CAR_Public/050307.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 7, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 46

                         Headlines

ADOLOR CORPORATION: PA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
AETNA INC.: Working To Settle Managed Care Litigation in S.D. FL
AETNA INC.: Reaches Settlement for NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AT&T CORORATION: Appeals Court Reverses Madison County Ruling
AXIS CAPITAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NY

BANK OF AMERICA: Settles WorldCom Shareholder Suit For $460.5M
BELL CANADA: High Court Ruling Effectively Dismisses $1B Lawsuit
BROWN-FORMAN: Accused Of Targeting Youth In Alcohol Advertising
CANADA: Lawyers Doubt Government's Sincerity in Woodlands Suit
CARDIAC SCIENCE: Wolf Popper Lodges Shareholder Lawsuit in DE

CITIGROUP INC.: Reaches $75M Settlement in Global Crossing Suit
DELL FINANCIAL: Seeger Weiss Lodges Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in NY
DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Suits Allege Commission, Chargeback Schemes
EBAY: Butterfields Auctioneers Workers Lodge Stock Options Suit
FLOWERS FOODS: GA Judge Enters Final Judgments V. 7 Employees

GE LIFE: Working On Universal Life Insurance Lawsuit Settlement
GERBER SCIENTIFIC: SEC Files CT Insider Trading Suit V. Director
HIRSCHBERG SCHUTZ: Recalls 2.8M Metals Charms For Lead Content
HOST MARRIOTT: IL Partners' Fraud Suit Settlement Deemed Final
HUMATECH INC.: SEC Lodges Civil Fraud Lawsuit V. CEO, CFO in TX

ILLINOIS: Philip Morris' Appeal Helps Fund New Court Building
LENOX INC.: Faces Consolidated Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
MEDCO HEALTH: Working To Resolve Lawsuits For ERISA Violations
MEDCO HEALTH: Retail Pharmacies Launch Antitrust Suit in E.D. PA
MEDCO HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Price-fixing Suit

MEDCO HEALTH: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Price-fixing Lawsuit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Appeals Court Affirms Consumer Suit Dismissal
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Seeks Summary Judgment in CT ERISA Fraud Suit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: MI Court Refuses To Dismiss Policyholder Suit
NATIONWIDE LIFE: Market Timing Lawsuit Transferred To MD Court

PNC FINANCIAL: Settles Riggs Bank Shareholders' Lawsuit For $4M
PRICESMART: Reaches $2.3M Suit Settlement For 2003 Restatements
ROCAMOJO: SoyCoffee.com Lodges Deceptive Practices Lawsuit in CA
RYLAND GROUP: SEC Lodges Settled Action V. President in C.D. TX
SOUTHERN POWER: Discovery Ongoing in GA Mirant Securities Suit

TALX CORPORATION: MO Couple Settles SEC Insider Trading Charges
UNITED STATES: New Legal Tactic Used V. Hospital Price-Gouging
UNITED STATES: Suit Over False Registration Statements Dismissed
UNITED STATES: Vatican Asks State To Intervene in Sex Abuse Case

                  New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in TX
BIOGEN IDEC: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
BIOGEN IDEC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
BIOGEN IDEC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in NJ

BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in NJ
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files NJ Securities Suit
ELAN CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Stock Suit in MA
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN

INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Lodges NC Stock Suit
LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
MAMMA.COM INC.: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Suit in NY
MOLEX INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL

MOLEX INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
MOLEX INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL
ORANGE 21: Smith & Smith Initiates Securities Investigation


                            *********


ADOLOR CORPORATION: PA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ordered consolidated the securities class actions
filed against Adolor Corporation and certain of its directors
and officers, under the caption "In re Adolor Corporation
Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-01728."

On April 21, 2004, a lawsuit was filed seeking unspecified
damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased
the Company's common stock between September 23, 2003 and
January 14, 2004.  The complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act"), Rule 10b-5 under the Exchange Act and Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act in connection with the announcement of the
results of certain studies in the Company's Phase III clinical
trials for Entereg, which allegedly had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

Three additional complaints asserting similar claims were filed
shortly after the initial complaint. These actions have been
consolidated.  Two parties separately moved to be appointed as
Lead Plaintiff and to consolidate the actions for purposes of
trial.  One of those motions has subsequently been withdrawn. On
December 29, 2004 the district court issued an order appointing
the remaining party, the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters'
Pension Fund, as Lead Plaintiff.  Pursuant to a schedule agreed
to by the parties, the Company anticipates that the appointed
Lead Plaintiff will file a consolidated amended complaint on
February 28, 2005 to which it must respond within sixty days or
before April 28, 2005.

The suit is styled "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund
v. Adolor Corporation, et al., case no. 2:04-cv-01728-RBS,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) Michael S. Doluisio, Jeffrey G. Weil, DECHERT, PRICE &
         RHOADS, 1717 Arch Street, 4000 Bell Atlantic Tower,
         Philadelphia PA 19103-2793, Phone: 215-994-2749, Fax:
         215-994-2222, E-mail: michael.doluisio@dechert.com

     (2) John A. Ducoff, Allan E. Kraus, Jason Rockwell, Laurie       
         B. Smilan, LATHAM & WATKINS LLP, One Newark Center 16th
         floor, Newark, NJ 07101-3174, Phone: 973-639-1234

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Ramzi Abadou, Laura Andracchio, Nicholas J. Licato,
         Scott Saham, LERACH COUGHLIN STOIA & ROBBINS LLP, 401 B
         St., STE 1700, San Diego CA, 92101, Phone: 619-231-
         1058, E-mail: ramzia@lcsr.com  

    (ii) Marc S. Henzel, LAW OFFICES OF MARC S. HENZEL, 273
         Montgomery Avenue, Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd PA 19004,
         Phone: 610-660-8000, E-mail: mhenzel182@aol.com


AETNA INC.: Working To Settle Managed Care Litigation in S.D. FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. is continuing to work for the settlement of
purported class action lawsuits that are part of a wave of
similar actions targeting the health care payor industry and, in
particular, the conduct of business by managed care companies.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred all
of the federal actions, including several actions originally
filed in state courts, to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Florida (the "Florida Federal Court")
for consolidated pretrial proceedings.  The Florida Federal
Court created a separate track for all cases brought on behalf
of health care providers (the "Provider Cases").

Thirteen Provider Cases were presided over by the Florida
Federal Court, and a similar action is pending in Louisiana
state court, on behalf of purported classes of physicians. These
Provider Cases alleged generally that the Company and each of
the other defendant managed care organizations employed coercive
economic power to force physicians to enter into economically
unfavorable contracts, imposed unnecessary administrative
burdens on providers and improperly denied claims in whole or in
part, and that the defendants did not pay claims timely or did
not pay claims at proper rates.  These Provider Cases further
charged that the Company and the other defendant managed care
organizations conspired and aided and abetted one another in the
alleged wrongdoing.

These actions alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, state unfair trade statutes, state
consumer fraud statutes, state laws regarding the timely payment
of claims, and various common law doctrines and sought various
forms of relief, including unspecified damages, treble damages,
punitive damages and injunctive relief.

Effective May 21, 2003, the Company and representatives of over
900,000 physicians, state and other medical societies entered
into an agreement (the "Physician Settlement Agreement")
settling the lead physician Provider Case pending in the Florida
Federal Court.  Judicial approval of the Physician Settlement
Agreement became final on January 18, 2005. The Company believes
that the Physician Settlement Agreement resolves all pending
Provider Cases filed on behalf of physicians that did not opt
out of the settlement, including the Louisiana state court
action.

A Provider Case brought on behalf of the American Dental
Association made similar allegations on behalf of a purported
class of dentists. Effective August 22, 2003, the Company and
representatives of approximately 150,000 dentists entered into
an agreement (the "Dentist Settlement Agreement") settling the
dentist action. The Dentist Settlement Agreement was approved by
the Florida Federal Court on July 20, 2004. The approval of the
Dentist Settlement Agreement concludes this Provider Case. The
cost of this settlement was not material to the Company and was
included in the second quarter 2003 Physician Settlement
Agreement charge.

Several Provider Cases filed in 2003 on behalf of purported
classes of chiropractors and/or all non-physician health care
providers also make factual and legal allegations similar to
those contained in the other Provider Cases. These Provider
Cases have been transferred to the Florida Federal Court for
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

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.


AETNA INC.: Reaches Settlement for NY Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aetna, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated securities
class action filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

Laborers Tri-County Pension Fund, Goldplate Investment Partners
Ltd. and Sheila Shafran filed the suit, alleging that the
Company and two of its current or former officers and directors,
William H. Donaldson and John W. Rowe, M.D., violated federal
securities laws.  Plaintiffs allege misrepresentations and
omissions regarding, among other things, the Company's ability
to manage and control medical costs and the appropriate reserve
for medical costs as of December31, 2000, for which they seek
unspecified damages, among other remedies.

On October 15, 2002, the New York Federal Court heard argument
on defendants' motion to dismiss the Securities Complaint.  
Effective February 9, 2005, the Company and class
representatives entered into an agreement (the "Securities
Settlement Agreement") to settle the complaint.  The settlement
agreement is subject to court approval.


AT&T CORORATION: Appeals Court Reverses Madison County Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
In a stunning legal victory for AT&T Corporation, the 5th
Appellate Court reversed Circuit Judge Andy Matoesian's ruling
to deny AT&T's request to compel arbitration and stay
proceedings in a class action consumer fraud case filed by
Sandra K. Ragan and Dennis Mangiaracino in 2002 in Madison
County Circuit Court, the Madison County Record reports.  
Presiding Justice James Donovan delivered the opinion of the
court in which Clyde Kuehn and Terrence Hopkins concurred.

The case had centered on fraud allegations, in which AT&T was
accused of deceptively including a charge for the Universal
Service Fund (USF), a fund that subsidizes telecommunications
services for low-income and rural telephone customers, schools,
and libraries.

Writing on behalf of the panel, Justice Donovan wrote: "The
motion to compel arbitration and dismiss or stay the proceedings
was heard on Dec. 18, 2002. At the close of the hearing, at
which no evidence was presented, the circuit court of Madison
County entered an order simply denying the motion. The order
contains no findings of fact, conclusions of law, or reasoning.
Defendant filed a timely notice of interlocutory appeal. We have
jurisdiction over the instant appeal pursuant to Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 307."

The ruling further states, "In an appeal from a denial of a
motion to compel arbitration without an evidentiary hearing, the
standard of review is de novo. Zobrist v. Verizon Wireless, No.
5-03-0691, slip op. at 4 (December 29, 2004); Travis v. American
Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co., 335 Ill. App. 3d 1171, 1174,
782 N.E.2d 322, 325 (2002). We find that there is a valid
arbitration agreement and that the parties' dispute falls within
the scope of that agreement. As a result, we find that the trial
court erred in failing to compel arbitration."

"As previously noted, the trial court did not conduct an
evidentiary hearing and made no written findings to explain its
ruling. As a result, we have no way of knowing what particular
issue played any part in the court's ultimate ruling, Donovan
writes. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the judgment of
the circuit court of Madison County, and pursuant to Supreme
Court Rule 366(a)(5) (155 Ill. 2d R. 366(a)(5)), we hereby grant
defendant's motion to compel arbitration and to stay the
judicial proceedings in Madison County, Illinois," the ruling
concludes.


AXIS CAPITAL: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
AXIS Capital Holdings and certain of its executive officers face
two purported shareholders class action lawsuits relating to the
practices being investigated by the Attorney General of the
State of New York and other state regulators.  The suits were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York and captioned "James Dolan v. AXIS Capital
Holdings Limited, Michael A. Butt and John R. Charman" and
"Robert Schimpf v. AXIS Capital Holdings Limited, Michael A.
Butt, Andrew Cook and John R. Charman."

The suits were filed on behalf of purchasers of AXIS Capital
Holdings Ltd. (NYSE: AXS) publicly traded securities during the
period between August 6, 2003 and October 14, 2004 (the "Class
Period").  The complaints charge AXIS and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaints further allege that during the Class Period,
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements concerning the Company's results and operations. The
true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but
concealed from the investing public during the Class Period,
were as follows:

     (1) that the Company was paying illegal and concealed
         "contingent commissions" pursuant to illegal
         "contingent commission agreements;"

     (2) that by concealing these "contingent commissions" and
         such "contingent commission agreements," the defendants
         violated applicable principles of fiduciary law,
         subjecting the Company to enormous fines and penalties
         totaling potentially tens, if not hundreds, of millions
         of dollars; and

     (3) that as a result, the Company's prior reported revenue
         and income was grossly overstated.


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles WorldCom Shareholder Suit For $460.5M
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America Corporation has agreed to pay $460.5 million to
settle its part of the massive WorldCom Inc. class-action
shareholder lawsuit, thus putting additional pressure on the 14
remaining banking defendants to settle as well, the Washington
Post reports.

Court documents indicate that the plaintiffs in the case, led by
the New York State Common Retirement Fund, are alleging that
Bank of America and other banks helped sell billions in WorldCom
stock and bonds to investors in 2000 and 2001 even though they
knew the telecommunications firm was falsifying its books.

In agreeing to the settlement, which comes on the heels of
Citigroup Inc.'s $2.6 billion settlement in its portion of the
case back in 2004, Bank of America denied breaking any laws and
in a press statement said, "Bank of America believes it is in
the best interests of the company to resolve these claims and
put this litigation behind it and focus efforts on creating
greater value for the shareholder."

WorldCom plaintiffs told the Washington Post that if a federal
judge approves the Bank of America settlement, total recovery in
the case would rise to over $3 billion, the second largest
amount in history, which is trailing hotel franchiser Cendant
Corp.'s $3.2 billion payment to settle accounting fraud claims
in 1999. Further settlements in the WorldCom case could push the
number well beyond $3.2 billion, the plaintiffs said.

New York State Comptroller Alan G. Hevesi, sole trustee of New
York's $120 billion public pension fund and the court-appointed
lead plaintiff in the case, told the Post the amount Bank of
America paid was significant because it was determined using the
same formula applied to Citigroup even though some argued that
Citigroup was paying far too much to settle the case.

In a press statement, A.G. Hevesi further explains, "The fact
that we have achieved a settlement of this magnitude, and at the
same rate as Citigroup paid earlier, sends a strong message to
investment banks that investors expect and will require them to
conduct meaningful due diligence, and not merely rely on others
to perform their obligations. The public is entitled to
disclosure of all relevant information relating to a stock or
bond issuance."

The class-action suit was filed by shareholders and bondholders
who lost billions of dollars when the telecommunications giant
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2002 after
revealing it had falsified its books to appear profitable in
three years when it was actually losing money. WorldCom emerged
from bankruptcy and now operates as Ashburn-based MCI Inc.,
which is currently examining takeover offers from Verizon
Communications Inc. and Qwest Communications International Inc.

Another attorney for the plaintiffs, Leonard Barrack, told the
Washington Post that aside from the monetary benefits the Bank
of America deal would also put added pressure on the remaining
banks since each time a defendant settles it increases the
potential liability of those remaining in the case, which in
their (the plaintiffs) case is a good thing. Experts have said
they expect all of the banks to settle before the case goes to
trial, scheduled to begin March 17.

The Bank of America deal also follows the collapse of a
settlement with 10 former WorldCom directors who had agreed to
pay $54 million, including $18 million of their own money, to
close their portion of the case. The settlement dissolved after
the judge overseeing the case rejected a key portion of the
deal. Sources close to the case say a new settlement with the
directors is unlikely but not impossible.


BELL CANADA: High Court Ruling Effectively Dismisses $1B Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Canada refused to allow plaintiffs to
appeal the Ontario Court of Appeal's ruling upholding the
dismissal of the two proposed class action lawsuits filed
against Bell Canada International Inc. ("BCI") and BCE Inc.  The
suits were filed on behalf of BCI common shareholders and
seeking $1 billion in damages against BCI and BCE.  No further
appeal of these actions is available to the plaintiffs and the
actions are effectively dismissed.

An action brought by Wilfred Shaw was originally issued in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice (the "Court") on September 27,
2002, and sought court approval to proceed by way of class
action on behalf of all persons who owned BCI common shares on
December 3, 2001 in connection with the issuance of BCI common
shares on February 15, 2002 pursuant to BCI's Recapitalization
Plan and the implementation of BCI's Plan of Arrangement
approved by the Court on July 17, 2002. After Mr. Shaw's
original action was dismissed by the Court on May 9, 2003, Mr.
Shaw filed an amended statement of claim on June 27, 2003. On
August 30, 2003, a lawsuit was filed by Cameron Gillespie that
was, except with respect to the name of the plaintiff,
substantially identical to Shaw's amended statement of claim.
These two actions were dismissed by the Court on January 5, 2004
without leave to amend their claims and an appeal of that
decision to the Ontario Court of Appeal was subsequently
dismissed. Following refusal of leave to appeal the dismissal
decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada today, no further
appeal of these actions is available to plaintiffs.


BROWN-FORMAN: Accused Of Targeting Youth In Alcohol Advertising
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brown-Forman Corporation and many other manufacturers of
spirits, wine and beer are defendants in a series of essentially
similar class action lawsuits seeking damages and injunctive
relief over alleged marketing of beverage alcohol to underage
consumers.  

Six lawsuits have been filed to date, the first three against
eight defendants, including the Company:

     (1) Hakki v. Adolph Coors Company, et al., District of
         Columbia Superior Court No. CD 03-9183;

     (2) Kreft v. Zima Beverage Co., et al., District Court,
         Jefferson County, Colorado, No. 04cv1827 (December
         2003); and

     (3) Wilson v. Zima Company, et al., U.S. District Court for
         the Western District of North Carolina, Charlotte
         Division, No. 3:04cv141

Two virtually identical suits with allegations similar to those
in the first three lawsuits were filed in Cleveland, Ohio, in
April and June 2004, respectively, against the original eight
defendants as well as an additional nine manufacturers of
spirits and beer, and are now consolidated as "Eisenberg v.
Anheuser-Busch, U.S. District Court for the District of Northern
Ohio, No. 1:04cv1081."  A similar suit was filed in Madison,
Wisconsin on February 23, 2005, styled "Jacquelin Tomberlin v.
Adolph Coors, Dane County (Wisconsin) Circuit Court, 05CV0545."

In addition, Brown-Forman received in February 2004, a pre-
lawsuit notice under the California Consumer Protection Act
indicating that the same lawyers intend to file a lawsuit there
against many industry defendants, including the Company,
presumably on the same facts and legal theories.

The suits allege that the defendants have engaged in deceptive
marketing practices and schemes targeted at underage consumers,
negligently marketed their products to the underage, and
fraudulently concealed their alleged misconduct.  Plaintiffs
seek class action certification on behalf of:

     (i) a guardian class consisting of all persons who were or
         are parents of children whose funds were used to
         purchase beverage alcohol marketed by the defendants
         which were consumed without their prior knowledge by
         their children under the age of 21 during the period
         1982 to present; and

    (ii) an injunctive class consisting of the parents and
         guardians of all children currently under the age of
         21

The lawsuits seek a finding that defendants engaged in a
deceptive scheme to market alcoholic beverages to underage
persons and an injunction against such alleged practices;
disgorgement and refund to the guardian class of all proceeds
resulting from sales to the underage since 1982; and judgment to
each guardian class member for a trebled award of actual
damages, punitive damages, and attorneys fees.


CANADA: Lawyers Doubt Government's Sincerity in Woodlands Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers behind a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of an
estimated 1,500 former residents of Woodlands School, most
severely handicapped, questioned recent government comments in
the Legislature, CNW Telbec reports.

Fifteen victims of abuse at Woodlands, and their caregivers,
traveled to Victoria and met with Opposition MLAs and were
introduced in the Legislature. When New Democratic Party members
Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan put questions to Premier Gordon
Campbell, evasive responses came from Children and Family
Development Minister Stan Hagen and Finance Minister Colin
Hansen.

Asked why, following a scathing report by former Ombudsman
Dulcie McCallum in 2001, documenting systemic abuse, an apology
from the government in 2002 and the establishment of a $2
million fund to counsel these victims, there is still no action,
the government waffled. Not one cent of the $2 million has yet
been spent, but the government continues to invest heavily in
legal processes aimed only at delaying resolution. Pressed on
the issue, the minister ultimately declined explanation on the
grounds that the matter was "before the courts."

Lawyer Jim Poyner, who represents all former residents in the
class action, said, "it is ingenuous to use the courts as a
smokescreen. The matter would not be 'before the courts' in the
first place if the government simply sat down and started a
process of settlement. For the minister to say that he can't
talk about it because 'it is before the courts' is absolute
nonsense and can only be interpreted as the government's refusal
to deal with the issue.

Mr. Poyner added that the Woodlands tragedy has been the subject
of public speculation and debate for more than 30 years, and has
been generally accepted as fact for at least a decade.
Nevertheless, the government continues to fight at great expense
in the court against the Woodlands survivors. "Why does the
government continue to invest money in everybody but the
victims?" he asked.

Woodlands opened in New Westminster in 1878 as a "provincial
asylum for the insane," but eventually became a facility for
people with developmental disabilities and those in need of
psychiatric care. Modern studies have consistently documented
sexual and physical abuse of the most horrific nature. Woodlands
closed in 1996 and it is now part of a $400 million development
plan, from which the government expects to net over $100
million.

Information about the class action lawsuit, including the
complete text of the Statement of Claim can be found at
http://www.poynerbaxter.com.

For more details, contact Poyner Baxter by Mail: Suite 408 - 145
Chadwick Court, North Vancouver, B.C., V7M 3K1 by Phone:
(604) 988-6321 by Fax: (604) 988-3632 or by E-mail:
classaction@poynerbaxter.com.  


CARDIAC SCIENCE: Wolf Popper Lodges Shareholder Lawsuit in DE
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP has filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of Cardiac Science, Inc. public shareholders (Nasdaq:
DFIB) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County.

The Complaint seeks to enjoin a proposed merger transaction
between Cardiac Science and Quinton Cardiology Systems, Inc. on
the grounds that the proposed transaction is grossly unfair to
Cardiac Science's public shareholders.  The Complaint alleges
that in addition to providing inadequate consideration to
Cardiac Science's public shareholders, the proposed transaction
provides a dominant member of the Board with preferential
treatment.

For more details, contact Robert C. Finkel, Esq. Wolf Popper LLP
by Mail: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
212-451-9620 or 877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 by Fax: 877-
370-7704 or by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com.


CITIGROUP INC.: Reaches $75M Settlement in Global Crossing Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citigroup Inc. agreed to pay $75 million to settle a protracted
legal dispute that was brought by investors over the banking
group's role in the collapse of Global Crossing Ltd., which was
at the time was one of its investment banks, the Los Angeles
Business Journal Staff reports.  

The 3-year-old class-action lawsuit accused the bank of pumping
up research reports, failing to report conflicts of interest and
eventually costing the plaintiffs millions of dollars in losses.  
Global Crossing, which was operated from Beverly Hills by
financier Gary Winnick, crumpled under skyrocketing debt and
excess fiber-optic cable capacity. It was accused of inflating
its books after filing for bankruptcy in January 2002 though no
charges were ever filed.

The $75 million settlement includes payments from Citigroup
Capital Markets (formerly Solomon Smith Barney) as well as
includes an undisclosed contribution from Jack Grubman, the
former star telecom analyst for Citigroup's Salomon Smith Barney
unit, who resigned in August of 2002 amid a federal
investigation into conflicts of interest.

The lead plaintiffs in the class-action case were the Public
Employees Retirement System of Ohio and the State Teachers'
Retirement Systems of Ohio both of whom claimed that they have
lost more than $110 million as a result of their investments in
Global Crossing, which they further claim was based on Citigroup
investment advice and research. Though Citigroup denied
violations of law, it reiterated that it opted to settle the
case to effectively end the litigation.

The $75 million comes in addition to a $325 million settlement
from Global Crossing executives that were reached previously.
Mr. Winnick agreed to contribute $30 million to that settlement,
which the company's law firm, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett, agreed
to pay $19.5 million, and the insurance company for Global
Crossings' officers and directors, Pender Insurance Co., agreed
to pay the rest.

The settlement represents the first of the investment banks to
settle the investor lawsuits. Other defendants in the same suit
include CIBC World Markets, a unit of the Canadian Imperial Bank
of Commerce, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., and the former accounting
firm Arthur Andersen LLP. According to the plaintiff's law firm,
Grant & Eisenhofer, none of the other defendants is close to
settling.


DELL FINANCIAL: Seeger Weiss Lodges Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Seeger Weiss LLP, initiated a lawsuit in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Dell, Inc. ("Dell") (Nasdaq:DELL), Dell Financial
Services L.P. ("DFS") and CIT Bank, Inc. ("CIT") on behalf of
consumers who financed the purchase of Dell electronics through
DFS. Dell representatives told consumers that they qualified for
low-cost financing and then switched them to unfavorable,
exorbitant interest rates.

The complaint seeks national class action status and accuses
Dell of violating New York false advertising and deceptive acts
and practices statutes that are intended to protect consumers. A
copy of the complaint filed in this action is available from the
Court or by contacting counsel below.

The complaint alleges that Dell lures consumers into financing
their purchases with DFS by leading them to believe that they
are approved for low rates of 0% or other favorable promotional
terms and then switches consumers to significantly less
favorable financing. Then, unsuspecting consumers receive
statements with hidden fees, late charges and excessive interest
rates. The complaint alleges that when consumers contact Dell,
they are given the run around and don't receive answers; rather,
what they get are threatening calls and letters from debt
collectors asking them to pay up.

Additionally, numerous consumer complaints have been placed on
the internet accusing Dell of engaging in a "bait and switch"
scheme where Dell advertises low-priced products for sale but
the consumers are baited into buying costlier versions of the
advertised products or receive a sub-standard product, depending
on Dell's inventory at the time of the order. Seeger Weiss LLP
is currently investigating these allegations.

For more details, contact Christopher A. Seeger, Esq., Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. or Roopal P. Luhana, Esq. of Seeger Weiss LLP by
Mail: One William Street, New York, NY 10004 by Phone:
(212) 584-0700 or (877) 539-4125or by E-mail:
cseeger@seegerweiss.com or echaffin@seegerweiss.com or
rluhana@seegerweiss.com.


DIRECTV HOLDINGS: Suits Allege Commission, Chargeback Schemes
-------------------------------------------------------------
DIRECTV Holdings, LLC faces two class actions currently pending
with the American Arbitration Association, regarding the
Company's commissions schemes and certain chargeback disputes.

In April 2001, Robert Garcia, doing business as Direct Satellite
TV, an independent retailer of DIRECTV System equipment,
instituted arbitration proceedings against DIRECTV in Los
Angeles, California.  On October 4, 2001, Mr. Garcia filed a
class action complaint against DIRECTV in Los Angeles County
Superior Court asserting the same claims and a Consumer
Legal Remedies Act claim.  Mr. Garcia alleges $300 million in
class-wide damages and seeks certification of a class of
plaintiffs to proceed in arbitration with court oversight.  In
February 2004, the trial court compelled the matter to
arbitration and relinquished all jurisdiction in connection with
the case.

On May 18, 2001, plaintiffs Cable Connection, Inc., TV Options,
Inc., Swartzel Electronics, Inc. and Orbital Satellite, Inc.
filed a class action complaint against DIRECTV in Oklahoma State
Court, alleging claims similar to those in the above-described
Garcia matter on behalf of all DIRECTV dealers.  The plaintiffs
seek unspecified damages and injunctive relief.  After several
procedural hearings and orders, the matter is now pending before
the American Arbitration Association.   


