CAR_Public/050302.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 2, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 43

                          Headlines

360 NETWORKS: IL Residents Launches Fiber Optic Cable Complaint
AFRAH PASTRIES: Recalls 2265 lbs. Pastries For Undeclared Wheat
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Travel Agencies File CA RICO Violations Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Okays Antitrust Suit Dismissal
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Canadian Travel Agents Dismiss Antitrust Suit

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice RICO Suit
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Travel Agents Launch Unfair Trade Suit in NY
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Four Breach of Privacy Suits in TX, NY
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Unjust Enrichment Suits in NY, OK, MA
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Attendants Launch RICO Violations Suit in NY

ASSOCIATED ESTATES: OH Court Yet To Decide on Summary Judgment
ATF FITNESS: PA Attorney's Office Launches Forfeiture Complaint
AUDIBLE INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NJ
BRISTOL-MYERS: NY Judge Cuts Attorney's Fees in Securities Case
CINCINNATI GAS: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Moscow Residents' Suit

CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Fairness Hearing Held For FL Suit Pact
DUPONT CO.: WV Judge Approves Settlement Of POFA Pollution Suit
HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Asks NJ Court To Okay ERISA Suit Pact
LEE MEMORIAL: FL Resident Launches Lawsuit Over Lien Practices
LOWE'S COMPANIES: Hundreds Join Overtime Wage Complaint in PA

MAMMA.COM INC.: Denies Allegations in NY Securities Fraud Suits
MEDTRONIC INC.: Recalls LIFEPAK 500 AEDs Due To Display Defect
NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Judge Refuses To Appoint Mediator For SC Crash
NORTHWEST AREA: Appeals Court Upholds Portion Of Yakima Lawsuit
OGE ENERGY: Hearing on KS Gas Suit Certification Set April 2005

OKLAHOMA: Attorney Lodges Suit V. Town's Unapproved Ordinances
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Trial in Managed Care Suit Set September 2005
PACIFICARE HEALTH: Discovery Stayed Against PBM Company in Suit
PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in CA
PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: Trial Set To Start On Auto Lending Complaint

RENO HILTON: NV Supreme Court Nixes "Premature" Damages Appeal
STONEPATH GROUP: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in E.D. PA
SYCAMORE NETWORKS: NY Court Grants Tentative Approval to Pact
UNITED STATES: Companies Seek Dismissal Of Agent Orange Lawsuit
VIACOM INTERNATIONAL: Helen T. Dziuba Files Suit Over Debentures

VISTEON CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Suits in E.D. MI
VORNADO OPERATING: DE Court Mulls Approval of Lawsuit Settlement
WEST CORPORATION: CA Court Upholds Demurrer To Consumer Lawsuit
WEST CORPORATION: Consumer Suit Referred to OH Bankruptcy Court

                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AUDIBLE INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges NJ Securities Fraud Suit
AUDIBLE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
AXONYX INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
AXONYX INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges NJ Securities Suit

                           *********

360 NETWORKS: IL Residents Launches Fiber Optic Cable Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County residents George and Ruth Schillinger initiated a
class action lawsuit against a Canadian fiber optics network
company, 360 Networks of Vancouver, British Columbia, for
trespassing, the Madison County Record reports.

The suit, filed on the day President Bush signed the Class
Action Fairness Act into law, alleges that the Canadian business
chose to forego time-consuming negotiations with them and other
class members.  Instead, 360 Networks entered into quick
agreements with other companies, such as railroad, pipeline,
energy and other utility companies, and paid them millions to
construct its fiber optic network.  The suit further alleges in
their complaint that the company installed thousands of miles of
telecommunication conduits or fiber optic cable throughout the
United States, including Illinois, in land subject to right-of-
way easements.

Legal experts point out that potential class members consist of
more than 1,000 current and former owners of the right-of-way
land throughout the United States.  The plaintiffs and the
class, who are seeking a declaration that 360 Networks has no
legal rights to exercise dominion and control over their right-
of-way land, allege they have suffered actual damages resulting
from 360 Networks' trespassing, in an amount to be proven at
trial, plus punitive damages for fraud, malice, intentional,
willful or wanton conduct and reckless disregard of their
rights.

The class will be represented by Mark Goldenberg and Elizabeth
Heller of Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli of Edwardsville
and John Massopust and Daniel Millea of Zelle, Hofmann, Voelbel,
Mason & Gette of Minneapolis along with firms from Washington
DC, Indianapolis, Waltham MA.


AFRAH PASTRIES: Recalls 2265 lbs. Pastries For Undeclared Wheat
---------------------------------------------------------------
Afrah Pastries of Richardson, Texas is recalling approximately
2265 lbs of pastries because they contain undeclared wheat,
dairy, eggs, tree nuts and the colors Yellow #5 and Yellow #6.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to wheat,
dairy, eggs, and/or tree nuts run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The recall products were distributed to consumers nationwide
through phone and Internet sales. The recall includes all box
sizes of the following products. All products are labeled on the
top of the box with the Afrah Pastries Logo and product
description.

Products affected by this recall:

     (1) Baklava Fingers recalled due to undeclared wheat and
         butter

     (2) Kol Shkor recalled due to undeclared wheat and butter

     (3) Baklava Pistachios recalled due to undeclared wheat and
         butter

     (4) Baklava Walnuts recalled due to undeclared wheat and
         butter

     (5) Basma Cashews recalled due to undeclared wheat and
         butter

     (6) Basma Pistachios recalled due to undeclared wheat and
         butter

     (7) Mamoul Mad Pistachios recalled due to undeclared wheat,
         butter, Yellow #5 and Yellow #6

     (8) Mamoul Mad Dates recalled due to undeclared wheat and
         butter

     (9) Mamoul Pistachios recalled due to undeclared Yellow #5
         and Yellow #6

    (10) Mamoul Dates recalled due to undeclared wheat and
         butter

    (11) Petit Fours recalled due to undeclared wheat, butter,
         and eggs

    (12) Eye of Gazal recalled due to undeclared wheat, butter,
         and eggs

    (13) Ghraybeh recalled due to undeclared butter

    (14) Nammoura recalled due to undeclared yogurt

    (15) Barazik recalled due to undeclared wheat, butter, and
         tree nuts (pistachios)

    (16) Ballourieh recalled due to undeclared wheat

    (17) Burma Pistachios recalled due to undeclared wheat

    (18) Mini Mamoul Pistachios recalled due to undeclared
         Yellow #5 and Yellow #6

    (19) Assorted Sweet Tray recalled due to undeclared wheat
         and butter. The Assorted Sweet Tray contains Baklava
         Pistachios, Baklava Fingers, Baklava Pyramids, Kol
         Shkor, Basma Pistachios, Basma Cashews, Burma
         Pistachios and Ballourieh.

No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall is being
made with the knowledge of the US Food and Drug Administration.

Consumers are urged to determine if they have any of these
pastries. All affected product should be returned via parcel
post to Afrah Pastries, 314 E. Main Street, Richardson, Texas
75081. Customers will be reimbursed for returned goods and
postage. Customers with questions may contact the company at
1-800-99-AFRAH or by e-mail at info@afrah.com.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Travel Agencies File CA RICO Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. continues to face a class action filed
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division, styled "Westways World Travel,
Inc. v. AMR Corp., et al."  The suit also names as defendants:

     (1) AMR Corporation,

     (2) AMR Eagle Holding Corporation,

     (3) Airlines Reporting Corporation, and

     (4) the Sabre Group Holdings, Inc.

The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debit
memos to American for violations of American's fare rules (by
customers of the agencies):

     (i) breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American
         and AMR Eagle and the plaintiffs;

    (ii) constitutes unjust enrichment; and

   (iii) violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO)

The certified class includes all travel agencies who have been
or will be required to pay money to American for debit memos for
fare rules violations from July 26, 1995 to the present.  The
plaintiffs seek to enjoin the Company from enforcing the pricing
rules in question and to recover the amounts paid for debit
memos, plus treble damages, attorneys' fees, and costs.

The suit is styled "Westway World Travel v. AMR Corp, et al,
case no. 99-cv-07689-WDK-AIJ," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge William D. Keller.

Representing the defendants are Chad S. Hummel, Manatt Phelps &
Phillips, 11355 W Olympic Blvd, Los Angeles, CA 90064-1614,
Phone: 310-312-4000; and William A. Wargo, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher, 333 S Grand Ave, 45th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197,
Phone: 213-229-7000.  Representing the plaintiffs are
Linda S. Platisha, Linda S. Platisha Law Offices, 21520 Yorba
Linda Blvd, Ste G-560 Yorba Linda, CA 92887, Phone: 714-694-
1542; and Dean Browning Webb, Dean Browning Webb Law Offices
8002 NE Hwy 99, Ste B Vancouver, WA 98665-8833, Phone: 503-629-
2176, Fax: 503-629-9527.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Okays Antitrust Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower
court's dismissal of the class action filed against American
Airlines and over 15 other airline companies, styled "Hall, et
al. v. United Airlines, et al."

The suit, initially filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleged that between
1995 and the present, the defendants conspired to reduce
commissions paid to U.S.-based travel agents in violation of
Section1 of the Sherman Act.  The plaintiffs are seeking
monetary damages and injunctive relief.

The court granted class action certification to the plaintiffs
on September 17, 2002, defining the plaintiff class as all
travel agents in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the United
States Virgin Islands, who, at any time from October 1, 1997 to
the present, issued tickets, miscellaneous change orders, or
prepaid ticket advices for travel on any of the defendant
airlines.  The case was stayed as to US Airways and United
Airlines, since they filed for bankruptcy.  Defendant carriers
filed a motion for summary judgment on December 10, 2002, which
the court granted on October 30, 2003.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Canadian Travel Agents Dismiss Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the class action filed against
American Airlines, Inc., other airlines and the International
Air Transport Association in the Federal Court of Canada, Trial
Division.

On May 13, 2002, the named plaintiffs in "Always Travel, et. al.
v. Air Canada, et. al."  filed a statement of claim, alleging
that between 1995 and the present, the Company, the other
defendant airlines, and the International Air Transport
Association conspired to reduce commissions paid to Canada-based
travel agents in violation of Section45 of the Competition Act
of Canada.  The named plaintiffs sought monetary damages and
injunctive relief and to certify a nationwide class of travel
agents.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Court Dismisses Without Prejudice RICO Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division dismissed the class action filed
against American Airlines, Inc., styled "All World Professional
Travel Services, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc."

The lawsuit alleges that requiring travel agencies to pay debit
memos for refunding tickets after September 11, 2001:

     (1) breaches the Agent Reporting Agreement between American
         and plaintiff;

     (2) constitutes unjust enrichment; and

     (3) violates the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
         Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO)

The alleged class includes all travel agencies who have or will
be required to pay moneys to American for an "administrative
service charge," "penalty fee," or other fee for processing
refunds on behalf of passengers who were unable to use their
tickets in the days immediately following the resumption of air
carrier service after the tragedies on September 11, 2001.

On April 1, 2004, the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  On October 14, 2004, an amended class action
complaint was filed.  On January 12, 2005, the court dismissed
the action without prejudice.

The suit is styled "All World Prof, et al v. American Airlines,
case no. 5:02-cv-00849-RT-SGL," filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, under
Judge Robert J. Timlin.

Representing the plaintiffs are Robert P. Berry, Robert E.
Cooper, Carol M. Silberberg, Rodney Joseph Stone of Gibson Dunn
& Crutcher, 333 S Grand Ave, 45th Fl, Los Angeles, CA 90071-
3197, Phone: 213-229-7000, E-mail: rcooper@gibsondunn.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Gretchen M. Nelson, Kreindler and Kreindler, 707
         Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 5070 Los Angeles, CA 90017,
         Phone: 213-622-6469, E-mail: gnelson@kreindler.com

    (ii) Farley J. Neuman, Jenkins Goodman & Neuman, 417
         Montgomery St, 10th Fl San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:
         415-705-0400

   (iii) Linda S. Platisha, Linda S. Platisha Law Offices, 21520
         Yorba Linda Blvd, Ste G-560, Yorba Linda, CA 92887,
         Phone: 714-694-1542

    (iv) Dean Browning Webb, Dean Browning Webb Law Offices,
         8002 NE Hwy 99, Ste B Vancouver, WA 98665-8833, Phone:
         503-629-2176, Fax: 503-629-9527


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Travel Agents Launch Unfair Trade Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. faces a class action filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
styled "Power Travel International, Inc. v. American Airlines,
Inc., et al."  The suit also names as defendants Continental
Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Airlines, and Northwest
Airlines.

The suit alleges that the Company and the other defendants
breached their contracts with the agency and were unjustly
enriched when these carriers at various times reduced their base
commissions to zero.  The as yet uncertified class includes all
travel agencies accredited by the Airlines Reporting Corporation
"whose base commissions on airline tickets were unilaterally
reduced to zero by" the defendants.  The case is stayed as to
United Airlines, since it filed for bankruptcy.

The suit is styled "Power Travel Intl. v. American Airlines, et
al, case no. 1:02-cv-07434-RWS," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Robert W. Sweet.

Representing the Company are Donald Howard Chase, Morrison Cohen
Singer & Weinstein, LLP, 750 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY
10022, Phone: 212-735-8684, Fax: 212-735-8799, E-mail:
dchase@mcsw.com; and Richard M. Goldstein and Carla M. Miller,
Proskauer Rose LLP, 1585 Broadway New York, NY 10036-8299,
Phone: (212) 969-3000.  Representing the plaintiffs are Craig L.
Briskin and Lawrence Paskowitz, Goodkind Labaton Rudoff &
Sucharow LLP, 100 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10017, Phone:
212-907-0854, Fax: 212-883-7054, E-mail: cbriskin@glrslaw.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Four Breach of Privacy Suits in TX, NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. faces four class actions filed in Texas
and New York federal courts, arising from the disclosure of
passenger name records by a vendor of American.  The cases are:

     (1) Kimmell v. AMR, et al. (U. S. District Court, Texas),

     (2) Baldwin v. AMR, et al. (U. S. District Court, Texas),

     (3) Rosenberg v. AMR, et al. (U. S. District Court, New
         York) and

     (4) Anapolsky v. AMR, et al. (U.S. District Court, New
         York).

The Kimmell suit was filed in April 2004.  The Baldwin and
Rosenberg cases were filed in May 2004.  The Anapolsky suit was
filed in September 2004.  The suits allege various causes of
action, including but not limited to, violations of the
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, negligent
misrepresentation, breach of contract and violation of alleged
common law rights of privacy.  In each case plaintiffs seek
statutory damages of $1000 per passenger, plus additional
unspecified monetary damages.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Unjust Enrichment Suits in NY, OK, MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. faces three class actions filed
Oklahoma, New York and Massachusetts courts, arising from
allegedly improper failure to refund certain governmental taxes
and fees collected by the Company upon the sale of nonrefundable
tickets when such tickets are not used for travel.  The suits
are styled:

     (1) Coleman v. American Airlines, Inc., case No. 101106,
         pending (on appeal) before the Supreme Court of
         Oklahoma. The Coleman Plaintiffs seek actual damages
         (not specified) and interest.

     (2) Hayes v. American Airlines, Inc., case no. 04-3231,
         pending in the United States District Court for the
         Eastern District of New York.  The Hayes Plaintiffs
         seek unspecified damages, declaratory judgment, costs,
         attorneys' fees, and interest.

     (3) Harrington v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et. al., case no.
         04-12558, pending in the United States District Court
         for the District of Massachusetts, filed November 4,
         2004.  The Harrington plaintiffs seek unspecified
         actual damages (trebled), declaratory judgment,
         injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The suits assert various causes of action, including breach of
contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment.


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Attendants Launch RICO Violations Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines, Inc. and the Association of Professional
Flight Attendants (APFA), the union which represents the
Company's attendants, face an amended consolidated class action
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, styled "Ann M. Marcoux, et al., v.
American Airlines Inc., et al."

While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks on
behalf of all of the Company's flight attendants or various
subclasses to set aside, and to obtain damages allegedly
resulting from, the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement
referred to as the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA).
The RPA was one of three labor agreements the Company
successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing
for bankruptcy in 2003.

In a related case, styled "Sherry Cooper, et al. v. TWA
Airlines, LLC, et al.," also in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, the court denied a
preliminary injunction against implementation of the RPA on June
30, 2003.

The Marcoux suit alleges various claims against the Union and
Company relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA
by individual Union members, including: violation of the Labor
Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA's
Constitution and By-laws, violation by the Union of its duty of
fair representation to its members, violation by the Company of
provisions of the Railway Labor Act through improper coercion
of flight attendants into voting or changing their vote for
ratification, and violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970 (RICO).

The suit is styled "Marcoux et al v. American Airlines Inc. et
al, case no. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York, under Judge
Nina Gershon.

Representing the Company are Thomas Edward Reinert, Jr., Melissa
C. Rodriguez, Sam Scott Shaulson of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLP, 101 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10178, Phone: 212-309-6000,
Fax: 212- 309-6273, E-mail: treinert@morganlewis.com,
mcrodriguez@morganlewis.com, sshaulson@morganlewis.com.
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Emily Maruja Bass, Law Offices of Emily Bass, 25
         Washington Street, Suite 305 Brooklyn, NY 11201, Phone:
         718-522-9705, Fax: 718-522-9707, E-mail: eb@basslaw.us

     (2) Martin Garbus and Mark J. Rachman, Davis & Gilbert,
         LLP, 1740 Broadway, 21st floor, New York, NY 10019
         Phone: 212-468-4800, Fax: 212-468-4888, E-mail:
         mgarbus@dglaw.com or mrachman@dglaw.com


ASSOCIATED ESTATES: OH Court Yet To Decide on Summary Judgment
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Franklin County, Ohio Court of Common Pleas has yet to rule
on Associated Estates Realty Corporation's motion for summary
judgment in the class action filed against it, over its
Suredeposit program.

On April 14, 2002, Melanie and Kyle Kopp commenced an action
against the Company, seeking undetermined damages, injunctive
relief and class action certification.  The Suredeposit program
allows cash short prospective residents to purchase a bond in
lieu of paying a security deposit.  The bond serves as a fund to
pay those resident obligations that would otherwise have been
funded by the security deposit.

Plaintiffs allege that the non-refundable premium paid for the
bond is a disguised form of security deposit, which is otherwise
required to be refundable in accordance with Ohio's Landlord-
Tenant Act.  Plaintiffs further allege that certain pet deposits
and other non-refundable deposits required by the Company are
similarly security deposits that must be refundable in
accordance with Ohio's Landlord-Tenant Act.

On January 15, 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification.  The Company subsequently filed a motion for
summary judgment.  Both motions are pending before the Court.


ATF FITNESS: PA Attorney's Office Launches Forfeiture Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
At the request of the United States Food and Drug Administration
(FDA), the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of
Pennsylvania filed a Complaint for Forfeiture against $13,500
worth of adulterated and misbranded dietary supplement
containing ephedrine alkaloids that were located at ATF Fitness
Products, Inc. (ATF) in Oakmont, PA. The U.S. Marshals seized
the products in response to a warrant issued by the court.

The products seized include SciFit Procut lots 18822, 16312,
16918, 16834, and 19023 and Thermogen II lot 18981 in an
assortment of cases and bottles valued at $13,500.  The seizure
follows an FDA investigation that determined the products either
contained prohibited ephedrine alkaloids or claimed to contain
ephedrine or ephedrine alkaloids but did not.

Under the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, FDA may remove a dietary
supplement from the market if it presents a significant or
unreasonable risk of illness or injury when used according to
its labeling or under ordinary conditions of use, if no
conditions of use are suggested or recommended in the labeling.
On February 11, 2004, FDA made such a finding for dietary
supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids. On April 12, 2004,
FDA's final rule prohibiting the sale of dietary supplements
containing ephedrine alkaloids went into effect. Prior to the
final rule, the agency notified firms manufacturing and
marketing dietary supplements containing ephedrine alkaloids of
its intent to issue a final rule prohibiting their sale.

The Act also prohibits firms from marketing dietary supplements
that contain label information that is false or misleading such
as claiming to contain ingredients that are not actually
present. Under the Act, FDA may remove such products from the
market because they are misbranded.  FDA is committed to
promoting and protecting the public health by taking action
against unsafe products and products that make false and
misleading claims.


AUDIBLE INC.: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Audible, Inc. faces several securities class actions filed in
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey,
filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock from
November 2,2004 to February 15,2005.

The class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of
the securities of Audible, Inc., seeking to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaints
allege that defendants Audible and certain of its officers
reported increased revenues and earnings, growth that would
continue as the Company capitalized on increasing demand for its
products and a growing customer base.

Unbeknownst to investors, however, throughout the Class Period,
defendants' representations about the Company's operations, made
in Audible press releases and elsewhere, were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose that the
Company's heady growth could not continue without material
investments in expensive strategic initiatives that would
severely erode the Company's earnings in the foreseeable future;
and the Company was about to embark on expensive strategic
initiatives that would constitute a material risk to the
Company's growth and its stock price.

On or around February 15, 2005, after the close of trading,
Audible announced that in 2005 it would be undertaking several
initiatives requiring substantial investments in infrastructure,
new business units and marketing, among other areas, and that
these initiatives would depress earnings and cash flow at least
until 2006. As a result, the price of Audible common stock
plummeted, falling from $26.70 per share on February 15, 2005 to
$17.32 on February 16, 2005, a one-day decline of 35%, on
unusually heavy trading volume of 20.9 million shares. Prior to
this disclosure, defendants Katz sold 150,000 Audible shares for
gross proceeds of $3,675,000, while defendant Kaplan sold
125,000 shares for gross proceeds of $3,062,500 in the Company's
secondary offering on November 18, 2004.

The first identified complaint is styled "Dennis Carter, et al.
v. Audible, Inc., et al."  The plaintiff firms in this
litigation are:

     (1) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (2) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: NY Judge Cuts Attorney's Fees in Securities Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in Manhattan has cut in half a request for
attorney's fees in In re Bristol-Myers Squibb Securities
Litigation, 03-2251, which resulted in a $300 million
settlement, the New York Law Journal reports.  In awarding $12
million in attorney's fees, Southern District Judge Loretta A.
Preska wrote, "It is not thirty times more difficult to settle a
thirty million dollar case as it is to settle a one million
dollar case."

New York's Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman and Boston's
Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo had asked for 7.5
percent of the settlement amount, or around $22 million, for
serving as co-lead plaintiffs' counsel in a suit against
pharmaceutical giant Bristol-Myers over its $2 billion
investment into biotechnology company ImClone. The suit had also
alleged that improper accounting practices by Bristol-Myers led
to a restatement of earnings in 2002.

The suit was dismissed last March, a decision that had been
under appeal. Bristol-Myers though agreed to the settlement in
July, then shortly after that settlement, the company settled
for $150 million an action brought by the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in New Jersey federal court.  According to
Judge Preska's ruling, the case "fell along the low end of the
continuum of risks" for the plaintiffs' lawyers and noted in
particular that the statements about ImClone at issue in the
case were in the public record as were the restatements.

Furthermore, the judge pointed out in her ruling, "Lead counsel
merely drafted complaints setting out roughly chronologically
the material in the public record and alleging Defendant's
knowledge and scienter. Neither the facts nor the legal and
accounting theories were complicated. Among securities class
actions, this case as a whole was neither unique nor complex,"
the New York Law Journal reports.

Judge Preska also said the plaintiff lawyers' fees should be
lowered, since the attorneys benefited from the existence of an
SEC action based on similar facts.


CINCINNATI GAS: Asks OH Court To Dismiss Moscow Residents' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company asked the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio to dismiss a
class action filed against it by a citizen of the Village of
Moscow, Ohio, the town adjacent to the Company's Zimmer Station.

The suit seeks monetary damages and injunctive relief against
the Company for alleged violations of the Clean Air Act, the
Ohio State Implementation Plan, Ohio laws against nuisance and
common law nuisance.

Moscow resident Danny Freeman filed the suit, which purports to
represent residents in Moscow and nearby communities, including
Pendleton County, Kentucky.  The suit charges that the Zimmer
plant in Moscow regularly emits dangerous levels of fine
particulates (soot) that can cause serious health problems.
Furthermore, the suit charges that the smokestack at the plant
emits mercury, lead, arsenic and cadmium onto surrounding
properties, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
19,2004) reports.

"These illegal and wrongful air emissions result from frequent
preventable equipment breakdowns as well as from day-to-day
operations of the facility, including its coal-fired boiler, air
emission control equipment and materials handling," the suit
said.  The suit claimed that wind patterns have caused smoke to
blow down on Mr. Freeman's property and that the Ohio EPA has
failed to cite the plant for documented opacity violations.

The suit is styled "Freeman v. Cincinnati Gas & Electric
Company, case no. 1:04-cv-00781-SJD," in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, under Judge
Susan J. Dlott.

Representing the Company is Amy B. Spiller, Cinergy, 139 East
4th Street, Room 25 AT2, PO Box 960, Cincinnati, OH 45201,
Phone: 513-287-2094, E-mail: Amy.Spiller@Cinergy.com.
Representing plaintiff Danny Freeman is Paul Alley of Graydon
Head & Ritchey - 1, 2500 Chamber Center Drive, PO Box 17070,
Suite 300, Ft Mitchell, KY 41017, Phone: 859-282-8800, E-mail:
palley@graydon.com.


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Fairness Hearing Held For FL Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida held a fairness hearing for the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Cryo-Cell
International, Inc., certain of its current and former officers
and directors and two accounting firms who previously audited
the Company's consolidated financial statements.

Ten complaints were initially filed, alleging violations of
federal securities laws, including improper recognition of
revenue in the consolidated financial statements presented in
certain public reports of the Company.  On October 22, 2003, all
ten complaints were consolidated (Case No. 03-CV-1011).  On
February 17, 2004, the court appointed lead plaintiffs.  On
April 27, 2004, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.
The amended complaint generally seeks, among other things,
certification of a class of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between March 16, 1999 and May 20, 2003 and
unspecified damages.

The parties have signed a formal stipulation of settlement to
settle the litigation. The settlement remains subject to
approval by the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, and a fairness hearing was held on February
25, 2005.  The proposed settlement, which totals $7 million,
includes a payment of $4 million, which would be paid by the
carrier of the Company's former auditors, subject to its
applicable deductible.  In addition, the Company's insurance
carrier would pay $3 million on the Company's behalf under its
directors' and officers' insurance policy, subject to its
maximum deductible of $175,000.


DUPONT CO.: WV Judge Approves Settlement Of POFA Pollution Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wood County Circuit Judge George W. Hill approved the settlement
of a class action lawsuit (Civil Action No. 01-C-608) alleging a
chemical used in making the nonstick substance Teflon
contaminated water supplies near DuPont Co.'s Washington Works
plant, the Associated Press reports.

The settlement, in which DuPont agreed to pay at least $107.6
million, was described by the judge as "a very shrewdly and
competently organized proposal and it seems to be a very
unprecedented action by a huge corporate defendant." Also, the
judge noted that the settlement was finalized without any
evidence that perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA or C8,
caused any disease.

As previously reported in the August 23, 2004 edition of the he
lawsuit was filed in August 2001 on behalf of residents living
near the plant, located on the Ohio River about 7 miles
southwest of Parkersburg, who said their drinking supply was
contaminated by ammonium perfluorooctonoate (aka C8, C-8, PFOA,
APFO, FC143, FC-143, utilized in the manufacture of Teflon).

DuPont, which has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, said in
September that it decided to enter into the agreement because of
the time and expense of litigation, AP reports.  Under the
agreement, blood tests will be conducted on current customers of
six area water districts in Ohio and West Virginia, former
customers of those suppliers, and residents with private wells.

In addition the settlement, also calls for Wilmington, Delaware-
DuPont, to provide the water utilities with new treatment
equipment to reduce PFOA in water supplies at an estimated cost
of $10 million. The company also is to fund a $5 million
independent study to determine if PFOA makes people sick and
pays $22.6 million in legal fees and expenses for residents who
sued.

As the settlement was approved, Larry Janssen, the lead attorney
for DuPont told Forbes, "At the state of where we are and what
we know, it was premature to go to court. It would have just
been an adversary proceeding. I think DuPont stepped up to put
the matter back where it should be: before scientists."

Ultimately DuPont could be forced to spend another $235 million
on a program to monitor the health of residents who were exposed
to the chemical, according to the agreement.  "I've never seen a
class-action settlement of this magnitude, which specifically
addresses real-life health concerns of class members in the
manner that this settlement will do," plaintiffs' attorney,
Harry Deitzler told AP. "We set out to find the truth on C8 and
as a result of this settlement we will find the truth."

Even with the settlement, legal experts still pointed out that
participation in the lawsuit does not rule out future litigation
against DuPont if the scientific panel finds C8 harmful.


HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL: Asks NJ Court To Okay ERISA Suit Pact
--------------------------------------------------------------
Honeywell International, Inc. asked the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey to approve the settlement
for a class action filed against it and several of its current
and former officers and directors.

The complaint principally alleges that the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to participants in the Honeywell Savings
and Ownership Plan (the "Savings Plan") by purportedly making
false and misleading statements, failing to disclose material
information concerning Honeywell's financial performance, and
failing to diversify the Savings Plan's s assets and monitor the
prudence of Honeywell stock as a Savings Plan investment.

In September 2004, Honeywell reached an agreement in principle
to settle this matter for $14 million plus an agreement to
permit Savings Plan participants greater diversification rights.
The settlement will be paid in full by Honeywell's insurers.
Court approval is expected in 2005.


LEE MEMORIAL: FL Resident Launches Lawsuit Over Lien Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Fort Myers resident Scott Whitaker filed a lawsuit seeking class
action status against Lee Memorial Health System, saying that
his right to equal protection and due process were violated when
the system refused to bill his health insurance company after a
serious auto crash in 2003 and instead is going after his
settlement money, the News-Press.com reports.

Fort Myers attorney Joseph Fuller, one of four lawyers fighting
the issue on a statewide level, told the News-Press "Why is he
paying premiums for health insurance? Lee Memorial is taking
money (it's) not entitled to, and that's money out of the
patient's pocket. This is bad public policy."

Mr. Whitaker, 29, was hospitalized for three days after his
September 14, 2003, crash and racked up close to $50,000 in
medical bills. He has health insurance under Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Florida.  The insurer, under contract with Lee
Memorial, would pay less perhaps less than half than the
system's full price. The suit states that Lee Memorial, which
already collected $12,000 under Mr. Whitaker's personal injury
protection auto benefits, placed a lien for an additional
$37,328 against Mr. Whitaker's $25,000 and $600,000 uninsured
motorist policies.

Neal Sword, system director of business operations, told the
News-Press even as administrators are rethinking the collection
method in light of the negative publicity it generates and the
increasing legal costs that tend to cancel out gains, health
system officials still defend the practice.  In theory, however,
Mr. Sword said it is absolutely fair that the hospital tries to
collect as much of its expenses as possible, especially when the
money is legally available, because most of the time the
hospital barely breaks even on these cases.

Any settlement Mr. Whitaker and his attorneys try to get would
be based upon the hospital's full ticket price, Mr. Sword said.
"why should Lee Memorial recoup less than that while the patient
walks away with all of it? . If they only claimed what was
covered but using full charges, and if they collect full
charges, we want that money. We're the people, believe it or
not, who negotiate what's fair, keeping in mind we have to
protect the hospital's financial interests. Some people don't
think that's fair; I think it is fair," he told the News-Press.

The lawsuit, which was filed in U.S. District Court, Fort Myers
Division, calls the practice discriminatory.  Though Lee
Memorial, by law is allowed to place liens on settlements to pay
for medical care Mr. Whitaker's lawyers say the law was designed
to protect hospitals when patients are insolvent or indigent so
providers would not be reluctant to treat them.  The lawsuit
also contends, "There is no public or legislative purpose, or
any reasonable or rational basis for (Lee Memorial) to
discriminate against (Mr. Whitaker) or other similarly situated,
insured, non- indigent patients, by charging higher amounts of
health care services only because such patients have insurance
claims for injuries caused by third parties."

Scott Weinstein, another of Whitaker's lawyers, who estimates
the class action suit, if accepted, will include thousands of
people, told the News-Press while his client has coverage to
handle his bills, many patients don't, and someone needs to stop
hospitals from taking money out of people's pockets when they
have health insurance.  He added, "A lot of times, the patient
ends up with nothing, no pain and suffering and (the hospitals)
get it all. Then the lawyers don't want to take the case and Lee
Memorial walks away with everything. We want a declaration they
can't do that anymore."


LOWE'S COMPANIES: Hundreds Join Overtime Wage Complaint in PA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hundreds of people in the state have joined a local class-action
lawsuit against a home improvement store chain Lowe's Companies
Inc. for allegedly violating the Fair Labor Standards Act and
Pennsylvania's Minimum Wage Act by withholding overtime payments
to employees, the Scranton Times reports.

Originally filed by Barbara Evans of Clarks Summit and Raymond
J. Berry of Scranton in U.S. District Court, the suit alleges
the violations occurred at stores the company operates in
Pennsylvania, including Lowe's Home Improvement Warehouse on
Viewmont Drive in Dickson City. Lowe's, which operates at least
36 stores in Pennsylvania, is based in Mooresville, N.C. and
operates in more than 1,000 stores in 48 states.

Attorney Mary Walsh-Dempsey, a Scranton lawyer who represents
Mrs. Evans and Mr. Berry, told the Scranton Times the plaintiffs
include 550 people, who had supervisory positions at Lowe's
stores in the state. Plaintiffs in the case signed on between
March 11, 2000, and September 20. Some of the plaintiffs,
including Mr. Berry, still work for Lowe's, Mrs. Walsh-Dempsey
said.  All the instances alleged in the case, which was granted
class action status by U.S. District Judge A. Richard Caputo
last June, precede the change in federal overtime regulations in
2004.

The suit states that Lowe's pays department managers and
assistant department managers salaries, while cashiers, sales,
stocking and shipping employees earn hourly wages. The suit also
charges that the department managers and assistants had
virtually no administrative responsibilities and assistant
department managers do many of the same tasks as hourly workers.

The suit also charges that Lowe's led department managers and
assistant managers to believe they were not entitled to their
full salaries if they worked less than 40 hours a week. But, the
company bypassed hourly workers for overtime work, which was
shifted to salaried employees, it charges. In addition, Lowe's
required salaried employees to work overtime and perform non-
managerial tasks, the suit alleges.

Mrs. Evans worked at Lowe's between October 1996 and February
2003, initially working as a cashier before being promoted in
1997 to assistant department manager and had to work overtime
for half her regular salary rate, the suit states. She requested
and received a transfer to an hourly position in September 2002,
it adds.

On the other hand, Mr. Berry took a sales position at Lowe's in
October 1996 and was named assistant department manager in May
1999, he was also, according to the suit required to work
substantial overtime at half his pay rate and was transferred to
a position with hourly pay in February 2002.

Eventually, Mrs. Evans and Mr. Berry inquired about how their
salaries and overtime pay were calculated, but they never
received clear explanations, the suit charges.

In May, Lowe's unsuccessfully tried to have the suit dismissed,
claiming that management-level employees had agreed to the
arrangement described as a Salaried Plus Overtime Plan. Judge
Caputo said it was unclear whether employees understood the
plan.


MAMMA.COM INC.: Denies Allegations in NY Securities Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mamma.com Inc. (NASDAQ:MAMA) faces several securities class
actions filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of
Mamma.com Inc. (NASDAQ:MAMA) publicly traded securities during
the period between March 2, 2004 and February 15, 2005.

The complaints charge Mamma.com and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934.  The complaints allege that during the Class Period,
defendants caused Mamma.com's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading
financial statements. As a result of this inflation, Mamma.com
was able to complete a private offering, raising proceeds of
$16.6 million on the sale of stock and warrants in June 2004.

The Company, in a statement, said "Last week, lawsuits seeking
class action status were filed in federal district court in
Manhattan. The complaints that were filed contain claims based
on unsubstantiated rumors and newspaper reports. The Company
believes that the claims are frivolous and without merit, and it
intends to defend itself vigorously. The Company's management is
unaware of any wrongdoing by the Company, its Board or its
officers, and it is confident that the Company, its board and
its officers have complied with all applicable securities laws."


MEDTRONIC INC.: Recalls LIFEPAK 500 AEDs Due To Display Defect
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. (NYSE: MDT) is voluntarily recalling a limited
number of LIFEPAK 500 automated external defibrillators (AEDs).

The AED may continue to display a "connect electrodes" message
and may not analyze the patient's heart rhythm even when the
electrodes are properly connected. Failure to analyze the
patient's heart rhythm will inhibit defibrillation, if it is
needed. This action affects 1,924 first-generation LIFEPAK 500
AEDs that were manufactured in 1997, which represents
approximately 1 percent of LIFEPAK 500 AEDs currently in use
worldwide. This action does not affect any other LIFEPAK 500
AEDs currently produced, or any other LIFEPAK product.

Medtronic has received 54 incident reports with this specific
group of LIFEPAK 500 AEDs, including eight instances where it
may have prevented patient resuscitation, which corresponds to
less than 1 percent of patient uses. In addition, a recently
completed theoretical engineering analysis estimates that this
issue may occur on up to 8 percent of patients.

Medtronic distributed notices via certified mail on Feb. 3,
2005, to customers who purchased AEDs in this group of devices.
The company will update or upgrade customer devices at no charge
by March 31, 2005. The affected AEDs may remain in service and
customers are currently being contacted with recommendations for
use and replacement schedules. Only certain monophasic LIFEPAK
500 AEDs manufactured in 1997 are included in this action.
Customers with further questions about this issue should call 1-
877-873-7630 or visit www.medtronic-ers.com/500 to determine if
their device is included in the action.

Medtronic is voluntarily recalling the affected AEDs. The U.S.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been apprised of this
action. FDA classified this action as a Class I recall. The FDA
defines Class I as a situation in which there is reasonable
probability that the use of or exposure to the product will
cause serious adverse health consequences or death.

The LIFEPAK 500 is used by first responders such as
firefighters, police and others trained in CPR/AED use and are
first to arrive at the scene of a cardiac incident but do not
have significant medical training. Medtronic, Inc.,
headquartered in Minneapolis, is the world's leading medical
technology company, providing lifelong solutions for people with
chronic disease. Its Internet address is
http://www.medtronic.com.


NORFOLK SOUTHERN: Judge Refuses To Appoint Mediator For SC Crash
----------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge refused to appoint a mediator to settle claims
between a railroad company and Graniteville residents who were
affected by a deadly chlorine leak and freight train crash last
month, the Associated Press reports.

More than 20 lawsuits, ranging from personal injury to wrongful
death, have been filed since the January 6, 2005 accident. As
previously reported in the January 11, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Nine people died from the toxic cloud and about
250 were hurt as a Norfolk Southern freight train crashed into a
parked train on January 6, 2005 in Graniteville, South Carolina.
The Norfolk Southern freight train was carrying chlorine gas,
when it struck a parked train about 2:30 a.m. at an Avondale
Mills facility in this textile town near the Georgia line.
Thirteen cars were derailed. Most of the injured were treated
for respiratory ailments and released, authorities said. At
least 46 people remained in the hospital, including 13 who were
in critical condition.

Norfolk Southern attorneys had asked U.S. District Judge
Margaret Seymour to appoint a "global mediator" to help settle
claims between residents who have filed lawsuits as well as
those who have not, but the judge said that was out of the
court's jurisdiction. In addition, the judge also refused to
grant a stay requested by the railroad's attorneys and said,
"The railroad is free to settle claims with whomever," but it's
not appropriate for the court to "intervene and sanction" a
settlement when a person has not filed suit.

Norfolk Southern attorney Richard Willis told AP, the company
wanted the judge's advice in the mediation process and wanted to
get the "settlement ball rolling." He also noted that the
company already had purchased office space in Graniteville to
meet with residents and would pay for the appointed mediator.
Attorney Claire Xidis argued against the request saying, "We're
just concerned that people are being misled."

More than 500 cases between residents and the railroad company
have been settled but the company expects to see between 2,500
and 5,000 claims involving personal injury and property damage,
Mr. Willis said. About 250 to 500 claims are expected to be
personal injury with about 20 to 30 very serious, he adds.

Plaintiffs' attorneys said the railroad already was engaged in
an "aggressive campaign" to settle claims with residents,
according to a couple of attorneys, the railroad has tried to
contact their clients without first getting in touch with the
attorneys.

Mr. Willis points out that may have happened because Avondale
Mills, the textile company located just a few hundred feet from
the crash site, had asked the railroad company to contact some
70 employees who have not returned to work to encourage them to
do so. Six workers on the overnight shift at the plant died from
inhaling chlorine fumes, AP reports.


NORTHWEST AREA: Appeals Court Upholds Portion Of Yakima Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a recent ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a
part of a lawsuit filed against a charity that aims to reduce
poverty in struggling communities has been revived, the
Associated Press reports.

Originally, the suit had accused the St. Paul, Minnesota-based
Northwest Area Foundation of breach of contract and sought $1.25
million that volunteers in Central Washington's Yakima Valley
contend they were promised to develop a plan to reduce poverty
in the community.

In August 2003, U.S. District Judge Edward Shea in Eastern
Washington granted the charity's motion to dismiss the suit. The
plaintiffs though appealed to the federal appeals court, which
eventually lead to the February 18 ruling by the appeals court
that upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the breach-of-
contract claim, which had cited that no contract was formed.

The appeals court, however said that the lower court should not
have dismissed the entire complaint. The court's ruling further
states, the plaintiffs had alleged that the foundation
"specifically, repeatedly, and in writing assured them it would
allocate a specific sum of funds and a specific amount of
resources to the planning process." The court further states,
"The allegation is undisputed that plaintiffs relied on this
assurance, and from the pleadings, it appears that this reliance
was reasonable. Thus, it is possible for the plaintiffs to
recover in a limited manner for incidental costs such as travel,
child care, and time off work."

The Northwest Area Foundation was established in 1934 by a
grandson of James J. Hill, the founder of the Great Northern
Railway. It is committed to fighting poverty in the eight states
that were served by the railroad namely Washington, Oregon,
Idaho, Montana, the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa. Under its
Community Ventures program, the foundation has been seeking to
identify about 16 communities to participate in a 10-year, $150
million intensive anti-poverty program.

In 2001, the foundation approached people in the Yakima Valley
with plans to help reduce poverty in the region, which is
sometimes called the nation's fruit bowl. The area is hobbled by
high unemployment, low-paying farm jobs and limited educational
opportunities.

Farmworker Julio Romero, a Mexican immigrant from Guadalajara,
who became a U.S. citizen in 1996, signed on to help bring
together people of various racial and ethnic backgrounds and
economic classes to develop their own comprehensive, regional
anti-poverty plan.  However, in 2002, the Northwest Area
Foundation abruptly pulled the plug on its offer, citing that
the valley was too large and too divided to develop a unified
proposal in a timely manner.

Though there were never any guarantees that the Yakima Valley
proposal would be accepted by the foundation, Mr. Romero, who
was represented by Seattle attorney Matthew Metz, still filed
suit as the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit,
contending that the foundation should pay $1.25 million for the
proposal's development.


OGE ENERGY: Hearing on KS Gas Suit Certification Set April 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
Class certification hearings for two similar class actions filed
against various subsidiaries of OGE Energy Corporation is set
for April 1,2005 in Kansas District Courts.  The suits also name
as defendants other natural gas companies.  The subsidiaries
named in the suit are Oklahoma Gas & Electric Company (OG&E) and
Enogex, Inc.

On September 24, 1999, various subsidiaries of the Company were
served with a class action petition filed in United States
District Court, State of Kansas by Quinque Operating Company and
other named plaintiffs, alleging mismeasurement of natural gas
on non-federal lands.

On April 10, 2003 the Court entered an order denying class
certification.  On May 12, 2003, Plaintiffs (now Will Price,
Stixon Petroleum, Inc., Thomas F. Boles and the Cooper Clark
Foundation, on behalf of themselves and other royalty interest
owners) filed a motion seeking to file an amended petition and
the court granted the motion on July 28, 2003.  In this amended
petition, OG&E and Enogex Inc. were omitted from the case.  Two
subsidiaries of Enogex remain as defendants.

The Plaintiffs' amended petition alleges that approximately 60
defendants, including two Enogex subsidiaries, have improperly
measured natural gas. The amended petition reduces the claims
to:

     (1) mismeasurement of volume only;

     (2) conspiracy, unjust enrichment and accounting;

     (3) a putative Plaintiffs' class of only royalty owners;
         and

     (4) gas measured in three specific states.

On May 12, 2003, the Plaintiffs (same as those in Price I above)
filed a new class action petition (Price II) in the District
Court of Stevens County, Kansas, relating to wrongful Btu
analysis against natural gas pipeline owners and operators,
naming the same defendants as in the amended petition of the
Price I case. Two Enogex subsidiaries were served on August 4,
2003.

The Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of only royalty owners
either from whom the defendants had purchased natural gas or
measured natural gas since January 1, 1974 to the present. The
class action petition alleges improper analysis of gas heating
content. In all other respects, the Price II petition appears to
be the same as the amended petition in Price I.

The Price I petition is styled "Quinque Operating Co v. Pacific
Gas & Elec, et al., case no. 6:99-cv-01390-CM," filed in the
United States District Court in Kansas, under Judge Carlos
Murguia.

Representing the company are Jim H. Goering and Timothy B.
Mustaine of Foulston Siefkin LLP- Wichita, 700 Bank of America
Center, 100 North Broadway, Wichita, KS 67202 by Phone:
316-291-9709 by Fax: 316-267-6345, by E-mail:
jgoering@foulston.com or tmustaine@foulston.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Kerry E. McQueen, Sharp McQueen McKinley McQueen and
         Dodge, PA, P. O. Box 2619, Liberal, KS 67905-2619,
         Phone: 620-624-2548, Fax: 620-624-9526, E-mail:
         kmcqueen@sharpmcqueen.com

    (ii) Rex A. Sharp, Gunderson Sharp & Walke, L.L.P., 4121 W.
         83rd St., Ste. 256, Prairie Village, KS 66208, Phone:
         913-901-0500, Fax: 913-901-0419, E-mail:
         rsharp@midwest-law.com

   (iii) Wayne R. Tate, Tate & Johnson, L.L.C., 1024 S. Trindle
         St., P.O. Box 909, Hugoton, KS 67951-2836, Phone: 620-
         544-2103, Fax: 620-544-2403


OKLAHOMA: Attorney Lodges Suit V. Town's Unapproved Ordinances
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been initiated against the Town of
Dickson in Oklahoma for allegedly falling to re-codify or re-
approve their ordinances, a violation that if proven in court
could cost the city tens of thousands of dollars, the KTEN News
reports.

According to Oklahoma Law, every city must re-approve their
ordinances or laws every 10 years. They then place the copies in
the county law library and with the county clerk. If this isn't
done, the maximum fine can only be $50.

While researching a local doctor's $389 speeding ticket, an
attorney found that the Town of Dickson hadn't done that since
November of 1992.

The class action suit aims to get everyone's money back beyond
the $50 fine since November of 2002.  According to attorney
David Pyle, "If the Town of Dickson wants to impose these fines
on the people who break the law, shouldn't the Town of Dickson
have to follow the law in order to impose those fines?"

However, the Town of Dickson disputes the allegation and showed
KTEN documents where they followed procedure in August of 2002.
Dickson Police Chief, William Thomas, even told KTEN that he
took the correct papers to the courthouse for them to be posted.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Trial in Managed Care Suit Set September 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. continues to face a multi-
district litigation coordinated for pre-trial proceedings in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida, styled "In Re Managed Care Litigation."

Dr. Dennis Breen, Dr. Leonard Klay, Dr. Jeffrey Book and several
other physicians, along with several medical associations,
including the California Medical Association, have joined the
"In re Managed Care" proceeding as plaintiffs.  These physicians
sued several managed care companies, including the Company,
alleging, among other things, that the companies have
systematically underpaid providers for medical services to
members, have delayed payments, and that the companies impose
unfair contracting terms on providers and negotiate capitation
payments that are inadequate to cover the costs of health care
services provided.

The Company sought to compel arbitration of all of Dr. Breen's,
Dr. Book's and other physician claims against the Company.  The
District Court granted the Company's motion to compel
arbitration against all of these claims except for claims for
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act, or RICO ("Direct RICO Claims"), and for their RICO
conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims that stem from
contractual relationships with other managed care companies.

On April 7, 2003, the United States Supreme Court held that the
District Court should have compelled arbitration of the Direct
RICO Claims filed by Dr. Breen and Dr. Book.  On September 15,
2003, the District Court entered another ruling on several of
the Company's motions to compel arbitration, ordering
arbitration of all claims arising out of the Company's contracts
with plaintiffs containing arbitration clauses.  The District
Court, however, also ruled that plaintiffs' RICO conspiracy and
aiding and abetting claims against the Company that stem from
contractual relationships with other managed care companies and
plaintiffs' claims based on services they provided to the
Company's members outside of any contractual relationship with
the Company or assignments from its members do not need to be
arbitrated.  As a result, the order to compel arbitration does
not cover part of the conspiracy and aiding and abetting claims
of all plaintiffs or any of the direct claims by a subset of
plaintiffs (non-contracted plaintiffs who provide services to
our members but do not accept assignments from them).

The Company appealed the District Court's ruling to the extent
it did not compel arbitration of all of plaintiffs' claims, and
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
heard oral argument on this appeal on August 12, 2004.  A
decision is currently pending and on September 20, 2004, the
Eleventh Circuit stayed the matter pending its decision.

On September 26, 2002, the District Court certified a nationwide
RICO class of virtually all physicians in the country as well as
a nationwide state-law subclass of physicians. On September 1,
2004, the Eleventh Circuit upheld part of the class certified by
the District Court.  Specifically, the Eleventh Circuit upheld
the District Court's certification of a nationwide RICO class of
physicians, but reversed the District Court's certification of
plaintiffs' state law claims.  On October 15, 2004, the Company
filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari with the United States
Supreme Court seeking review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision
to uphold the nationwide RICO class.  The petition was denied.
The District Court has set a trial date for September 2005.

Several additional lawsuits have been filed against the Company
and the other defendants in the "In re Managed Care Litigation"
by non-physician providers of health care services, such as
chiropractors and podiatrists. Those lawsuits have been assigned
to the District Court for pre-trial proceedings, but are
currently stayed pending the completion of pre-trial matters in
the physician class action.

The suit is styled "In Re Humana Inc. Managed Care Litigation,
MDL 1334," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Florida, Miami Division, under Judge
Federico Moreno.  The suit names as defendants Humana, Inc.,
Aetna, Inc., Aetna-USHC, Inc., Cigna, Health Net, Inc., Human
Health Plan, Inc., Pacificare Health Systems, Inc., Prudential
Insurance Company of America, United Health Group, United Health
Care and Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc.  Cigna and Aetna have
entered settlements with the plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs'
Attorneys are Barry Meadow of Podhurst, Orseck, et al., Harley
Tropin of Kozyak, Tropin & Throckmorton and Archie Lamb.


PACIFICARE HEALTH: Discovery Stayed Against PBM Company in Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery has been stayed against Pacificare Health Systems,
Inc.'s prescription benefit management (PBM) company
Prescription Solutions in the class action filed against it and
nine other PBM companies in the Superior Court for Los Angeles
County, California.

The first suit, styled "Irwin v. AdvancePCS, Inc. et al.," was
filed on March 26, 2003 in California Superior Court of Alameda
County.  Robert Irwin filed the suit against Prescription
Solutions and nine other PBM companies.  On July 17, 2003, the
"Irwin" case was coordinated with "American Federation of State,
County & Municipal Employees v. AdvancedPCS, et al.," and
transferred to Los Angeles Superior Court for coordinated
proceedings.

The case purports to be filed on behalf of members of non-
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) health plans and
individuals with no prescription drug coverage who have
purchased drugs at retail rates.  The first amended complaint,
filed on November 25, 2003, alleges that each of the defendants
violated California's unfair competition law.  The complaint
challenges alleged business practices of PBMs, including
practices relating to pricing, rebates, formulary management,
data utilization and accounting and administrative processes.
The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and injunctive
relief.

On May 5, 2004, Prescription Solutions filed a petition to
compel arbitration.  On July 9, 2004, the Superior Court granted
the petition, holding that Irwin's request for monetary relief
can only be resolved in arbitration and staying Irwin's request
for injunctive relief against Prescription Solutions until an
appropriate arbitration is completed.  Discovery is proceeding
against most other defendants but is stayed as to Prescription
Solutions pending arbitration.


PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA: Plaintiffs File Amended Lawsuit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint against Pacificare
of California, Inc. and eleven other managed care companies in
California Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California,
styled "Ronald Allen Gass v. Wellpoint Health Networks, Inc., et
al. No. BC318704."

The second amended complaint alleges that hospitals, by placing
liens on third-party recoveries obtained by members of the
Managed Care Organizations, or MCOs, health plans, were
collecting more money from the members than the hospitals were
entitled to receive under their contracts with the MCOs.  The
suit further alleged that the MCOs were permitting the hospitals
to file such liens (or at least not preventing them from doing
so), and the MCOs' failure to prevent this hospital practice
amounted to illegal, unfair and fraudulent conduct by the MCOs
in violation of California Business and Professions Code sec.
17200, et seq.  The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages
and injunctive relief.


PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: Trial Set To Start On Auto Lending Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
A national class action lawsuit challenging the auto lending
practices of Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC) and its brand name
Primus Automotive Financial Services, Inc. (PRIMUS) begins trial
on Tuesday, March 1.

Primus, the named defendant in the case, is a division of FMCC.
It offers automobile financing services to consumers throughout
the nation using the brand names Mazda American Credit, Land
Rover Credit, and Jaguar Credit, pursuant to contracts with
Mazda, Land Rover, and Jaguar. Plaintiffs contend that the
credit pricing policies developed and managed for Primus by FMCC
and marketed using either Ford Credit, Mazda American Credit,
Land Rover Credit, or Jaguar Credit discriminate by charging
African Americans more for credit, for reasons not related to
creditworthiness.

The lawsuit alleges that Primus's lending policies permit and
encourage a practice known as "auto finance markup" that has a
discriminatory impact on African-American plaintiffs and results
in their paying more for credit than White consumers with
comparable credit ratings. The markup occurs when a consumer
requests a car dealer to arrange financing for a car purchase.
Typically the dealer submits the consumer's credit application
to a lender who determines an approved interest rate by
examination of the consumer's credit history. The lender then
communicates the approved interest rate to the dealer and
authorizes the dealer, without informing the consumer, to
subjectively add percentage points to the interest rate of their
loan without regards to their creditworthiness. The dealer and
the lender then split the markup, as additional profit. Markup
costs to a consumer over the life of the loan can range from
hundreds to thousands of dollars. Studies of industry data filed
in various court cases, including the case against Primus, have
asserted that African-American and Hispanic consumers are more
likely to receive the markup and that they on average pay higher
markup fess than White customers.

This case is the first to go to trial in a series of lawsuits
alleging racial discrimination in the practice of the auto
finance markup. The first such suit was filed against Nissan
Motors Acceptance Corporation (NMAC) in 1998. NMAC subsequently
settled out of court, as have General Motors Acceptance
Corporation and WFS Financial, Inc., as a result of similar
claims of discrimination caused by their auto finance markup
practices brought by African American consumers under the
Federal Equal Credit Opportunity Act. American Honda Finance
Corporation, BankONE, Bank of America and US Bank, have each
reached tentative settlement agreements that are pending final
court approval. The National Consumer Law Center has
participated as one of the co- counsel in each of these suits
and has an appearance filed on behalf of the plaintiffs in the
Primus case.

The proceedings will begin at 9:00 a.m., on Tuesday March 1,
2005, under United States District Judge Aleta A. Trauger,
Middle District of Tennessee, in Courtroom 873, United States
Courthouse, 801 Broadway, Nashville, Tennessee. Case No. 3-02-
0382, Latonya Claybrooks, et al. versus Primus Automotive
Financial, a division of Ford Motor Credit, United States
District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, Middle District of Tennessee.

For more information, contact Stuart Rossman, Litigation
Director, at the National Consumer Law Center at 617/542-8010.


RENO HILTON: NV Supreme Court Nixes "Premature" Damages Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Nevada Supreme Court has dismissed as premature an appeal
from the Reno Hilton, which was slapped with a $25.2 million
punitive damage judgment following an outbreak of a virus in
mid-1996 that left hundreds of guests and employees ill, the
Associated Press reports.

In dismissing the suit, the state's high court pointed out that
there still are pending matters in a class-action lawsuit in
Washoe County District Court, and considering appeals piecemeal
could result in a significantly increased caseload and confusion
in the lower court.  The suit against the Hilton was divided
into two phases in district court, one consisted of a jury trial
on the issues of liability and the other the class-wide punitive
damages.

The jury found that the Hilton's policy of unpaid sick leave for
its employees caused the outbreak of the virus. According to the
lawsuit, Hilton's policy forced the employees to work while they
were sick and that helped spread the disease that caused
vomiting and diarrhea. In addition, the lawsuit said the hotel
never notified new guests about the gastrointestinal virus,
which had struck more than 600 guests and 300 employees.

The second phase of the lawsuit though has not yet been heard,
which will actually consist of individual hearings for each
class member to assess compensatory damages.  The Hilton
appealed the first outcome, but the state Supreme Court said the
full case must be decided in district court before it would step
in.


STONEPATH GROUP: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in E.D. PA
---------------------------------------------------------------
StonePath Group, Inc. faces a consolidated securities class
action filed in the United States Court for the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, styled "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civ. Action No. 04-4515."  Also named as defendants
in these actions were officers Dennis L. Pelino and Thomas L.
Scully and former officer Bohn Crain.

The plaintiffs initially sought to represent a class of
purchasers of the Company's shares between May 7, 2003 and
September 20, 2004, and allege claims for securities fraud under
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
These claims were based upon the allegation that certain public
statements made during the period from May 7, 2003 through
August 9, 2004 were materially false and misleading because they
failed to disclose that the Company's Domestic Services
operations had improperly accounted for accrued purchased
transportation costs.  The plaintiffs sought compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and further relief as may be
determined by the Court.  The amended complaint seeks to
represent a class of purchasers of the Company`s shares between
March 29, 2002 and September 20, 2004 based upon public
statements made during that period.

The suit is styled "In re Stonepath Group, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Civ. Action No. 04-4515."  The plaintiff firms in
this litigation are:

     (1) Berman, DeValerio, Pease, Tabacco Burt & Pucillo (MA),
         One Liberty Square, Boston, MA, 2109, Phone:
         617.542.8300, Fax: 617.230.0903, E-mail:
         info@bermanesq.com

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

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

     (4) Law Offices of Bernard M. Gross, 1515 Locust Street,
         2nd Floor, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, Phone: 215-561-
         3600, Fax: 215-561-3000, E-mail:
         bmgross@bernardmgross.com

     (5) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (NY),
         200 Broadhollow Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY, 11747,
         Phone: 631-367-7100, Fax: 631-367-1173


SYCAMORE NETWORKS: NY Court Grants Tentative Approval to Pact
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Sycamore
Networks, Inc., certain of its officers and directors and the
underwriters of its October 21,1999 initial public offering and
its March 14,2000 secondary offering.

Beginning on July 2, 2001, several purported class action
complaints were filed.  The complaints were consolidated into a
single action and an amended complaint was filed on April 19,
2002.  The amended complaint, which is the operative complaint,
was filed on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's
common stock between October 21, 1999 and December 6, 2000. The
amended complaint alleges claims against the Company, several of
the Individual Defendants and the underwriters for violations
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act"), primarily based on the assertion
that the Company's lead underwriters, the Company and several of
the Individual Defendants made material false and misleading
statements in the Company's Registration Statements and
Prospectuses filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
or the SEC, in October 1999 and March 2000 because of the
failure to disclose:

     (1) the alleged solicitation and receipt of excessive and
         undisclosed commissions by the underwriters in
         connection with the allocation of shares of common
         stock to certain investors in the Company's public
         offerings and

     (2) that certain of the underwriters allegedly had entered
         into agreements with investors whereby underwriters
         agreed to allocate the public offering shares in
         exchange for which the investors agreed to make
         additional purchases of stock in the aftermarket at
         pre-determined prices.

The suit also alleges claims against the Company, the Individual
Defendants and the underwriters under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the
"Exchange Act"), primarily based on the assertion that the
Company's lead underwriters, the Company and the Individual
Defendants defrauded investors by participating in a fraudulent
scheme and by making materially false and misleading statements
and omissions of material fact during the period in question.
The amended complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action against the Company is being coordinated with
approximately three hundred other nearly identical actions filed
against other companies.  Due to the large number of nearly
identical actions, the Court has ordered the parties to select
up to twenty "test" cases.  To date, along with sixteen other
cases, the Company's case has been selected as one such test
case.  As a result, among other things, the Company will be
subject to broader discovery obligations and expenses in the
litigation than non-test case issuer defendants.

On October 9, 2002, the court dismissed the Individual
Defendants from the case without prejudice based upon
Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the plaintiffs and the
Individual Defendants.  This dismissal disposed of the Section
15 and Section 20(a) claims without prejudice, because these
claims were asserted only against the Individual Defendants.  On
October 13, 2004, the court denied the certification of a class
in the action against the Company with respect to the Section 11
claims alleging that the defendants made material false and
misleading statements in the Company's Registration Statement
and Prospectuses.  The certification was denied because no class
representative purchased shares between the date of the IPO and
January 19, 2000 (the date unregistered shares entered the
market), and thereafter suffered a loss on the sale of those
shares.

The court certified a class in the action against the Company
with respect to the Section 10(b) claims alleging that the
Company and the Individual Defendants defrauded investors by
participating in a fraudulent scheme and by making materially
false and misleading statements and omissions of material fact
during the period in question.  The Company, the Individual
Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast majority of the
other approximately three hundred issuer defendants and the
individual defendants currently or formerly associated with
those companies have approved, and submitted to the Court for
its approval, settlement and related agreements (the "Settlement
Agreement") which set forth the terms of a settlement between
these parties.

Among other provisions, the Settlement Agreement provides for a
release of the Company and the Individual Defendants for the
conduct alleged in the action to be wrongful and for the Company
to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to
assign away, not assert, or release, certain potential claims
the Company may have against its underwriters.  In addition, no
payments will be required by the issuer defendants under the
Settlement Agreement to the extent plaintiffs recover at least
$1 billion from the underwriter defendants, who are not parties
to the Settlement Agreement and have filed a memorandum of law
in opposition to the approval of the Settlement Agreement. To
the extent that plaintiffs recover less than $1 billion from the
underwriter defendants, the approximately three-hundred issuer
defendants are required to make up the difference.

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the Settlement Agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion.  The issuer defendants and the
plaintiffs have until February 28, 2005 to submit a revised
Settlement Agreement which provides for a mutual bar of all
contribution claims by the settling and non-settling parties and
does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.  The
underwriter defendants will have until March 10, 2005 to object
to a revised Settlement Agreement.

The suit is styled "In Re Sycamore Networks, Inc. Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, 01 Civ. 6001 (Sas) (Dc),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York under Judge
Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation
are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


UNITED STATES: Companies Seek Dismissal Of Agent Orange Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys representing major US chemical companies defended
their clients against charges that the companies committed war
crimes by supplying the military with Agent Orange during the
Vietnam War, the Reuters News Service reports.

The lawyers are asking a US District Court judge in Brooklyn, to
dismiss a civil suit that seeks class action status claiming
that up to 4 million Vietnamese people suffered from dioxin
poisoning due to Agent Orange.

As previously reported in the March 1, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the civil suit, which was filed last year on
behalf of millions of Vietnamese and is regarded as a pivotal
test of the reach of U.S. courts as it considers the power of
the president to authorize use of hazardous materials during
war, 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.

Legal experts explain that if the lawsuit were successful,
billions of dollars could be awarded toward an environmental
cleanup and in compensation to the Vietnamese people. Judge Jack
Weinstein is expected to issue a written decision in the next
few weeks.

Outside the courtroom, Andrew Frey, an attorney for Dow, said
the issue should be decided by "diplomatic negotiations" and not
by the lawsuit, Reuters reports. He states, "We think it is up
to the United States government to decide whether what it did
was wrongful and whether it should pay restitution. He added
that international laws in the 1960s did not recognize corporate
liability and the courts should be cautious about ruling on
cases affecting the president's power. "The court should not be
second-guessing the president's decisions, which were made after
studying the human health consequences and as a military
judgment and very likely saved a lot more lives than it
injured," he said.

Meanwhile, one of the plaintiffs, Dr. Phan Thi Phi Phi, said
through a translator that she had worked in an area that was
heavily sprayed with Agent Orange and suffered four miscarriages
over two years during the early 1970s. She said the effect had
been "devastating" and that she knew of many other cases like
her own. "We did not know what happened to us, what was the
cause of it, so we were very sad because we had so many
miscarriages and we could not have children," she said, Reuters
reports.

Her attorney Constantine Kokkoris argued that people in Vietnam
continued to be contaminated by eating tainted food and drinking
tainted water.

More than 30 companies are named in the lawsuit, among them Dow
Chemical Co. and Monsanto Co. Other companies named in the
lawsuit are Monsanto Chemical Co., Pharmacia Corp., Hercules
Inc., Occidental Chemical Corp., Ultramar Diamond Shamrock
Corp., Maxus Energy Corp., Thompson Hayward Chemical Co.,
Harcros Chemicals Inc., Uniroyal Inc., Uniroyal Chemical Inc.,
Uniroyal Chemical Holding Co., Uniroyal Chemical Acquisition
Corp., C.D.U. Holding Inc., Diamond Shamrock Agricultural
Chemicals Inc., Diamond Shamrock Chemicals, Diamond Shamrock
Chemicals Co., Diamond Shamrock Corp., Diamond Shamrock Refining
and Marketing Co., Occidental Electrochemicals Corp., Diamond
Alkali Co., Ansul Inc., Hooker Chemical Corp., Hooker Chemical
Far East Corp., Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp., American Home
Products Corp., Wyeth., Hoffman-Taff Chemicals Inc., Chemical
Land Holdings Inc., T-H Agriculture & Nutrition Co. Inc.,
Thompson Chemical Corp., Riverdale Chemical Co., Elementis
Chemicals Inc., United States Rubber Co. Inc., Syntex
Agribusiness Inc. and ABC Chemical Cos.


VIACOM INTERNATIONAL: Helen T. Dziuba Files Suit Over Debentures
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Helen T. Dziuba initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of all persons who on or about August 1, 2002,
tendered for redemption their 8 1/4% Senior Debentures Due
August 1, 2022, pursuant to a Notice of Redemption sent by The
Bank of New York and dated July 1, 2002. The Debentures were
originally issued in 1986 by Gulf + Western, Inc. and, at the
time of the purported redemption, were the obligation of Viacom
International, Inc.

The case is entitled James & Cindy Cox v. Viacom International,
Inc. & The Bank of New York. This lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for Oregon, 1000 SW Third Avenue,
Portland, Oregon 97204. The case number is CV02-1598-KI.

The complaint charges The Bank of New York and Viacom with
violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint
alleges that defendants mailed the Notice of Redemption less
than 30-days before the August 1, 2002 Redemption Date, a period
shorter than the period required for redemption by the terms of
the Debentures and their Indenture. Plaintiffs allege that the
defendants had no legal basis for compelling redemption, but
nevertheless, the Notice of Redemption sent to each Debenture-
holder stated that the holder was required to tender the
holder's Debenture for redemption on August 1, 2002. The
complaint alleges these statements were false and the Debenture-
holders had no legal obligation to tender their Debentures for
redemption, but could have continued to hold their Debentures
and to accrue interest at the rate of 8 1/4% per annum.

For ore details, contact Helen T. Dziuba, Attorney at Law by
Mail: 207 Evergreen Road, Lake Oswego, Oregon 97034 by Phone:
503-534-5020 or by E-mail: htdzi@aol.com.


VISTEON CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Stock Suits in E.D. MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
Visteon Corporation faces a shareholder class action filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan, styled "Glynn Ley, et al. v. Visteon Corp., et al."
The suit was filed on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
common stock from January 23,2004 to January 31,2005.

The complaint charges the company and certain of its current and
former officers with violations of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.  More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the
Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company 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., 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 or around 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. As a result, shares of
Visteon fell $0.51, or 6.43 percent, on January 31, 2005 to
close at $7.42 per share.

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


VORNADO OPERATING: DE Court Mulls Approval of Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Court of Chancery is considering approval for the
settlement of the class action shareholder derivative lawsuit
filed against Vornado Operating Company ("Vornado Operating"),
its directors and Vornado Realty Trust.

The lawsuit sought to enjoin the dissolution of Vornado
Operating, rescind the previously completed sale of AmeriCold
Logistics (owned 60% by Vornado Operating) to Americold Realty
Trust (owned 60% by the Company) and damages.  In addition, the
plaintiffs claimed that the Vornado Operating directors breached
their fiduciary duties.

On November 24, 2004, a stipulation of settlement was entered
into under which the Company agreed to settle the lawsuit with a
payment of approximately $4.5 million or about $1 per Vornado
Operating share or partnership unit before litigation expenses.
The proposed settlement payment would be in addition to the
liquidation distribution of $2 per Vornado Operating share or
unit that Vornado Operating made to its equity-holders when it
dissolved on December 29, 2004.

On January 20, 2005, the Delaware Court of Chancery postponed
deciding upon the proposed settlement and requested further but
limited information before holding an additional hearing
regarding the settlement, which has been scheduled for March
2005.


WEST CORPORATION: CA Court Upholds Demurrer To Consumer Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The San Diego County Superior Court in California upheld West
Corporation's demurrer to five of seven causes of action in a
class action filed against it, styled "Sanford v. West
Corporation et al., No. GIC 805541."

The original complaint alleged violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code  et seq., unlawful,
fraudulent and unfair business practices in violation of Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code  et seq., untrue or misleading advertising in
violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code  et seq., and common law
claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, fraud and deceit, and
negligent misrepresentation, and sought monetary damages,
including punitive damages, as well as restitution, injunctive
relief and attorneys fees and costs.

The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class of
persons in California who were sent a Memberworks, Inc. ("MWI")
membership kit in the mail, were charged for an MWI membership
program, and were allegedly either customers of what the
complaint contended was a joint venture between MWI and West
Corporation ("West") or West Telemarketing Corporation ("WTC")
or wholesale customers of West or WTC.

WTC and West filed a demurrer in the trial court on July 7,
2004.  The court sustained the demurrer as to all causes of
action in plaintiff's complaint, with leave to amend. WTC and
West received an amended complaint and filed a renewed demurrer.
The Court on January 24, 2005 entered an order sustaining West
and WTC's demurrer with respect to five of the seven causes of
action including all causes of action that allow punitive
damages.

Plaintiffs had previously filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California against
WTC and West and MemberWorks Incorporated alleging, among other
things, claims under 39U.S.C.  The federal court dismissed the
federal claims against WTC and West and declined to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.
Plaintiff proceeded to arbitrate her claims with MemberWorks
Incorporated and refiled her claims as to WTC and West in the
Superior Court of SanDiego County, California as set forth
above.

Plaintiff in the state action has contended in her pleadings
that the order of dismissal in federal court was not a final
order and that the federal case is still pending. The District
Court on December 30, 2004 affirmed the arbitration award
between plaintiff and Memberworks Incorporated.  Plaintiff filed
a Notice of Appeal on January 28, 2005.


WEST CORPORATION: Consumer Suit Referred to OH Bankruptcy Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against West Corporation and two of its
clients, styled "Brandy L. Ritt, et al. v. Billy Blanks
Enterprises, et al.," has been referred to the Bankruptcy Court
of the Northern District of Ohio.

The suit was initially filed in January 2001 in the Court of
Common Pleas in Cuyahoga County, Ohio, against two of the
Company's clients.  The suit, a purported class action, was
amended for the third time in July 2001 and the Company was
added as a defendant at that time.  The suit, which seeks
statutory, compensatory, and punitive damages as well as
injunctive and other relief, alleges violations of various
provisions of Ohio's consumer protection laws, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud, breach of contract, unjust enrichment
and civil conspiracy in connection with the marketing of certain
membership programs offered by West's clients.

On February 6, 2002, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class certification.  On July 21, 2003, the Ohio Court of
Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings.  The plaintiffs have filed a Fourth Amended
Complaint naming West Telemarketing Corporation (WTC) as an
additional defendant and a renewed motion for class
certification. One of the defendants, NCP Marketing Group, filed
bankruptcy and on July12, 2004 removed the case to federal
court.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand the case back to state
court. All defendants opposed that motion. In addition, one of
the defendants moved to transfer the case from the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio to the
Bankruptcy Court in Nevada.  Plaintiffs objected to the
transfer. On October 29, 2004, the district court referred the
case to the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
It is uncertain when the case will be tried.

The suit is styled "Ritt et al v. Blanks et al, case no. 04-
00112-pmc," filed in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, under Judge Pat E. Morgenstern-Clarren.

Plaintiffs are represented by Frank J. Janecek, Jr., Milberg
Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 600 W. Broadway, Ste 1800, San
Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058; and Jack Landskroner, 1360
W. 9th St. #200 Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone: (216)522-9000 or E-
mail: jack@landskronerlaw.com.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Jerome Elmore, Ben E. Fox, Corey F. Hirokawa and Joshua
         F. Thorpe of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore, 3900 One
         Atlantic Center, 1201 W. Peachtree St, NW Atlanta, GA
         30309-3417, Phone: 404-881-4100, Fax: 404-881-4111

     (2) John T. McLandrich and Todd Raskin, Mazanec Raskin &
         Ryder, 100 Franklin's Row, 34305 Solon Rd, Cleveland,
         OH 44139 Phone: 440-248-7906, Fax: 440-248-8861, E-
         mail: Jmclandrich@mrrlaw.com



                Meetings, Conferences & Seminars



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

March 3-4, 2005
TRANSPORTATION MEGACONFERENCE VII
American Bar Association
New Orleans, LA
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

March 3-4 , 2005
LITIGATING DISABILITY INSURANCE CLAIMS
American Conferences
Coral Gables
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

March 3-5, 2005
LITIGATING MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CLAIMS
ALI-ABA
Scottsdale, Arizona
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 7-8, 2005
INSURANCE LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
Hotel Crescent Court, Dallas
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 7-8, 2005
CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
San Francisco
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

March 9-11, 2005
CIVIL PRACTICE AND LITIGATION TECHNIQUES IN FEDERAL AND STATE
COURTS
ALI-ABA
Maui, Hawaii
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

March 14-15, 2005
WELDING ROD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz Carlton Phoenix, Phoenix AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 17-18, 2005
Mass Torts Made Perfect
The Plaza New York, New York
Mass Torts Made Perfect
Contact: 1-800-320-2227; 850-436-6094

March 18, 2005
CONFERENCE ON INSURANCE AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LITIGATION
American Bar Association
New York
Contact: 800-285-2221; abasvcctr@abanet.org

March 21, 2005
FAMILY LAW CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, PA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 21, 2005
MOTOR VEHICHLE LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Wyndham Franklin Plaza Hotel, PA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

March 21-22, 2005
AIRLINE RESTRUCTURING
American Conferences
New York
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

March 31-April 1, 2005
THE 4TH INTERNATIONAL ADVANCED FORUM ON RUN-OFF AND COMMUTATIONS
American Conferences
The Warwick New York Hotel, New York, NY
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 4-5, 2005
MANAGED CARE LIABILITY
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Philadelphia
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 7-8, 2005
THE 4TH NATIONAL ADVANCED GUIDE TO CONSUMER FINANCE LITIGATION
AND CLASS ACTIONS
American Conferences
Le Meridien , Chicago, IL
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 11-12, 2005
BAD FAITH AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES
American Conferences
San Francisco
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

April 13-16, 2005
INSURANCE INSOLVENCY AND REINSURANCE ROUNDTABLE
Mealey Publications
The Fairmont Scottsdale Princess, Scottsdale AZ
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

April 18-19, 2005
ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Four Seasons Hotel, Houston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 11, 2005
BROKER AND INSURANCE COMPANY PRACTICES AND LIABILITIES
CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 12-13, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 12-13, 2005
OPINION AND EXPERT TESTIMONY IN FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS
ALI-ABA
Boston Tuition
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

May 16-17, 2005
RUN-OFFS SEMINAR
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 16-17, 2005
ADDITIONAL INSURED CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Huntington Hotel & Spa, Pasadena CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

May 19-20, 2005
DIGITAL DISCOVERY AND ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

June 2005
INTERNATIONAL ASBESTOS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION SUMMIT
Northstar Conferences
New York City
Contact: http://www.northstarconferences.com/

June 9-10, 2005
NURSING HOME LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Amelia Island
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 9-10, 2005
ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Chicago
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13-14, 2005
PPA & EPHEDRA LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 13-14, 2005
DRUG LITIGATION 101
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, New Orleans
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 16-17, 2005
MOLD LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Marina Del-Ray, CA
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 20-21, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com


June 22, 2005
THE 2ND NATIONAL FORUM ON WELDING ROD LITIGATION: POST-
CONFERENCE WORKSHOP
American Conferences
Omni Chicago Hotel, Chicago, IL, United States
Contact: http://www.americanconference.com

June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

JulY 28 - 29, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
New York, NY
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

August 18-19, 2005
PRODUCTS LIABILITY
ALI-ABA
San Francisco
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

September 8-9, 2005
CLASS ACTION LITIGATION: PROSECUTION & DEFENSE STRATEGIES 2005
Practising Law Institute
Chicago, IL
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

September 26-27, 2005
REINSURANCE SUMMIT
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

September 27, 2005
ARBITRATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
The Ritz-Carlton Hotel, Boston
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 2005
ASBESTOS LIABILITY FORUM
Mealey Publications
London, England
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

October 6-7, 2005
ASBESTOS LITIGATION IN THE 21ST CENTURY
ALI-ABA
Chicago
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614

November 3-4, 2005
CONFERENCE ON LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PRODUCTS
ALI-ABA
Washington DC
Contact: 215-243-1614; 800-CLE-NEWS x1614
TBA
FAIR LABOR STANDARDS CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
AIRLINE BANKRUPTCY LITIGATION CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

TBA
FASTFOOD INDUSTRY LIABILITY CONFERENCE
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com



* Online Teleconferences
------------------------

March 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: AUTOMOBILE LITIGATION: DISPUTES AMONG
CONSUMERS, DEALERS, FINANCE COMPANIES AND FLOORPLANNERS
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2005
CONSTRUCTION DISPUTES: TEXAS RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEFECT
LIABILITY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2005
HBA PRESENTS: ETHICS IN PERSONAL INJURY
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2005
IN-HOUSE COUNSEL AND WRONGFUL DISCHARGE CLAIMS:
CONFLICT WITH CONFIDENTIALITY?
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 01-30, 2005
BAYLOR LAW SCHOOL PRESENTS: 2004 GENERAL PRACTICE INSTITUTE --
FAMILY LAW, DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM, CIVIL LITIGATION, INSURANCE
& CONSUMER LAW UPDATES
CLEOnline.Com
Contact: 512-778-5665; info@cleonline.com

March 16, 2005
LESSONS FROM THE VIOXX(R) CONTROVERSY
Mealey Publications
Contact: 1-800-MEALEYS; 610-768-7800;
mealeyseminars@lexisnexis.com

June 27-28, 2005
LITIGATING EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION & SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS
2005
Practising Law Institute
Contact: 800-260-4PLI; 212-824-5710; info@pli.edu

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

TORTS PRACTICE: 18TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444


TORTS PRACTICE: 19TH ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #1
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #2
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 21ST ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS #3
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CIVIL LITIGATION PRACTICE: 22ND ANNUAL RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

PUNITIVE DAMAGES: MAXIMIZING YOUR CLIENT'S SUCCESS OR MINIMIZING
YOUR CLIENT'S EXPOSURE
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

EFFECTIVE DIRECT AND CROSS EXAMINAITON
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

STRATEGIC TIPS FOR SUCCESSFULLY PROPOUNDING & OPPOSING WRITTEN
DISCOVERY
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

CACI: CALIFORNIA'S NEW CIVIL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
CEB Online
Contact: customer_service@ceb.ucop.edu or 1-800-232-3444

ADVERSARIAL PROCEEDINGS IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCY - PANEL OF CREDITORS COMMITTEE MEMBERS
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

EXPERT WITNESS ADMISSIBILITY IN MOLD CASES
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Online Streaming Video
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

INTRODUCTION TO CLASS ACTIONS AND LARGE RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

NON-TRADITIONAL DEFENDANTS IN ASBESTOS LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

PAXIL LITIGATION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECENT DEVELOPMENTS INVOLVING BAYCOL
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

SELECTION OF MOLD LITIGATION EXPERTS: WHO YOU NEED ON YOUR TEAM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

SHOULD I FILE A CLASS ACTION?
LawCommerce.Com / Law Education Institute
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE EFFECTS OF ASBESTOS ON THE PULMONARY SYSTEM
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE STATE OF ASBESTOS LITIGATION: JUDICIAL PANEL DISCUSSION
Online Streaming Video
LawCommerce.Com/Mealey's
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

TRYING AN ASBESTOS CASE
LawCommerce.Com
Contact: customerservice@lawcommerce.com

THE IMPACT OF LORILLAR ON STATE AND LOCAL REGULATION OF TOBACCO
SALES AND ADVERSTISING
American Bar Association
Contact: 800-285-2221; abacle@abanet.org

________________________________________________________________
The Meetings, Conferences and Seminars column appears in the
Class Action Reporter each Wednesday. Submissions via e-mail to
carconf@beard.com are encouraged.


                   New Securities Fraud Cases


AUDIBLE INC.: Berger & Montague Lodges NJ Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on February 22, 2005, on behalf of purchasers of the
securities of Audible, Inc. ("Audible" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ: ADBL) between November 2, 2004 and February 15, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Audible
reported increased revenues and earnings growth that defendants
represented would continue as the Company capitalized on
increasing demand for its products and a growing customer base.
Unbeknownst to investors, however, throughout the Class Period,
defendants' representations about the Company's operations, made
in Audible press releases and elsewhere, were materially false
and misleading because they failed to disclose that: the
Company's heady growth could not continue without material
investments in expensive strategic initiatives that would
severely erode the Company's earnings in the foreseeable future;
and the Company was about to embark on expensive strategic
initiatives that would constitute a material risk to the
Company's growth and its stock price.

On February 15, 2005, after the close of trading, Audible
announced that in 2005 it would be undertaking several
initiatives requiring substantial investments in infrastructure,
new business units and marketing, among other areas, and that
these initiatives would depress earnings and cash flow at least
until 2006. In reaction to this announcement, the price of
Audible common stock plummeted, falling from $26.70 per share on
February 15, 2005 to $17.32 on February 16, 2005, a one-day
decline of 35%, on unusually heavy trading volume of 20.9
million shares. Prior to this disclosure, certain insiders sold
shares for gross proceeds of over $6.5 million.

For more details, contact Berger & Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622
Locust Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 800-424-6690 by
Fax: 215-875-4604 or by E-mail: info@bm.net.


AUDIBLE INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Securities Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Audible, Inc. (Nasdaq: ADBL) ("Audible" or the "Company")
between November 2, 2004, and February 15, 2005 inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Audible, Donald R. Katz, and Andrew P.
Kaplan 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 intended to pursue new business
         initiatives;

     (2) that the Company's growth, through these expensive
         initiatives, would severely undermine Audible's margins
         and earnings; and

     (3) that as a consequence of the foregoing the Company's
         ambitious growth plan posed a substantial risk to the
         future stability of the Company and its stock price.

On February 15, 2005, Audible announced financial results for
the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31, 2004. In
addition, the Company disclosed plans to launch several new
business ventures. Company's expansive and expensive plans
undermined Audible's future earnings and the stock. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of Audible fell $9.38 per share or
35.13 percent per share, on February 16, 2005, to close at
$17.32 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.


AXONYX INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of Axonyx, Inc. ("Axonyx")
(NASDAQ:AXYX) common stock during the period between June 26,
2003 and February 4, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Axonyx and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Axonyx is a biochemical company that discovers, develops,
and acquires proprietary pharmaceutical compounds and new
technologies. The Company's compounds and technologies are used
to treat cognitive disorders, including Alzheimer's disease.
Axonyx owns a portfolio of central nervous system drugs that
includes several products in preclinical development.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements regarding the clinical
trials for the Company's drug Phenserine, which is used for the
treatment of Alzheimer's disease. As alleged in the Complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following
adverse facts which were known to defendants at all relevant
times or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that since Alzheimer's disease is an organic disease of
         the mind, Phenserine clinical trials directed towards
         the study of cognitive function in patients with mild
         to moderate Alzheimer's disease were subject to a
         strong placebo effect;

     (2) that Phenserine could easily fail to demonstrate
         efficacy by cognitive measures in Phase III clinical
         trial patients with mild to moderate disease, while
         having a good chance of success in demonstrating the
         drug's efficacy using confirmed statistical measures
         for patients with progressive disease in the "beta
         amyloid" Phase IIB trial;

     (3) that the reasonably good prospects for a successful
         outcome in the "beta amyloid" Phase IIB trial coupled
         with reasonably good chances for failure in the
         cognitive function based Phase III trial presented an
         unusual and lucrative opportunity for insiders to
         profitably trade on the Company's stock;

     (4) that the timing of the completion and announcement of
         the results in the first quarter of 2005 for the Phase
         III study was uncoupled from that for the Phase IIB
         study to ensure an opportunity for insiders to engage
         in a form of "risk arbitrage" based on the relative
         risk of success presented by the two studies; and

     (5) that the timing of the completion and announcement of
         the results of the Phase III and Phase IIB studies in
         the first quarter of 2005 were ordered to ensure that
         the study most likely to fail would be announced first,
         to ensure an opportunity for insiders to engage in a
         form of "risk arbitrage" based on the relative risk of
         success for the two studies.

On February 7, 2005, Axonyx announced that, despite all of its
prior positive statements about Phenserine's clinical trials,
Phenserine did not achieve significant efficacy in Phase III
Alzheimer's Disease trial. Upon this news, shares of Axonyx
common stock fell $3.04 per share, or over 60%, to close at
$1.81 per share. Prior to the disclosure of defendants' false
statements, Axonyx's stock price traded at inflated levels
during the Class Period, increasing to as high as $8.29 on April
23, 2004, whereby the Company's top officers and directors sold
more than $2.2 million worth of their own shares.

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


AXONYX INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody 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
publicly traded securities of Axonyx Inc. ("Axonyx")
(NASDAQ:AXYX) between June 26, 2003 and February 4, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Axonyx violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading public statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that Axonyx misrepresented
or failed to disclose shortcomings with its experimental drug
Phenserine, an acetylcholinesterase ("AChE") inhibitor intended
to curb symptoms of Alzheimer's disease. On February 7, 2005,
Axonyx announced that Phenserine did not achieve significant
efficacy in Phase III Alzheimer's Disease trial. On this news,
Axonyx stock fell from a previous close of $4.85 per share, to
close at $1.81 per share.

For more details, contact Tzivia Brody, Esq. of Stull, Stull &
Brody by Phone: 1-800-337-4983 by Fax: 212/490-2022 by E-mail:
SSBNY@aol.com.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges NJ Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock of Pharmos Corp. ("Pharmos" or
the "Company") [Nasdaq:PARS] between May 5, 2003 and December
17, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants
Pharmos and certain officers of the Company.

The case name is Ginzburg v. Pharmos Corp., et al. 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.

Beginning in 2001, the Company initiated Phase III trials to
determine the efficacy of Dexanabinol, its primary candidate
under development, for the treatment of traumatic brain injury.
By November 2002, 400 patients had been enrolled in studies
conducted in Europe and Israel, and in July 2003, the Company
initiated enrollment of U.S. patients in the Phase III trial.
During these studies, a single dose of Dexanabinol would be
administered to a patient having suffered dramatic brain injury.
To show efficacy, it needed to be demonstrated that
administration of Dexanabinol resulted in patients regaining
more of their memory and motor skills than those who received a
placebo. The efficacy of Dexanabinol on each individual patient
was determined at six months after enrollment through the
application of the Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended (GOSE).

The Complaint alleges that beginning May 5, 2003, defendants
began a campaign of touting the efficacy of Dexanibinol, causing
the stock price to increase from $1.20 per share on May 5, 2003
to as high as $5 during the Class Period.

On December 20, 2004, defendants shocked the investing public
when they issued a press release announcing the results from the
Phase III trial of Dexanabinol. According to the press release,
Dexanabinol did not show a neuroprotective effect in the Phase
III trial consisting of 861. Essentially, the trial results
indicated that Dexanabinol was ineffective for treating
traumatic brain injuries. Due to this revelation, shares of
Pharmos fell precipitously from $3.50 per share to $1.18 per
share, losing approximately 65% of their value.

While the Company's public investors suffered millions of
dollars in damages, Pharmos executives sold millions of dollars
worth of Pharmos stock and insured their continued positions of
employment as a result of the Company raising over $40 million
by issuing stock to the public at inflated levels.

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


                            *********


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  * * *