---

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

             Tuesday, March 8, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 47


                          Headlines

ALABAMA: Mobile County Teachers Lodge Suit Over Pay, Work Load
BANK OF AMERICA: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
BANK OF AMERICA: TX Court Okays Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
C&L DINERS: Two Denny's Waitresses Launch Fair Wages Suit in CT
CALIFORNIA: Health Systems Launch Suit Over Medi-Cal Payments

CANADA: Big Three Strikes Back, Seeks Money From Failed Lawsuit
CANADA: Johnston Johnson Files Meal Allowance Suit in B.C. Court
CENDANT CORPORATION: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification
CENDANT CORPORATION: Oral Arguments on Suit Appeal Set Apr. 2005
COMPLETE MAKEOVER: MI Attorney General Commences Consumer Suit

DOREAN GROUP: NC Attorney General Cooper Orders Halt To "Fraud"
DOWNEY SAVINGS: Enters Mediation For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
EASYHOME LTD.: Reaches $7.38M Settlement For Interest Fees Suit
FIRST DATA: CA Court To Hear Motions To Dismiss Securities Suit
GANNETT CO.: TV Employees Commence ERISA Violations Suit in CO

HALLIBURTON CO.: Parties Fail To Reach Settlement For TX Lawsuit
KENTUCKY: Diocese of Covington, Plaintiffs Near Suit Settlement
LAFARGE CANADA: Continues To Face Canadian Homeowners' Lawsuit
LAFARGE NORTH: Appeals Court Nixes Appeal of Suit Certification
MASSACHUSETTS: Resident Sues Over Deceit in Diet Cola Drinks

NORTHWEST AIRLINES: MI Yet To Set Trial Date in Antitrust Suits
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeals Court Refuses To Review Dismissal
NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Nixes Review of NC Lawsuit Summary Judgment
QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Certifies Securities Fraud Suit
STANDARD FRUIT: Hondurans Lodge Suit For Use Of Banned Pesticide

UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trial in FL Managed Care Suit Set April 2005
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: NY Court Yet To Rule on Motion To Amend Suit
US AIRWAYS: Travel Agents Drop Appeal of Bankruptcy Court Ruling
US AIRWAYS: Continues To Face Passenger Antitrust Lawsuits in MI
WACHOVIA CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Suit

                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN BUSINESS: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges PA Securities Suit
AUDIBLE INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbey Gardy Files Securities Suit in NJ
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Barrack Rodos Lodges NJ Securities Suit
CARDIAC SCIENCE: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in DE

CHOICEPOINT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
ELAN CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Files Stock Suit in MA
ESPEED INC.: Law Firm Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Suit in MN
GANDER MOUNTAIN: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN

LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Suit in CA
SILICONIX INC.: Brualdi Law Firm Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in DE
SILICONIX INC.: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE


                          *********


ALABAMA: Mobile County Teachers Lodge Suit Over Pay, Work Load
--------------------------------------------------------------
Teachers at Alabama's largest school system launched a class-
action lawsuit in Mobile County circuit court against the Mobile
County superintendent and school board, claiming they are
overworked and underpaid, the Associated Press reports.

According to the suit, the teachers have too much paperwork,
must administer too many standardized tests and are overdue for
a pay raise. The suit follows another case that is also asking
for a raise, which was filed in November by bus drivers,
cafeteria workers, custodians and other school employees and is
currently pending.

Wade Perry, a director of the local Alabama Education
Association (AEA) chapter, said the paperwork required from
teachers, who make an average $35,000 a year, is "never-ending'
and the school board hasn't properly handled teachers'
complaints outlined in a grievance petition.

AEA had asked for a system wide 3 percent raise in August as the
school board worked on its 2005 budget. But, at that time,
Superintendent Harold Dodge said the system did not have the $8
million necessary for that raise, partly because of rising
health insurance costs. Giving such a raise would deplete the
nearly $10 million that the system has in a reserve account to
cover emergencies, such as budget cuts through proration, the
superintendent said.


BANK OF AMERICA: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bank of America, N.A. asked the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, Adelphia
Communications Corporation (Adelphia), and Banc of America
Securities LLC (BAS).

The first of these actions was filed in June 2002; these actions
have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes.  BAS was a member
of seven underwriting syndicates of securities issued by
Adelphia, and Bank of America, N.A. was an agent and/or lender
in connection with five credit facilities in which Adelphia
subsidiaries were borrowers.  Fleet National Bank and Fleet
Securities, Inc. (FSI) are also named as defendants in certain
of the actions.  FSI was a member of three underwriting
syndicates of securities issued by Adelphia, and Fleet National
Bank was a lender in connection with four credit facilities in
which Adelphia subsidiaries were borrowers.  The complaints
allege claims under the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and various state law theories.  The
complaints seek damages of unspecified amounts.

Bank of America, N.A., BAS, Fleet National Bank and FSI have
moved to dismiss all claims asserted against them, with the
exception of certain claims brought under Sections 11 and 12 of
the Securities Act of 1933. That motion is pending.   


BANK OF AMERICA: TX Court Okays Securities Fraud Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement of
the consolidated securities class action filed against Bank of
America Corporation and a number of other parties, styled "Newby
v. Enron."

The amended complaint alleges claims against the Company and
Bank of America Securities, LLC (BAS) under Sections 11, 12 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 related to the role of BAS as
an underwriter of two public offerings of Enron debt and as an
initial purchaser in a private placement of debt issued by an
Enron-affiliated company.  

On July 2, 2004, the Company reached an agreement to settle this
litigation.  Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject
to court approval, the Company will make a payment of
approximately $69 million to the settlement class in Newby v.
Enron.  The class consists of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired securities issued by Enron during the period
from October 19, 1998 to November 27, 2001.  On January 18,
2005, the lead plaintiff filed a motion seeking preliminary
approval of the settlement, and on February 4, 2005, the court
granted preliminary approval of the settlement and set a hearing
date of April 11, 2005 for final approval.   

In addition, the Company and certain of its affiliates have been
named as defendants or third-party defendants in various
individual and putative class actions relating to Enron. These
actions were either filed in or have been transferred to the
U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Texas and
consolidated or coordinated with Newby v. Enron.  The complaints
assert claims under federal securities laws, state securities
laws and/or state common law or statutes, or for contribution.
In nine cases, plaintiffs seek damages or contribution for
damages ranging from at least $15,000 to $472 million from all
defendants, including financial institutions, accounting firms,
law firms and numerous individuals.  In the remaining cases, the
plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.   

The suit is styled "Newby et al v. Enron Corporation, et al,
case no. 4:01-cv-03624," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas, under Judge Melinda
Harmon.

Representing plaintiff Mark Newby are Roger B. Greenberg of
Schwartz Junell et al, 909 Fannin Ste 2000, Houston, TX 77010,
Phone: 713-752-0017, Fax: 713-752-0327, E-mail:
rgreenberg@schwartz-junell.com and Richard J Zook, Cunningham
Darlow et al, 600 Travis, Ste 1700, Houston, TX 77002, Phone:
713-255-5500, Fax: 713-255-5555.  Law firms for the Company are:

     (1) Cadwalader Wickersham et al, One World Financial Ctr
         New York, NY 10281, Phone: 212-504-6701, Fax: 212-504-
         6666

     (2) Akin Gump et al, 300 W 6th St Ste 2100, Austin, TX
         78746, Phone: 512-499-6200, Fax: 512-499-6290, E-mail:
         pbessette@akingump.com

     (3) Huckaby Scott et al, 2001 Park Pl N, Ste 850,
         Birmingham, AL 35203

     (4) King & Pennington LLP, 1100 Louisiana St, Ste 5055
         Houston, TX 77002, Phone: 713-225-8404, Fax: 713-225-
         8488

     (5) Craig A Varga, Attorney at Law, 224 S Michigan Ave,
         Santa Fe Bldg Ste 350, Chicago, IL 60604-2507


C&L DINERS: Two Denny's Waitresses Launch Fair Wages Suit in CT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Two veteran waitresses have brought a class-action lawsuit
against the owner of a local Denny's franchise for allegedly
failing to pay them and at least 100 other service workers fair
wages, the Bristol Press reports.

The waitresses of Denny's, 621 Queen St., filed the lawsuit in
New Britain Superior Court against the owner of the franchise,
C&L Diners LLC, which is headquartered in Canoga Park,
California under the name of C&L Restaurant Group, claiming it
wrongfully paid them reduced wages.

Daniel Blinn, attorney for Consumer Law Group, one of three
firms representing the plaintiffs, told the Bristol Press that
for years, Susan Bates, 47, of Terryville and Janice Thornton,
60, of New Britain were asked to do tasks such as brewing
coffee, wrapping silverware, and stocking shelves in parts of
the restaurant that were out of the range of the customers whom
they could expect to provide tips. These duties, Mr. Blinn says,
is not only counted as underpaid labor, but also detracted from
the time and attention the waitresses could give customers,
reducing the quantity of tips they earned.

The women, who have worked at the Southington Denny's since the
1980s and are still employed there, filed their lawsuits on
behalf of the at least 100 other past and present waiters and
waitresses of the four Denny's restaurants in Connecticut owned
by C&L who they believe have also been shortchanged by this
practice.

Court documents revealed that the lawsuit is seeking attorney's
fees along with an award amounting to double the hours of
minimum wage the waitresses claim they and the other Denny's
employees were entitled to over the past two years, minus the
wages they were actually paid.

The state's tip credit is set at 29.3 percent less than minimum
wage, or $5.02 an hour. Employers who pay tip-credit wages are
responsible for separating their employee's service and non-
service hours on time cards. Non-service hours are those paid at
the rate of minimum wage. But, Denny's did not distinguish
between service and non-service work for Bates and Thornton and
paid both women only tip-credit wages, Mr. Blinn said.


CALIFORNIA: Health Systems Launch Suit Over Medi-Cal Payments
-------------------------------------------------------------
More than 30 health systems across California filed a federal
lawsuit against the state, accusing it of illegally changing
reimbursement for Medi-Cal, the San Diego Union-Tribune reports.

The state's budget for fiscal year 2004-05 includes a
retroactive funding freeze that would keep reimbursement to
certain hospitals at 2003 levels, a move that according to the
law firm of Hooper, Lundy & Bookman Inc., would be a serious
financial burden for some hospitals.  The firm alleged that the
state did not follow the proper process to make the proposed
rate changes.  The law firm also told the Union-Tribune that it
plans to file an amended complaint soon adding about 40 more
hospitals to the list of plaintiffs.


CANADA: Big Three Strikes Back, Seeks Money From Failed Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Canada's Big Three tobacco multinationals struck back in court
recently by arguing that it is owed more that $1 million in
legal costs from lawyers, who tried and failed to represent
Ontario smokers in a class-action lawsuit, The Globe and Mail
reports.

In an Ontario Superior Court hearing in Toronto, Justice Warren
Winkler heard the companies describing how they were wronged in
a complaint brought forward by common citizens.  Four sick
Ontario smokers who sought damages for illness they alleged
resulted from smoking spearheaded the original suit, which began
a decade ago. It was structured in such a way that it would
allow millions of other smokers to join, however Judge Winkler
declined to certify it last year, finding the case too broad and
unworkable.

According to legal observers, the tables have turned and the
plaintiff lawyers, Toronto's Sommers & Roth law firm, are on the
defensive.  The tobacco companies allege that plaintiff lawyers
who were the real powers behind the suit needlessly drove up
their defense costs and so, they argued that the lawyers who
brought the suit must bear the brunt of the tobacco firms'
excessive defense costs.

Tobacco-company lawyer Deborah Glendinning, whose client is
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., told the Globe and Mail, "They made
decisions to bring incessant motions and conduct relentless
cross-examinations."

Attorneys representing Imperial, as well as Rothmans Benson &
Hedges Inc. and JTI-Macdonald Corporation, said the companies
shouldn't be financially penalized for defending themselves
against an "amorphous" and "gargantuan" action that amounted to
only "a lot of wasted time and money," the Globe and Mail
reports.

However, Sommers & Roth and affiliated non-smoking advocates are
countering that "Big Tobacco" is seeking to send a "big chill"
to class-action players by instilling the fear of poverty into
lawyers who may get notions about launching similar suits, some
of which are already under way in Canada.  Kirk Baert,
representing Sommers & Roth told the Globe and Mail, "The amount
of costs would ensure that no one would pursue tobacco companies
again in this province. The message is if you bring proceedings
against these defendants, as lawyers, they will seek costs
against you personally."

Plaintiff's lawyers argued that real smokers with real health
problems, as well as the public interest motivated the suit.
Sommers & Roth further said that tobacco companies have long
tended to disregard downtrodden smokers, and that cigarette
manufacturers' "scorched earth" legal maneuverings prolonged the
case.  Justice Winkler, who took a dim view of how the
plaintiffs' original case was put together, will decide who
foots what legal bills.


CANADA: Johnston Johnson Files Meal Allowance Suit in B.C. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The British Columbia law firm Johnston, Johnson & Co. initiated
a class-action suit on behalf of 11 truck drivers seeking to
overturn the unfair meal allowance portion of the federal tax
policy, Today's Trucking News reports.

Attorneys for the firm are asking the Supreme Court of British
Columbia to strike down a section of the Income Tax Act dealing
with the deduction of the truck drivers' meals while they are on
the road.  In a statement that appears on the firm's website,
Tom Johnston, lead counsel on the case said, "Essentially, we
looked at whether truckers, bus drivers, and other workers that
travel for a living could unite in one cause to get parity with
government workers. Government employees receive a meal
allowance of $73.10 (an amount that fluctuates on a quarterly
basis according to the Consumer Price Index) per day plus U.S.
exchange (if they were traveling in the US), without receipts."

In the Statement of Claim, it is asserted by the truckers that
CCRA (formerly Revenue Canada) "through (its) administrative
policies, have ruled that some of the Plaintiffs and some of the
Class are not entitled to a meal allowance greater than $16.50
before 2003, and, $22.50 after 2003, while other taxpayers
received more money for meals, including allowing some, the fair
meal allowance rate."  Additionally, the truckers claim that the
decision to allow some individuals to claim a greater amount
than others is unfair and discriminatory, and without adequate
reason.

Mr. Johnston told Today's Trucking that he hopes for truckers to
gain parity with federal civil servants covered by the Treasury
Board Secretariat Travel Directive. He also said, "We're also
seeking to strike down the 50 percent aspect of the rule. That
applies to business meals, and in the case of our clients,
that's clearly not the case."  

He added, "In the civil servants' case, he or she is consuming
meals for sustenance, as are truck drivers. Allowing one group a
more generous allowance than others isn't fair. It's clearly a
discriminatory practice, and the Canadian Charter of Rights
makes no room for distinction between one class of citizens and
another."

The firm stated that drivers wishing to join the class action
may still do so by contacting them at their B.C. offices, or by
visiting the website and that if the lawsuit is successful, only
those registered and paid-up of the class action may be able to
claim retroactive meal allowances.  There is a $200 fee to join
the class action with those already in the class action required
to pay an additional $100.00 to remain in the lawsuit, the firm
said.  For more information contact the firm by Phone:
800-494-0442 or visit their Web site:
http://www.summerlandlawoffice.com.


CENDANT CORPORATION: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New Jersey has yet to rule
on the motion for class certification for the amended complaint
filed against Cendant Corporation, four former CUC
International, Inc. (CUC) officers and directors and Ernst &
Young.

Two suits were initially filed, styled "Semerenko v. Cendant
Corp., et al., Civ. Action No. 98-5384," and "Schoenfield Asset
Management LLC v. Cendant Corp., et al., Civ. Action No. 98-
4734."  The suits were on behalf of a putative class of persons
who purchased securities of American Bankers Insurance Group,
Inc. (ABI) between January 27, 1998 and October 13, 1998.

The complaints in the ABI actions, as amended on February 8,
1999, assert violations of Sections 10(b), 14(e) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shares of ABI common stock at prices artificially inflated by
the accounting irregularities after the Company announced a cash
tender offer for 51% of ABI's outstanding shares of common stock
in January 1998.  Plaintiffs also allege that after the
disclosure of the accounting irregularities, the Company
misstated its intention to complete the tender offer and a
second step merger pursuant to which the remaining shares of ABI
stock were to be acquired by the Company.  Plaintiffs seek,
among other things, unspecified compensatory damages.

On April 30, 1999, the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey dismissed the complaints on motions of
the defendants.  In an opinion dated August 10, 2000, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit vacated the
District Court's judgment and remanded the ABI Actions for
further proceedings.  On December 15, 2000, the Company filed a
motion to dismiss those claims based on ABI purchases after
April 15, 1998, and the District Court granted this motion on
May 7, 2001.  The plaintiffs subsequently moved for leave to
file a Second Amended Complaint to re-allege claims based on ABI
purchases between April 16, 1998 and October 13, 1998.  That
motion was denied on August 15, 2002.  On January 27, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.


CENDANT CORPORATION: Oral Arguments on Suit Appeal Set Apr. 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oral arguments on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of Cendant
Corporation and Richard A. Smith, one of the Company's officers
from the class action, styled "In Re Homestore.com Securities
Litigation, No. 10-CV-11115 (MJP)," is set for April 5,2005 in
the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

On November 15, 2002, the Company and Mr. Smith were added as
defendants in a purported class action, which named 26 other
defendants, including Homestore.com, Inc., certain of its
officers and directors and its auditors.  Such action was filed
on behalf of persons who purchased stock of Homestore.com (an
Internet-based provider of residential real estate listings)
between January 1, 2000 and December 21, 2001.  The complaint in
this action alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act based on purported misconduct in connection
with the accounting of certain revenues in financial statements
published by Homestore during the class period.

On March 7, 2003, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss lead plaintiff's claim for failure to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted and dismissed the complaint, as
against the Company and Mr. Smith, with prejudice.  On March 8,
2004, the court entered final judgment, thus allowing for an
appeal to be made regarding its decision dismissing the
complaint against Cendant, Mr. Smith and others.  In April 2004,
plaintiffs filed notice of such appeal and filed their opening
brief on July 26, 2004.  Cendant and Mr. Smith's answering
appeal brief was filed on December 10, 2004.


COMPLETE MAKEOVER: MI Attorney General Commences Consumer Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox's office has filed suit to
permanently dissolve Complete Makeover Center and to enjoin the
Troy-based plastic surgery center's owners, William Thomas
Abraham and Linda Abraham, from ever organizing any other
company for a similar purpose.

"Complete Makeover Center with the Abrahams at the helm was not
lawfully organized to engage in the practice of medicine," Mr.
Cox said.  "Our ongoing investigation has revealed that even
though the center has closed its doors for now, this suit is
necessary to protect the public and stop the Abrahams from ever
offering medical services."

Filed March 3 in Macomb County Circuit Court, the Quo Warranto
complaint asks the court to dissolve both Complete Makeover
Center LLC and Complete Makeover Management LLC, the names under
which the business operated since March 2004.  The complaint
also seeks a permanent injunction against the Abrahams from ever
incorporating or organizing any other company or corporation for
the purpose of conducting a cosmetic surgery business.

"The way this business operated, as a limited liability, placed
the interests of making a profit before the interests of
patients," Mr. Cox said.  "In order to provide for proper
oversight, all companies operating in the State of Michigan must
follow the law from the moment they are formed to the moment
they close their doors."

Mr. Cox filed the civil lawsuit on the same day William Abraham
returned to court for his preliminary examination on nine
criminal felony charges.  Attorney General investigators
arrested Mr. Abraham February 17, 2005.  He faces seven charges
in Macomb County, including three counts of Forgery and three
counts of Uttering & Publishing, both of which are 14-year
felonies, as well as one count of False Pretenses, a five-year
felony. He also faces two charges in Oakland County, one count
of Uttering & Publishing, a 14-year felony, and one count of
Check - No Account, a two-year felony.

Due to timing conflicts between the two jurisdictions, Mr.
Abraham's examinations in both counties were adjourned and
rescheduled. He will next appear in 41-A District Court in
Shelby Township on March 21 at 2:00 p.m.

The Attorney General's investigation into the defunct plastic
surgery center is ongoing.  For more details, contact the
Attorney General's office by Phone: 1-877-765-8388, or visit the
Website: http://www.michigan.gov/ag.


DOREAN GROUP: NC Attorney General Cooper Orders Halt To "Fraud"
---------------------------------------------------------------
A deceptive scheme that promised to get rid of North Carolina
homeowners' mortgages has been ordered to stop operating in the
state, Attorney General Roy Cooper announced in a statement.  

"These scammers claim they can erase your mortgage through a
convoluted system of filing paperwork," said Attorney General
Cooper.  "Their scheme leaves homeowners out thousands of
dollars and possibly without a home."

Wake County Superior Court Judge Abraham Penn Jones has agreed
with the request to stop D. Scott Heineman and Kurt F. Johnson,
both of California, and their company, The Dorean Group, from
advertising or operating their mortgage elimination scheme in
North Carolina.  The judge's order prevents Dorean from doing
business in the state while the Attorney General's suit against
the company goes forward.  Attorney General Cooper is also
asking the court to permanently bar the company from North
Carolina, cancel its contracts, pay refunds to homeowners in the
state, and void all documents it filed in the state's public
records.  

As alleged in the complaint filed yesterday, Dorean advertises
via the Internet on websites such as www.byebyemortgage.net that
it has found "a PROVEN legal and moral way of eliminating your
mortgage while adding $32K to your pocket."   Dorean has taken
money from at least 25 North Carolina homeowners to perform
"mortgage elimination" services based on the faulty premise that
the United States banking system is fraudulent and illegitimate
and that borrowers are not legally responsible for repaying
their mortgage loans.  

According to the Attorney General's complaint, Dorean charges
homeowners $3,000 for its services.  Once it has the money in
hand, the company begins the process by filing false documents
with the Register of Deeds in the county where the homeowner's
property is located.  These baseless documents are supposed to
create the appearance that the homeowner's loan is cancelled and
that there are no outstanding liens on the property.  Dorean
next instructs the homeowner to refinance the property, with
seventy-five percent of the proceeds going to Dorean.  In the
final step of the scam, defendants promise that they will wipe
out this refinanced mortgage by filing another series of
baseless documents with the Register of Deeds.  

As alleged in the complaint, the entire process from initial
payment to the elimination of the refinanced mortgage is
supposed to take five to seven months.  Consumers who go through
the process can risk losing their homes to foreclosure and end
up with far greater debt on their homes.  The process also
defrauds lenders.

The complaint also names a Guilford County man, Joyce Earle
Delancy Lambeth, who participated in the scheme with the other
defendants and touts the mortgage elimination program on his
website, www.savetoday.cc.  

"For the real estate market to work for consumers and lenders,
everyone has to have faith in the documents filed in our county
courthouses," said Attorney General Cooper.  "These scammers are
damaging that trust and that's unacceptable."

For more details, contact Noelle Talley, Public Information
Officer, N.C. Department of Justice, Phone: (919) 716-6484 or
(919) 716-6413, Fax: (919) 716-0803, E-mail: ntalley@ncdoj.com.


DOWNEY SAVINGS: Enters Mediation For CA Overtime Wage Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Parties agreed to enter mediation for the class action filed
against Downey Savings and Loan Association, by two former in-
store banking employees in the Los Angeles Superior Court in
California.  The suit is styled entitled "Michelle Cox and Mary
Ann Tierra et al. v. Downey Savings and Loan Association Case
No. BC318964."  

The complaint seeks unspecified damages for alleged unpaid
overtime wages, inadequate meal and rest breaks, and other
unlawful business practices and related claims.  The plaintiffs
also seek class action status to represent all other current and
former California employees who held the position of branch
manager or assistant manager at in-store branches who were
treated as exempt and not paid overtime between July23, 2000 and
November 2002 and allegedly received inadequate meal/rest
periods since October 1, 2000.  

With the Court's approval, the parties have reached an informal
agreement to participate in a mediation in March 2005 and to
stay the lawsuit, including discovery, until completion of the
mediation.  


EASYHOME LTD.: Reaches $7.38M Settlement For Interest Fees Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Easyhome Ltd., the operator of about 130 appliance and furniture
rental stores reached a tentative settlement in a class-action
lawsuit launched by 70,000 customers over claims of excessive
interest fees, the Canadian Press reports.

The settlement calls for Easyhome to pay plaintiffs $7.38
million in coupons, which may be used toward buying merchandise
or applied against any existing or new rental agreement. Also,
the company would be required to restructure its rental
practices, while covering plaintiffs' legal fees in an amount
yet to be set by the court.

CEO David Ingram told the Canadian Press that Easyhome remains
convinced its agreements do not include any interest charges
whatsoever, but hastily added: "Nonetheless, it made good
business sense to avoid the expense, time and distraction that
this lawsuit created."

Filed in April 2004, the suit had originally sought $200 million
in damages. The plaintiffs, all customers outside Quebec,
alleged that Easyhome used rental agreements to collect fees and
expenses at an effective annual interest rate in excess of 60
per cent on home furnishings and other items. The fees, which
were charged at either the contracts' expiration or pursuant to
an early payout option, were alleged to have constituted an
amount in excess of the maximum interest rate prescribed by the
Criminal Code of Canada.

Easyhome, formerly RTO Enterprises Inc., describes itself as
Canada's largest rental-purchase company and the fourth-largest
in North America. It rents furniture, appliances and home
electronics at stores that were called First Choice Rent to Own
and Rentown before a rebranding early last year.


FIRST DATA: CA Court To Hear Motions To Dismiss Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California is scheduled to hear the motion to dismiss a class
action filed against First Data Corporation, styled "Brennan v.
Concord, et al," on March 24,2005.

On July 2, 2004, Pamela Brennan, Terry Crayton, and Darla
Martinez filed a class action complaint on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the
Company and:

     (1) its subsidiary Concord EFS, Inc.;

     (2) Bank of America Corporation;

     (3) Bank One Corporation; Bank One, N.A.;

     (4) JPMorgan Chase & Co.;

     (5) Citibank (West), FSB;

     (6) SunTrust Banks, Inc.;

     (7) Wachovia Corporation;

     (8) Wells Fargo & Co.;

     (9) Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; and

    (10) Servus Financial Corporation

Plaintiffs claim that the defendants have violated antitrust
laws by conspiring to artificially inflate foreign ATM fees that
were ultimately charged to ATM cardholders.  Plaintiffs seek a
declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as the nature of
the case may require or as may seem just and proper to the
court.

Other parties have filed and served suits, alleging claims and
requesting relief substantially similar to those claims in the
"Brennan" action, against the Company and the same defendants in
the Brennan action, namely:


     (i) Melissa Griffin and Dorothy Stam, on behalf of
         themselves and all others similarly situated, July 9,
         2004, Central District of California (Los Angeles)

    (ii) Cecilia Salvador and Brian Palmer on behalf of
         themselves and all others similarly situated, August
         12, 2004, Central District of California (Los Angeles)

   (iii) Peter Sanchez, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated, August 17, 2004, Southern District
         of New York

    (iv) Deborah Fennern, on behalf of herself and all others
         similarly situated, August 17,2004, Southern District
         of New York

     (v) Steve Murray, on behalf of himself and all others
         similarly situated, October 14, 2004, Western District
         of Washington (Seattle)

The Plaintiffs sought to have all of the cases consolidated by
the Multi District Litigation panel.  That request was denied by
the panel December 16, 2004 and all cases have been transferred
to the Northern District of California.  With the exception of
the Murray case, which has not yet been assigned, all actions
have been assigned to a single judge.  That judge has stayed the
litigation pending resolution of the defendants' motions seeking
dismissal of the Brennan complaint.


GANNETT CO.: TV Employees Commence ERISA Violations Suit in CO
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gannett Co., Inc. and the Gannett Retirement Plan faces a class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, filed by two employees of the company's
television station KUSA in Denver.

The plaintiffs filed the suit on behalf of themselves and other
similarly situated individuals who participated in the Plan
after January 1, 1998, the date that certain amendments to the
Plan took effect.  The plaintiffs allege, among other things,
that the current pension plan formula adopted in that amendment
violated the age discrimination accrual provisions of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). The plaintiffs
seek to have their post-1997 benefits recalculated and seek
other equitable relief.

The suit is styled "Wells, et al v. Gannett Retire Plan, et al,
case no. 1:03-cv-02671-RPM Wells, et al v. Gannett Retire Plan,
et al," filed in the United States District Court in Colorado
under Judge Richard P. Matsch.

Representing the plaintiffs is John Hathaway Evans, Jr., Hill &
Robbins, P.C., 1441 - 18th Street, #100 Denver, CO 80202, U.S.A,
Phone: 303-296-8100.  Representing the Company are Michael S.
Beaver and Parker Whitfield Dragovich, Holland & Hart, LLP-
Greenwood Village Colorado, 8390 East Crescent Parkway, #400
Greenwood Village, CO 80111, U.S.A, Phone: 303-290-1600.


HALLIBURTON CO.: Parties Fail To Reach Settlement For TX Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the securities class action filed against Halliburton
Co. failed to reach a settlement after mediation was held in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

On June 3, 2002, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company on behalf of purchasers of its common stock during the
period of approximately May 1998 until approximately May 2002
alleging violations of the federal securities laws.  The
plaintiffs allege that the Company overstated its revenue from
unapproved claims by recognizing amounts not reasonably
estimable or probable of collection.  After that date,
approximately twenty similar class actions were filed against
the Company. Several of those lawsuits also named as defendants
Arthur Andersen, LLP, the Company's independent accountants for
the period covered by the lawsuits, and several of its present
or former officers and directors.  The class action cases were
later consolidated and the amended consolidated class action
complaint, styled "Richard Moore, et al. v. Halliburton Company,
et al.," was filed and served upon the Company on April 11, 2003
(the "Moore class action").

Subsequently, in October 2002 and March 2003, two derivative
actions arising out of essentially the same facts and
circumstances were filed, one of which was subsequently
dismissed, while the other was transferred to the same judge
before whom the Moore class action was pending.

In early May 2003, the Company announced that it had entered
into a written memorandum of understanding setting forth the
terms upon which both the Moore class action and the remaining
derivative action would be settled.  In June 2003, the lead
plaintiffs in the Moore class action filed a motion for leave to
file a second amended consolidated complaint, which was granted
by the court.  In addition to restating the original accounting
and disclosure claims, the second amended consolidated complaint
includes claims arising out of the 1998 acquisition of Dresser
Industries, Inc. by Halliburton, including that the Company
failed to timely disclose the resulting asbestos liability
exposure (the "Dresser claims").  The Dresser claims were
included in the settlement discussions leading up to the signing
of the memorandum of understanding and are among the claims the
parties intended to be resolved by the terms of the proposed
settlement of the consolidated Moore class action and the
derivative action.

The memorandum of understanding called for Halliburton to pay $6
million, which would be funded by insurance proceeds. After the
May 2003 announcement regarding the memorandum of understanding,
one of the lead plaintiffs in the consolidated class action
announced that it was dissatisfied with the lead plaintiffs'
counsel's handling of settlement negotiations and what the
dissident plaintiff regarded as inadequate communications by the
lead plaintiffs' counsel.  The dissident lead plaintiff further
asserted that it believes that, for various reasons, the $6
million settlement amount is inadequate.

The attorneys representing the dissident plaintiff filed another
class action complaint in August 2003, raising allegations
similar to those raised in the second amended consolidated
complaint regarding the accounting/disclosure claims and the
Dresser claims.  In addition, the complaint enhances the Dresser
claims to include allegations related to the Company's
accounting with respect to the acquisition, integration and
reserves of Dresser.  We moved to dismiss that complaint, styled
"Kimble v. Halliburton Company, et al.;" however, the court
never ruled on the Company motion and ordered the case
consolidated with the Moore class action.

On August 3, 2004 the attorneys representing the dissident
plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file yet another class
action complaint styled Murphey v. Halliburton Company, et al.
The court has not ruled on that motion. The proposed complaint
raises and augments allegations similar to those in the Moore
class action and the Kimble action, including additional
allegations regarding disclosure of asbestos liability exposure.

On June 7, 2004, the court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement. Following the transfer of the case(s)
to another district judge and a final hearing on the fairness of
the settlement, on September 9, 2004, the court entered an order
holding that evidence of the settlement's fairness was
inadequate and denying the motion for final approval of the
settlement in the Moore class action and ordering the parties,
among other things, to mediate.  After the court's denial of the
motion to approve the settlement, the Company withdrew from the
settlement as it believed it was entitled to do by its terms,
although the settling plaintiffs assert otherwise.  In the days
preceding the mediation, two union-sponsored pension funds filed
a motion seeking leave to intervene in the consolidated class
action litigation. The Company opposed that motion.

The mediation was held on January 27, 2005 and, at the
conclusion of that day, was declared by the mediator to be at an
impasse with no settlement having been reached.  After the
mediation, the lead plaintiff and lead counsel filed motions to
withdraw as lead plaintiff and lead counsel.  The court has set
a hearing on these motions, which were unopposed, for April 29,
2005.  The Company anticipates that at that time the court will
appoint a new lead counsel and issue an order directing which
complaint it is required to respond to and the date by which any
answer or responsive motion should be filed.  The Company
intends to file a motion to dismiss and to vigorously defend the
action.

On September 9, 2004, the court ordered that if no objections to
the settlement of the derivative action described above were
made by October 20, 2004, the court would finally approve the
derivative action settlement. On February 18, 2005, the court
entered an order dismissing the derivative action with
prejudice.


KENTUCKY: Diocese of Covington, Plaintiffs Near Suit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Diocese of Covington may be close to settling the class-
action lawsuit that alleges a half-century of covering up sexual
abuse by its priests, the Cincinnati Post reports.  

In a court document filed in Boone Circuit Court, both sides
acknowledged that talks aimed at achieving an out-of-court
settlement "have been productive and have resolved a number of
difficult issues." In the document, the attorneys once again are
asking Special Judge John Potter to delay the trial that is
scheduled to begin next month.  The document, which attorneys
Carrie Huff for the diocese and Robert Steinberg for those who
filed the lawsuit signed, states "While there are issues that
remain to be resolved, the parties believe that those issues
ultimately can be resolved, and that a settlement will be
accomplished with some additional work."

Legal experts point out that the court document, is the
strongest indication yet that the settlement negotiations, which
began last May and are being led by Kenneth Feinberg, the
special master for the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund
are actually bearing fruit.   Judge Potter, who has been
amenable in the past to delays in the trial, had postponed
scheduled court dates or trial dates after attorneys told him
the settlement talks were continuing.

The two-page filing, which in essence is a joint motion to
continue the trial date gives no hint about what issues are
resolved or how they have been resolved. Neither does it say
what issues remain.  Neither Mr. Steinberg nor Mr. Huff would
discuss the settlement talks.  The attorneys did say in the
court filing that they have mostly put aside the work of
preparing for the lengthy trial, which is scheduled to begin
April 11, the Cincinnati Post states.

"At this point, even if the settlement discussions were not
continuing, we believe the April 11 trial date would not allow
sufficient time for the parties to complete fact discovery --
(and) the many other tasks that would be necessary before
trial," both attorneys said in the motion, the Post reports.

The key claim in the lawsuit is that bishops of the diocese knew
that priests were sexually assaulting children, teenagers and
others, but allowed it to happen and then helped cover it up, an
accusation that the diocese vehemently denies. It maintains that
they were simply handling the situation according to the
dictates of the times.  Before he stepped down from the bench
and the case, former Boone Circuit Judge Jay Bamberger granted
the class-action status over the strenuous objections of the
diocese. After Judge Bamberger's retirement, Judge Potter, a
retired circuit judge from Louisville, was assigned to the case.

The "class" in the class action is defined as anyone, who was
sexually abused or mistreated by priests or other
representatives of the Covington diocese from 1956 until the
present. If there is a settlement, anyone in that class will be
able to participate in the settlement, even if they have not
come forward previously.

It's unclear how much money would be part of any settlement, but
attorneys have previously speculated that it could be in the
hundreds of millions of dollars. The class attorneys also have
said they want punitive damages. But money isn't the only issue,
according to another court document that outlines their trial
plans, attorneys for the class want a process set up that would
ensure no abuse takes place in the future, and if it does, it is
reported and prosecuted.  Among their demands is the "full and
complete disclosure" of any records dealing with past sexual
abuse by priests. They also want an outside monitor appointed to
oversee the diocese's handling of sexual-abuse allegations over
the next five years.


LAFARGE CANADA: Continues To Face Canadian Homeowners' Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lafarge Canada Inc. remains a defendant in a 1999 class action
joined by approximately 215 homeowners regarding defective
concrete foundations.  

The class action is related to a 1992 lawsuit against the
Company in which similar claims were alleged for which LCI paid
CDN15.6 million (approximately US$10 million) as its share of
damages. The Ontario Court of Appeal confirmed that most of the
amounts paid by the Company in the lawsuit were to be reimbursed
by its insurers, as well as most of the Company's defense
expenses and third party costs it paid in the lawsuit.  In April
2004, the Ontario Superior Court confirmed the Company's
insurance coverage in the class action.


LAFARGE NORTH: Appeals Court Nixes Appeal of Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals refused Lafarge
North America, Inc.'s petition for a review of its decision
affirming class certification for the lawsuit filed against the
Company by residents of Alpena, Michigan.

The suit was initially filed on April 19, 1999 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan,
claiming personal injury and property damages allegedly stemming
from certain emissions which they claim originated from the
Company's cement manufacturing plant in Alpena.

On October 24, 2001, the trial court ordered that the case could
proceed as a class action on behalf of all persons who owned
single family residences in Alpena from April 1996 to the
present who have suffered damage from emissions from the Alpena
plant.  The Company appealed the court's decision on several
grounds, including that the court did not have jurisdiction over
the putative class as not all class member's claims satisfied
the $75,000 amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction.  
On September 7, 2004, a Panel of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the lower court's order
of class certification.  On September 21, 2004, the Company
petitioned the Sixth Court for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc,
which petition has been denied.  The U.S. Supreme Court
previously granted petitions for certiorari in two unrelated
cases involving the jurisdictional question at issue in the
Company's case, and the Company has petitioned the Supreme Court
for certiorari to address the issue in its case.


MASSACHUSETTS: Resident Sues Over Deceit in Diet Cola Drinks
------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Chenelle is seeking a multimillion-dollar class-action
lawsuit on behalf of the thousands of Massachusetts diet cola
drinkers against the Coca-Cola Co. and PepsiCo, alleging that
the companies made tens or hundreds of millions of dollars,
which they wouldn't have made otherwise, had they disclosed that
bottled and canned diet colas are different from their fountain
versions, the Boston Globe reports.

Court documents revealed that unlike bottled Diet Coke and Diet
Pepsi, which are sweetened solely with aspartame, fountain Diet
Coke and Diet Pepsi are sweetened with a blend of aspartame and
saccharin, which was once listed by the government as a
carcinogen.  Kenneth D. Quat, Ms. Chenelle's attorney, told the
Globe "Massachusetts consumers of fountain Diet Coke and Diet
Pepsi were harmed by the misleading advertising of Coca-Cola and
PepsiCo and the companies were unjustly enriched as a result."

Court documents also revealed that Ms. Chenelle, who doesn't
claim to have suffered any health injuries due to drinking the
diet sodas, is concerned about possible health risks associated
with saccharin, even though it is no longer listed as a
carcinogen, and she attempts to avoid eating or drinking
products containing the sweetener.  

Ms. Chenelle filed the lawsuit against Coca-Cola in Middlesex
Superior Court earlier this month, while her suit against
PepsiCo was filed on January 20.  Initially, Coke offered her
$500 to settle, according to court documents, but Ms. Chenelle
is looking for something more in the vicinity of $10 million for
the class.

PepsiCo and Coca-Cola officials maintain that the case is
without merit.  Coca-Cola officials told the Boston Globe that
they've never hidden the fact that some drinks contained
saccharin, and regardless, that there is nothing wrong with
using saccharin as a sweetener.

Used alone, aspartame, which is heat-sensitive, loses its
sweetness faster when the cola syrup is mixed from fountain
dispensers found in movie theaters and restaurants. It had
become the preferred low-calorie sweetener for soft drinks in
1981 when the National Institute of Environmental and Health
Sciences first listed saccharin as a possible human carcinogen.  
Congress later passed legislation that required all saccharin
products to carry a label warning that the sweetener "may be
hazardous to your health."  However, five years ago, saccharin
was dropped as a federally listed cancer-causing chemical when
new studies showed that the previous findings, conducted on lab
animals, didn't apply to humans.

In addition to the aforementioned claims, Ms. Chenelle is also
alleging that Coke and Pepsi didn't reveal that saccharin is an
ingredient in fountain drinks, because they knew sales would
drop off due to the lingering concerns about the safety of the
sweetener.

Saccharin is currently listed as an ingredient in fountain
versions of Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi on the companies' websites,
but attorneys for Ms. Chenelle contend it was a recent addition.
Coca-Cola officials though, according to court documents,
maintain they've disclosed that fact on their website since
1999.

In a letter to Ms. Chenelle's attorney, Donald R. Frederico, an
attorney for the soft drink company wrote, "While we are sorry
to hear that Ms. Chenelle has expressed dissatisfaction with her
purchases of Coca-Cola's product. We are convinced that her
concerns are based on a mistaken understanding of the facts,"
the Globe reports.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: MI Yet To Set Trial Date in Antitrust Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan has yet to set a trial date for the class actions filed
against Northwest Airlines, Inc., alleging violations of the
Sherman Antitrust Act.

In October 1996, a suit, styled "Chase v. Northwest Airlines and
Airline Reporting Corporation (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of
Michigan, Civ. Action No.96-74711," was filed on behalf of a
class defined as all persons who purchased tickets on certain
routes into Northwest's hubs at Detroit, Minneapolis/St. Paul
and Memphis from October 11, 1992 to the present.  The complaint
alleges that Northwest's imposition of restrictions prohibiting
the sale of "hidden city" tickets constitutes monopolization in
violation of the Sherman Act.  The complaint seeks injunctive
relief, unspecified damages for the class, and costs and
attorneys' fees.

The attorneys for the plaintiff in Chase have also filed three
additional class actions in the same court against other
airlines and Northwest with parallel allegations similar to
those in Chase, including allegations that the defendant
airlines conspired to deter hidden city ticketing.  These cases
are:

     (1) Keystone Business Machines, Inc. v. U.S. Airways and
         Northwest Airlines (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of
         Michigan, Civ. Action No.99-72474),

     (2) BLT Contracting, Inc. v. U.S. Airways, Northwest
         Airlines and the Airline Reporting Corporation (U.S.
         D.C. Eastern District of Michigan, Civ. Action No.99-
         72988), and

     (3) Volk and Nitrogenous Industries Corp. v. U.S. Airways,
         Northwest Airlines, Delta Air Lines, and the Airline
         Reporting Corporation (U.S. D.C. Eastern District of
         Michigan, Civ. Action No.99-72987)

All have been assigned to the Judge in the Chase case. In
November 2000, the plaintiffs filed their class certification
motion and defendants filed their summary judgment motion.  On
May 16, 2002, the Court entered an Order granting plaintiffs'
motion for class certification and denying defendants' motion
for summary judgment.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Appeals Court Refuses To Review Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to
review its decision affirming the dismissal of the class action
filed against Northwest Airlines, Inc., styled "Midwestern
Machinery Co., Inc. v. Northwest Airlines, Inc., case no. 97-
1438."

In June 1997, Midwestern Machinery Co. and several individuals
filed an antitrust class action against the Company in the U.S.
District Court for Minnesota.  The complaint alleges that
Northwest's acquisition of Republic Airlines in 1986 resulted in
a substantial reduction in competition in violation of Section 7
of the Clayton Act.

In February 2001, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class certification.  On February 5, 2003, the Court entered an
Order granting the Company's motion for summary judgment and
dismissing the case.  On December20, 2004, the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court and
on January 14, 2005, denied the plaintiffs' petition for a
rehearing or a rehearing en banc.


NORTHWEST AIRLINES: Nixes Review of NC Lawsuit Summary Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to re-
hear its ruling affirming summary judgment in Northwest
Airlines, Inc.'s and the other defendants' favor in the class
action styled "Hall v. United Air Lines, et al., Civ. Action
No.7-00 CV-123-BR(1)."

In October 1999, a purported class action was filed in State
Court in North Carolina by a North Carolina travel agent, on
behalf of herself and similarly situated North Carolina travel
agents, challenging actions by most major airlines, including
the Company, to reduce travel agent base commissions from 8
percent to 5 percent and alleging several state law theories of
liability, including conspiracy.

In June 2000, the plaintiff filed a voluntary dismissal and then
filed a new case in the United States District Court in North
Carolina.  The new case is a class action, now on behalf of a
nationwide class of travel agents, alleging an unlawful
agreement among airlines to reduce commissions in violation of
the Sherman Act, and is based on the same factual allegations.  
On November 13, 2001, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion
to amend the complaint to include allegations that other
commission reductions in 1997 and 1998 were the result of
unlawful agreements among the airline defendants in violation of
the Sherman Act.

The complaint was subsequently amended again to allege that
commission reductions in March 2002 were also the result of an
unlawful agreement among the airline defendants. On
September 17, 2002, the Court entered an Order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On October 30,
2003, the Court granted the Defendants' motion for summary
judgment. On December 9, 2004, the Fourth Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court and on
January 4, 2005, denied the plaintiffs' petition for rehearing
or rehearing en banc.


QWEST COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Certifies Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Denver District Court granted class certification to the
lawsuit filed against Qwest Communications International, Inc.,
certain of its former officers and certain current and former
directors on behalf of stockholders of US WEST.  

The complaint alleges that the Company had a duty to pay a
quarterly dividend to US WEST stockholders of record as of
June 30, 2000.  Plaintiffs further claim that the defendants
attempted to avoid paying the dividend by changing the record
date from June 30, 2000 to July 10, 2000, a claim the Company
denies.  Plaintiffs seek damages of approximately $272 million
plus interest, a constructive trust upon the Company's assets in
the amount of the dividend, costs, and attorneys' fees on behalf
of the class.
In September 2002, Qwest filed a motion for summary judgment on
all claims.  Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion for summary
judgment on their breach of contract claims only.  On July 15,
2003, the court denied both summary judgment motions.  
Plaintiffs' claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of
contract remain pending, an earlier Class Action Reporter story
(November 15,2004) reports.  


STANDARD FRUIT: Hondurans Lodge Suit For Use Of Banned Pesticide
----------------------------------------------------------------
Seeking $137.2 million in damages for the Company's use of the
banned pesticide Nemagon, an estimated 700 banana plantation
workers have initiated a lawsuit in a Honduran court against
Standard Fruit Co., the Associated Press reports.

Jose Amado Mancia told AP he filed a compliant in the Honduran
capital of Tegucigalpa on behalf of 707 workers who have
"suffered permanent physical and moral damage" because of the
use of the pesticide, which he called a "poison." He also
explained that the former workers are seeking $195,000 each in
damages.

Mr. Mancia said that the suite cites the cases of a former
plantation employee whose three children were born mentally
retarded and with birth defects. The suit also sites other
individuals who suffered from skin cancer and kidney ailments
caused by the effects of the Nemagon, he added.

In 2002, a judge in neighboring Nicaragua ordered Standard Fruit
and two other companies to pay $490 million to 583 banana
workers allegedly affected by the use of Nemagon, but the case
has since been transferred to U.S. courts.

Nemagon, which the U.S. government banned in 1977, contains the
pesticide dibromochloropropane, and repeated exposure has been
shown to cause cancer and sterility in laboratory animals and an
increased risk of cancer in humans.

In 1993, more than 16,000 banana plantation workers from Costa
Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua and
the Philippines filed a class-action suit in Texas against U.S.
fruit and chemical companies for alleged illnesses as a result
of exposure to chemicals. Companies including Chiquita, Dole and
Del Monte, agreed to pay a total of $41.5 million in 1997 to
those who proved that they were sterile.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Trial in FL Managed Care Suit Set April 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against
UnitedHealth Group, Inc. and virtually all major entities in the
health benefits business is set for April 2005 in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
Miami Division.  The litigation is styled "In Re: Managed Care
Litigation: MDL No. 1334."

Beginning in 1999, a series of class action lawsuits were filed.  
In December 2000, a multidistrict litigation panel consolidated
several litigation cases involving the Company and its
affiliates.  Generally, the health care provider plaintiffs
allege violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) in connection with alleged undisclosed policies
intended to maximize profits.  Other allegations include breach
of state prompt payment laws and breach of contract claims for
failure to timely reimburse providers for medical services
rendered.  The consolidated suits seek injunctive, compensatory
and equitable relief as well as restitution, costs, fees and
interest payments.

The trial court granted the health care providers' motion for
class certification and that order was reviewed by the Eleventh
Circuit Court of Appeals.  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the
class action status of the RICO claims, but reversed as to the
breach of contract, unjust enrichment and prompt payment claims.
Through a series of motions and appeals, all direct claims
against the Company have been compelled to arbitration. The
trial court has denied the Company's further motion to compel
the secondary RICO claims to arbitration and the Eleventh
Circuit affirmed that order. A trial date has been set for
September 2005. The trial court has ordered that the trial be
bifurcated into separate liability and damage 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.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: NY Court Yet To Rule on Motion To Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York has yet to rule on plaintiffs' motion to file an
amended class action against UnitedHealth Group, Inc.

The suit, styled "The American Medical Association et al. v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, United HealthCare Services.
Inc. and UnitedHealth Group" was initially filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, County of New York and was later
removed to federal court.

The suit alleges causes of action based on the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), as well as breach of
contract and the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, deceptive acts and practices, and trade libel in
connection with the calculation of reasonable and customary
reimbursement rates for non-network providers.  The suit seeks
declaratory, injunctive and compensatory relief as well as
costs, fees and interest payments.

An amended complaint was filed on August 25, 2000, which alleged
two classes of plaintiffs, an ERISA class and a non-ERISA class.
After the Court dismissed certain ERISA claims and the claims
brought by the American Medical Association, a third amended
complaint was filed.  On October 25, 2002, the court granted in
part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On May 21, 2003, the Company filed a
counterclaim complaint in this matter alleging antitrust
violations against the American Medical Association and
asserting claims based on improper billing practices against an
individual provider plaintiff. On May 26, 2004, the Company
filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking the
dismissal of certain claims and parties based, in part, due to
lack of standing. On July 16, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion
for leave to file an amended complaint, seeking to assert
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO).  


US AIRWAYS: Travel Agents Drop Appeal of Bankruptcy Court Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a class action filed against US Airways, Inc.
dropped their appeal of a US Bankruptcy Court ruling stating
that their claims were prepetition and unsecured, following the
United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmation of the
summary judgment ruling in the suit.

The class action was filed on behalf of all United States-based
travel agents filed in the United States District Court in North
Carolina.  The complaint alleges violation of the federal
antitrust laws with respect to commission rate reductions and/or
commission cap reductions implemented by various airlines in
1997, 1998, 1999, 2001 and 2002.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages for lost commissions, as well as injunctive relief.

On October 30, 2003, the federal court granted a motion for
summary judgment dismissing all claims against airline
defendants other than the carriers then in bankruptcy, including
the Company, because proceedings had been stayed against those
bankrupt defendants.  That grant of summary judgment was
affirmed by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On January 28,
2004, the federal court in North Carolina dismissed all claims
against the Company.  The plaintiffs in this proceeding had also
filed a claim in Bankruptcy Court for prepetition and continuing
postpetition damages.  The Bankruptcy Court determined that the
entire claim was prepetition and unsecured, and the plaintiffs
appealed this decision to the District Court. The parties agreed
to stay this appeal pending the outcome of the plaintiffs'
appeal of the grant of summary judgment in the North Carolina
action. Following the Fourth Circuit's decision to affirm the
summary judgment ruling, the plaintiffs dismissed their appeal
of the Bankruptcy Court decision.  


US AIRWAYS: Continues To Face Passenger Antitrust Lawsuits in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
US Airways, Inc. and US Airways Group continues to face two
lawsuits filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of a class of airline
passengers who originated or terminated their trips at the
defendant carriers' respective hubs.  The suits also name as
defendants Delta Airlines, while Northwest Airlines and the
Airlines Reporting Corporation were sued separately in a third
action.

These passengers allege that they paid excessive fares due to
the respective airlines' enforcement of ticketing rules that
prohibit the use of a connecting segment coupon that is part of
a through-fare ticket where the passenger does not fly or intend
to fly the entire ticketed itinerary. Plaintiffs allege
monopolization and restraint of trade in violation of federal
antitrust laws.  They seek recovery of treble damages from all
named defendants in the amount of $390 million and an injunction
prohibiting future enforcement of the rules at issue.

On May 16, 2002, the court denied the defendant airlines' Motion
for Summary Judgment and granted the plaintiffs' Motion for
Class Certification in each of the cases. On May 31, 2002, US
Airways Group and US Airways filed a petition with the United
States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit seeking a
discretionary review of the certification order. On November 21,
2002, the petition for permission to appeal the class
certification decision was denied.  On December 4, 2002, Delta
and Northwest filed a rehearing petition seeking en banc review
of the initial Sixth Circuit denial.  On February 24, 2003,
Northwest and Delta's petition for rehearing en banc was denied.


WACHOVIA CORPORATION: Asks NC Court To Dismiss Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wachovia Corporation asked the United States District Court for
the Western District of North Carolina to dismiss the
consolidated securities class action filed against it and
certain of its officers.

A number of purported class actions were filed in June through
August 1999 against the Company in the United States District
Courts for the Western District of North Carolina and for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  These actions also named
Legacy First Union and certain executive officers as defendants
and were purported to be on behalf of persons who purchased
shares of the Company's common stock from August 14, 1998,
through May 24, 1999.  These actions were consolidated into one
case in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina in October 1999.

These complaints alleged various violations of federal
securities law, including violations of Section 10(b) of the
Exchange Act, and that the defendants made materially misleading
statements and/or material omissions which artificially inflated
prices for the Company's common stock.  The complaints alleged
that management failed to disclose integration problems in the
CoreStates Financial Corp merger and misstated the value of the
Company's interest in certain mortgage-backed securities of The
Money Store, Inc. (TMSI) acquired by Legacy First Union on June
30, 1998.  Plaintiffs sought a judgment awarding damages and
other relief.

In January 2001, the court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the litigation for failure to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted.  Although the plaintiffs did not appeal
this ruling, they sought, and received permission to file an
amended complaint.  In August 2001, plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint that abandoned their previous allegations concerning
the CoreStates Financial Corp merger and primarily raised new
allegations of irregularities at TMSI prior to its acquisition
by Legacy First Union.

In October 2001, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
securities litigation.  In September 2002, the court granted the
motion in part, limiting any new complaint to claims regarding
alleged misstatements or omissions pled in earlier complaints.
The plaintiffs filed a third consolidated and amended complaint
in October 2002, purportedly on behalf of a class of purchasers
of the Company's common stock during the period from March 4,
1998 to May 24, 1999.  The complaint alleges, among other
things, that Legacy First Union disregarded problems at TMSI and
did not write down goodwill from the TMSI acquisition soon
enough.  In December 2003, the court denied the Company's motion
to strike portions of this complaint.  


                   New Securities Fraud Cases

AMERICAN BUSINESS: Shepherd Finkelman Lodges PA Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC filed a
lawsuit seeking class action status has been filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
on behalf of purchasers of the subordinated notes of American
Business Financial Services, Inc. (OTC: ABFIQ.PK) ("ABFI" or the
"Company") during the period January 27, 2000 through January
21, 2005 (the "Class Period"). Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLC represents certain purchasers of the subordinated
notes at issue who have an interest in this case.

The Complaint charges certain of the Company's officers and
directors with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that, as a
result of such violations, the Company misrepresented its
financial performance and business operations, overstated its
revenues and earnings, maintained insufficient reserves, and
failed to disclose significant problems with its business during
the Class Period. The lawsuit seeks to recover on behalf of
investors who bought the Company's subordinated notes pursuant
to materially false and misleading prospectuses and registration
statements, which violated Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities
Act of 1933.

The Complaint alleges that, at the end of 2004, the Company
stopped paying principal and interest on maturity and stopped
honoring checks written on ABFI money market accounts. On
December 23, 2004, the Company issued a press release stating
that it was unable to make any payments on the Company's notes
as they became due and on January 21, 2005, the Company
announced that it had filed for bankruptcy protection.

For more details, contact James E. Miller, Esq. by Phone:
+1-866-540-5505 or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com OR
James C. Shah, Esq. by Phone: +1-877-891-9880 or by E-mail:
jshah@classactioncounsel.com.  


AUDIBLE INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud 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 Audible, Inc. ("Audible" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: ADBL) common stock during the period between
November 2, 2004, and February 15, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Audible and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Audible is a provider of spoken audio content, which is
delivered over the Internet and can be streamed and played back
on personal computers and hand-held electronic devices that have
digital audio capabilities.

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's revenue growth could not continue
         without material investments in expensive new
         initiatives;

     (2) that the Company would be investing heavily in new
         initiatives which would delay profitability; and

     (3) that the Company's new initiatives would reduce cash
         flow and net income for the upcoming year.

Then, on February 15, 2005, after the close of the market,
Audible issued a press release announcing its financial results
for its fourth quarter and year-end, the periods ended December
31, 2004. For the quarter, the Company reported revenue of $10.3
million, net income of $1.4 million and EPS of $0.06 per share.
Although the Company reported higher quarterly net income, it
warned that higher spending on new initiatives would cut cash
flow and lower net income in the upcoming year.

Upon this news, on February 16, 2005, the next day of trading,
shares of Audible common stock closed at $17.32 per share, a
decline of $9.38 per share, or 35%, from the previous 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 or by
E-mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/audibleinc/.


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Abbey Gardy Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP commenced a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court of New Jersey on
behalf of a class (the "Class") of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bradley"
or the "Company") (NYSE:BDY) between April 29, 2004 and February
25, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

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, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Bradley securities. The
Complaint names as defendants Bradley, Daniel Glassman and R.
Brent Lenczycke. The Complaint alleges that Bradley failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

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

     (2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls and
         was therefore unable to ascertain the Company's true
         financial condition; and

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

On February 28, 2005, the Company announced that 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 addition to this announcement, Bradley also announced that it
would be delaying the release of its 2004 earnings.

News of this shocked the market and shares of Bradley fell $3.50
per share, or 26.42%, to close at $9.75 per share on usually
high trading volume.

For more details, contact Susan Lee or Nancy Kaboolian, Esq. of
Abbey Gardy, LLP by Mail: 212 East 39th Street, New York, New
York 10016 by Phone: (212) 889-3700 or (800) 889-3701 or by E-
mail: slee@abbeygardy.com.


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Barrack Rodos Lodges NJ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Barrack, Rodos & Bacine initiated a class action
has in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of purchasers of the publicly traded securities
of Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE: BDY) ("Bradley
Pharmaceuticals" or the "Company"), between October 8, 2003 and
February 25, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Daniel Glassman
and R. Brent Lenczycki with violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that the
defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts:


     (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(TM) franchise would be hindered by generic
         competition; and

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

On February 28, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that the staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission is conducting an informal inquiry to determine
whether the Company had violated the federal securities laws.
The SEC's staff has requested that the Company provide it with
information and documents concerning the Company's revenue
recognition practices and issues related to the capitalization
of certain payments. The Company also announced that, in light
of the SEC's inquiry, it will not be releasing its 2004 earnings
results as anticipated. On this news, the price of Bradley
Pharmaceutical's stock dropped to $9.75 per share from a closing
price of $13.25 on the previous trading day, a decline of 30%,
on unusually high trading volume.

For more details, contact Leslie Bornstein Molder, Esq. of
Barrack, Rodos & Bacine by Mail: 3300 Two Commerce Square, 2001
Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103 by Phone: 215-963-0600 by
Fax: 215-963-0838 or by E-mail: lmolder@barrack.com.


CARDIAC SCIENCE: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities
class action in the Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle
County on behalf of owners of the common stock of Cardiac
Science, Inc. ("Cardiac Science" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:DFIB).

Plaintiff is seeking to enjoin the proposed merger transaction
between Cardiac Science and Quinton Cardiology Systems, Inc.
based on the proposed transaction being grossly unfair to
Cardiac Science's public shareholders.

For more details, contact Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq. of Bull &
Lifshitz, LLP by Phone: (212) 213-6222 by Fax: (212) 213-9405 or
by E-mail: counsel@nyclasslaw.com.  


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California on behalf of all purchasers of
the common stock of ChoicePoint, Inc. (NYSE: CPS) ("ChoicePoint"
or the "Company") from April 22, 2004 through March 3, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ChoicePoint, Derek Smith, Douglas Curling,
and Steven Surbaugh with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants,
during the Class Period, issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
financial condition thereby artificially inflating the price of
ChoicePoint's common stock. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded
         the fact that Company's security measures designed to
         protect consumers from security breaches were
         inadequate and ineffective;

     (2) that the Company profited from selling consumer's
         private information to illegal enterprises;

     (3) that security breaches by illegal enterprises had
         occurred on at least 2 occasions, once in 2002 and
         another time in September 2004;

     (4) that the Company's actions exposed over 500,000 people
         to the threat of identity theft; and

     (5) as a result the foregoing Company's financial results
         were artificially inflated at all relevant times.

On February 18, 2005, The Associated Press published a report
entitled "Info Breach Puts Data Firm in Hot Seat." Therein, the
report stated that "Personal Information Breach Puts Data
Warehouser ChoicePoint in Hot Seat." News of this shocked the
market. Shares of ChoicePoint fell $4.20 per share or 9.66
percent, on February 22, 2005, to close at $39.30 per share.

On March 3, 2005, The LA Times published an article entitled
"ChoicePoint CEO Had Denied Any Previous Breach of Database."
The article, in relevant part, read: "The chief executive of
information broker ChoicePoint Inc. told interviewers last week
that a recent security breach was the only such incident in the
company's history, despite the fact that criminals had gained
access to its database with similar methods at least once
before." Then, on March 4, 2005, before the market opened,
ChoicePoint filed a current report with the SEC on Form 8-K.
Therein, the Company stated that on September 27, 2004,
ChoicePoint found evidence of suspicious activity by a few of
our small business customers in the Los Angeles area.
ChoicePoint notified law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles,
and they commenced an investigation. These customers opened
ChoicePoint accounts by using stolen identities and altered
documents. In addition, the Company stated that ChoicePoint had
received notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") that the SEC was conducting an informal inquiry into the
circumstances surrounding any possible recent identity theft,
recent trading in ChoicePoint stock by our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Operating Officer and related matters.

On this news, shares of ChoicePoint fell an additional $2.63 per
share, or 6.5 percent, to close at $37.65 per share on March 4,
2005.

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


ELAN CORPORATION: Johnson & Perkinson Files Stock Suit in MA
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Johnson & Perkinson ("J&P") commenced in the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts a class
action 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.

The plaintiff is represented by J&P, which has expertise in
prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in
actions involving financial fraud. J&P is a litigation boutique
dedicated to maximizing shareholders' returns and keeping the
lead plaintiffs involved in the litigation. Attorneys Johnson
and Perkinson are both former employees of the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Members of the firm have prosecuted complex
class actions on behalf of plaintiffs in the areas of securities
and consumer fraud since 1985. Based in South Burlington,
Vermont, the firm has prosecuted leading actions on behalf of
defrauded investors against numerous public companies resulting
in the recovery of many millions of dollars and has been singled
out for its excellence by various courts. The firm is currently
lead or co-lead counsel in securities class actions pending
against Xerox, Priceline, i2, Allaire, and Exchange Applications
and serves on the Executive Committee in the Global Crossing
case.

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 or by E-mail:
email@jpclasslaw.com.


ESPEED INC.: Law Firm Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in S.D. NY
------------------------------------------------------------
Attorneys Christopher Gray of the Law Office of Christopher J.
Gray, P.C. and Louis F. Burke of Louis F. Burke, P.C. filed a
class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired the securities of defendant eSpeed, Inc.
(Nasdaq:ESPD) between August 12, 2003 and July 1, 2004,
inclusive.

The lawsuit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated by
the SEC thereunder and seeks to recover damages. Any member of
the class may move the Court to be named lead plaintiff. If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than April 22, 2005.

The eSpeed class action lawsuit is pending in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York (500 Pearl Street,
New York, New York), Docket No. 05-CV-2601. According to the
complaint, defendants made misstatements of material facts and
omitted to state material facts in violation of the federal
securities laws. Specifically, the complaint alleges that during
the Class Period, the defendants touted eSpeed as an unmitigated
success story, a company that had achieved record revenues and
earnings and, most importantly, had established an
infrastructure and business model that made it the market leader
in the high-volume automated trading of government securities
and foreign exchange. According to the lawsuit, unbeknownst to
plaintiff and the class, the true facts were as follows:

     (1) eSpeed was not successfully competing with ICAP, its
         chief competitor;

     (2) eSpeed's market share was declining;

     (3) eSpeed's products (which it had touted as uniquely
         innovative) were increasingly fungible and subject to
         price competition; and,

     (4) eSpeed's pricing model was not succeeding in responding
         to market conditions, and, in fact was driving
         customers to ICAP.

The complaint alleges that on July 1, 2004, eSpeed shocked the
market by admitting to "erosion of (its) market position" and
substantially lowering its projected earnings per share for 2Q
2004 from the $0.19-$0.20 guidance that defendants had
reaffirmed as recently as May 4, 2004 to $0.15-$0.16 per share.
In reaction to this disclosure, eSpeed's share price plummeted
from an opening price $17.73 on July 1 to close at $11.39 on
July 6, 2004 -- a drop of over 35% in only three trading days.

The class action lawsuit seeks to recover investors' losses
resulting from defendants' alleged misrepresentations concerning
eSpeed's business and prospects.

For more details, contact Louis F. Burke, P.C. by Mail: 460 Park
Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone:
(212) 682-1700 or by E-mail: lburke@lfblaw.com OR the Law Office
of Christopher J. Gray, P.C. by Mail: 460 Park Avenue, 21st
Floor, New York, New York 10022 by Phone: (212) 838-3221 by E-
mail: Gray@cjgraylaw.com.


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Lockridge Grindal Lodges Securities Suit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. initiated a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Gander Mountain
Company ("Gander Mountain") (Nasdaq:GMTN) common stock pursuant
to the Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") and in the open
market between April 20, 2004 and January 13, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). The complaint seeks remedies for the class under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the
Securities Act of 1933.

Gander Mountain is a specialty retailer offering an assortment
of merchandise that caters to outdoor lifestyle enthusiasts,
with a particular focus on hunting, fishing and camping. The
complaint alleges that prior to going public, and afterward,
Gander Mountain was controlled by the Erickson family, including
the defendants named in the complaint, through their individual
ownership in the Company and through their holdings in the
Company's major shareholders. Defendants knew that unless the
Company went public, their shares in the Company would remain
illiquid, and virtually worthless. Further, the complaint
alleges that defendants also knew that unless Gander Mountain
went public prior to revelations of lowered earnings
expectations in November 2004 and January 2005, the Company
would be prevented from going public altogether. This
possibility would not only jeopardize defendants' ability to
infuse value and liquidity into their shares via the IPO, but
also would jeopardize the Company's ability to repay a $9.8
million debt owed to a company owned by the Erickson family.

On April 26, 2004, Gander Mountain closed its IPO, raising in
excess of $105 million. 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." Then, on January 14, 2005, the Company issued a press
release lowering its outlook for pretax income for fiscal 2004
even further, "to a range of $2.0 million to $4.0 million,
compared with the company's prior guidance of $8 million to $13
million." On this news, the Company's shares plunged to an all-
time low of $9.30 per share, more than a 60% drop from the Class
Period high of $24.65 on June 7, 2004.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were allegedly
known to each of the defendants during the Class Period and
concealed from the public, were as follows:

     (1) the Company's co-branded credit card promotions were
         not effective;

     (2) the value of the Company's inventory was overstated,
         which required Gander Mountain to offer between 40% and
         60% discounts on merchandise in order to sell it;

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

     (4) the Company was having difficulties establishing a
         branding direction with its merchandise, by constantly
         changing the products and services it offered
         customers;

     (5) the Company had negative comparable same store sales;
         and

     (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' own
         projections of positive comparable sales growth of 3%-
         5% and pretax income of $8-$13 million were materially
         false and misleading.

For more details, contact Karen Riebel, Esq. of Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P. by Mail: 100 Washington Avenue South,
Suite 2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401 by Phone: (612) 339-6900 or by
E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com.  


GANDER MOUNTAIN: Seeger Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in MN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota on behalf of purchasers of Gander Mountain Company
("Gander Mountain") (Nasdaq:GMTN) common stock pursuant to the
Company's Initial Public Offering ("IPO") and in the open market
between April 20, 2004 and January 13, 2005 (the "Class
Period"). The complaint seeks remedies for the class under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") and the
Securities Act of 1933.

Gander Mountain is a specialty retailer offering an assortment
of merchandise that caters to outdoor lifestyle enthusiasts,
with a particular focus on hunting, fishing and camping. The
complaint alleges that prior to going public, and afterward,
Gander Mountain was controlled by the Erickson family, including
the defendants named in the complaint, through their individual
ownership in the Company and through their holdings in the
Company's major shareholders. Defendants knew that unless the
Company went public, their shares in the Company would remain
illiquid, and virtually worthless. Further, the complaint
alleges that defendants also knew that unless Gander Mountain
went public prior to revelations of lowered earnings
expectations in November 2004 and January 2005, the Company
would be prevented from going public altogether. This
possibility would not only jeopardize defendants' ability to
infuse value and liquidity into their shares via the IPO, but
also would jeopardize the Company's ability to repay a $9.8
million debt owed to a company owned by the Erickson family.

On April 26, 2004, Gander Mountain closed its IPO, raising in
excess of $105 million. 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." Then, on January 14, 2005, the Company issued a press
release lowering its outlook for pretax income for fiscal 2004
even further, "to a range of $2.0 million to $4.0 million,
compared with the company's prior guidance of $8 million to $13
million." On this news, the Company's shares plunged to an all-
time low of $9.30 per share, more than a 60% drop from the Class
Period high of $24.65 on June 7, 2004.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were allegedly
known to each of the defendants during the Class Period and
concealed from the public, were as follows:

     (1) the Company's co-branded credit card promotions were
         not effective;

     (2) the value of the Company's inventory was overstated,
         which required Gander Mountain to offer between 40% and
         60% discounts on merchandise in order to sell it;

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

     (4) the Company was having difficulties establishing a
         branding direction with its merchandise, by constantly
         changing the products and services it offered
         customers;

     (5) the Company had negative comparable same store sales;
         and

     (6) as a result of the foregoing, defendants' own
         projections of positive comparable sales growth of 3%-
         5% and pretax income of $8-$13 million were materially
         false and misleading.

For more details, contact Stephen A. Weiss, Esq. or Eric T.
Chaffin, Esq. of Seeger Weiss LLP by Mail: One William Street,
New York, New York 10004 by Phone: (212) 584-0700 or
(877) 541-3273 by E-Mail: sweiss@seegerweiss.com or
echaffin@seegerweiss.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.seegerweiss.com.


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Abraham Fruchter Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated a class
action has been commenced in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who
acquired Leadis Technology, Inc. ("Leadis" or the "Company")
(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 that Leadis and certain of its officers
and directors violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 by issuing a false and misleading prospectus (the
"Prospectus") in connection with the initial public offering of
Leadis common stock, which took place on or about June 16, 2004
(the "IPO"). The Prospectus, which forms part of the
Registration Statement, became effective on or about June 16,
2004, and 6 million shares of the Company's common stock were
sold to the public, raising approximately $77 million.

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 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 detils contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. of Abraham,
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by Mail: One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New
York, New York 10119 by Phone: (212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986
by Fax: (212) 279-3655 or by E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com.


SILICONIX INC.: Brualdi Law Firm Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Brualdi Law Firm initiated a class action lawsuit on behalf
of all public common stock holders of Siliconix, Inc.
("Siliconix" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:SILI).

The action is pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware against the Company, King Owyang, Hanspeter Eberhardt,
Glyndwr Smith, Timothy V. Talbert, Thomas C. Wertheimer, Vishay
and Intertechnology, Inc ("Defendants").

The Complaint alleges that Intertechnology, Inc's (VSH),
intention to commence a tender offer for all outstanding shares
of SILI not owned by VSH is premised upon inadequate
consideration. VSH currently holds approximately 80.4% of the
outstanding SILI shares. The offer will be commenced following
the filing of VSH and SILI with the Securities and Exchange
Commission of their annual reports on Form 10-K for 2004, which
are required to be field not later than March 16, 2005. Under
the terms of the offer, VSH would exchange $2.64 shares of VSH
common stock for each outstanding shares of SILI stock. The
closing prices for VSH and SILI shares on March 3, 2005 were
$13.25 and $29.15 respectively. The offer will be subject to the
non-waivable condition that the offer be accepted by holders of
a majority of the outstanding shares now owned by VSH. Promptly
following the consummation of the offer, VSH will effect a
merger of SILI with a subsidiary of VSH in which all remaining
holders of SILI stock would receive the same consideration for
their shares as the holders who tendered their shares received
in the offer.

The Complaint seeks to enjoin the defendants from causing
Siliconix to be acquired by VSH. Further, to the extent the
Proposed Transaction is consummated prior to the Court's
judgment, the Action seeks rescission of the merger or granting
class members rescissory damages.

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


SILICONIX INC.: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a class action lawsuit
on behalf of Siliconix Incorporated public shareholders (Nasdaq:
SILI) in the Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County.

The Complaint seeks to enjoin a tender offer made by Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc. to acquire the publicly held shares of
Siliconix common stock on grounds that the proposed transaction
is grossly unfair to Siliconix's shareholders.

For more details, contact Patricia I. Avery, Esq. of Wolf Popper
LLP by Phone: 212-451-9619 or by E-mail: pavery@wolfpopper.com.


                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel 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  * * *