EBAY: Butterfields Auctioneers Workers Lodge Stock Options Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In a lawsuit filed in San Francisco Superior Court (Archbold, et
al. v. eBay, Inc., et al.), eight plaintiffs charged that eBay
wrongfully cancelled their eBay stock options when eBay sold the
company they work for, Butterfields Auctioneers Corp., in July
2002. The lawsuit was filed as a class action on behalf of all
Butterfields employees whose options were cancelled at the same
time, a group of more than 100 individuals.

Plaintiffs allege that eBay's actions have resulted in tens of
millions of dollars of losses to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are
seeking relief, including a judgment that eBay's actions were in
violation of the stock option plan; an injunction allowing
plaintiffs to continue vesting in the stock options; damages;
punitive damages; and attorneys' fees and costs.

The plaintiffs charge that eBay is in breach of contract for
canceling their unvested stock options and/or accelerating the
date by which they had to exercise their vested stock options
when eBay sold Butterfields. Butterfields was wholly owned by
eBay from 1999 to July 2002.

The plaintiffs contend that the stock option contracts do not
contain a provision allowing eBay to cancel previously granted
stock options upon the sale of a subsidiary, and that the
contract provides that their stock options should have continued
to vest as long as they were in "continuous service" with
Butterfields. The plaintiffs allege that eBay knew as early as
December 2001 that it was planning to sell Butterfields, yet
continued to grant new stock options to entice new employees to
join Butterfields or continuing employees to remain with
Butterfields, even though eBay knew that it would cancel any
unvested stock options as soon as it sold Butterfields.

"One of the reasons I went to work for Butterfields in February
2002 was that I was led to believe I would be getting eBay stock
options as long as I continued to work for Butterfields," said
named plaintiff Lynette Archbold, who still works for
Butterfields in San Francisco. "Little did I know that eBay was
going to sell Butterfields just five months after I started, and
cancel all the stock options it had just given me to get me to
work at Butterfields."

Jim Haas, another named plaintiff working for Butterfields in
San Francisco stated, "eBay's contract with us is clear -- eBay
must honor its stock option grants. It cannot be allowed to
unilaterally rewrite the contract after the fact."

An attorney representing the plaintiffs, Laura L. Ho of
Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian in Oakland,
California, said, "eBay and its attorneys wrote the contract and
could have included a provision allowing it to cancel options
upon sale of a subsidiary, but it didn't do so. eBay, and not
the plaintiffs, should pay for that decision."

Named plaintiff Leslie Wright, a Vice President in Butterfields'
Los Angeles, California office, agreed, stating "eBay granted me
stock options because I worked very hard and brought in a lot of
listings and business. It's appalling that eBay would then turn
around and cancel those options. eBay's failure to live up to
its commitments has made quite a negative financial impact on my
life."

"I just want eBay to live up to its word," said another
Butterfields employee from San Francisco, Paul Carella, who
filed his own lawsuit in June 2004, which is still pending in
San Francisco Superior Court. "I left a good job in New York and
moved across the country with the promise of eBay stock options,
which were then unfairly cancelled," he explained.

In Mr. Carella's case, eBay has argued that the type of
cancellation provision eBay used against Butterfield's employees
was also used by a number of other companies in technology-
related industries. "If that's true, it only shows that those
other companies also violated their employees' option rights,
not that eBay acted lawfully when it cancelled our clients'
options," Ms. Ho said.

"There are also good policy reasons to enforce the contract as
written, and allow for continued vesting of stock options even
with the sale of a subsidiary," said Ms. Ho. "For one thing, it
makes good business sense. Companies don't want to lose highly
experienced or valuable employees of a subsidiary when they are
trying to sell that subsidiary."

Headquartered in San Jose, California, eBay owns and operates
eBay.com, which is the world's largest and most popular online
marketplace. From 1999 to July 2002, eBay owned and operated
Butterfields, which appraises and disposes of fine art,
antiques, and collectibles, through the staging of live
auctions, with full-service galleries in San Francisco and Los
Angeles. eBay wholly owned Butterfields until on or about July
31, 2002 when eBay sold Butterfields to the British company
Bonhams. eBay is publicly traded on NASDAQ as EBAY. EBAY's stock
is currently trading in the $42 range.

Plaintiffs in the case are represented by the law firms of
Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian of Oakland,
California; Ackermann & Tilajef of Los Angeles, California, and
Yablonski, Both & Edelman in Washington, D.C.

For more details, contact Romi Neustadt by Phone: 206-326-5115
or 206-947-5792 by E-mail: romi.neustadt@bh.ddb.com OR Laura L.
Ho of Goldstein, Demchak, Baller, Borgen & Dardarian by Phone:
510-763-9800 or by E-mail: laura@gdblegal.com.  


FLOWERS FOODS: GA Judge Enters Final Judgments V. 7 Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission reports that the
Honorable W. Louis Sands, U.S. District Judge for the Middle
District of Georgia, Thomasville Division, entered Final
Judgments as to Defendants Patsy J. Aldredge (Aldredge), Robert
L. Benton, Jr. (Benton), Howard M. Courtney (Courtney), Jerry F.
Hancock, II (Hancock), Herman D. Small (Small), Dan W. Stone
(Stone) and Charles M. Worthey  (Worthey) on Feb. 22, 2005. The
defendants were enjoined from future violations of Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
thereunder.

The Court also ordered,

     (1) Mr. Aldredge to pay disgorgement of  $11,940,
         prejudgment interest of $892 and a civil penalty of
         $11,940;

     (2) Mr. Benton to pay disgorgement of $6,200, prejudgment
         interest of $463 and a civil penalty of $6,200;

     (3) Courtney to pay disgorgement of $9,438, prejudgment
         interest of $705 and a civil penalty of $9,438;

     (4) Hancock to pay disgorgement of $5,610, prejudgment
         interest of $419 and a civil penalty of $5,610;

     (5) Small to pay disgorgement of $18,824, prejudgment
         interest of $1,407 and a civil penalty of $18,824;

     (6) Mr. Stone to pay disgorgement of $2,700, prejudgment
         interest of $201 and a civil penalty of $2,700; and

     (7) Mr. Worthey to pay disgorgement of $2,774, prejudgment
         interest of $207 and a civil penalty of 2,774.  

The defendants consented to the entries of the judgments against
them without admitting or denying any of the allegations of the
Commission's complaint.

The Commission's complaint, filed Feb. 10, 2005, alleged that
while employed by Flowers Foods, Inc., a publicly-traded baking
company located in Thomasville, Georgia, the seven defendants
obtained material nonpublic information that they used to earn
illegal trading profits. The complaint further alleged that on
Jan.30, 2003, Flowers Foods announced that its expected fiscal
fourth quarter 2002 earnings per share would be higher than its
previous estimate for the quarter. In a separate but
simultaneous press release, Flowers Foods disclosed the sale of
its Mrs. Smith's Bakeries's frozen dessert business to Schwan
Food Company. After the announcements, Flowers Foods's traded up
$6.12 closing at $23.20. The defendants each learned about
either the earnings release or the sale of Mrs. Smith's Bakeries
frozen dessert business, or both, prior to these announcements
and purchased Flowers Foods securities while in possession of
this nonpublic, material information. The action is titled, SEC
v. Patsy J. Aldredge, Robert L. Benton, Jr., Howard M. Courtney,
Jerry F. Hancock, II, Herman D. Small, Dan W. Stone, and Charles
M. Worthey, USDC, Middle District of Georgia, Thomasville
Division, Civil Action File No. 6:05-CV-8 (LR-19112).


GE LIFE: Working On Universal Life Insurance Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Life Insurance Co. of Virginia dba GE Life and Annuity Assurance
Co. is working to settle the class action filed against it,
styled "McBride v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia dba GE Life
and Annuity Assurance Co."

The suit is related to the sale of universal life insurance
policies.  The complaint was filed on November 1, 2000, in
Georgia state court, as a class action on behalf of all persons
who purchased certain universal life insurance policies and
alleges improper practices in connection with the sale and
administration of universal life policies. The plaintiffs sought
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

On December 1, 2000, the Company removed the case to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.  The Company
vigorously denied liability with respect to the plaintiff's
allegations.  Nevertheless, to avoid the risks and costs
associated with protracted litigation and to resolve its
differences with policyholders, the Company agreed in principle
on October 8, 2003 to settle the case on a nationwide class
basis.  The settlement provides benefits to the class, and
allows the Company to continue to serve its customers' needs
undistracted by disruptions caused by litigation.  The court
gave final approval to the settlement on August 12, 2004.

In the third quarter of 2003, the Company accrued $50 million in
reserves relating to this litigation, which represents its best
estimate of bringing this matter to conclusion.  The precise
amount of payments in this matter cannot be estimated because
they are dependent upon the number of individuals who ultimately
will seek relief in the claim form process of the class
settlement, the identity of such claimants and whether they are
entitled to relief under the settlement terms and the nature of
the relief to which they are entitled.  That process is
currently underway.

In addition, approximately 650 class members elected to exclude
themselves from the class action settlement.  In the fourth
quarter of 2004, we reached an agreement in principle to settle
the threatened claims of policyholders who had excluded
approximately 512 policies from the class action settlement.

The Company has also been named as a defendant in six lawsuits
brought by 67 class members who elected to exclude themselves
from the class action settlement. The Company cannot determine
at this point whether or how many other class members who have
excluded themselves from the class action will initiate
individual actions against it, or the effect of such suits or
claims, including the six pending lawsuits, on its financial
condition, results of operations or business reputation.   


GERBER SCIENTIFIC: SEC Files CT Insider Trading Suit V. Director
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission announced that filed a
contested insider trading case in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Connecticut against Robert Goehring.

In its complaint, the Commission alleged that Mr. Goehring, age
64, was the director of corporate communications of Gerber
Scientific, Inc. (Gerber). While serving as director of
corporate communications, Mr. Goehring regularly obtained
material, non-public information about Gerber. Between July 1998
and April 2000, Mr. Goehring traded in the Gerber stock nine
times on the basis of material, nonpublic information he
obtained in the course of his employment as Gerber's director of
corporate communications. Mr. Goehring enjoyed profits and
avoided losses from these illicit trades of $94,016. In
addition, Mr. Goehring tipped his close friend, Armund Ek, who
was not employed at Gerber, with material, non-public
information about Gerber on three occasions.  Mr. Ek bought and
sold Gerber stock based on these tips and had profits and
avoided losses totaling $11,453 as a result of his trading.

The Commission complaint alleges that because of his position
with Gerber, Mr. Goehring owed a fiduciary duty, or other duty
of trust or confidence owed directly, indirectly or derivatively
to Gerber and its shareholders.  This included a duty to
not trade Gerber shares on the basis of material, non-public
information and to not  communicate such information improperly
to others. By engaging in insider trading and by tipping his
friend Mr. Ek with material non-public information about Gerber,
Mr. Goehring violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

The Commission seeks a judgment against Mr. Goehring:

     (1) enjoining him from future violations of Section 10(b)
         of the Exchange Act and Exchange Act Rule 10b-5,

     (2) ordering Mr. Goehring to disgorge the profits and
         losses avoided by himself and his tippee as a result
         of the unlawful trading,

     (3) imposing a monetary penalty, and

     (4) imposing an officer and director bar.

The action is entitled, SEC v. Robert Goehring, Civ. Act. No.
3:05-CV-350 (AWT) D.Conn. (LR-19105).


HIRSCHBERG SCHUTZ: Recalls 2.8M Metals Charms For Lead Content
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Hirschberg Schutz & Co. Inc., of Warren, N.J., is
voluntarily recalling about 2.8 million metal charms. The
recalled metal charms contain high levels of lead, posing a
serious risk of lead poisoning to young children.

CPSC received a report of a six-year-old girl who mouthed these
charms worn on a homemade necklace. She developed elevated lead
levels in her blood that may be related to the charms. Lead
poisoning in children is associated with behavioral problems,
learning disabilities, hearing problems and growth retardation.

The recalled metal charms were sold under the name "Charming
ThoughtsT." Most of the charms are silver-colored with small
silver loops. They were sold in packages of two to 12 pieces.
The packages are marked "The Card ConnectionT," "Charming
ThoughtsT" and "Hirschberg Schutz & Co. Inc." The metal charms
are various shapes including small hearts, crowns, birds,
picture frames, perfume bottles and a cross. Some of the metal
charms have small blue, pink or yellow stones and are printed
with words including "princess," "congratulations," "city girl,"
"world traveler" and "life's blessings." "Insert photo here,"
"cherish," "love," and "honor" are printed on the picture frame
charms. The metal charms were sold as decorations for place
cards, greeting cards, collages, memory boxes, gift cards,
scrapbooks, invitations and gift bags. The charms also can be
attached to necklaces and bracelets.

The recalled metal charms were sold at Michaels Stores from July
2002 through February 2005, at Recollections stores from October
2004 through February 2005, and at Hancock Fabrics stores from
January 2004 through January 2005 for between $3 to $4. All of
the charms were manufactured in China.

Consumers should immediately take these metal charms away from
children and contact Hirschberg Schutz & Co. at (800) 873-5506
anytime to receive a refund. Consumers also can e-mail the firm
at charmsrecall@horizongroupusa.com for more information.


HOST MARRIOTT: IL Partners' Fraud Suit Settlement Deemed Final
--------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement for the class action filed against Host Marriott
Corporation in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
Chancery Division is deemed final after plaintiffs did not file
an appeal.  The suit is styled as "Joseph S. Roth et al. v. MOHS
Corporation et al, Case No. 00CH14500," and also names as
defendants Marriott International, and MOHS Corporation (one of
the Company's subsidiaries and a former general partner of
O'Hare Suites).

On July 2, 2003, the court ruled on plaintiffs' motion for class
certification, certifying a 256-person class on plaintiffs'
contract and breach of fiduciary duty claims, but denying
certification on their six tort claims (which included unjust
enrichment, fraud, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and
conspiracy to defraud).  The certified class of plaintiffs
consists of 256 limited partners who owned units in Mutual
Benefit Marriott Chicago Suites Hotel Partners, L.P. as of the
date of the roll-up of the partnership into Host LP on December
30, 1998.

Plaintiffs allege that the Company improperly paid incentive
management fees to the hotel manager in 1997 and 1998, which
resulted in an inadequate appraised value for their limited
partner units in connection with the acquisition of O'Hare
Suites during the Company's conversion to a real estate income
trust (REIT), and have sought damages of approximately $17
million.   

On June 23, 2004, the Company reached a preliminary agreement
with plaintiffs to settle the case for $2.5 million (including
attorneys' fees).  The Company subsequently executed a more
formal settlement agreement on September 27, 2004, and the
Circuit Court entered an order preliminarily approving
settlement on October 13, 2004.  On October 15, 2004, counsel to
the class action plaintiffs mailed notice of the proposed
settlement to each class member.  No class members elected to
opt out of the settlement.  At the fairness hearing held on
January 10, 2005, the Court issued the Final Order and Judgment.
No appeal from the Final Order and Judgment was filed and class
counsel distributed the settlement funds to the class members on
February 16, 2005.  

The suit is styled "Joseph S. Roth et al. v. MOHS Corporation et
al, Case No. 00CH14500," filed in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Chancery Division, under Judge Julia M.
Nowicki.  Plaintiff Joseph Roth is represented by KELLY KARRAS &
RANTIS LTD, 619 Enterprise #205, Oak Brook, IL 60523, Phone:
(630) 575-0202.  Defendants are represented by:

     (1) LATHAM WATKINS HEDLUND, 233 S. Wacker #5800, Chicago,
         IL 60606, Phone: (312) 876-7700
             
     (2) JENKES & GILCHRIST, 225 W. Washington, Chicago IL
         60606, Phone: (312) 425-3900


HUMATECH INC.: SEC Lodges Civil Fraud Lawsuit V. CEO, CFO in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil case in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston
Division) against Humatech, Inc., and its CEO, David G.
Williams, and CFO, John D. Rottweiler. Humatech, whose common
stock trades under the ticker symbol HUMT on the OTC Bulletin
Board, is a fertilizer and animal-feed additive company based in
Houston, Texas, at the time of the alleged violations. According
to the SEC's complaint, Mr. Williams and Mr. Rottweiler engaged
in a bogus revenue-recognition scheme that inflated Humatech's  
assets and revenue from 2000 through 2002. In January and
October 2000, Humatech improperly recorded two sales totaling
$297,640 to Humatech Ltd., a United Kingdom distributor that Mr.
Williams and Mr. Rottweiler secretly controlled. These purported
sales, however, were contingent on the distributor reselling the
product to a third-party purchaser, and thus did not qualify for
revenue recognition under generally accepted accounting
principles. As a result of the improper sales, Humatech grossly
overstated its revenue or assets or both in each quarterly and
annual SEC report from January 31, 2000, through the quarter
ended October 31, 2002.
          
The SEC's complaint against Williams, Rottweiler, and Humatech,
alleges violations of the anti-fraud, issuer-reporting, books-
and-records, internal-controls, officer-certification, and
lying-to-auditor provisions of the federal securities laws-
specifically, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and
Sections 10(b), 13(a), 13(b)(2), and 13(b)(5) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-13,  
13a-14, 13b2-1, and 13b2-2  thereunder. The SEC is seeking
permanent injunctive relief against each defendant and a civil
money penalty, an officer-and-director bar, an accounting, and
disgorgement plus prejudgment interest against Williams and  
Rottweiler. The action is entitled, SEC v. Humatech, Inc., David
G. Williams, and John D. Rottweiler, Civil Action No. H-05-0665,
USDC/SDTX, (Houston Division)(LR-19108; AAE Rel. 2193).


ILLINOIS: Philip Morris' Appeal Helps Fund New Court Building
-------------------------------------------------------------
Local officials of Madison County recently acknowledged that
Philip Morris' appeal of a $10 billion class action verdict has
been very, very good to the county, The St. Louis Post-Dispatch
reports.

As proof of its benefits to the county, officials told the Post-
Dispatch that the new criminal courts facility, which is
scheduled to open today is a direct benefactor of that appeal,
since interest accrued from a court-ordered bond in the case has
paid more than a fourth of the cost of the $6.6 million courts
building.

According to County Board Chairman Alan Dunstan, if the state
Supreme Court doesn't issue a decision in the appeal soon,
county coffers will continue to grow. He told the Post-Dispatch
though, "We didn't ask for this, but we are not going to turn
this money down. I have to admit this is a windfall. So, yes it
does have some benefits to it."

Philip Morris money started flowing into the county's coffers
after Circuit Judge Nicholas G. Byron ruled against Philip
Morris two years ago. In that class action case, the plaintiffs
had alleged that the company had misled Illinois smokers about
the dangers of light cigarettes. The class in the case was the
more than 1 million Illinois residents who bought Marlboro
Lights and Cambridge Lights.  When Philip Morris appealed the
decision, the firm was required to set aside a bond, a common
procedure when lawsuits are appealed. That bond, $1.4 billion in
total is sitting in an escrow account.

A lawyer representing Philip Morris told the Post-Dispatch that
the Illinois Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case in 60
to 90 days, but the county still gets to keep the interest
regardless of the outcome.

Just recently, the county used $1.7 million of the interest to
pay off a loan from UMB Bank for the criminal courts center and
since the county paid off the loan five years early, it saved
$200,000 in interest payments, county officials said. The county
now has about $1.4 million remaining in its coffers from
interest generated by the bond.

"We have probably never received anything like this," Matt
Melucci, the Madison County circuit clerk, told the Post-
Dispatch. "We usually get from (all bond cases) in a year a few
thousand or tens of thousands of dollars, but nothing like
this."

Meanwhile, the new criminal court center is expected to hold a
few hearings during its opening. The center is in the old
Florists' Mutual Building at 500 St. Louis Street in
Edwardsville. It is about three blocks from the old courthouse
and will be one of the area's most secure courthouses, officials
said. It will be equipped with security cameras and card key
access.


LENOX INC.: Faces Consolidated Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lenox, Inc. faces a consolidated class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of consumers who purchased tableware sold
in the United States from May 1, 2001, through the present.  The
suit also names as defendants Federated Department Stores, the
May Department Stores Company, Waterford Wedgwood U.S.A.

In November 2004, plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman
Act by conspiring to fix prices and to boycott sales to Bed,
Bath & Beyond.  The cases are consolidated in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California, Nos. C-04-3514VRW
and C-04-3622VRW.  Plaintiffs seek to recover an undisclosed
amount of damages, trebled in accord with the anti-trust laws,
as well as costs, attorney fees and injunctive relief.  


MEDCO HEALTH: Working To Resolve Lawsuits For ERISA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. is working to resolve several class
actions filed against it and Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA).

On December 17, 1997, a lawsuit captioned "Gruer v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C." was filed in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against Merck and the Company.
The suit alleges that the Company should be treated as a
"fiduciary" under the provisions of ERISA and that the Company
has breached fiduciary obligations under ERISA in connection
with the Company's development and implementation of
formularies, preferred drug listings and intervention programs.

After the Gruer case was filed, six other cases were filed in
the same court asserting similar claims; one of these cases was
voluntarily dismissed.  The plaintiffs in these cases, who are
individual plan members and claim to represent the interests of
six different pharmaceutical benefit plans for which the Company
is the PBM, contend that, in accepting and retaining certain
rebates, the Company has failed to make adequate disclosure and
has acted in the Company's own best interest and against the
interests of the Company's clients.  

The plaintiffs also allege that the Company was wrongly used to
increase Merck's market share, claiming that under ERISA the
Company's drug formulary choices and therapeutic interchange
programs were "prohibited transactions" that favor Merck's
products. The plaintiffs have demanded that Merck and the
Company turn over any unlawfully obtained profits to a trust to
be set up for the benefit plans.   

In December 2002, Merck and the Company agreed to settle the
Gruer series of lawsuits on a class action basis to avoid the
significant cost and distraction of protracted litigation.
Merck, the Company, and the plaintiffs in five of these six
cases filed a proposed class action settlement with the court.
On May 25, 2004, the court granted final approval to the
settlement, ruling, among other things, that the settlement was
fair, reasonable, and adequate to members of the settlement
class. On June 28, 2004, the court entered a Final Judgment
dismissing the class actions with prejudice.

Under the settlement, Merck and the Company have agreed to pay
$42.5 million, and the Company has agreed to change or to
continue certain specified business practices for a period of
five years.  In September 2003, the Company paid $38.3 million
to an escrow account, representing the Company's portion, or
90%, of the proposed settlement. If the settlement becomes
final, it would resolve litigation by pharmaceutical benefit
plans against Merck and the Company based on ERISA and similar
claims, except with respect to those plans that affirmatively
opt out of the settlement.

The plaintiff in the sixth case discussed above, "Blumenthal v.
Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C., et al.," has elected to opt
out of the settlement.  The release of claims under the
settlement applies to plans for which the Company has
administered a pharmacy benefit at any time between December 17,
1994 and the date of final approval.  It does not involve the
release of any potential antitrust claims.  The settlement
becomes final only after all appeals have been exhausted. Two
appeals are pending.   

Similar ERISA-based complaints against the Company and Merck
were filed in eight additional actions by ERISA plan
participants, purportedly on behalf of their plans, and, in some
of the actions, similarly situated self-funded plans.  The
complaints in these actions relied on many of the same
allegations as the Gruer series of lawsuits discussed above.  
The ERISA plans themselves, which were not parties to these
lawsuits, have elected to participate in the settlement
discussed above.  Under the Final Judgment discussed above, the
court dismissed seven of these actions.

On May 21, 2004, however, the court granted the plaintiff in the
other action, Betty Jo Jones v. Merck-Medco Managed Care,
L.L.C., et al. permission to file a second amended complaint. In
her Second Amended Complaint, the plaintiff in the Jones action
seeks to represent a class of all participants and beneficiaries
of ERISA plans that required such participants to pay a
percentage co-payment on prescription drugs. The effect of the
release under the settlement discussed above on the Jones action
has not yet been litigated.

In addition, a proposed class action complaint against Merck and
the Company has been filed by trustees of another benefit plan,
the United Food and Commercial Workers Local Union No. 1529 and
Employers Health and Welfare Plan Trust, in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California. This plan has
elected to opt out of the settlement. The United Food action has
been transferred and consolidated in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York by order of the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.   

On April 2, 2003, a lawsuit captioned Peabody Energy Corporation
v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al. was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The
complaint, filed by one of the Company's former clients, relies
on allegations similar to those in the ERISA cases discussed
above, in addition to allegations relating specifically to
Peabody, which has elected to opt out of the settlement
described above.

The complaint asserts that the Company breached fiduciary duties
under ERISA, violated a New Jersey consumer protection law,
improperly induced the client into contracting with the Company,
and breached the resulting agreement. The plaintiff seeks
compensatory, punitive and treble damages, as well as rescission
and restitution of revenues that were allegedly improperly
received by the Company. On October 28, 2003, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to be
consolidated with the ERISA cases pending against the Company in
that court.   

On December 23, 2003, Peabody filed a similar action against
Merck in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri. The complaint relies on allegations similar to those
in the ERISA cases discussed above and in the case filed by
Peabody against the Company. The complaint asserts claims that
Merck violated federal and state racketeering laws, tortiously
interfered with Peabody's contract with the Company, and was
unjustly enriched.  The plaintiff seeks, among other things,
compensatory damages of approximately $35 million, treble
damages, and restitution of revenues that were allegedly
improperly received by Merck.  On August 5, 2004, the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred this action to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to be
consolidated with the ERISA cases pending against Merck and the
Company in that court.   

On March 17, 2003, a lawsuit captioned American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees v. AdvancePCS et al. based
on allegations similar to those in the ERISA cases discussed
above, was filed against the Company and other major pharmacy
benefit managers (PBMs) in the Superior Court of California. The
theory of liability in this action is based on a California law
prohibiting unfair business practices.  The plaintiff, which
purports to sue on behalf of itself, California non-ERISA health
plans, and all individual participants in such plans, seeks
injunctive relief and disgorgement of revenues that were
allegedly improperly received by the Company.   

On June 11, 2002, a lawsuit captioned Miles v. Merck-Medco
Managed Care, L.L.C., based on allegations similar to those in
the ERISA cases discussed above, was filed against Merck and the
Company in the Superior Court of California. The theory of
liability in this action is based on a California law
prohibiting unfair business practices. The plaintiff, who
purports to sue on behalf of the general public of California,
seeks injunctive relief and disgorgement of the revenues that
were allegedly improperly received by Merck and the Company. The
Miles case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California and, pursuant to the
Multidistrict Litigation order discussed above, was later
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York and consolidated with the ERISA cases pending
against Merck and the Company in that court.   

On October 25, 2002, the Company filed a declaratory judgment
action, captioned Medco Health Solutions, Inc. v. West Virginia
Public Employees Insurance Agency, in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, West Virginia, asserting the Company's right to
retain certain cost savings in accordance with the Company's
written agreement with the West Virginia Public Employees
Insurance Agency, or PEIA. On November 13, 2002, the State of
West Virginia and PEIA filed a separate lawsuit against Merck
and the Company, also in the Circuit Court of Kanawha County,
West Virginia. This action was premised on several state law
theories, including violations of the West Virginia Consumer
Credit and Protection Act, conspiracy, tortious interference,
unjust enrichment, accounting, fraud and breach of contract. The
State of West Virginia and PEIA sought civil penalties;
compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief.

In March 2003, in the declaratory judgment action, PEIA filed a
counterclaim, and the State of West Virginia, which was joined
as a party, filed a third-party complaint against the Company
and Merck, raising the same allegations asserted by PEIA and the
State of West Virginia in their November 2002 action described
above. The Company and Merck filed a motion to dismiss the
November 2002 action filed by the State of West Virginia and
PEIA, and also filed a motion to dismiss the counterclaim and
third-party complaint filed by the State of West Virginia and
PEIA in the Company's declaratory judgment action. On November
6, 2003, the court granted the motion to dismiss the Consumer
Protection Act claims and certain other state law claims,
including the claims for conspiracy and tortious interference.
The court also dismissed without prejudice the various fraud
claims. The court denied the motion to dismiss with respect to
the claims for breach of contract, accounting and unjust
enrichment.

On December 2, 2003, PEIA filed an amended counterclaim and
third-party complaint against Merck and the Company, seeking to
reassert its fraud claims and restate certain of its other
claims. The court has not yet ruled on the amended counterclaim.  


MEDCO HEALTH: Retail Pharmacies Launch Antitrust Suit in E.D. PA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Medco Health Solutions, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, styled "Brady Enterprises, Inc., et al. v.
Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al."

The plaintiffs, which seek to represent a national class of
retail pharmacies that have contracted with the Company, allege
that the Company has conspired with, acted as the common agent
for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan sponsors to
restrain competition in the market for the dispensing and sale
of prescription drugs.  The plaintiffs allege that, through the
alleged conspiracy, the Company has engaged in various forms of
anticompetitive conduct, including, among other things, setting
artificially low reimbursement rates to such pharmacies. The
plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.   

The suit is styled "Brady Enterprises, Inc. et al, v. Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., et al, case no. 03-cv-04730-JF," filed
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania, under Judge John P. Fullam.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Bart D. Cohen, Jerome M. Marcus, H. Laddie Montague,
         Jr., BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: 215-875-4602, Fax: 215-
         875-4674, E-mail: bcohen@bm.net, jmarcus@bm.net,
         hlmontague@bm.net

     (2) Michael J. Freed, Jean K. James, MUCH, SHELIST, FREED,
         DENENBERG, AMENT & EIGER, 191 North Wacker Drive, Suite
         1800, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-521-2000, E-mail:
         mfreed@muchshelist.com or jjanes@muchshelist.com  

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Marc Ashley, Kenneth M. Kramer, SHEARMAN & STERLING
         LLP, 599 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone:
         212-848-4000

    (ii) Scott M. Brevic, Paul H. Saint-Antoine, DRINKER BIDDLE
         & REATH LLP, One Logan Square, 18th and Cherry Streets,
         Philadelphia, PA 19103-6996, Phone: 215-988-2700, Fax:
         215-988-2757


MEDCO HEALTH: Plaintiffs File Second Amended Price-fixing Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a second amended class action against Medco
Health Solutions, Inc., styled "North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc., et
al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al." in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  The suit
also names as defendant Merck-Medco Managed Care, L.L.C.

The plaintiffs seek to represent a national class of independent
retail pharmacies that have contracted with the Company.  In
February 2004, Merck and the Company filed motions to dismiss
the plaintiffs' amended complaint.  However, prior to ruling on
the motions, the court granted the plaintiffs permission to file
a second amended complaint, which the plaintiffs filed on July
23, 2004.

In their Second Amended and Consolidated Class Action Complaint,
the plaintiffs allege that Merck and the Company have engaged in
price fixing and other unlawful concerted actions with others,
including other PBMs, to restrain trade in the dispensing and
sale of prescription drugs to customers of retail pharmacies who
participate in programs or plans that pay for all or part of the
drugs dispensed, and have conspired with, acted as the common
agent for, and used the combined bargaining power of plan
sponsors to restrain competition in the market for the
dispensing and sale of prescription drugs.  

The plaintiffs allege that, through such concerted action, Merck
and the Company have engaged in various forms of anticompetitive
conduct, including, among other things, setting reimbursement
rates to such pharmacies at unreasonably low levels. The
plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Sherman Act and
seek treble damages and injunctive relief.   

The suit is styled "N Jackson Pharmacy, et al v. Medco Health,
et al, case no. 5:03-cv-02697-VEH," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, under Judge
Virginia Emerson Hopkins.  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Andrew C. Allen, Othni J. Lathram, Joe R. Whatley, Jr.,
         WHATLEY DRAKE LLC, 2323 Second Avenue North, Post
         Office Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone:
         328-9576, E-mail: ecf@whatleydrake.com or
         jwhatley@whatleydrake.com

     (2) Chris W. Cantrell, A. David Fawal, Archie C. Lamb, Jr.,
         LAW OFFICES OF ARCHIE LAMB LLC, PO Box 2088,
         Birmingham, AL 35201, Phone: 324-4644, Fax: 324-4649,
         E-mail: ccantrell@archielamb.com,
         dfawal@archielamb.com, alamb@archielamb.com  

Representing the Company is SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP, 599
Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 1-212-848-4000,
Fax: 1-212-848-7179; and LIGHTFOOT FRANKLIN & WHITE LLC, The
Clark Building, 400 20th Street, North, Birmingham, AL 35203,
Phone: 581-0700, Fax: 581-0799


MEDCO HEALTH: CA Court Refuses To Dismiss Price-fixing Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California refused to dismiss the class
action filed against Medco Health Solutions, Inc. and Merck-
Medco Managed Care, LLC, captioned "Alameda Drug Company, Inc.,
et al. v. Medco Health Solutions, Inc., et al."

The plaintiffs, which seek to represent a class of all
California pharmacies that have contracted with the Company and
that have indirectly purchased prescription drugs from Merck,
allege, among other things, that since the expiration of a 1995
consent injunction entered by the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, if not earlier, the Company has
failed to maintain an Open Formulary (as defined in the consent
injunction), and that the Company and Merck have failed to
prevent nonpublic information received from competitors of Merck
and the Company from being disclosed to each other.  The
complaint also copies verbatim many of the allegations in the
Amended Complaint filed by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania, discussed above.

The plaintiffs further allege that, as a result of these alleged
practices, the Company has been able to increase its market
share and artificially reduce the level of reimbursement to the
retail pharmacy class members, and that the prices of
prescription drugs from Merck and other pharmaceutical
manufacturers that do business with the Company have been fixed
and raised above competitive levels.  

The plaintiffs assert claims for violation of California
antitrust law and California law prohibiting unfair business
practices. The plaintiffs demand, among other things,
compensatory damages, restitution, disgorgement of unlawfully
obtained profits, and injunctive relief.  In an Amended
Complaint, the plaintiff repeats many of the same allegations
made in the original Complaint, and further alleges, among other
things, that the Company acts as a purchasing agent for its plan
sponsor customers, resulting in a system that serves to suppress
competition.


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Appeals Court Affirms Consumer Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the class action filed against Nationwide Life
Insurance Company (NLIC), styled "Edward Miller, Individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Nationwide
Life Insurance Company."

The complaint, originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleges that in
2001, plaintiff Edward Miller purchased three group modified
single premium variable annuities issued by NLIC.  The plaintiff
alleges that NLIC represented in its prospectus and promised in
its annuity contracts that contract holders could transfer
assets without charge among the various funds available through
the contracts, that the transfer rights of contract holders
could not be modified and that NLIC's expense charges under the
contracts were fixed.  

The plaintiff claims that NLIC has breached the contracts and
violated federal securities laws by imposing trading fees on
transfers that were supposed to have been without charge. The
plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and rescission on behalf of
himself and a class of persons who purchased this type of
annuity or similar contracts issued by NLIC between May 1, 2001
and April 30, 2002 inclusive and were allegedly damaged by
paying transfer fees.

The Company's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted by the
District Court on October 28, 2003. The plaintiff appealed that
dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit. On November 22, 2004, the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court dismissing
the complaint.

The suit is styled "Miller v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company,
case no. 2:03-cv-01236-GTP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, under Judge G.
Thomas Porteous, Jr.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Lionel Z. Glancy, Michael Goldberg and Robert Perkins,
         Glancy & Binkow, 1801 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 311
         Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone: 310-210-9150

     (2) James A. McPherson and Mary S. McPherson, McPherson &
         McPherson, 9128 Quince St., New Orleans, LA 70118,
         Phone: 504-486-2022, E-mail: mcpmcp@bellsouth.net or
         mschillesci@yahoo.com  

Representing the Company are:

      (i) George Davidson Fagan, William W. Newton, Leake &
          Andersson, LLP, Energy Centre, 1100 Poydras St., Suite
          1700 New Orleans, LA 70163-1701, Phone: (504) 585-
          7500, E-mail: gfagan@leakeandersson.com  

     (ii) Patrick J. Gennardo, LeBoeuf, Lamb, Greene & MacRae,
          LLP, 125 W. 55th St., New York, NY 10019-5389, Phone:
          212-424-8129

    (iii) Charles C. Platt, Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, 399 Park
          Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8860


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Seeks Summary Judgment in CT ERISA Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nationwide Life Insurance Company filed a revised memorandum in
support of summary judgment in a class action filed against it
in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut entitled "Lou Haddock, as trustee of the Flyte Tool
& Die, Incorporated Deferred Compensation Plan, et al v.
Nationwide Financial Services, Inc. and Nationwide Life
Insurance Company."

The plaintiffs first amended their complaint on September 5,
2001 to include class action allegations and have subsequently
amended their complaint three times.  As amended, in the current
complaint the plaintiffs seek to represent a class of Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) qualified retirement
plans that purchased variable annuities from the Company.  The
plaintiffs allege that they invested ERISA plan assets in their
variable annuity contracts and that the Company breached ERISA
fiduciary duties by allegedly accepting service payments from
certain mutual funds.  The complaint seeks disgorgement of some
or all of the payments allegedly received by the Company, other
unspecified relief for restitution, declaratory and injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.

On December 13, 2001, the plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification. The plaintiffs filed a supplement to that motion
on September 19, 2003. The Company opposed that motion on
December 24, 2003.

The suit is styled "Haddock, et al v. Nationwide, et al., case
no. 3:01-cv-01552-SRU," filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut, under Judge Stefan R.
Underhill.

Representing the plaintiffs are Martin Woodward, Stanley, Mandel
& Iola, 3100 Monticello Ave., Suite 750, Dallas, TX 75205,
Phone: 214-443-4300, Fax: 214-443-0358, E-mail:
mwoodward@smi-law.com; and Michael A. Stratton, Stratton Faxon,
59 Elm St.
New Haven, CT 06510, Phone: 203-624-9500, E-mail:
mstratton@strattonfaxon.com.

Representing the Company are:

     (1) Jessica A. Ballou, Dennis F. Kerrigan, Jr., LeBoeuf,
         Lamb, Greene & MacRae, Goodwin Square, 225 Asylum St.,
         Hartford, CT 06103, Phone: 860-293-3535, Fax: 860-293-
         3555, E-mail: jballou@llgm.com or
         dennis.kerrigan@llgm.com

     (2) Charles C. Platt, Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering, 399 Park
         Ave., New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212-230-8800


NATIONWIDE LIFE: MI Court Refuses To Dismiss Policyholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi refused to dismiss the class action filed against
Nationwide Life Insurance Company, styled "United Investors Life
Insurance Company v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company and/or
Nationwide Life Insurance Company of America and/or Nationwide
Life and Annuity Insurance Company and/or Nationwide Life and
Annuity Company of America and/or Nationwide Financial Services,
Inc. and/or Nationwide Financial Corporation, and John Does A-
Z."

In its complaint, plaintiff United Investors alleges that the
Company and/or its affiliated life insurance companies caused
the replacement of variable insurance policies and other
financial products issued by United Investors with policies
issued by the Nationwide defendants.  The plaintiff raises
claims for:

     (1) violations of the Federal Lanham Act, and common law
         unfair competition and defamation,

     (2) tortious interference with the plaintiff's contractual
         relationship with Waddell & Reed, Inc. and/or its
         affiliates, Waddell & Reed Financial, Inc., Waddell &
         Reed Financial Services, Inc. and W&R Insurance Agency,
         Inc., or with the plaintiff's contractual relationships
         with its variable policyholders,

     (3) civil conspiracy, and

     (4) breach of fiduciary duty

The complaint seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, pre-
and post-judgment interest, a full accounting, a constructive
trust, and costs and disbursements, including attorneys' fees.
The Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 1,
2004. On February 8, 2005 the court denied the motion to
dismiss.

The suit is styled "United Investors Lif v. Nationwide Life
Insu, et al, case no. 2:04-cv-00012-NBB-SAA," filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Mississippi, under Judge Neal B. Biggers.

The Company is represented by Cal Mayo, Jr. of MAYO MALLETTE,
PLLC, P.O. Box 1456, Oxford, MS 38655, Phone: (662) 236-0055, E-
mail: cmayo@mayomallette.com; and Charles C. Platt and Peter K.
Vigeland, WILMER CUTLER PICKERING, LLP, 399 Park Avenue, New
York, NY 10022, Phone: (212) 230-8860.  Representing the
plaintiffs are:

     (1) William J. Baxley, Joel E. Dillard, BAXLEY DILLARD
         DAUPHIN MCKNIGHT & BARCLIFT, 2008 3rd Avenue South,
         Birmingham, AL 35233, Phone: (205) 271-1100

     (2) Betsy P. Collins, Scott P. Hilsen, Caroline Keller,  
         ALSTON & BYRD, One Atlantic Center, 1201 West Peachtree
         Street, Atlanta, GA 30309-3424, Phone: (404) 881-7000

     (3) Michelle Dean Easterling, EDWARDS, STOREY, MARSHALL &
         HELVESTON, P. O. Box 835, West Point, MS 39773-0835,
         Phone: (601) 494-5184, E-mail: mde@wpms.net  

     (4) Charles M. Ferguson, Jr., James W. Gewin, Matthew H.
         Lembke, Hobart A. McWhorter, Michael R. Pennington,
         BRADLEY, ARANT, ROSE & WHITE, LLP - Birmingham, P.O.
         Box 830709, Birmingham, AL 35283-0709, Phone: (205)
         521-8000

     (5) Floyd D. Gaines, Andrew P. Walsh, GAINES PLLC, 2100
         Morris Avenue, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205) 320-
         2800

     (6) Sam S. Thomas, UNDERWOOD/THOMAS, P.O. Box 24057,
         Jackson, MS 39225-4057, Phone: (601) 355-3668, E-mail:
         sst@underwoodthomas.com  


NATIONWIDE LIFE: Market Timing Lawsuit Transferred To MD Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action filed against Nationwide Life Insurance
Company, styled "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance Company,"
has been transferred to the United States District Court for the
District of Maryland and included in the multi-district
proceeding there entitled "In Re Mutual Funds Investment
Litigation."

The suit was originally filed on April 13, 2004 in Circuit
Court, Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois.  The
plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons in the United
States who, through their ownership of a Nationwide annuity or
insurance product, held units of any Nationwide sub-account
invested in mutual funds which included foreign securities in
their portfolios and which allegedly experienced market timing
trading activity. The complaint contains allegations of
negligence, reckless indifference and breach of fiduciary duty.
The plaintiff seeks to recover compensatory and punitive damages
in an amount not to exceed $75,000 per plaintiff or class
member.

The Company removed this case to the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Illinois on June 1, 2004.  
The plaintiffs moved to remand on June 28, 2004.  On July 12,
2004, the Company filed a memorandum opposing remand and
requesting a stay pending the resolution of an unrelated case
covering similar issues, which is an appeal from a decision of
the same District Court remanding a removed market timing case
to an Illinois state court. On July 30, 2004, the U.S. District
Court granted NLIC's request for a stay pending a decision by
the Seventh Circuit on the unrelated case mentioned above.

The suit is styled "Woodbury v. Nationwide Life Insurance
Company, case no. 1:04-cv-03944-JFM," filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Maryland, under Judge J.
Frederick Motz.

Representing the Company are:

    (1) Shoshana Leah Gillers, Eric John Mogilnicki, Charles
        Collier Platt of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr
        LLP, 399 Park Ave, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 1-212-230-
        8841 Fax: 1-212-230-8888, E-mail:
        shoshana.gillers@wilmerhale.com,
        eric.mogilnicki@wilmerhale.com,
         charles.platt@wilmerhale.com  

     (2) Larry E. Hepler, W. Jason Rankin, Burroughs Hepler, 103
         W Vandalia St Ste 300, PO Box 510 Edwardsville, IL
         62025-0510, Phone: 1-618-656-0184

     (3) Gordon Pearson, Andrew R. Varcoe, Wilmer Cutler, 2445 M
         St NW, Washington, DC 20037 Phone: 1-202-663-6000 Fax:
         1-202-663-6363

Representing the Plaintiffs are:

     (i) Francis Joseph Balint, Jr., Andrew Steven Friedman,
         Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman and Balint PC, 2901 N
         Central Ave Ste 1000, Phoenix, AZ 85012, Phone: 1-602-
         776-5903 Fax: 1-602-274-1199, E-mail: fbalint@bffb.com
         or afriedman@bffb.com  

    (ii) Eugene Yevgeny Barash, George A. Zelcs, Korein Tillery
         701 Market St Ste 300, St. Louis, MO 63108, Phone: 1-
         314-241-4844, Fax: 1-314-241-3525, E-mail:
         ebarash@koreintillery.com, gzelcs@koreintillery.com  

   (iii) Timothy G Blood, William J. Doyle, John J. Stoia, Jr.,
         Milberg Weiss, 401 B St Ste 1700, San Diego, CA 92101-
         3311, Phone: 1-619-231-1058, Fax: 1-619-231-7423


PNC FINANCIAL: Settles Riggs Bank Shareholders' Lawsuit For $4M
---------------------------------------------------------------
To settle a class action lawsuit by shareholders of Riggs Bank,
a Washington institution that ran into legal trouble over
suspicious transactions, PNC Financial Services Group Inc.,
which had agreed last month to acquire Riggs, stripped of the
international ties that got the bank into trouble, for about
$643 million in cash and stock, has agreed to pay nearly $4
million, the Associated Press reports.

According to court documents, the Pittsburgh Company, which took
the lead on the settlement because of its proposal to buy Riggs,
will contribute $2.7 million in cash into a settlement fund that
will be distributed to all public stockholders of Riggs, and
another $1.1 million to attorneys who filed the class-action
lawsuit.

The shareholders' suit against parent Riggs National Corp.,
along with current and former members of the board of directors,
alleged that its stock plummeted because of the actions of those
board members. Also, shareholders alleged that the board had a
role in money laundering in the year before the proposed merger
with PNC, ruining the value of a storied institution.

Commenting on the settlement, James Rohr, PNC chairman and chief
executive told AP, "The settlement is an additional step in our
continued progress toward completing the merger and entering the
appealing Washington D.C. marketplace. We are pleased that this
matter has been resolved."

Even with the settlement, Riggs still faces lawsuits related to
Saudi Arabia and the 2001 terrorist attacks, and a lawsuit
related to racketeering.  PNC announced the settlement after the
market closed Thursday. PNC shares rose 39 cents to close at
$53.43 on the New York Stock Exchange, near the midpoint of
their 52-week trading range of $48.90 and $59.79.


PRICESMART: Reaches $2.3M Suit Settlement For 2003 Restatements
---------------------------------------------------------------
PriceSmart Inc. reached a $2.3 million settlement in a class-
action lawsuit filed it and some of its former officers on
behalf of people who purchased the company's common stock in
2002 and 2003, the San Diego Union Tribune reports.

Officials at PriceSmart said that the money would be paid to the
plaintiffs in exchange for a release of claims and dismissal of
the complaint, which is in connection to PriceSmart's
restatement of financial statements in late 2003.

In reaching the settlement, the company clarified that they
opted to settle to avoid the expense and disruption of
protracted litigation, they also vehemently stressed its
position that the settlement does not constitute an admission of
liability on the part of PriceSmart or its former officers.

PriceSmart, which operates warehouse membership clubs in 12
countries, had previously announced the settlement of a separate
federal court securities lawsuit and a state court shareholders
derivative suit, both of which were similarly related to such a
restatement.

The settlement of the third lawsuit, which is subject to court
approval, actually brings to a conclusion all such litigation,
PriceSmart officials said. Officials also said that the company
has anticipated that its insurance carrier would fund about 80
percent of the settlement payment.


ROCAMOJO: SoyCoffee.com Lodges Deceptive Practices Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rocamojo, a manufacturer of soy-based products, is again in hot
water as a class action lawsuit has been filed in California
state trial court in March.

The company, which is owned by chiropractor Ronald Marinaro, has
been accused of deceptive nutritional content labeling and
advertising. The company is no stranger to controversy. It
recently lost a lawsuit  (William Richert vs. Marinaro et al) to
the tune of $14.75 million for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty
and breach of contract.

SoyCoffee.com is the lead named plaintiff, seeking injunctive
relief, costs and attorneys fees to enjoin Rocamojo's deceptive
nutritional content labeling and advertising. Marina Kushner,
President of the soycoffee.com stated that "the public needs to
be protected from false advertising. And they have created an
unfair advantage for us." Ms. Kushner's company is the maker of
the popular "Soyfee" soy coffee, a coffee substitute that is
caffeine free.

For more details, contact the Schindler Law Firm by Phone:
949-464-9713 or visit their Web site: http://www.artoflaw.com.  


RYLAND GROUP: SEC Lodges Settled Action V. President in C.D. TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a settled
enforcement action in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California charging John D. Hutchinson, of
Coppell, Texas, with insider trading in the stock of The Ryland
Group, Inc., a home building and mortgage finance company
headquartered in Calabasas, California. Mr. Hutchinson, age 53,
is a non-practicing attorney and is the president of Ryland's
Dallas division.

The Commission's complaint alleges that during December 2003,
Mr. Hutchinson became aware that Ryland's new housing orders for
the fourth quarter of 2003 would decrease significantly compared
to the fourth quarter of 2002. The complaint alleges that while
Hutchinson was aware of this non-public information, he
exercised all of his exercisable options in Ryland stock, and
sold the underlying shares before this information was publicly
announced, thereby avoiding a substantial loss of over $100,000.

Mr. Hutchinson consented, without admitting or denying the
allegations in the complaint, to the entry of a judgment
permanently enjoining him from future violations of Section
17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  
Hutchinson also consented to pay disgorgement of the
loss avoided in the amount of $101,778, plus $1,179.84 in
prejudgment interest, and a civil penalty equal to the loss
avoided in the amount of $101,778.  The action is entitled, SEC
v. John D. Hutchinson, Civil Action No. CV 05-1489 SJO (FMOx)
C.D. Cal. (LR-19106).


SOUTHERN POWER: Discovery Ongoing in GA Mirant Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is still ongoing in the class action filed against The
Southern Power Company, certain former and current senior
officers of Southern Company, and 12 underwriters of Mirant
Corporation's initial public offering in the United States for
the Northern District of Georgia.  

Several Mirant shareholders originally filed the suit against
Mirant and certain Mirant officers in May 2002. Several other
similar lawsuits filed subsequently were consolidated into this
litigation.  The amended complaint is based on allegations
related to alleged improper energy trading and marketing
activities involving the California energy market, alleged false
statements and omissions in Mirant's prospectus for its initial
public offering and in subsequent public statements by Mirant,
and accounting-related issues previously disclosed by Mirant.
The lawsuit purports to include persons who acquired Mirant
securities between September 26, 2000 and September 5, 2002.

In July 2003, the court dismissed all claims based on Mirant's
alleged improper energy trading and marketing activities
involving the California energy market.  The remaining claims do
not allege any improper trading and marketing activity,
accounting errors, or material misstatements or omissions on the
part of the Company but seek to impose liability on the Company
based on allegations that the Company was a "control person" as
to Mirant prior to the spin off date.  The Company filed an
answer to the consolidated amended class action complaint in
September 2003.  Plaintiffs also filed a motion for class
certification.

As a result of Mirant's Chapter 11 proceeding, the Bankruptcy
Code automatically stayed all litigation as to Mirant.  In
November 2003, the Bankruptcy Court granted a request to extend
this automatic stay to all other non-debtor defendants,
including the Company and its current and/or former officers
named as defendants in the Mirant securities litigation.  
However, the Bankruptcy Court authorized Mirant to agree with
parties in pending actions to allow discovery or other matters
to proceed without violating the stay.  Mirant and plaintiffs'
counsel in the Mirant securities litigation agreed that document
discovery could proceed.  

Under certain circumstances, Southern Company will be obligated
under its Bylaws to indemnify the four current and/or former
Southern Company officers who served as directors of Mirant at
the time of its initial public offering through the date of the
spin off and who are also named as defendants in this lawsuit.
The final outcome of these matters cannot now be determined, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.

The suit is styled "IN RE Mirant Corporation Securities
Litigation, case no. 1:02-cv-01467-RWS," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,
under Judge Richard W. Story.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Robert Abrams, Gustavo Bruckner, Fred Taylor Isquith,
         Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, 270 Madison
         Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-545-4600, E-
         mail: isquith@whafh.com  

     (2) David Andrew Bain, Martin D. Chitwood, Chitwood &
         Harley, 1230 Peachtree Street, N.E. 2300 Promenade II
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-873-3900, E-mail:
         dab@classlaw.com or mdc@classlaw.com  

Representing the Company are Kirk Quillian, Thomas Edward
Reilly, Jaime L. Theriort, Christi A. Cannon, Troutman Sanders
Bank of America Plaza, 600 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 5200
Atlanta, GA 30308-2216, Phone: 404-885-3000, E-mail:
kirk.quillian@troutmansanders.com,
thomas.reilly@troutmansanders.com,  
jaime.theriot@troutmansanders.com  


TALX CORPORATION: MO Couple Settles SEC Insider Trading Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission obtained a final judgment
against Linda Ensor of St. Louis, Missouri and her husband,
Stephen Ensor, also of St. Louis, in a settlement of charges
that they traded on inside information in the securities of TALX
Corporation, a St. Louis-based technology company. Pursuant to
the final judgment, which was entered pursuant to the consent of
the Ensors whereby they neither admitted nor denied the
allegations of the Commission's complaint, the Ensors are
permanently enjoined from further violating the insider trading
prohibitions of the federal securities laws and required to pay
$17,953 in disgorgement, $1,828 in prejudgment interest and a
civil penalty of $17,953.
     
The Commission filed this matter on Sept. 28, 2004, alleging in
its complaint that the Ensors illegally sold TALX shares in
advance of a negative press release issued by the company after
the close of trading on Nov. 14, 2002. Linda Ensor, a former
executive assistant at TALX Corporation, learned of the contents
of the press release on the morning of Nov. 14, 2002. Later that
day, the Ensors sold TALX stock on the basis of this information
before the press release was issued. The illegal sales generated
total proceeds of $70,298 and enabled the Ensors to avoid the
effects of a subsequent decline in TALX's stock price.
   
The Ensors were enjoined from further violating Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78j(b), and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5. The action is
entitled, SEC v. Linda Ensor, et al., Civil Action No.  4:04-cv-
1320, E.D.M.O., (Honorable Carol E. Jackson)] (LR-19109)


UNITED STATES: New Legal Tactic Used V. Hospital Price-Gouging
--------------------------------------------------------------
Consejo de Latinos Unidos, a non-profit organization that aids
and educates uninsured Hispanics and others, spearheaded the
first "group suit" against a hospital, filing a single lawsuit
with 35 plaintiffs in state court against Florida Hospital, an
Adventist Health System hospital.

The legal maneuvers by Florida Hospital will be closely watched
and reported to the U.S. House Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee.

"The objective is simple: end price-gouging for uninsured
patients," said K.B. Forbes, Executive Director of the Consejo.
"Some hospitals keep spitting out new sugar-coated policies and
procedures but have done nothing to end the real problem:
pricing. We can no longer wait for justice. With today's action,
we will force hospitals, like Florida Hospital, to deal with the
ugly and vicious behavior they engage in day in, day out: price
gouging the uninsured."

Victim's attorney, Matthew W. Dietz, said, "Florida Hospital has
taken advantage of its position and the circumstances in which
these patients are placed to charge them an exorbitant price for
services -- up to three times more than what is fair and
reasonable."

Unlike class-action lawsuits that take years of legal wrangling,
the group suit seeks direct relief for all 35 plaintiffs that
can be obtained within a year. In the forthcoming months, the
consumer advocacy group will be filing other group suits to
force hospitals to provide charity care to those that qualify
and offer reasonable pricing and payment terms to other
uninsured patients.

In June of last year, the U.S. House Oversight and
Investigations Subcommittee held hearings on the issue of
hospital billing practices. "We will be informing them and other
authorities of every legal maneuver Florida Hospital partakes in
to delay eventual justice," said Forbes.

Florida Hospital has drawn severe criticism for allegedly
charging uninsured patients three to four times more than what
they would typically accept as payment in full from an insurance
company. In 2003, Consejo de Latinos Unidos was credited by The
Wall Street Journal with "a big win" after forcing the nation's
second largest hospital chain, Tenet Healthcare, to end its
aggressive billing practices against uninsured patients.
For more details, contact K.B. Forbes, +1-202-320-1212, or
Lourdes Galvan, +1-323-707-3650, both of Consejo de Latinos
Unidos.


UNITED STATES: Suit Over False Registration Statements Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has
issued a decision that limits how public companies may be sued
for shareholder losses arising from allegedly false registration
statements that accompany public stock offerings, according to
the law firm of Haynes and Boone, LLP.

The opinion by Circuit Judge Patrick E. Higginbotham affirms a
lower court's dismissal of claims by shareholders who could not
show that the shares they bought in the stock market could be
traced to an offering that had an allegedly false registration
statement.

The record in the case focused on the modern securities market
in which the origin of an individual share of company stock
cannot be identified once it mixes in the market with shares
from other sources. The Court also held that shareholders who
purchase in the "aftermarket" of mixed securities cannot use
mere statistical probabilities to gain standing to sue on a
public offering.

This ruling substantially limits the potential scope of a
shareholder class complaining of offering registration
statements under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933. It is
the first ruling by a Federal Court of Appeals providing a
detailed examination of the requirement that shares be directly
traced to the challenged offering shares and rejects the use of
statistics to trace these shares.

A claim under Section 11 avoids the actual high burdens of
pleading and proof applicable in other federal securities laws,
and imposes virtually "strict liability" on companies even for
innocent misstatements in offering registration statements.
Recovery may still be available for aftermarket purchasers under
other provisions of the federal securities laws which, unlike
provision, require a demonstration of intent to defraud and
shareholder reliance on a purported misstatement.

"The ruling forecloses a potential significant loophole for
lawsuits that try to use this statute to create a large class
action of those who did not buy shares directly from a public
offering but instead simply bought in the open market,"
according to Noel Hensley of Haynes and Boone, LLP, lead defense
attorney in the case.

In the case (styled Jerry Krim vs. pcOrder.com, Inc.),
plaintiffs were shareholders who had claimed losses from two
registration statements of pcOrder.com for a March 1999 initial
public offering and a secondary offering nine months later.
Because stock from the offerings was mixed in the market with
stock from other sources, there was no reliable way to show that
the plaintiffs bought stock from those offerings, the Court of
Appeals held.

The plaintiffs had acknowledged they could not trace shares but
instead offered statistical probabilities to argue that
purchasers of shares had likely bought at least one share of
stock from each offering. Both the district judge and the Court
of Appeals ruled that statistics were inadequate. Mere
probabilities "cannot be squared with the statutory language --
that is, with what Congress intended," the Court said. "We
decline the invitation to reach further than the statute."

"Had statistics been accepted as sufficient proof that an
individual bought offering shares, every time a share of stock
was flipped in the market, virtually every later purchaser could
have made a Section 11 claim."

For more details, contact Michael Patterson of Haynes and Boone,
LLP by Phone: +1-214-651-5193 or +1-214-762-5558 by E-mail:
michael.patterson@haynesboone.com or visit the following Web
sites: http://www.haynesboone.com/or
http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/03/03-50737-
CV0.wpd.pdf.


UNITED STATES: Vatican Asks State To Intervene in Sex Abuse Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
A U.S. Catholic newspaper has revealed that Vatican Secretary of
State Cardinal Angelo Sodano has asked his U.S. counterpart
Condoleezza Rice to intervene in a sex abuse law suit, during
her visit to the Vatican last month, the CathNews, Australia
reports.

According to the National Catholic Reporter (NCR), Cardinal
Sodano asked Dr. Rice to intervene in a Kentucky lawsuit that is
demanding the Vatican be held financially responsible for the
sexual abuse of minors.  Church sources told the paper that Dr.
Rice was asked by Cardinal Angelo Sodano whether the United
States government could stop a class-action lawsuit currently
before a United States District Court in Louisville that seeks
to hold the Vatican financially responsible for the sexual abuse
of minors.

The same Church sources also told NCR that Dr. Rice explained to
the cardinal that under American law, foreign states are
required to assert claims of sovereign immunity themselves
before US courts.  Asked by NCR for comment, Vatican
spokesperson Joaquin Navarro-Valls responded: "It's obvious and
reasonable that the Holy See would present its positions as a
sovereign entity to the American State Department, and recall
the immunity for its acts that international law anticipates."

The paper reported that most experts say that lawsuits against
the Vatican in American courts, such as the Kentucky case that
prompted Cardinal Sodano's request, are a "long shot". The paper
further reported, "At least two dozen previous attempts have
gone nowhere, not only because the Vatican is a sovereign state,
but also because American courts are generally reluctant to deal
with religious matters on First Amendment grounds."


                 New Securities Fraud Cases


ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Advanced Neuromodulation Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq: ANSI) between
April 24, 2003 and February 16, 2005, inclusive seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

The action, is pending defendants ANSI, Christopher G. Chavez
(CEO, President) and F. Robert Merrill III (CFO). The judge
presiding over the action is the Honorable Paul N. Brown.

The Complaint alleges that defendants' Class Period statements
about the Company's strong performance, made in quarterly press
releases and SEC filings, were materially false and misleading
because:


     (1) as part of its marketing strategy, the Company
         improperly paid certain physicians $1,000 for each
         device implanted in patients;

     (2) the Company's strong growth was driven, in material
         part, by improperly paying off physicians to recommend
         and implant ANSI products in patients;

     (3) the Company's growth was dependent on an improper and
         unethical practices that were inherently unsustainable,
         presenting a material and undisclosed risk to ANSI's
         business and stock price; and

     (4) the Company's much-touted relationship with its
         physician customers was, in fact, based on payments to
         physicians for recommending the Company's products and
         did not, as defendants represented, reflect growing
         acceptance of its products based on their benefits.

According to the complaint, defendants engaged in the alleged
wrongdoing so that they could profit by selling their personally
held ANSI shares at artificially inflated prices. During the
Class Period, ANSI insiders, including defendants Chavez and
Merrill, sold a total of 700,759 shares of ANSI stock for gross
proceeds of $28,617,666.

On February 17, 2004, before the open of trading, defendants
revealed that the Company had received a subpoena from the
Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services,
"requesting documents relating to the Company's sales and
marketing, reimbursement, Medicare and Medicaid billing, and
certain other business practices." In addition, defendants
announced that revenues in the first quarter of 2005 could be
below previous expectations, based on early indications. In
reaction to this announcement, the price of ANSI common stock
plummeted, falling from $37.60 per share on February 16, 2005 to
$29.37 per share on February 17, 2005, a one-day drop of 22% on
unusually heavy trading volume of more than 7.9 million shares

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Pohne: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by
E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.   


BIOGEN IDEC: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Biogen Idec,
Inc., (Nasdaq:BIIB) between February 18, 2004 and February 25,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-534-2590 by Fax: 610-
667-9029 or by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


BIOGEN IDEC: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Biogen Idec
Inc. (Nasdaq:BIIB) between February 18, 2004 and February 25,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts against defendants Biogen, William
Rastetter and James Mullen. The action charges that defendants
violated federal securities laws by issuing a series of
materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


BIOGEN IDEC: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., which has significant
experience representing investors in prosecuting claims of
securities fraud, announces that a lawsuit seeking class action
status has been filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Massachusetts on behalf of all persons who
purchased the publicly traded securities of Biogen Idec Inc.
("Biogen") between February 18, 2004 and February 25, 2005.

The Complaint alleges that Biogen violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts:

     (1) that TYSABRI(R) (natalizumab), a monoclonal antibody
         for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis ("MS"), posed
         serious immune-system side effects;

     (2) that TYSABRI, like other MS drugs, made patients
         susceptible to progressive multifocal
         leukoencephalopathy ("PML") by changing the way certain
         white blood cells function, thereby allowing PML, a
         normally dormant virus, to run rampant within the human
         body;

     (3) that defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded
         documented facts that MS drugs can cause greater
         incidents of PML to occur; and

     (4) that defendants concealed these facts in order to fast
         track TYSABRI for FDA approval so that they could reap
         the financial benefits from the sales of the drug.

On February 28, 2005, before the market opened, Biogen announced
a voluntary suspension in the marketing of TYSABRI because of
two serious adverse events that have occurred in patients
treated with TYSABRI in combination with AVONEX(R) (Interferon
beta-1a) in clinical trials. On this news, shares of Biogen fell
$28.63 per share, or 42.44%, to close at $38.65 per share

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


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Bradley Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Bradley" or the "Company") (NYSE: BDY) between April 29,
2004 and February 28, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Bradley, Daniel Glassman, and R. Brent
Lenczycki ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, the complaint alleges that
Bradley, Daniel Glassman and R. Brent Lenczycki, during the
Class Period, issued a series of false and misleading statements
to the market concerning the Company's financial condition,
thereby inflating the price of Bradley's common stock. Facing
increased generic competition and motivated by an attempt to
meet the financial projections that defendants provided to the
market, defendants allegedly failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company had improperly recognized revenue
         during the Class Period;

     (2) that the Company had improperly capitalized certain
         payments;

     (3) that as a result of the items stated in (1) and (2),
         the Company's financial statements were not prepared in
         accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting
         Principles ("GAAP");

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

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

On February 28, 2005, Bradley announced that the staff of the
SEC was conducting an informal inquiry to determine whether
there have been violations of the federal securities laws. In
connection with the inquiry, the SEC staff requested that the
Company provide it with certain information and documents
relating to the manner in which the Company recognized certain
revenue and capitalized certain payments. In light of the
ongoing SEC staff inquiry and separate counsel's review, the
Company said that it would not be releasing its 2004 earnings at
this time, as originally anticipated. News of this shocked the
market. Shares of Bradley fell $3.50 per share, or 26.42
percent, to close at $9.75 per share on February 28, 2005.

For more details, contact Mark S. Goldman, Esq. of The Law Firm
of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C. by Phone: 1-888-753-2796 or by
E-mail: goldman@gsk-law.com.  


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Files Stock Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bradley
Pharmaceuticals" or the "Company") (NYSE: BDY) common stock
during the period between October 8, 2003 and February 25, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bradley Pharmaceuticals and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Bradley Pharmaceuticals is a specialty
pharmaceutical company that acquires, develops and markets
prescription and over-the-counter products in select markets.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's increasing financial performance and future prospects.
As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others, which
were known to defendants, or recklessly disregarded by them, at
all relevant times:

     (1) that the Company was materially overstating its
         financial results by engaging in improper accounting
         practices;

     (2) that the Company's future sales growth from its Keralac
         franchise would be hindered by generic competition; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable
         basis for the Company's revenue and earnings guidance.

Then, on February 28, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that the staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") is conducting an informal inquiry to
determine whether there have been violations of the federal
securities laws by the Company. In connection with the inquiry,
the SEC staff has requested that the Company provide it with
certain information and documents concerning issues related to
revenue recognition and capitalization of certain payments. In
light of the ongoing SEC staff inquiry and separate counsel's
review, the Company also announced that it be delaying the
release of its 2004 earnings.

Market reaction to this announcement was swift and severe. On
February 28, 2005, shares of Bradley Pharmaceuticals common
stock closed at $9.75 per share, a decline of $3.50 per share,
or almost 30%, from the previous trading day's close.

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


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Bradley Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. (NYSE: BDY) common stock during the period between October
8, 2003 and February 25, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bradley Pharmaceuticals and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Bradley Pharmaceuticals is a specialty
pharmaceutical company that acquires, develops and markets
prescription and over-the-counter products in select markets.

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's increasing financial performance and future prospects.
As alleged in the complaint, these statements were materially
false and misleading because they failed to disclose and/or
misrepresented the following adverse facts, among others, which
were known to defendants, or recklessly disregarded by them, at
all relevant times:

     (1) that the Company was materially overstating its
         financial results by engaging in improper accounting
         practices;

     (2) that the Company's future sales growth from its Keralac
         franchise would be hindered by generic competition; and

     (3) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable
         basis for the Company's revenue and earnings guidance.

Then, on February 28, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that the staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") is conducting an informal inquiry to
determine whether there have been violations of the federal
securities laws by the Company. In connection with the inquiry,
the SEC staff has requested that the Company provide it with
certain information and documents concerning issues related to
revenue recognition and capitalization of certain payments. In
light of the ongoing SEC staff inquiry and separate counsel's
review, the Company also announced that it be delaying the
release of its 2004 earnings.

Market reaction to this announcement was swift and severe. On
February 28, 2005, shares of Bradley Pharmaceuticals common
stock closed at $9.75 per share, a decline of $3.50 per share,
or almost 30%, from the previous trading day's close.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Pohne: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by
E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.    


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Schatz & Nobel Files NJ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated a lawsuit seeking
class action status has been filed in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Bradley
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bradley") between October 8, 2003 and
February 25, 2005 (the "Class Period"), including all purchasers
in Bradley's December 10, 2003 equity offering and its October
10, 2003 debt offering.

The Complaint alleges that Bradley violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Bradley was materially overstating
its financial results by engaging in improper accounting
practices. On February 28, 2005, Bradley announced that the
staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") is
conducting an informal inquiry to determine whether there have
been violations of the federal securities laws. In connection
with the inquiry, the SEC staff requested that Bradley provide
it with certain information and documents concerning issues
related to revenue recognition and capitalization of certain
payments. In light of the ongoing SEC staff inquiry and separate
counsel's review, Bradley announced that it will be delaying the
release of its 2004 earnings. In response to this disclosure,
Bradley stock fell from a close of $13.25 per share on February
25, 2005, to close at $9.75 per share on February 28, 2005, the
next trading day.

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


ELAN CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Lodges Stock Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law offices of Johnson & Perkinson ("J&P") initiated class
action in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Elan Corp., plc
("Elan") (NYSE:ELN) securities during the period between
February 18, 2004 and February 25, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Elan and certain of its officers with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Elan is
engaged in the development and commercialization of TYSABRI, a
vaccine designed to treat patients with multiple sclerosis (MS),
slowing the progression of the disease and reducing incidents of
relapses. Throughout the Class Period, defendants caused Elan to
make a number of positive statements about the status of its
clinical trials and the commercial potential of TYSABRI, causing
Elan's stock to trade at artificially inflated prices. The
Complaint alleges that Elan violated federal securities laws by
issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts:

     (1) that TYSABRI(r) (natalizumab), a monoclonal antibody
         for the treatment of Multiple Sclerosis ("MS"), posed
         serious immune-system side effects;

     (2) that TYSABRI, like other MS drugs, made patients
         susceptible to progressive multifocal
         leukoencephalopathy ("PML") by changing the way certain
         white blood cells function, thereby allowing PML, a
         normally dormant virus, to run rampant within the human
         body;
  
     (3) that defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded
         documented facts that MS drugs can cause greater
         incidents of PML to occur; and

     (4) that defendants concealed these facts in order to fast
         track TYSABRI for FDA approval so that they could reap
         the financial benefits from the sales of the drug.

On February 28, 2005, Elan shocked the market by reporting that
they were withdrawing TYSABRI from the market following reports
of patients contracting PML, with at least one instance
resulting in death. The announcement caused Elan's shares to
plummet, declining over 70% to approximately $8 per share on
February 28, 2005.

For more details, contact Robin Freeman, Esq. of Johnson &
Perkinson by Mail: P.O. Box 2305, South Burlington, Vermont
05403 by Phone: 1-877-266-2133 by E-mail: email@jpclasslaw.com.  


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Milberg Weiss Files Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all purchasers of the common
stock of Gander Mountain ("Gander Mountain") (Nasdaq: GMTN)
pursuant to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), and
on the open market, between April 20, 2004 and January 13, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, Case No. 05-460, is pending before the Honorable
Donovan W. Frank, in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against defendants Gander Mountain, Mark
R. Baker (CEO, President, and director), Dennis M. Lindahl
(CFO), and Company directors Gerald A. Erickson, Donovan A.
Erickson, Neal D. Erickson, Richard A. Erickson, Marjorie J.
Pihl, and Ronald A. Erickson. According to the complaint,
defendants violated sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act,
and sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-
5, by issuing a series of material misrepresentations to the
market during the Class Period.

The complaint alleges that Gander Mountain is a specialty
retailer that caters to outdoor enthusiasts, with a particular
focus on hunting, fishing and camping. The Company was
controlled by the Erickson family, including certain defendants,
through direct and indirect stock ownership in the Company.
According to the complaint, defendants were eager to complete
the offering to protect their investment in the Company, which,
unless the Company went public, would remain illiquid and
essentially worthless. In addition, defendants knew that unless
the offering occurred prior the public disclosure of the
Company's lowered earnings guidance in November 2004 and January
2005, the Company would be prevented from going public
altogether. Defendants also recognized that the Company's
ability to repay a $9.8 million debt owed to a company owned by
the Erickson family was dependent upon the success of the IPO.
Defendants, however, failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts which were known to defendants
or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) the Company's co-branded credit card program was
         faltering;

     (2) the value of the Company's inventory was materially
         overstated; and

     (3) the Company's growth strategy was premised on
         borrowings in excess of allowable amounts under its
         revolver credit facility.

On April 26, 2004, defendants completed the IPO of 6,583,750
shares of Gander Mountain common stock, resulting in net
proceeds of $96.2 million. Then, on November 9, 2004, the
Company announced it had "lowered its outlook for pretax income
for fiscal 2004 to a range of $8 million to $13 million,
compared with the company's prior guidance of $16 million to $21
million." The Company cited weaker-than-anticipated sales and
that its co-branded credit card promotions in 2004 were not as
effective as anticipated.

On November 17, 2004, the Company announced disappointing third
quarter 2004 results, which defendant Baker attributed to
"slower-than-expected growth in sales for the recent quarter."
On January 14, 2005, the Company announced that it had revised
its outlook for pretax income for fiscal 2004 even lower, "to a
range of $2.0 million to $4.0 million, compared with the
company's prior guidance of $8 million to $13 million."

The Company stated that it "increased post-holiday promotional
activity in an effort to reduce inventories to comparable year-
end levels. The results of these promotions will negatively
impact the current quarter's gross margin rate." On this news,
the Company's shares declined to $9.30 per share, more than a
60% drop from its Class Period high of $24.65 on June 7, 2004.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman, Peter E. Seidman
or Andrei V. Rado by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New
York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.milbergweiss.com.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Lodges NC Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities of Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Inspire" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ISPH) between June 2, 2004 and February 8, 2005 inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina against defendants Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Christy L. Shaffer and Thomas R. Staab
II. The Complaint alleges that Defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements regarding the FDA mandated Stage III trial
of its dry eye drug, Diquafosol tetrasodium. Beginning with its
June 2, 2004 announcement of the initiation of its Stage III
trial, Study 109, the Company failed to inform investors that
the primary endpoint mandated by the FDA had changed from
corneal staining to a more stringent corneal clearing. In fact,
Defendant Shaffer, in responding to a Deutsche Bank analyst's
question during the November 4, 2004 conference call, stated
that the primary endpoint was "corneal staining." Investors,
including Piper Jaffray Senior Research Analyst Mark Karvosky,
believed that the drug had a very good chance of success because
it had met the corneal staining endpoint in the previous trial,
Study 105. Had investors known the truth about the primary
endpoint, the value of Inspire stock would not have been
artificially inflated almost 81% to $16.00 per share at the end
of the Class Period. After the pre-market opening disclosure on
February 9, 2005, Inspire lost almost $300 million in market
capitalization, closing at $8.88 on trading volume of 17.4
million shares -- a staggering 65 times its average volume.

For more details, contact Sherrie R. Savett, Esq., Douglas M.
Risen, Esq. or Kimberly Walker, Investor Relations Manager of
Berger & Montague, P.C. by Mail: 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 888-891-2289 or 215-875-3000 by
Fax: 215-875-5715 by E-mail: InvestorProtect@bm.net or visit
their Web site: http://www.bergermontague.com.


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of those who acquired Leadis
Technology, Inc. (NASDAQ: LDIS) common stock pursuant to the
Company's false and misleading Registration Statement and
Prospectus for its initial public offering ("IPO") on June 16,
2004.

The complaint charges Leadis and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933. Leadis
designs, develops and markets mixed-signal semiconductors that
enable and enhance the features and capabilities of small panel
displays. The Company's core products are color display drivers
with integrated controllers, which are critical components of
displays used in mobile consumer electronics devices.

The complaint alleges that on June 16, 2004, Leadis accomplished
its IPO of 6 million shares for net proceeds of $76.6 million,
pursuant to a Registration Statement and Prospectus. The
Registration Statement and Prospectus failed to disclose that
Leadis was engaging in overshipments of its OLED product.

Then, on October 22, 2004, Leadis announced that its fourth
quarter results would be much lower than analysts' expectations.
Leadis admitted that a drop in sales from OLED was going to hurt
profit in the quarter as handset makers bought less expensive
equipment. The shares fell $8.15 to $8.79 on October 22, 2004.
Later, on January 10, 2005, Leadis announced it was not
comfortable with the First Call estimates of its revenues for
the first quarter of 2005. On this news, Leadis stock dropped
further to below $8 per share.

For more details, contact the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Pohne: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by
E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.    


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Leadis
Technology, Inc. ("Leadis") pursuant to the Registration
Statement and Prospectus for its initial public offering ("IPO")
on June 16, 2004.

The Complaint alleges that Leadis violated federal securities
laws by including false or misleading information in its
offering documents. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that
those documents failed to disclose that Leadis was engaging in
oversizing shipments of its OLED product. On October 22, 2004,
Leadis announced that its fourth quarter results would be much
lower than analysts' expectations because a drop in sales from
OLED was going to hurt profit in the quarter as handset makers
bought less expensive equipment. On that news, Leadis stock fell
from a close of $16.94 per share on October 21, 2004, to close
at $8.79 per share on October 22, 2004.

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


MAMMA.COM INC.: Zwerling Schachter Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Zwerling, Schachter & Zwerling, LLP ("Zwerling
Schachter") initiated a class action lawsuit in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased the common
stock of Mamma.com Inc. ("Mamma.com" or the "Company") during
the period from March 2, 2004 through February 16, 2005 (the
"Class Period"). The deadline to file a motion seeking to be
appointed lead plaintiff is April 25, 2005.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Specifically, it alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them that:

     (1) Irving Kott ("Kott"), a stock promoter with a history
         of stock manipulation, had a significant undisclosed
         interest in the Company;

     (2) Kott and his associates were manipulating Mamma.com's
         stock price by engaging in a classic "pump and dump"
         scheme to defraud; and

     (3) Mamma.com was manipulating its financial results in
         order to maintain its artificially inflated share price
         so that the "pump and dump" scheme would flourish.

On February 16, 2005, Mamma.com announced that "it has been
unable to reach an agreement on the terms of the audit
engagement with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PWC") for the year
ended December 31, 2004. Accordingly, PWC will not act as the
Company's independent auditor for the audit of the Company's
financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2004 ... As
a result of these developments, it is unlikely that the Company
will file its audited financial statements for the year ended
December 31, 2004 and related disclosures within the time frame
prescribed by Canadian securities rules." Mamma.com stock fell
below $4 per share on this adverse news.

For more details, contact Shaye J. Fuchs, Esq. or Jayne Nykolyn
by Phone: 1-800-721-3900 by E-mail: sfuchs@zsz.com or
jnykolyn@zsz.com or visit their Web site: http://www.zsz.com/.


MOLEX INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Molex
Incorporated (Nasdaq:MOLXE) between July 27, 2004 and February
14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against defendants Molex, J.
Joseph King and Diane S. Bullock. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza, Suite
602 Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-534-2590 by Fax: 610-
667-9029 or by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


MOLEX INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Molex
Incorporated (Nasdaq:MOLXE) between July 27, 2004 and February
14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois against defendants Molex, J.
Joseph King and Diane S. Bullock. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

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


MOLEX INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Molex
Incorporated ("Molex") between July 27, 2004 and February 14,
2005.

The Complaint alleges that Molex violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Molex hid $5.8 million in inventory
expenses, it improperly accounted for accrual in vacation pay
and it engaged in other accounting chicanery so that its
reported financial results were in violation of Generally
Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). On November 11, 2004,
Molex announced that it was delaying the filing of its Form 10-Q
and that Diane S. Bullock had been replaced as its Chief
Financial Officer. On November 15, 2004, Molex announced that
Deloitte & Touche LLP had resigned as its independent auditor.
On February 14, 2005, Molex released its quarterly financial and
operational results and more fully disclosed the extent of its
accounting issues and corresponding investigations by the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"). On this news, Molex
stock fell from a close of $28.79 per share on February 14,
2004, to close at $25.45 per share on February 15, 2005.

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


ORANGE 21: Smith & Smith Initiates Securities Investigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Smith & Smith LLP is investigating a potential securities class
action on behalf of shareholders who acquired securities of
Orange 21, Inc. ("Orange 21" or the "Company")(Nasdaq:ORNG) in
connection with or subsequent to the Company's December 2004
Initial Public Offering.

Orange 21, Inc. (formerly Spy Optic, Inc.) designs, develops and
markets premium products for the action sports and youth
lifestyle markets. The Company's principal products are
sunglasses and goggles marketed under the Spy Optic brand. On
February 17, 2005, the Company issued disappointing earnings
guidance for 2005, causing Orange 21 shares to plummet the next
day from $9.50 per share, to close on February 18, 2005, at
$6.60 per share - a drop of more than 30% from the previous
day's close.

For more details, contact Howard G. Smith, Esq. of Smith & Smith
LLP by Mail: 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, PA 19020 by
Phone: (866) 759-2275 or by E-mail: HowardSmithLaw@hotmail.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  * * *