---

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

              Tuesday, March 1, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 42

                         Headlines

ADRIAN DODGE: Must Pay $5000 Fine, Change Advertising Practices
CHOICEPOINT INC.: New Mexicans Urged To Check Credit Reports   
DOLLAR TREE: Recalls 147,000 Musical Toys Due To Choking Hazard
EARTHBOARD SPORTS: Varied Offenses Detailed in SEC Fraud Suit
eSMOKES INC.: MA A.G. Obtains Tobacco Sales Consent Judgment

IRELAND: High Court Rules Against Prisoners in Slopping-Out Suit
MARSH INC.: Former Executive Pleads Guilty To Fraud, Bid-Rigging
MASSACHUSETTS: Used Car Dealers Agree To Pay Refunds, Penalty
MICHIGAN: Judge Tentatively Approves $12.75M Sewage Settlement
MISSOURI: Appeals Court Reinstates "Double Celling" Complaint

MURRAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Snacks Due To Undeclared Peanuts
NEW YORK: Justice Department Wants Agent Orange Suit Dismissed
PRISTINE SECURE: Faces Fraud Suit Filed By OH Attorney General  
RC3 BRANDS: Recalls 96,831 Bottle Warmers Due To Fire Hazard
R.E.M. BUILDERS: NY Attorney General Launches Fraud Complaint

SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Allegations of Gift Card Violations
THE MASTERS CIRCLE: Mother, Son File IA Unethical Practices Suit
UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Set To Tackle ADA-Cruise Ship Case
U.S. SHOE: NY Court Enters Final Judgment V. Adrian A. Alexander
WEBASTO PRODUCTS: Recalls Water Coolant Heaters For Fire Hazard

WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Fire Risk Fosters Dishwasher Recall
WISCONSIN: Nurse Launches Deceptive Ad Practices Suit V. Brewers

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

51JOB INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
EPSEED INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
ESPEED INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Brualdi Law Firm Lodges Securities Suit in NY
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in MN

INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lasky & Rifkind Lodges Stock Suit in NC
OFFICEMAX INC.: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
OFFICEMAX INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
OFFICEMAX INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in NJ

SIPEX CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA
TASER AUTOMOTIVE: Keller Rohrback Initiates ERISA Investigation
TASER INTERNATIONAL: Schneider & Wallace Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
VECCO INSTRUMENTS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NY
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Schatz & Nobel Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
VISTEON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in MI

                            *********

ADRIAN DODGE: Must Pay $5000 Fine, Change Advertising Practices
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro entered into an agreement with
Adrian Dodge Chrysler Jeep in Adrian, Michigan after an
investigation by the office found that the auto dealer mislead
Ohio consumers with deceptive and unclear advertising in
violation of Ohio consumer laws.

"Out-of-state businesses have the same obligations as in-state
when it comes to advertising in Ohio, and in order to maintain a
competitive playing field we will continue to monitor
advertising by all companies for compliance," said Attorney
General Petro.

The business agreed to pay a civil penalty of $5,000 and change
its business practices to comply with Ohio laws while
advertising in the state.

Adrian Dodge has agreed to provide the following in its
advertisements, all of which consumers should expect from any
auto dealer ads:

     (1) Clearly state who can qualify for discounts and rebates

     (2) Clearly disclose the amount of the rebate

     (3) Clearly state conditions of advertisement and make sure
         offer will not be misunderstood

     (4) Do not use confusing abbreviations or jargon

     (5) Clearly state which vehicles are for sale and at what
         price

     (6) Clearly state the details of the lease including down
         payment, number of payments, amount of monthly
         payments.  All remaining disclosures can be in
         footnotes such as: mileage restrictions and security
         deposit.

For Additional Information on this Press Release, contact
Michelle Gatchell, Attorney General's Office, by Phone:
(614) 466-3840.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: New Mexicans Urged To Check Credit Reports   
------------------------------------------------------------
ChoicePoint, a national firm that maintains databases containing
virtually every American's consumer data, announced that thieves
posing as legitimate businesses obtained access to the personal
information of almost 145,000 consumers, including 935 New
Mexicans.  In light of this, New Mexico Attorney General
Patricia Madrid joined other Attorneys General across the nation
to insist that the Company take immediate action to notify all
citizens in their respective states who may have been affected
by the incident.

"ChoicePoint collects personal information on practically every
single American consumer and sells this information to private
companies and government agencies. This company knows almost
everything there is to know about you," said Ms. Madrid.  "The
size of this security breach is almost beyond comprehension.  
This is the `Exxon Valdez' of privacy."

Because of the number of consumers whose information was
released, Attorney General Madrid urges all New Mexicans to
immediately check their credit reports. "These information
thieves accessed ChoicePoint information databases that
contained basic telephone directory-type information that
included names, addresses and phone numbers.  More importantly,
they also got access to databases containing social security
numbers, driver's license numbers and, at times, `abbreviated
credit reports.' The criminals were also able to obtain other
public information, such as bankruptcies, liens and judgments,
professional licenses and property data."

"Don't wait until you've already fallen victim to identity
theft,' warned Attorney General Madrid. "Get your credit report
now. There are at least 935 New Mexico consumers whose
information these identity thieves have gotten access to through
ChoicePoint's databases.  Even though you may not have received
a notice from ChoicePoint that your information has been
compromised, it's imperative that you check your credit report
immediately and review it for any newly-opened accounts or loans
that you did not authorize."

In early February, shortly after investigating the theft of
consumers' information, ChoicePoint sent notices to each of the
144,778 consumers who may have been affected alerting them of
the situation.  Consumers who receive notices are instructed to
call a special toll-free hotline set up by ChoicePoint.  The
company also announced in the letter that it will purchase
credit reports from all three credit reporting agencies for
every individual affected and will pay for a full year of a
credit monitoring service to those consumers whose information
was stolen.

Even though all of the 144,778 consumers may not be actual
victims of identity theft, law enforcement officials have
notified ChoicePoint that approximately 750 consumers nationwide
have been identified as having their information compromised.  
On February 17, Los Angeles police announced the arrest of a
suspect from Nigeria who pled no contest in California State
Court in connection with the ChoicePoint theft and was sentenced
to 16 months in prison.

Consumers can get a free copy of their credit report by going to
the website: http://www.AnnualCreditReport.com. Consumers  
without Internet access may order a copy of their credit report
by calling, toll-free, 1-877-322-8228. Consumers may also write
to request a credit report at: Annual Credit Report Request
Service, P.O. Box 105281, Atlanta, Georgia 30348-5281.


DOLLAR TREE: Recalls 147,000 Musical Toys Due To Choking Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Dollar Tree Stores Inc., of Chesapeake, Virginia is
recalling about 147,000 "Toy Tunes" Electronic Musical Toys.  
The ball on the end of the drumstick sold with these toys can
break off during use, posing a choking hazard to young children.

The recall includes two styles of battery-operated, electronic
musical toys. The multi-colored toys come in the shape of a drum
and a xylophone, and are sold with a drumstick for playing the
musical toy. The recalled toys have a label affixed to the top
of the package that reads "LIGHT & SOUND MUSICAL TOY" and "TOY
TUNES." A second label affixed to the bottom right of the
package reads "TRY ME!" The label affixed on the back of the
package contains, "DOLLAR TREE DIST., CHESAPEAKE, VA 23320" and
"MADE IN CHINA."

Manufactured in China, the toys were sold at all Dollar Tree,
Only $1, and Dollar Bills stores nationwide from March 2004
through January 2005 for $1.  Consumer should take these toys
away from young children immediately, and return the recalled
toys to the store where purchased for a refund.

Consumer Contact: For more information, call Dollar Tree Stores
Inc. at (800) 876-8077 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday, or visit the company Web site at
http://www.dollartree.com.


EARTHBOARD SPORTS: Varied Offenses Detailed in SEC Fraud Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a securities fraud
lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
against Earthboard Sports USA, Inc., Hubert A. Jeffreys, Timothy
F. Bell and Tracy A. Edwards. The Commission's complaint alleges
that Mr. Jeffreys, the founder and then-president, CEO, and CFO
of Earthboard, a privately held, Costa Mesa, California-based
manufacturer of all-terrain skateboards and Mr. Bell and Ms.
Edwards, two former registered representatives, fraudulently
offered and sold stock of Earthboard Sports USA, Inc. From April
1998 to March 2003, Earthboard, in an unregistered offering,
raised approximately  $5.1 million from at least 66 individuals
and entities.   The three enticed investors to purchase
Earthboard shares using a number of materially false statements
including the claim that Vans Inc., a Nasdaq-traded footwear
company, planned to acquire Earthboard in a one-for-one share
exchange that would generate a windfall of as much as $24 for
each dollar invested in Earthboard stock. In reality, Vans never
had any intention to acquire Earthboard and had never expressed
any interest in acquiring Earthboard.
     
The complaint alleges that, in one instance, Mr. Jeffreys, Mr.
Bell and Ms. Edwards defrauded an elderly couple of at least
$455,000. Mr. Bell and Ms. Edwards went as far as arranging for
the couple to mortgage their paid-off home to buy Earthboard
stock; the couple ultimately lost their home when the promised
profits from their Earthboard investment failed to materialize
and they could not afford to make the mortgage payments.
     
The complaint further alleges that Mr. Jeffreys misappropriated
at least $1.9 million of investor funds, using stock sale
proceeds to buy a waterfront home in Newport Beach, three
undeveloped plots in a residential community in Lake Havasu,
Arizona, a house in his girlfriend's name, and a thirty-foot
fishing boat and accompanying mooring on Santa Catalina Island.
                              
The Commission's action seeks permanent injunctions, orders of
disgorgement and civil penalties against Earthboard and Mr.
Jeffreys for violating Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the
Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b) of the
Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, as well as an officer and director bar against Mr.
Jeffreys. The Commission also seeks permanent injunctions,
orders of disgorgement, and civil penalties against Mr. Bell and
Ms. Edwards for violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.
The action is titled, SEC v. Hubert A. Jeffreys, a/k/a Hugh
Jeffreys, Earthboard Sports USA, Inc., Timothy F. Bell and Tracy
A. Edwards, Civil Action No. 1:05CV00372, RWR, D.D.C.] (LR-
19098).


eSMOKES INC.: MA A.G. Obtains Tobacco Sales Consent Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts Attorney General Tom Reilly reached a consent
judgment for a consumer protection lawsuit brought against
eSmokes, Inc., an Internet cigarette retailer.   

The Suffolk Superior Court order requires the Virginia company
to comply with a Massachusetts age-verification regulation, to
give Massachusetts consumers certain notices about the purchase
of cigarettes from companies that have not paid Massachusetts
cigarette taxes, and to make cigarette sales reports required by
the federal Jenkins Act.  The order also requires the company to
pay $80,000 to the Massachusetts Local Consumer Aid Fund.

In the lawsuit filed in September 2003, Mr. Reilly alleged that
eSmokes, Inc. sold cigarettes to minors, sold cigarettes without
complying with the Massachusetts age-verification regulation,
and deceptively sold unstamped cigarettes without telling
consumers they would be liable for unpaid cigarette taxes.    

eSmokes is incorporated in Florida, but operates from Virginia.  
The court order prohibits the Company from selling cigarettes to
Massachusetts customers unless it complies with the Attorney
General's tobacco sales regulations and obtains a photocopy of a
valid government-issued identification.  The Company also must
change its website to give Massachusetts customers clear notice
that they are liable for outstanding cigarette taxes -- and
applicable penalties and interest, if they purchase cigarettes
from eSmokes.  The order also requires eSmokes to report its
Massachusetts cigarette sales to the Massachusetts Department of
Revenue (DOR) and to tell its customers that it will make those
reports.

Studies show that underage access to tobacco products is an
ongoing and serious problem.  Every day more than 4,000 children
try their first cigarette and more than 2,000 children become
regular smokers.  More than 80 percent of adult smokers began
smoking before they became adults.

Massachusetts law prohibits the sale of cigarettes to persons
under 18 years of age.  The Attorney General's tobacco sales
regulations prohibit Internet and other mail-order cigarette
sales unless the retailer verifies that the purchaser is an
adult, at least by obtaining a legible photocopy of a valid
government-issued identification.  

In addition to alleging sales to minors and sales without age
verification, the Attorney General alleged that eSmokes sold
cigarettes at prices as low as $9.99 per carton, without
disclosing to consumers the consequences of purchasing the
unstamped cigarettes.  The Massachusetts cigarette excise tax is
$15.10 for a standard carton, and the possession of cigarettes
that are not stamped with the Massachusetts excise stamp is
subject to civil and criminal penalties.  

Massachusetts law directs the DOR to "aggressively" attempt to
collect the cigarette excise from Massachusetts residents who
buy cigarettes from out-of-state retailers.  A federal law known
as the Jenkins Act requires retailers to report interstate sales
to the revenue department of the state in which the customer is
located.  In cases where the retailer fails to file the reports,
the DOR has used information from carrier shipment records to
bill customers for the outstanding excise, penalties, and
interest.

Assistant Attorney General Mark Kmetz handled this case with
Paralegal Lois Martin and Investigators Quinton Dale and Dante
Annicelli. The Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program of the
Department of Public Health provided valuable assistance in the
investigation.  For more details, contact Sarah Nathan by Phone:
(617) 727-2543


IRELAND: High Court Rules Against Prisoners in Slopping-Out Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Ireland High Court ruled in favor of the state in its legal
battle to stop a class action by prisoners who have to slop out
their cells, thus preventing 70 criminals from taking a single
lawsuit together, The Sunday Tomes - Ireland reports.

The Irish Prison Service, which runs detention centers for the
department of justice, said it was "very pleased" with the
decision and reiterated its intention to fight any claims. It is
currently dealing with up to 400 cases by prisoners in Cork,
Limerick, Mountjoy and Portlaoise prisons, with more predicted.

Peter O'Flynn, a solicitor with Joseph Cuddigan & Company, went
to the High Court in an attempt to win permission to launch
Ireland's first class-action lawsuit. Such actions, whereby a
representative is allowed to sue on behalf of a harmed group,
are barred in Ireland.

Unfazed by the recent High Court decision, Mr. O'Flynn said, "We
believe this approach would have been the most practical and
cost-effective for all concerned. We are now looking at other
avenues open to us. The conditions for the convicts in Cork
prison remain the same. The conditions they are having to live
in are inhumane, degrading and in breach of health and safety
regulations," the Sunday Tomes reports.

Jim Mitchell, a spokesman for the Irish Prison Service told the
Sunday Tomes, "We fought this as it is better for us if every
prisoner has to fight their own case. We have always made it
clear that we will strongly defend these cases and seek costs in
cases where that is appropriate."

The prison cases in Ireland were filed last year after a
Scottish court awarded the equivalent of EUR3,700 to an inmate
who claimed that slopping out was a breach of his human rights.


MARSH INC.: Former Executive Pleads Guilty To Fraud, Bid-Rigging
----------------------------------------------------------------
A former senior executive of Marsh, Inc. has pleaded guilty to
criminal charges in connection with an ongoing investigation of
fraud and bid rigging in the insurance industry, New York
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced in a statement.

In her guilty plea, the former Marsh executive admitted that
during a period from 2001 to 2004, she instructed insurance
carriers to submit noncompetitive bids for insurance business,
and that such bids were conveyed to Marsh clients under false
and fraudulent pretenses. These noncompetitive bids allowed
Marsh to control the market, protect incumbent insurance
carriers when their business was up for renewal, and maximize
profits.

The defendant, who is a former broker and managing director at
the Company, pleaded guilty before Justice James Yates in New
York County Supreme Court to the crime of Scheme to Defraud in
the First Degree, a class E Felony, which carries a maximum
sentence of 1 1/3 to 4 years incarceration in state prison.

Ten employees at four companies in the insurance industry have
now pleaded guilty to criminal charges in the probe. The former
Marsh executive is cooperating with the investigation and is
expected to testify in future cases, as are the nine other
insurance industry employees who previously entered guilty
pleas.

Attorney General Spitzer thanked the New York State Insurance
Department for its cooperation in the joint investigation, which
is continuing.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant
Attorneys General Michael Roe and Nina Sas of the Criminal
Prosecutions Bureau, under the direction of Deputy Chief of the
Criminal Prosecutions Bureau Kevin Suttlehan and Chief of the
Criminal Prosecutions Bureau Janet Cohn. Investigators Sylvia
Rivera and John McManus of the Investigations Bureau, under the
supervision of Deputy Chief Investigator Hank Lemons assisted in
the investigation.

For More Information, contact the New York Attorney General's
office by Phone: 212-416-8060


MASSACHUSETTS: Used Car Dealers Agree To Pay Refunds, Penalty
-------------------------------------------------------------
Four North Shore, Massachusetts used car dealerships and their
principal owners have agreed to more than $350,000 in refunds,
extended warranties, trade-in loan payoffs and a $20,000
penalty, and have agreed to revamp their business practices,
under the terms of a consent judgment announced by Attorney
General Tom Reilly.

The Consent Judgment, filed in Suffolk Superior Court, stems
from a lawsuit Mr. Reilly filed in March 2004 alleging that Car
Center USA, Suzuki of Boston, Foreign Cars North, Cars R Us, and
its principals Nader "John" Jamali Affoussi and Ardeshir "Eddie"
Jamali Affoussi, committed multiple violations of the
Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.

"Consumers should feel confident that they are being treated
fairly when purchasing a car," he said.  "This consent judgment
demands that these dealerships live up to the agreements they
made with their customers."

The Attorney General's judgment resolves allegations that the
owners of the four North Shore used car dealerships, based in
Revere and formerly located in Lynn, engaged in unfair and
deceptive practices impacting more than 200 consumers.  Those
allegations include:

     (1) Accepting trade-in vehicles and payments for new cars
         and then failing to pay off the loan on the trade-ins,
         leaving consumers responsible for what often amounted
         to two car loans;

     (2) Failing to deliver titles on new car purchases, leaving
         many consumers unable to register or drive their cars
         for long periods after the purchase;

     (3) Accepting money for extended warranties and then
         failing to buy those warranties, leaving consumers
         without any warranty coverage; and

     (4) Often misrepresenting or failing to disclose important
         details to consumers relating to vehicle sales.

Under the judgment terms, the owners of the four dealerships
must comply with a stringent set of standards relating to car
sales and consumer complaints.  The litigation also forced the
dealerships to activate extended warranty agreements that were
purchased by more than 200 consumers at between $1,000 - $ 3,000
each, pay off trade-in loans ranging from $12,000 - $ 23,000,
deliver titles to numerous other consumers who had purchased
cars, and provide an additional $30,000 in cash restitution to
an additional 20 consumers who were harmed by the dealerships'
sales practices.  The dealerships and their owners also must pay
a $20,000 penalty to the Commonwealth.

The settlement imposes strict rules on how the dealerships
conduct business in the future, including requirements that they
pay off car trade-in loans within 10 business days, provide good
titles upon delivery of the car, activate warranties in a timely
manner but in no instance greater than 30 days, and refrain from
misrepresentation of any material fact relating to a proposed
car sale.  The dealerships are also required to provide the
Attorney General's Office with regular reports so that their
future practices can be closely monitored.

More information about car buying is available at Attorney
General Reilly's website: http://www.mass.gov/ago. His website  
also has a link to the Massachusetts Consumers' Coalition
publication, Car Smart.

Assistant Attorneys General Jeffrey Shapiro and Chris Barry
Smith, both of Attorney General Reilly's Consumer Protection and
Antitrust Division with Mary Wollenhaupt, paralegal, and
Investigators Nicholas Paras, Nancy Ward and Louis Russo handled
this case.  For more details, contact Corey Welford by Phone:
(617) 727-2543.


MICHIGAN: Judge Tentatively Approves $12.75M Sewage Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a class-action settlement that was tentatively approved by
U.S. District Judge John Feikens, Wayne County and eight
suburban cities will pay $12.75 million to settle flooding
claims by as many as 9,000 Downriver homeowners whose basements
were filled with raw sewage during a massive 2000 storm, the
Detroit News reports.

Believed to be the largest flood settlement in the state, it
ended a nearly five-year court battle. The communities that have
agreed to pay are Allen Park, Dearborn Heights, Ecorse, Inkster,
Lincoln Park, Southgate, Taylor and Riverview.

Under the settlement terms, Wayne County will pay $5.2 million,
but much of the bill will be footed by insurance carried by the
county, County Executive Robert Ficano told Detroit News. Allen
Park's share is $3.35 million, the most of any of the cities.

Some homeowners though got checks from the Federal Emergency
Management Administration, which declared the region a disaster
area. According to legal experts that could reduce the amount
paid under the settlement.  Three other communities Dearborn,
Wyandotte, River Rouge and Dearborn Heights previously settled
most claims of their residents covering about $4 million and
4,000 homeowners, said Steven Liddle, the lead lawyer for the
homeowners.  Wyandotte paid $1.7 million, he adds.

"This is the largest flooding settlement in the state's
history," Mr. Liddle said of the settlement, a claim not
disputed by Wayne County. He told the Detroit News that of the
9,000 homeowners who are eligible, about 1,600 already have
filed claims with the U.S. District Court in Detroit, with some
claiming losses of more than $25,000. The remaining affected
households though will be required to file claim forms in the
next four months.

During the September 10-12, 2000, storm, raw sewage was
discharged into thousands of basements and businesses, with
people in a dozen communities losing millions.  Notice of the
settlement will be sent to thousands of homeowners this week.
They will be required to submit documentation of losses like
pictures or receipts. The law firms representing the homeowners
stand to receive about $4 million under the settlement.

The settlement came after more than a year of negotiations,
wherein Judge Feikens appointed a mediator in 2003 to help in
the negotiations between Wayne County and lawyers who filed
lawsuits. Judge Feikens had appointed a Farmington Hills lawyer,
Ronald Longhofer, to administer the settlement and review
proposed settlements for individual claims. Any contested claims
will go to the jduge for resolution, who will give final
approval to all settlements. He is preparing to hold a hearing
in April to give final approval to the class-action settlement
and hear any objections.


MISSOURI: Appeals Court Reinstates "Double Celling" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis reinstated a
lawsuit by an inmate, who has accused Missouri prison officials
of subjecting prisoners to rapes and assaults by pairing them in
soundproof cells with more dangerous offenders, the Associated
Press reports.

In a unanimous ruling, the three-judge panel ordered a lower
court to reconsider Crossroads Correctional Center inmate Henry
Rollie's request for a temporary restraining order. The 8th
Circuit found that U.S. District Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr. in
Kansas City wrongly tossed Mr. Rollie's failure-to-protect and
retaliation claims with respect to certain prison officials.

Though other federal courts have upheld the practice of "double
celling," some prisoner advocacy groups have argued that
"inhumane" housing of two inmates in a space designed for one
breeds hostility and makes readjustment to society more
difficult after release.

Mr. Rollie, 52, was sentenced to life behind bars in 1977 on a
Clay County murder conviction, but he was later paroled in 1994.
Two years later though a Jackson County judge sentenced him to
simultaneous 15-year terms on drug-trafficking counts,
Department of Corrections records show, AP reports.  He had sued
in 2002, seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief
against 18 defendants, mostly prison officials who included the
state Department of Corrections' chief and the Cameron prison's
superintendent.

According to the lawsuit the inmates, regardless of threat level
or security rating, were wrongly forced to share cells with
inmates often deemed more dangerous and violent. Such double
celling, the lawsuit alleged, subjected the allegedly victimized
prisoners to assaults, rapes and fights, all undetected due to
the use of solid, boxcar doors that muted the victims' struggles
and cries. Such housing, Mr. Rollie alleged, produced "fear that
sooner or later a life will be lost."

In addition the lawsuit alleges that most of the defendants,
"through functionaries," knew double celling in the segregation
unit caused fights, assaults and rapes, and they falsified forms
to cover up the matter, AP reports.  Mr. Rollie specifically
sought a temporary restraining order barring the double celling
and the use of the heavy steel doors, as well as a judge's
declaring the litigation a class-action case representing all
affected prisoners.

Judge Gaitan, however, later threw out the case, citing Mr.
Rollie's alleged failure to first exhaust administrative
remedies. But, Mr. Rollie countered by filing a revised lawsuit
that, among other things, said his complaints about double
celling led to the retaliatory doubling of his solitary
confinement to a year.

Judge Gaitan eventually rejected Mr. Rollie's request for
reconsideration of making the case a class-action lawsuit and
for issuing the restraining order, clearing 13 of the
defendants. Judge Gaitan later tossed the entire case, refusing
Mr. Rollie's request that he recuse himself from the matter.


MURRAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Snacks Due To Undeclared Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Murray International Trading, Inc., 908 Dean Street, Brooklyn,
N.Y. 11238 is recalling Heng Tai Shi Crunch Snack because it
contains undeclared peanuts. People who have allergies to
peanuts run the risk of serious or life threatening allergic
reactions if they consume this product.

The recalled Heng Tai Shi Crunch Snack, packed in uncoded, 454
gram plastic containers was sold in the New York City area.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through routine
sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory
personnel revealed that the peanut-containing product was
distributed in packages that did not reveal the presence of
peanuts. No illnesses have been reported to date in connection
with this problem.

Consumers who have purchased Heng Tai Shi Crunch Snack should
return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 718-230-7888.


NEW YORK: Justice Department Wants Agent Orange Suit Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Justice Department is urging a federal judge in Brooklyn to
dismiss a lawsuit aimed at forcing a re-examination of one of
the most contentious issues of the Vietnam War, the use of the
defoliant Agent Orange, the New York Times reports.

The civil suit, which was filed last year on behalf of millions
of Vietnamese, claims that American chemical companies committed
war crimes by supplying the military with Agent Orange, which
contained dioxin, a highly toxic substance. It seeks what could
be billions of dollars of damages from the companies and the
environmental cleanup of Vietnam.

In preparation for legal arguments in United States District
Court in Brooklyn, Justice Department lawyers filed a brief last
month that described the suit as a dangerous threat to the
president's power to wage war and an effort at a "breathtaking
expansion" of the powers of federal courts. The government's
filing stated, "The implications of plaintiffs' claims are
astounding as they would (if accepted) open the courthouse doors
of the American legal system for former enemy nationals and
soldiers claiming to have been harmed by the United States Armed
Forces" during war.

However, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Constantine P.
Kokkoris, said in an interview with the New York Times that the
Justice Department's argument was misplaced since the government
had not been sued in the case. According to him, the lawsuit
raised questions about the conduct of the corporations that were
limited to their supplying what he called contaminated
herbicide.

Still, the chemical companies argue that they produced Agent
Orange following government specifications and that its use in
Vietnam was necessary to protect American soldiers. They have
long argued that there is no clear link between exposure to
Agent Orange and many of the health problems attributed to it.

The judge, Jack B. Weinstein of Federal District Court in
Brooklyn, said that the case, a class action on behalf of what
could be four million Vietnamese, faced many legal hurdles. In a
hearing in March, however, he stated that it raised important
issues and "has to go forward seriously," suggesting that it
might eventually need to be decided by the United States Supreme
Court, the New York Times reports.

Agent Orange was widely used in Vietnam, often to clear jungle
that American officials said gave the enemy cover. Its use was
discontinued in 1971, but it has survived as a confounding legal
issue ever since.


PRISTINE SECURE: Faces Fraud Suit Filed By OH Attorney General  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro filed suit against a Canadian
telemarketing company, Pristine Secure Services, for engaging in
unfair and deceptive business practices.

The Attorney General alleges that Pristine contacted consumers
via telephone claiming that for $298 it would return money
wrongly taken by other telemarketers, give consumers a packet of
information on how to protect themselves from fraudulent
telemarketers, and register consumers on the National Do Not
Call registry.

Consumers were then told they did not have to pay the $298 fee
up front; it would be deducted from the money the Company got
back on behalf of the consumer. Consumers were directed to
provide their personal account information so Pristine could
withdraw the $298 fee after it secured the money collected on
consumers' behalf. However, Pristine immediately deducted the
$298 fee from the consumers' banks and did not supply them with
any service offered.

Other violations include:

     (1) Failure to register with the Attorney General's Office
         as a telephone solicitor

     (2) Falsely claiming to be located in New York when it is
         located in Montreal, Quebec, Canada

     (3) Failure to register with the Secretary of State's
         Office as a foreign company doing business in Ohio

     (4) Failure to acquire a surety bond before conducting
         telephone solicitations in Ohio

     (5) Deducting money from consumer accounts with
         unauthorized bank drafts

     (6) Calling consumers who are listed on the National Do Not
         Call registry

Attorney General Petro is asking the court to refund the $298
fee to consumers as well as pay $500 to each person contacted in
Ohio whose number was on the National Do Not Call Registry. The
suit also asks for civil penalties of $25,000 per violation and
an injunction preventing Pristine from doing business in Ohio
until it complies with Ohio consumer laws, including properly
registering as a telemarketer.

For Additional Information on this Press Release, contact
Michelle Gatchell, Attorney General's Office, by Phone:
(614) 466-3840


RC3 BRANDS: Recalls 96,831 Bottle Warmers Due To Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
RC3 Brands, Inc. is cooperating with the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily recalling 96,831
feeding tote and bottle warmers, namely:

     (1) THE FIRST YEARS, PRODUCT NO. 1179       

     (2) THE FIRST YEARS, PRODUCT NO. 1320       

The feeding tote and bottle warmers were sold for use to heat
baby bottles using the car adaptor power source.  This design
allows the unit to operate at higher than 12 VDC rating, causing
the unit to overheat.  A fire could occur should the unit
overheat.

The manufacturer will repurchase to affected units.  The recall
is expected to begin during February to March 2005.  Owners who
do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable time should
contact the Company by Phone: 508-588-1220 or contact the
NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


R.E.M. BUILDERS: NY Attorney General Launches Fraud Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office has filed a
lawsuit against a Dutchess County home improvement contractor
who preyed upon immigrant workers and vulnerable consumers.

R.E.M. Builders and its owner Robert E. Muscat were served with
a lawsuit that alleges that the home improvement contractor
defrauded consumers by failing to do or complete home
improvement projects for which they had paid and for failing to
pay wages to workers, in particular, undocumented day laborers
who speak little or no English.

The lawsuit, filed in State Supreme Court in Dutchess County,
claims that since at least 2002, R.E.M. Builders has repeatedly
failed to pay wages promised to foreign workers who speak little
or no English. When workers confronted Mr. Muscat about unpaid
wages, he threatened to report them to federal immigration
authorities and threatened them physically.

In addition, the owner falsely told customers that the Company
was "fully insured" even though it had no workers compensation
insurance for the immigrant labor or liability insurance to
protect the consumers for damage to their property caused by his
company.

According to legal papers, R.E.M. Builders also took large
advance payments from consumers and either failed to complete
projects or performed work in a shoddy manner. The home
improvement contractor also violated state consumer protection
laws by failing to protect consumer deposits by placing them in
escrow accounts.

In one case, a couple hired R.E.M. Builders to replace the
siding on their townhouse. The couple paid over $8,000 in
advance on the promise that the project would be completed in a
matter of weeks. After waiting at least five months, the couple
saw work on the project grind to a halt. When the couple
discovered that R.E.M. Builders had failed to pay its workers,
they gave over $1,000 to the workers and contributed another
$3,000 for materials that should have been purchased by R.E.M.
Builders. To date, the project is not completed.

In another case, R.E.M. Builders was paid over $20,000 to
replace a roof and to build a second-story addition. Within a
month of the project's completion, the new roof leaked. R.E.M
Builders' failure for seven months to provide repairs promised
in its warranty, resulted in the house becoming infested with
black mold. R.E.M. Builders finally returned and gutted the
ceiling to remove the soaked installation; however, the
contractor soon abandoned the project, leaving the house with
open rafters and a still-leaking roof.

The lawsuit seeks a court order requiring R.E.M. Builders to pay
all past and present workers to whom its owes wages and to make
restitution to consumers. It also seeks civil penalties,
attorneys' fees and costs, and a court order banning Muscat from
the home improvement industry unless he posts a $50,000
performance bond.

To file a complaint against R.E.M. Builders or its owner Robert
E. Muscat, contact the Attorney General's consumer help line:
(800) 771-7755 or visit the Attorney General's website:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us. This case is being handled by  
Assistant Attorney General Nicholas Garin of the Poughkeepsie
Regional Office.


SIMON PROPERTY: Faces Allegations of Gift Card Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer's office filed a lawsuit
in February against the owner of several prominent shopping
centers for violating the state's restrictions on fees on gift
cards.

Simon Property Group Inc. - which operates ten retail shopping
malls and outlet centers on Long Island, and in the Hudson
Valley, Central New York and Western New York - was served with
a lawsuit, which was filed in Manhattan State Supreme Court,
alleging that fees on its "Simon Giftcard" violate a recently
enacted state law.

"The gift card law was enacted to protect consumers against
hidden and unwarranted fees that diminish the balance of gift
cards," Mr. Spitzer said.  "Those who violate this important
consumer protection law will face vigorous prosecution by my
office."

The legislative sponsors to the state law, Senator Charles J.
Fuschillo, Assemblymember Audrey Pheffer and Senator Dean
Skelos, praised Spitzer's lawsuit.

Senator Charles J. Fuschillo Jr. said, "The actions taken by
Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in response to the request
Senator Skelos and I made for an investigation as to whether or
not the Simon Property Group was violating New York's gift card
law are appreciated. When we amended the law, the intent was to
ensure that consumers would receive the full value of gift card
purchases and that their rights would be fully protected. I
applaud the Attorney General for his actions today."

Assemblywoman Audrey Pheffer said, "After extensive research on
the sale and usage of gift cards, my colleagues and myself
agreed that the laws passed in 2004 were enacted with consumers
as well as businesses in mind, addressing concerns from both
sides. It is important that Simon's disregard for these laws is
addressed so that the public recognizes the importance that New
York State places on consumer protection."

Senator Dean Skelos said "Last year, Governor Pataki and the
State Legislature took aggressive steps to protect gift card
purchasers from hidden fees that prevent them from getting what
they paid for. I commend Attorney General Spitzer's decision to
prosecute the Simon Group for illegally charging consumers
`administrative fees' and other costs that clearly violate both
the spirit of the law and its express provisions."

At its shopping malls and on its website, Simon promotes and
sells pre-paid gift cards. It charges a fee of $1.50 for each
card if purchased at its malls or $5.95 for "shipping and
handling" if purchased on the Internet. In addition, Simon
charges a $2.50 monthly "administrative" fee commencing in the
seventh month after purchase; a 50 cent fee for each telephone
balance inquiry; a $5 fee to reissue a lost or stolen gift card;
and a $7.50 fee to reissue an expired card.

The lawsuit charges that Simon's assessment of a monthly
administrative fee on gift cards purchased after October 18th,
2004 violates the state law that bans monthly service fees on
gift cards until the card has been unused for twelve full
months.

Mr. Spitzer's office also alleged that Simon is violating
another provision of the law by assessing a $5 fee to replace a
lost or stolen gift card without conspicuously disclosing that
fee on the gift card itself.

The retail shopping centers owned and operated by Simon include:

     (1) Roosevelt Field in Garden City (Nassau County);

     (2) Mall at The Source in Westbury (Nassau County);

     (3) Walt Whitman Mall in Huntington Station (Suffolk
         County);

     (4) Smith Haven Mall in Lake Grove (Suffolk County);

     (5) The Westchester in White Plains (Westchester County);

     (6) Jefferson Valley Mall in Yorktown Heights (Westchester
         County);

     (7) Nanuet Mall (Rockland County);

     (8) Woodbury Common Premium Outlets in Central Valley
         (Orange County);

     (9) Waterloo Premium Outlets in Waterloo (Seneca County);
         and

    (10) Chautauqua Mall in Lakewood (Chautauqua County)

Individuals wishing to file a complaint about gift cards are
encouraged to contact the Attorney General's office by Phone:
(800) 771-7755 or by visiting his Website:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us. This case is being handled by  
Assistant Attorneys General Geneva M. Johnson and Shirley Stark
of the Consumer Frauds and Protection Bureau.  To view the
complaint, visit the Website:
http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2005/feb/SimonPetition.02.01.05
.pdf


THE MASTERS CIRCLE: Mother, Son File IA Unethical Practices Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Heidi Brown and her 17-year-old son, Trevor Rhiner, initiated a
lawsuit seeking class action status against Waukee, Iowa,
chiropractor Paul Kerkhoff and a New York-based organization
called The Masters Circle, as well as its top executives,
claiming it trains its members to unethically put profits over
patients, the Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit claims The Masters Circle through newsletters,
seminars and coaches, trains member chiropractors in high-
pressure sales tactics, persuading patients to get unnecessary
treatments to boost profits.  Filed in Dallas County, the suit
alleged that Mrs. Brown and her son "wrongly assumed . their
chiropractor would strive to put the patient's best interest
ahead of the doctor's personal interest."

Founded 26 years ago, the Masters Circle, which offers products
and services to members who pay as much as $650 per month,
describes itself on its Web site as a professional program aimed
at chiropractors serious about achieving success. Its owners
include Larry Markson, Bob Hoffman and Dennis Perman, all of
whom were named as defendants in the Iowa lawsuit. The Web site
claims Mr. Markson has counseled more than 10,000 chiropractors
worldwide in the last 23 years.  

The attempt to achieve class-action status emerged from a 2003
lawsuit filed by Mrs. Brown and her son accusing Mr. Kerkhoff of
fraud, malpractice and negligent misrepresentation.  After her
son complained of back pain and numbness in his leg, Mrs. Brown
made an appointment at Mr. Kerkhoff's office, based on a
referral. After a series of tests and X-rays, Mr. Kerkhoff
diagnosed Mr. Rhiner with scoliosis, or curvature of the spine,
and said that he was likely to develop severe arthritis in his
early 20s and should refrain from playing sports to avoid risk
of serious injury.

During the visit, Mrs. Brown said Mr. Kerkhoff and his staff
tried to sell a year's worth of treatments, offered discounts if
paid in cash up front and said the care was necessary, given the
serious nature of the case.  Mrs. Brown told the AP her son
underwent several treatments and began to feel better, but she
became frustrated with Mr. Kerkhoff when he put her son in
traction during one of the visits, a therapy Mrs. Brown said she
opposed. Skeptical of the Mr. Kerkhoff's diagnosis, she took her
son to an orthopedic surgeon, who disputed Mr. Kerkhoff's claims
and declared Mr. Rhiner healthy. Moreover, the surgeon advised
Mrs. Brown that traction for a growing teenager was unhealthy.

"I was outraged as a mom that he (Kerkhoff) would have put my
son through a year's worth of unnecessary treatments, but, being
a mom, how did I know at the time?" Mrs. Brown told The
Associated Press.

It was during the pretrial phase of the lawsuit that Mrs. Brown
and her attorney, Kim Baer, learned about The Masters Circle. In
depositions, Mr. Kerkhoff said he used techniques from The
Masters Circle to "target, leverage and close" the sale of
services to Mrs. Brown and followed Masters Circle guidelines in
requiring full back X-rays for all patients.

The lawsuit claims such techniques are nothing more than a way
to boost profits and are a breach of the doctor/patient
relationship. It even cites Masters Circle literature
encouraging chiropractors to sign up patients for a minimum of
12 visits and to refrain from re-evaluating health problems
until after the 12th visit.

"We certainly are not suing all chiropractors, because there are
good ones out there ..." Ms. Baer, an attorney in Des Moines,
told the AP.  "We're only after those who are members of The
Masters Circle."  Ms. Baer added that she expects the judge to
consider the class-action status later this spring.


UNITED STATES: Supreme Court Set To Tackle ADA-Cruise Ship Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to take up a case examining
whether foreign-flag cruise ships doing business in U.S. waters
can be sued under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) for
discrimination against disabled passengers, USA Today reports.

In his brief to the high court, Washington lawyer Thomas
Goldstein said, "The Americans With Disabilities Act is the
nation's promise to millions of persons with disabilities that
they will be treated as full citizens. Norwegian Cruise Line,
however, claims that it has the right to flout that promise."

Lawyers for Norwegian Cruise Line counter that application of
U.S. civil rights laws to its foreign-flag ships runs counter to
a long tradition of maritime treaties respecting the sovereign
control of registry nations. "This case is not about Norwegian
Cruise Line's treatment of people with special needs," NCL's
general counsel Mark Warren told USA Today. "This case is about
whether Congress intended that the ADA should apply to foreign-
flag ships."

Two appeals courts one in Atlanta and the other in New Orleans
have examined the issue. The Atlanta court ruled that the ADA
applies while the New Orleans court ruled it does not. Thus it
is now up to the Supreme Court to break the deadlock with a
ruling that will apply nationwide.

Under the ADA, public places like hotels, restaurants, theaters,
and recreational areas are required to make reasonable
modifications to permit equal access for those with
disabilities. Cruise ships offer all those public activities
under a single roof and thus are also covered by the law, Mr.
Goldstein contends. In addition, the ADA requires equal access
to public transportation a category that he says also embraces
cruise ships.

However, Mr. Warren of NCL disagrees.  He told USA Today, "There
is nothing in the statute that speaks to vessels, boats, ships,
ferries, or any kind of navigable craft, let alone those with
foreign flags. If Congress chooses to regulate foreign-flag
ships, it is certainly entitled to do so, but it must specify
that is what is intended."

The case, Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, stems from a class-
action lawsuit filed in 2000 by Douglas Spector and a group of
other NCL passengers who allege that they were discriminated
against during their cruise vacation because of their
disabilities. In their suit, the group stated that they were
forced to pay higher fares, travel with a companion, waive any
medical liability and reside in a limited number of less
attractive cabins and were barred from participating in
evacuation and other safety drills. In addition, they also
stated that there were no accessible public restrooms on the
ship.

NCL officials though argued that the complaints relate to
facilities on two of the cruise line's oldest ships. One has
been decommissioned, and the second is to be removed from
service this summer, they say.

Cruise and shipping industry officials say the Spector case is
important because an NCL defeat could undermine the existing
international framework governing worldwide shipping. According
to Washington attorney Gregory Garre in a brief filed on behalf
of the Bahamas Maritime Authority, "If the United States chose
to apply its own accessibility standards to foreign-flagged
ships entering its waters, many of the other 40 countries around
the world with anti-discrimination laws might respond by
attempting to apply their own unique - and divergent, if not
contradictory - set of standards to foreign-flagged ships,
including U.S. ships."  He further writes, "International
maritime commerce would run aground, as no vessel could possibly
navigate such an unpredictable and stormy regulatory sea."


U.S. SHOE: NY Court Enters Final Judgment V. Adrian A. Alexander
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
entered a final judgment by consent against Adrian A. Alexander
in connection with insider trading in the securities of U.S.
Shoe Corporation.

The Securities and Exchange Commission's complaint, which was
filed in September 2000, alleges that eleven individuals and
four entities engaged in insider trading in the securities of
U.S. Shoe Corp. and Luxottica S.p.A. before the March 3, 1995,
public announcement that Luxottica was commencing a hostile
tender offer for U.S. Shoe.  

The Complaint alleges that Adrian Alexander obtained information
about Luxottica's secret plans to launch a tender offer for U.S.
Shoe from Susi Belli, the Manager of Investor and Public
Relations for Luxottica, who was then Ms. Alexander's girlfriend
and is now his wife. According to the Complaint, Alexander
tipped others, including his then business partner Patrick J.
Rooney, former Chairman of Rooney Pace & Co., Inc., and
Constantine Spyropoulos.
     
Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations,
Alexander consented to a final judgment: permanently enjoining
him from violating Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act
and Rules  10b-5 and  14e-3 thereunder, ordering him to pay a
two-time civil  penalty of $420,195  pursuant to Section 21A of
the  Exchange Act and ordering him to pay $2.00 in disgorgement.
The nominal disgorgement allows the Commission to deposit the
civil penalty into a distribution fund under Section 308(a) of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. In addition, the court approved the
parties' stipulation dismissing Ms. Belli, who did not trade in
U.S. Shoe securities, from this action.
     
Earlier in this case, on June 13, 2003, Pavel Hillel consented
to the entry of a final judgment: permanently enjoining him from
violating Sections 10(b) and 14(e) of the Exchange Act and Rules
10b-5 and 14e-3 thereunder, ordering him to pay a civil penalty
of $6,375 and ordering him to pay disgorgement of $6,375 plus
prejudgment interest of $5,434.83.   Defendants Patrick G.
Rooney, Rooney Trading, Inc., Gianna Toffoli, and Penelope
Afouxenide were earlier dismissed as defendants in this action.
Default judgments have been entered as to defendants Constantine
Spyropoulos, Jacobus J. Lam, Westcliff Partners, Inc., Potenza
Investments, Inc., and Quintillion B.V. The case is still
pending as to David V. Stratman. The case is entitled, SEC v.
Adrian A. Alexander (formerly known as "Adrian Antoniu"), et
al., 00 CV 7290 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y.)] (LR-19100).


WEBASTO PRODUCTS: Recalls Water Coolant Heaters For Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webasto Products North America, Inc. is cooperating with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration by voluntarily
recalling 10,700 WEBASTO / DBW 2010 water coolant heaters.

The heaters, assembled with Webasto burner tubes, P/N
303046/26533A manufactured between November 2002 and February
2005 is made out of a material that is not to specification and
could fail prematurely.  Should the burner tube fail, the
coolant heater could overheat, possible resulting in a fire.

Webasto will notify its customers and replace the subject burner
tubes with new certified burner tubes at no cost to the owner.  
The recall is expected to begin during February/March 2005.  
Owners who do not receive the free remedy within a reasonable
time should contact the Company by Phone: 810-593-6104 or
contact the NHTSA's auto safety hotline: 1-888-327-4236.


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Fire Risk Fosters Dishwasher Recall
----------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Whirlpool Corporation, of Benton Harbor, Michigan is
recalling about 162,000 Whirlpoolr and Kenmorer brand
dishwashers.

An electrical defect within the dishwashers' wash motor wiring
poses a risk of the motor overheating and possibly catching
fire. Whirlpool Corporation has received three reports of
overheated wash motors. There are no reports of personal injury
or property damage.

The recalled products are Whirlpoolr brand and Kenmorer brand
(made by Whirlpool Corporation) under-the-counter, plastic tall
tub dishwashers. The dishwashers come with black, white,
biscuit, or stainless front panels. They have the following
model and serial numbers located inside the tub on a tag near
the left side of the door opening:

    (1) Whirlpoolr Under-the-counter plastic tall tub
        dishwashers, model numbers DU1, DUL, GU1, GU2, GU6,
        serial numbers FR2200000 to FR2499999

     (2) Kenmorer Under-the-counter plastic tall tub
         dishwashers, model numbers 665.143, 665.160, 665.163,
         665.170, 665.173, serial numbers FR2200000 to FR4599999

With dishwashers being manufactured in Ohio and the motors in
China, the products were sold at all department and appliance
stores and through homebuilders nationwide from June 2004
through January 2005 for between $350 and $600.

Consumers with one of these dishwashers should immediately stop
using it, disconnect the electric supply by shutting off the
fuse or circuit breaker controlling it, and inform all users of
the dishwasher not to use it due to the risk of fire. Call
Whirlpool Corporation to schedule a free, in-home repair. Please
have the serial number and model number of the dishwasher
available for the call. Please do not return the dishwasher to
the retailer where it was purchased, as retailers are not
prepared to take them back. If you own a Whirlpoolr brand and
Kenmorer brand under-the-counter plastic tall tub dishwasher and
have had service on your wash motor between August 2004 and
January 2005, please call Whirlpool Corporation to determine if
your unit is included in this recall and to schedule a free, in-
home inspection.

Consumer Contact: Call Whirlpool Corporation toll free at
(866) 769-7260 anytime, or go to the firm's Web site at
http://repair.whirlpool.com/.


WISCONSIN: Nurse Launches Deceptive Ad Practices Suit V. Brewers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacquelyn Tomberlin, a Madison, Wisconsin school nurse initiated
a lawsuit seeking class action status against national brewers
and distillers, claiming they have engaged in a "deceptive
scheme" to sell alcohol to underage drinkers and reap billions a
year in revenue, the Associated Press reports.

The lawsuit, which asks for what could amount to billions of
dollars in refunds, along with punitive damages and other costs,
is one of several filed nationally against the alcohol industry
and its advertising agencies.  Ms. Tomberlin's lawsuit joins
similar actions pending in Ohio, North Carolina, Colorado and
Washington, D.C., which claim that alcohol makers have reaped
billions in "ill-gotten gains" by aggressively marketing their
products to young people on television and in magazines.

Filed in Dane County Circuit Court, the suit lists more than 100
defendants, including Milwaukee-based Miller and its subsidiary,
the Jacob Leinenkugel Brewing Co., as well as mega-brewers
Anheuser-Busch and Coors and imports Heineken and Guinness. The
lawsuit cites the growth of so-called "alcopops," sweeter
beverages that mask the taste of alcohol, as especially popular
among girls and women.

However, Miller Brewing spokesman Mike Hennick pointed out that
the latest lawsuit fails to discuss how underage drinkers are
getting alcohol or the role of parents in preventing underage
drinking, AP reports.  He defended Miller's advertising as
appropriate and even said, "We advertise and we market to
adults."


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

51JOB INC.: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a securities fraud
action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of 51job, Inc.
securities (ADRs) (NASDAQ:JOBS) from November 4, 2004 to January
14, 2005.

According to its website, 51job, Inc. is a provider of
integrated human resource services in China with a focus on
recruitment related services. The Company's recruitment related
services are delivered in both print and online formats. These
two services are closely integrated to allow it to reach a wide
and diverse audience. The Internet, Web-based applications and
human resource software are critical aspects of the Company's
services. In addition to recruitment advertising services, the
Company also provides executive search and other complementary
human resource related services for large and small employers.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
reported the Company's operating results for the third quarter
of 2004 and made positive statements regarding its outlook for
the fourth quarter of 2004. In truth and in fact, however,
51job's financial statements for the third quarter of 2004 were
artificially inflated as a result of the Company's premature
recognition of revenue in its online services segment, which
also violated Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
and its own revenue recognition policies. In addition,
defendants knowingly or recklessly made positive statements,
which were lacking in any reasonable basis, about the Company's
outlook for the fourth quarter of 2004. Specifically, the
Company estimated that total revenues for the fourth quarter of
2004 would be in the range of RMB140 million to RMB145 million
and diluted earnings per share would be between RMB0.42 and
RMB0.44. On January 18, 2005, the Company drastically cut its
estimates for its revenues and earnings per share by
approximately 17% and 40%, respectively. The Company now expects
to earn total revenues of RMB117 and RMB121 million and earnings
per common share of between RMB0.24 and RMB0.27.

On this news, the stock dropped from $43.82 per share on January
15, 2005 to $28.32 per share on January 18, 2005-or about 1/3 of
its value. The stock closed for this week at $20.97. If you
would like to be a shareholder client of Scott + Scott, LLC,
please contact the firm and we will forward information
describing the benefits of being a lead plaintiff or an active,
informed absent class member. There is no charge for this
service and you will not be set forth as a lead plaintiff
without further consultation and consent. The motion for lead
plaintiff(s) is due on March 22, 2005.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC by Mail: 108
Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone: 860/537-3818 or
by Fax: 860/537-4432.


EPSEED INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of eSpeed, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ESPD) between August 12, 2003 and July 1, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against defendant eSpeed, Cantor
Fitzgerald Securities, Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., CF Group
Management, Inc. and one or more of eSpeed's executive officers.
The action charges that defendants violated federal securities
laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading
statements to the market throughout the Class Period, which
statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market
price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


ESPEED INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of eSpeed, Inc. ("eSpeed" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: ESPD)
between August 12, 2003 and July 1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The case number is 05CV2310.

The Complaint charges eSpeed, Cantor Fitzgerald Securities,
Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., CF Group Management, Inc. and certain of
eSpeed's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws. Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and
material misrepresentations concerning eSpeed's operations and
performance artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. eSpeed develops and deploys
interactive vertical electronic marketplaces and related trading
technology that offers traders access to liquid, efficient and
neutral financial markets. The Complaint alleges that during the
Class Period defendants touted eSpeed as an unmitigated success
story, but knowingly or recklessly misrepresented and failed to
disclose the following material adverse facts:

     (1) eSpeed was not successfully competing with ICAP Plc -
         eSpeed's principal competitor;

     (2) eSpeed's market share was declining;

     (3) ICAP and its BrokerTec division were taking market
         share from eSpeed; and

     (4) eSpeed's pricing model was driving customers to its
         principal competitor.

On July 1, 2004, defendants disclosed that eSpeed's revenue,
earnings and market share were decreasing, its business plan was
not working, it was being forced to develop a new business plan
and pricing structure, and its competitive efforts with respect
to ICAP were not successful. In two trading days following the
announcement, eSpeed shares dropped more than $6.00 per share,
on volume of more than nine million shares.

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


FOX ENTERTAINMENT: Brualdi Law Firm Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf
of purchasers of the securities of Fox Entertainment Group, Inc
("Fox" or the "Company") (NYSE:FOX) between January 10, 2005 and
the date that News Corporation ("News Corp.") (NYSE:NWS)
consummates its purchase of Fox inclusive (the "Class Period"),
seeking remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the Company, K. Rupert
Murdoch, Peter Chernin, David F. DeVoe, Arthur M. Siskind,
Lachlan K. Murdoch, Christos M. Cotsakos, Peter Powers, and News
Corporation ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Defendants violated Section 14(e) of the Exchange Act. The
complaint states that the registration statement that Defendant
News Corp. has filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
in connection with its offer to acquire the remaining Fox Class
A shares that it does not already own (the "Offer") is
materially misleading and incomplete by its omission of the
following information:

     (1) the nature and extent of the conflicts of interest
         suffered by the members of the special committee,

     (2) how News Corp. arrived at the exchange ratio in the
         Offer and its determination that the Offer represents
         "full and fair value for the Fox shareholders,"

     (3) the analyses performed by News Corp.'s financial
         advisors and the information relied upon by those
         advisors in rendering any fairness opinions concerning
         the offer,

     (4) financial projections (and the assumptions underlying
         those projections) for News Corp. prepared by News
         Corp.'s management, and

     (5) financial projections (and the assumptions underlying
         those projections)for Fox prepared by News Corp. and/or
         Fox management.

For more details, contact Richard B. Brualdi, Esq. or Gaitri
Boodhoo, Esq. of The Brualdi Law Firm by Mail: 29 Broadway,
Suite 2400, New York, NY 10006 by Phone: (877) 495-1187 by E-
mail: rbrualdi@brualdilawfirm.com.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Bernstein Liebhard Lodges Securities Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, on behalf of all persons
who purchased Gander Mountain Company securities ("Gander
Mountain" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: GMTN) pursuant to the
Company's Registration Statement/Prospectus for its Initial
Public Offering ("IPO") and on behalf of those who purchased
their shares in the open market between April 20, 2004 and
January 13, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Gander Mountain, Mark R. Baker, Dennis M.
Lindahl, Gerald A. Erickson, Donovan A. Erickson, Neal D.
Erickson, Richard A. Erickson, Marjorie J. Pihl and Ronald A.
Erickson, with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder and Sections 11 and 15 of Securities Act of 1933.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's co-branded credit card promotions
         were ineffective;

     (2) that the Company's inventory was overstated, which
         forced Gander Mountain to offer 40 to 60 percent
         discounts in order to move its merchandise;

     (3) that the Company was funding its overly aggressive
         expansion by borrowing above its revolving credit line;

     (4) that the Company had difficulties establishing a
         specific direction for it merchandise, by continuously
         changing the products and services offered to
         customers, thereby failing to establish continuity;

     (5) the Company's same store sales were in the negative;
         and

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

On November 9, 2004, the Company lowered its outlook for pretax
income for fiscal 2004 to a range of $8 million to $13 million,
compared with the Company's prior guidance of $16 million to $21
million. The news shocked the market. Shares of Gander fell
$4.64 per share, or 25.01 percent, on November 9, 2004, to close
at $13.91 per share. On January 14, 2005, before the markets
opened, Gander Mountain lowered its outlook for pretax income
for fiscal 2004 to a range of $2.0 million to $4.0 million,
compared with the Company's prior guidance of $8 million to $13
million. On this news shares of Gander Mountain fell $1.86 per
share, or 16.47 percent, on January 14, 2005, to close at $9.43
per share.

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


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.


OFFICEMAX INC.: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C. initiated a shareholder lawsuit against OfficeMax, Inc.,
and certain of its officers and directors, in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

The class action suit is on behalf of all persons or entities
who purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of OfficeMax,
Inc. (NYSE:OMX), formerly known as Boise Cascade Corporation,
("OfficeMax" or the "Company"), between January 22, 2004 and
January 11, 2005, inclusive ("Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that OfficeMax, along with George Harad,
Christopher Milliken and Theodore Crumley ("Individual
Defendants"), violated the federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market. These misstatements have had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of OfficeMax's securities. On January
12, 2005, OfficeMax announced that Brian Anderson, executive
vice president and chief financial officer, had resigned.

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

     (1) that certain employees of the Company fabricated
         supporting documentation for approximately $3.3 million
         in claims billed to a vendor of OfficeMax during 2003
         and 2004;

     (2) that the Company improperly timed the recognition of
         recorded rebates and other such payments from vendors;

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

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

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

On February 14, 2005, OfficeMax announced the resignation of
CEO, Christopher Milliken, and that it expects to restate its
earnings for the first three quarters of 2004. Three high level
executives have left the Company so far this year and six
employees have been fired in the aftermath of these disclosures.

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden, Esq. of Much Shelist
Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. by Phone:
(800) 470-6824 or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com.


OFFICEMAX INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of OfficeMax, Inc. ("OfficeMax")
(NYSE:OMX) and/or Boise Cascade Corp. ("Boise") between December
1, 2003 and January 11, 2005, (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges OfficeMax and certain of its current and
former officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. OfficeMax, known as Boise Cascade until
October 2004, is a multinational contract and retail distributor
of office supplies and paper, technology products and office
furniture. The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period
defendants made false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's earnings. The facts, known by each of the defendants
but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

As a result of defendants' false statements, OfficeMax shares
traded at inflated levels during the Class Period, permitting
the Company's top officers and directors to obtain shareholder
approval of the OfficeMax acquisition, to obtain tens of
millions of dollars in severance and golden parachute payments,
to cash out millions of dollars worth of stock options and
restricted stock, to sell stock at inflated prices, and to
arrange to sell nearly $1.5 billion worth of the Company's
notes. On January 12, 2005, OfficeMax announced that its chief
financial officer had resigned and that it would postpone the
release of its earnings for the fourth quarter and full year
2004, pending the conclusion of an internal investigation into
issues relating to its accounting for vendor income.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Mail: 6 East 45th Street, New York, NY 10017 or by
Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com or visit their Web site: http://www.ssbny.com.


OFFICEMAX INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois (Eastern Division) on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of OfficeMax, Inc. ("OfficeMax" or
the "Company") (NYSE:OMX) between January 22, 2004 and January
11, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The case number is
1:05cv1004.

The complaint names as defendants OfficeMax, George Harad
(Chairman of the OfficeMax Board of Directors), Christopher
Milliken (OfficeMax Chief Executive Officer), and Ted Crumley
(OfficeMax Chief Financial Officer). The Complaint alleges that,
during the Class Period, defendants made materially false and
misleading statements with respect to OfficeMax's financial
performance and internal controls. On December 20, 2004, the
Company announced that it had launched an internal investigation
into vendor claims, "that certain employees acted
inappropriately in requesting promotional payments and in
falsifying supporting documentation for approximately $3.3
million in claims billed to the vendor by OfficeMax during 2003
and 2004."

The complaint further alleges that on January 11, 2005,
defendants announced that:

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

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

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

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

     (5) the Company had terminated four employees as a result
         of information discovered through its investigation. On
         this news, the Company's stock fell $1.42, or 4.7%, to
         $28.88.

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


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.


SIPEX CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
other similarly situated purchasers of the securities of Sipex
Corporation ("Sipex" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SIPX) between
April 11, 2003 and January 20, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"), in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.

The complaint names as defendants Sipex, Walid Maghribi (former
President and Chief Executive Officer), Phil Kagel (former Chief
Financial Officer), and Ray Wallin (current Chief Financial
Officer). According to the Complaint, defendants violated
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period.

Sipex designs, manufactures and markets high-performance
semiconductors that are used by original equipment manufacturers
operating in the computing, consumer electronics, communications
and networking infrastructure markets. Throughout the Class
Period, Sipex reported positive results in SEC filings and
publicly disseminated press releases. Defendants attributed
these results to increased semiconductor sales and cost savings
resulting from a restructuring of its operations. The Complaint
alleges however, that unbeknownst to the Class, the Company's
seeming success was the result of improper accounting that
artificially inflated Sipex's reported results.

The Complaint further alleges that the truth began to emerge on
January 20, 2005 when, after the market closed, Sipex issued a
press release announcing that it might need to restate its
reported financial statements for fiscal 2003, and for the first
three quarters of fiscal 2004. The Company stated that it had
discovered "improper recognition of revenue during these periods
on sales for which price protection, stock rotation and/or
return rights may have been granted," and that the Company's
audit committee and board of directors had commenced an internal
investigation of the matter. As a result of the investigation,
Sipex stated that it would not be able to file its 2004 annual
report with the SEC on time. In reaction to this news, the price
of Sipex common stock dropped on unusually high volume, falling
from $0.90 per share, or 23%, from its previous trading day's
closing price of $3.84, to close at $2.94 on January 21, 2005.

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


TASER AUTOMOTIVE: Keller Rohrback Initiates ERISA Investigation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. (www.erisafraud.com) today announced that
it is investigating Tower Automotive Inc. ("Tower Automotive" or
the "Company") (NYSE:TWR) for violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA").

The investigation is regarding the investments in Company stock
by the Tower Automotive Retirement Plan, the Tower Automotive
Union 401(k) Plan, the Tower Automotive Products Savings
Investment Plan, and the Tower Automotive Products Employee
401(k) Savings Plan (the "Plans") from February 14, 2003 to the
present (the "Class Period").

Keller Rohrback's investigation focuses on concerns that Tower
Automotive and other fiduciaries for the Plan may have breached
their ERISA-mandated fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence by
among other things, continuing to offer their own company stock
as a Plan investment option, and investing and holding employee
and matching contributions in the stock at a time when they knew
or should have known because of the precarious financial
condition of the company that the stock was not a suitable and
appropriate investment option. A breach also may have occurred
if the fiduciaries failed to disclose complete and accurate
information to employees regarding the Company's business, and
financial results and operations, such that they could make
informed decisions regarding investment in Tower stock.


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


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Schneider & Wallace Lodges Stock Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schneider & Wallace initiated a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona against Taser International, Inc. ("Taser" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: TASR) and certain of its officers and
directors, on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased
the publicly traded common stock of Taser between October 19,
2004 and January 6, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934 by failing to disclose material adverse information
about the Company and its products. Specifically, the complaint
alleges that throughout the class period, Defendants failed to
disclose and/or concealed safety concerns relating to Taser
devices and/or that defendants lacked any reasonable basis for
the statements they were making concerning the Company's
profitability, resulting in the price of Taser's common stock
trading at artificially inflated levels. It has also been
alleged that while in possession of material, non-public adverse
information about the Company, certain of the Company's
executives sold hundreds of thousands of shares of their stock
in the Company for proceeds of tens of millions of dollars. Just
before midnight on January 6, 2005, Taser announced in a news
release that it was the subject of an informal inquiry by the
United States Securities and Exchange Commission relating to its
public statements about the safety of its products. On January
7, 2005, the Company's stock price plummeted 17.74% to close at
$22.72 on massive trading volume.

For more details, contact Schneider & Wallace by E-mail:
info@schneiderwallace.com.


TOWER AUTOMOTIVE: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased the common stock of Tower Automotive, Inc.
("Tower Automotive" or the "Company") (OTC: TWRAQ) between
February 14, 2003 and February 1, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class
Period") against defendants Dugald K. Campbell, Ernie Thomas,
Kathleen Ligocki and James A. Mallak, officers of the Company
during the Class Period.

The case name and civil action number is Poplin v. Campbell, et
al, 05-cv- 2188.

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

In connection with the allegations set forth in the complaint,
Wolf Haldenstein is also considering additional claims
specifically on behalf of employees of Tower Automotive. This
investigation centers on possible violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 in connection with the
holdings of Tower Automotive common stock in the retirement
plans. The investigation is examining whether the Company, and
fiduciaries of the retirement plans, breached their fiduciary
duties to the Plan, and the employees who participated in the
Plan, by allowing the Plan to continue to offer Tower Automotive
common stock as an investment option and utilize it as a
matching contribution when the Company and fiduciaries knew, or
should have known, that it was an inappropriate investment
because of the financial condition of the Company. Members of
any Tower Automotive sponsored 401(k) Plans, including current
or former employees, who purchased or acquired Tower Automotive
stock through one of the plans may contact Wolf Haldenstein
concerning their rights in this matter. The affected retirement
plans include the Tower Automotive Retirement Plan, Tower
Automotive Union 401(K) Plan, Tower Automotive Products Savings
Investment Plan, and the Tower Automotive Products Employee
401(K) Savings Plan.

The complaint alleges that the statements made by defendants
during the Class Period were each materially false and
misleading when made because defendants failed to disclose
and/or misrepresented these adverse facts, known to defendants,
or recklessly disregarded by them, at all relevant times:

     (1) that the Company was facing intense pricing pressures
         to remain competitive;

     (2) that the costs of steel and other raw materials were
         continuing to significantly increase expenses and, when
         combined with the squeeze being placed on the Company
         by automakers, was dramatically decreasing the
         Company's earnings ability;

     (3) that early pay programs instituted by automakers were
         going to be terminated, thereby depriving the Company
         of a primary source of its liquidity;

     (4) based on the foregoing, contrary to Defendants'
         representations, the Company's financial condition was
         declining precipitously such that the Company's debt
         problems had become an impossible burden that would
         force the Company to file for bankruptcy; and

     (5) based on the foregoing, defendants had no reasonable
         basis for their positive statements regarding the
         Company's ability to control its liquidity issues.

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


VECCO INSTRUMENTS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Veeco
Instruments, Inc. (Nasdaq:VECO) between November 3, 2003 and
February 10, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action lawsuit on in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York, on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired publicly traded securities of
Veeco Instruments Inc. ("Veeco" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:VECO)
between November 3, 2003 and February 10, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against Veeco, Edward H.
Braun and John F. Rein Jr. ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Section 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically the complaint alleges that
Defendants materially misled the investing public by issuing
false and misleading statements regarding the business and
financial results of Veeco. More specifically, the complaint
alleges that the Company's statements were false and misleading
because Defendants knowingly or recklessly failed to disclose
that it had improperly valued the inventory and accounts payable
at its TurboDisc division in order to make the acquisition look
more attractive to the market, that it falsely recognized
revenue at TurboDisc during the class period, and that it
improperly overvalued its deferred tax assets.

On February 11, 2005, Veeco announced that it was postponing the
results of its financial results for the fourth quarter and full
year 2004 pending completion of an internal investigation of
improper accounting transactions at its TurboDisc division. The
Company further expects that the investigation will lead to
adjustments of the financial statements previously issued for
the quarterly periods and nine-months ended September 2004.
Shares of Veeco reacted negatively to the news, falling $1.83
per share, or approximately 10%, to $16.96 per share.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. of Goodkind
Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP by Phone: 800-321-0476 or visit
their Web site: http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=Veeco.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Schatz & Nobel Files NY Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all
persons who purchased the publicly traded securities of Veeco
Instruments, Inc. (Nasdaq: VECO) ("Veeco") between November 3,
2003 and February 10, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Veeco violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that it had improperly
valued the inventory and accounts payable at its TurboDisc
division, that it falsely recognized revenue at TurboDisc during
the class period, and that it improperly overvalued its deferred
tax assets. On February 11, 2005, Veeco announced that it was
postponing the results of its financial results for the fourth
quarter and full year 2004 pending completion of an internal
investigation of improper accounting transactions at its
TurboDisc division. On this news, Veeco stock fell from a close
of $18.86 per share on February 10, 2005, to close at $16.96 per
share on February 11, 2005.

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


VISTEON CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Visteon Corp. (NYSE: VC) ("Visteon" or the
"Company") between January 23, 2004 and January 31, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Visteon, Peter Pestillo, Michael Johnston,
Glenda J. Minor, Daniel R. Coulson and James Palmer with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that the Company continued to maintain unprofitable
         product lines, such as glass and powertrain systems,
         even when faced with declining North American auto
         sales and rising raw-material costs;

     (2) that the Company was overly dependent on Ford Motor Co.
         ("Ford"), as 70 percent of Visteon's revenue came from
         Ford;

     (3) that the Company failed to adequately control costs;

     (4) that the Company improperly accounted for certain
         retiree health care and pension benefits, and income
         taxes and as a result Visteon had to reverse $9
         million in expense reductions for U.S. post-retirement
         life and health care costs and to adjust the valuation
         allowance on deferred tax assets by $17 million;

     (5) that as a result of the foregoing the Company's
         financial results were in violation of Generally
         Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and were
         materially inflated at all relevant times; and

     (6) that as a consequence of the above, the defendants had
         no reasonable basis for positive statements about
         Visteon's financial condition.

On January 31, 2005, Visteon announced preliminary fourth
quarter and full year results for 2004. For the full year 2004,
Visteon recorded a net loss of $1.489 billion, or $11.88 per
share. In addition, Visteon's management has recommended the
review and preliminary restatement of the Company's financial
statements for 2002, 2003 and the first three fiscal quarters of
2004. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Visteon fell
$0.51, or 6.43 percent, on January 31, 2005 to close at $7.42
per share.

For more details, contact Marc A. Topaz, Esq. or Darren J.
Check, Esq. of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP by Mail: 280 King of
Prussia Road, Radnor, PA 19087 by Phone: 1-888-299-7706 or
1-610-667-7706 or by E-mail: info@sbclasslaw.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

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

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

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

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

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *