CAR_Public/050125.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Tuesday, January 25, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 17


                            Headlines


ADVANCED MAGNESIUM: IN Fire Not Toxic, No Threat to Residents
ALABAMA: Protracted Discrimination Case May End Within A Year
ARKANSAS: Uninsured Patients Lodge Suit V. St. Mary's Hospital
APPLIED MICRO: Shells Out $60M To Settle Shareholder Suit in CA
CALIFORNIA: Groups To Get $3M From Armenian Genocide Settlement

CINERGY RESOURCES: Few Gas Customers File For $2.5M Settlement
FARMERS INSURANCE: Appeals Court Strikes Down $117.5M Settlement
IMC GLOBAL: DE Court To Hold Settlement Hearing on Jan. 31 2005
JUDY'S CANDY: Recalls Caramel/Jar 50ps Due To Undeclared Almonds
KINDER MORGAN: Reaches $5.25M Settlement Over KN Energy Merger

KINNIKINNICK FOODS: Recalls Donuts Due To Incorrect Labeling
MARSH & MCLENNAN: CT A.G. Blumenthal Begins Consumer Fraud Suit
MORGAN STANLEY: Elderly Man Lodges Annuity Fraud Lawsuit in CA
MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Named As Defendant in FL Water Pollution Suit
NEW YORK: Jewish Students Lodge Suit V. Lakeland Central School

NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Motley Rice Files Suit Over SC Train Disaster
OKLAHOMA: Judge Rules DOC Must Pay For Inmates' Kosher Meals
PLAVIXX: Study Says Users Have Higher Risk of Recurrent Ulcers
PRODUCERS DAIRY: Four Drivers File Overtime Wage Suit in N.D. CA
QUALCOMM INC.: Faces Suits Over Wireless Telephone Use in D.C.

QUALCOMM INC.: 40 Plaintiffs Dismiss CA Age Discrimination Suit
RHODE ISLAND: Trial in Nightclub Fire To Start Early Next Year
SCHWAN'S FOOD: Recalls Egg Rolls Containing Small Glass Pieces
SHURGARD STORAGE: Keller Rohrback Initiates ERISA Investigation
TXU CORPORATION: Reaches $150M Settlement For Securities Lawsuit

UTAH: Set To Receive $565,000 From Buspar Litigation Settlement

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

51JOB INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
IPASS INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
IT GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA
OFFICEMAX INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Binkow Lodges MA Securities Suit

PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in MA
SILICON STORAGE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SILICON STORAGE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SILICON STORAGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Suit in AZ

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Suit in AZ
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in AZ

                            *********


ADVANCED MAGNESIUM: IN Fire Not Toxic, No Threat to Residents
-------------------------------------------------------------
Advance Magnesium Alloys Corporation reassured residents of
Anderson, Indiana that a magnesium fire that took place last
week was not toxic and did not pose a threat to residents, the
Associated Press reports.

On January 14,2005, 8,000 people evacuated their homes after a
fire broke out at the recycling plant owned by the Company.
Firefighters let the fire burn itself out because magnesium
becomes explosive when it comes in contact with water. The
residents were allowed back to their homes the next day, and no
one was hurt.

In a letter sent to residents of Anderson, Company officials
asserted that the fire was contained in one warehouse where
toxic substances were not stored.  "Although concentrated
amounts of magnesium oxide that was contained in the fire's
smoke may have been an irritant - it was not toxic," they wrote,
according to AP.

The cause of the fire is still under investigation.  City
officials said the company had correctly disabled its sprinkler
system in order to not fuel a fire in the magnesium.  However,
water may have reached the fire through working sprinklers in
other areas or from broken pipes, Connie Smith, a mayoral
spokeswoman in the city about 25 miles northeast of
Indianapolis, told AP.

The Company faces a class action filed by a resident who had to
leave his home. He's requesting compensation for hotel and
cleanup costs and losses in property value.  Attorney Tom Hamer
told AP the Company should have taken special precautions to
prevent fire.

Advanced Magnesium Alloys Corp. supplies alloys to the die-
casting and the aluminum industries and says the Anderson plant
is the largest magnesium recycling facility in the world, AP
reports.


ALABAMA: Protracted Discrimination Case May End Within A Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
An almost decade-long racial discrimination lawsuit against
Alabama's Department of Transportation could end in 2005,
according to the state's attorney general and Department of
Transportation officials, the Decatur Daily reports.

Speaking to legislators at a budget hearing, Attorney General
Troy King said he hopes the state is nearing the end of steps
needed to be in compliance with the 19-year-old case entitled,
Reynolds vs. Alabama Department of Transportation, the Decatur
Daily reporter.

At a DOT budget hearing following Mr. King's presentation,
Assistant DOT Director Dan Morris told Decatur Daily some
agreements in the case are set to go through December 2006.
However, he reiterated that federal District Court Judge Myron
Thompson could end the case sooner, if he believes DOT is in
compliance with all parts of the consent decree stating, "We
believe we are in compliance now, but the decision is in Judge
Thompson's hands."

The case developed from a lawsuit by Johnny Reynolds, a black
employee of DOT who believed his race hurt his chances for
promotion at the department, which was eventually joined by
others later on, and thus it became a class-action case.

Through the end of the 2003-2004 fiscal year in September, the
state had paid $174-million in expenses and fines on the case.
The state paid fines for not being in compliance with the 1995
consent decree cost the state $63,000 per week until mid-
December. At that time, U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson
reduced the fines to $31,500 per week as the state complied with
more requirements needed to settle the case.


ARKANSAS: Uninsured Patients Lodge Suit V. St. Mary's Hospital
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit claims St. Mary's Hospital in Rogers,
Arkansas charges uninsured patients significantly higher rates
than insured patients, the Benton County Daily Record reports.

Filed in Benton County Circuit Court on behalf of Melissa
Bennett and Anthony Marston, the suit claims that the hospital
charges uninsured patients higher rates than the rates charged
to its insured patients or patients covered by Medicare or
Medicaid. Furthermore, the suit claims that St. Mary's sets its
charges for medical services and supplies at highly inflated
rates that bear no connection to the actual cost of providing
the service. It also claims that St. Mary's gives private
insurance companies and governmental third party payers
discounts of the inflated rates, while its uninsured patients
are charged the inflated rates.

According to the complaint, Ms. Bennett, a resident of Madison
County, received medical treatment for two days in April 2004
from St. Mary's, where she ended up being charged up to
$3,365.50 and since she had no health insurance that would cover
the charges, she is making monthly payments on the debt.

On the other hand Mr. Marston, a Washington County resident,
received medical treatment on November 16, 2004 from the
hospital, where he was charged $238.20 for the medical services,
but since he had no insurance to cover the cost of the charges
and the bill remains unpaid, the complaint states.

Both Ms. Bennett and Mr. Marston, according to the suit, were
charged significantly more by St. Mary's than the hospital
charges its insured, Medicare or Medicaid patients for the same
services and that both were never notified by the hospital it
charged different rates based upon insurance status. It is thus
claiming the following causes of action: Breach of contract,
deceptive trade practices, unjust enrichment, fraud, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duties with the class
consisting of anyone who received any form of healthcare
treatment from St. Mary's and did not have any health insurance
at the time of treatment.  The suit, which was assigned to
Circuit Judge Xolllie Duncan, is seeking any monetary damages
caused by the hospital.


APPLIED MICRO: Shells Out $60M To Settle Shareholder Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Communications chip maker Applied Micro Circuits will pay $60
million to settle a protracted class-action shareholder lawsuit
against the company and its officers and directors that alleged
the San Diego company failed to disclose a downturn in its
business, the San Diego Union Tribune reports.

Cesar Cesaratto, a member of the Company's board who was not
named in the lawsuit, told the Union Tribune "the company has
vigorously contested this litigation and remains steadfast in
its position. However, putting this 4-year-old litigation behind
us removes the uncertainty and distraction of the litigation."

AMCC said it expects insurance to pay $31 million of the
settlement amount with the remainder being shouldered by the
Company, which expects to take a one-time charge of $29 million
in its fiscal third quarter, which ended December 31.

Dushyant Desai, an analyst with CE Unterberg Towbin in San
Francisco told the San Diego Union Tribune, "They have about
$400 million in cash, and so it's not that much. There have been
many other lawsuits in the tech sector that have been larger
than that." He notes though that Wall Street is most curious
about AMCC's pending change in management, since replacements
for both Chief executive Dave Rickey, who has said he'll step
down in August, and chief financial officer Stephen Smith, who
has already left the company have not yet been named.

AMCC makes integrated circuits for long-haul telecommunications
networks, among other products. During the Internet heyday, when
telecom companies were bulking up their networks to handle an
expected surge in Web traffic, AMCC's business boomed with the
company's shares soaring to more than $85. However, after the
dot-com bubble burst, telecom companies found themselves with
far more capacity than they needed, thus they stopped ordering
equipment that used AMCC's chips, and the company's fortunes
waned.

The lawsuit focused on a period just after the Internet bust,
alleging that, from November 2000 until February 2001, AMCC
continued to claim its business was robust even though
competitors were saying the contrary. Furthermore, during this
period, the lawsuit alleged, several AMCC officers and directors
sold more than $100 million in stock and that when AMCC did
acknowledge, on February 5, 2001, that it too was seeing "push-
outs or cancellations in the past week," the company's shares
plunged 14 percent and continued to fall thereafter.

Shareholders sued in April 2001, with the Florida State Board of
Administration named as the lead plaintiff, which was
represented by the law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine.

Legal fees for the plaintiffs will be paid out of the total
settlement amount, according to documents filed with the federal
regulators by the Company, which had announced the settlement
after markets closed.


CALIFORNIA: Groups To Get $3M From Armenian Genocide Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
As part of a $20 million settlement between an insurance company
and descendants of Armenians killed nearly 90 years ago in the
Turkish Ottoman Empire, nine Armenian charitable groups are set
to receive $3 million over the next few weeks, the Associated
Press reports.

Five organizations on the East Coast will each receive checks
for more than $333,000 during a ceremony Wednesday in New York,
according to a report by the Daily News of Los Angeles. The same
reported stated that the remaining groups would receive payments
at a second event being organized in Los Angeles. The
organizations included in the settlement are New York's Armenian
General Benevolent Union, New Jersey's Armenian Missionary
Association of America, Inc., and the Armenian Education
Foundation, based in Glendale.

Brian Kabateck, an attorney in the lawsuit, told AP "As the
grandson of two genocide survivors, I'm particularly pleased to
be handing money to these organizations, because these kinds of
organizations helped my grandparents when they first arrived
here."

Attorneys for the plaintiffs said they filed the class-action
lawsuit to raise awareness of the deaths as well as to win
unpaid life insurance benefits from New York Life Insurance Co.
In their suit they had contended that 1.5 million Armenians were
killed in an act of genocide by the Turkish Ottoman Empire, an
accusation that Turkey rejects, it maintains that Armenians were
killed in civil unrest during the collapse of the empire.

Approved last July by U.S. District Court Judge Christina A.
Snyder, the legal agreement is believed to be the first ever in
connection with the disputed event with at least $11 million
being set aside for heirs of some 2,400 policyholders while $4
million was to cover legal fees. Another $3 million was
earmarked for charities, with $2 million used for administrative
costs and anything not spent on expenses going to charities.

Potential heirs of policyholders have until March 15 to file a
claim for a portion of the settlement.


CINERGY RESOURCES: Few Gas Customers File For $2.5M Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
With a few days left to file a claim, less than a third of
15,000 eligible residential natural gas customers in Southwest
Ohio have filed for a piece of a $2.5 million settlement in a
breach of contract lawsuit, The Cincinnati Enquirer reports.

Residential customers of the former Cinergy Resources, a non-
regulated unit of Cinergy Corp., have until Tuesday to file a
claim in the settlement that was reached in Hamilton County
Common Pleas Court in October.

According to Gregory Berberich, a plaintiffs' lawyer in the
case, "I'm surprised by the lack of participation given how easy
it is to accept the lump-sum option". He told The Cincinnati
Enquirer that as of January 14, the most recent data available,
3,513 of the eligible customers have filed claims. He also
stated that claim notices were sent to all 15,505 customers in
the class-action settlement, but 1,100 were returned as
undeliverable.

The customers, who signed fixed-price gas supply agreements in
2000 and 2001, have two options: They can receive a lump-sum
payment of $103.62, or, if they can document how much they were
overcharged, they can receive a refund for that amount.

Mr. Berberich, lawyer for lead plaintiff Brad Vigran, further
said that all but about 400 customers have filed for the lump-
sum option.

The settlements stem from a suit filed against the utility and
The Energy Cooperative, a unit of Licking Rural Electrification
Inc., which acquired Cinergy Resources and its customers in
January 2000. All the customers had one- or two-year agreements
before the acquisition. However, in late 2000, natural gas
prices tripled, and TEC began terminating customers on the
contracts.

For more information and to find out how to file a claim, go to
http://www.vigranclasssettlement.com.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Appeals Court Strikes Down $117.5M Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The 3rd Court of Appeals struck down a $117.5 million settlement
between the state of Texas and Los Angeles-based Farmers
Insurance Group, finding that the Attorney General's Office
improperly represented consumers in the dispute, the Associated
Press reports.

The ruling by the state appeals court, which came about after a
group of Farmers policyholders sued to block the settlement,
arguing that it was inadequate, ordered the case back to a lower
court, which had previously approved the November 2002
settlement. The decision did not address the financial terms of
the settlement, but instead addresses whether or not the former
state attorney general had mistepped in having the state
represent a class of citizens.

The state of Texas had sued Farmers, one of the largest home
insurers in the state, alleging unfair and discriminatory
practices to overcharge homeowners insurance customers. The
resulting settlement was not an admission of wrongdoing by the
company, but it required Farmers to lower its rates by 6.8
percent and give customers refunds and credits for overcharges.
It also kept the company from leaving the state. At the time,
state officials called it the largest property and casualty
insurance settlement in Texas history, but legal challenges have
kept the settlement from being enacted.

In its ruling, the appeals court said former Attorney General
John Cornyn's office had erred by not producing a specific
person who had been harmed by Farmers' alleged actions something
the state had argued was not necessary since the attorney
general's office by definition represents Texas citizens.

By striking down the class of plaintiffs, the court effectively
struck down the settlement because there is no group of
consumers to collect damages. According to Texas Department of
Insurance spokesman Jim Hurley, "We're disappointed in this. A
handful of class-action attorneys have derailed a settlement
that would have greatly benefited Farmers policyholders."

For their part, Farmer's spokeswoman Michelle Levy also
expressed disappointment, telling AP, "Farmers had worked
diligently in 2002 with the attorney general and the Texas
Department of Insurance to reach this settlement in the best
interests of our customers."

However, Texas Watch, a consumer group that tracks insurance
issues, praised the ruling stating "It keeps individual
policyholders from being forced into a blanket settlement that
would have stripped them of their rights to hold Farmers
accountable," AP reports

Attorney Joe Longley, who represents Austin resident and Farmers
policyholder Jan Lubin, told AP she and several other
policyholders sued to block the settlement because they didn't
believe it offered true relief for practices they believe cost
customers as much as $1 billion. Mr. Longley reiterates, "Our
point was the settlement was a terrible one and that more could
be gained by litigating. They were settling this case on the
cheap. Most of this was in the form of discounts on future
premiums and made you stay with the company that was supposed to
be doing the harm."


IMC GLOBAL: DE Court To Hold Settlement Hearing on Jan. 31 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Chancery for New Castle County in Wilmington,
Delaware will hold on January 31,2005 fairness hearing for the
settlement of a consolidated class actions filed against IMC
Global, Inc., Phosphate Resource Partners Limited Partnership
(PLP), PLP's administrative managing general partner and their
respective board of directors.

Holders of PLP units filed the suit in relation to the merger of
PLP into a subsidiary of IMC.  The suit generally alleged that
the defendants breached their fiduciary duties as a consequence
of various public announcements made by IMC that it intended to
make, or that it had made, a proposal to acquire all of the
outstanding PLP units that it did not already own.  The
plaintiffs in these lawsuits, on behalf of a class of all
unitholders of PLP (except for the defendants and their
affiliates), sought, among other things, to enjoin the PLP
merger or, to the extent that the PLP merger is consummated, to
rescind the PLP merger, and monetary damages in an unspecified
amount.

On August 20, 2004, the parties reached agreements in principle
to settle all of the proceedings described above and
subsequently executed definitive settlement documents which have
been filed with, and are subject to the approval of, the
Delaware Court of Chancery.  Hearings have been set in the above
proceedings for January 31, 2005 to determine whether the
settlements should be approved by the court.


JUDY'S CANDY: Recalls Caramel/Jar 50ps Due To Undeclared Almonds
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy's Candy Company of Berkeley, CA is recalling Assorted
Caramel/Jar 50ps, because it may contain undeclared almonds.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to almonds run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if
they consume these products.

Assorted Caramel/Jar 50ps was distributed to retail stores in
California, Washington, and Idaho.

Assorted Caramel/Jar 50ps is a point-of-sale display consisting
of fifty - (50) 1.1 oz. square caramels in a round, clear
plastic tub. The label reads: "Item #0517, Assorted Caramels -
50 Ct. Jar". No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that product
containing almonds was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of almonds. Subsequent investigation
indicates the problem was caused by a printing error.

Consumers who have purchased Assorted Caramel/Jar 50ps are urged
to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-223-
1642.


KINDER MORGAN: Reaches $5.25M Settlement Over KN Energy Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a memorandum of understanding with basic terms of the
settlement filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, Houston's
Kinder Morgan Inc. has agreed to pay $5.25 million to settle a
dispute with shareholders of KN Energy, the Lakewood natural-gas
company it merged with in 1999, the Denver Post reports.

Also part of the settlement, which must be approved by the court
and whose details must be first worked out, are KN founder Larry
Hall and former chief financial officer Clyde McKenzie, both of
whom left after the merger.

Shareholders filed the suit in 2000, claiming KN misled
investors in financial statements from 1997 to 1999. According
to the plaintiffs KN inflated its revenues by improperly
including as revenue items such as one-time asset sales. They
claim that due to this misinformation KN's stock price rose to
at least $2.59 as a result of the misinformation, but the value
of the shares plunged in late 1998, erasing those gains.

Kinder, Mr. Hall and Mr. McKenzie denied the shareholders'
allegations and contended that KN's accounting and public
disclosures were proper. In agreeing to a settlement, the
defendants reiterated that they "vigorously deny any wrongdoing
and liability and maintain that their conduct at all times was
legal and proper." The suit's plaintiffs are Stanley R. Lamb and
Anthony Vartuli. As part of the proposed settlement, the suit
will be certified as a class action, so other investors affected
by the 1998 stock-price drop will be eligible to receive part of
the settlement. The plaintiffs' attorneys will mail claims forms
to potential class members.

The plaintiffs' local counsels were McGloin Davenport Severson &
Snow and Lilley & Garcia, while the Beatty Law Firm and Netzorg
McKeever Koclanes & Bernhardt, both based in Denver, represented
the defendants.


KINNIKINNICK FOODS: Recalls Donuts Due To Incorrect Labeling
------------------------------------------------------------
Kinnikinnick Foods Inc. of Edmonton, Alberta, Canada is
recalling Packages of Gluten Free Chocolate Dipped and Cinnamon
Sugar Donuts because they contain Soy Protein rather than Pea
Protein that is listed on the label. People who have an allergy
or severe sensitivity to Soy Protein run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

These donuts were distributed throughout all States in the USA
through retail stores, specialty health food stores and through
our direct home delivery program. Consumers who purchased
product through our direct home delivery program will have
already been notified of the labeling error.

Products in preprinted bags correctly label the ingredients and
are not affected by this recall. Only products with applied
labels are affected. The products are identified as follows:


     (1) Kinnikinnick Gluten Free Chocolate Dipped Donuts UPC
         620133002162 17 oz. (480 gram) Package. Best Before
         Date between 04152005 and 09202005

     (2) Kinnikinnick Gluten Free Cinnamon Sugar Donuts UPC
         620133002155 17 oz. (480 gram) Package. Best Before
         Date 04152005 and 09202005.

Products are sold in poly bags in the freezer section of retail
stores. Products sold directly to households come in poly bags
delivered fresh. No illnesses or allergenic reactions have been
reported to date.

The Company is currently eliminating all Soy-based products from
its product line and the recall was initiated after it was
discovered that Soy Protein had not been replaced in these
production runs and therefore was present in the products.
Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by a
temporary breakdown in the Company's production and packaging
processes.

Consumers who have purchased these products and are concerned
about any allergenic reaction or sensitivity to Soy Protein are
urged to return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.
Consumers with questions may contact the Company toll free at
1-877-503-4466.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: CT A.G. Blumenthal Begins Consumer Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal sued insurance
broker Marsh & McLennan, Inc., and insurance provider ACE
Financial Solutions, Inc., for a scheme in which ACE paid Marsh
a secret $50,000 commission to steer an $80 million state
contract to the Company.

Blumenthal's office is investigating whether ACE may have paid
additional illegal commissions to Marsh in the deal.  Marsh
never told the Department of Administrative Services (DAS),
which paid the company $100,000 to act as its advisor on the
contact, about the $50,000 or any additional payments. Marsh
solicited and accepted the $50,000 commission, even though the
DAS clearly expected the company to accept no additional fees.
Marsh also failed to inform the DAS that ACE was in serious
financial difficulty at the time it sought the contract.

The lawsuit is the first of a series of legal actions that
Blumenthal expects to bring soon in his ongoing investigation
into insurance industry abuses.  "As offensive as this specific
scheme is the outrageously common pattern and practice of
illegal commissions and kickbacks that it reflects," Blumenthal
said. "This lawsuit - the first of a series anticipated against
insurance abuses - shows particular arrogance and avarice in
victimizing the state and its taxpayers. Whatever name they are
called - bonuses, commissions, overrides - the effect of these
concealed kickbacks is to steer contracts, corrupt competitive
bidding, inflate costs and deceive customers. The resources
raided by Marsh and ACE were a public trust to be used for
compensating workers. Our investigation is active and ongoing,
and additional legal action will be forthcoming shortly
involving other companies and consumer victims."

In April 2001, the DAS sought an insurance company to administer
678 workman's compensation cases. The cases involved state
workers with serious injuries, many of them requiring long-term
care, and were therefore unusually expensive.

The DAS believed that the state could save money by hiring a
private company to manage the cases. The agency would pay an
insurance company a fixed amount, which the company could then
invest and use to pay expenses.

The DAS started by seeking an insurance broker to win the best
deal for the state. Insurance companies almost always sell their
products through brokers, who are hired and supposed to be paid
by the entity seeking coverage or other services.  Two brokers,
Marsh and Hagedorn & Company, responded to the state's request
for qualification (RFQ). As required by the RFQ, Marsh named its
"preferred" companies, including ACE.  he DAS eventually
selected both Marsh and Hagedorn. In its contract, Marsh agreed
to limit its commission to a $100,000 fee from the state.


Despite that express limit, Marsh demanded that ACE pay Marsh a
commission on the DAS contract if it wanted to continue
receiving similar contracts. On December 3, 2001, less than two
weeks after the deal was finalized, a Marsh executive informed
the company's New York office that ACE had agreed to pay a
$50,000 commission on the DAS contract. The two companies then
signed a confidentiality agreement preventing ACE from revealing
the terms of the deal.

In selecting ACE, Marsh also failed to inform the DAS of the
company's dire financial condition resulting from claims
stemming from the September 11 terrorist attacks.  The DAS
awarded ACE the contract in November 2001, paying the firm $80
million to take over the portfolio of cases.

AG Blumenthal's suit accuses Marsh of violating Connecticut
consumer protection laws by accepting a commission other than
the $100,000 paid by the state, falsely claiming that it
considered only the state's best financial interests in
arranging the contract, and falsely claiming that it recommended
ACE solely on ACE's qualifications.  The attorney general's
action seeks actual and punitive damages, information allowing
determination of how much Marsh was falsely paid and
reimbursement for legal and investigative expenses.

To see the complaint, visit
http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/press/2005/coniss/MarshMcLennan%20
Complaint.pdf.


MORGAN STANLEY: Elderly Man Lodges Annuity Fraud Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
A Vista man who filed arbitration claims against financial
services giant Morgan Stanley has initiated a lawsuit against
the company in U.S. District Court in San Diego, the North
County Times reports.

The suit alleges that Morgan Stanley sold an insurance product
called variable annuities to plaintiff William Dornon as an
investment without telling him that the insurance company was
paying Morgan Stanley a fee for recommending and selling its
product.

A variable annuity is an insurance contract that is recognized
under the federal Securities Act of 1933 as being an investment
contract. The premium, usually paid as a lump sum at the
beginning of the contract, is available for tax-deferred
investment, usually in mutual funds, which are themselves made
up of common stocks. The investments produce capital gains and
earned interest, and usually the annuity includes a death
benefit. Because of its makeup, the variable annuity can
represent risk to the buyer, whose exposure is the up-front
premium payment. He may or may not reap a financial reward in
the end, and he may face considerable expense in the form of
early termination charges if he does not hold the annuity to
maturity.

Ron Marron, attorney for the 77-year-old Mr. Dornon, told the
North County Times contracts of that sort usually are not seen
as wise investments for the elderly, whose immediate concern is
preservation of assets and income production that can be
accessed regularly. Mr. Marron told the North County Times,
"I've never seen a variable annuity case that didn't involve a
sale to an elderly person," and adds, "this, frankly, is a
simple case of elder abuse."

The complaint alleges that Morgan Stanley unjustly enriched
itself by steering clients into the variable annuities, and that
the company committed investment fraud. It also asks the court
to certify the suit as a class action and asks for compensatory
and punitive damages and for disgorgement of all the company's
gains from the sale of variable annuities with undisclosed
commission arrangements.

California Department of Insurance spokesman Normal Williams
declined to comment on Mr. Dornon's case directly. "We're not
participating or taking any action on this complaint, so it's
not something we're working on," Mr. Williams told the North
County Times. "As far as the variable annuities issue is
concerned, in a broad sense (Insurance Commissioner John
Garamendi) is investigating a broad range that includes all
broker activities."


MOSAIC FERTILIZER: Named As Defendant in FL Water Pollution Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mosaic Fertilizer LLC was named as a defendant in the class
action complaint and demand for jury trial filed against Cargill
Corporation in the Circuit Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
Circuit for Hillsborough County, Florida.

The Complaint, which arises out of the release of phosphoric
acid process wastewater from the Riverview Gypstack, contains
four counts:

     (1) statutory strict liability;

     (2) common law strict liability;

    (3) common law public nuisance; and

    (4) negligence

The strict liability counts relate to the discharge of
pollutants or hazardous substances.  Plaintiffs seek class
certification and an award of damages, attorneys' fees and costs
on behalf of a class of unknown size comprising "all fishermen
and those persons engaged in the commercial catch and sale of
fish, bait, and related products in the Tampa Bay area who lost
income and suffered damages because of the pollution,
contamination and discharge of hazardous substances by the
defendant Cargill."


NEW YORK: Jewish Students Lodge Suit V. Lakeland Central School
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in White
Plains alleges that Jewish students heard Holocaust jokes in the
hallways and were slapped, pushed and called "dumb Jew" by
schoolmates while Lakeland teachers and a school-bus driver
failed to halt the tormentors, The Journal News.com, NY reports.

The suit, filed by two middle school students and their parents
against the Lakeland Central School District, its leaders and a
school-bus driver for anti-Semitism, claims that the defendants
"failed to protect its Jewish students from religious
discrimination, violence and hate and bias crimes" committed by
other students. It further claims, "Plaintiffs and similarly
situated Jewish students suffered and continue to suffer mental
injuries, economic injuries, deprivation of liberty and privacy,
terror, humiliation and other psychological injuries."

The class action, which essentially claims that school officials
failed to properly train and supervise employees and discipline
students, is asking for damages "in an amount to be determined
at trial" and a court order that would order the district adopt
a diversity program monitored by an outside party to educate its
employees and students about harassment.

In a statement on behalf of Lakeland school officials,
Superintendent Barnett Sturm, who is named in the lawsuit said,
"We believe there is no merit to this lawsuit, and we're
confident the district will prevail." He however would not
comment on other issues, such as whether the district had anti-
harassment initiatives in place, The Journal News reports. Other
defendants in the suit are the Board of Education and President
Carol Ann Dobson, Assistant Superintendent Sandra Kolk,
Principal Anthony DiCarlo and Vice Principal Patricia Viggiano
of Lakeland Copper Beech Middle School in Yorktown and bus
driver Lisa McSpedon.

The Plaintiffs, who live in Cortlandt and whose names do not
appear in the legal papers, to protect their privacy are
represented by attorney Peter Hoffman of Katonah.  He told the
Journal News, "Those two children are representative of a class
of Jewish students. We have actually spoken to other students
and learned other things from other parents and community
leaders, including a rabbi and a president of (a) separate
synagogue, who have stated that similar things have occurred
with other congregants who are students in that school
district."

The suit describes incidents that are alleged to have started
during the 2003-04 school year. The student plaintiffs, a girl
and a boy were harassed verbally and physically at the middle
school and on their school buses while teachers and the bus
driver failed to intervene, according to legal papers.

Mr. Hoffman also stated, "Not only was (the girl) subjected to
racial slurs, she was routinely hit ... and physically assaulted
by a group of young men at the same time these types of slurs
were being used." Furthermore, the attorney stated, in the
hallways, she would hear students telling "heinous" jokes
pertaining to the Holocaust. "And teachers are standing there
and hear the same things, and do absolutely nothing to curb that
kind of conduct. It would be one thing if those jokes were told
and adults ... did something about it, but it's not happening."
He also said that the parents complained, wrote letters to
school officials and brought in a rabbi to address the school
board, but their concerns were ignored and treated with
disrespect. He said the boy's parents had an attorney write to
school officials, to no avail, informing them that the actions
had risen to the level of religious discrimination and bias
crimes.

"When the school district finally attempted to address the
situation," Mr. Hoffman wrote in the lawsuit, "it blamed 'music,
music videos, broadcast and cable television and, in
conversations with their peers;' anything but their own failure
to have an appropriate program concerning diversity and/or
tolerance as it concerns persons of Jewish heritage or
concerning other ethnic groups or races."


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Motley Rice Files Suit Over SC Train Disaster
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Motley Rice LLC and W. Mullins McLeod, Jr.,
filed a lawsuit seeking relief for persons with property damage
resulting from the Graniteville train disaster.

Named as defendants are railroad Norfolk Southern, the Union
Tank Car Company which manufactured the tank cars carrying the
chlorine in the deadly Graniteville train crash; the Olin
Corporation which manufactured and shipped the deadly chlorine;
and the Norfolk Southern employees, who allegedly failed to set
the switch after they left their train on an active track.
Motley Rice LLC has also been retained to handle a number of the
personal injury and death cases as they relate to this
catastrophe and those claims are being handled in separate
lawsuits.

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

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

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

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

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


OKLAHOMA: Judge Rules DOC Must Pay For Inmates' Kosher Meals
------------------------------------------------------------
The Oklahoma Department of Corrections will, for now, have to
pay for three state inmates to eat kosher food, according to a
ruling by U.S. District Judge Lee R. West, the Associated Press
reports.

The temporary order issued by the federal judge requires the
state to pick up the tab for the meals until a final court
decision on the inmates' claim is reached.  Joseph Harp
Correctional Center inmates Jon Andrew Cottriel, 45, Jerry
Harmon, 50 and Dennis Earl Fulbright, 36, have argued that the
department's policy of not providing free kosher meals violates
their right to freely exercise religion.

Attorney Rand C. Eddy told AP the recent ruling might encourage
his clients all convicted sex offenders to seek class-action
status for their lawsuit, which would make future rulings apply
to all Orthodox Jewish inmates in Oklahoma.  He said, "I know
that their whole reason for doing this was not just for their
benefit and after some consultation, we may try filing it as a
class-action."

Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General Stefan K. Doughty told AP he
would meet with corrections officials to see if they want
reconsideration of the judge's order or to move forward with
trial preparations.

The inmates argue that eating kosher, or food that is ritually
fit according to Jewish law, is essential to practicing Orthodox
Judaism.

Corrections officials testified though that serving the kosher
meals to everybody would cost more than $3 million a year and
cause disruptions with inmates.

However, Judge West found that the three inmates' right to
freely exercise their Orthodox Jewish religion outweighs state
expenses in providing such meals. The judge's ruling concurs
with a decision by U.S. District Magistrate Judge Gary M.
Purcell, thus the case was returned to Judge Purcell's courtroom
for further proceedings.


PLAVIXX: Study Says Users Have Higher Risk of Recurrent Ulcers
--------------------------------------------------------------
A small, provocative study found that Plavix, a heart drug
recommended by medical groups as an easy-on-the-stomach
substitute for aspirin, instead showed a much higher risk of
recurrent ulcers, the Associated Press reports.

An estimated 50 million Americans take aspirin to ward off heart
attacks and strokes.  Plavix is recommended as an alternative by
the American Heart Association and American College of
Cardiology, as aspirin can cause bleeding, ulcers or other
stomach problems in about a third of users.

It is aggressively marketed on TV by Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-
Myers Squibb. It was the 12th best-selling prescription drug in
the United States in 2003, with $2.2 billion in sales, according
to IMS Health, an industry consultant, AP reports.

The newly-released study could upend the treatment guidelines
for tens of thousands of Americans who must take anti-clotting
drugs for their hearts but are prone to gastrointestinal
problems.

"These are very surprising findings, because the conventional
wisdom is that Plavix is a GI-safe medicine - or I should say
`has been' a GI-safe medicine," Dr. Byron Cryer of the
University of Texas Southwestern Medical School and Veterans
Affairs hospital in Dallas told AP.

He said he has stopped prescribing Plavix to his own patients
who have a high risk of ulcers, but believes the drug is still
OK for others. He said the U.S. guidelines for Plavix should be
re-evaluated in light of the findings.  He wrote an editorial to
accompany the study, published in Thursday's New England Journal
of Medicine.

The findings, reached by Hong Kong researchers, come as a
surprise because Plavix was gentle on the stomach in previous
testing. However, the patients in earlier research had a normal
ulcer risk overall. This study was the first one to look at
patients who had already had an ulcer.

Sanofi-Aventis spokeswoman Leslie Hare disputed the latest
findings.  She told APPlavix has been used by 41 million people
around the world, and its safety and effectiveness have been
well-established.

In the one-year Hong Kong study, 320 patients with healed ulcers
were given either aspirin or Plavix. The aspirin patients also
took an acid-blocking drug to help protect their stomachs.  In
the Plavix group, bleeding ulcers came back in 13 patients, or 8
percent. Among those who took aspirin, only one had another
ulcer, or less than 1 percent, AP reports.

"I'm as surprised as you are," lead researcher Dr. Francis Chan
told AP.  He said the rate of recurring ulcers for those on
Plavix was "totally unacceptable."

It is unclear why Plavix seems to aggravate ulcers. It may
simply allow them to bleed more, since it interferes with blood
clotting. But it may also deprive the wound of substances that
promote healing, researchers said.

Dr. Sidney Smith, a former president of the American Heart
Association who helped develop the U.S. Plavix guidelines, said
the Hong Kong study is interesting, but not big enough or
diverse enough.  "It'd be premature to say how this study might
affect the guidelines," he said.


PRODUCERS DAIRY: Four Drivers File Overtime Wage Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Four Route Drivers at Producers Dairy facilities in Ceres, CA
and San Leandro, CA filed a class action lawsuit against the
company alleging that Producers Dairy unfairly withheld overtime
pay when they worked more than 8 or 12 hours in a day or 40
hours in a week. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of California, San Francisco/Oakland
District.

The lawsuit alleges that Producers Dairy violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act and state law by not paying appropriate overtime
(time and a half) for work more than eight hours in a day or 40
hours in a week; or double time for more than 12 hours in a day.
The drivers allege that Producers Dairy knew that they were
responsible for paying the overtime wages, but willfully refused
to do so. They are seeking payment of the back wages, attorney
fees, and any other damages as appropriate.

Three of the drivers, Joe Romero, Lawrence Heffington and Lauren
Portillo, have or continue to work at Producers Dairy's San
Leandro facility. The fourth, Raymond Jeanes, worked at the
Ceres facility in Stanislaus County. The lawsuit is being filed
as a Class Action on behalf of all of Producers Dairy's Route
Drivers who have been denied full payment of their overtime
wages.

It wasn't until the drivers at the Ceres facility approached the
Teamsters to represent them, that the union learned of the
Company's practice not to pay overtime. The San Leandro
employees voted for union representation in 2003, but to date,
the company and union have not been able to reach agreement on a
first contract.

In addition to San Leandro and Ceres, the Company operates
offices and depots in Anderson, Chico, Sacramento, Ceres,
Castroville, Fresno, Tulare and San Luis Obispo. Producers Dairy
processes, warehouses and distributes dairy and related products
to retail outlets throughout the state. Its largest customers
are Target and Costco.

Michael Nelson, an attorney from the firm of Beeson, Tayer &
Bodine, APC is representing the drivers. Teamsters Local 853,
based in San Leandro, fully supports the drivers as they pursue
this matter in regards to collecting the wages that are owed.
With a total membership of 5,500 in a variety of industries,
this Teamsters local represents dairy workers at Foster Farms,
Berkeley Farms, Safeway, Crystal and Challenge Dairy.


QUALCOMM INC.: Faces Suits Over Wireless Telephone Use in D.C.
--------------------------------------------------------------
QUALCOMM, Inc., along with other manufacturers of wireless
phones, wireless operators and industry-related organizations,
continues to face several class actions, alleging personal
injury as a result of the use of a wireless telephone.  The
remaining suits are pending in the Washington, D.C. Superior
Court.

Several suits, including "In re Wireless Telephone Frequency
Emissions Products Liability Litigation," was initially filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,
along with several individually filed actions, seeking monetary
damages arising out of its sale of cellular phones.

On March 5, 2003, the Court granted the defendants' motions to
dismiss five of the consolidated cases (Pinney, Gimpleson,
Gillian, Farina and Naquin) on the grounds that the claims were
preempted by federal law.  On April 2, 2003, the plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal of this order and the Court's order
denying remand.


QUALCOMM INC.: 40 Plaintiffs Dismiss CA Age Discrimination Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
40 class members in the discrimination suit filed against
QUALCOMM, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California agreed to dismiss the lawsuit in
exchange for a waiver of litigation costs by the Company.

On February 2, 2000, three former employees filed a putative
class action styled "Durante et al v. QUALCOMM," alleging
unlawful age discrimination in their selection for layoff in
1999, and seeking monetary damages based thereon.  On April 15,
2003, the court granted the Company's summary judgment motions
as to all then-remaining class members' disparate impact claims.
On June 18, 2003, the Court ordered decertification of the class
and dismissed the remaining claims of the opt-in plaintiffs
without prejudice.  Plaintiffs have filed an appeal.

On June 20, 2003, 76 of the opt-in plaintiffs filed an action in
the same court, alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act as a result of their layoffs in 1999.  To date,
the complaint has not been served.

The suit is styled "Durante et al v. Qualcomm, Inc., et al.,
case no. 00-CV-1330," filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of California, under Judge Napoleon A.
Jones, Jr.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Charles A. Bleiler of the Law Office of Charles A.
         Bleiler, 12770 High Bluff Drive, Suite 380, San Diego,
         CA 92130, Phone: (858)-350-9834;

     (2) Douglas Hatchimonji of Rose Klein and Marias LLP, 801
         South Grand Avenue, 18th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90017-
         4645, Phone: (213)626-0571

Lawyers for the defendants are:

     (i) Michael Cody Sullivan, Paul Plevin Sullivan and
         Connaughton, 401 B Street, 10th Floor, San Diego, CA
         92101-8214, Phone: (619)-237-5200

    (ii) Robert W Bell, JR, Heller Ehrman White and McAuliffe,
         4350 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 700, San Diego, CA
         92122-1246, Phone: (858)-450-5807

   (iii) Tracy L Nation, Hayes Simpson Greene, 600 West
         Broadway, Suite 400, San Diego, CA 92101, Phone: (619)-
         515-1194


RHODE ISLAND: Trial in Nightclub Fire To Start Early Next Year
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the lawsuit over the February 20,2003 Rhode Island
nightclub fire might start by next January, "if we're lucky,"
Providence, Rhode Island Superior Court Judge Francis Darigan
said, according to the Associated Press.

100 people were killed and more than 200 were injured in the
fire that razed The Station nightclub, allegedly caused by
onstage fireworks during a performance of the rock band Great
White.

In July 2004, a group of lawyers representing the majority of
those who survived the fire or had family members who perished
filed a lawsuit against club owners Jeffrey and Michael
Derderian, alleging they negligently failed to obtain a license
for pyrotechnics and failing to install safe soundproofing
material.

The suit also alleges that fire inspector Denis Larocque failed
to note the presence of the foam used as soundproofing during a
series of routine fire inspections conducted since the
Derderians bought the club in March 2000.  The highly flammable
foam is blamed for spreading the fire quickly through the one-
story wooden nightclub.  The suit also accused some members of
Great White, and the band's former tour manager Dan Biechele, of
negligence for igniting the pyrotechnics, as an earlier Class
Action Reporter story (July 26,2004) reported.

The Station nightclub owners Jeffrey and Michael Derderian and
former Great White tour manager Daniel Biechele each face 200
counts of involuntary manslaughter, two for every victim of the
February 20, 2003, fire.

Judge Darigan initially said the case would begin by fall.
However, he said issues surrounding such topics as tests on the
foam and the transfer of evidence to defendants must be resolved
before the trial can begin.

Investigators have said that besides the foam allowing the fire
to spread quickly, it also may have released toxic substances
that could have caused some of the deaths. Under state law,
flammable material is not supposed to be used as soundproofing
in clubs and bars, AP reports.

Foam samples were recently tested by the Federal Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and results are
expected shortly, Judge Darigan said.  The three defendants have
filed motions requesting permission to conduct their own faom
tests. Lawyers in the newly consolidated civil cases, brought by
survivors and victims' family members, also want to obtain foam
for testing.


SCHWAN'S FOOD: Recalls Egg Rolls Containing Small Glass Pieces
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Minh production facility of Schwan's Food Manufacturing,
Inc., located in Pasadena, Texas, is voluntarily recalling
approximately 162,500 pounds of frozen egg rolls that may
contain small pieces of glass, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced.

The products being recalled are:

     (1) 11-ounce packages of "PAGODA, WHITE MEAT CHICKEN EGG
         ROLLS & TEXTURED SOY FLOUR." Each package bears the
         date code "384315."

     (2) 11-ounce packages of "PAGODA, PORK AND SHRIMP &
         VEGETABLE PROTEIN PRODUCT." Each package bears the date
         code "384314" or "384315."

     (3) 3.75-pound packages of "MINH GOURMET CHICKEN EGG ROLLS,
         WHITE MEAT CHICKEN." Each package bears the date code
         "384313."

Each package also displays the establishment number "EST. 5630"
inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The egg rolls were packaged
between November 8 and 11, 2004, and were distributed to retail
stores nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the Company received consumer
complaints. FSIS has received no reports of injury from
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury
from consumption of the products should contact a physician.

Consumers with questions about the recall may contact Kevin
Mayer, company consumer representative at (800) 551-5961. Media
with questions about the recall may contact Howard Miller,
company media relations representative, at (507) 537-8517.

Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at (800) 535-4555. The hotline is
available in English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m.
to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food
safety messages are available 24 hours a day.


SHURGARD STORAGE: Keller Rohrback Initiates ERISA Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is investigating Shurgard
Storage Centers, Inc. ("Shurgard" or the "Company") (NYSE:SHU)
for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA"). The investigation focuses on investments in
Company stock by the Shurgard Employees Retirement Savings Plan
(the "Plan") between May 9, 2001 and the present (the "Class
Period").

Keller Rohrback's investigation focuses on concerns that
Shurgard and other fiduciaries for the Plan may have breached
their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by

     (1) failing to prudently and loyally manage the Plan's
         assets by imprudently investing a significant amount of
         the Plan's assets in Shurgard stock;

     (2) failing to monitor and provide fiduciary appointees
         with information that the appointing fiduciaries knew
         or should have known that the monitored fiduciaries
         must have in order to prudently manage the Plan's
         assets;

     (3) failing to provide complete and accurate information to
         participants and beneficiaries; and

     (4) breaching their duty to avoid conflicts of interest.

For more details, contact Jennifer Tuato'o, Paralegal of Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. by Phone: 800-776-6044 by E-mail:
investor@kellerrohrback.com or visit http://www.erisafraud.com
or http://www.seattleclassaction.com.


TXU CORPORATION: Reaches $150M Settlement For Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
TXU Corporation reached a $150 million settlement for a
shareholder class action filed against it on behalf of
purchasers of its stock between April 26,2001 and October
11,2002, the Associated Press reports.

In October 2002, shares of the Company plunged after the Company
announced it would cut its dividend 80 percent because of
problems in the European operations, which it later sold.  The
suit charged that the Company and some of its top officials gave
misleading information about its ability to prosper in
deregulated electric markets and hid the poor performance of
TXU's European operations.

Dallas-based TXU denied any liability or breaking any laws in
reaching the settlement. The Company said it was finishing the
settlement agreement before submitting it to U.S. District Court
in Dallas.  Chief Executive C. John Wilder said settling the
lawsuit removed a distraction, expense and uncertainty from TXU,
AP reports.

TXU said some of its insurance carriers agreed to pay $66
million and it expects to get more money from other carriers.
The balance of $84 million is less than TXU had set aside to
settle lawsuits. TXU said it would reduce the $65 million
expense recorded in the second quarter by $10 million in the
fourth quarter of 2004. The change won't affect TXU's forecast
for operating earnings.

The settlement agreement also calls for TXU to name two new
independent directors to the Company's 10-member board no later
than May 2006.  Mr. Wilder said shareholders would benefit from
the changes in governance rules that call for two new
independent directors on the board.  A Company spokesman said it
had not been determined who would leave the board, AP reports.

TXU said about 20 percent of the settlement would cover attorney
costs. The exact amount will be determined by the court.


UTAH: Set To Receive $565,000 From Buspar Litigation Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The state of Utah is receiving $565,000 from a settlement with
the manufacturer of the anti-anxiety drug BuSpar, Utah Attorney
General Mark Shurtleff announced in a statement.

Bristol-Myers Squibb paid over $41 million to settle a multi-
state antitrust lawsuit for allegedly making false statements to
the Food & Drug Administration and conspiring to keep generic
drugs from entering the marketplace.  Last July the drug
manufacturer also sent $177,314 to 305 individual Utah
residents, which means the state of Utah and its citizens
received a total of $742,506.

"Thanks to the dedicated lawyers of this office, consumers have
been made whole and the state of Utah is no longer suffering the
consequences of a company that illegally inflated drug prices,"
AG Shurtleff said.

The settlement is broken down into:

     (1) $11,017 for the University of Utah Medical Plan

     (2) $275,084 for the Utah Medicaid Office

     (3) $5,473 for the Utah Developmental Center

     (4) $24,110 for the Utah State Hospital

     (5) $60,025 for the Public Employees Health Program

     (6) $189,483 for the Attorney General Antitrust Litigation
         Fund

The settlement covered individuals and organizations that
purchased BuSpar between 1998 and 2003 and filed valid claims by
December 5, 2003. Assistants Attorney General Ronald Ockey and
James Palmer represented Utah in the settlement. The suit was
filed in 2001 against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., Watson Pharma,
Inc. and Danbury Pharmacal, Inc. and settled two years later.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

51JOB INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of all securities
purchasers of 51job, Inc. (Nasdaq: JOBS) ("51job" or the
"Company") between November 4, 2004 and January 14, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges 51job, Donald Lucas, Rick Yan and Kathleen
Chien 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 Company improperly recognized recruitment
         advertising revenue in the third quarter;

     (2) that the Company, a purported expert in Chinese labor
         markets, failed to realize that the drop in late-
         December advertising suggested that many Chinese firms
         have adopted a more Western schedule for hiring;

     (3) that as a result of this market shift, the Company was
         forced to sharply lower its profit outlook; and

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

On January 18, 2005, before the market opened, 51job announced
softness in sales for the latter part of the month of December
2004, the exit of the peripheral stationery and office supplies
business and updated guidance for the fourth quarter of 2004.
The Company expected fourth quarter total revenues to be between
RMB117 and RMB121 million, compared with RMB140 million, the
low-end of its previous forecasted range. The news shocked the
market. Shares of 51job fell $15.49 per share, or 35.37 percent,
on January 18, 2005, to close at $28.32 per share, on unusually
high volume.

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


IPASS INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of iPass Inc. ("iPass") (NASDAQ:IPAS)
common stock during the period between April 22, 2004 and June
30, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges iPass and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. iPass is a global provider of software-enabled enterprise
connectivity services for mobile workers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. 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) the Company's "user base growth" had virtually
         vanished, trailing the previous quarter by 90%;

     (2) the Company's consolidation in the number of dial-up
         access numbers was resulting in less customer usage,
         resulting in less revenue;

     (3) the Company's programs were plagued by Internet
         viruses, including "Sasser"; and

     (4) as a result, the Company's projections of $0.08 EPS for
         Q2 2004 were false and misleading.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, iPass stock
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, increasing to
as high as $12.44 on April 27, 2004, whereby the Company's top
officers and directors sold more than $1.4 million worth of
their own shares.

On June 30, 2004, after the markets closed, iPass held a
conference call to announce that its Q2 2004 revenues would fall
short of projections by $3.5 million, largely due to the
consolidation of parts of the dial access network. The Company
expected Q2 2004 revenues to be between $40-$40.5 million, and
EPS to be $0.05-$0.06. On this news, iPass stock fell 34% to
$6.91 per share.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 or by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/ipass/.


IT GROUP: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in W.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of IT
Group, Inc. (Pink Sheets: ITXG.PK) ("IT Group") between October
21, 1998 and February 23, 2000 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that IT Group violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that IT Group made material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding its financial
performance in press releases and through filings made with the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

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


OFFICEMAX INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of OfficeMax, Inc. ("OfficeMax" or the "Company") (NYSE:OMX)
(formerly Cascade Boise Corp.) between January 22, 2004 and
January 11, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court For
The Northern District Of Illinois against defendants Officemax,
George Harad (Chairman), Christopher Milliken ("CEO"), and Ted
Crumley (CFO).

The Complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements with respect to
OfficeMax's financial performance and internal controls.
OfficeMax was the third largest retailer and distributor of
office supplies in North America, behind Staples (No. 1) and
Office Depot (No. 2), with reported annual sales approaching $9
billion. On December 20, 2004, the Company announced that it had
launched an internal investigation into vendor claims, "that
certain employees acted inappropriately in requesting
promotional payments and in falsifying supporting documentation
for approximately $3.3 million in claims billed to the vendor by
OfficeMax during 2003 and 2004." ("Promotional payments" refers
to payments from vendors for featuring the vendor's products in
ads or circulars and for other forms of product promotion.)

The Class Period ends on January 11, 2005. On that date,
defendants announced that:

     (1) the Company's recently appointed Chief Financial
         Officer, Brian Anderson, had resigned;

     (2) the Company was postponing the release of its earnings
         for the fourth quarter and full year 2004 pending the
         conclusion of an investigation into issues relating to
         its accounting for vendor income;

     (3) the company's investigation had confirmed the claims by
         a vendor to its retail business that certain employees
         fabricated supporting documentation for approximately
         $3.3 million in claims billed to the vendor by
         OfficeMax during 2004 and 2003;

     (4) the Company was expanding its investigation into vendor
         rebates and revenue recognition; and

     (5) the Company had terminated four employees as a result
         of information discovered through its investigation.

On this news, the Company's stock fell $1.42, or 4.7%, to
$28.88.

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.


PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Glancy Binkow Lodges MA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of Praecis Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Praecis"
or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PRCS) between November 25, 2003 and
December 6, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges Praecis and certain of the Company's
executive officers with violations of federal securities laws.
Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and material
misrepresentations concerning Praecis' operations, financial
performance and prospects artificially inflated the Company's
stock price, inflicting damages on investors. Praecis is a
biopharmaceutical company focused on the discovery and
development of therapies to address unmet medical needs. The
Company's first United States Food and Drug Administration
("FDA") approved product is Plenaxis, a treatment for advanced
symptomatic prostate cancer. The Complaint alleges defendants
knowingly or recklessly misrepresented and failed to disclose
the following material adverse facts:

     (1) the Company failed to effectively communicate with and
         educate physicians about Plenaxis;

     (2) the distribution of Plenaxis, was limited by the FDA to
         physicians who enroll in the Plenaxis User Safety
         ("PLUS") Program, significantly decreasing the likely
         market for the drug;

     (3) the Company, despite high enrollment in the PLUS
         program, had problems persuading physicians to
         prescribe the drug due to concerns about the drug's use
         and reimbursement for the therapy;

     (4) the Company lacked adequate internal controls; and

     (5) as a result, the defendants' projections for fiscal
         2004 were not reasonably founded.

On December 6, 2004, the Company stated that it would remove
previously announced short- and long-term sales and earnings
guidance, and that it did not anticipate providing further
guidance until it has compiled additional data concerning
Plenaxis' sales. On this news, shares of Praecis fell $.56 per
share -- more than 25% -- on December 6, 2004, to close at $1.61
per share.

For more details, contact Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Phone:
(310) 201-9150 or (888) 773-9224 by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
or visit their Web site: http://www.glancylaw.com.


PRAECIS PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
on behalf of purchasers of Praecis Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Praecis") (NASDAQ:PRCS) common stock during the period between
November 25, 2003 and December 6, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Praecis and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Praecis is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery and development of therapies to address unmet medical
needs. The Company's first United States Food and Drug
Administration ("FDA")-approved product is Plenaxis, which is a
treatment for advanced symptomatic prostate cancer in men.

Throughout the Class Period, defendants made numerous statements
regarding the increasing adoption of Plenaxis and the positive
impact it was having on the Company's operating results. In
truth and in fact, however, Praecis's operating results during
the Class Period were artificially inflated as a result of the
Company's improper recognition of revenue, which also violated
Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). Specifically,
the Company recognized revenue at the time that it shipped its
product to distributors without adequately reserving for product
returns. The impact that this accounting treatment was having on
the Company's sales became evident on December 6, 2004, when
defendants disclosed that the Company's fourth-quarter sales
would fall behind its third-quarter results because of the slow
adoption of its cancer drug Plenaxis. The Company also stated
that it would cease to provide any future guidance on its
earnings and revenues until a consistent trend for Plenaxis
sales emerges.

Upon this disclosure, shares of the Company's stock fell more
than 25%, or $0.56 per share, to close at $1.61 per share, on
extremely high trading volume.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 or by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/praecis/.


SILICON STORAGE: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 Silicon
Storage Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:SSTI) between March 30, 2004
and December 20, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant Silicon
Storage 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.

For more details, contact Charles J. Piven by Phone:
410-986-0036 by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.


SILICON STORAGE: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California on
behalf of purchasers of Silicon Storage Technology, Inc.
("Silicon Storage") (NASDAQ:SSTI) common stock during the period
between March 30, 2004 and December 20, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Silicon Storage and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Silicon Storage is a supplier of flash
memory semiconductor devices for the digital consumer,
networking, wireless communications and Internet computing
markets.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the Company's
business and prospects. 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) the Company's sales and margins were being materially
         impacted by Macronix and Intel actively lowering
         average selling prices;

     (2) the Company was not on track to achieve Q4
         profitability, but rather losses;

     (3) the Company's gross margin projections were overstated
         by at least 1,000%;

     (4) the Company's accounting during the Class Period was
         false and misleading; and

     (5) as a result, the Company's Q4 estimates of revenue of
         $120-$130 million and income of $0.10 to $0.14 per
         share were grossly inflated and the Company's reported
         assets were materially overstated.

As a result of the defendants' false statements, Silicon
Storage's stock traded at inflated prices during the Class
Period, increasing to as high as $17.31 on April 14, 2004,
whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold more than
$2.9 million worth of their own shares.

On December 20, 2004, the Company issued a press release
announcing that "its revenue in the fourth quarter is expected
to be between $102 and $108 million versus previous guidance of
$120 to $130 million. Due to current market conditions, the
company expects to record an inventory charge of between $20 and
$25 million for excess inventory and to write certain products
down to their current estimated market values." On this news,
the Company's shares plummeted from $7.00 to $5.43 per share.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800-449-4900 or 619-231-1058 or by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/siliconstorage/.


SILICON STORAGE: Schatz & Nobel Lodges CA Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Silicon Storage
Technology, Inc. (NasdaqNM: SSTI) ("Silicon Storage") between
March 30, 2004 and December 20, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Silicon Storage violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Silicon
Storage concealed the following facts: that its sales and
margins were being materially impacted by Macronix and Intel's
actively lowering their average selling prices; that Silicon
Storage was not on track to achieve its profitability
projections; and that its gross margin projections were
overstated.

On December 20, 2004, Silicon Storage issued a press release
announcing that "its revenue in the fourth quarter is expected
to be between $102 and $108 million versus previous guidance of
$120 to $130 million. Due to current market conditions, the
company expects to record an inventory charge of between $20 and
$25 million for excess inventory and to write certain products
down to their current estimated market values." On this news,
Silicon Storage shares fell from a close of $7.01 per share on
December 20, 2004, to close at $5.99 per share on December 21,
2004 on unusually high trading volume.

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


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Bull & Lifshitz Files Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
TASER International, Inc. ("TASER" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
TASR) between October 18, 2004 and January 6, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, TASER
has aggressively fostered the perception that its products are
non lethal, generally safe and, therefore, ideal for temporarily
incapacitating suspects without killing them or causing
permanent injuries. This perception was crucial to the
marketability of TASER products and the success of the Company.
The Class Period statements particularized in the Complaint,
were materially false and misleading because, in marked contrast
to the Company's unequivocally positive characterization of the
study's conclusions, the study in fact found that TASER
technology could be dangerous and that more information was
needed to evaluate its risks. During the Class Period, TASER
insiders, including the individual defendants, sold a total of
3,317,212 shares of TASER common stock for gross proceeds of
$96,261,155.

On January 6, 2005, after the close of ordinary trading, TASER
issued a press release announcing that the SEC had commenced an
inquiry into the Company's statements concerning the safety of
its products. In addition, the SEC sought information concerning
a suspicious, large end of quarter (4Q) sale to one of the
Company's distributors. In reaction to this announcement, the
price of TASER common stock plummeted, falling from $27.62 per
share on January 6, 2005, to $21.29 per share on January 7,
2005, a one day drop of 23% on unusually heavy trading volume of
over 35 million shares.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull &
Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 18 East 41st Street, New York, NY 10017
by Phone: (212) 213-6222 or (212) 213-9405 by E-mail:
counsel@nyclasslaw.com.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Emerson Poynter Files Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP initiated a class action in
the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on
behalf of purchasers of TASER International, Inc. ("TASER")
(Nasdaq:TASR) publicly traded securities during the period
between May 29, 2003 and January 10, 2005 (the "Class Period").
TASER develops and manufactures less-lethal self-defense
devices. At the end of 2003, TASER had more than 4,300 U.S. law
enforcement agencies deploying one of its TASER brand weapon
platforms.

The Complaint alleges that the Company violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the Complaint alleges
that, throughout the Class Period, the Company issued a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
concerning the safety of its TASER guns. The Complaint also
alleges the Defendants engaged in channel stuffing at the end of
the fourth quarter of 2004 in order to meet sales projections
and analyst's expectations.

On January 6, 2005, after the market closed, the Company
announced that it had received an informal inquiry letter from
the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") regarding the
Company's statements concerning the safety of its products and a
$1.5 million order of TASER devices received from one of its
distributors, which was booked in late December 2004. As a
result of the January 6 announcement, shares of TASER's common
stock fell $4.90, or 18%, to close at $22.72 per share. TASER
further shocked investors on January 11, 2005, when it announced
that orders for the first half of 2005 may be delayed while law
enforcement agencies test competitors' products. As a result of
this news, shares of the Company's common stock fell an
additional $5.95, or 30%, to close at $14.10 per share. Also,
during the Class Period, Defendants engaged in massive insider
trading selling over one million shares valued in excess of $64
million dollars.

For more details, contact Charles Gastineau, Tanya Autry or
Michelle Raggio of EMERSON POYNTER LLP by Phone: (800) 663-9817
Or (501) 907-2555 or by Fax: (501) 907-2556.


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in AZ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud
lawsuit against TASER International, Inc. ("TASER") (Nasdaq:
TASR) and certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of
all persons who purchased TASER securities on the open market
from October 19, 2004 through January 6, 2005. The action was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused TASER to issue numerous press releases touting the
Company's financial performance and increasing demand for its
devices, as well as the positive results of studies conducted
regarding the safety of the Company's products. However,
unbeknownst to the market and contrary to the Company's public
statements, TASER failed to disclose:

     (1) that the studies conducted on the Company's TASER
         devices were inconclusive as to the safety of the
         devices;

     (2) that the Company's revenues and earnings would be
         negatively impacted once the truth of these studies
         became known;

     (3) that the late fourth quarter orders of TASER devices
         the Company received from at least two of its
         distributors were made to help the Company meet its
         sales goals for the quarter and were not indicative of
         the true demand for the Company's products; and

     (4) as a result, Defendants had no reasonable basis for
         their positive statements regarding the safety of, and
         demand for, the Company's products.

Defendants' misrepresentations were revealed after the markets
closed on January 6, 2005, when the Company disclosed that it
had received an informal inquiry letter from the SEC regarding
the Company's statements about the safety of its products and a
recent order received from one of its distributors.

As a result of the news, TASER shares plummeted nearly 18% to
close at $22.72 per share on extremely heavy volume of 35.7
million shares, as compared to a closing price of $27.62 per
share on volume of 7.5 million just the previous day. On January
8, 2005, The New York Times published an article which reported
that the Arizona attorney general's office met with TASER
executives to discuss concerns about the safety of TASER's stun
guns and the Company's plans to sell them to civilians. The
article also aroused suspicion as to the reasons for, and timing
of, certain transactions, which appear to have been an attempt
to increase 2004 sales before the end of the quarter.

As a result of the news, on January 10, 2005, the next trading
day, TASER shares dropped an additional 12% to close at $20.05
on heavy volume of 23.6 million shares. The stock price
continued to plummet to close at $14.10 on extremely heavy
volume of 64.7 million shares on January 11, 2005 for a total
stock decrease of $13.52 or approximately 49% since the January
6, 2005 disclosure.

For more details, contact Renee L. Karalian, Esq. of Wolf Popper
LLP by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
212-451-9621 or 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or
877-370-7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their
Website: http://www.wolfpopper.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *