CAR_Public/050309.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 9, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 48


                            Headlines

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: FL Court Grants Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces State, Federal Medicaid Pricing Suits
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: MA Court Approves Lupron Lawsuit Settlement
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Sibutramine Consumer Fraud Litigation
ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in MN

BANK ONE: Expert Discovery Proceeds in IL Shareholder Litigation
BJC HEALTHCARE: Missouri Court Dismisses Price Gouging Lawsuit
CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Mutual Fund Fraud Suits in Various Courts
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Firms Launch Suits Over Executive Stock Sales
EI DUPONT: WV Court Approves Settlement of PFOA Injury Lawsuit

ELEGANT KIDS: Recalls 34,500 Pacifiers Because of Choking Hazard
FISCHER IMAGING: CO Court Nixes Stock Suit Settlement Approval
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: FDA Initiates Seizure of Paxil, Avandamet Drugs
HOMESTORE INC.: Finalizes Accounting Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
HUMANA INC.: Trial in Managed Care Suit Set September 2005 in FL

J.C. PENNEY: Recalls 57T Cardigan Sweaters Due To Choking Hazard
JP MORGAN: Discovery For Antitrust Claims Proceeds in NY Lawsuit
JP MORGAN: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Fraud Lawsuits
MARYLAND: Allies File Briefs, Backs Baltimore Schools in Lawsuit
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Trial For NY Suit Set Oct. 10, 2005

MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Suit Settlement Approval
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face State Consumer Suits
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Suit Settlement Approval
MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Consumers Launch Antitrust Suit in CA
MONSANTO CO.: MO Court Denies Class Status For Antitrust Lawsuit

NASH FINCH: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of MN Lawsuit Dismissal
NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE: Settles FTC Privacy Law Violations Charges
PEEKAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins Due To Undeclared Sulfites
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Appeal Insurance Suit Dismissal
SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Named in Hurricane Isabel Insurance Lawsuit

SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Faces 2 Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL Court
TYSABRI: FDA Issues Public Health Advisory About Suspended Sale
UNITED STATES: SCAS' ISS Releases Top 100 Securities Settlement
WEST VIRGINA: Lawyer in AL, MN Suits Says C8 Settlement Critical



               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CHOICEPOINT INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY
HUFFY CORPORATION: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in OH
INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in DE

MAMMA.COM INC.: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
OFFICEMAX INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in IL
SILICONIX INC.: Bernstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
SILICONIX INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
SIPEX CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in CA

TASER INTERNATIONAL: Berger & Montague Lodges AZ Securities Suit

                          *********


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: FL Court Grants Summary Judgment in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida granted summary judgment in favor of both plaintiffs and
defendants in the class action filed against Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., styled "In re: Terazosin Hydrochloride, MDL
No. 1317."

A number of antitrust cases were pending in federal court
(including a case filed by the Attorneys General of the States
of Colorado, Florida and Kansas) and various state courts in
connection with the settlement of patent litigation by the
Company involving terazosin hydrochloride, a drug sold by Abbott
under the trademark Hytrin.  These cases (which were brought
against the Company, Geneva Pharmaceuticals,Inc., and Zenith
Goldline Pharmaceuticals,Inc.) seek actual damages, treble
damages, and other relief and allege Abbott violated state or
federal antitrust laws and, in some cases, unfair competition
laws.  The federal court cases are pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida under the
Multidistrict Litigation Rules.  

On remand, the MDL court denied certification of a class of
direct purchasers of Hytrin, but granted certification of a
class of indirect purchasers.  The United States Court of
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has accepted an appeal from the
Company of the Court's certification of a class of indirect
purchasers.  The MDL court has granted summary judgment in
plaintiffs' favor finding that the challenged agreement was
impermissible under federal antitrust law.  The MDL court also
granted summary judgment in the Company's favor on certain of
plaintiffs' claims finding both that the Company's patent
infringement lawsuits were not baseless and that it did not
defraud the patent office in obtaining the challenged patent.

Cases are also pending in six state courts.  Two of the state
court cases, "Asher and New Utrecht Pharmacy and Lisanti (both
filed in 1999 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
County of New York), were consolidated and are stayed pending
the resolution of MDL No.1317.  The other state cases are:  

     (1) State of West Virginia, filed in October 2001 in the
         Circuit Court in Wyoming County, West Virginia;  

     (2) Daniels, filed in May 2000 in Superior Court in Orange
         County, California (stayed pending resolution of
         MDL No. 1317);

     (3) Hopper, filed in October 2001 in the Superior Court in
         Pitt County, North Carolina; and  

     (4) Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Minnesota et al. v. Abbott
         Laboratories, et al., filed in August 2003 in the
         Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces State, Federal Medicaid Pricing Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. continues face several purported class
actions or representative actions filed on behalf of individuals
or entities, alleging generally that the Company and numerous
other pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing
information in connection with certain drugs that are
reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid.  These cases brought
by private plaintiffs and State Attorneys General generally seek
damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution,
and attorneys fees.

The federal court cases have been consolidated in the United
States District Court for the District of Massachusetts under
the Multidistrict Litigation Rules as "In re: Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL 1456."  The
following previously reported cases have now been transferred to
MDL 1456:

     (1) International Union of Operating Engineers Local No. 68
         Welfare Fund;

     (2) County of Rockland;

     (3) County of Westchester;

     (4) Digel;

     (5) State of California ex rel. Ven-A-Care of the Florida
         Keys; and

     (6) Turner

One of the previously reported federal court cases, Rice, has
been dismissed without prejudice.  Two new federal cases have
been filed and have been or will be transferred to MDL 1456:
City of New York, filed in August 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York; and County
of Nassau, filed in November 2004 in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York.  Cases are also
pending in eight state courts:

     (i) Swanston, filed in March 2002 in the Superior Court for
         Maricopa County, Arizona;

    (ii) State of West Virginia ex rel. Darrell V. McGraw, Jr.,
         Attorney General, filed in October 2001 in the Circuit
         Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia;

   (iii) Peralta, a minor by and through his Guardian ad Litem,
         Filamena Iberia, filed in October 2001 in the Superior
         Court for Los Angeles County, California;  

    (iv) State of Nevada, filed in January 2002 in the Second
         Judicial District Court in Washoe County, Nevada;

     (v) Commonwealth of Kentucky ex rel. Albert B. Chandler
         III, Attorney General, filed in September 2003 in the
         Circuit Court of Franklin County, Kentucky;  

    (vi) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, filed in March 2004 in
         the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania;

   (vii) State of Ohio, filed in March 2004 in the Court of
         Common Pleas, Hamilton County, Ohio;

  (viii) State of Texas ex rel. Greg Abbott, Attorney General,
         filed in May 2004 in the District Court of Travis
         County, Texas; and

    (ix) State of Wisconsin, filed in June 2004 in the Circuit
         Court of Dane County, Wisconsin


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: MA Court Approves Lupron Lawsuit Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts granted preliminary approval to the settlement of
the litigation filed against Abbott Laboratories, Inc., TAP
Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., and Takeda Chemical Industries,
Ltd.

Several suits were initially filed in various courts, alleging
that TAP reported false pricing information in connection with
Lupron, a product reimbursable under Medicare.  The previously
reported federal court cases have been consolidated in the
United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
under the Multidistrict Litigation Rules as "In re: Lupron
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 1430," and
include:

     (1) a Consolidated Class Action Complaint brought on behalf
         of all persons or entities who paid for Lupron at a
         price calculated by reference to the published Average
         Wholesale Price from January 1, 1991 through September
         2001;

     (2) Empire Healthchoice, Inc., et al., v. TAP
         Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., Abbott Laboratories and
         Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., filed in June 2002 in
         the United States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts;

     (3) Cobalt Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Takeda
         Chemical Industries, Ltd. and TAP Pharmaceutical
         Products Inc., filed in August 2002 in the United
         States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts;

     (4) Health Care Service Corporation v. TAP Pharmaceutical
         Products, Inc., et al., removed to the United States
         District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in
         March 2003; and

     (5) Liberty National Life Ins. Co. et al., v. TAP
         Pharmaceutical Products, Inc., et al., filed in the
         United States District Court for the Northern District
         of Alabama in October 2003.

On November 24, 2004, the MDL court granted preliminary approval
for a proposed nationwide settlement and also stayed all state
class actions as to class claims pending a final approval
hearing date, which is expected to occur in the first half of
2005.

Cases are also pending in various state courts, and have been
brought as purported class actions or representative actions on
behalf of individuals and/or insurance plans that paid any
portion of the twenty percent co-payment cost under Medicare for
Lupron based on the published Average Wholesale Price (or, in
some instances, any portion of the cost for Lupron) and seek
treble damages, and other relief.  The cases allege TAP reported
false pricing information in connection with Lupron.

The state cases are:

     (1) Campbell-Hubbard, filed in June 2001 in the Superior
         Court for San Francisco County, California;

     (2) Clark, filed in July 2001 in the Circuit Court of the
         First Judicial District, Williamson County, Illinois;

     (3) Walker, filed in October 2001 in the Superior Court of
         New Jersey, Cape May County;

     (4) Farris, filed in December 2001 in the Superior Court
         for San Francisco, California;

     (5) Stetser, filed in December 2001 in the Superior Court,
         New Hanover County, North Carolina;

     (6) Benoit, filed in February 2002 in the District Court of
         Jefferson County, Texas; and

     (7) Grass, filed in September 2002 in the District Court of
         Jefferson County, Texas.

A nationwide class has been certified in the Clark case.  The
previously reported nationwide class certification in the
Stetser case was reversed by the North Carolina Court of Appeals
and, on remand, the Stetser court certified a North Carolina
statewide class.  The court in Stetser has not ruled on
plaintiffs' motion to proceed with their individual claims
against TAP and Abbott. A New Jersey state class has been
certified in the Walker case.  The Walker state court found that
the individual plaintiff opted-out of the proposed nationwide
settlement and may proceed to trial with his individual claims.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Sibutramine Consumer Fraud Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. is a defendant in a number of lawsuits
involving the drug sibutramine (sold under the trademarks
Meridia, Reductil, Reductyl, and Reductal) that have been
brought either as purported class actions or on behalf of
individual plaintiffs.  The lawsuits generally allege design
defects and failure to warn.  Certain lawsuits also allege
consumer protection violations and/or unfair trade practices.

As of December 31, 2004, 118 lawsuits were pending in which the
Company is a party.  113 cases are being or have been
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio and are captioned, "In Re Meridia MDL No.
1481."  In July 2004, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Ohio granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment and dismissed the Company from the 113 cases
pending before it.   The cases are now on appeal.

Four cases are pending in state court:

     (1) Barley, filed in October 2002 in the Circuit Court of
         Jefferson County, Alabama;

     (2) Titus, filed in October 2002 in the District Court of
         Nueces County, Texas;

     (3) Killinger, filed in November 2002 in the Circuit Court
         in Lake County, Illinois; and

     (4) a consolidated case pending in the Circuit Court in
         Lake County, Illinois that includes Lemetti, filed in
         March 2004 in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
         Illinois; Mosbah, filed in July 2003 in the Circuit
         Court of Cook County, Illinois; and Olinger, filed in
         January 2003 in the Circuit Court of Madison County,
         Illinois.

Outside of the United States, one case is pending in Canada,
styled "Mandel, et al. v. Abbott, filed in June 2002 in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Toronto, Canada.


ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Faces Consolidated Antitrust Lawsuit in MN
---------------------------------------------------------------
Abbott Laboratories, Inc. faces a consolidated class action
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Minnesota, styled "In re Canadian Import Antitrust Litigation."

The suit generally alleges that the Company and numerous other
pharmaceutical manufacturers violated antitrust laws by
conspiring to prevent re-importation of drugs from Canada. The
consolidated lawsuit purports to be a class action brought on
behalf of all United States residents who purchased and/or paid
for brand name prescription drugs manufactured by the
defendants.  The plaintiffs seek an injunction prohibiting
efforts to stop re-importation, a refund of all allegedly
unlawful profits received by the defendants, treble damages, and
attorneys fees.

The suit is styled "In Re: Canadian Import Antitrust Litigation,
case no. 0:04-cv-02724-JNE-JGL," filed in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts, under Judge Joan N. Ericksen.


BANK ONE: Expert Discovery Proceeds in IL Shareholder Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Expert discovery is proceeding in litigation filed against Bank
One and several of its former officers and directors, arising
out of the mergers between Banc One Corporation and First
Commerce Corporation, and Banc One Corporation and First Chicago
NBD Corporation (FCNBD).

Three class actions and one individual action was filed in 2000
and are pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois in Chicago under the general
caption, "In re Bank One Securities Litigation."  The cases were
filed after the Company's earnings announcements in August and
November 1999 that lowered its earnings expectations for the
third and fourth quarters of 1999.  Following the announcements,
Company stock price had dropped by 37.7% as of November 10,
1999.

Two of these class actions were brought by representatives of
FCNBD shareholders and Banc One shareholders, respectively,
alleging certain misrepresentations and omissions of material
fact made in connection with the merger between FCNBD and Banc
One, which was completed in October 1998.  There is also an
individual lawsuit proceeding in connection with that same
merger.

A third class action was filed by another individual plaintiff
representing shareholders of First Commerce, alleging certain
misrepresentations and omissions of material fact made in
connection with the merger between Banc One and First Commerce,
which was completed in June 1998.  All of these plaintiff groups
claim that as a result of various misstatements or omissions
regarding payment processing issues at First USA Bank, N.A., a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Banc One, and as a result of the use
of various accounting practices, the price of Banc One common
stock was artificially inflated, causing their shareholders to
acquire shares of the Company's common stock in the merger at an
exchange rate that was artificially deflated.

The complaints against the Company and the individual defendants
assert claims under federal securities laws. Fact discovery,
with limited exceptions, closed in December 2003.  The parties
are in the middle of expert discovery, which is scheduled to
close in the spring of 2005.


BJC HEALTHCARE: Missouri Court Dismisses Price Gouging Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court in St. Louis, Missouri dismissed a
lawsuit that charges BJC HealthCare with billing uninsured
patients at rates that bear no connection to the cost of
service, the St. Louis Dispatch reports.

The suit is one of more than 50 actions against nonprofit
hospitals and systems, filed in federal district courts in a
concerted effort initiated and coordinated by the Scruggs Law
Firm of Oxford, Missouri. Several of the cases have been
dismissed by federal judges who found no merit to a claim that
nonprofit hospitals are required to provide significant
charitable services to offset federal tax exemptions.

BJC spokeswoman June M. Fowler said in a statement, "BJC
HealthCare provides more charity care and uncompensated care
than other providers in Missouri. We operate our facilities with
the highest level of integrity, so the allegations in this suit
were especially disturbing."

Even with the dismissal of the case, Chip Robertson, the lead
plaintiff's attorney in the case and an attorney with Bartimus,
Frickleton, Robertson & Obetz in Jefferson City told the St.
Louis Post-Dispatch, that he would be re-filing the case in
state court under consumer fraud statutes.

BJC is a defendant in another class-action suit filed last
spring in St. Louis Circuit Court. The Clayton firm of Riezman,
Berger and Blitz charged that BJC and its subsidiary, Missouri
Baptist Medical Center and Sisters of Mercy Health System and
its subsidiary, St. John's Mercy Medical Center, allowed a
doctor to charge for work that was not done. It also charged
that the doctor "upcoded" other procedures to increase charges.
Also, the suit charges that the hospitals accepted a physician's
faulty descriptions of work done and, as a result, also
overcharged patients.

Charles S. Kramer, a partner in Riezman, Berger and Blitz, said
the hospitals and parent systems moved the complaint to federal
court and filed a motion to dismiss. His firm filed a motion to
move the case back to state court and awaits a ruling.


CHARLES SCHWAB: Faces Mutual Fund Fraud Suits in Various Courts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Schwab Corporation (CSC) and certain of its affiliates,
officers and directors face multiple purported class action and
derivative lawsuits, filed in various courts, in connection with
alleged improper and illegal mutual fund trading practices.

Two stockholders' derivative actions were filed in California
Superior Court in San Francisco in March and April 2004 against
Charles Schwab & Co. (Schwab) and sixteen current or former
directors.  These actions allege that the directors breached
their fiduciary duties to Schwab and its stockholders by
allegedly failing to maintain adequate controls to prevent
improper mutual fund trading practices.  The lawsuits seek the
recovery of unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees
from the named individuals, along with the return of all
salaries and other remuneration they received as directors.  The
Company is named as a nominal defendant, although no damages are
sought against it.
    
Several lawsuits filed in federal court relating to mutual fund
trading practices have been consolidated in U.S. District Court
in Maryland for the purpose of consolidated and coordinated pre-
trial proceedings.  Lead plaintiffs and lead counsel have been   
appointed, and lead plaintiffs have filed consolidated and
amended complaints in several actions as follows.

During September 2004, purported Excelsior(R) Fund shareholders
filed a consolidated amended class action complaint against U.S.
Trust Corporation (USTC), United States Trust Company of New
York (U.S. Trust NY), Schwab and the Excelsior Funds.  
Plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached fiduciary duties
and violated various federal securities laws by permitting
market timing and late trading in the Excelsior Funds and by
failing to disclose such timing in the fund prospectuses.  
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
and disgorgement of investment advisory fees.
    
During September 2004, certain Excelsior Fund shareholders also
filed a consolidated amended derivative action on behalf of
nominal defendants Excelsior Funds Inc., Excelsior Funds Trust,
and Excelsior Tax Exempt Funds Inc. (the Fund Companies),
against CSC, USTC, U.S. Trust NY, U.S. Trust Company, N.A. (U.S.
Trust NA), various current and former officers, directors and
trustees of the Excelsior Funds (the U.S. Trust and Excelsior
Defendants) and various third-party defendants.  Plaintiffs
allege that the U.S. Trust and Excelsior Defendants breached
fiduciary duties and violated federal securities laws by
permitting market timing in the Excelsior Funds and by failing
to disclose such timing in the fund prospectuses.  Plaintiffs
seek, on behalf of the Fund Companies, unspecified monetary
damages, as well as removal of the Excelsior Fund directors,
removal of U.S. Trust as advisor to the funds, rescission of
U.S. Trust's investment advisory contracts with the funds, and
disgorgement of management fees and compensation relating to the
funds.

During October 2004, certain CSC shareholders filed a
consolidated amended class action complaint on behalf of
purchasers of CSC stock, against CSC, Schwab, U.S. Trust NA,
U.S. Trust NY and current and former CSC and U.S. Trust officers
and directors Charles Schwab, Alan Weber, David Pottruck, and
Jeffrey Maurer.  Plaintiffs allege that the defendants violated
federal securities laws by failing to disclose alleged improper
mutual fund trading practices.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages.

During October 2004, Schwab was named in three additional class
action lawsuits brought on behalf of shareholders in the
Invesco, MFS, and Pilgrim-Baxter mutual fund families.  The
lawsuits, which were filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland,
allege that Schwab and more than 38 other broker-dealers, banks,
and other financial intermediaries acted as conduits for market-
timing and late-trading activity by disregarding excessive
trading on their platforms and facilitating such activity.  
Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.
    

CHOICEPOINT INC.: Firms Launch Suits Over Executive Stock Sales
---------------------------------------------------------------
Just as ChoicePoint Inc. was about to file it's Form 8-K with
the Securities and Exchange Commission and vowed to cooperate
during an investigation of the circumstances surrounding recent
executive stock sales, the law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway LLP
of Radnor, PA filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California on behalf of
stockholders against the Company, DMNews.com reports.

According to a statement from the law firm, the suit was filed
on behalf of purchasers of ChoicePoint common stock who bought
it from April 22, 2004, through March 3, 2005. It further stated
that the suit, which also names CEO Derek Smith and president
Douglas Curling as defendants, was prompted by the discovery
that ChoicePoint executives sold shares worth $16.6 million
after the Company in October found a security breach that
exposed consumer data to identity thieves, but before the
problem was made public in late January.

