and

     (4) that the Company's financial results were materially
         inflated at all relevant times.

On Sunday, May 9, 2004, NYB announced that its Board of
Directors had authorized the Company's management team to engage
Bear Stearns & Co., Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and
Sandler O'Neill & Partners, L.P. to assist the Company in
undertaking a review of its strategic alternatives, including
remaining independent. Commenting on the announcement, defendant
Ficalora stated: "We have always been a company that has focused
on shareholder value, and this review is consistent with that
focus." News of the engagement of Bear Stearns & Co., Inc.,
Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., and Sandler O'Neill & Partners,
L.P. shocked the market. For months, and in numerous interviews,
filings, and press releases, defendant Ficalora maintained that,
given the nature of the Company's business, assets, and
liabilities, NYB would not only do better than its rivals in its
sector, but even thrive in an environment of rising interest
rates. Furthermore, Ficalora stated that NYB's predictions were
based on lower interest rates, and that an interest rate
increase would be good for the company. However, the sudden
engagement of three financial firms to "review strategic
alternatives" was the market's and investors' first indication
that NYB's strategy may not be working as planned or advertised.

Following NYB's announcement, in intra-day trading on Monday,
May 10, 2004, NYB dropped over $2.53 per share from its previous
close, on May 7, 2004, of $24.13 per share, or 10.5%, to close
at a low of $21.60 per share. At the close of trading, NYB had
fallen $1.33 per share, or 5.5%, to close at $21.80 per share on
volume of 9 million shares -- nearly three times its usual
volume.

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


CP SHIPS: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of CP Ships, Ltd. (NYSE:TEU) ("CP Ships" or the
"Company") between January 29, 2003, and August 9, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Florida.

The Complaint charges CP Ships, certain executive officers of CP
Ships, and the Company's auditor during the relevant period,
PricewaterhouseCoopers L.L.P. with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Among other things, the Complaint alleges
that defendants' material omissions and the dissemination of
materially false and misleading statements concerning CP Ships'
financial results caused CP Ships' stock price to become
artificially inflated, inflicting damages on investors. CP Ships
is a container shipping company that provides international and
inland transportation services for a range of industrial and
consumer containerized cargo.

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

     (1) CP Ships overstated its net income figures for 2002,
         2003, and the first quarter of 2004;

     (2) the Company understated its costs in the affected
         periods;

     (3) the Company's financial results for the affected
         periods were in violation of Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and the Company's own
         accounting interpretations; and

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

The Complaint also alleges that as a result of the defendants'
inflation of CP Ships' financial results, the Company was able
to complete a convertible note offering that generated $200
million in net proceeds for the Company, and obtain a new $225
million credit facility.

On August 9, 2004, CP Ships announced it would postpone the
reporting of its second quarter 2004 results, and that it would
restate its results for 2002, 2003 and the first quarter of 2004
to reduce net income for those periods by a total of $41
million. The Company further revealed on August 9 that its
decision to restate its financial results was due to a change in
the Company's accounting system, which caused the Company to
conclude its previous accounting was deficient and that items on
its previous balance sheets could no longer be supported. After
these announcements, CP Ships' stock price dropped by more than
$3.70 per share, or 22 percent, on the New York Stock Exchange,
on heavy trading volume of more than 5 million shares. CP Ships'
stock price also dropped by more than 21 percent on the Toronto
Stock Exchange, on which the stock is also traded.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com


FANNIE MAE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Fannie Mae,
f/n/a Federal National Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (NYSE:FNM)
between January 13, 2000 and September 22, 2004, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia against defendant Fannie Mae and one or
more of its officers and/or directors. 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.

The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


FANNIE MAE: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the securities of the Federal
National Mortgage Association (NYSE:FNM) ("Fannie Mae") between
October 11, 2000 and September 22, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), in the United States District Court for the District
of Columbia.

The Complaint charges Fannie Mae and certain executive officers
of Fannie Mae with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Among other things, the Complaint alleges that defendants'
material omissions and the dissemination of materially false and
misleading statements concerning Fannie Mae's financial results
caused Fannie Mae's stock price to become artificially inflated,
inflicting damages on investors. Fannie Mae is a
Congressionally-chartered corporation that provides financing
and conducts similar activities related to home mortgages and
expanding home ownership in the United States. It is the largest
source of home mortgage financing in the U.S.

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

     (1) that Fannie Mae applied accounting methods and
         practices that do not comply with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP") in accounting for the
         enterprise's derivatives transactions and hedging
         activities;

     (2) that Fannie Mae had materially understated its accrued
         cost-of-access liability by $50-$80 million;

     (3) that Fannie Mae used "cookie jar" accounting wherein it
         arbitrarily distributed current gains to subsequent
         quarters in a bid to keep its revenue and earning
         growth steady;

     (4) that Fannie Mae deferred expenses to achieve bonus
         compensation targets;

     (5) that Fannie Mae had insufficient and inadequate
         internal controls; and

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

On September 22, 2004, Fannie Mae, prior to the opening of the
market, issued a statement, revealing that over a year ago, the
Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight ("OFHEO") began a
special examination of Fannie Mae's accounting policies and
practices, and that the report of that examination -- delivered
to Fannie Mae on September 20, 2004 -- concluded that Fannie
Mae:

     (i) applied accounting methods and practices that do not
         comply with GAAP in accounting for the enterprise's
         derivatives transactions and hedging activities,

    (ii) employed an improper 'cookie jar' reserve in accounting
         for amortization of deferred price adjustments under
         GAAP,

   (iii) tolerated related internal control deficiencies,

    (iv) in at least one instance deferred expenses apparently
         to achieve bonus compensation targets, and

     (v) maintained a corporate culture that emphasized stable
         earnings at the expense of accurate financial
         disclosures.

Fannie Mae also disclosed that the Securities and Exchange
Commission has been conducting an informal inquiry that includes
issues raised in the OFHEO report.

In the wake of Fannie Mae's announcement, on September 22 shares
of Fannie Mae fell $4.96 per share, or 6.56 percent, to close at
$70.69 per share on unusually high trading volume. On September
23, shares of Fannie Mae fell an additional $3.54 per share, or
5.01 percent, to close at $67.15 per share.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Robert Smits
of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. by Mail: 1100 New
York Avenue, N.W., West Tower - Suite 500, Washington, D.C.
20005 by Phone: 888-240-0775 or 202-408-4600 or by E-mail:
stoll@cmht.com or rsmits@cmht.com


FANNIE MAE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP initiated a class action in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Federal National Mortgage Association ("Fannie Mae" or the
"Company") (NYSE:FNM) common stock during the period between
October 16, 2003 and September 22, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Fannie Mae and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Fannie Mae provides financing for home mortgages in the
United States. The Company was chartered by the United States
Congress to provide liquidity in the secondary mortgage market
to increase the availability and affordability of homeownership
for low-, moderate- and middle-income Americans. The complaint
alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued
materially false and misleading statements regarding Fannie
Mae's financial results and growth rates. Specifically, the
complaint alleges that the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements in an effort to separate themselves from
the scandal that occurred at the Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation ("Freddie Mac"), a similar, but smaller version of
its rival - Fannie Mae. In June 2003, Freddie Mac disclosed that
it had understated profits by some $4.5 billion for 2000-2002 in
an effort to smooth earnings and maintain its image on Wall
Street as a steady performer. The accounting crisis brought the
ouster of several top Freddie Mac executives, investigations by
the Justice Department and the SEC, and a record $125 million
fine in a settlement with the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight ("OFHEO"), the office that regulates both
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and is responsible for ensuring that
they are adequately capitalized and operating safely. Soon
thereafter, OFHEO initiated an eight-month investigation of
Fannie Mae's accounting practices in which the agency found a
pattern of manipulation aimed at smoothing out volatility in
profits from quarter to quarter similar to that which occurred
at rival Freddie Mac.

According to the complaint, the true facts which were known by
each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) that the Company employed accounting practices in
         violation of GAAP in order to maintain the appearance
         of stable earnings;

     (2) that the Company's officers, including the Individual
         Defendants, committed these violations in order to
         achieve performance bonuses;

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

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

Then, on September 22, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that OFHEO had finished their special examination of
Fannie Mae's accounting policies and practices that started
approximately a year ago, following the problems at Freddie Mac.
The OFHEO report described that Fannie Mae had engaged in
improper activities including, but not limited to, the
following:

     (i) applied accounting methods and practices that do not
         comply with GAAP in accounting for the enterprise's
         derivatives transactions and hedging activities;

    (ii) employed an improper 'cookie jar' reserve in accounting
         for amortization of deferred price adjustments under
         GAAP;

   (iii) tolerated related internal control deficiencies;

    (iv) in at least one instance deferred expenses apparently
         to achieve bonus compensation targets; and

     (v) maintained a corporate culture that emphasized stable
         earnings at the expense of accurate financial
         disclosures.

In addition, the OFHEO's report to the Board stated that "the
matters detailed in this report are serious and raise doubts
concerning the validity of previously reported financial
results, the adequacy of regulatory capital, the quality of
management supervision, and the overall safety and soundness of
the Enterprise."

In reaction to the news of the accounting improprieties, the
price of Fannie Mae stock dropped precipitously falling from
$75.65 per share on September 22, 2004, to as low as $66.50 per
share on September 23, 2004, on extremely heavy volume.

For more details, contact Samuel H. Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld
of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP by Phone:
800-449-4900 or by E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/fanniemae/


FANNIE MAE: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DC
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Fannie Mae, f.n.a. Federal National Home Loan Mortgage
Corporation ("Fannie Mae") (NYSE: FNM) between January 13, 2000
and September 22, 2004 (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

This complaint alleges a scandal of tremendous proportion,
involving billions of dollars, that combines the worst aspects
of Washington, D.C. politics and Wall Street financial and
accounting practices. Plaintiff seeks to recover damages, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, caused by
defendants' violations of federal securities laws and to pursue
remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of Columbia against defendants Fannie Mae, J.
Timothy Howard (Chief Financial Officer), Franklin D. Raines
(Chairman and Chief Executive Officer) and Daniel H. Mudd (Chief
Operating Officer).

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 January 13, 2000 and
September 22, 2004.

Fannie Mae is one of the biggest financial institutions in the
world, with $1 trillion in reported assets and $961 billion in
reported debt as of December 31, 2003. Both Fannie Mae and
Freddie Mac, its smaller rival, are shareholder-owned but
charted by the United States Congress for the purpose of
maintaining liquidity in the secondary mortgage market.

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants repeatedly presented Fannie Mae as a conservative,
stable and safe investment, and boasted of Fannie Mae's steady
quarter-over-quarter earnings increases, even in times of market
volatility. Defendants stated that, "Fannie Mae has a record of
growth and stability in earnings that few companies in any
industry can match. We have consistently shown ourselves to be
one of the strongest and most reliable financial institutions in
America." In 1998 the Company set itself a public goal of
doubling its earnings per share in the five years ending in 2003
and, throughout the class period, reported on its healthy
progress toward achievement of the goal. In July 2000, the
Company boasted of having achieved 50 consecutive quarters of
"record operating earnings per common share," and throughout the
Class Period, attributed its success, in part, to "proven risk
management capabilities." The Company issued numerous other
false and misleading statements and presented the public with
materially false and misleading financial statements that
created the illusion that Fannie Mae was a safe and steady
earner and largely immune to interest rate fluctuations and
other macro-economic factors that, in comparable institutions,
resulted in earnings volatility.

The truth emerged on September 22, 2004. On that date, Fannie
Mae released a statement that the Office of Federal Housing
Enterprise Oversight would release a report which stated in
relevant part that Fannie Mae:

     (1) applied accounting methods and practices that do not
         comply with GAAP in accounting for the enterprise's
         derivatives transactions and hedging activities;

     (2) employed an improper "cookie jar" reserve in accounting
         for amortization of deferred price adjustments under
         GAAP;

     (3) tolerated related internal control deficiencies;

     (4) in at least one instance deferred expenses apparently
         to achieve bonus compensation targets; and

     (5) maintained a corporate culture that emphasized stable
         earnings at the expense of accurate financial
         disclosures.

The report further stated that "the matters detailed in this
report are serious and raise doubts concerning the validity of
previously reported financial results, the adequacy of
regulatory capital, the quality of management supervision, and
the overall safety and soundness of the Enterprise."

After Fannie Mae released its statement, Fannie Mae shares,
which had opened at $74.18 that day, fell $4.18, or 5.6 percent,
to $70.00 and closed out the day at $70.69. After the close of
the market, the OFHEO issued its full 198-page report and,
subsequently, in a meeting with reporters, OFHEO officials
stated that the vast majority of Fannie Mae's $1 trillion
derivative portfolio was tainted, and that those hedge
relationships would likely get "unwound" if Fannie Mae restated
past earnings so that gains and losses that had previously been
recorded on Fannie Mae's balance sheet would be booked under
income. On release of the full OFHEO Report, Fannie Mae shares
fell another 5.9 percent to a low of $66.50 on September 23,
2004, for a two-day decline of $7.68, or 10.3 percent.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or 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 their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com


INTERACTIVECORP: Murray Frank Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action 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 IAC/InterActiveCorp (Nasdaq:IACI)
("IAC" and "the Company") between March 19, 2003 and August 4,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that IAC, an intermediary between
suppliers and consumers, which aggregates large blocks of
consumer goods and services (primarily travel-related products
such as hotel rooms and airline tickets) from suppliers and
sells them to consumers over the Internet, issued materially
false statements in connection with the acquisitions of Expedia,
Hotels.com and LearningTree.com, and with IAC's financial
reports and other statements. Specifically, in early 2003,
defendants began to artificially inflate the price of IAC's
common stock in order to decrease the amount of stock IAC would
ultimately have to issue to acquire all of the outstanding
shares of Expedia and Hotels.com, permitting IAC to use its
inflated stock as acquisition currency. Throughout the Class
Period, defendants also caused IAC to spend over $1.5 billion to
repurchase over 47 million shares of its own common stock to
further prop-up the Company's stock price.

On August 4, 2004, IAC disclosed in its Q2 2004 earnings release
that its net income fell 24% from the same quarter in 2003 and
that it was cutting its forecast for full-year operating
profits, admitting that it was being provided less airline seats
and hotel rooms to sell. On this news, the Company's stock price
dropped from its Class Period high of $42.74 per share on July
7, 2003 to close at $22.80 per share on August 4, 2004.

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


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Charles J. Piven Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Maxim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Maxim") (Nasdaq:MAXM) between November
11, 2002 and September 17, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California against defendant Maxim and one
or more of its officers and/or directors. 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.

The law offices of Charles J. Piven, P.A. by Mail: The World
Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt Street, Suite 2525,
Baltimore, MD 21202 by Phone: 410/986-0036 or by E-mail:
hoffman@pivenlaw.com


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges CA Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Nasdaq: MAXM)
("Maxim" or the "Company") from November 11, 2002 through
September 17, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Maxim, Larry G. Stambaugh, and Anthony E.
Altig with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the addition of Ceplene to IL-2 did not
         demonstrate an improvement in overall survival for
         patients with advanced malignant melanoma with liver
         metastases;

     (2) that the FDA had previously rejected the Company's
         application for Ceplene because a prior trial showed no
         evidence that the drug improved survival for skin
         cancer patients;

     (3) that despite knowing and/or recklessly disregarding the
         aforementioned facts, the defendants nevertheless
         portrayed to the market that Ceplene was a viable
         product that was approved by the FDA; and

     (4) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
         statements concerning Ceplene were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

On September 19, 2004, Maxim announced that its confirmatory
M104 Phase 3 trial of the investigational drug Ceplene in
combination with interleukin-2 for the treatment of advanced
malignant melanoma patients with liver metastases failed to
demonstrate an improvement in overall patient survival, the
primary endpoint. News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Maxim fell $2.90 per share, or 48.82 percent, to close at $3.04
per share, on September 20, 2004.

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


MAXIM PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in S.D. CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Maxim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:MAXM) common stock during the
period between November 11, 2002 and September 17, 2004.

The complaint charges Maxim and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Maxim is a global biopharmaceutical company focused on
developing and commercializing therapeutic products for life-
threatening cancers and chronic liver diseases.

The Company's leading drug candidate during the Class Period was
Ceplene, which Maxim claimed was designed to prevent or inhibit
oxidative stress, thereby overcoming immune suppression and
protecting critical immune cells. Maxim also claimed that
Ceplene, used in combination immunotherapy with cytokines, was
being tested as an investigational drug for a number of cancers,
including malignant melanoma.

In December of 2000, Ceplene was reviewed by the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration ("FDA") Oncology Drugs Advisory Committee
("ODAC") for approval as a treatment for malignant melanoma. The
ODAC recommended against approval, based on the failure of a
comprehensive multicenter randomized "MO1" Phase III study. In
January of 2001, the FDA issued Maxim a rejection letter for the
use of Ceplene as a treatment for malignant melanoma.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
artificially inflated the price of Maxim shares by issuing a
series of false and misleading statements about the utility of
Ceplene in the treatment of malignant melanoma.  Despite expert
review by the FDA and others of the dismal results of their
failed Phase III trial, defendants sought to convince investors
that Ceplene still held promise as a treatment for malignant
melanoma.

According to the complaint, the true facts which were known by
each of the defendants, but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) positive reports of survival rates and the status of
         malignant melanoma patients treated with Ceplene during
         the original MO1 Phase III study were rooted in a
         failed, fundamentally flawed and deficient trial and
         were therefore false and misleading in nature;

     (2) defendants' representation during the Class Period that
         "Maxim Pharmaceuticals Receives FDA Approval" was
         intended to convey to the investing public the false
         and misleading impression that Ceplene was safe,
         effective and approved for use in accordance with
         detailed instructions for dosage and administration for
         a marketed drug;

     (3) under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, it was illegal
         to publicly promote Ceplene as a safe and effective
         treatment for any type of disease, including malignant
         melanoma;

     (4) even though the Company represented to investors that
         the FDA "Approved" Ceplene, no new clinical data or
         information demonstrating that the drug was effective
         in the treatment of malignant melanoma had been
         provided to the agency since it rejected the drug in
         2001;

     (5) the later "confirmatory" Phase III study was in fact
         designed to refute key negative results in the MO1
         study as interpreted by panel experts at the ODAC in
         December of 2000 (results that explained why the drug
         did not work);

     (6) negative results were again the likely outcome of the
         later "confirmatory" Phase III study, while positive
         results would create controversy and alone could not
         support approval of the drug for the treatment of
         malignant melanoma; and

     (7) disclosure of the highly material negative results of
         the later trial were delayed, affording insiders with
         knowledge of the undisclosed material information an
         opportunity for trading in Company securities.

On September 19, 2004, defendants shocked the market by
announcing the resounding failure of Ceplene to demonstrate an
improvement in overall patient survival, the primary endpoint.
Based on this disclosure, the stock imploded, closing the next
trading day at $3.04, for a loss of $2.90 or 48.8% of its value,
on volume of over 17 million shares.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


NEKTAR THERAPEUTICS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Nektar Therapeutics (Nasdaq: NKTR) from March 4, 2004 through
August 4, 2004 inclusive.

The complaint alleges that defendants Nektar, Ajit Gill, J.
Milton Harris, and Robert B. Chess 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 March 5, 2004 and
August 4, 2004.

Nektar is a drug delivery products based company that provides a
portfolio of technologies that will enable it and its
pharmaceutical partners to improve drug performance throughout
the drug development process.  More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the defendants' statements were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that Aventis, one of its main partners in Exubera,
         prematurely filed an application for marketing approval
         of Exubera in the European Union with the European
         Medicines Agency for the sole purpose of fending off a
         takeover bid;

     (2) that the defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that Exubera was plagued by ongoing safety
         concerns, including decreases in lung function and
         build-up of antibodies that could potentially affect
         drug absorption;

     (3) that as a result of these safety concerns, the
         application for marketing approval of Exubera in the
         European Union was likely to be rejected; and

     (4) that despite knowing these facts, defendants approved
         of the filing because Nektar's revenues and growth
         prospectuses, which are largely based on royalties and
         manufacturing payments, are entirely dependent on the
         success of its partners, who are responsible for
         clinical development and marketing and because the
         Company was highly leveraged and needed the European
         Union filing in order to complete a $199.5 million
         offering.

On August 5, 2004, Reuters published an article entitled "EU
experts have concerns over Exubera drug-report." Citing a French
medical online news service, Reuters stated an unnamed source
heard that European regulatory officials wondered whether the
drug could win approval. The original story, from Agence de
Presse Medicale, also points to official notes from an April
meeting of British regulators that mentioned a certain unnamed
diabetes drug up for approval was being met with objections. It
is believed that drug is Exubera. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Nektar fell $6.14 per share or 37.01 percent
on August 5, 2004, to close at $10.45 per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


NETFLIX INC.: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in N.D. CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Northern District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of Netflix, Inc. (Nasdaq: NFLX) from October 1,
2003 through July 15, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Netflix, Reed Hastings and W. Barry
McCarthy Jr. with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that the Company's growth was adversely affected
         by substantial customer attrition;

     (2) that in order to camouflage the high rate of customer
         attrition, defendants manipulated the Company's churn
         rate; and

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants
         lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements
         about the Company's growth and progress.

On July 15, 2004, Netflix reported results for the second
quarter ended June 30, 2004. The press release disclosed the
true number of customer cancellations suffered by the Company.
Following the announcement, shares of Netflix fell $8.98 per
share or 28.06 percent, on July 16, 2004, to close at $23.02 per
share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


NETOPIA INC.: Marc Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Netopia, Inc.
(NASDAQ:NTPA) common stock during the period between November 5,
2003 and August 16, 2004.

The complaint charges Netopia and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Netopia develops, markets and supports broadband and
wireless products and services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Netopia's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that during the
Class Period, defendants knew, but concealed from the investing
public, the following material adverse facts:

     (1) the Company was experiencing weaker than claimed gross
         margins due to higher component costs (including
         shipping and surcharges);

     (2) the Company was actually experiencing decreases in
         average selling prices to its key carrier customers;

     (3) certain of the Company's top customers were declining
         to participate in the Company's roll out of its 802.11g
         launch;

     (4) the Company's receivables (and earnings) were
         overstated by virtue of the fact that the Company's
         clients were not even capable of paying for prior
         shipments;

     (5) the Company's largest customers were, early on,
         altering their purchasing mix, which defendants were
         keenly aware would result in dramatically lower average
         selling prices;

     (6) the Company's European customers had changed delivery
         standards resulting in a pushing out of potential
         revenue into future quarters; and

     (7) as a result of the above, the Company was not on track
         to achieve stated projections and, moreover, the
         Company's accounting was false and misleading.

On August 17, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that "it will file today a Form 12b-25 with the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission with notice of
late filing of the Report on Form 10-Q for the third fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2004.  As Netopia previously announced on
July 22, 2004, Netopia's Audit Committee has initiated an
inquiry into Netopia's accounting and reporting practices,
including the appropriateness and timing of revenue recognition
of software license fees in two transactions with a single
software reseller customer."

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


NETOPIA INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, on behalf of
purchasers of the common stock of Netopia, Inc. (Nasdaq: NTPAE)
("Netopia" or the "Company") between November 5, 2003 and August
16, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements contained in press releases and filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class Period.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants knew, but concealed from the investing public, the
following material adverse facts:

     (1) the Company was experiencing weaker than claimed gross
         margins due to higher component costs (including
         shipping and surcharges);

     (2) the Company was actually experiencing decreases in
         average selling prices to its key carrier customers;

     (3) the Company's receivables (and earnings) were
         overstated by virtue of the fact that the Company's
         clients were not even capable of paying for prior
         shipments;

     (4) the Company's largest customers were, early on,
         altering their purchasing mix, resulting in
         dramatically lower average selling prices;

     (5) the Company's European customers had changed delivery
         standards resulting in a pushing out of potential
         revenue into future quarters; and

     (6) as a result of the above, the Company was not on track
         to achieve stated projections.

On July 22, 2004 it was disclosed that Netopia's Audit Committee
has initiated an inquiry into Netopia's accounting and reporting
practices, including the appropriateness and timing of revenue
recognition of software license fees in two transactions with a
single software reseller customer.

On August 17, 2004, the Company announced that it was going to
delay the filing of its Report on Form 10-Q for the third fiscal
quarter ended June 30, 2004.

On September 16, 2004, Netopia announced that its auditor KPMG
LLP resigned, and that it will restate two years of results and
revise the results in its most recent fiscal quarter. The
Company further stated that it does not know when it will be
able to complete the restatements, or file any future quarterly
or annual reports with the SEC. Therefore it believes it is
"likely" the NASDAQ will delist its common stock in the near
future. KPMG's resignation was effective September 10, 2004.
Netopia shares fell 30% on this news.

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


OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES: Marc Henzel Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of OmniVision
Technologies, Inc. (NASDAQ:OVTI) publicly traded securities
during the period between February 19, 2003 and June 8, 2004,
inclusive.

The complaint charges OmniVision and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. OmniVision designs, develops and markets high-performance,
cost-efficient semiconductor image sensor devices.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused OmniVision's shares to trade at artificially inflated
levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, OmniVision was able
to complete a secondary offering of its stock raising $113
million in net proceeds and the three individual defendants were
able to sell 1,322,950 shares of their OmniVision stock for
proceeds exceeding $30 million.

On June 9, 2004, OmniVision delayed the release of its 4thQ FY
2004 results and admitted it may have to restate results due to
the timing of revenue recognition during the first three
quarters of FY 2004, and possibly FY 2003. The Company also
reduced earnings guidance for the 1stQ FY 2005.

In response to this announcement, the Company's shares plummeted
to as low as $17.34 per share, before closing at $17.63 on
enormous volume of 40.1 million shares. This was a reduction in
OmniVision's stock price of nearly 50% from the Class Period
high of $33.39 per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


RADIATION THERAPY: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in M.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida who purchased the common sto ck of Radiation
Therapy Services, Inc. (Nasdaq: RTSX) between June 17, 2004 and
September 8, 2004.

The complaint charges Radiation Therapy, Daniel E. Dosoretz,
Howard M. Sheridan, David M. Koeninger, Joseph Biscardi, James
H. Rubenstein, and Michael J. Katin with violations of Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Radiation Therapy is a provider of radiation therapy services to
cancer patients. The Company owns, operates and manages
treatment centers, focused exclusively on providing
comprehensive radiation treatment alternatives ranging from
conventional external beam radiation to newer, technologically
advanced options.

On June 18, 2004, the Company announced that the underwritten
initial public offering ("IPO") of 5.5 million shares of its
common stock had been priced at $13 per share. The shares of its
common stock would trade on the Nasdaq under the symbol "RTSX."
The Company would offer 4 million newly issued shares of common
stock in the initial public offering which would result in gross
proceeds to the Company of approximately $52 million. In
addition, certain shareholders would offer 1.5 million currently
outstanding shares of common stock in the initial public
offering at the same price.

According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's IPO was purely a liquidity event for
         management/owners - not a source of growth capital for
         the Company because 100% of the IPO proceeds went into
         the hands of the Company's primary shareholders;

     (2) that the numerous related party transactions by the
         Company increased the risk of its business model
         running afoul of State and Federal laws governing
         corporate practice of medicine, fee splitting and
         physician-referrals; and

     (3) that organic revenue growth had slowed dramatically and
         could be further disrupted in January due to changes in
         the way medical oncologists run their businesses.

On September 9, 2004, Banc of America Securities ("Banc of
America") initiated coverage of Radiation Therapy Services with
a "sell" rating and an $11 target price. Banc of America said
the Company's IPO "was purely a liquidity event for
management/owners - not a source of growth capital for the
company." The research house noted that following the IPO
management "gifted itself another 5% of the company via new
option grants." Banc of America also drew attention to the fact
that in 2003, Radiation Therapy paid $6.6 million to outside
companies controlled by senior management, underlining the
increased regulatory risk of a business model that could "run
afoul of State and Federal laws governing corporate practice of
medicine, fee splitting and physician-referrals."

In addition, Banc of America said that although revenue growth
remained "impressive," organic revenue growth had slowed
"dramatically" and could be further disrupted in January. In
conclusion, the research house said: "We simply cannot recommend
purchasing the stock until the company's board structure
(currently four insiders, just three independent directors) and
extensive related party relationships are materially
overhauled." News of this shocked the market. Shares of
Radiation Therapy fell $1.66 per share, or 11.98 percent, to
close at $12.20 per share on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


SHAW GROUP: Marc Henzel Commences Securities Lawsuit in E.D. LA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of The Shaw Group, Inc. (NYSE: SGR) between October 19, 2000 and
June 10, 2004, inclusive, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Shaw describes itself as a provider of complete piping systems
and comprehensive engineering procurement and construction
services to the power industry. The complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, defendants' publicly disseminated
results of Shaw's operations and financial condition contained
artificially inflated earnings and revenues, assets and income.
Such results were not prepared or reported in accordance with
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles and deceived investors
as to the Company's true performance, thereby artificially
inflating the price of Shaw securities during the Class Period.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that the defendants
artificially inflated the Company's reported revenues and
earnings by improperly establishing and drawing on reserve
accounts established in connection with a series of large
acquisitions, including the acquisition of Stone & Webster Inc.
in July 2000 and the acquisition of The IT Group in May 2002.
The complaint further alleges that defendants prematurely
recognized revenue in violation of Shaw's own purported policies
and Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and that
defendants failed to disclose the extent to which Shaw was
vulnerable to changes in power generation market conditions.

The truth emerged after the market closed on June 10, 2004 when
Shaw announced that it had been notified by the SEC that the SEC
was conducting an inquiry that appeared to focus on the
Company's accounting for acquisitions. On this news, Shaw stock,
which had traded at a class period high of $62.37, fell 12.4%
from a closing price of $12.28 on June 10, 2004 to a closing
price of $10.75 on the next trading day (June 14, 2004) on more
than four times normal volume. During the class period, Company
insiders sold Shaw shares at prices artificially inflated by
defendants' materially false and misleading statements, for
proceeds in excess of $80 million. Additionally, during the
Class Period, Shaw sold $490 million convertible zero coupon,
liquid yield option notes.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


STAAR SURGICAL: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges Securities Suit in NM
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United
States District Court for the District of New Mexico on behalf
of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities of
STAAR Surgical Company ("STAAR" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: STAA)
between April 3, 2003 and January 6, 2004 inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The Complaint names STAAR and David Bailey, the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer, as Defendants.

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, the Defendants
failed to disclose significant problems with the manufacture of
STAAR's premier product, the ICL (implantable contact lenses),
and injuries resulting from the use of STAAR's products. On
January 6, 2004, the U.S. Food & Drug Administration ("FDA")
website posted a warning letter to the Company, dated December
22, 2003, concerning serious violations of manufacturing
standards and inadequate reporting relating to the ICL. The news
caused the share price of STAAR common stock to fall to $9.22
per share, almost 18% below the previous day's closing price.

For more details, contact Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah,
LLC by Phone: 866/540-5505 or 877/891-9880 or visit their Web
site: http://www.classactioncounsel.com


STAAR SURGICAL: Smith & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Smith & Smith LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Mexico on behalf of a class (the "Class") consisting of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Staar
Surgical Company ("Starr Surgical" or the Company")(Nasdaq:STAA)
between April 3, 2003 and January 6, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Plaintiff claims that David Bailey and Staar Surgical's
omissions concerning the Company's business operations caused
the price of Staar Surgical securities to become artificially
inflated, inflicting damages on investors. Among other things,
the Complaint alleges that defendants knew but failed to
adequately report to the Federal Food & Drug Administration
("FDA") the existence of serious injuries and/or malfunctions
attributable to Staar Surgical's implantable lenses ("ICLs")
which were likely to cause or contribute to serious injuries,
despite defendants' knowledge of these malfunctions and
injuries. These serious problems jeopardized Staar Surgical's
ability to gain FDA approval for U.S. marketing of its ICLs --
anticipated to be the "dominant revenue generators for the
Company over the next four to five years." None of these serious
problems, however, which threatened FDA approval of Staar
Surgical's ICLs, were timely disclosed to investors.

On January 6, 2004, the FDA website posted a warning letter to
Staar Surgical concerning serious violations of manufacturing
standards and the failure of the Company to adequately report to
the FDA the existence of adverse events associated with Staar
Surgical ICLs. This news shocked the market and sent the price
of Starr Surgical shares plummeting, to close almost 18% below
the previous day -- one day before the disclosure of the FDA's
warning letter -- thereby damaging investors.

For more details, contact Howard Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 by
Phone: (215) 638-4847 or by E-mail: howardsmithlaw@hotmail.com


STONEPATH GROUP: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired securities of Stonepath Group,
Inc. (AMEX: STG) ("Stonepath" or the "Company") between May 7,
2003 and September 20, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint charges Stonepath Group, Inc., Dennis L. Pelino,
Bohn H. Crain, and Thomas L. Scully with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented that the Company understated its accrued
purchased transportation liability and related costs of
purchased transportation rendering the Company's Class Period
financial statements materially false and misleading because
they understated the Company's liabilities and expenses, and
overstated the Company's net income and earnings before income,
taxes, depreciation, and amortization ("EBITDA"). As a result of
the above, the Company's reported financial results were in
violation of GAAP.

On September 20, 2004, the Company reported that it intended to
restate its fiscal year 2003 and first and second quarter of
2004 financial statements. As a result of this news, the price
of StonePath stock closed at $0.86 per share (on heavy trading
volume of 4,830,200 shares), a 46% decrease from its close on
September 19, 2004.

For more details, contact the Shareholder Relations Department
of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th
Street, New York, NY 10016 by Phone: (800) 217-1522 or
(212) 779-1414 or by E-mail: STG@bernlieb.com


TEAM TELECOM: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Team Telecom
International Ltd. (NasdaqNM: TTIL) between May 15, 2001 and
November 14, 2002, inclusive.

The Complaint charges, among others, TTI and certain of the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws. Plaintiff claims that defendants' omissions and
material misrepresentations concerning TTI's operations and
performance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors.

TTI is an Israeli corporation headquartered in Petach Tikvah,
Israel, and a provider of network management systems, operations
support systems and business support systems for communications
service providers. The Complaint alleges that throughout the
Class Period TTI engaged in a systematic scheme of accounting
fraud to maintain the facade of a steadily growing enterprise.
In order to facilitate this appearance, the Company engaged in a
series of flagrant violations of generally accepted accounting
principals (``GAAP''), including, but not limited to, improperly
classifying assets and liabilities, improperly failing to report
its subsidiary's earnings on a consolidated basis and
prematurely and improperly recognizing revenues.

On November 12, 2002, a Company press release announced TTI's
third quarter 2002 financial results. The press release
announced revenues for the quarter of $10.3 million, compared
with $16.0 million for the third quarter of 2001, and an
operating loss of $6.8 million for the quarter, versus an
operating profit of $3.3 million in the year-ago quarter. Net
loss for the quarter was $6.1 million, or a loss of $0.51 per
diluted share, versus a net profit of $3.7 million, or $0.32 per
diluted share, in the prior year. This news shocked the market,
causing TTI shares to plummet more than 28% on the same day the
financial results were announced, November 12, 2002, and an
additional 7% on heavy trading for the two days following the
announcement.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


WASHINGTON MUTUAL: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Washington on behalf of all purchasers of the securities of
Washington Mutual, Inc. (NYSE: WM) from April 15, 2003 through
June 28, 2004, inclusive.

The complaint charges Washington Mutual, Kerry K. Killinger,
Thomas W. Casey, and Craig J. Chapman with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  More specifically, the
Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded the
         fact that its solid earnings growth was inextricably
         linked to the extraordinary mortgage volumes fueled by
         low interest rates;

     (2) that the Company knew or recklessly disregarded that
         its earnings growth could not be sustained and that the
         Company's business strategy was irreversibly flawed,
         regardless of the Company's efforts to substantially
         reduce operating costs and streamline and improve
         operations to drive efficiency;

     (3) as a consequence of the foregoing, defendants lacked a
         reasonable basis for their positive statements about
         the Company and their earnings projections.

On June 28, 2004, Washington Mutual announced that expectations
for a sustained increase in long-term interest rates would
significantly impact the Company's Mortgage Banking business
resulting in 2004 earnings below previous guidance. Higher
interest rates have lowered the Company's mortgage production
expectations at a time when cost reduction plans have not yet
fully taken effect. This news shocked the market. Shares of
Washington Mutual fell $2.84 per share, or 6.87 percent, on June
29, 2004, to close at $38.47 per share.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182.


WHITE ELECTRONICS: Marc Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona on behalf of purchasers of White Electronic Designs
Corporation (NASDAQ: WEDC) securities during the period between
January 23, 2003 and June 9, 2004.

The complaint charges White Electronic and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  White Electronic provides semiconductor
products for the wired and wireless communication industry. The
Company's products include high-density memory products and
multi-chip modules for data communications providers.  White
Electronic also designs and manufactures flat panel displays for
commercial and military aircrafts and ordnance delivery systems.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding
White Electronic's increasing revenues and long-term growth
prospects. In truth and in fact, however, defendants knew or
recklessly disregarded that White Electronic's increasing
revenues and earnings could not be sustained and that orders for
sales of the Company's microelectronic products for use in
military weapons and procurement programs had been declining
since at least the second quarter of fiscal 2003. Defendants
failed to disclose that the declines marked a long-term change
in priorities by the U.S. military following the build-up of
orders prior to the armed conflict in Iraq.

On June 9, 2004, White Electronic issued a press release
announcing its forecast for the third quarter of fiscal 2004,
the period ending July 3, 2004. The Company announced that it
expected net sales to be between $24-$25 million, far short of
analysts' consensus estimates of approximately $30 million in
net sales for the third quarter 2004.  Following this news, the
Company's stock plummeted 83 cents or 13.9% to $5.16 per share,
on extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735 Fax: 610.660.8080 by E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com or
visit the firm's Website: http://members.aol.com/mhenzel182


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2004.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *