CAR_Public/050221.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, February 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 36

                          Headlines

3CI COMPLETE: LA Court Approves Suit Joint Prosecution Agreement
AGL RESOURCES: Reaches Settlement For NJ Shareholder Fraud Suit
AMERICAN ELECTRIC: New Suit Filed Over Ohio River Barge Accident
BRAVE PRODUCTS: Recalls 4,000 Log Splitters Due To Injury Hazard
BURLINGTON NORTHERN: TX Court To Refuse Certification Stock Suit

CALIFORNIA: Court To Rule On Santa Monica Tenant Harassment Suit
CALIFORNIA: VICA Calls For Withdrawal Of Suit V. Online Booking
CHARLES PRODUCTS: Recalls 720 Drinking Cups For Poisoning Hazard
CLARENT CORPORATION: Jury Finds CEO, E&Y Guilty of Stock Fraud
COMPLETE MAKEOVER: AG Cox Launches Nine Felony Charges V. Owner

CONCORD CAMERA: Shareholders Lodge Amended Securities Suit in FL
CONCORD CAMERA: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in S.D. FL
CORRPRO COMPANIES: Appeals Court Upholds Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls 180T Dive Sticks Due To Injury Hazard
ESPEED INC.: Mircuz Partners Initiates Securities Fraud Lawsuit

FLORIDA SMOKED: Recalls Nova Salmon For Listeria Contamination
GILMAN & CIOCIA: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit
GLOBAL RESEARCH: Settlement Hearing Scheduled For April 11, 2005
GSI COMMERCE: Recalls 4.3T Electric Scooters For Injury Hazard
HIS INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 6.7T Jumper Sets For Poisoning Hazard

KENTUCKY: Deters Benzinger Lodges Suit, Challenging Sewer Tax
LINSCO/PRIVATE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in CA
LITTLER MENDELSON: Says New Law Will Impact Litigation Little
MARCHFIRST INC.: Settlement Hearing Scheduled For April 6, 2005
NEW YORK: High Court Judge Halts License Denials For Immigrants

NORTH DAKOTA: State Supreme Court Dismisses Tribal Fuel Tax Case
NOVARTIS AG: Female Employees File Sex Discrimination Suit in NY
OHIO: A.G. Petro Reports AIG Lead Plaintiff Appointment
PEMSTAR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in MN Court
QUALITY DINING: IN Court Dismisses Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit

SEA GULL: Recalls 2,700 Ceiling Light Fixtures For Injury Hazard
SEARS ROEBUCK: Securities Suit Trial Scheduled April 4 in IL
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
SILICON LABORATORIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement

TYSON FOODS: Amalgamated Bank Lodges DE Suit Over Stock Options
UNITED STATES: Business Group Lauds Passage of Class Action Bill
UNITED STATES: Commerce Commends Congress For Passage Of S.5
UNITED STATES: Congress OKs Legislation On Class Action Lawsuits
UNITED STATES: Government To Pay Hungarian Jews For WWII Losses

UNITED STATES: House Democratic Leader Voices Opposition To S.5
UNITED STATES: ICBA Lauds Senate, Congress For Passage of S.5
UNITED STATES: NAHB Praises Swift Congressional Approval of S.5
UNITED STATES: NAR Applauds Passage Of Legislation To Curb Suits
UNITED STATES: Rep. Roy Blunt Votes in Favor of Suit Reform Bill

UNITED STATES: Republican Leader Says S.5's Passage A Major Win
WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 54,260 Infant Toys For Choking Hazard
WINN-DIXIE: FL Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
WINN-DIXIE STORES: FL Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Suit

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Stock Suit in NC
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NJ


                           *********


3CI COMPLETE: LA Court Approves Suit Joint Prosecution Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The First Judicial District Court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana
granted preliminary approval to the Joint Prosecution Agreement
for the class action filed against Stericycle, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     (v) usurped 3CI's corporate opportunities,

    (vi) misappropriated 3CI's customers,

   (vii) unfairly competed with 3CI, and

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

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

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

Pursuant to the Joint Prosecution Agreement, the Company and the
Louisiana Plaintiffs have agreed to jointly prosecute the claims
asserted in the Louisiana Suit against Stericycle, WSI and the
Stericycle Affiliates and to seek monetary damages and equitable
remedies on behalf of both the Company and the Louisiana
Plaintiffs. The Joint Prosecution Agreement provides that two-
thirds of all services and other work performed in jointly
prosecuting these claims will be performed by the Louisiana
Plaintiffs and/or The Wynne Law Firm and one-third of such
services and other work will be performed by the Company.

In addition, the Joint Prosecution Agreement provides that two-
thirds of any monetary recoveries (as defined in the Joint
Prosecution Agreement) received by the Company and/or the
Louisiana Plaintiffs that are related to, or arise out of, the
claims asserted in the Louisiana Suit will be allocated to the
Louisiana Plaintiffs and one-third of any monetary recoveries
will be allocated to the Company.  Pursuant to the Joint
Prosecution Agreement, none of the Company (directly or through
its counsel), the Louisiana Plaintiffs or The Wynne Law Firm may
propose, accept or authorize a settlement or compromise of any
or all of the claims asserted in the Louisiana Suit without the
prior written consent of the other parties.

The Joint Prosecution Agreement will become effective on the
date that all of the following have occurred:

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

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

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

A two-day hearing on these matters was held on February 9 and
10, 2005.  At the conclusion of that hearing, the Court
granted class certification; approved The Wynne Law Firm as
class counsel and preliminarily approved the Joint Prosecution
Agreement, subject only to the right of any class member to
object, following notice.  The Court also ordered that the
Louisiana Plaintiffs' class representative cause written notice
to be given to the members of the class to inform them of their
membership in the class, their rights to exclude themselves from
such membership, their rights to object to the Joint Prosecution
Agreement and their other rights as members of the class.

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

On January 24, 2005, the Stericycle Affiliates filed Defendants'
Amended and Restated Answer, Affirmative Defenses, Third-Party
Petition, and Counterclaims (the "Counterclaim") against the
Company and Third-Party Defendants Otley L. Smith III; John R.
Weaver, a former Chief Financial Officer of the Company; Robert
M. Waller, a former director of the Company; Curtis W. Crane, a
former Chief Financial Officer of the Company; Charles D.
Crochet, a former director and Chief Executive Officer of the
Company; David J. Schoonmaker, a former director of the Company;
Stephen B. Koenigsberg; and Kevin J. McManus.

In the Counterclaim, the Stericycle Affiliates assert that the
Company and the Third-Party Defendants, based on their alleged
relationships with one another and/or participation in the
transactions at issue in the Joint Petition, are liable to the
Stericycle Affiliates in contribution for some or all of the
claims and damages asserted in the Joint Petition.

In addition, the Stericycle Affiliates allege that the members
of the Special Committee, individually, breached their fiduciary
duties to the Company by, among other things, failing to conduct
a thorough investigation and analysis of the Louisiana
Plaintiffs' claims prior to entering into the Joint Prosecution
Agreement.  Finally, the Stericycle Affiliates allege that the
members of the Special Committee facilitated or caused insider
trading of the Company's Common Stock by failing to investigate,
or causing an increase in, the share price and trading volume of
the Common Stock during the Fall of 2004.


AGL RESOURCES: Reaches Settlement For NJ Shareholder Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AGL Resources, Inc. reached a settlement for the shareholder
class action filed against it in the Superior Court of the State
of New Jersey, County of Somerset, styled "Green Meadows
Partners, LLP on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated v. Robert P. Kenney, Bernard S. Lee, Craig G. Mathews,
Dr. Vera King Farris, James J. Forese, J. Russell Hawkins, R.
Van Whisnand, John Kean, NUI and the Company."

The Complaint, brought on behalf of a potential class of the
stockholders of NUI Corporation (NUI), names as defendants all
of the directors of NUI (Individual Defendants), NUI and the
Company.  The Complaint alleges that purported financial
incentives in the form of change of control payments and
indemnification rights created a conflict of interest on the
part of certain of the Individual Defendants in evaluating a
possible sale of NUI.

The Complaint further alleges that the Individual Defendants,
aided and abetted by the Company, breached fiduciary duties owed
to the plaintiff and the potential class. The Complaint demands
judgment:

     (1) determining that the action is properly maintainable as
         a class action,

     (2) declaring that the Individual Defendants breached
         fiduciary duties owed to the plaintiff and the
         potential class, aided and abetted by the Company,

     (3) enjoining the sale of NUI, or if consummated,
         rescinding the sale,

     (4) eliminating the $7.5 million break-up fee with the
         Company,

     (5) awarding the plaintiff and the potential class
         compensatory and/or rescissory damages,

     (6) awarding interest, attorney's fees, expert fees and
         other costs, and

     (7) granting such other relief as the Court may find just
         and proper.

On October 12, 2004, the Company reached an agreement in
principle with Green Meadows Partners, LLP to settle this
litigation. The settlement called for NUI to provide certain
additional information and disclosures to its shareholders, as
reflected in the "Additional Disclosure" section of NUI's proxy
statement supplement, filed on October 12, 2004 with the SEC. In
addition, as part of the settlement, NUI and the Company
consented to a settlement class that consists of persons holding
shares of NUI common stock at any time from July 15, 2004 until
November 30, 2004, and we agreed to pay plaintiff's attorney's
fees and costs in the amount of $285,000.  No part of these
attorney's fees or costs will be paid out of funds that would
otherwise have been paid to NUI's shareholders.

On December 22, 2004, the trial court entered an order
conditionally certifying a class for settlement purposes and
designating the Plaintiff as a Settlement Class representative.
The trial court's order also established deadlines for
Defendants to provide notice to the Settlement Class, for
Settlement Class members to object to the settlement and for a
final Settlement Hearing.


AMERICAN ELECTRIC: New Suit Filed Over Ohio River Barge Accident
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Electric Power faces a federal lawsuit filed in the
United States District Court in Huntington, Ohio, alleging that
property owners were not informed about a barge accident that
closed traffic along a 42-mile section of the Ohio River, the
Associated Press reports.

Attorney Dennis O'Bryan filed the suit on behalf of two West
Virginia couples alleging low water levels damaged property
upstream.  The lawsuit is the second class-action case filed
against Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power, subsidiary
AEP Memco LLC and B&H Towing Inc. of Paducah, Kentucky As
previously reported in the Febraury 2, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the other lawsuit was filed last month in a
West Virginia state court.

Both lawsuits claim that AEP and B&H Towing negligently allowed
the towboat Jon J. Strong to navigate the rain-swollen Ohio
River on January 6. Nine barges the towboat was pushing broke
free. Three crashed into the Belleville Lock and Dam and a
fourth sank, jamming the dam's floodgates.

The lawsuits alleged that as the water receded in a stretch of
the Ohio and its tributaries, riverbanks battered by earlier
flooding began eroding and collapsing. The dropping water level
also has halted river traffic between Belleville and the Willow
Island Lock and Dam, about 21 miles above Parkersburg, stranding
more than 290 barges and costing an estimated $4.5 million a day
in economic damages. The towboat is owned by Memco and leased to
B&H Towing.

With the floodgates jammed open, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers could not control water levels between Belleville and
the Willow Island Lock and Dam. Water levels in the Ohio and two
tributaries - the Little Kanawha and Little Hocking rivers -
dropped to historic lows, halting barge traffic between January
19 and February 1.

The federal lawsuit, which seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages, claims people living along the rivers lost
trees and saw a number of structures damaged by slips and
erosion caused by dropping water levels. The plaintiffs' homes
along the Little Hocking in Athens County, Ohio, were among the
structures damaged.


BRAVE PRODUCTS: Recalls 4,000 Log Splitters Due To Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brave Products Inc., Streator, IL is cooperating with the United
States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 4,000 Log Splitters.

The log splitter's hydraulic cylinders can have defective rod
retention, causing the seals to leak and the rods to detach.
This can result in serious injury to the operator, as the rod
can rapidly and unexpectedly extend the splitting wedge. Brave
Products has received 14 reports of leaking cylinders and/or rod
retention failure. No injuries have been reported.

The log splitters are made of steel and painted orange and
black. They have trailer hitches and rubber tires. Each log
splitter has a decal on the side that reads "Brave Products,
Inc." and "__ ton" (either 15, 22, 26, or 34). The following
models are being recalled:

     (1) Brave VH0234 (34 ton) Serial #S012368 through S016976

     (2) Brave VH9926 (26 ton) Serial #S014226 through S017534

     (3) Brave VH9922 (22 ton) Serial #S011460 through S016862

     (4) Brave HB0115 (15 ton) Serial #S013853 through S017534
         (Serial number plate is located on the hydraulic tank)

Manufactured in the United States, the splitters were sold by
Ace, True Value, and Do It Best Hardware stores and independent
power equipment dealers nationwide from June 2003 through
October 2004 for between $899 and $1,999.

Consumers should stop using their log splitter until they have
determined if their unit is a part of this recall. Consumers
should contact Brave Products Inc. to receive a free replacement
cylinder

Consumer Contact: Call Brave Products Inc. at (800) 350-8739
between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or write to
Brave Products, Inc., P.O. Box 577, Streator, IL 61364-0577.
Consumers also can visit the company's web site at
http://www.braveproducts.com.


BURLINGTON NORTHERN: TX Court To Refuse Certification Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Tarrant County, Texas 48th Judicial
District intends to deny class certification to a lawsuit filed
against Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and The
Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, styled "Ray
Ridgeway, et al. v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation and
The Burlington Northern and Santa Fe Railway Company, No. 48-
185170-00."

The plaintiffs' causes of action include alleged breach of
contract, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duties with
respect to a special dividend that was paid in 1988 by a
Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corporation (BNSF) predecessor,
Santa Fe Southern Pacific Corporation (SFSP).  The complaint
alleges that SFSP erroneously informed shareholders as to the
tax treatment of the dividend-specifically, the apportionment of
the dividend as either a distribution of earnings and profits or
a return of capital-which allegedly caused some shareholders to
overpay their income taxes.

The plaintiffs assert, through their expert's report, that SFSP
had essentially no accumulated earnings and profits and that the
entire dividend distribution should have been treated as a
return of capital, rather than the approximately 34 percent that
SFSP determined was a return of capital.

On December 15, 2004, the court issued a letter to the parties
indicating that it intends to deny the plaintiffs' requests to
certify a class action and will be issuing an order to that
effect.


CALIFORNIA: Court To Rule On Santa Monica Tenant Harassment Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The California Supreme Court agreed to decide whether "tenant
harassment" provisions of Santa Monica's rent control ordinance
that purport to criminalize bad faith evictions are preempted by
state law, the Metropolitan News-Enterprise reports.

In their weekly conference in San Francisco, justices voted
unanimously to review an October ruling of the district's Div.
Five in Action Apartment Association, Inc. v. City of Santa
Monica, B165082, a ruling that also struck down provisions
allowing tenants to file civil suits against landlords and
obtain injunctions.  Justice Orville A. Armstrong in an opinion
for Div. Five that reversed a ruling by Los Angeles Superior
Court Judge Ray L. Hart said the challenged provisions violate
the state's litigation privilege, codified at Civil Code Sec.
47(b).

Legal experts explain that the harassment section of the rent
control provisions bars landlords from maliciously interrupting
services, failing to perform repairs, threatening or verbally
abusing tenants, or taking action to terminate a tenancy "based
upon facts which the landlord has no reasonable cause to believe
to be true or upon a legal theory which is untenable under the
facts known to the landlord." Also, experts say that it makes
violation of its provisions a misdemeanor, permits either
private parties or the city to bring civil enforcement actions,
and authorizes injunctions, civil penalties, and damage awards.

Landlord Doreen Dennis and a nonprofit landlords' group sued to
block enforcement of the provisions affecting evictions and
sought certification of the litigation as a class action,
raising free speech and equal protection claims as well as
citing Sec. 47(b) and other state laws. Judge Hart sustained the
city's demurrer.

According to Justice Armstrong, it was not necessary to address
the plaintiffs' constitutional arguments or Judge Hart's ruling
that they lacked standing to assert them, since the challenged
provisions were preempted by the litigation privilege. He noted
that Sec. 47(b) establishes a privilege for publications made in
a "judicial proceeding...in any other official proceeding
authorized by law, or...in the initiation or course of any other
proceeding authorized by law...." He also noted that it has been
held to cover both pleadings and pre-litigation communications
connected with anticipated litigation, the News-Enterprise
reports.

Furthermore, Justice Armstrong declared: "Under the litigation
privilege, a landlord serving an eviction notice or filing an
unlawful detainer is immune from suit based on those notices or
filings, and cannot be enjoined from that conduct, even if the
motivation is malicious, the factual allegations known to be
untrue, and the legal theory untenable under the true facts.
Under the ordinance, that same landlord, with that same lawsuit,
is subject to criminal penalties, a civil lawsuit, and an
injunction. The ordinance thus punishes what the Civil Code
protects, is contradictory to state law, and is preempted."

The justice rejected the city's contention that the ordinance
was directed at acts, not privileged communications and cited
that a cause of action under the ordinance "would not be based
on allegations that the landlord acted by filing a complaint or
serving a statutory notice, but would instead rest on
allegations concerning the statement made in those documents."

He added, according to the News-Enterprise, "An unlawful
detainer complaint is a landlord's communication to the court
that a tenant has failed to pay rent or has violated another
portion of the rental agreement, and as such is privileged."

Justice Armstrong also rejected the argument that the challenged
provisions of the ordinance came within the established
exception to Sec. 47(b) for malicious prosecution suits. By
providing for statutory minimum damages, criminal prosecution,
injunctive relief, and initiation of a suit against the landlord
prior to termination of the unlawful detainer action in the
tenant's favor the ordinance "departs...in significant ways"
from the malicious prosecution exception, the justice explained.


CALIFORNIA: VICA Calls For Withdrawal Of Suit V. Online Booking
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Valley Industry and Commerce Association has called for the
withdrawal of Los Angeles' pending class-action lawsuit and
ordinance meant to crack down on Internet hotel booking agencies
the city accuses of evading occupancy taxes, the Los Angeles
Business Journal reports.

According to VICA Local Issues Co-Chair David Adelman, in a
prepared statement, "The city's new ordinance and class-action
lawsuit creates an incentive for online intermediaries, as well
as consumers, to book hotels outside the City of Los Angeles."

The suit, filed last month in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeks
compensation for transient occupancy taxes from a dozen online
hotel booking services, including Hotels.com and Expedia, dating
back to 1999. The city claims that the online services do not
pass on all of the 14 percent occupancy tax they collect.


CHARLES PRODUCTS: Recalls 720 Drinking Cups For Poisoning Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Products, of Bethesda, Maryland is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 720 "Maui Ocean Center" Toddler Drinking Cups.

A container inside the cup holds petroleum distillates, which
can leak onto the outside of the cup and could come into contact
with the user posing a poisoning hazard to children. CPSC and
Charles Products have received one report of the petroleum
distillates leaking from the bottom of the cup. No injuries were
reported.

The toddler cups are made of clear plastic with two handles and
have a blue lid with a spout for young children to drink from.
The dome-shaped container inside the cup contains blue and clear
liquid, along with two toy dolphins, which appear to be swimming
in the liquid. "MAUI OCEAN CENTER" is written on the side of the
cups.

Manufactured in China, the cups were exclusively sold at the
Maui Ocean Center in Wailuku Maui, Hawaii from June 2003 through
September 2004 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately take these cups away from young
children. Consumers should return the cups to the store where
purchased for a refund or contact firm.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, call Charles
Products at (800) 242-7537 between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday.


CLARENT CORPORATION: Jury Finds CEO, E&Y Guilty of Stock Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
After four weeks of trial and three days of deliberation by a
San Francisco jury in In re Clarent Corporation Securities
Litigation, the jury found liability against Jerry Chang, CEO of
Clarent Corporation ("Clarent") for a knowing omission or
misstatement in Clarent's second quarter 2001 10-Q. The jury
also found that Ernst & Young LLP ("E&Y") made a false statement
in connection with Clarent's second quarter 2001 10Q, although
it declined to assign liability to E&Y for the misstatement.

In this action, Gans and Nicholas sought to demonstrate that
both Chang, the founder and CEO of Clarent Corporation
("Clarent"), and Clarent's auditor E&Y - defrauded shareholders
by materially overstating Clarent's revenues for fiscal year
2000 and the first two quarters of fiscal year 2001. The
Plaintiffs alleged that Chang knowingly falsified the company's
financial statements during this period and that E&Y, in its
auditing capacity, knowingly signed off on these fraudulent
financial reports.

"Mr. Chang's liability for Clarent's false and misleading public
statements will go a long way in improving the ways in which
public companies do business," said Gans. "Though we are
disappointed that the jury did not find Ernst & Young liable,
this trial should make public companies and their auditors sit
up and take notice."

Nicholas agreed: "Our clients, and the investment community in
general, are committed to holding all wrongdoers accountable.
Even though the jury found otherwise, auditing firms should know
that they are living in a new world where "pennies-on-the-
dollar" settlements will not be acceptable to our clients no
matter what the risk of loss at trial."

Mr. Gans and Mr. Nicholas, partners in the San Diego office of
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP ("BLB&G"), began
prosecuting this securities fraud class action in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California in
the summer of 2002. The case was filed on behalf of all persons
and entities who acquired the common stock of Clarent
Corporation ("Clarent"), between April 26, 2000 and August 31,
2001, inclusive (the "Class Period").

Clarent's stock ceased trading on September 4, 2001 as a result
of the Company's disclosure that the revenues reported in its
financial statements for the first two quarters of 2001 may have
been overstated. On October 23, 2001, Clarent announced that its
investigation indicated that there have been financial
irregularities that materially affect the previously reported
results for fiscal year 2000 as well as the first two quarters
of fiscal 2001. On May 8, 2002, Clarent restated its revenues
and earnings for those six quarters and as a result, its stock
price plummeted, leaving shareholders suffering massive losses.

The New York office of BLB&G is Lead Counsel in In re WorldCom,
Inc Securities Litigation, and is currently preparing for the
trial, scheduled to begin next month, of the investor class
action related to the massive corporate fraud at WorldCom, Inc.


COMPLETE MAKEOVER: AG Cox Launches Nine Felony Charges V. Owner
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox charged Complete Makeover
Center owner William Thomas Abraham with nine felony charges
arising out of a seven-month investigation into the Troy-based
plastic surgery center.

"Consumers who have been harmed by William Abraham and his
various schemes around metro Detroit can rest easier," AG Cox
said.

Attorney General investigators arrested Abraham, 40, of Macomb
outside his home this morning.  He was arraigned this week in
41-A District Court in Shelby Township as well as 50 District
Court in Pontiac.  Abraham faces six charges in Macomb County
related to his ownership of the Complete Makeover Center,
including three counts of Forgery and three counts of Uttering &
Publishing, both of which are 14- year felonies. He also faces
two charges in Oakland County related to the company, one count
of Uttering & Publishing, a 14-year felony, and one count of
Check - No Account, a two- year felony.  In addition, William
Abraham faces one count of False Pretenses, a five-year felony,
in Macomb County for fraudulently representing himself as an
employee of a Chicago-based advertising agency in 2002.

The Attorney General's investigation into the defunct plastic
surgery center is ongoing.  "I encourage consumers who have
complaints against these parties to contact the Attorney
General's office," AG Cox said.

Consumers can file a complaint or provide information to the
Attorney General's office by Phone: 1-877-765-8388, or by
visiting the Website: http://www.michigan.gov/ag.


CONCORD CAMERA: Shareholders Lodge Amended Securities Suit in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Concord Camera Corporation and certain of its officers face an
amended class action filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida by individuals purporting
to be shareholders of the Company.

In January 2003, an amended class action complaint (the "Amended
Complaint") was filed adding certain of the Company's current
and former directors as defendants.  The lead plaintiffs in the
Amended Complaint sought to act as representatives of a class
consisting of all persons who purchased the Company's Common
Stock issued pursuant to the Company's September 26, 2000
secondary offering (the "Secondary Offering") or during the
period from September 26, 2000 through June 22, 2001, inclusive.

On April 18, 2003, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Amended Complaint and on August 27, 2004, the court dismissed
all claims against the defendants related to the Secondary
Offering and dismissed all claims against the defendants related
to allegations of misconduct occurring before February 2001 or
after April 2001 (the period February 2001 through April 2001
hereinafter referred to as the "Shortened Class Period").

The allegations remaining in the Amended Complaint are centered
around claims that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic
reports it filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") and in press releases it made to the public during the
Shortened Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, that a large portion of its accounts receivable was
represented by a delinquent and uncollectible balance due from
then customer, KB Gear Interactive, Inc ("KB Gear"), and claims
that such failures artificially inflated the price of the Common
Stock.  The Amended Complaint seeks unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, costs of suit and unspecified other
and further relief from the court.

The suit is styled "Berger, et al. v. Concord Camera Corp., et
al.," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida, under Judge Patricia Seitz.  The plaintiff
firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Cauley Geller Bowman Coates & Rudman LLP (Little Rock,
         AR), P.O. Box 25438, Little Rock, AR, 72221-5438,
         Phone: 501.312.8500, Fax: 501.312.8505,

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

     (3) Leo W. Desmond, 2161 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite
         204, West Palm Beach, FL, 33409, Phone: 561.712.8000,
         E-mail: stocklaw@bellsouth.net

     (4) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), 5355 Town Center Road - Suite 900, Boca Raton, FL,
         33486, Phone: 561.361.5000, Fax: 561.367.8400,

     (5) Emerson Poynter LLP, P.O. Box 164810, Little Rock, AR,
         72216-4810, Phone: 800.663.981, E-mail:
         tanya@emersonfirm.com

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


CONCORD CAMERA: Shareholders Launch Securities Suits in S.D. FL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Concord Camera Corporation and certain of its officers face
several class actions filed in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida by individuals purporting
to be shareholders of the Company.  If not dismissed by the
court, the Company expects these cases to be consolidated into
one case.

The plaintiffs in these complaints seek to act as
representatives of a class consisting of all persons who
purchased the Company's Common Stock during either the period
from August 14, 2003 through May 10, 2004, inclusive, or the
period from August 14, 2003 through October 4, 2004, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), and who were allegedly damaged thereby.

The allegations in the complaints are centered around claims
that the Company failed to disclose, in periodic reports it
filed with the SEC and in press releases it made to the public
during the Class Period regarding its operations and financial
results, the full extent of the Company's excess, obsolete and
otherwise impaired inventory, and claims that such failures
artificially inflated the price of the Common Stock.  The
complaints seek unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
costs of suit and unspecified other and further relief from the
court.


CORRPRO COMPANIES: Appeals Court Upholds Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the
dismissal without prejudice of the securities class action filed
against Corrpro Companies, Inc. and certain of its former and
current officers and directors.

The suit was initially filed in the United States District
Court, Northern District of Ohio, Eastern Division.  The lawsuit
arose out of accounting irregularities discovered in the
Company's former Australian subsidiary.  The complaint was
purportedly filed on behalf of all persons who purchased Company
common shares during the period April 1, 2000 through March 20,
2002 and alleges violations of anti-fraud provisions of the
federal securities laws resulting in artificially inflated
prices of the Company's common shares during the class period.

On May 27, 2003, the District Court granted, with prejudice, the
defendants' motions to dismiss the amended and consolidated
class action complaint.  On June 24, 2003, the plaintiffs filed
a notice of appeal.


DOLLAR GENERAL: Recalls 180T Dive Sticks Due To Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Dollar General Corp., of Goodlettsville, TN is cooperating
with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 180,000 Dive Stick Packages.

Children can fall or land on these upright dive sticks in
shallow water and suffer impalement injuries. CPSC banned pre-
weighted dive sticks in 2001.

The dive sticks are hard plastic in the shape of worms, fish,
and seahorses. The worm dive sticks are sticks with ridges that
are green with an orange weighted ball or pink with a yellow
weighted ball on the bottom. The fish dive sticks are pink and
yellow or green and orange. The seahorse dive sticks are yellow
with a blue tail or pink with a yellow tail. All of the dive
sticks are about 7 inches long. "Made in China" is written on
the fish and seahorses. "Sun and Shade" is written on each
package. There are two worms per package and three fish or
seahorses per package.

Manufactured in China, the dive sticks were sold at all Dollar
General stores nationwide from April 2004 through September 2004
for about $1.

Consumers should take these dive sticks away from children
immediately and return them to Dollar General stores for a
refund, or discard them.

Consumer Contact: Contact Dollar General at (800) 678-9258
between 9:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
visit their Web site: http://www.dollargeneral.com.


ESPEED INC.: Mircuz Partners Initiates Securities Fraud Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
eSpeed, Inc. (Nasdaq: ESPD) faces a securities class action
filed by Mircuz Partners, LLC.  The suit also names as
defendants Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. and certain affiliated
entities, and Howard Lutnick and Lee Amaitis.

The suit was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the
securities of eSpeed from August 12, 2003, to July 1, 2004,
alleging that eSpeed made "material false positive statements
during the class period" and violated certain provisions of the
U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and certain
rules and regulations thereunder.


FLORIDA SMOKED: Recalls Nova Salmon For Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Florida Agriculture and Consumer Services Commissioner Charles
H. Bronson reports that Florida Smoked Fish of Miami is
recalling its packages of The Boy's Farmer Market brand of
"Smoked Nova Salmon" because it has the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people and others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy persons may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women, or the baby
may be born with listeriosis.

The recalled "Smoked Nova Salmon" was distributed nationwide.
The "Smoked Nova Salmon" comes in a clear, plastic wrapped, 1
pound package with a use-by date of 4/24/05, batch 31997. No
illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The contamination was noted after testing by the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services revealed the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes in the "Smoked Nova Salmon."
Production of the product has been suspended while the company
continues its investigation as to the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased "Smoked Nova Salmon" are urged to
return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumer
with questions may contact Mr. Irvin Norfleet at (305) 621-7600,
extension 143.


GILMAN & CIOCIA: Asks DE Court To Dismiss Shareholder Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gilman & Ciocia asked the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware, in and for New Castle County to dismiss the
Shareholder's Class Action and Derivative Complaint filed
against it, styled "Gary Kosseff, Plaintiff, against James
Ciocia, Thomas Povinelli, Michael P. Ryan, Kathryn Travis, Seth
A. Akabas, Louis P. Karol, Edward H. Cohen, Steven Gilbert and
Doreen Biebusch, Defendants and Gilman & Ciocia, Inc., Nominal
Defendant, case no. 188-N."

The nature of the action is that the Company, its Board of
Directors and its management, breached their fiduciary duty of
loyalty in connection with the sale of the offices to Pinnacle.
The action alleges that the sale to Pinnacle was for inadequate
consideration and without a fairness opinion by independent
financial advisors, without independent legal advice and without
a thorough evaluation and vote by an independent committee of
the Board of Directors.  The action prays for the following
relief:

     (i) a declaration that the Company, its Board of Directors
         and its management breached their fiduciary duty and
         other duties to the plaintiff and to the other members
         of the purported class;

    (ii) a rescission of the Asset Purchase Agreement;

   (iii) unspecified monetary damages; and

    (iv) an award to the plaintiff of costs and disbursements,
         including reasonable legal, expert and accountants
         fees.

On March 15, 2004, counsel for the Company and for all
defendants filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  On June 18,
2004, counsel for the plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint.  On
July 12, 2004, counsel for the Company and for all defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.  On October 27,
2004, counsel for the plaintiff filed a memorandum of law in
opposition to defendant's motion to dismiss the Amended
Complaint.


GLOBAL RESEARCH: Settlement Hearing Scheduled For April 11, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
On April 11, 2005, The Honorable William H. Pauley III, United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York will
conduct a fairness hearing to consider a proposed plan of
distribution of funds for the Global Research Analyst
Settlement.

The Global Research Analyst Settlement Distribution Funds were
created as a result of payments made by financial institutions
and individuals to resolve matters with the Securities and
Exchange Commission, NASD, Inc. and the New York Stock Exchange,
Inc. The federal court entered a series of Final Judgments on
October 31, 2003 and September 24, 2004. The Final Judgments
provide that the $432.75 million contained in twelve separate
funds should be distributed directly to investors.

For more details, visit
http://www.globalresearchanalystsettlement.com/.


GSI COMMERCE: Recalls 4.3T Electric Scooters For Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
GSI Commerce Solutions, doing business as Spartan Sports, of
King of Prussia, PA is cooperating with the United States
Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily recalling
about 4,300 Electric Scooters.

A knob can loosen and cause the handlebar to detach from the
scooter. Additionally, the folding joint lock on the model FS-
101 scooter can break, causing the handlebars to release from
the upright position. Both hazards can cause the rider to lose
control and fall from the scooter. GSI Commerce Solutions has
received 28 reports involving the scooters' handlebars. Twenty-
two incidents involved the FS-101 scooter, including one report
of a child who suffered a broken arm from the fall. There were
six other incidents with FS-102 scooters with no reported
injuries.

The recall involves models FS-101 and FS-102 Spartan Sports
electric scooters, which are powered by 250-watt electric motors
and made of steel. The model numbers do not appear on the
product but are on the users' manual. The scooters have
adjustable handlebars, collapsible parts, and a stepping plate
and kickstand attached to the base. The scooters were sold in
black and blue with a black kickplate.

Manufactured in China the scooters were sold at web sites
operated by GSI Commerce Solutions nationwide from October 2002
through June 2004 for about $240 (Model FS-101) and $194 (Model
FS-102).

Consumers should stop using the product and contact GSI Commerce
Solutions to receive a free repair kit.

Consumer Contact: Call GSI Commerce Solutions toll-free at (866)
316- 4812 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday through Friday.


HIS INTERNATIONAL: Recalls 6.7T Jumper Sets For Poisoning Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
HIS International, of New York, NY is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 6,700 Denim Jumper Sets.

The paint on the buttons contains excessive lead levels, posing
a lead poisoning hazard to young children.

The recalled denim jumper sets are made of 100 percent cotton
and were sold in three different styles. Style number 2814X is a
long sleeve bodysuit with a flower appliqu‚ jumper. Style number
2817X is a striped turtleneck with a heart pocket jumper and
Style number 2818X is a long sleeve bodysuit with a patchwork
jumper.

Manufactured in China the recalled sets were exclusively at
Kmart Stores nationwide from July 2004 to November 2004 for
about $13.

Consumers should immediately take the denim jumper away from
children and return to Kmart for a refund or replacement.

Consumer Contact: Consumers should contact HIS International
toll-free at (888) 467-3990 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or visit their Web site:
http://www.nokidding-HIS.com.


KENTUCKY: Deters Benzinger Lodges Suit, Challenging Sewer Tax
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a lawsuit filed by the Crestview Hills law firm of Deters
Benzinger & LaVelle in Boone County Circuit Court, Northern
Kentucky officials are being asked to prove that a tax targeted
for a regional service is legal, the Kentucky Post reports.

The tax in question is a $45-a-year surcharge on sewer bills
that generates funding for a plan to manage storm water in
Boone, Campbell and Kenton counties. The lawsuit comes, as the
three counties already are busy trying to fend off a similar
legal challenge to the payroll tax that supports bus service.

With this recent lawsuit, the law firm, where several prominent
Democrats practice, drew the ire and sharp criticisms of
Campbell County Judge-Executive Steve Pendery, a Republican, who
said the suits and other similar to it as being politically
motivated, but wouldn't elaborate.

"Steve Pendery needs to get a grip," Mark Guilfoyle, who is
representing the plaintiffs in the sewer surcharge suit, told
the Post.  "On the payroll tax lawsuit, the Kentucky Supreme
Court ruled unanimously that workers and businesses in Campbell
County are owed substantial refunds. Mr. Pendery ought to start
spending more time figuring out how he will meet that legal
obligation instead of casting silly aspersions." The plaintiffs
in the sewer surcharge case are simply saying that the
government can't take people's property without legal authority,
Mr. Guilfoyle said. Mr. Pendery and the other officials charged
with overseeing the Sanitation District No. 1, which imposed the
surcharge, have failed to meet that responsibility, he adds.
"That's not politics, those are facts," Mr. Guilfoyle, a former
chairman of the 4th Congressional District Democratic Party and
a party insider pointed out to the Kentucky Post.

Meanwhile, in the latest suit, Fort Wright developer and former
Crescent Springs Councilman Rick Wessels, of the Wessels Co.,
and Florence resident Thomas Seiter want Sanitation District No.
1 of Northern Kentucky to refund $9 million in storm water
surcharges it has collected for the service in the past 18
months.

Mr. Wessels, a former Democrat who registered as a Republican in
December 2000, and Mr. Seiter are seeking class-action status,
so they can include as plaintiffs all residential and commercial
property owners who pay the surcharge.

"I think it's very sad that this lawsuit was filed," Mr. Pendery
told the Post. "There's a federal requirement that there be a
storm water program, and we are all going to pay for it more or
less depending on how we handle it." The least expensive way is
for everyone to pool their resources and do it through the
district, he adds.

As early as August 2003, the district began collecting the fee
with non-residential ratepayers being charged based on the
amount of impervious area on their property such as rooftops,
and driveways that that do not absorb rainwater. Those fees are
expected to generate up to $7 million in the 2005 fiscal year to
go along with $26 million collected from sanitary sewer fees,
making up the bulk of the district's $38,550,600 operating
revenue.

According to the suit, the Sanitation District is also adding a
2.4 percent cost-of-living increase to the original surcharge
which will be reflected in future sewage bills. To help reduce
the cost of such plans, 39 communities in Northern Kentucky
asked the Sanitation District to take over operation of their
storm water systems.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says storm water is one
of the top pollutants to water sources in the country, which is
why it now requires all communities under 100,000 people to have
a storm water plan.

The suit also asserts that the Sanitation District only has
legal authority to handle sanitary sewage, not storm water.
Therefore, the suit says, the agreements between municipalities
and the Sanitation District are invalid and the district has no
authority to assess the storm water surcharge.


LINSCO/PRIVATE: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Linsco/Private Ledger Corporation (LPL) faces a securities class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's securities from January 1,1990 to January 26, 2005.

According to a press release dated January 27, 2005, the
complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Linsco/Private
Ledger Corporation (LPL) made false and misleading statements
and omitted material facts concerning its undisclosed financial
interests with third party suppliers of annuity contracts. The
third parties paid monies and other incentives to have Variable
Annuities steered to them by LPL without properly disclosing the
preexisting arrangement to its customers.

The complaint further alleges, that rather than providing
independent and unbiased services for clients wanting to
purchase Variable Annuities, LPL maintained secret contingent
fee sharing agreements with a number of insurance company
underwriters of annuity contracts. These activities cause
insurance companies to collect higher premiums than would be
paid absent these arrangements and result in LPL customers
paying inflated premiums for the Variable Annuities.

According to a press release, a variable annuity is an insurance
contract with characteristics causing it to be treated as an
"investment" under the Securities Act of 1933. A Variable
Annuity contract generally provides that the purchaser agree to
a simple "lump sum" premium or scheduled fixed premiums for a
pre-set number of years. The premiums are deposited into a
separate account after deducting expenses, fees and charges
specified in the contract. The premiums thus collected in the
annuitant's separate account are available for tax deferred
investment in one or more portfolios (called sub-accounts). Upon
maturity of the annuity, the annuitant receives payment from the
accumulated value in such amounts and upon the terms specified
in the underlying investment contract.

The plaintiff firm in this litigation is Finkelstein & Krinsk
LLP, 501 West Broadway, Suit 1250, San Diego, CA, 92101, Phone:
877.493.5366, Fax: 619.238.5425.


LITTLER MENDELSON: Says New Law Will Impact Litigation Little
-------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys at Littler Mendelson, the nation's largest employment
and labor law firm, are advising their business clients across
the country that they will see little if any change in the way
employment-law class actions are litigated as a result of the
recent passage of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

"Although employment-law class actions are included in its
provisions, the Class Action Fairness Act clearly is aimed at
consumer-oriented lawsuits against business, such as product
liability or environmental protection claims," said Littler
class-action specialist Allan King.

The Act is designed to shift most large class-action lawsuits
out of state courts and into the federal court in an attempt to
streamline and standardize litigation of these potentially
costly cases.

Even prior to Congress passing Senate Bill 5, most employment-
related class actions, such as those alleging overtime pay
misclassifications or sex discrimination in promotion decisions,
were being filed in federal court, King said. Those cases that
were filed in state courts generally were quickly transferred to
a district court.

The most dramatic exception to this rule are cases originating
in California, where the number of class actions filed in the
superior court system is comparable to federal court filings.

King's colleague in San Jose, Christopher Cobey, noted that
attorneys representing groups of workers who feel they have been
wronged by their employer will continue to have the option of
suing in California courts if all members of the group live in
the state and/or the damages being sought are $5 million or
below -- not uncommon in employment law.

"Plaintiffs attorneys can tailor their lawsuits to avoid going
to federal court if they perceive the federal court will be more
hostile," Mr. Cobey said.


MARCHFIRST INC.: Settlement Hearing Scheduled For April 6, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County Department,
Chancery Dividion will conduct a fairness hearing to consider a
proposed settlement in the matter: In re Bernstein v. New
Century Mortgage Corporation on behalf of all persons who, on or
after April 4, 1997, were sent or received an unsolicited
Advertising fax from or on behalf of New Century Mortgage
Corporation.

The fairness hearing will be held on April 5, 2005, at 11:00
a.m. before Judge McGann in Room 2508 of the Richard Daley
Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, IL 60602.

For more details, contact Daniel Edelman of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC by Mail: 120 South LaSalle St., 18th
Floor, Chicago, IL 60603 or visit their Web site:
http://www.edcombs.com/CM/Notices/NewCenturyNotice.asp.


NEW YORK: High Court Judge Halts License Denials For Immigrants
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Karen Black of State Supreme Court in Manhattan ordered
the state stop taking away the driver's licenses of immigrants
in New York who do not have Social Security cards, citing that
the Department of Motor Vehicles is not authorized to enforce
immigration law or to make new rules without public notice, the
New York Post reports.

The department had began a license crackdown last year that was
expected to cost the licenses of 300,000 immigrants in New York
this year and has already led to the suspension of about 7,000
licenses.

Though temporary the order by judge, according to lawyers on
both sides reflected her preliminary opinion that immigrant
drivers would suffer irreparable harm unless the crackdown was
stopped while the court considers a class-action lawsuit brought
on their behalf, and that the immigrants' suit was likely to
prevail.

The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund filed the
class action suit last summer against Gov. George E. Pataki and
Raymond Martinez, the motor vehicles commissioner, which was
brought on behalf of New Yorkers who have been denied a driver's
license or identity card for lack of a verifiable Social
Security number or an immigration document satisfactory to the
Department of Motor Vehicles.

Foster S. Maer, one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, told the
NY Post "We think this is a clear victory for the immigrant
community, that they are entitled to the same licenses as any
other resident of the state. The court found that the state
can't just arbitrarily cut off the driver's licenses for the
immigrants of the state. They had done it secretly without any
notice."

Asked for comment by the New York Times, Elizabeth Forman, an
assistant state attorney general representing the government,
said no decision had been made about whether to appeal the
order, which temporarily bars the state from denying the renewal
of licenses because of immigration status, but does not affect
its handling of new license applications.

Not only does the judge's order suspend the renewal of licenses,
it also requires the state to give the plaintiffs 48 hours'
notice before sending out letters suspending the licenses of
tens of thousands of other drivers. In a practical standpoint,
the order means that no more suspensions are likely to occur
until after the next court date, which is a hearing on April 7
over the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.

The lawsuit states that among those who sued the state are a 60-
year-old licensed asbestos remover who worked in the World Trade
Center cleanup, a teenage refugee from Albania, and the Irish
father of an American-born infant who needs to be driven to
medical treatment for her seizures. Most are in the country
without legal authorization, the court papers say, but two who
are in the United States legally also were denied licenses by
clerks without notice or chance for redress, the lawsuit said.

The court decision comes days after the House of Representatives
passed a bill that would block states from granting driver's
licenses to illegal immigrants. That bill is on a fast track to
a vote in the Senate early next month, when its sponsors have
vowed to attach it to an appropriations bill, however it does
have considerable opposition.


NORTH DAKOTA: State Supreme Court Dismisses Tribal Fuel Tax Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
North Dakota's Supreme Court has dismissed a lawsuit that sought
to block the Tax Department from collecting state fuel taxes
from American Indians who buy gasoline on their own
reservations, the Associated Press reports.

The court's ruling also included a request that the Legislature
attempt to resolve the dispute, which was brought by members of
the Three Affiliated Tribes and Turtle Mountain Band of
Chippewa.

Dan Rouse, an assistant attorney general who handled the case,
told AP the Supreme Court's dismissal left the status of the
dispute uncertain. He states, "The Supreme Court is simply
saying, 'We don't see what we needed to see to grab this case on
its own merits and run with it.'"

Vance Gillette, an attorney for the case's Indian plaintiffs,
told AP further legal action is possible.  "These taxes are
illegal. People shouldn't have to pay this," he said.

Both the Tax Department and the Indian plaintiffs in the case
were challenging rulings by the case's trial judge, Northwest
District Judge Gary Holum of Minot.

Judge Holum, who retired from the bench at the end of last year,
had ruled the Tax Department could not collect state fuel taxes
from tribal members who are buying gasoline on their own
reservations. However, he agreed to delay a permanent injunction
against the Tax Department while the case was being appealed.

Three of the case's four Indian plaintiffs are contesting that
Judge Holum's decision to drop them from the lawsuit, and the
judge's refusal to make the lawsuit into a class action, since
according to Mr. Gillette, 4,000 to 5,000 tribal members could
benefit if the case were made into a class action.

In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court said in a unanimous
ruling that Judge Holum's earlier rulings in the case were not
final, and consequently is not ready for a Supreme Court appeal.
Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner, who wrote the decision, said the
plaintiffs have indicated they would be satisfied if the Tax
Department set up a procedure to refund the fuel taxes they pay.
North Dakota's motor fuels tax is 21 cents a gallon.


NOVARTIS AG: Female Employees File Sex Discrimination Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. female employees filed a $100 million federal class-action
lawsuit against Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis, alleging
discrimination against working mothers, the United Press
International reports.  The suit, which involves 12 women, who
worked for Novartis in 12 states and the District of Columbia,
was filed in New York on behalf of current and former female
employees.

An attorney representing the women told UPI, "Although the
language of their policies suggests that Novartis supports
working mothers, Novartis' employment practices say exactly the
opposite. Actions, in this case, speak louder than words. As
soon as a woman indicates that she's planning to become a
mother, her male supervisors start pushing her toward the exit."

The plaintiffs charge they were denied promotions, subjected to
a hostile work environment, prevented from participating in
management development programs, paid less than male employees
and ordered by male supervisors to do work while out on family
or other leave.

Novartis is the parent company for Gerber brands and the maker
of such products as Maalox, CIBA Vision contact lenses, Elidel
eczema treatment, Theraflu and Triaminic.


OHIO: A.G. Petro Reports AIG Lead Plaintiff Appointment
--------------------------------------------------------
Three of Ohio's public retirement systems have been appointed
lead plaintiff in a securities class action lawsuit against
American International Group Inc. (AIG), that alleges AIG
engaged in "bid-rigging" and other fraudulent behavior, Ohio
Attorney General Jim Petro said, according to the Insurance
Journal.

Preliminary loss estimates to systems namely: the Ohio Public
Employees Retirement System (OPERS), State Teachers Retirement
System of Ohio (STRS Ohio) and Ohio Police & Fire Pension Fund
could be as much as $70 to $75 million, while losses to the
entire class could be billions of dollars.

The Attorney General told the Journal, "As I have continued to
state, the blatant disregard for generally accepted accounting
principles seems to be pervasive in business today, and my
office will seek to protect all investors from such actions.
Obtaining lead plaintiff status will allow Ohio to champion
investor rights and corporate reform as we fight this deep
corporate malaise."

According to A.G. Petro, the allegations in the class action
against AIG currently pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, include misleading
investors by being part of a "bid-rigging" scheme and by the
true nature of its contingent-commission arrangements with Marsh
& McLennan and other insurance brokers. Also, the attorney
general cited that two AIG executives have pleaded guilty, the
documents produced to regulators and the investigations
concerning "bid-rigging" and its sale of "income-smoothing"
products and creation of off balance sheet partnerships lead to
the appearance that AIG was aware of its wrongful conduct.

AG Petro is representing Ohio public pension systems named as
lead plaintiff in six cases fighting corporate fraud: Global
Crossing, Marsh & McLennan, Freddie Mac, Fannie Mae, Exxon-
Mobil, and now AIG. Furthermore, he is also pursuing other
litigation on behalf of the state against AOL-Time Warner,
Enron, Pilgrim Baxter, Putnam, and WorldCom.

"It is time that corporate wrongdoers realize that we will not
sit by the wayside. My office will continue to serve the State
of Ohio and all citizens against fraudulent behavior," the
attorney general said.


PEMSTAR INC.: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Suit in MN Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is ongoing in the consolidated securities class action
filed against PEMSTAR, Inc. in the United States District Court
for the District of Minnesota, styled "In re PEMSTAR Securities
Litigation."  The suit also names as defendants certain of the
Company's officers and directors.

The suit alleges violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933.  The lawsuit is a consolidation of
several lawsuits, the first of which was commenced in United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota on July 24,
2002.  The plaintiffs, several individual shareholders, allege,
in essence, that the defendants defrauded the shareholders by
making optimistic statements during a time when they should have
known that business prospects were less promising and allege
that the registration statement filed by the Company in
connection with a secondary offering contained false, material
misrepresentations.  An Amended Consolidated Complaint was filed
January 9, 2003.

The suit is styled "In re PEMSTAR, Inc. Securities Litigation,"
pending in the United States District Court in Minnesota.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Mark McNair, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 800,
         Washington, DC, 20006, Phone: 703.273.3070, E-mail:
         wmmcnair@justice4investors.com

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

     (4) Rabin & Peckel LLP, 275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

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


QUALITY DINING: IN Court Dismisses Breach of Fiduciary Duty Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The St. Joseph Superior Court in South Bend, Indiana dismissed
the class action filed against Quality Dining, Inc., its
directors and two of its officers, alleging breach of fiduciary
duties.

On June 22, 2004, a purported class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of the public shareholders of the Company by Milberg,
Weiss, Bershad & Schulman LLP, alleging that the individual
defendants breached fiduciary duties by acting to cause or
facilitate the acquisition of the Company's publicly-held shares
for unfair and inadequate consideration, and colluding in the
Fitzpatrick group's going private proposal.

The action, "Bruce Alan Crown Grantors Trust v. Daniel B.
Fitzpatrick, et al., Cause No. 71-D04-0406-PL00299," sought to
enjoin the transaction or if consummated, to rescind the
transaction or award rescisssory damages, and for defendants to
account to the putative class for unspecified damages.

On August 19, 2004, the Company and the individual defendants
filed motions to dismiss the action. The defendants argued that
the claims were not ripe because the transaction proposed by the
Fitzpatrick group required approval by the Company's board of
directors and its shareholders, neither of which had occurred,
and that in any event, as a matter of Indiana corporate law,
shareholders who dissent from such a transaction that receives
the approval of a majority of the shares entitled to vote are
not permitted to enjoin or otherwise challenge the transaction.
On September 24, 2004, the plaintiff filed a response to
defendants' motions to dismiss arguing that the claim was timely
because the proposed transaction allegedly was a fait accompli
and that Indiana law permits minority shareholders to challenge
such a transaction.

On October 12, 2004, three days before the hearing on the
defendants' motions to dismiss, the plaintiff amended its
complaint. The amended complaint continues to challenge the
adequacy of the Fitzpatrick group's proposal and to allege that
the individual defendants have breached fiduciary duties. In
addition, citing the Company's September 15, 2004, announcements
of (a) third quarter earnings and (b) a correction in the
calculation of weighted average shares outstanding which
increased earnings per share in the first two quarters of 2004
by a fraction of a penny, the plaintiff alleges that from March
31, 2004, until September 15, 2004, the defendants violated the
antifraud provisions of Indiana Securities Act by disseminating
misleading information to "artificially deflate" the price of
Quality Dining shares, and thereby induce investors to hold
Quality Dining shares.  Finally, the plaintiff alleges that the
failure of the Company's directors to pursue a forfeiture action
under Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which
requires the chief executive officer and chief financial officer
under certain circumstances to reimburse the Company for certain
types of compensation if the Company is required to issue a
restatement, would constitute a breach of fiduciary duties.

On October 13, 2004, the Company announced that the special
committee of the board of directors had approved in principle,
by a vote of three to one, a transaction by which the
Fitzpatrick group would purchase the outstanding shares held by
Company's public shareholders for $3.20 per share.  The
agreement was subject to several contingencies.  With respect to
shareholder approval, the Fitzpatrick group agreed to vote its
shares in the same proportion as the Company's public
shareholders vote their shares.

On November 3, 2004, Quality Dining and the individual
defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.
Defendants argued as before that as a matter of Indiana
corporate law, the plaintiff cannot enjoin or otherwise
challenge the proposed transaction. Defendants contended that
plaintiff's claims challenging the proposed transaction should
be dismissed for the additional reason that the merger is
subject to approval by a majority of the putative class that the
plaintiff seeks to represent. Defendants also argued that there
is no cause of action under the Indiana Securities Act for
persons who "hold" their securities purportedly because of
misleading information, and no basis for a claim that reports
filed by the Company with the SEC violate a section of the
Indiana Act prohibiting the filing of misleading reports with
the Indiana Securities Division.  Finally, defendants contended
that the plaintiff has no private right of action under Section
304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and cannot maintain a direct
action as a shareholder of the Company to pursue a forfeiture of
certain executive compensation.

A hearing on the defendants' motion to dismiss was held on
December 17, 2004.  On February 3, 2005, the court granted the
defendants' motions to dismiss and dismissed the plaintiff's
amended complaint. The plaintiff has not yet commenced an appeal
or sought to take any other action following the court's ruling
but its time to do so has not expired.


SEA GULL: Recalls 2,700 Ceiling Light Fixtures For Injury Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sea Gull Lighting Products Inc., of Riverside, NJ is cooperating
with the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by
voluntarily recalling about 2,700 Ceiling Light Fixtures

Due to a manufacturing defect in a component part, the light
fixture could fall and strike a person beneath the light
fixture. The fixture also poses a laceration risk if the lamp
breaks. Sea Gull Lighting has received two reports of light
fixtures falling. There have been no reports of injuries.

The light fixtures were sold in a variety of styles and shapes
and hang from the ceiling. Only models 31021-794, 31022-794,
66022-794, 5217-02, 5217-746 and 5217-786 are included in the
recall due to a component part problem with the screw collar.
The model number is printed on the inside of the light canopy,
the round plate that attaches the light fixture to the ceiling,
and on the light fixture packaging and receipts.

Manufactured in China, the fixtures were sold at home
improvement outlets, lighting showrooms and contractors
nationwide. Contractors sold and installed the 5217 model
fixtures from October 2003 through October 2004, and the 31021,
31022 and 66022 models from June 2004 through October 2004 for
between $300 and $400.

Consumers should contact Sea Gull Lighting to receive
instructions on having the recalled ceiling light fixtures
repaired by a licensed electrician.

Consumer Contact: Sea Gull Lighting at (800) 347-5483 between 7
a.m. and 6:30 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or visit the firm's
Web site: http://www.seagulllighting.com.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Securities Suit Trial Scheduled April 4 in IL
------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated securities class action filed against
Sears Roebuck and Company, Inc. is set for April 4,2005 in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

On and after October 18, 2002, several actions were filed
against the Company and certain current and former officers
alleging that certain public announcements by the Company
concerning its credit card business violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.

The Court has consolidated the actions and appointed the
Department of the Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its
Division of Investments as lead plaintiff.  The Court has more
recently denied defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint and
certified the consolidated action as a class action on behalf of
a class of all persons who purchased securities of the Company
between October 24, 2001 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.

A similar case filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California was transferred to the Northern
District of Illinois and subsequently voluntarily dismissed by
the plaintiffs in that action.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss ERISA Violations Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Company, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss the
consolidated class action filed against it, certain officers and
directors, and alleged fiduciaries of Sears 401(k) Savings Plan,
seeking damages and equitable relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

The plaintiffs purport to represent participants in the Plan,
and allege breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in
connection with the Plan's investment in the Company's common
shares and alleged communications made to Plan participants
regarding the Company's financial condition.

A motion for certification of the action as a class action was
ordered withdrawn pending the court's decision on the motion to
dismiss.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Asks IL Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Company, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois to dismiss an
amended securities class action filed against it and certain
officers.

The suit was initially filed on behalf of a class of all persons
who, between June 21, 2002 and October 17, 2002, purchased the
7% notes that Sears, Roebuck Acceptance Corporation (SRAC)
issued on June 21, 2002.

An amended complaint has been filed, naming as additional
defendants certain former officers, SRAC and several investment
banking firms who acted as underwriters for SRAC's March 18, May
21 and June 21, 2002 notes offerings.  The amended complaint
alleges that the defendants made misrepresentations or omissions
concerning its credit business during the class period and in
the registration statements and prospectuses relating to the
offerings.  The amended complaint alleges that these
misrepresentations and omissions violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933 and purports to be brought on behalf of a class of all
persons who purchased any security of SRAC between October 24,
2001 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.


SILICON LABORATORIES: Asks NY Court To Approve Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silicon Laboratories, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval for the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against it, four of its officers individually and
the three investment banking firms who served as representatives
of the underwriters in connection with the Company's initial
public offering of common stock.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint alleges that the registration
statement and prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters solicited and received additional,
         excessive and undisclosed commissions from certain
         investors, and

     (2) the underwriters had agreed to allocate shares of the
         offering in exchange for a commitment from the
         customers to purchase additional shares in the
         aftermarket at pre-determined higher prices.

The action seeks damages in an unspecified amount and is being
coordinated with approximately 300 other nearly identical
actions filed against other companies.  A court order dated
October 9, 2002 dismissed without prejudice the Company's four
officers who had been named individually.  On February 19, 2003,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the
Company.

On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in six of the
approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and noted that
the decision is intended to provide strong guidance to all
parties regarding class certification in the remaining cases.
Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the Silicon
Laboratories case.

The Company has approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements which set forth the terms of a settlement between the
Company, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other
approximately 300 issuer defendants.  Among other provisions,
the settlement provides for a release of the Company and the
individual defendants for the conduct alleged in the action to
be wrongful.  The Company would agree to undertake certain
responsibilities, including agreeing to assign away, not assert,
or release certain potential claims it may have against its
underwriters.  The settlement agreement also provides a
guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases
relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.  To the extent
that the underwriter defendants settle all of the cases for at
least $1 billion, no payment will be required under the issuers'
settlement agreement.   To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the issuers are
required to make up the difference.

The suit is styled "In re Silicon Laboratories, Inc. Securities
Litigation," related to "In re IPO Securities Litigation, case
no. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," pending in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


TYSON FOODS: Amalgamated Bank Lodges DE Suit Over Stock Options
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amalgamated Bank, trustee of a mutual fund owning nearly 89,000
shares of Tyson Foods has filed a lawsuit seeking class action
status in Delaware against the Springdale-based company charging
that directors benefited fiscally at the expense of
shareholders, the Springdale Morning News reports.

Specifically, the lawsuit lists the world's largest meat
processor and most current and some former members of its board
of directors as defendants, including Chairman and CEO John
Tyson.  The complaint charges that the company tied giving stock
options to executives and board members to events occurring
shortly after the gift that the company believed would increase
the value of shares, such as an improved earnings outlook.

Jay Eisenhofer, attorney with Grant & Eisenhofer, the firm
representing union-owned Amalgamated Bank, said in a press
release, he predicts greater scrutiny regarding certain stock
options. "There is no doubt in my mind that timed options
represent the next big wave in corporate governance reform," he
adds.

Other allegations listed in the suit by Amalgamated Bank,
trustee of LongView MidCap 400 Index Fund, include:

     (1) Certain present and former members of Tyson's board
         favored personal interest of the Tyson family, who held
         a controlling stock interest in Tyson;

     (2) Defendants entered into wasteful and excessive
         consulting contracts with Tyson family members, some of
         which can continue posthumously; and

     (3) Defendants allowed family members to "run roughshod"
         over the company's finances by causing the company to
         enter into unjustified related-party transactions with
         interests of family members.

In the suit, the firm on behalf of the shareholders is calling
for Tyson to compensate financial injuries suffered by the
company as a direct result of the breaches of management duties
by the individual defendants.

Also, Amalgamated Bank itself criticized Tyson's dual-stock
corporate structure, which gives former Senior Chairman Don
Tyson more than 80 percent of voting power on items such as
shareholder proposals, executive compensation and board members.


UNITED STATES: Business Group Lauds Passage of Class Action Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
The New England Council President James T. Brett lauded Congress
for passing class action reform legislation.

Last week the Senate passed the Class Action Fairness Act, which
will reform laws governing class action lawsuits in a variety of
ways, including moving many multi-state class action lawsuits
from state courts to federal court. The House followed suit and
passed the bill without amendment. It is now expected to be
signed into law by the President.

"This bill will help our legal system work more efficiently and
is fairer for both plaintiffs and defendants," Mr. Brett
commented. "It is a truly bipartisan bill that was carefully
crafted with input from both sides of the aisle."

The Class Action Fairness Act contains numerous consumer
protection provisions, including one that would prohibit
settlements where the awards are so low that plaintiffs, after
paying for legal fees, actually lose money. The Act also
includes provisions that guard against coupon settlements that
provide little or no value to consumers.

"Many of these inequities in the system have led to frivolous
lawsuits which are causing backlogs in the courts," Mr. Brett
said.

The result of these inefficiencies can not only burden
businesses with unnecessary costs, but ultimately raises costs
for consumers.

Class action lawsuits were established as a means of resolving
lawsuits involving large numbers of individuals with similar
claims. State standards governing these cases have become varied
among the states over the years. The lack of uniformity has led
to frivolous lawsuits. It has also led to some state court
jurisdictions attracting cases because defendants and lawyers
are "shopping" for a favorable outcome.

The New England Council has been a leading advocate for class
action reform legislation. Council President and CEO James Brett
has been invited to attend the bill signing ceremony at the
White House after the Council worked closely with a broad
coalition of business groups and other supporters from around
the country to pass this important legislation.

The New England Council is the nation's oldest regional business
organization, dedicated to promoting economic development and a
high quality of life in the six-state region.


UNITED STATES: Commerce Commends Congress For Passage Of S.5
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform applauded the U.S.
House of Representatives for passing the Class Action Fairness
Act (S.5), a bill designed to curb class action lawsuit abuse in
state courts.

"America's employers and consumers are the big winners today,"
said Tom Donohue, Chamber President and CEO. "Reform of the
class action lawsuit system will reduce frivolous lawsuits, spur
business investment and help restore sanity to our nation's
legal system."

The Class Action Fairness Act is aimed at curbing class action
lawsuit abuse in state courts by allowing greater scrutiny of
settlements that provide coupons or something else of little or
no value to consumers, but return millions in legal fees to
class action attorneys. In addition, S.5 is intended to stop the
rampant practice of venue shopping of large national class
actions by allowing federal courts to hear more national class
action lawsuits involving plaintiffs and defendants from
multiple states.

The legislation passed the House after being approved 72 to 26
by the U.S. Senate last week. S.5 now heads to the White House,
where the President is expected to sign the legislation into
law. The Chamber would like to thank House Republican leadership
as well as House Judiciary Chairman Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) and
Reps. Goodlatte (R-Va.) and Boucher (D-Va.) for their strong
support of class action reform.

"The speed with which this bill passed both houses of Congress
this session is a testament to the glaring need for class action
reform," continued Mr. Donohue. "This is a landmark victory in
our fight to restore fairness and balance to our courts."

The mission of the Institute for Legal Reform is to make
America's legal system simpler, fairer and faster for everyone.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation, representing more than three million businesses and
organizations of every size, sector and region.


UNITED STATES: Congress OKs Legislation On Class Action Lawsuits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Congress has forwarded President Bush legislation that is aimed
at discouraging multimillion-dollar class-action lawsuits by
having federal judges take them away from state courts, a
victory for conservatives, who are hoping that it will lead to
other lawsuit limits, the Associated Press reports.

The legislation, which the House passed via a 279-149 vote, is
the first of President Bush's 2005 legislative priorities to win
congressional approval. The Senate had already voted 72-26 for
the bill on February 10.

The president has described class-action suits as often
frivolous, and businesses even complain that state judges and
juries have been too generous to plaintiffs. President Bush, who
is expected to sign the bill said, "This bill is an important
step forward in our efforts to reform the litigation system and
to continue creating jobs and growing our economy."

Democrats, however, say the legislation is aimed at protecting
GOP business donors and hurting trial lawyers, a traditional
part of their base. They also warn that Republican changes to
the legal system will only make it harder for people to sue over
injuries caused by corporations. According to House Minority
Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., the legislation is "a payback to
big business at the expense of consumers."

The president, the GOP and the business community have all
criticized what they see as a litigation crisis that enables
lawyers to reap huge profits while businesses and consumers are
stuck with the bill. "This is the beginning of meaningful
efforts by the Congress to curb lawsuit abuse," said House
Judiciary Committee Chairman James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.

Under the legislation, class action suits seeking $5 million or
more would be heard in state court only if the primary defendant
and more than one-third of the plaintiffs are from the same
state. However, if less than one-third of the plaintiffs are
from the same state as the primary defendant, and more than $5
million is at stake, the case would go to federal court.

Though state courts have been known to issue multimillion-dollar
verdicts like they did against tobacco companies, critics of the
current situation pointed out that federal jurists are not as
likely to let multimillion-dollar class action lawsuits move
forward.

According to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., moving those
cases to federal court would ensure that state judges would no
longer "routinely approve settlements in which the lawyers
receive large fees and the class members receive virtually
nothing."

Still Democrats contend that Republicans just want to protect
corporations from taking responsibility for their wrongdoing by
keeping them clear of state courts that might issue
multimillion-dollar verdicts against them.

Legal experts though explain that the legislation is not
retroactive, and thus cases already in court will go forward in
their current courts. Aside from moving class actions to federal
courts, the bill will also limit lawyers' fees in so-called
coupon settlements, wherein plaintiffs get discounts on products
instead of financial settlements, by linking the fees to the
coupon's redemption rate or the actual hours spent working on a
case.


UNITED STATES: Government To Pay Hungarian Jews For WWII Losses
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. government is on the verge of paying as many as 50,000
Hungarian Jews for the loss of their valuables during World War
II, the Chicago Tribune reports.

U.S. District Court in Florida is expected to announce closure
to a class-action suit stemming from May 1945, when U.S.
soldiers in Werfen, Austria intercepted a so-called Gold Train.
The train's 40 boxcars were packed with gold, art and other
treasures the Nazis had plundered from Hungarian Jews, the vast
majority of which was never returned to its owners.

Though no property will be returned to individuals, the United
States will pay millions of dollars to Hungarian Holocaust
survivors, numbering about 10,000 in the United States, 15,000
more in Hungary and as many as 25,000 in Israel.

According to Sam Dubbin, an attorney for the survivors, the
disclosure contained in a 173-page court brief in the case was
very heart wrenching. He adds, "You expect more from the United
States. But human nature being what it is, it's not
inconceivable what happened."


UNITED STATES: House Democratic Leader Voices Opposition To S.5
---------------------------------------------------------------
House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi spoke recently on the House
floor in opposition to the Republicans' S.5, also known as the
Class Action Fairness Act, which protects irresponsible
corporations at the expense of consumers.

"Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this legislation.
Today, Republicans are bringing to the floor, as their first
major legislative action, a payback to big business at the
expense of consumers. The Republican agenda is to ensure that
some Americans do not get their day in court.

"Make no mistake: the class action bill before us today is an
extreme bill. It is not a compromise bill, as some have claimed.
It is an extreme bill that is an injustice to consumers, and a
windfall for irresponsible corporations.

"Consumers will be hit hard by this bill. It lumps together
individual personal injury cases such as those involving Vioxx,
which are not class actions under current procedures, and forces
them into the federal courts. Doing so will greatly increase the
likelihood that such cases will never be heard.

"When Americans are injured or even killed by Vioxx or Celebrex
or discriminated against by Wal-Mart, they may never get their
day in court. Those cases that do go forward will take
significantly longer because the federal courts are overburdened
and unequipped for this caseload. That is why federal judges,
including the Judicial Conference of the United States, oppose
the bill.

"Special interests have even admitted that the real intent of
this bill is to clog the federal courts and therefore stop the
cases.

"To irresponsible corporations, however, the class action bill
is a belated Valentine. It is exactly what they asked for.
Powerful corporations will largely be immune from the
accountability that currently comes from meritorious state class
action cases. For example, this bill would help shield large
corporations from any accountability for Enron-style shareholder
fraud, for activities that violate employee rights under state
law, and for telemarketing fraud targeted at the elderly.

"It should come as no surprise, however, that Republicans are
seeking yet another way to protect irresponsible corporations.

"The Washington Post reported that last year's Republican
medical malpractice bill contained special liability protections
that would have precluded consumers from suing to recover
punitive damages arising from the types of injuries caused by
Vioxx and Celebrex.

"Protecting big drug companies is always at the top of the
Republican agenda. We saw that in the prescription drug bill
under Medicare. This is yet again, another example of the
Republicans being the handmaidens of the pharmaceutical
industry.

"This bill also runs counter to the principles of federalism
that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim to
support. It throws thousands of state cases into federal courts
that are not equipped to adjudicate state laws.

"For instance, lawsuits involving the enforcement of state
hourly wage laws, which often have greater protections than
federal wage laws, would be forced into federal court. In fact,
46 state attorney generals, on a bipartisan basis, have
requested an exemption so that they can continue to protect
their citizens under the state consumer protection laws in state
courts.

"The Republicans have rejected that request, while Democrats
have incorporated it into our substitute.

"Democrats, in our substitute, support sensible approaches that
weed out frivolous lawsuits, but not meritorious claims. Our
Democratic substitute says that certain kinds of cases must
always have their day in court. Physical injury cases, civil
rights cases, wage and hour cases, state Attorneys General
cases, and others must be heard if we are to remain a nation
that strives for 'justice for all.'

"President Harry Truman said it so well. 'The Democratic Party
stands for the people. The Republican Party stands, and always
has stood, for special interests.'

"I urge my colleagues to stand up to the special interests, to
support the Democratic substitute, to listen to the
recommendations of the federal judges and the Judicial
Conference of the United States, and to oppose this unjust
bill."


UNITED STATES: ICBA Lauds Senate, Congress For Passage of S.5
-------------------------------------------------------------
Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) President and
CEO Camden R. Fine issued the following statement in response to
the U.S. House of Representatives' approval of The Class Action
Fairness Act (S.5):

"ICBA congratulates the House for adopting ICBA-backed class
action legislation that will significantly reduce the number of
frivolous lawsuits by cracking down on the practice of
jurisdiction shopping in pursuit of higher jury awards. Putting
an end to this costly abuse is long overdue.

"We also congratulate the House leadership for agreeing to
expedited procedures to get this important legislation to the
House floor and down to the White House as quickly as possible.

"The action by the House is also a hopeful sign that gridlock on
other important bills, such as bankruptcy reform, may finally be
broken."

Last week, the Senate passed the act with a 77-26 vote. The act
passed with a 279-149 vote in the House and now goes to
President Bush for his approval.


UNITED STATES: NAHB Praises Swift Congressional Approval of S.5
---------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Home Builders applauded House
passage of legislation to rein in class action lawsuits in state
courts, noting that the measure will curb the number of
frivolous lawsuits that have needlessly cost the business
community billions of dollars annually and harmed housing
affordability.

"This bill addresses the ongoing abuses in multi-state class
action cases, such as forum shopping, where lawyers actively
seek out local judges and juries who have the reputation for
handing out huge damage awards for plaintiffs," said NAHB
President David Wilson, a custom home builder from Ketchum,
Idaho.

S.5, the "Class Action Fairness Act of 2005," cleared the House
by a wide bipartisan margin, 279 to 149.  The legislation is
identical to the Senate version passed last week and President
Bush is expected to sign the measure into law shortly.

Prior to today's vote, NAHB sent a letter to every House member
urging passage and stating that the association was designating
this bill as a key vote because of its significance to the
housing industry.

The legislation moves into federal court class action lawsuits
when the total amount in dispute exceeds $5 million, and when
any plaintiff and the defendant live in different states.

"Because class action cases usually are heard in sympathetic
state courts, defendants who are fearful of losing the case and
facing potentially large damage awards are likely to settle out
of court rather than risk a trial. This means that most class
action cases are usually settled before a court even hears the
merits of the case," said Wilson.

"This legislation resolves this problem by shifting class action
cases to federal courts, which tend to be more objective in
their decisions than state courts," he added, noting that the
measure protects defendants from undue pressure to settle while
providing proper safeguards for plaintiffs.


UNITED STATES: NAR Applauds Passage Of Legislation To Curb Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Association of Realtors(R) (NAR) applauds
legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives and the
Senate last week that will curb abusive class action lawsuits
that can drive up real estate costs. The Class Action Fairness
Act, S.5, now heads to President Bush, who is expected to sign
the measure shortly.

The bipartisan bill creates uniform rules regarding where class
action lawsuits can be filed and moves many class action
lawsuits, especially interstate lawsuits and those with national
implications, from state courts to federal courts. The
legislation eliminates legal venue shopping that can result in
defendants settling class action lawsuits, even those without
merit, rather than risking trial in plaintiff-friendly
jurisdictions that have become litigation magnets.

Real estate firms can be targets for class action litigation in
areas such as property management, environmental compliance and
mortgage brokerage. In addition, record class action damage
awards and case settlement costs have contributed to the rapid
escalation of insurance premiums for homeowners, commercial
property and liability insurance as many property and casualty
insurers choose to leave the market. The current system has
forced homeowners to pay record property insurance premiums and
real estate firms to absorb skyrocketing business insurance
costs, costs that often end up being passed on to clients and
consumers.

"Realtors(R) support establishing uniform standards for where
class action lawsuits can be filed," said NAR President Al
Mansell, CEO of Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Salt
Lake City. "We believe the interests of both our businesses and
our clients will be well served by the reforms proposed by the
class action bill. The Class Action Fairness Act will help curb
skyrocketing insurance premiums that get passed onto consumers
and real estate firms alike."

The National Association of Realtors(R), "The Voice for Real
Estate," is America's largest trade association, representing
one million members involved in all aspects of the residential
and commercial real estate industries.


UNITED STATES: Rep. Roy Blunt Votes in Favor of Suit Reform Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------
Majority Whip Roy Blunt (Mo.) voted to curb junk lawsuits that
clog America's judicial system, endanger small businesses and
jeopardize jobs. The Class Action Fairness Act, designed to
protect consumers, passed the House 279 to 149.

"Members of class action lawsuits routinely walk away with
pennies while their lawyers walk away with millions of dollars
in fees," said Congressman Blunt. "This bill ensures that class
members and consumers are winners in this process - not their
attorneys."

Added Blunt: "Reducing the excessive burden of frivolous class
action lawsuits will also have a positive impact on the economy.
Curbing junk lawsuits not only protects consumers, it allows
business owners to continue creating jobs."

The Class Action Fairness Act unclogs certain "magnet" courts by
allowing large interstate cases to be filed in federal court,
eliminates the unfair practice of "forum shopping," and ensures
that class members - not trial lawyers - are the primary
beneficiaries of the class action process.

Additionally, the Class Action Fairness Act establishes a
Consumer Class Action Bill of Rights:

     (1) Requiring that judges carefully review settlements and
         limit attorneys' fees when the value of the settlement
         received by class members is minor in comparison or
         when there is a "net loss" settlement in which the
         class members end up losing money;

     (2) Banning settlements that award some class members a
         larger recovery because they live closer to the court;
         and

     (3) Allowing federal courts to maximize the benefit of
         class action settlements by requiring that unclaimed
         settlement funds be donated to charitable
         organizations.


UNITED STATES: Republican Leader Says S.5's Passage A Major Win
---------------------------------------------------------------
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) passage of the Class
Action Fairness Act is a major victory in the Republicans'
decade-long fight to curb the rampant lawsuit abuse that rewards
predatory lawyers more than victims.

This much-anticipated bill, which passed the Senate last week
and the House recently, will be sent to the White House and is
expected to be quickly signed into law by President Bush. The
Class Action Fairness Act passed the House by a margin of 279 to
149.

"After ten years of tireless work on multiple fronts, our
efforts are finally paying off, and the Republican Congress has
passed the first substantive lawsuit abuse reform bill. This
bill is a major accomplishment, and it will make history," DeLay
said.

Provisions in the class action reform bill will prevent repeats
of cases like Shields et al v. Bridgestone/Firestone, in which
the plaintiffs got nothing, while their lawyers got $19 million,
or the Microsoft antitrust litigation, in which consumers
received $5 to $10 in voucher coupons while attorneys billed
hundreds of millions of dollars in fees.

"Consumers and businesses alike have been victimized by lawsuit
abuse. Court dockets are backed up, companies are paying lawyers
instead of employees, and our economy is suffering for it all,"
DeLay added. "Class action fairness is not just reform; it's
self-defense."

In the last ten years, House Republicans have pushed for class
action reform, only to see Democrats, whether in the White House
or the Senate, repeatedly block those efforts. During that same
period of time, class action filings have risen over 1,300
percent. The necessary reforms passed today will stop the
pattern of abuse and provide new consumer protections through
the following provisions:

     (1) Creates federal jurisdiction over large multistate
         class action cases so lawyers cannot shop around for
         the most generous state venues;

     (2) Enhances judicial scrutiny of coupon settlements;

     (3) Creates a consumer class action bill of rights that
         ensures plaintiffs, not just lawyers, benefit from
         legitimate class action suits;

     (4) Provides protection against settlements that result in
         a net loss to plaintiffs;

     (5) Prohibits the unjustified payment of bounties in class
         action cases; and

     (6) Protects Americans against settlements that favor
         certain people based upon where they live.


WAL-MART STORES: Recalls 54,260 Infant Toys For Choking Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores Inc., of Bentonville, AR is cooperating with the
United States Consumer Product Safety Commission by voluntarily
recalling about 54,260 Reef Rocker Infant Toys.

The seam on the plastic balls can separate, releasing the small
toy inside and posing a choking hazard to young children.

This recall involves Baby Connection Reef Rocker infant toys.
The floor toy is intended for children ages 3 months and above.
The toy's water-filled dome and four toy balls have colorful sea
creatures inside. Lights and music are activated when the toy is
shaken.

Manufactured in China, the toys were sold at all Wal-Mart stores
nationwide from May 2004 through January 2005 for between $8 and
$10.

Consumers should immediately take the toy away from small
children and return it to the nearest Wal-Mart store for a full
refund.

Consumer Contact: Call Wal-Mart at (800) 925-6278 between 7 a.m.
and 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web
site: http://www.walmartstores.com.


WINN-DIXIE: FL Court Orders Securities Fraud Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, Jacksonville Division ordered consolidated the
securities class actions filed against Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.
and certain of its present and former executive officers.

On February 3, 2004, a putative class action lawsuit was filed
in the United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida against the Company and three of its present and former
executive officers.  This action purports to be brought on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from October 9, 2002, through and including
January 29, 2004.

The complaint alleges claims under the federal securities laws,
specifically Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  The
complaint generally alleges that, during the Class Period, the
defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's marketing and competitive situation, self-insurance
reserves, impairment of assets and other matters.  The complaint
seeks certification as a class action, unspecified compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other relief.

Subsequently, several similar putative class actions were filed
asserting substantially the same claims, and some of these
claims name a fourth executive officer as a defendant.  These
various actions were consolidated as a single action styled "In
re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action
No. 3:04-CV-71-J-HES-MCR, United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division."  The Company
expects that plaintiffs in the consolidated action will file an
amended and consolidated complaint that will assert most, if not
all, of the claims asserted in the various individual actions.

The suit is styled "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. Securities
Litigation, case no. 3:04-cv-00071-HES-MCR," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
under Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.

Law firms for the defendants are King & Spalding LLP, 191
Peachtree St., Suite 4900, Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone:
404/572-4600; and Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy, 225 Water
St., Suite 1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/634-1100,
Fax: 904/634-1234.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

     (2) Cauley Geller, Bowman Coates & Rudman, LLP (Boca Raton,
         FL), One Boca Place. 2255 Glades Road, Suite 421A, Boca
         Raton, FL, 33431, Phone: 561.750.3000, Fax:
         561.750.3364,

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

     (4) Federman & Sherwood, 120 North Robinson, Suite 2720,
         Oklahoma City, OK, 73102, Phone: 405-235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (5) Fruchter & Twersky, 60 East 42 Street, New York, NY,
         10021, Phone: 212.687.6655,

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

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

     (8) Vianale & Vianale LLP, The Plaza - Suite 801, 5355 Town
         Center Road., Boca Raton, FL, 33486, Phone:
         561.391.4900, Fax: 561.368.9274, E-mail:
         info@vianalelaw.com

     (9) Wechsler Harwood LLP, 488 Madison Avenue 8th Floor, New
         York, NY, 10022, Phone: 212.935.7400, E-mail:
         info@whhf.com

    (10) Weiss & Yourman (New York, NY), The French Building,
         551 Fifth Ave., Suite 1600, New York, NY, 10126, Phone:
         212.682.3025, Fax: 212.682.3010, E-mail: info@wyca.com

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


WINN-DIXIE STORES: FL Court Consolidates ERISA Violations Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida ordered consolidated the class actions filed against the
Company, three of the Company's present and former executive
officers and certain employees who serve on the administrative
committee that administers its Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan.

The actions purport to be brought on behalf of a class
consisting of the Plan and participants and beneficiaries under
the Plan whose individual accounts held shares in the Winn-Dixie
Stock Fund during the period from May 6, 2002, through and
including January 29, 2004.  The complaints allege claims under
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended
(ERISA).

More specifically, the complaints generally allege that, during
the Class Period, the defendants breached their fiduciary duties
to the Plan, its participants and its beneficiaries under ERISA
by failing to exercise prudent discretion in deciding whether to
sell Company stock to the Plan trustee for investment by the
Plan, failing to provide timely, accurate and complete
information to Plan participants, failing to adequately monitor
and review Company stock performance as a prudent investment
option, failing to manage Plan assets with reasonable care,
skill, prudence and diligence and other matters.  The complaints
seek certification as a class action, a declaration that
defendants violated fiduciary duties under ERISA, unspecified
equitable and remedial damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and
other relief.

These three actions were consolidated as a single action styled
In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA Litigation, Civil Action
No. 3:04-CV-194-J-20HTS, United States District Court for the
Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville, Division.  The Company
expects that plaintiffs in the consolidated action will file an
amended and consolidated complaint that will assert most, if not
all, of the claims asserted in the various individual actions.

The suit is styled "In re: Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. ERISA
Litigation, case no. 3:04-cv-00194-HES-MCR," filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida under
Judge Harvey E. Schlesinger.

Law firms for the defendants are King & Spalding LLP, 191
Peachtree St., Suite 4900, Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone:
404/572-4600; and Liles, Gavin, Costantino & Murphy, 225 Water
St., Suite 1500, Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/634-1100,
Fax: 904/634-1234.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275 Madison Ave., Suite
         801, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212/682-1818

     (2) Emerson Poynter LLP, 2228 Cottondale Ln., Suite 100
         Little Rock, AR 72202-2037, Phone: 501/907-2555

     (3) Federman & Sherwood, 120 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 2720
         Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Phone: 405/235-1560, E-mail:
         wfederman@aol.com

     (4) David B. Ferebee, P.A., 503 E. Monroe St.,
         Jacksonville, FL 32202, Phone: 904/358-7001, fax:
         904/353-2756, E-mail: ferebeeatlaw@bellsouth.net


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Stock Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. initiated a lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of North
Carolina, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Inspire Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Inspire" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:ISPH) between June 2,
2004 and February 8, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Inspire, Christy L. Shaffer and Thomas
R. Staab II ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
the Company disseminated false and misleading statements
regarding the FDA mandated Phase III trial of its dry eye drug,
Diquafosol tetrasodium. More specifically, the Company failed to
inform investors that the primary endpoint mandated by the FDA
had changed from corneal staining to a more stringent corneal
clearing.

On February 9, 2005 the Company indicated that the FDA had
rejected the drug, as Diquafosol did not meet its critical
endpoint, corneal clearing. Shares of Inspire fell dramatically
in reaction to the news, shedding $7.12, or 44.5% to $8.88 per
share on February 9, 2005.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd. by Phone:
(800) 495-1868.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of Pharmos Corp. ("Pharmos")
(NasdaqSC: PARS), between August 23, 2004 and December 17, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey against defendants Pharmos, Haim Aviv
(CEO and Chairman), Gad Riesenfeld (President and COO), and
James A. Meer (CFO). According to the complaint, defendants
violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule
10b-5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Pharmos is a bio-pharmaceutical
company that develops and commercializes novel therapeutics to
treat neurological disorders, including traumatic brain injury
("TBI") and post-surgical cognitive impairment. During the Class
Period, Pharmos claimed that the early stage results from its
Phase II clinical study of one of the Company's leading
products, dexanabinol, a non-psychotropic cannabinoid, for the
treatment of severe TBI, were "encouraging." The Company claimed
that the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") had granted
dexanabinol fast-track status and that the drug was destined to
become the first of its kind to be approved by the FDA. In that
regard, the Company claimed that dexanabinol would "have the big
billion dollar potential." Unbeknownst to investors however,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
defendants knew or recklessly disregarded that the results from
the clinical studies of dexanabinol demonstrated that the drug
was not effective in treating severe TBI. As detailed below,
defendants' materially false and misleading statements
artificially inflated the price of Pharmos's securities causing
harm to Class Period purchasers of Pharmos securities in
violation of the Exchange Act. Defendants were motivated to
engage in this fraudulent and illegal conduct to enable Company
insiders, including the Individual Defendants, to sell 470,129
shares of their personally-held Pharmos shares for proceeds of
more than $1.89 million.

On December 20, 2004, before the market opened, Pharmos issued a
press release revealing disappointing results from the Phase III
trial of dexanabinol for the treatment of TBI. In the release,
the Company stated that, "Dexanabinol did not demonstrate
efficacy as measured by the primary clinical outcome endpoint"
and that, as a result, "it is unlikely that (Pharmos) will
continue to develop dexanabinol for TBI." In response to this
announcement, the price of Pharmos common shares plummeted,
falling $2.32 per share, or 66%, from their closing price of
$3.50 on the previous trading day, December 17, 2004, to close
at $1.18 per share on December 20, 2004 on unusually high
trading volume.

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.


                         *********


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  * * *