In addition to Mr. Smith and Mr. Curling, the suit also names
Chief Financial Officer Steven Surbaugh. The lawsuit alleges
that the executives inflated the stock price by making material
misrepresentations to the market about ChoicePoint's financial
condition.  At least two other class action lawsuits have been
filed against ChoicePoint involving the data breach with both
representing consumers, who had their data accessed by identity
thieves.


EI DUPONT: WV Court Approves Settlement of PFOA Injury Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Wood County Circuit Court in West Virginia approved the
settlement of a class action lawsuit filed against E.I. DuPont
De Nemours & Co. and the Lubeck Public Service District,
alleging that residents living near the Washington Works
facility had suffered, or may suffer, deleterious health effects
from exposure to perflourooctanoic acid (PFOA) in drinking
water.  The relief sought included damages for medical
monitoring, diminution of property values, and punitive damages
plus injunctive relief to stop releases of PFOA.

In September 2004, the Company and attorneys for the class,
which had been certified by the court, reached an agreement in
principle to settle the lawsuit. The settlement is unrelated to
pending EPA enforcement actions filed against the Company
relating to alleged reporting violations under federal statutes
Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) and the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).

The settlement binds a class of approximately 80,000 residents.  
As defined by the court, the class includes those individuals
who have consumed, for at least one year, water containing 0.05
parts per billion or greater of PFOA from any of six designated
public water sources or from sole source private wells.  The
settlement calls for expenditures valued at $85, plus attorneys'
fees and expenses of $23. As part of the initial payment, the
Company has agreed to a cash payment of $70, the majority of
which class counsel has designated to fund a community health
project.  The Company has also offered to make available to six
area water districts state-of-the-art water treatment systems
(estimated to cost approximately $10) designed to reduce the
level of PFOA in the water. The other key component to the
settlement is the creation of an independent panel of experts to
evaluate available scientific evidence on whether any probable
link exists between exposure to PFOA and human disease. This
independent panel will design and conduct a health study in the
communities exposed to PFOA.  The Company will fund this study
at an estimated cost of $5. As a result, the Company has
established a reserve of $108 in 2004.

The settlement results in the dismissal of all claims asserted
in the lawsuit except for personal injury claims. If the
independent panel concludes that no probable link exists between
exposure to PFOA and any diseases, then the settlement would
also resolve personal injury claims. If the independent panel
concludes that a probable link does exist between exposure to
PFOA and any diseases, then the Company would also fund a
medical monitoring program (capped at $235) to pay for such
medical testing. In this event, plaintiffs would retain their
right to pursue personal injury claims. All other claims in the
lawsuit would remain dismissed by the settlement.


ELEGANT KIDS: Recalls 34,500 Pacifiers Because of Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), The Elegant Kids 2000 Inc., of Los Angeles, California
is voluntarily recalling about 34,500 Soother Baby Pacifiers.

The pacifiers are banned under federal law. They failed federal
safety tests when the nipples separated from the base and can
pose a choking hazard to infants and small children.  The
recalled pacifiers measure about 2-1/2 inches in length and 2
inches in width. The pacifiers are blue, green, yellow and pink
and have a tan tinted nipple with a curved plastic handle and
shield. "SOOTHER BABY PACIFIERS" is printed on the back of
cardboard packaging with a clear blister-bubble cover.

Manufactured in Thailand the pacifiers were sold at all Gift
shops, discount retail stores and various Hispanic commercial
retailers nationwide from March 2000 through January 2005 for
between $.50 and $1.

Consumers should return the recalled pacifiers to the store
where purchased to receive a full refund.  For additional
information, contact The Elegant Kids 2000 Inc. collect at
(213) 627-6716 between 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. PT Monday through
Friday.


FISCHER IMAGING: CO Court Nixes Stock Suit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Colorado
denied preliminary approval for the previously disclosed
proposed settlement of the putative class action lawsuit filed
against Fischer Imaging Corporation (Pink Sheets:FIMG) by
plaintiffs The Sorkin, LLC and James K. Harbert.

An amended complaint was filed on October 20, 2003, and is
purportedly brought on behalf of purchasers of shares of
Fischer's common stock during the period February 14, 2001, to
July 17, 2003, and alleges that, among other things, during the
putative class period, the Company and two former officers and
directors, Morgan Nields and Louis Rivelli, made materially
false statements in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange
Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated under the Exchange Act, and Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The amended complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. The Company
and Mr. Nields and Mr. Rivelli have moved to dismiss all claims
asserted by The Sorkin, LLC and Mr. Harbert. A hearing on those
motions is scheduled for May 6, 2005.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: FDA Initiates Seizure of Paxil, Avandamet Drugs
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a response to ongoing concerns about manufacturing quality,
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of
Justice initiated on March 4,2005 seizures of Paxil CR and
Avandamet tablets manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, Inc. (GSK).
Manufacturing practices for the two drugs, approved to treat
depression and panic disorder (Paxil CR) and Type II Diabetes
(Avandamet), failed to meet the standards laid out by FDA that
ensure product safety, strength, quality and purity.

"FDA and the Department of Justice will not allow drug
manufacturers to ignore our high public health standards for
drug manufacturing," said John M. Taylor, FDA Associate
Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. "Once we discover a Company
is not following the standards, which were created to ensure
safety and quality, we expect them to correct the deficiencies
in an expedited manner. American consumers deserve the best
health care products on the market today, and companies that are
not adhering to these standards cannot assure FDA and American
consumers of the quality of their products."

FDA is not aware of any harm to consumers by the products
subject to this seizure and it does not believe that these
products pose a significant health hazard to consumers.
Consequently, FDA urges patients who use these two drugs to
continue taking their tablets and to talk with their health care
provider about possible alternative products for use until the
manufacturing problems have been corrected. FDA has determined
that neither product is medically necessary and that alternative
products are available for consumer use.

The agency is concerned that GSK's violation of manufacturing
standards may have resulted in the production of poor quality
drug products that could potentially pose risks to consumers.
Among the violations noted during FDA's latest inspection was
the finding that the Paxil CR tablets could split apart and
patients could receive a portion of the tablets that lacks any
active ingredient, or alternatively a portion that contains
active ingredient and does not have the intended controlled-
release effect. Additionally, FDA found that some Avandamet
tablets did not have an accurate dose of rosiglitazone, an
active ingredient in this product.

The seizures follow warrants issued by the U.S. District Courts
for the District of Puerto Rico and the Eastern District of
Tennessee. The seizures were executed today by the U.S. Marshals
Service at GSK's Cidra, Puerto Rico manufacturing facility, its
Knoxville, Tennessee distribution facility, and a Puerto Rico
distribution facility. GSK has voluntarily recalled some of the
affected lots of Paxil CR and Avandamet; however, it has failed
to recall all affected lots of these products. This failure on
the part of GSK resulted in today's seizures by federal
authorities.


HOMESTORE INC.: Finalizes Accounting Fraud Lawsuit Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westlake Village, California-based Homestore, Inc. has finalized
a settlement in a 2001 class action lawsuit filed by investors
in the e-commerce Company over accounting fraud in the wake of
the dot-com collapse, the E-Commerce Times reports.

According to the Company, the settlement in the suit with the
California State Teachers' Retirement System and others, which
was first filed in December of 2001, was finalized when a lone
objector agreed to drop his appeal of the agreement.

The settlement will require Homestore to distribute some $13
million in cash and 20 million new shares of its stock to
shareholders involved in the class action suits. Also the
settlement calls for to agree to "adopt certain corporate
governance provisions designed to enhance shareholder
interests," which Company officials say are already being
implemented.

Homestore, which operates the Realtor.com and HomeBuilder.com
Web sites, said it had already set aside the shares, has
accounted for the dilution of its stock, and has placed the cash
in an escrow account. Payments, the Company said, will be made
within 30 to 60 days.


HUMANA INC.: Trial in Managed Care Suit Set September 2005 in FL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the consolidated class action filed against Humana,
Inc. and other health management organizations, styled "In Re
Managed Care Litigation," is set for September 6,2005 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The Company has been involved in several purported class action
lawsuits that are part of a wave of generally similar actions
that target the health care payer industry and particularly
target managed care companies. These include a lawsuit against
the Company and originally nine of its competitors that purports
to be brought on behalf of physicians who have treated its
members.  As a result of action by the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL), the case was consolidated.

The plaintiffs assert that the Company and other defendants
improperly paid providers' claims and "downcoded" their claims
by paying lesser amounts than they submitted. The complaint
alleges, among other things, multiple violations under the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, as
well as various breaches of contract and violations of
regulations governing the timeliness of claim payments. The
complaint was subsequently amended to add as plaintiffs several
medical societies, including the Texas Medical Association, the
Medical Association of Georgia, the California Medical
Association, the Florida Medical Association, and the Louisiana
State Medical Society, each of which purports to bring its
action against specified defendants.  

On September 26, 2002, the Court certified a global class
consisting of all medical doctors who provided services to any
person insured by any defendant from August 4, 1990, to
September 26, 2002. The class included two subclasses. A
national subclass consisted of medical doctors who provided
services to any person insured by a defendant when the doctor
had a claim against such defendant and was not required to
arbitrate that claim.  A California subclass consisted of
medical doctors who provided services to any person insured in
California by any defendant when the doctor was not bound to
arbitrate the claim.   

On September 1, 2004, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit ("Eleventh Circuit") agreed with the District Court's
ruling as to the class for the RICO claims, although it
suggested that the class should be split so that claims
involving capitation and fee-for-service payments would be
handled separately.  However, it reversed the lower court as to
state law claims, including breach of contract, unjust
enrichment and violations of prompt pay laws. It found that the
state claims were too individualized to be dealt with in a class
action.  The California subclass was not specifically challenged
and therefore was permitted to remain.

On October 15, 2004, the defendants filed a Petition for a Writ
of Certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, asking for
review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision.  The petition was
denied on January 10, 2005.  On December 9, 2004, the Court
issued an order rescheduling the trial for September 6, 2005. On
February 10, 2005, the Court ruled that the trial would be
bifurcated so that the issue of liability would be tried first,
followed by proof of damages, if liability is found.  

Meanwhile, on September 17, 2004, the plaintiffs filed an
amended motion for class certification, seeking a global
fee-for-service class and five subclasses for the time period
from January 1, 1996, to the date of certification. The global
class would consist of any medical doctor who provided service
on a fee-for-service basis to any person insured by Cigna
Corporation or any other defendant for claims of RICO conspiracy
and aiding and abetting. The motion seeks subclasses for the
conspiracy counts for capitation damages and capitation
injunctive relief consisting of all medical doctors who provided
services on a capitated basis. The motion also requests a
subclass for a direct RICO claim consisting of medical doctors
who provided services on a fee-for-service basis to any person
insured by Humana pursuant to a contract without an arbitration
clause or without a contract. The motion, which has not been
ruled on, also seeks two California subclasses, one involving
physicians who provided services on a fee-for-service basis and
the other for capitated physicians.  Two of the defendants,
Aetna Inc. and Cigna Corporation, have entered into settlement
agreements which have been approved by the Court.   

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.


J.C. PENNEY: Recalls 57T Cardigan Sweaters Due To Choking Hazard
----------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), J.C. Penney Corp., of Plano, Texas is voluntarily
recalling about 57,000 Arizonar Boys' Zip-Up Cardigan Sweaters.

The zipper-pull mechanism can detach from the zipper, posing a
choking hazard to children. J.C. Penney has received one report
of a toddler removing the zipper-pull mechanism and placing it
in his mouth. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled sweaters were sold in toddler sizes (2T to 5T) and
infant sizes (12M to 24M) in colors red barn and navy. The
sweaters have an Arizona Jean Company tag sewn in the neckline
and include "RN Number 93677" and "Made in Israel."  
Manufactured in Israel, the sweaters were sold at all J.C.
Penney stores nationwide from September 2004 through January
2005 for $15 (infant) and $17 (toddler).

Consumers should stop using the recalled sweaters immediately
and return them to any J.C. Penney store for a full refund.  
Contact J.C. Penney toll-free at (888) 333-6063 anytime or visit
the firm's Web site at http://www.jcpenney.com.


JP MORGAN: Discovery For Antitrust Claims Proceeds in NY Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in a separate antitrust claim against JP
Morgan Chase & Co. and other underwriters named in the
consolidated securities class action, styled "In RE IPO
Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Beginning in May 2001, the Company and certain of its securities
subsidiaries were named, along with numerous other firms in the
securities industry, as defendants in a large number of putative
class action lawsuits, purporting to challenge alleged
improprieties in the allocation of stock in various public
offerings, including some offerings for which a Company entity
served as an underwriter. The suits allege violations of
securities and antitrust laws arising from alleged material
misstatements and omissions in registration statements and
prospectuses for the initial public offerings (IPOs) and alleged
market manipulation with respect to aftermarket transactions in
the offered securities.

The securities claims allege, among other things,
misrepresentation and market manipulation of the aftermarket
trading for these offerings by tying allocations of shares in
IPOs to undisclosed excessive commissions paid to the Company
and to required aftermarket purchase transactions by customers
who received allocations of shares in the respective IPOs, as
well as allegations of misleading analyst reports.

The antitrust claims allege an illegal conspiracy to require
customers, in exchange for IPO allocations, to pay undisclosed
and excessive commissions and to make aftermarket purchases of
the IPO securities at a price higher than the offering price as
a precondition to receiving allocations.

The securities cases were all assigned to one judge for
coordinated pre-trial proceedings, and the antitrust cases were
all assigned to another judge.  On February 13, 2003, the Court
denied the motions of the Company and others to dismiss the
securities complaints.  On October 13, 2004, the Court granted
in part plaintiffs' motion to certify classes in six "focus"
cases in the securities litigation, and the underwriter
defendants have petitioned to appeal that decision.  On February
15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved a proposed settlement
of plaintiffs' claims against the issuer defendants in these
cases.  With respect to the antitrust claims, on November 3,
2003, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the claims
relating to the IPO allocation practices, and that decision is
on appeal.  A separate antitrust claim alleging that JPMSI and
the other underwriters conspired to fix their underwriting fees
is in discovery.

The suit is styled "In re Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira
A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

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

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

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

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

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

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


JP MORGAN: Asks MD Court To Dismiss Mutual Fund Fraud Lawsuits
--------------------------------------------------------------
JP Morgan Chase & Co. asked the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland to dismiss the amended class actions
filed against it and other financial institutions, over
allegations of mutual fund market timing.

On June 29, 2004, Banc One Investment Advisors (BOIA) entered
into a settlement with the New York Attorney General and the SEC
related to alleged market timing in the One Group mutual funds.
Under the settlement, BOIA paid $10 million in restitution and
fee disgorgement plus a civil penalty of $40 million.  BOIA also
agreed to reduce fees over a five-year period in the amount of
$8 million per year, consented to a cease-and-desist order and a
censure, and agreed to undertake certain compliance and mutual
fund governance reforms.

The Company, Bank One, and certain subsidiaries and officers
were then named, along with numerous other entities related to
the mutual fund industry, as defendants in private-party
litigation arising out of alleged late trading and market timing
in mutual funds.  The actions were filed in or transferred to
U.S. District Court in Baltimore, Maryland.  Certain plaintiffs
allege that BOIA and related entities and officers allowed
favored investors to market time and late trade in the One Group
mutual funds.  These complaints include:

     (1) a purported class action on behalf of One Group
         shareholders alleging claims under federal securities
         laws and common law;

     (2) a purported derivative suit on behalf of the One Group
         funds under the Investment Company Act, the Investment
         Advisers Act and common law; and

     (3) a purported class action on behalf of participants and
         beneficiaries of the Bank One Corporation 401(k) plan,
         alleging claims under the Employee Retirement Income
         Security Act.

On September 29, 2004, certain other plaintiffs in the federal
action in Baltimore, Maryland filed amended complaints which
included the Company and JP Morgan Securities, Inc. (JPMSI) as
defendants. The amended complaints allege that the Company and
JPMSI, with several co-defendants including Bank of America,
Bank of America Securities, Canadian Imperial Commerce Bank,
Bear Stearns and CFSB, provided financing to Canary Capital
which was used to engage in the market timing and late trading.  
The Company and JPMSI are alleged to have financed knowingly the
market timing and late trading by Canary Capital and Edward
Stern, and knowingly to have created short-position equity
baskets to allow Canary Capital to profit from trading in a
falling market.  On February 25, 2005, BOIA, the Company, JPMSI
and other defendants filed motions to dismiss these actions.


MARYLAND: Allies File Briefs, Backs Baltimore Schools in Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
As the long-standing legal battle over the adequacy of state
funding for Baltimore schools makes its way to Maryland's
highest court, education advocates will have the support of
several prominent allies including the architect of the state's
landmark Thornton education reform law, the Baltimore Sun
reports.

Alvin Thornton, the chairman of a commission whose report led to
an unprecedented boost in state dollars for Maryland schools,
along with several state and national advocacy groups have filed
briefs urging the Court of Appeals to uphold a Baltimore circuit
judge's ruling that found the state had shortchanged city
schools by $400 million to $800 million since 2000.  Aside from
Mr. Thornton, groups such as New York's Campaign for Fiscal
Equity, New Jersey's Education Law Center and the National
School Boards Association, Maryland State Conference of NAACP
Branches, Maryland Latino Coalition for Justice and Maryland
Education Coalition have also filed briefs opposing the state's
appeal include.

Since the filing of an appeal of Circuit Judge Joseph H.H.
Kaplan's August 2004 ruling by the state, Baltimore's school
funding case has landed in the high court. The state has argued
that such power rests with legislators, thus according to the
state, the judge overstepped his authority when he ordered the
school system, city and state to immediately funnel at least $30
million more into city schools.

Judge Kaplan had issued the ruling after education advocates
urged him to examine the impact of major spending cuts
implemented by city school officials last school year as they
worked to reduce a $58 million budget deficit. The judge
oversees a 10-year-old class action lawsuit, Bradford v.
Maryland, filed by parents and joined by the city and Baltimore
school board, that claims the state does not provide city
students an adequate education.

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland,
which represents the plaintiffs, told the Sun Judge Kaplan's
ruling was appropriate and similar to action courts elsewhere
have taken in school funding cases.  Louis Bograd, an attorney
for the ACLU told the Sun, the support from out-of-state
advocacy groups serves to "make clear to the court that (Judge
Kaplan's ruling) is not some outrageous example of judicial
activism," as the state contends.

Mr. Thornton, who led a state commission formed in response to
Baltimore's legal challenge, told the Baltimore Sun that he
decided to participate in the Bradford proceedings because he
felt the legislature's efforts to provide for children had been
stalled in Baltimore schools.

State education officials say Baltimore schools' $58 million
budget deficit resulted from financial mismanagement by city
school administrators, not a shortage of state dollars. In its
appeal, the state said it has complied with a 2000 order from
Judge Kaplan to boost aid to city schools by $2,000 to $2,600
per student. The appeal also said the state pays $2,327 more per
Baltimore student than it did in the 1998-1999 school year.

However, the ACLU argues that added state dollars should be
calculated from the 2000-2001 school year, which was after the
judge's ruling and should count only "new" money, not funds that
the state adds each year to cover increasing costs of operating
schools, such as employee salaries. Relying on calculations by
William Ratchford, a former director of the State Department of
Legislative Services, the group contends the state has provided
only $500 per student in "new" money since the 2000-2001 school
year.

In addition the state's appeal also contends that Judge Kaplan
disregarded the impact of management problems within the school
system, which the state said still exist. State lawyers wrote,
"The circuit court's failure to acknowledge the overwhelming,
ongoing budgetary and management dysfunction discounts a
fundamental cause of (the school system's) continuing education
problems. Until those management problems are resolved,
additional state funding will not remedy the system's problems."


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Trial For NY Suit Set Oct. 10, 2005
-------------------------------------------------------------
Trial for the consolidated antitrust class action filed against
MasterCard International, Incorporated and other financial
institutions is set for October 10,2005 in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The suit
also names as defendants Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa International
Corporation, several member banks including Citibank (South
Dakota), N.A., Citibank (Nevada), N.A., Chase Manhattan Bank
USA, N.A., Bank of America, N.A. (USA), MBNA, and Diners Club.

The suit alleges, among other things, violations of federal
antitrust laws based on the asserted one percent currency
conversion "fee."  Pursuant to an order of the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation, the federal complaints have been
consolidated in MDL No. 1409 before Judge William H. Pauley
III in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  

In January 2002, the federal plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint adding MBNA Corporation and MBNA America Bank,
N.A. as defendants.  This pleading asserts two theories of
antitrust conspiracy under Section 1 of the Sherman Act:

     (1) an alleged "inter-association" conspiracy among
         MasterCard (together with its members), Visa (together
         with its members) and Diners Club to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount and
         frequently more;" and

     (2) two alleged "intra-association" conspiracies, whereby
         each of Visa and MasterCard is claimed separately to
         have conspired with its members to fix currency
         conversion "fees" allegedly charged to cardholders of
         "no less than 1% of the transaction amount" and "to
         facilitate and encourage institution;" and collection
         "of second tier currency conversion surcharges."

The MDL Complaint also asserts that the alleged currency
conversion "fees" have not been disclosed as required by the
Truth in Lending Act and Regulation Z.  

Defendants have moved to dismiss the MDL Complaint.  On July 3,
2003, Judge Pauley issued a decision granting the Company's
motion to dismiss in part.  Judge Pauley dismissed the Truth in
Lending claims in their entirety as against MasterCard, Visa and
several of the member bank defendants.  Judge Pauley did not
dismiss the antitrust claims.  Fact discovery in this matter has
closed but expert discovery is ongoing.  On November 12, 2003
plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which was
granted on October 15, 2004.  

The suit is styled "In re: Currency Conversion Litigation, case
no. 1:01-md-01409-WHP," filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge William
H. Pauley III.  Representing the plaintiffs are Goldberg, Kohn,
Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd., 55 East Monroe Street,
Suite 3700, Chicago, Illinois 60603 and Lerach Coughlin Stoia
Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: (415) 288-4545, Fax:
(415) 288-4534.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Suit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a
lower court ruling granting approval to the settlement of the
consolidated antitrust class action filed against MasterCard
International and Visa U.S.A., Inc. by a number of U.S.
merchants, challenging certain aspects of the payment card
industry under U.S. federal antitrust law.

The suit, filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York, challenged MasterCard's "Honor All
Cards" rule and a similar Visa rule.  Plaintiffs claimed that
MasterCard and Visa unlawfully tied acceptance of debit cards to
acceptance of credit cards. The plaintiffs also claimed that
MasterCard and Visa conspired to monopolize what they
characterized as the point-of-sale debit card market, thereby
suppressing the growth of regional networks such as ATM payment
systems.

On June 4, 2003, MasterCard International signed the Settlement
Agreement to settle the claims brought by the plaintiffs in this
matter, which the Court approved on December 19, 2003.  A number
of class members have appealed the District Court's approval of
the settlement.  These appeals are largely focused on the
court's attorneys' fees award as well on the court's ruling on
the scope of the release set forth in the Settlement Agreement.
On January 4, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued
an order affirming the District Court's approval of the U.S.
merchant settlement agreement. Plaintiffs' time in which to seek
certiorari of the Second Circuit's decision with the U.S.
Supreme Court is currently running.

Several lawsuits were commenced by merchants who have opted not
to participate in the plaintiff class in the U.S. merchant
lawsuit, including Best Buy Stores, CVS, Giant Eagle, Home
Depot, Toys `R' Us and Darden Restaurants (collectively, the
"Opt Out Plaintiffs").  The majority of these cases were filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
MasterCard has entered into separate settlement agreements with
each of the Opt Out Plaintiffs resolving their claims against
MasterCard.  The District Court has entered orders dismissing
with prejudice each of the Opt Out Plaintiff's complaints
against MasterCard.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Continues To Face State Consumer Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International, Inc. and Visa U.S.A., Inc. continues
to face individual or multiple complaints have been brought in
19 different states and the District of Columbia under state
unfair competition statutes on behalf of putative classes of
consumers.

The claims in these actions assert that merchants, faced with
excessive merchant discount fees, have passed these overcharges
to consumers in the form of higher prices on goods and services
sold.  While these actions are in their early stages, MasterCard
has filed motions to dismiss the complaints in a number of state
courts for failure to state a cause of action.  Courts in
Arizona, Iowa, New York, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Maine,
North Dakota, Kansas, North Carolina, South Dakota, Vermont and
Wisconsin have granted MasterCard's motions and dismissed the
complaints with prejudice.  

The plaintiffs in the New York, Maine, Michigan, Kansas, Iowa,
North Carolina, North Dakota and South Dakota cases have filed a
notice of appeal, and the time in which the plaintiffs in the
other states may appeal is currently running.  The plaintiffs in
Kansas, Maine, Vermont, North Carolina, Michigan, North Dakota
and South Dakota have filed stipulations of dismissal
withdrawing their appeals.  The plaintiffs in Maine have moved
to withdraw their appeal.  Oral argument on the New York appeal
is currently scheduled for March 1, 2005.  

The plaintiffs in Minnesota have filed a revised complaint on
behalf of a purported class of Minnesota consumers who made
purchases with debit cards rather than on behalf of all
consumers.  On January 6, 2005, MasterCard moved to dismiss the
Minnesota complaint for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs'
time in which to oppose the motion in the Minnesota complaint is
currently running.  In addition, the courts in Tennessee and
California have granted MasterCard's motion to dismiss the
respective state unfair competition claims but have denied
MasterCard's motions with respect to unjust enrichment claims in
Tennessee and Section 17200 claims for unlawful, unfair, and/or
fraudulent business practices in California.

On February 2, 2005 the court granted MasterCard permission to
appeal the trial court's decision in Tennessee on the unjust
enrichment claims.  On that same date, the court granted
plaintiff's motion to appeal the court's dismissal of the state
unfair competition claims. The time in which to file an
application to the appellate court for permission to appeal is
currently running. MasterCard is awaiting decisions on its
motions to dismiss in the other state courts.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Court Affirms Suit Settlement Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
approval of the settlement of a class action filed against
MasterCard International, Inc., Visa U.S.A., Inc., Visa
International Corporation and several member banks in
California, alleging, among other things, that MasterCard's and
Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act.

In July 2002, a purported class action lawsuit was filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, seeking treble damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees and injunctive relief, including the
divestiture of bank ownership of MasterCard and Visa, and the
elimination of MasterCard and Visa marketing activities.  On
March 4, 2004, the court dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in
reliance upon the approval of the Settlement Agreement in the
U.S. merchant lawsuit by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, which held that the settlement and release
in that case extinguished the claims brought by the merchant
group in the present case.

The plaintiffs have appealed the approval of the U.S. merchant
lawsuit settlement and release to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals and have also appealed the federal court's dismissal of
the present lawsuit to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  On
January 4, 2005, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued an
order affirming the District Court's approval of the U.S.
merchant lawsuit settlement agreement, including the District
Court's finding that the settlement and release extinguished
such claims.  Plaintiffs' time in which to seek certiorari of
the Second Circuit's decision with the U.S. Supreme Court is
currently running.  The appeal to the Ninth Circuit is currently
pending.


MASTERCARD INTERNATIONAL: Consumers Launch Antitrust Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
MasterCard International faces a new class action filed by a
group of merchants in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The suit also names as defendants Visa
U.S.A., Inc., Visa International Corporation and several member
banks in California.

The suit alleges, among other things, that MasterCard's and
Visa's interchange fees contravene the Sherman Act and the
Clayton Act.  The plaintiffs seek damages and an injunction
against MasterCard (and Visa) setting interchange and engaging
in "joint marketing activities," which plaintiffs allege include
the purported negotiation of merchant discount rates with
certain merchants.

The suit is styled "Kendall et al v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. et al,
case no. 3:04-cv-04276-JSW," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Jeffrey S.
White.  

Representing the plaintiffs are Richard Joseph Archer, Archer &
Hansen, 3110 Bohemian Highway, Occidental, CA 95465, Phone: 707-
874-3438, Fax: 707-874-3438, E-mail: archerdic@aol.com; and
James Archer Kopcke, Golden & Kopcke, LLP, 22 Battery Street,
Suite 610 San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-399-9995, Fax:
415-398-5890 E-mail: jameskopcke@yahoo.com.  Representing the
Company are Jay Neil Fastow, Gianluca Morello, and Debra J.
Pearlstein, Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP, 767 Fifth Avenue, New
York, NY 10153, Phone: 212-310-8644, Fax: 212-310-8007, E-mail:
jay.fastow@weil.com, gianluca.morello@weil.com,
debra.pearlstein@weil.com; and Wesley Railey Powell and Nancy
Karen Raber of Clifford Chance US LLP, 31 West 52d Street
New York, NY 10019, Phone: 212-878-3309, Fax: 212-878-8375, E-
mail: wesley.powell@cliffordchance.com and
Nancy.raber@cliffordchance.com.


MONSANTO CO.: MO Court Denies Class Status For Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied attempts
by an activist to certify an antitrust class-action suit against
Monsanto Co. and similar companies, according to Company
officials, the St. Louis Business Journal reports.   

In refusing to grant class status, the appeals court in essence
upheld the ruling made by the U.S. District Court in 2003. The
original suit, filed in 1999, was seeking to certify a class
action against Monsanto claiming that it had wrongly
commercialized biotech crops.


NASH FINCH: Plaintiffs Withdraw Appeal of MN Lawsuit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs dropped their appeal of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota's dismissal of a securities
class action filed against Nash Finch Co. and certain of its
executive officers in June 2003, and which had consolidated
eight separate class actions previously filed in late 2002 and
early 2003.  

The consolidated action alleged that the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly issuing false
statements about the Company's business and financial results in
connection with vendor promotions, an earlier Class Action
Reporter story (July 18,2004) states.

On June 22, 2004, the court dismissed with prejudice the
securities class action.  In October 2004, the court rejected
plaintiffs' motion requesting that this dismissal be vacated.  


NATIONWIDE MORTGAGE: Settles FTC Privacy Law Violations Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
A mortgage Company identified during a nationwide sweep
monitoring compliance with federal privacy laws has settled
Federal Trade Commission charges that it failed to adequately
protect customers' personal and financial information. In late
2004, the FTC charged the Company with violating the Gramm-
Leach-Bliley (GLB) Safeguards Rule. The Safeguards Rule requires
financial institutions to implement policies and procedures to
ensure the security of customer information. This is the second
FTC settlement resolving alleged violations of the GLB
Safeguards Rule.

According to the FTC's complaint, Nationwide Mortgage Group,
Inc. failed to assess risks to sensitive customer information;
implement safeguards to control these risks; train employees on
information security issues; oversee loan holders' handling of
customer information; or monitor its computer network for
vulnerabilities. The FTC also alleged that the Company violated
the GLB Privacy Rule by failing to provide required privacy
notices to consumers explaining how their personal information
may be used or disclosed.

The Safeguards Rule requires financial institutions to implement
a written program to secure customers' information. In addition
to mortgage companies and other traditional financial
institutions, the Rule covers entities such as payday lenders,
tax preparers, auto dealers, credit counselors, and retailers
that issue credit cards. To accommodate the wide range of
institutions covered, the Rule allows each institution to
develop a program that is appropriate to its size and
complexity, the sensitivity of the information it handles, and
the nature and scope of its business. Each institution is
required to:

     (1) assign employees to oversee the program;

     (2) conduct a risk assessment;

     (3) take steps to control the risks identified;

     (4) contractually require service providers to protect
         customers' information; and

     (5) make periodic updates to its security program

The proposed consent order bars Nationwide and its president,
John D. Eubank, from violating the Safeguards Rule or the
Privacy Rule in the future. The Company must retain an
independent professional to certify its security program meets
the standards listed in the order within 180 days, and then once
every other year for 10 years. The order also requires the
Company to distribute a copy of the order to all of its
employees, and it contains standard record keeping provisions to
allow the FTC to monitor Nationwide's compliance.

The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was
5-0.

The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreement in
the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be subject to
public comment for 30 days, until April 4, 2005, after which the
Commission will decide whether to make it final. Comments should
be addressed to the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-159,
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. The FTC
requests that any comment filed in paper form near the end of
the public comment period be sent by courier or overnight
service, if possible, because U.S. postal mail in the Washington
area and at the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened
security precautions.

This consent agreement is for settlement purposes only and does
not constitute an admission by the defendants of a law
violation.  For more details, contact FTC's Consumer Response
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580 by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or visit
the Website: http://www.ftc.gov.


PEEKAY INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Raisins Due To Undeclared Sulfites
----------------------------------------------------------------
Peekay International, Inc. is recalling PEEKAY and MAYUR GOLDEN
RAISINS because they may contain undeclared sulfites. People who
have severe sensitivity to sulfites run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume these
products.

The recalled PEEKAY AND MAYUR GOLDEN RAISINS are packaged in
uncoded, clear plastic bags in 7.0 oz. and 14.0 oz. sizes. They
were sold in the Brooklyn and Queens areas of New York City.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York
State Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors and
subsequent analysis by food laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of undeclared sulfites in PEEKAY GOLDEN RAISINS in 7.0
oz. packages which did not declare sulfites on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased PEEKAY or MAYUR GOLDEN RAISINS
should return the product to the place of purchase. Consumers
with questions may contact the Company at 1-718-472-0104.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Plaintiffs Appeal Insurance Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law
Division - Camden County's decision dismissing the class action
filed against three of Selective Insurance Group, Inc.'s
subsidiaries - Consumer Health Network Plus,
LLC (CHN), Alta Services, LLC (Alta) and Selective Insurance
Company of America - and ten other unrelated parties, styled
"Berlin Medical Associates PA, et al. v. CMI New Jersey
Operating Corp., et al."

The plaintiffs are several non-hospital health care providers
that have preferred provider contracts with CHN. The complaint
alleges that CHN breached the preferred provider contracts by
improperly reviewing and reducing the amount of its payments for
services provided to insureds of insurance carriers, including
SICA, which had contracted to lease CHN's network.  The
complaint, which does not quantify the amount of damages sought,
further alleges that insurance carriers were unjustly enriched
by CHN's actions.

The Selective subsidiaries have vigorously defended this lawsuit
and, together with the other defendants, filed a motion to
dismiss. After a hearing on that motion, the court ordered the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint. The plaintiffs did so in
March 2004, and did not name Alta as a defendant. In May 2004,
all remaining defendants, including CHN and SICA, moved to
dismiss the amended complaint, and in July 2004, they filed a
motion to dismiss the class action allegations.  Both motions to
dismiss were granted by the court on January 14, 2005.  On
February 28, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the
decision to grant both motions to dismiss.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Named in Hurricane Isabel Insurance Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Selective Insurance Company of the Southeast (SISE), is one
of nine property and casualty insurance Company defendants named
in "Howell, et al. v. State Farm, et al.," a purported class
action filed on May 18, 2004, in the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland, Baltimore Division.

The court has not yet ruled on class certification.  The
plaintiffs hold Standard Flood Insurance Policies (SFIP) issued
by the defendant insurers, who are participants in the WYO
program of the NFIP. The FIA is an agency within the Federal
Emergency Management Administration (FEMA).  All claims under
SFIPs are 100% reinsured by FEMA.  

The suit alleges that the insurers underpaid flood claims
arising from Hurricane Isabel in breach of their contractual
obligations, fiduciary duties, and the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, and seeks unspecified monetary damages.
The insurers, including SISE, have denied the allegations,
noting that they adjusted the claims as fiduciary agents of the
U.S. Government in accordance with specific federal guidelines.
The insurers also have filed a motion to dismiss certain of the
claims, which the court has not yet decided.


SELECTIVE INSURANCE: Faces 2 Consumer Fraud Lawsuits in IL Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Selective Insurance Company of America (SICA) was named as a
defendant in two alleged class action lawsuits filed in the
Third Judicial Circuit, Madison County, Illinois, on October 11,
2003 (Eavenson I) and October 27, 2003 (Eavenson II).  Both
cases are captioned Mark J. Eavenson, D.C., d/b/a/ Multi-Care
Specialists, P.C. v. Selective Insurance Company of America.  
The first complaint (Eavenson I) was amended on June 18, 2004.
The second complaint (Eavenson II) was amended on December 3,
2004. Neither of the amended nor original complaints quantify
the money damages being sought.  

In Eavenson I, the plaintiff alleges that SICA's use of non-
parties' preferred provider payment schedules, which reduces the
medical provider's bill and/or denies payment of part or all of
it, violates the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act and results in
SICA's unjust enrichment.  The plaintiff also alleges that SICA
inappropriately uses these schedules when making payments for
medical services, on behalf of its insureds, pursuant to its
automobile, homeowners, commercial liability and workers'
compensation policies.  Discovery is on-going and SICA's motion
to dismiss the amended complaint is pending, but not yet
scheduled for argument.  The court has not yet certified whether
a class exists.

The Eavenson II amended complaint contains similar allegations
to those in Eavenson I regarding SICA's use of PPO networks. The
Eavenson II complaint also alleges that SICA's use of the PPO
networks represents a civil conspiracy, violates the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, and results in SICA's unjust enrichment.
SICA has not yet responded to the amended complaint and the
court has not yet certified whether a class exists. Discovery is
ongoing and SICA anticipates that it will file a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint shortly.


TYSABRI: FDA Issues Public Health Advisory About Suspended Sale
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a public health
advisory last week to inform patients and health care providers
about the suspended marketing of Tysabri (nataluzimab) while the
agency and the manufacturer evaluate two serious adverse events
reported with its use.

Tysabri, which received accelerated approval from FDA in
November 2004, is an innovative treatment that represents a new
approach to treating patients with relapsing forms of multiple
sclerosis (MS).

"FDA worked with the Company to make sure this information, even
though preliminary, was given to physicians and patients as soon
as possible and supports their decision to voluntarily suspend
marketing as well as the use of the product in clinical trials.
At the same time, FDA continues to believe Tysabri offers great
hope to MS patients," said Dr. Steven Galson, Acting Director,
FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). "Patients
being treated with Tysabri should contact their physician to
discuss appropriate alternative treatments while these reports
are being evaluated," added Dr. Galson.

FDA received a report from Biogen Idec, the manufacturer of
Tysabri, of one confirmed fatal case and one possible case of
progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML) in patients
receiving Tysabri for MS. FDA was given preliminary information
about these cases by Biogen, Idec on February 18, 2005. Details
became available to FDA the next week.

PML is a rare, serious progressive neurologic disease usually
occurring in immunosuppressed patients. There is no known
effective treatment for PML. Although the relationship between
Tysabri and PML is not known at this time, because of the
serious and often fatal nature of PML, FDA concurred with the
Company that the drug be voluntarily withdrawn from marketing
and that the use of Tysabri in clinical trials be suspended
until more is known.

During the review of Tysabri for marketing approval, FDA
conducted an intensive analysis of possible adverse events that
might be related to effects of the drug on the immune system. No
cases of PML were seen in the clinical trials. However, for any
approved therapy, new and unexpected adverse events may occur
that were not seen in clinical trials. In the case of Tysabri,
required post-marketing studies facilitated the rapid reporting
and response to this new information.

According to Biogen, Idec, outside of the approximately 3,000
patients who received the drug in clinical trials, approximately
5,000 additional patients with MS have received Tysabri through
their primary physician. Because Tysabri was just recently
approved, these patients have only received at most a few doses
of Tysabri.

The FDA will maintain close contact with the Company during the
process of understanding the relationship between Tysabri and
these two serious adverse events. The Company is working on ways
to get additional information soon about the possible risks of
PML from the patients who have received Tysabri in the clinical
trials.

The FDA urges health care providers and patients to report
adverse event information to FDA via the MedWatch program by
phone (1-800-FDA-1088), by fax (1-800-FDA-0178) or by the
Internet at www.fda.gov/medwatch/index.html.  For further
information, the public health advisory can be found on FDA's
Website: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/advisory/natalizumab.htm.


UNITED STATES: SCAS' ISS Releases Top 100 Securities Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS)'s wholly-owned
subsidiary, Securities Class Action Services (SCAS), has
released a report on the 100 largest securities class action
settlements of all-time, ranked by the total value of the
settlement fund.

The Top 100 Settlements report provides a comprehensive
breakdown of the securities class action settlements making
history.  Leading the list is the $3.1 billion settlement fund
in the Cendant case of 2000, followed by the recent 2004
WorldCom settlement that resulted in a $2.575 billion payout for
investors.  The top ten alone account for $10.1 billion in
remuneration to investors.  The top ten are:

     (1) Cendant Corporation - $3,186,500,000 (2000)

     (2) WorldCom, Inc. - $2,575,000,000 (2004)

     (3) NASDAQ Market-Makers - $1,027,000,000 (1998)

     (4) Washington Public Power Supply System -          
         $757,000,000 (1998)

     (5) Lucent Technologies, Inc. - $517,150,000 (2003)

     (6) BankAmerica Corporation - $490,000,000 (2004)

     (7) Raytheon Company - $460,000,000 (2004)

     (8) Waste Management Inc. II - $457,000,000 (2003)

     (9) Cendant Corporation (PRIDES) - $341,500,000 (1999)

    (10) Rite Aid Corporation - $319,280,000 (2003)


"Our Top 100 Settlements Report is a unique tool that allows
investors to gauge and compare landmark settlements through the
years, and to place new settlements in context as they are
determined," said Bruce Carton, ISS Vice President and Executive
Director of SCAS. "The report's category details also identify
the key players in history's largest settlements."

The Top 100 Settlements Report provides a wealth of information,
including the settlement date, court and settlement fund, as
well as the lead counsel, lead plaintiffs, and claims
administrators for each litigation.

The recently-split law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes &
Lerach topped all other law firms by serving as lead or co-lead
counsel in 33 of the top 100 settlements. Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann followed with 17 settlements while Barrack
Rodos & Bacine, Berger & Montague, and Berman DeValerio Pease
Tabacco Burt & Pucillo handled 8 settlements each.

Looking at the claims administrators who have handled the Top
100 settlements, Gilardi and Co. (34 settlements) leads the way,
followed by The Garden City Group (25 settlements) and Heffler
Radetich & Saitta (11 settlements).

"The recent $960 million McKesson HBOC settlement and the $460.5
million WorldCom/Bank of America settlement are other
blockbusters that will hit the top 10 of our list once approved
by the courts," added Carton.

For more details, contact Cheryl Gustitus, Senior Vice
President, Communications, of the Institutional Shareholder
Services by Phone: +1-301-556-0538 by E-mail:
cheryl.gustitus@issproxy.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.issproxy.com.


WEST VIRGINA: Lawyer in AL, MN Suits Says C8 Settlement Critical
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the class-action lawsuit against DuPont for
making the Teflon chemical PFOA, or C8 may be a sign of things
to come as two other communities across the country have
proceeded with lawsuits of their own, the Parkersburg News
reports.

According to a lawyer representing the plaintiffs in Minnesota
and Alabama, the site of the two class-action lawsuits, the
settlement with DuPont that was approved by a Wood County judge
only validates his clients' position.

Rhon Jones, the attorney with Beasley Allen, of Montgomery,
Ala., representing the plaintiffs in the Minnesota lawsuit and
one of the Alabama lawsuits, told the Parkersburg News the
settlement is further proof that exposure to the chemical C8 is
significant. Also he states, "What I read in the paper about the
West Virginia case certainly underscores the seriousness of the
problem and in my mind it certainly gives validity to the idea
that the problem can be significant."  The class action lawsuits
though in Alabama and Minnesota are still in the beginning
stages and seeking class action status, Mr. Jones said.

In Decatur, Alabama case, neighbors of the 3M Co.'s plant there
are suing the Company for the production of C8 and another
chemical, citing decades of contaminated soil and groundwater
and lowered property values. While in the Minnesota case, it is
alleged that the 3M plant in Cottage Grove sold PFOA to
customers like DuPont for use in its Teflon non-stick coatings.

As previously reported in March 2, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Wood County Circuit Judge George W. Hill
approved the settlement of a class action lawsuit (Civil Action
No. 01-C-608) alleging a chemical used in making the nonstick
substance Teflon contaminated water supplies near DuPont Co.'s
Washington Works plant.

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

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

DuPont, which has vehemently denied any wrongdoing, said in
September that it decided to enter into the agreement because of
the time and expense of litigation.

Under the agreement, blood tests will be conducted on current
customers of six area water districts in Ohio and West Virginia,
former customers of those suppliers, and residents with private
wells.

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

Ultimately DuPont could be forced to spend another $235 million
on a program to monitor the health of residents who were exposed
to the chemical, according to the agreement.

"I've never seen a class-action settlement of this magnitude,
which specifically addresses real-life health concerns of class
members in the manner that this settlement will do," plaintiffs'
attorney, Harry Deitzler told Parkersburg News. "We set out to
find the truth on C8 and as a result of this settlement we will
find the truth," he adds.

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


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

CHOICEPOINT INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased or acquired
the common stock of ChoicePoint Inc. (NYSE:CPS) ("ChoicePoint")
between April 22, 2004 and March 3, 2005 (the "Class Period").

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

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


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Central District of California on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of ChoicePoint Inc.
(NYSE: CPS) ("ChoicePoint") between April 22, 2004 and March 3,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that ChoicePoint violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading information.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that ChoicePoint
misrepresented the effectiveness of its operational security. On
February 18, 2005, The Associated Press published a report
entitled "Info Breach Puts Data Firm in Hot Seat" and described
the manner in which a criminal enterprise used ChoicePoint to
acquire personal financial data on over 500,000 individuals. On
this news, ChoicePoint stock fell from a close of $3.50 per
share on February 18, 2005, to close at $39.30 per share on the
next trading day.

The Complaint further alleges that 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." On March 4, 2005,
ChoicePoint filed a report with the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") stating that on September 27, 2004,
ChoicePoint had found evidence of suspicious activity similar to
the current breach of security. ChoicePoint stated that the SEC
was conducting an informal inquiry of these matters. On this
news, shares of ChoicePoint fell from a close of $40.28 per
share on March 3, 2005, to close at $37.65 per share on March 4,
2005.

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


DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York on behalf of all securities purchasers Delphi
Corporation (f/k/a/ Delphi Automotive Systems) (collectively
"Delphi" or the "Company") (NYSE: DPH) from January 17, 2001
through March 3, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Delphi, J.T. Battenberg III, Alan S.
Dawes, Paul R. Free, and John D. Sheehan 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 Delphi's publically traded securites. 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 improper accounting for off-balance sheet
         financing transactions in 2000 resulted in the Company
         overstating cash flow from operations, determined in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles (GAAP), for that year by approximately $200
         million;

     (2) that the Company used sham sales of assets and other
         improper accounting maneuvers to inflate reported
         pretax earnings by a combined total of $166 million for
         the years 1999 to 2001. These moves increased cash flow
         from operations by a total of $446.5 million for 1999
         through 2003;

     (3) that the Company during the Class Period prematurely
         recognized revenue for technology contracts and rebates
         when it should have spread them over the life of the
         contract. Other times it improperly capitalized
         expenses over time, rather than recognizing them
         immediately. It also boosted cash flow from operations
         and pretax earnings by claiming it sold assets and
         inventory that it had actually agreed to buy back
         later;

     (4) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with Generally Accepted
         Accounting Principles ("GAAP");

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

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

On October 18, 2004 (the "October 8-K"), Delphi announced that
the Audit Committee of the Company's Board of Directors was
conducting an internal review into the accounting treatment
accorded to certain transactions with suppliers, including those
for information technology services. The internal review was
initiated in response to an investigation commenced by the staff
of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") that was
disclosed on a Form 8-K filed on September 29, 2004. The
decision to delay filing of the Form 10-Q was made in light of
the ongoing SEC investigation and internal review, as well as
the fact that Deloitte & Touche LLP ("Deloitte"), the Company's
independent registered public accounting firm, had informed the
Company that due to the ongoing status of the internal review by
the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, Deloitte has been
unable to complete its review of the unaudited Consolidated
Financial Statements for the three and nine months ended
September 30, 2004.

Then on March 3, 2004, Delphi announced that "Vice Chairman and
Chief Financial Officer, Alan S. Dawes, is leaving the Company
and has resigned from its Board of Directors and its strategy
board. Additionally, the Company stated: "Mr. Dawes agreed to
resign after the audit committee expressed a loss of confidence
in him[.]"

Additionally, the Company stated it would restate results after
finding accounting errors from 1999 to 2004. Delphi stated that
it overstated cash flow from operations by $200 million in 2000
because of errors in off-balance sheet financing and overstated
pretax income by $61 million in 2001 because of improper
accounting for rebates. As a result, financial statements from
2001 on cannot be relied upon. Delphi had not yet determined
which prior results will have to be restated, but it expects to
complete the changes by June 30.

News of this shocked the market. Shares of Delphi, on March 4,
2005, fell $0.91 per share, or 14.29 percent, to close at $5.46
per share on unusually high trading volume.

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


HUFFY CORPORATION: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in OH
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Huffy Corp. ("Huffy") (Pink
Sheets: HUFCQ.PK) between April 16, 2002 and August 13, 2004,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Huffy violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Huffy's positive
statements concerning its growth and long-term prospects were
false and misleading because Huffy was experiencing problems
integrating the McCalla and Gen-X acquisition; Huffy's Canadian
operations were engaged in improper accounting practices; legacy
costs associated with discontinued operations were continuing to
mount; and, as a result of the foregoing, Huffy's financial
condition was dramatically eroding such that it was approaching
insolvency.

On August 13, 2004, Huffy issued a press release announcing
that, in the course of its review of its financial statements
for the first quarter of 2004, it had determined that certain
accounting entries, estimated in the range of $3.5 to $5.0
million and related primarily to customer deductions, credits
and reserves for inventory valuation and doubtful account
receivables for Huffy Sports Canada (formerly known as Gen-X
Sports), were more properly reflected in the period ended
December 31, 2003 rather than in the first quarter of 2004. In
response to this announcement, the price of Huffy common stock
declined from a close of $0.58 per share on August 13, 2004, to
close at $0.35 per share on August 14, 2004. Then, on August 16,
2004, Huffy announced that it was being delisted from the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE"). Finally, on October 20, 2004,
Huffy announced that it was filing for bankruptcy.

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


INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS: Wolf Popper Lodges Securities Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated filed a class action
lawsuit on behalf of Insight Communications Company, Inc. public
shareholders (Nasdaq: ICCI - News) on March 7, 2005 in the
Delaware Court of Chancery, New Castle County.

The Complaint seeks to enjoin a proposed buy-out transaction
announced on March 7, 2005 in which Insight's Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer, along with The Carlyle Group seek to buy out
the outstanding public shares of Insight for grossly inadequate
consideration.

For more details, contact Patricia I. Avery, Esq. or James
Kelly-Kowlowitz, Esq. of Wolf Popper LLP by Mail: 845 Third
Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by Phone: 212-759-4600 or
877-370-7703 by Fax: 212-486-2093 or 877-370-7704 or by E-mail:
irrep@wolfpopper.com.


MAMMA.COM INC.: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. has
filed a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the securities of Mamma.com,
Inc. (Nasdaq: MAMA - News; "Mamma.com" or the "Company") from
March 2, 2004 through February 16, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York against defendants Mamma.com,
David Goldman (Executive Chairman), Guy Faure (President and
CEO), and Daniel Bertrand (CFO and Executive Vice President).
According to the complaint, defendants violated sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5, by issuing a
series of material misrepresentations to the market during the
Class Period.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period,
Mamma.com, a provider of information retrieval through its
metasearch engine, touted Mamma.com's purported strong revenue
and earnings growth, and otherwise strong financial performance
in SEC filings and publicly disseminated press releases. In
reaction to these positive statements, the price of Mamma.com
common stock skyrocketed to as high as $17.49 per share in April
of 2004 (from an average price of $2.95 during the year prior to
the Class Period), with daily trading volume approximately 22
times greater than the average daily trading during the Class
Period. The intense trading of Company shares drew the attention
of the Securities and Exchange Commission, which commenced an
investigation of the Company in or about April 2004. Defendants
maintained throughout the Class Period that they were "confident
that all information and disclosures are fully compliant with
all applicable accounting practices and all SEC and other
regulatory disclosure requirements" and that the "Company is not
aware of any non-public information that might bear upon the
recent activity in the market for the Company's common stock."

The Complaint further alleges that on January 11, 2005, The
Globe and Mail published an article revealing that one of the
targets of the SEC investigation was the notorious Canadian
stock promoter, Irving Kott. According to the article, Kott's
checkered history included felony charges for concealing
material facts from the SEC, criminal charges by Dutch
regulators related to Kott's involvement with a "boiler room"
operation, and a guilty plea in an Ontario court for stock
fraud. The article stated that the SEC requested information
from Company executives and directors concerning any relations
they may have had with Kott. On January 13, 2005, Mamma.com
issued a press release confirming its previous announcement that
the SEC had commenced an investigation, and assured investors
that its officers, directors, and outside auditors were fully
cooperating with the SEC. On February 16, 2005, defendants
announced that PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP had refused the
Company's 2004 audit engagement, and they admitted that someone
had an undisclosed controlling interest in the Company. Although
they still did not reveal the person's identity, the Complaint
alleges that the context strongly suggested it was Kott. Upon
recognizing that Kott and the defendants had used Mamma.com to
perpetrate a classic "pump and dump" scheme, investors rushed to
sell off their Mamma.com stock, which, in conjunction with the
Company's announcement that it would not be releasing its year
2004 audited financials, resulted in an afternoon trading halt
of the Company's stock. Upon resumption of trading later the
same day, the shares continued to fall, and closed at $4.25,
down $2.03, or 32% from the previous trading day's closing price
of $6.28. The Complaint claims that Defendants were motivated to
engage in the fraudulent scheme to complete numerous
acquisitions and a private placement of Mamma.com common stock
and warrants to purchase Company stock for proceeds of $16.6
million.

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


OFFICEMAX INC.: Pomerantz Haudek Lodges Securities Suit in IL
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP
(www.pomerantzlaw.com) initiated a securities lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois Eastern Division, against OfficeMax Inc. ("OfficeMax"
or the "Company") and certain of its executive officers and
directors, for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. The class period in the case is January 22, 2004 to
January 11, 2005.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements concerning the
Company's operations and financial performance. Each of the
defendants, however, knew or recklessly disregarded, but
concealed from the investing public, the true facts. The true
facts include

     (1) for a period of two years, the Company fraudulently
         booked millions of dollars as legitimate sales;

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

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

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

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

As a result of defendants' false statements, OfficeMax's stock
price traded at inflated levels during the Class Period,
increasing to as high as $32.52 on December 16, 2004, whereby
the Company's top officers and directors arranged to sell nearly
$1.5 billion worth of the Company's notes.

OfficeMax, formerly Boise Cascade Corporation ("Boise"), is a
multinational contract and retail distributor of office
supplies, paper, technology products and office furniture.

For more details, contact Teresa L. Webb or Carolyn S. Moskowitz
by Phone: 888-476-6529 or by E-mail: tlwebb@pomlaw.com or
csmoskowitz@pomlaw.com.  


SILICONIX INC.: Bernstein Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in DE
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of Siliconix Incorporated
("Siliconix") 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 U. Seth Ottensoser, Esq. of Bernstein
Liebhard & Lifshitz, LLP by Mail: 10 East 40th Street, New York,
NY 10016 by Phone: (212) 779-1414 or (877) 779-1414 by Fax:
(212) 779-3218 by Phone: Ottensoser@bernlieb.com.


SILICONIX INC.: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in DE
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP announces
that it has filed a class action lawsuit on behalf all public
common stock holders of Siliconix, Inc. ("Siliconix" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:SILI) seeking to prevent Siliconix's majority
shareholder, Vishay Intertechnology, Inc. ("Vishay") (NYSE:VSH),
from using its controlling influence to force Siliconix minority
shareholders to sell out their shares at a price that is grossly
inadequate and unfair.

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, and
Vishay ("Defendants").

The complaint alleges that Vishay has made a tender offer to
exchange 2.64 shares of Vishay common stock for each outstanding
share of Siliconix stock, an offer valued at approximately
$34.98 per Siliconix share (the "Exchange Ratio"). This price
represents a discount of approximately 11% from Siliconix's 52-
week average of $39.20, and a substantial discount to its 52-
week high of $59.62. Following the tender offer, Vishay intends
to effect a merger of Siliconix with a subsidiary of Vishay (the
"Merger").

The Complaint further alleges that Vishay is trying to take
advantage of the fact that the market price of Siliconix stock
does not fully reflect the progress and future value of the
Company, that Vishay's offer has been dictated by Vishay to
serve its own interests and that Vishay seeks to force
Siliconix's minority shareholders to relinquish their Siliconix
shares at a grossly unfair price and that such action
constitutes unfair dealing.

For more details, contact Seth D. Rigrodsky or Ralph Sianni by
Mail: 919 North Market Street, Suite 411, Wilmington, DE 19801
by Phone: (302) 984-0597 by E-mail: rsianni@milbergweiss.com OR
Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th floor,
New York, NY 10119-0165 by Phone: (800) 320-5081 by E-mail:
sfeerick@milbergweiss.com.


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

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

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

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

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


TASER INTERNATIONAL: Berger & Montague Lodges AZ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona against TASER International, Inc.
("TASER" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: TASR) and certain of its
senior officers and directors on behalf of purchasers of TASER's
securities during the period between November 4, 2004 and
January 6, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges TASER and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. TASER purports to provide advanced non-lethal devices for
use in the law enforcement, military, private security and
personal defense markets.

More specifically, the complaint alleges, that throughout the
Class Period, defendants issued numerous statements concerning
the increasing demand for the Company's TASER devices and the
positive results of studies that were conducted regarding the
safety of the Company's products. As alleged in the complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose:

     (1) that, contrary to defendants' representations, the
         studies conducted on the Company's TASER devices were
         inconclusive as to the safety of the devices;

     (2) that the Company's revenues and earnings would be
         negatively impacted once the truth of these studies
         became known;

     (3) that the end of year order of TASER devices the Company
         had received from one of its distributors was done to
         help the Company meet its sales goals for the quarter
         and was not indicative of the true demand for the
         Company's products; and

    (14) based on the foregoing, defendants had no reasonable
         basis for their positive statements regarding the
         safety of, and demand for, the Company's products.

During the Class Period, while defendants allegedly made false
statements to the market, they engaged in insider sales of their
personal holdings in TASER stock, whereby they collectively
reaped about $50 million in proceeds.

On January 6, 2005, after the close of the market, defendants
disclosed that they were in receipt of an informal inquiry
letter from the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the
Company's statements about the safety of its products and a
recent order received from one of its distributors. Market
reaction to this announcement was swift and severe. On January
7, 2005, shares of TASER common stock closed at $22.72 per
share, a decline of $4.90 per share, or 18%, from the previous
day's close.

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



                            *********


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  * * *