---

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

            Thursday, March 10, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 49


                          Headlines

ASAHI KASEI: Reaches $25M Antitrust Settlement in U.S. Lawsuit
AVON PRODUCTS: Appeals Court Affirms NY Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Certification Ruling in CA Suit
AVON PRODUCTS: Faces False Cosmetics Advertising Lawsuit in CA
BIOGEN IDEC: Suits Allege Firm, Elan Hid Sclerosis Drug Problems

BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiffs to File Third Amended Securities Suit
BRISTOL-MYERS: Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit Deemed Final
BRISTOL-MYERS: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
BRISTOL-MYERS: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
CALIFORNIA: Cosmetics Makers, Retailers Settle Price-Fixing Suit

CANADA: Judge Denies Big Three's Request For Legal Compensation
COMPUTER NETWORK: Lawsuit Launched To Thwart McData Acquisition
COX RADIO: GA Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of TCPA Suit Dismissal
DELPHI COMMUNICATIONS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in NY
FLUOR CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Lawsuit

HENRY SCHEIN: Settles Remaining Claims in TX Easy Dental Lawsuit
HENRY SCHEIN: Settles Remaining Claims in NJ Consumer Fraud Suit
KINDER MORGAN: TX Court To Dismiss Royalty Interest Owners' Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Seeks To Compel Arbitration For NM Royalty Suit
KINDER MORGAN: Asks AK Court To Dismiss Natural Gas Fraud Suit

KINDER MORGAN: Working To Resolve Personal Injury Suits in NV
MCG CAPITAL: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
NEW ANNOINTING: Attorney General Abbott Halts Immigration Fraud
NORTH CAROLINA: $5.25M Settlement Proposed in Suit V. GE Broker
PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Focus Cases

PIPER JAFFRAY: Class Discovery Concludes in NY Antitrust Lawsuit
PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Fee Antitrust Litigation
PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: Court Proceedings Start For Racial Bias Case
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Seeks Transfer of Suit To IA Federal Court
TELUS COMMUNICATIONS: Cell Phone Users Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit

UNITED STATES: Scholar Says Tsunami Suit "Publicity-Seeking"
WAL-MART STORES: Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit To Be Heard March 14
WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Sued For Defective Dishwashers in IL, MO
WYETH INC.: Appeals Order Consolidating FL Prempro Lawsuits

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Baron & Budd Files TX Securities Suit
ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in TX
AUDIBLE INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in NJ
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeger Weiss Lodges NJ Securities Suit

DELPHI CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in NY
DELPHI CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NY
DELPHI CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences ERISA Investigation
FANNIE MAE: Emerson Poynter Reports Possible ERISA Violations
GENERAL CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in TN

IMERGENT INC.: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Morris and Morris Lodges NC Stock Suit
MOLEX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges IL Securities Fraud Suit
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges MA Stock Suit


                          *********

ASAHI KASEI: Reaches $25M Antitrust Settlement in U.S. Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Asahi Kasei Corp. signed an agreement to pay $25 million to
settle a U.S. antitrust class action suit over an alleged
conspiracy between the Japanese firm and a U.S. Company to
divide up the market, Japan Today reports.

U.S. users of microcryalline cellulose, which is also known as
MCC, filed class action suits in and after January 2001 after
the U.S. Federal Trade Commission alleged Asahi Kasei and FMC
Corp. in 1998 conspired to divide the global MCC market. Since
then, the suits have been combined into one.


AVON PRODUCTS: Appeals Court Affirms NY Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the securities class action filed against Avon
Products, Inc. on behalf of certain classes of holders of Avon's
Preferred Equity-Redemption Cumulative Stock (PERCS).  
Plaintiffs alleged various contract and securities law claims
related to the PERCS (which were fully redeemed in 1991) and
sought aggregate damages of approximately $145.0, plus interest.

A trial of this action took place in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and concluded in
November 2001.  In March 2004, the court rendered a decision in
favor of Avon and dismissed the complaint.  The plaintiffs
appealed the court's decision to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit, and in February 2005 the Court
of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court.  The
plaintiffs have not yet indicated whether they plan to appeal
the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The suit is styled "Chartwell Associates, et al v. Avon Products
Inc., et al, case no. 1:91-cv-00806-PNL," filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
under Judge Pierre N. Leval.  Representing the Company are
Steven L. Holley and Stuart D. Meiklejohn of Sullivan &
Cromwell, 125 Broadway, NY, NY 10004, Phone: 558-4000, E-mail:
meiklejohns@sullcrom.com.  Representing the plaintiffs is
Philippe Marc Salomon, Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP (NY), 787
Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10019, Phone: (212) 728-8000, Fax:
(212) 728-8111, E-mail: maosdny@willkie.com


AVON PRODUCTS: Plaintiffs Appeal Certification Ruling in CA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appeal the Superior Court of the State of
California's ruling striking class certification for the lawsuit
filed against Avon Products, Inc., styled "Blakemore, et al. v.
Avon Products, Inc., et al."

The suit is filed on behalf of Avon Sales Representatives who
"since March 24, 1999, received products from Avon they did not
order, thereafter returned the unordered products to Avon, and
did not receive credit for those returned products."  The
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages,
restitution and injunctive relief for alleged unjust enrichment
and violation of the California Business and Professions Code.

The Company filed demurrers to the original complaint and three
subsequent amended complaints, asserting that they failed to
state a cause of action. The Court sustained the Company's
demurrers and dismissed plaintiffs' causes of action except for
the unjust enrichment claim of one plaintiff, the amount of
which is nominal.  The court also struck plaintiffs' class
allegations.  Plaintiffs filed Petitions for Writ of Mandate
with the Court of Appeal of the State of California seeking to
overturn the Superior Court's dismissals in respect of the
complaints.  In June 2004, the Court of Appeal issued an
Alternative Writ of Mandate and Order mandating that the
Superior Court vacate its prior rulings or, in the alternative,
show cause why such a mandate should not issue.

Separately, plaintiffs filed with the Superior Court a motion
for reconsideration of the court's decision striking plaintiffs'
class allegations in this matter, which decision was unaffected
by the action of the Court of Appeal. The Superior Court chose
not to vacate its rulings in respect of the complaints, so the
parties were ordered to prepare briefs to the Court of Appeal
regarding the Superior Court's order granting the Company's
demurrers.  The Superior Court also chose not to change its
ruling striking plaintiffs' class allegations and the plaintiffs
have appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. The parties
have fully briefed the Writ of Mandate proceeding and the appeal
of the class allegation issue. Argument before the Court of
Appeal regarding both the Writ of Mandate and the appeal of the
class allegation issue is scheduled to take place in March 2005.


AVON PRODUCTS: Faces False Cosmetics Advertising Lawsuit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, Inc. was named as a defendant in the class action
filed in the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Diego, styled "Scheufler v. Estee Lauder, Inc., et al."  The
action also names other defendants and seeks injunctive relief
and restitution for alleged violations of the California Unfair
Competition Law and the California False Advertising Law, and
for negligent and intentional misrepresentation.

The purported class includes individuals "who have purchased
skin care products from defendants that have been falsely
advertised to have an `anti-aging' or youth inducing benefit or
effect." While it is not possible to predict the outcome of
litigation, management believes that there are meritorious
defenses to the claims asserted, the Company said in a
disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


BIOGEN IDEC: Suits Allege Firm, Elan Hid Sclerosis Drug Problems
----------------------------------------------------------------
Biogen Idec Inc. and Elan Corporation are facing a multitude of
shareholder lawsuits after withdrawing their multiple sclerosis
drug from the market, a move that led the stock prices of the
U.S. and Irish drug-making partners to plunge, the Associated
Press reports.

According to court documents, the lawsuits are alleging that the
companies artificially inflated the values of their stocks
before last week's withdrawal of the recently approved
medication Tysabri by concealing problems indicating the drug
could leave patients vulnerable to a rare central nervous system
disease.  At least five lawsuits seeking class-action status on
behalf of shareholders have been filed in federal court in
Boston against Cambridge-based Biogen Idec. Two others have also
been filed in Massachusetts against Dublin-based Elan.

The companies say they learned of patient illnesses on February
18, and quickly informed federal regulators amid a rapid
investigation leading to the February 28 announcement that they
were withdrawing the drug from the market.

The lawsuits are alleging violations of federal securities laws,
accusing the companies of misleading investors and failing to
disclose problems indicating Tysabri could compromise the immune
system and leave patients vulnerable to the rare and frequently
fatal disease progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy.  
Records indicate that one patient died of the condition and
another contracted it but has survived. Both patients were
taking Tysabri in combination with another Biogen Idec treatment
for MS, called Avonex, in clinical trials.

The lawsuits also allege that the companies disregarded evidence
of problems in order to win approval for Tysabri on November 23
under the Food and Drug Administration's "fast-track" program
for drugs that address an unmet medical need. The complaints are
thus seeking to represent investors who held shares in the
companies from February 18 to February 25, the final trading day
before the drug was withdrawn.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Plaintiffs to File Third Amended Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey for leave to file a third amended class
action against Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. and certain of its
current and former officers and directors.
In April, May and June 2000, several suits were initially filed
against the Company, its former chairman of the board and chief
executive officer, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., and its former
chief scientific officer, Peter S. Ringrose, Ph.D., alleging
violations of federal securities laws and regulations. These
actions were consolidated into one action, alleging that the
defendants disseminated materially false and misleading
statements and/or failed to disclose material information
concerning the safety, efficacy and commercial viability of its
product VANLEV during the period November 8, 1999 through April
19, 2000.  

In May 2002, the plaintiff submitted an amended complaint adding
allegations that the Company, its present chairman of the board
and chief executive officer, Peter R. Dolan, its former chairman
of the board and chief executive officer, Charles A. Heimbold,
Jr., and its former chief scientific officer, Peter S. Ringrose,
Ph.D., disseminated materially false and misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose material information concerning the
safety, efficacy, and commercial viability of VANLEV during the
period April 19, 2000 through March 20, 2002.

A number of related class actions, making essentially the same
allegations, were also filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York. These actions have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey.  

The Company filed a motion for partial judgment in its favor
based upon the pleadings. The plaintiff opposed the motion, in
part by seeking again to amend its complaint. The court granted
in part and denied in part the Company's motion and ruled that
the plaintiff may amend its complaint to challenge certain
alleged misstatements.  The court has certified two separate
classes: a class relating to the period from November 8, 1999 to
April 19, 2000 and a class relating to the period from March 22,
2001 to March 20, 2002.  The class certification and proposed
class certification are without prejudice to defendants' rights
to fully contest the merits of plaintiff's claims.  The
plaintiff purports to seek compensatory damages, costs and
expense on behalf of shareholders with respect to the class
period and proposed class period.  

On December 17, 2004, the Company and the other defendants made
a motion for summary judgment as to all of plaintiff's claims.
The final pre-trial conference in this matter commenced on
December 15, 2004 and is scheduled to be completed on May 4,
2005.  No trial date has been set.  

In January 2005, the plaintiff moved for leave to file a third
amended complaint, seeking to combine the two class periods into
one expanded class period from October 19, 1999 through March
19, 2002 and to add further allegations that the Company, Peter
R. Dolan, Charles A. Heimbold, Jr., and Peter S. Ringrose, Ph.D.
disseminated materially false and misleading statements and or
failed to disclose material information concerning the safety,
efficacy and commercial viability of VANLEV. Defendants have
opposed the plaintiff's motion, and the Court is scheduled to
hear oral argument on the motion on April 4, 2005.   


BRISTOL-MYERS: Settlement For NY Securities Lawsuit Deemed Final
----------------------------------------------------------------
The settlement of the consolidated securities class action filed
against Bristol-Myers Squibb and several of its current and
former officers at the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York has become final.

During the period March through May 2002, the Company and a
number of its current and former officers were named as
defendants in a number of securities class action suits. The
suits variously alleged violations of federal securities laws
and regulations in connection with three different matters:

     (1) VANLEV (as discussed above),

     (2) sales incentives and wholesaler inventory levels, and

     (3) ImClone, and ImClone's product, ERBITUX*.

As discussed above, the allegations concerning VANLEV have been
transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey and consolidated with the action pending there.  The
remaining actions have been consolidated and are pending in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on April
11, 2003 against the Company and certain current and former
officers alleging a class period of October 19, 1999 through
March 10, 2003.  The consolidated class action complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws in connection with, among
other things, the Company's investment in and relationship with
ImClone and ImClone's product, ERBITUX*, and certain accounting
issues, including issues related to wholesaler inventory and
sales incentives, the establishment of reserves, and accounting
for certain asset and other sales.  The plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages, costs and expenses.

On March 29, 2004, the U.S. District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated class action complaint and
dismissed the case with prejudice. Plaintiffs appealed that
dismissal to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Court of
Appeals). While that appeal was pending, the parties reached an
agreement in principle to settle the action. On July 26, 2004,
the Court of Appeals stayed the appeal and remanded the action
to the District Court so that the District Court could consider
the settlement. On July 30, 2004, the District Court vacated the
Clerk's Judgment in order to consider the settlement.  Also on
that day, the District Court entered an order preliminarily
approving the settlement and certifying a class for settlement
purposes only.  Pursuant to the terms of the proposed
settlement, all claims in the action will be dismissed, the
litigation will be terminated, the defendants will receive
releases, and the Company will pay $300 million to a fund for
class members.  On November 9, 2004, after a fairness hearing,
the District Court approved the settlement and a judgment
dismissing the case with prejudice.  The settlement has become
final.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Shareholders Launch Stock Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb and a number of the Company's current and
former officers were named as defendants in a purported class
action pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois.

The suit, initially filed in the State Court in Cook County,
Illinois, asserts common law fraud and breach of fiduciary duty
claims.  The complaint purports to assert those claims on behalf
of stockholders who purchased the Company's stock before October
19, 1999 and held onto their stock through March 10, 2003. The
Company removed the action to the Northern District of Illinois
on February 10, 2005.  Plaintiffs' motion to remand is due March
17, 2005.  The Company's opposition is due April 18, 2005 and
plaintiffs' reply is due May 18, 2005.


BRISTOL-MYERS: Asks MO Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bristol-Myers Squibb asked the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Missouri to dismiss a securities class
action filed against the Company, D & K Healthcare Resources,
Inc. (D & K) and several current and former D & K directors and
officers on behalf of purchasers of D & K stock between August
10, 2000 and September 16, 2002.

The class action complaint alleges that the Company participated
in fraudulently inflating the value of D & K stock by allegedly
engaging in improper "channel-stuffing" agreements with D & K.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this case on January 28,
2005.  The plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss is
due March 21, 2005, and the Company's reply is due April 11,
2005.  Under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act,
discovery is automatically stayed pending the outcome of the
motion to dismiss.  The plaintiff filed a motion to partially
lift the automatic discovery stay on February 22, 2005. The
Company's opposition to the motion is due March 4, 2005 and
plaintiff's reply is due March 16, 2005.


CALIFORNIA: Cosmetics Makers, Retailers Settle Price-Fixing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
To settle a class-action lawsuit that accuses them of price
fixing, seventeen major cosmetics manufacturers and retailers,
including L'Oreal, Estee Lauder and Target, are set to give away
$175 million in products, the Contra Costa Times reports.

Under the terms of the settlement, which was recently approved
by an Oakland federal judge, customers who purchased upscale
cosmetics products between May 29, 1994, and July 16, 2003, will
be eligible for a free product valued between $18 and $25.

Aside from the giveaways, the settlement's term also require the
companies to pay up to $24 million in attorneys fees, to cover
marketing and distribution costs related to the giveaways and to
not "fix, establish, control or maintain the retail price at
which any department store may offer for sale or sell" cosmetics
and fragrances.

The suit, which included plaintiffs such as Chanel Inc.,
Christian Dior Perfumes Inc., The Estee Lauder Companies Inc.,
L'Oreal USA Inc., Dillard's Inc., Federated Department Stores
Inc., The Neiman Marcus Group, Nordstrom Inc. and Target Corp.,
had alleged that the cosmetics manufacturers and retailers
colluded to set prices, resulting in equal pricing from store to
store and few markdowns.


CANADA: Judge Denies Big Three's Request For Legal Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Citing the "special significance" of the legal action to the
public interest, a judge has denied the request by three tobacco
firms for reimbursements of their legal costs from a failed
lawsuit on behalf of Ontario smokers, the Canadian Press
reports.

As previously reported in the March 8, 2005 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, Canada's Big Three tobacco multinationals:
Imperial Tobacco Ltd., Rothmans Benson & Hedges Inc. and JTI-
Macdonald Corp. had sought over $1.2 million in legal costs and
fees against the plaintiffs and their lawyers.

Four sick Ontario smokers, who sought damages for illness they
alleged resulted from smoking, spearheaded the failed lawsuit,
which was launched a decade ago. As a class action, the lawsuit
was structured to allow millions of other smokers to join, but
Ontario Superior Court Justice Warren Winkler declined to
certify the action in 2004, finding the case was too broad and
unworkable.

However, Justice Winkler recently denied the tobacco companies'
attempts to get their legal costs reimbursed, partly because the
failed lawsuit "involved a matter of public interest" that had
"special significance for the community at large and beyond the
members of the proposed class."

In addition, Justice Winkler stated that "any proceeding that
might have the effect of either curtailing the use of (tobacco)
products or visiting the health costs of their use on the
defendants rather than the public at large" clearly raised
issues that went beyond the interests of the class.

The tobacco companies had alleged plaintiff lawyers needlessly
drove up their defense costs. The plaintiffs though countered by
pointing out that awarding costs against them and their lawyers
would ensure that no one would pursue the tobacco companies
again in a class action.


COMPUTER NETWORK: Lawsuit Launched To Thwart McData Acquisition
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been launched against Computer
Network Technology Corporation, in connection with its impending
acquisition by McData Corporation of Broomfield, the American
City Business Journals Inc. reports.  
  
The class-action lawsuit named Minneapolis-based CNT (NASDAQ:
CMNT) and its seven-member board of directors as defendants and
is alleging a breach of fiduciary duty. It thus seeks to block
the $235 million merger with McData (NASDAQ: MCDT) as well as
unspecified damages.

The suit is the second hurdle this week for CNT, which on Monday
delayed the release of its quarterly earnings just hours before
a planned announcement, saying that it would probably have to
restate earnings for three quarters of 2004, which would likely
increase the cost of goods sold by CNT.  McData last month got
approval from antitrust regulators to proceed with the merger,
but the deal still needs to be approved by shareholders from
both companies and is expected to close during the second
quarter.


COX RADIO: GA Court Yet To Rule on Appeal of TCPA Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Court of Appeals has yet to rule on the appeal of
the dismissal of the class action filed against Cox Radio, Inc.,
alleging violations of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).

The suit was initially filed in the state court in Fulton
County, Georgia, seeking statutory damages in the amount of
$1,500, plus attorneys' fees, on behalf of each person
"throughout the State of Georgia" who received an unsolicited
pre-recorded telephone message delivering an "unsolicited
advertisement" from a Cox Radio radio station.

Thereafter, proceedings in this case were stayed pending rulings
by the Georgia Court of Appeals in a similar action pending
against another radio broadcast Company. This stay was lifted on
August 13, 2003 following rulings by the Court of Appeals in the
second case directing the trial court to consider certain
constitutional defenses raised by the defendant. On July 3,
2003, the FCC issued a Report and Order holding, among other
things, that pre-recorded telephone messages by broadcasters
made for the purpose of inviting consumers to listen to a free
broadcast are not "unsolicited advertisements" prohibited by the
TCPA.

On July 28, 2003, the Company requested that the plaintiffs
voluntarily dismiss their claims in light of the FCC's Report
and Order.  Plaintiffs subsequently refused this request, and on
October 24, 2003, the Company filed a motion for judgment on the
pleadings seeking the dismissal of plaintiffs' claims on grounds
that the calls in question were permissible under the TCPA and
the FCC's implementing rules and, alternatively, that the
application of the TCPA to the facts of this case would violate
our constitutional rights to free speech, equal protection and
due process.

On February 3, 2004, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint
in support of their contention that the messages at issue were
not exempted by the terms of the FCC Report and Order. On March
25, 2004, the court entered an order ruling that the calls at
issue were not prohibited by the TCPA and its implementing
regulations, granting our motion for judgment on the pleadings,
and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims.  Plaintiffs filed a
notice of appeal from these rulings on April 21, 2004.


DELPHI COMMUNICATIONS: Charles Piven Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
Baltimore attorney, Charles Piven, filed a class action lawsuit
on behalf of shareholders who purchased or acquired Delphi stock
between January 17, 2001 and March 3, 2005 against Delphi Corp.,
which alleges that Company leaders misled investors and
artificially inflated the stock price, the American City
Business Journals Inc. reports.

The suit, which is currently pending in the U.S. District Court
of New York, names as defendants Delphi, Chief Executive Officer
J.T. Battenberg III, former Chief Financial Officer Alan Dawes,
acting CFO John Sheenan and Paul Free, former chief accountant
and controller. It charges that the defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of false and misleading
statements to the market that led to artificial inflation of the
market price for the Company's securities.

The lawsuit follows the results of a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission investigation that found Delphi had
overstated its profits and misrepresented how much cash it had
from its operations.  Delphi is the world's largest automotive
supplier, employing 190,000 workers at plants and joint ventures
worldwide.


FLUOR CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For CA Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fluor Corporation reached a settlement for the securities class
action filed against it and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court, Central District,
Southern Division, California.

Plaintiffs in this action are alleging that the Company's
officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by providing false or misleading statements about the
Company's business and prospects.  These complaints purport to
be class action complaints brought on behalf of purchasers of
the Company's stock during the period from May 22, 1996 through
February 18, 1997.

The Company's initial motion to dismiss the action was granted
by the court with leave to amend.  The plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint and the Company moved the court to dismiss the
new amended complaint.  The Court granted the Company's motion
and dismissed plaintiff's action without leave to amend on July
10, 2002.  Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal and the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals has remanded the motion to the trial
court with instructions to allow plaintiff an additional chance
to plead additional claims. During the first quarter of 2005 the
Company, its insurer and the plaintiffs have reached an
agreement in principal to settle this proceeding.


HENRY SCHEIN: Settles Remaining Claims in TX Easy Dental Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. has resolved the remaining claims in the
consumer class action filed against it and one of its
subsidiaries in the District Court in Travis County, Texas,
entitled "Shelly E. Stromboe and Jeanne Taylor, on Behalf of
Themselves and all others Similarly Situated vs. Henry Schein,
Inc., Easy Dental Systems, Inc. and Dentisoft, Inc.," Case
No.98-00886.  The petition alleges, among other things,
negligence, breach of contract, fraud, and violations of certain
Texas commercial statutes involving the sale of certain practice
management software products sold prior to 1998 under the Easy
Dental name.

In October 1999, the trial court, on motion, certified both a
Windows sub-class and a DOS sub-class to proceed as a class
action pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 42.  On October 31, 2002, the
Texas Supreme Court, on appeal, found that the trial court's
certification of the case as a class action was improper.  The
Texas Supreme Court remanded the case to the trial court for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion.  The trial
court ruled in the Company's favor on remand. As a result, only
certain individual claims asserted on behalf of the named
plaintiffs remained pending in the case as of the end of 2004.


HENRY SCHEIN: Settles Remaining Claims in NJ Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Schein, Inc. reached a settlement for the remaining claims
in the lawsuit filed against it in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Morris County, entitled "West Morris
Pediatrics, P.A. and Avenel-Iselin Medical Group, P.A. vs. Henry
Schein, Inc., doing business as Caligor," Case No. MRS-L-421-02.

The plaintiffs' complaint purported to be on behalf of a
nationwide class of all physicians, hospitals and other
healthcare providers throughout New Jersey and across the United
States.  The complaint, as amended in August2002, alleged breach
of oral contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,
unjust enrichment, conversion and promissory estoppel relating
to sales of a vaccine product in the year 2001.

In September 2004, the court denied class certification. As a
result, only certain individual claims asserted on behalf of the
two named plaintiffs remained pending in the case as of the end
of 2004.  Such claims were settled in January 2005.


KINDER MORGAN: TX Court To Dismiss Royalty Interest Owners' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Statutory Probate Court, Denton County, Texas intends to
dismiss the two class actions filed against Kinder Morgan CO2
Company, L.P., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., and Cortez Pipeline
Company, styled "Shores, et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp., et al., No.
GC-99-01184 (Statutory Probate Court, Denton County, Texas filed
December 22, 1999)" and "First State Bank of Denton, et al. v.
Mobil Oil Corp., et al., No. 8552-01 (Statutory Probate Court,
Denton County, Texas filed March 29, 2001)."

These cases were originally filed as class actions on behalf of
classes of overriding royalty interest owners (Shores) and
royalty interest owners (Bank of Denton) for damages relating to
alleged underpayment of royalties on carbon dioxide produced
from the McElmo Dome Unit. Although classes were initially
certified at the trial court level, appeals resulted in the
decertification and/or abandonment of the class claims. In
December 2004, the trial judge orally announced his intention to
dismiss both cases in response to motions filed by defendants.
Orders of dismissal have been submitted but have not, as yet,
been entered.

On May 13, 2004, William Armor, one of the former plaintiffs in
the Shores matter whose claims were dismissed for improper venue
by the Court of Appeals, filed a new case alleging the same
claims (in summary, seeking damages for underpayment of
royalties based on alleged breaches of contractual duties and
covenants, agency duties, civil conspiracy, and related claims)
against the same defendants previously sued in the Shores case,
including Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P. and Kinder Morgan
Energy Partners, L.P. Armor v. Shell Oil Company, et al, No. 04-
03559 (14th Judicial District, Dallas County Court filed May 13,
2004). Defendants filed their answers and special exceptions on
June 4, 2004.  Trial, if necessary, has been scheduled for July
25, 2005.


KINDER MORGAN: Seeks To Compel Arbitration For NM Royalty Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan CO2 Company, L.P. filed a motion for arbitration
for the class action filed against it in the 8th Judicial
District court, Union County, New Mexico, styled "J. Casper
Heimann, Pecos Slope Royalty Trust and Rio Petro LTD,
individually and on behalf of all other private royalty and
overriding royalty owners in the Bravo Dome Carbon Dioxide Unit,
New Mexico similarly situated v. Kinder Morgan CO2 Company,
L.P., No. 04-26-CL."

This case alleges that defendant has failed to pay the full
royalty and overriding royalty ("royalty interests") on the true
and proper settlement value of compressed carbon dioxide
produced from the Bravo Dome Unit in the period beginning
January 1, 2000.  The complaint purports to assert claims for
violation of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act, constructive
fraud, breach of contract and of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing, breach of the implied covenant to market, and
claims for an accounting, unjust enrichment, and injunctive
relief.  The purported class is comprised of current and former
owners, during the period January 2000 to the present, who have
private property royalty interests burdening the oil and gas
leases held by the defendant, excluding the Commissioner of
Public Lands, the United States of America, and those private
royalty interests that are not unitized as part of the Bravo
Dome Unit.

The plaintiffs allege that they were members of a class
previously certified as a class action by the United States
District Court for the District of New Mexico in the matter
"Doris Feerer, et al. v. Amoco Production Company, et al., USDC
N.M. Civ. No. 95-0012."  Plaintiffs allege that defendant's
method of paying royalty interests is contrary to the settlement
of the Feerer Class Action. Defendant has filed a Motion to
Compel Arbitration of this matter pursuant to the arbitration
provisions contained in the Feerer Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which motion is currently pending.  No date for
arbitration or trial is currently set.


KINDER MORGAN: Asks AK Court To Dismiss Natural Gas Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. asked the Circuit Court for
Miller County, Arkansas to dismiss the class action filed
against them and several other entities, styled "Weldon Johnson
and Guy Sparks, individually and as Representative of Others
Similarly Situated v. Centerpoint Energy, Inc. et. al., No. 04-
327-2."  The suit includes as defendants the Company and:

     (1) Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline L.P.;

     (2) Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc.;

     (3) KM Texas Pipeline, L.P.;

     (4) Kinder Morgan Texas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;

     (5) Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline G.P., Inc.;

     (6) Kinder Morgan Tejas Pipeline, L.P.;

     (7) Gulf Energy Marketing, LLC;

     (8) Tejas Gas, LLC; and

     (9) Midcon Corporation

The Complaint purports to bring a class action on behalf of
those who purchased natural gas from the Centerpoint defendants
from October 1, 1994 to the date of class certification.  The
Complaint alleges that Centerpoint Energy, Inc., by and through
its affiliates, has artificially inflated the price charged to
residential consumers for natural gas that it allegedly
purchased from the non-Centerpoint defendants, including the
above-listed Kinder Morgan entities.  The Complaint further
alleges that in exchange for Centerpoint's purchase of such
natural gas at above market prices, the non-Centerpoint
defendants, including the above-listed Kinder Morgan entities,
sell natural gas to Centerpoint's non-regulated affiliates at
prices substantially below market, which in turn sells such
natural gas to commercial and industrial consumers and gas
marketers at market price.

The Complaint purports to assert claims for fraud, unlawful
enrichment and civil conspiracy against all of the defendants,
and seeks relief in the form of actual, exemplary and punitive
damages, interest, and attorneys' fees. The Complaint was served
on the Kinder Morgan Defendants on October 21, 2004.

On November 18, 2004, the Centerpoint Defendants removed the
case to the United States District Court, Western District of
Arkansas, Texarkana Division, Civ. Action No. 04-4154.  On
January 26, 2005, the Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back
to state court, which motion is currently pending. On December
17, 2004, the Kinder Morgan Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
the Complaint, which motion is also currently pending.


KINDER MORGAN: Working To Resolve Personal Injury Suits in NV
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. is working for the dismissal
or resolution of several class actions filed in Nevada federal
and state courts, on charges that a leukemia cluster was
developing in the city of Fallon, Nevada.

The first suit is styled "Marie Snyder, et al v. City of Fallon,
United States Department of the Navy, Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., Speedway Gas Station and
John Does I-X, No. cv-N-02-0251-ECR-RAM," filed in the United
States District Court, District of Nevada on July 9, 2002.  The
plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, alleges that the plaintiffs have been exposed to
unspecified "environmental carcinogens" at unspecified times in
an unspecified manner and are therefore "suffering a
significantly increased fear of serious disease."  The
plaintiffs seek a certification of a class of all persons in
Nevada who have lived for at least three months of their first
ten years of life in the City of Fallon between the years 1992
and the present who have not been diagnosed with leukemia.

The Complaint purports to assert causes of action for nuisance
and "knowing concealment, suppression, or omission of material
facts" against all defendants, and seeks relief in the form of
"a court-supervised trust fund, paid for by defendants, jointly
and severally, to finance a medical monitoring program to
deliver services to members of the purported class that include,
but are not limited to, testing, preventative screening and
surveillance for conditions resulting from, or which can
potentially result from exposure to environmental carcinogens,"
incidental damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The defendants responded to the Complaint by filing Motions to
Dismiss on the grounds that it fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.  On November 7, 2002, the United States
District Court granted the Motion to Dismiss filed by the United
States, and further dismissed all claims against the remaining
defendants for lack of Federal subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Reconsideration and Leave to
Amend, which was denied by the Court on December 30, 2002.
Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States Court
of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. On March 15, 2004, the 9th
Circuit affirmed the dismissal of this case.

On December 3, 2002, plaintiffs filed an additional Complaint
for Class Action, styled "Frankie Sue Galaz, et al v. United
States of America, City of Fallon, Exxon Mobil Corporation,
Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., Berry Hinckley, Inc., and
John Does I-X, No. cv-N-02-0630-DWH-RAM," filed in the United
States District Court, District of Nevada.  The suit asserts the
same claims in the same court on behalf of the same purported
class against virtually the same defendants, including the
Company.  On February 10, 2003, the defendants filed Motions to
Dismiss the Galaz I Complaint on the grounds that it also fails
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.  This motion
to dismiss was granted as to all defendants on April 3, 2003.
Plaintiffs have filed a Notice of Appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. On November 17, 2003, the
9th Circuit dismissed the appeal, upholding the District Court's
dismissal of the case.

On June 20, 2003, plaintiffs filed an additional Complaint for
Class Action, styled "Frankie Sue Galaz, et al v. City of
Fallon, Exxon Mobil Corporation, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners,
L.P., Kinder Morgan G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Las Vegas, LLC,
Kinder Morgan Operating Limited Partnership "D", Kinder Morgan
Services LLC, Berry Hinkley and Does I-X, No. CV03-03613," filed
in the Second Judicial District Court, State of Nevada, County
of Washoe.  The suit asserts the same claims in Nevada State
trial court on behalf of the same purported class against
virtually the same defendants, including the Company (and
excluding the United States Department of the Navy).

On September 30, 2003, the Kinder Morgan defendants filed a
Motion to Dismiss the Galaz II Complaint along with a Motion for
Sanctions. On April 13, 2004, plaintiffs' counsel voluntarily
stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of the entire case in
State Court. The court has accepted the stipulation and the
parties are awaiting a final order from the court dismissing the
case with prejudice.

Also on June 20, 2003, the plaintiffs in the previously filed
Galaz matters (now dismissed) filed yet another Complaint for
Class Action in the United States District Court for the
District of Nevada, styled "Frankie Sue Galaz, et al v. The
United States of America, City of Fallon, Exxon Mobil
Corporation, Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., Kinder Morgan
G.P., Inc., Kinder Morgan Las Vegas, LLC, Kinder Morgan
Operating Limited Partnership "D", Kinder Morgan Services LLC,
Berry Hinkley and Does I-X, No.CVN03-0298-DWH-VPC.  The suit
asserts the same claims in United States District Court for the
District of Nevada on behalf of the same purported class against
virtually the same defendants, including the Company.

The Kinder Morgan defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Galaz
III matter on August 15, 2003. On October 3, 2003, the
plaintiffs filed a Motion for Withdrawal of Class Action, which
voluntarily drops the class action allegations from the matter
and seeks to have the case proceed on behalf of the Galaz family
only.  On December 5, 2003, the District Court granted the
Kinder Morgan defendants' Motion to Dismiss, but granted
plaintiff leave to file a second Amended Complaint.  Plaintiff
filed a Second Amended Complaint on December 13, 2003, and a
Third Amended Complaint on January 5, 2004.  The Kinder Morgan
defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the Third Amended Complaint
on January 13, 2004. The Motion to Dismiss was granted with
prejudice on April 30, 2004.  On May 7, 2004, Plaintiff filed a
Notice of Appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the
9th Circuit, which appeal is currently pending.


MCG CAPITAL: Appeals Court Affirms Securities Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the
dismissal of the consolidated securities class action filed
against MCG Capital Corporation, certain of its officers and the
underwriters of its initial public offering.

The suit was originally filed in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia against the Company,
certain of its officers and the underwriters of its initial
public offering.  The complaint alleged that the defendants made
certain misstatements in violation of Sections 11, 12(a) (2) and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5
and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Specifically, the complaint asserted that members of the
plaintiff class purchased our common stock at purportedly
inflated prices during the period from November 28, 2001
to November 1, 2002 as a result of certain misstatements
regarding the academic degree of the Company's chief executive
officer. The complaint sought unspecified compensatory and other
damages, along with costs and expenses.

On June 16, 2003, a consolidated amended class action complaint
was filed in the proceedings captioned "In re MCG Capital
Corporation Securities Litigation," 1:03cv0114-A.  The
consolidated amended complaint named only the Company and
certain of its officers and directors as defendants, and  
alleged violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
class action complaint.  On September 12, 2003, the court
dismissed the lawsuit in its entirety.  The plaintiffs appealed
a district court decision to the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fourth Circuit.  On December 21, 2004, the United
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
dismissal by the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of the class action lawsuit.   


NEW ANNOINTING: Attorney General Abbott Halts Immigration Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott halted a second Houston woman
from charging hundreds of Hispanic consumers up to thousands of
dollars for unauthorized immigration-related consulting
services.  

The Attorney General Abbott obtained a temporary restraining
order and asset freeze against Yolanda Perez, just weeks after
he announced a similar lawsuit against another Houston woman.  
Ms. Perez, who operated a nonprofit corporation called New
Anointing/Nueva Uncion, falsely told clients she was a former
employee of the Immigration and Naturalization Service.  She
provided services in Harris County for at least four years,
advertising on misleading business cards.  In order to lend
credibility to her business, she operated out of office space
she leased from various churches.

"It seems some scam artists will stop at nothing to swindle
people who simply want to call Texas home," said the Attorney
General.  "I am determined to shut these people down. Texas law
is very clear about who can provide immigration consulting
services, and those who disregard the law will be brought to
justice."

Ms. Perez's Company is the 21st such business he has stopped
from providing unauthorized legal advice on immigration matters.  
According to the lawsuit, which alleges violations of the Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ms. Perez charged clients initial
fees of $300-$400 per person for help with immigration visas,
permanent residency and/or work or travel permits for themselves
or their relatives.  Ms. Perez, who also operated under the
names "Greater Houston Family Outreach" and "Servicios a la
Comunidad," would give immigration forms to clients to mail, but
would often address them incorrectly, causing many to be
returned.  As a result, many consumers lost hundreds of dollars
in immigration filing fees, and some received notices to appear
at deportation hearings.  Several consumers were unable to
contact Ms. Perez about their problems, and at least one found
her office doors locked with no relocation information.

Ms. Perez also falsely represented herself as an attorney. In
Texas, only licensed attorneys and nonprofit organizations
specifically accredited by the U.S. Department of Justice's
Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) can charge fees to advise and
represent clients in immigration matters.  One Houston man paid
between $3,500 and $4,000 to Ms. Perez to fill out forms and
provide other immigration services for him and his daughter.

"I trusted her because she was working out of an office in the
church and I did not believe anything bad was going to happen
because these things took place in a church," the man said in an
affidavit.  "Despite all of Yolanda Perez's promises and alleged
expertise, I was subjected to deportation proceedings."

A Pasadena woman also lost approximately $3,100, claiming Ms.
Perez's actions placed her and her daughter in danger of
deportation.  "I complained to Yolanda Perez about these
problems, but she claimed that she and her family were not
responsible," the woman said in an affidavit.  "She advised me
that my best option would be to voluntarily leave the United
States . It is just not fair that this woman can continue to do
this to so many people."

A court hearing to consider a temporary injunction against Perez
is set for March 14.  Former or current clients of Perez who
wish to file a complaint should immediately contact the Office
of the Attorney General at 1-800-252-8011. Consumers can also
call that number to file a complaint against any other suspected
unauthorized operation. Assistance is available in Spanish and
English.


NORTH CAROLINA: $5.25M Settlement Proposed in Suit V. GE Broker
---------------------------------------------------------------
As many as 150 people in a class action lawsuit against Anthony
Wayne Allen, a former businessman charged with bilking hundreds
of millions of dollars may split a $5.25 million settlement that
has been proposed, according to Coy Brewer, an attorney for the
plaintiffs, the Associated Press reports.

The settlement is in a civil lawsuit that was filed against Mr.
Allen, W. Gregory Maynard and a General Electric subsidiary that
used Mr. Allen as a broker.  Mr. Brewer told AP the payments
will be made by the GE subsidiary, which will pay an additional
$1.25 million to his law firm. He estimated that the plaintiffs
lost a total of $13 million to $14 million to Mr. Allen with
some losing as little as $25,000 and others more than $600,000.  
The settlement was presented in Raleigh to Superior Court Judge
John R. Jolly, and was subsequently filed in Cumberland County
Superior Court.

The suit, one of several brought against Mr. Allen and was
converted into a class-action just recently, was filed on behalf
of Wilbur and Sarah Masters and Robert and Margaret Birke on
October 9, 2003. It alleges that the couples lost a total
$800,000 to Mr. Allen.

Court documents indicate that Mr. Allen was the chief executive
officer of Client Relations, an estate-planning firm. He also
was the publisher of the local edition of Fifty Plus Magazine
and owned Client Relations-Travel Services Division.  Mr. Brewer
told AP that Mr. Allen served as an insurance broker and had
invested clients' money in established companies, but later
talked them into investing in companies he owned and pocketed
the money. GE eventually investigated Allen and promptly dropped
its relationship with him in 2000, Mr. Brewer adds.

Commenting on the settlement, Margaret Birke told AP she was
glad that the settlement was reached.  "Whatever we get will be
better than zero," she adds.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Securities Focus Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding with respect to the seventeen focus
cases in the consolidated securities litigation filed against
Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc. and other leading securities firms
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Many putative class actions were filed in 2001 and 2002 in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
involving the allocation of securities in certain initial public
offerings. The court's order, dated August 8, 2001, transferred
all related class action complaints for coordination and
pretrial purposes as "In re Initial Public Offering Allocation
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

These complaints assert claims pursuant to Section11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
claims are based, in part, upon allegations that between 1998
and 2000, in connection with acting as an underwriter of certain
initial public offerings of technology and Internet-related
companies, the Company obtained excessive compensation by
allocating shares in these initial public offerings to preferred
customers who, in return, purportedly agreed to pay additional
compensation to the Company in the form of excess commissions
that it failed to disclose.

The complaints also allege that the Company's customers who
received favorable allocations of shares in initial public
offerings agreed to purchase additional shares of the same
issuer in the secondary market at pre-determined prices.  These
complaints seek unspecified damages.

The defendants' motions to dismiss the complaints were filed on
July 1, 2002, and oral argument on the motions to dismiss was
heard on November 14, 2002.  The court entered its order largely
denying the motions to dismiss on February 19, 2003.  On October
13, 2004, the court issued an opinion largely granting
plaintiffs' motions for class certification in seven focus
cases.  Discovery is proceeding with respect to seventeen focus
cases at this time.  The Company is a defendant in two of the
seventeen focus cases.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Class Discovery Concludes in NY Antitrust Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Class discovery has concluded in the consolidated class action
filed against Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc. and other leading
securities firms in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "In re Public Offering Fee
Antitrust Litigation, Case No.98 CV 7890 (LMM)."

The consolidated amended complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory damages, treble damages and injunctive relief. The
consolidated amended complaint was filed on behalf of purchasers
of shares issued in certain initial public offerings for U.S.
companies and alleges that defendants conspired in offerings of
an amount between $20 million and $80 million to fix the
underwriters' discount at 7.0 percent of the offering amount in
violation of Section1 of the Sherman Act.

The court dismissed this consolidated action with prejudice and
denied plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint and include an
issuer plaintiff. The court stated that its decision did not
affect any class actions filed on behalf of issuer plaintiffs.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district
court's decision on December 13, 2002 and remanded the action to
the district court.  A motion to dismiss was filed with the
district court on March 26, 2003 seeking dismissal of this
action and the issuer plaintiff action described below in their
entirety, based upon the argument that the determination of
underwriting fees is implicitly immune from the antitrust laws
because of the extensive federal regulation of the securities
markets.

Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion to dismiss on
April 25, 2003. The underwriter defendants filed a motion for
leave to file a supplemental memorandum of law in further
support of their motion to dismiss on June 10, 2003.  The court
denied the motion to dismiss based upon implied immunity in its
memorandum and order dated June 26, 2003.  A supplemental
memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss, applicable only
to this action because the purported class consists of indirect
purchasers, was filed on June 24, 2003 and seeks dismissal based
upon the argument that the proposed class members cannot state
claims upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed a
supplemental memorandum in opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss on July 9, 2003.  Defendants filed a reply in further
support of the motion to dismiss on July 25, 2003. The court
entered its memorandum and order granting in part and denying in
part the motion to dismiss on February 24, 2004.  Plaintiffs'
damage claims were dismissed because they were indirect
purchasers.  

The motion to dismiss was denied with respect to plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive relief.  The Company filed its answer to
the consolidated amended complaint on April 22, 2004.  
Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification and supporting
memorandum of law on September 16, 2004.  Class discovery
tentatively concluded on February 15, 2005, and briefs in
opposition to class certification currently are due on or before
March 17, 2005.


PIPER JAFFRAY: Discovery Proceeds in NY Fee Antitrust Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Piper Jaffray Companies, Inc. in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of issuer
plaintiffs asserting substantially similar antitrust claims
based upon allegations that 7.0 percent underwriters' discounts
violate the Sherman Act.  The suit, styled "In re Issuer
Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation, Case
No.00 CV 7804 (LMM)," also seeks unspecified compensatory
damages, treble damages and injunctive relief.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on July
6, 2001.  The district court denied defendants' motion to
dismiss the complaint on September 30, 2002.  Defendants filed a
motion to certify the order for interlocutory appeal on October
15, 2002.  On March 26, 2003, the motion to dismiss based upon
implied immunity was also filed in connection with this action.
The court denied the motion to dismiss on June 26, 2003.


PRIMUS AUTOMOTIVE: Court Proceedings Start For Racial Bias Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco African American car buyers, who claimed that they
were ripped off by paying higher rates for vehicles expressed
there elation at the start of court proceedings this week in
Nashville for a national class action lawsuit challenging the
auto lending practices of Ford Motor Credit Company (FMCC) and
its brand name Primus Automotive Financial Services, Inc., the
Pacific News Service reports.

Primus, the defendant in the case, is a division of FMCC and
offers automobile financing services to consumers throughout the
nation using the brand names Mazda American Credit, Land Rover
Credit, and Jaguar Credit, pursuant to contracts with Mazda,
Land Rover, and Jaguar.

According to the National Consumer Law Center, plaintiffs
contend that the credit pricing policies developed and managed
for Primus by FMCC and marketed using either Ford Credit, Mazda
American Credit, Land Rover Credit, or Jaguar Credit
"discriminate by charging African Americans more for credit, for
reasons not related to creditworthiness."

The lawsuit alleges that Primus's lending policies permit and
encourage a practice known as "auto finance markup" that
discriminates against African Americans by making them pay more
for credit than white consumers with comparable credit ratings.
The markup occurs when a consumer requests a car dealer to
arrange financing for a car purchase.

The case is the first to go to trial in a series of lawsuits
alleging racial discrimination in the practice of the auto
finance markup. The first such suit was filed against Nissan
Motors Acceptance Corporation (NMAC) in 1998, which was
subsequently settled out of court. General Motors Acceptance
Corporation and WFS Financial, Inc., have also opted to settle
out of court as a result of similar claims of discrimination
caused by their auto finance markup practices brought by African
American consumers under the Federal Equal Credit Opportunity
Act.

American Honda Finance Corporation, BankONE, Bank of America and
US Bank, have also reached tentative settlement agreements that
are pending final court approval. The National Consumer Law
Center has participated as one of the co-counsel in each of
these suits and has an appearance filed on behalf of the
plaintiffs in the Primus case.

The proceedings began last March 1, under United States District
Judge Aleta A. Trauger, Middle District of Tennessee, in
Courtroom 873, United States Courthouse, 801 Broadway,
Nashville, Tennessee.


PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL: Seeks Transfer of Suit To IA Federal Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Principal Financial Group, Inc. filed a notice to remove a class
action filed against it and its wholly owned subsidiaries
Principal Life and Principal Financial Services, Inc. from Iowa
state court to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Iowa.

The suit was filed on behalf of a proposed class comprised of
the settlement class in the Principal Life sales practices class
action settlement, which the court approved in April 2001.  This
new lawsuit claims that the treatment of the settlement costs of
that sales practices litigation in relation to the allocation of
demutualization consideration to Principal Life policyholders
was inappropriate.  Demutualization allocation was done pursuant
to the terms of a plan of demutualization approved by the
policyholders in July 2001 and Insurance Commissioner of the
State of Iowa in August2001.  The lawsuit further claims that
such allocation was not accurately described to policyholders
during the demutualization process and is a breach of the sales
practices settlement.


TELUS COMMUNICATIONS: Cell Phone Users Lodge Consumer Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Telus Communications has been accused in a class action lawsuit
seeking $50 million in damages of failing to tell customers that
calls are billed as soon as the phone starts ringing, the
cnews.canoe.ca reports.  Kathryn Deshane of Sherwood Park is the
"representative plaintiff" in the statement of claim against
Telus Communications Inc. filed in Edmonton February 18.   

According to Vancouver lawyer Bruce Lemer, representing the
plaintiffs, "The benefits of a win in this would go to anybody
who would be a Telus cellular customer during certain periods of
time. They would number in the tens of thousands, presumably."

Mr. Lemer, however, was quick to pint out that it is too early
to detail the damages, thus the $50-million claim is a starting
point only.  He told canoe.ca, "We can't exactly quantify the
claim right now. We can't increase our claim once we've stated
it. Whether it's going to be $50 million or what, we don't know
yet."

The statement of claim alleges: "The defendant calculates the
billing time for incoming calls beginning when the caller
connects to the defendant's cellular network system and ending
when the call is disconnected. This means that the recipient of
the call is billed for usage which includes the time it takes
for the defendant's cellular network system to connect the call
to the recipient's cellular phone and the time during which the
recipient's cellular phone rings before the recipient answers
the call."

In addition, the claim alleges that Telus Communications has
made "false representations" that "charges begin at the time the
call is answered and end when the call is disconnected." It
further alleges that Telus is "failing to fully advise" about
the full extent of usage charges.


UNITED STATES: Scholar Says Tsunami Suit "Publicity-Seeking"
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit brought on behalf of a group of tsunami victims
against Thailand, U.S. weather forecasters and a luxury resort
over the South Asian tsunami disaster is "perfectly illustrates"
the need for U.S. laws to hold lawyers liable for the economic
damages they inflict on those they sue, according to legal
scholar Lester Brickman, the Keralanext, India reports.


Edward Fagan, a lawyer who has been involved in a number of high
profile compensation cases and is currently under investigation
for ethics violations, recently filed the controversial action
in a Manhattan federal court.  Though for the moment it seeks
only information from the defendants about atmospheric warnings
and steps taken to protect the public and not damages, the suit
has fueled calls for greater curbs on what critics say are
frivolous cases brought by lawyers out to make a quick buck.

The government of Thailand has dismissed as groundless charges
made in the case that it failed to warn people of the coming
tsunami, thought to be the first to hit Thailand in 300 years.
The disaster left about 300,000 people dead or missing in
Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Myanmar, the
Maldives, Bangladesh and East Africa. Hundreds of thousands lost
their homes.

Mr. Brickman, a professor of legal ethics at Benjamin Cardozo
School of Law of Yeshiva University, the tsunami case is a
"publicity-seeking fishing expedition." He told Keralnext, "When
lawyers file suit solely for the purpose of furthering their
financial interest, lawyers should be responsible for
defendants' costs when the suit is found to lack merit."

Victor Schwartz, general counsel to the American Tort Reform
Association, told Keralnext that he doubted the tsunami case
would succeed.  However, , such cases would really help in
bringing attention to related legislation aimed at punishing
lawyers who bring merit less cases, the proposed Lawsuit Abuse
Reduction Act which was passed in the House last year and is now
pending before the Senate is one of few.

Court documents revealed that the lawsuit is suggesting that the
Thai government and the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, which operates a Tsunami Warning Center in
Hawaii, should have issued warnings. It also said that the
Sofitel Magic Lagoon Resort, located at Khao Lak Beach in Phuket
and which the French Accor group owns, had a duty to be equipped
with state of the art seismological and oceanographic detection
equipment so guests could be warned of impending dangers.

Mr. Fagan, the lawyer in the case, is credited with getting the
ball moving on the Holocaust claims against Swiss banks but he
is also criticized for seeking publicity for this and other
cases. He is being investigated by New Jersey ethics authorities
on allegations he wrongfully took money from two of his
Holocaust-victim clients. He is currently fighting the charges,
and would face disbarment in the state, if they are proven.

Regarding the tsunami case, Mr. Fagan told Keralnext that the
criticisms on the case were "unfounded," and added that he is
working with two other lawyers and is not getting paid. He adds,
"We are doing it to secure documents to help people get things
they can't always get after a disaster. The information we are
seeking is needed to help these people make decisions about
claims in the future."  


WAL-MART STORES: Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit To Be Heard March 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Peach, who has three pending class actions suits in
Madison County, will be in court March 14 for her case against
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., on its motion to dismiss the suit, the
Madison County Record reports.

Represented by Jeffery Millar of The Lakin Law Firm, Ms. Peach
alleges that Wal-Mart wrongfully retained unused balances on
gift cards. In her complaint, she states that sometime after
Mother's Day in May of 2004 she purchased shampoo, conditioner,
and other toiletries from the Granite City Wal-Mart, using two
separate $10 gift cards to pay for the purchase that totaled
$18.61.

However, after the sale was complete, Ms. Peach, who has also
filed class actions against Fashion Bug and K-Mart alleging the
retailers also would not give her cash for gift card balances,
alleges the cashier would not give her back the $1.39 balance as
cash even though she demanded it. According to her, that balance
on the gift card represents money to which she and the class has
the right to immediately possess.

According to Count I of the complaint, Ms. Peach claims she has
been damaged in the amount of the remaining balance on the gift
card, legal interest, as well as reasonable attorney fees and
court costs, plus treble punitive damages, but in no event an
amount in excess of $75,000 exclusive of costs and interest. In
Count II of her complaint, Ms. Peach alleges that Wal-Mart's
improper conduct constitutes unjust enrichment and it would
violate the fundamental principles of justice, equity, and good
conscience. Wal-Mart's consistent corporate practices wrongfully
retain the benefits received from the class, according to the
complaint.


WHIRLPOOL CORPORATION: Sued For Defective Dishwashers in IL, MO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Whirlpool Corporation faces two class actions, one filed in
Missouri State Court and the other in Illinois state court,
alleging breach of warranty, fraud, and violation of state
consumer protection acts in selling tall tub dishwashers.

On February 25, 2005, the Company announced the recall of
approximately 162,000 under-the-counter plastic tall tub
dishwashers due to a potential safety issue.  There have been no
reports of personal injury or property damage associated with
these dishwashers.  The Company also is undertaking the repair
of up to an additional 223,000 of these dishwashers for a
separate quality issue.  The Company accrued $17.1 million
related to the quality issue within cost of products sold during
the fourth quarter of 2004.

There are no allegations of any personal injury or property
damage and the complaints seek unspecified compensatory damages.
The Company believes these suits are without merit, intends to
vigorously defend these actions, and at this point cannot
reasonably estimate a possible range of loss, if any, the
Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange
Commission.  


WYETH INC.: Appeals Order Consolidating FL Prempro Lawsuits
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wyeth Inc. is appealing a court order that consolidates lawsuits
filed by Florida women, who are demanding Company-paid
monitoring for complications linked to the hormone-replacement
drug Prempro, the Keralanext, India reports.

Approved by Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Lawrence Schwartz, the
class action covers an estimated 300,000 Floridians who took
Prempro for at least six months before health warnings were
added to packages in January 2003.

The lawsuit, which claims that more than 9,000 of the 300,000
Florida women who took Prempro for at least six months will
develop preventable diseases in the next 10 years due to the
drug marketed since 1994, was one of the first to be filed after
the 2002 release of the critical Women's Health Initiative study
and is the first nationally to get class-action status among
about 20 lawsuits seeking it.

The study concluded that Prempro raised the risk of heart
attack, stroke, breast cancer, cardiovascular disease and
embolisms. Medical researchers also concluded the following year
that hormone replacement pills should not be taken for any
reason other than as brief treatment to help women through the
worst symptoms of menopause.

Still, Wyeth is challenging the validity and the results of the
2002 study and maintains the it does not support the women's
request for diagnostic work ranging from periodic physical
examinations and biopsies to MRI and CT scans. According to
Wyeth Pharmaceuticals spokesman Douglas Petkus, "No one has
recommended special medical screening for Prempro users, so we
will continue to defend this matter vigorously."

Steven Hunter, one of the attorneys for the Florida women said,
before the study was released, the estrogen-progestin pills were
being sold to 6 million American women, or 12 percent of
postmenopausal women, "as a way to keep you feminine forever."


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Baron & Budd Files TX Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. announces that a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:ANSI) ("Advanced
Neuromodulation Systems" or the "Company") securities during the
period between April 24, 2003 and February 16, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Advanced Neuromodulation Systems
violated federal securities laws by issuing false or misleading
information and that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges:

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

     (2) the Company's growth was materially driven by
         improperly paying physicians to recommend and implant
         the Company's products in patients; and

     (3) the Company's growth was contingent upon improper and
         unethical practices that were inherently unsustainable,
         and not the Company's growing acceptance of the merits
         of its products.

Before the market opened for trading on February 17, 2004, it
was revealed that the Company had received a subpoena from the
Inspector General, Department of Health and Human Services,
"requesting documents relating to the Company's sales and
marketing reimbursement, Medicare and Medicaid billing, and
certain other business practices." The Company also announced
that revenues in the first quarter of 2005 could fall below
previous expectations. The Company's shares plummeted to this
news and fell to $29.37, down 22% from a previous closing price
at $37.60.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Max Jodry
of Baron & Budd, P.C. by Phone: (800) 222-2766 or by E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com.


ADVANCED NEUROMODULATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Texas on behalf of all purchasers of all
securities purchasers of the Advanced Neuromodulation Systems
Inc. (Nasdaq: ANSI) ("ANSI" or the "Company") between April 24,
2003 and February 16, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ANSI, Christopher G. Chavez, and F. Robert
Merrill III, with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company engaged in undisclosed and improper
         promotional practices;

     (2) that the Company offered physicians $1,000 if they
         implanted a pain-management device in certain patients
         for a five-day trial;

     (3) that the Company through the use of improper
         promotional practices induced physicians to implant
         ANSI's devices, thereby inflating the Company's
         revenue; and

     (4) as a result of the improper promotional practices the
         Company was able to capture 20 percent of the market
         and triple its stock price over five years.

On February 17, 2005, ANSI reported that it had received a
subpoena from the Inspector General, Department of Health and
Human Services, requesting documents related to certain of the
Company's sales and marketing, reimbursement, Medicare and
Medicaid billing, and certain other business practices. News of
this shocked the market. Shares of ANSI fell $8.23 per share or
22 percent, on February 17, 2005, to close at $29.37 per share.

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


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

The complaint charges Audible, Donald R. Katz, and Andrew P.
Kaplan with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed
to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse
facts which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded
by them:

     (1) that the Company intended to pursue new business
         initiatives;

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

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

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

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


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Goldman Scarlato Files Stock Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goldman Scarlato & Karon, P.C., initiated a
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired publicly traded securities of Bradley Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. ("Bradley" or the "Company") (NYSE: BDY) between April 29,
2004 and February 25, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The
lawsuit was filed against Bradley, Daniel Glassman, and R. Brent
Lenczycki ("Defendants").

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeger Weiss Lodges NJ Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm Seeger Weiss LLP initiated a class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bradley Pharmaceuticals")
(NYSE:BDY) between October 8, 2003 and February 25, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The complaint charges that defendants Bradley Pharmaceuticals,
Daniel Glassman (Chairman, President and CEO) and R. Brent
Lenczycki (CFO and Vice President) with violations of the
Exchange Act by issuing a series of material misrepresentations
to the market during the Class Period. The complaint alleges
that Bradley Pharmaceuticals, a specialty pharmaceutical Company
that acquires, develops and markets prescription and over-the-
counter products in select markets failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

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

     (2) that the Company's future sales growth from its Keralac
         Franchise would be hindered by generic competition; and
    
     (3) as a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable
         basis for the Company's revenue and earnings guidance.

The complaint alleges that Bradley Pharmaceuticals announced on
February 28, 2005 that the Securities and Exchange ("SEC") was
conducting an informal inquiry regarding the Company's revenue
recognition and capitalization of certain payments. The Company
also announced that it would not be releasing its 2004 earnings
on the scheduled date. The complaint further alleges that on
news of the SEC investigation and the delay in the Company
reporting its 2004 financial results, the market reacted
negatively and Bradley Pharmaceuticals' common stock dropped by
almost 30%, closing at $9.75, which was a drop of about $3.50
per share.

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


DELPHI CORPORATION: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Delphi Corporation (NYSE:DPH) between
January 17, 2001 and March 3, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York against Defendants Delphi, J. T.
Battenberg, III, Alan S. Dawes, Paul R. Free and John D.
Sheehan. The action charges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

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


DELPHI CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Delphi Corporation ("Delphi") (NYSE:DPH)
common stock during the period between January 17, 2001 and
March 3, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Delphi and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Delphi is a global supplier of vehicle electronics,
transportation components, integrated systems and modules, and
other electronic technology to vehicle manufacturers.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued materially false and misleading financial statements
caused by Delphi's improper accounting for off-balance sheet
financing and vendor rebates. Its earnings were also misleading
in part due to transactions Delphi is still investigating. As a
result of these false statements, the Company's stock climbed to
as high as $17.40 per share during the Class Period. Delphi took
advantage of this artificial inflation, selling $400 million in
preferred securities and $500 million in 6.5% unsecured notes.

On March 4, 2005, Delphi issued a press release announcing the
resignation of Alan Dawes, the Company's CFO. The same day, the
Company filed with the SEC a Form 8-K entitled "Non Reliance on
Prev Financials or Audits, Change in Directors or Principal
Officers." In part, the Form 8-K stated: "(T)he findings made to
date by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors of Delphi
Corporation (the "Company"), as a result of its ongoing internal
investigation, indicate that certain prior transactions
involving the receipt of rebates, credits or other lump-sum
payments from suppliers ("Rebate Transactions") and off-balance
sheet financing of certain indirect materials and inventory were
accounted for improperly. Based upon information to date, the
Company believes that the improper accounting for off-balance
sheet financing transactions in 2000 resulted in the Company
overstating cash flow from operations ... for that year by
approximately $200 million and that the improper accounting for
Rebate Transactions in 2001 resulted in the Company overstating
pre-tax income under GAAP for that year by approximately $61
million. In addition the Company is still evaluating the impact
of adjustments to the Company's financial statements for other
periods that will be required to be reflected as the Company
unwinds the improper accounting of the transactions ...."

Upon these disclosures, Delphi's stock dropped to as low as
$5.41 per share before closing at $5.46 per share on March 4,
2005, some 68% below the Class Period high of $17.40 per share
and a one-day drop of 14%, on volume of 24 million shares.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/delphi/.


DELPHI CORPORATION: Stull Stull Commences ERISA Investigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody commenced an investigation
relating to the 401(k) defined contribution plans of Delphi
Corp. (NYSE:DPH) ("Delphi" or the "Company").

Among other things, Stull, Stull & Brody is investigating
whether fiduciaries of the 401(k) plans of the Company may have
violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974
("ERISA") by failing to disclose the Company's true financial
and operating condition to participants and beneficiaries of the
plans and/or by offering Delphi stock as an investment option
under the plans when it was not prudent to do so.

For more details, contact Edwin J. Mills, Esq. or Tzivia Brody,
Esq. by Phone: (212) 490-2022 or 1-800-337-4983 or by E-mail:
ssbny@aol.com.


FANNIE MAE: Emerson Poynter Reports Possible ERISA Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Emerson Poynter LLP has learned of possible
violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974 ("ERISA") concerning the Federal National Mortgage
Association ("Fannie Mae" or the "Company")(NYSE:FNM).

The alleged violations relate to investments in Company stock by
the Federal National Mortgage Association Employee Stock
Ownership Plan (the "ESOP") from October 11, 2000, through the
present (the "Class Period").

Emerson Poynter's focus relates to concerns that Fannie Mae and
other fiduciaries for the Plan may have failed their duties and
obligations under ERISA to protect Plan assets, ensure that Plan
assets are invested prudently, and provide participants with
complete and accurate information about Plan investment options.
A breach also may have occurred if the fiduciaries failed to
disclose complete and accurate information to employees
regarding the Company's business and financial results and
operations, such that they could make informed decisions
regarding investment in Fannie Mae stock.

For more details, contact Charles Gastineau, Tanya Autry, or
Michelle Raggio of Emerson Poynter LLP by Phone: (800) 663-9817
or (501) 907-2555or by Fax: (501) 907-2556.


GENERAL CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Suit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C. filed
a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of other
similarly situated purchasers of the securities of Direct
General Corporation, Inc. (Nasdaq:DRCT) ("Direct General" or the
"Company") from August 11, 2003, through January 26, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period"), in the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The complaint charges Direct General and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Direct General is a financial services holding Company
whose principal operating subsidiaries provide non-standard
personal automobile insurance, term life insurance, premium
finance and other consumer products and services through
neighborhood sales offices staffed primarily by employee-agents.

The complaint alleges that Direct General's financial statements
and defendants' disclosures throughout the Class Period
regarding the Company's financial statements were materially
false and misleading in that Direct General was failing to
properly adjust for loss reserves with respect to a change in
the law related to personal injury protection coverage in
Florida. Beginning with policies issued on or after October 1,
2003, Florida mandated that the maximum personal injury
protection coverage deductible be reduced from $2,000 per
occurrence to $1,000 and that the limit be increased to $10,000
in excess of the deductible as opposed to $10,000 less the
deductible. The Complaint further alleges that as result of
this, the Company had to further increase its reserves by
approximately $2.2 million, and as a consequence of the
foregoing, the Company's income was materially overstated at all
relevant times. On January 26, 2005, Direct General announced
that it would be adjusting its loss reserves and changing its
reserve analysis. Following this news, Direct General's stock
price dropped more than 31% on January 27, 2005, on heavy
trading volume.

For more details, contact Steven J. Toll, Esq. or Pamela Macker
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 pmacker@cmht.com.


IMERGENT INC.: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the District of Utah on behalf of
purchasers of iMergent, Inc. ("iMergent") (AMEX:IIG) publicly
traded securities during the period between November 30, 2004
and February 25, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges iMergent and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. iMergent sells Internet merchant services through its
StoresOnline, Inc. subsidiary. Through its subsidiary, iMergent
mass markets storefront software and service packages through
marketing seminars to small businesses to facilitate their
online sales.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, iMergent
represented to the investment community that it was a successful
software Company while concealing that its sales practices
violated the laws of many of the states it operates in and the
full extent of the uncollectibility of its installment contracts
with its clients, many of which did not meet the Company's own
credit criteria. On February 22, 2005, it was disclosed that the
Texas Attorney General had filed suit against iMergent, the
Company's Chairman, Donald L. Danks ("Danks"), and the Company's
President, Brandon B. Lewis, alleging the Company's wholly owned
subsidiary, StoresOnline.com, was selling defective storefront
software and service packages and extorting thousands of dollars
in additional "executive mentoring" fees from its customers when
they could not use the software packages. In addition, Danks
admitted at an investment conference held on February 25, 2005,
that iMergent had been selling the software packages in
installment contracts to customers with subprime credit. Many of
these customers had little or no success with the Company's
software and simply walked away from their contractual
obligations when their new online "businesses" failed. Danks
admitted that in the aggregate, only approximately 56% of the
purchase price was eventually collected from these subprime
customers through installment contracts.

According to the complaint, as a result of defendants' false
statements, iMergent's stock traded at inflated levels during
the Class Period, increasing to above $25 per share on February
9, 2005, at which time the Company's top officers and directors
sold or otherwise disposed of more than $6.5 million worth of
their own shares. As the market digested this news, the
Company's stock price plummeted from its Class Period high of
over $25 per share on February 9, 2005 to below $12 per share on
March 1, 2005, when trading was halted.

For more details, contact William Lerach or Darren Robbins of
Lerach Coughlin by Phone: 800/449-4900 or 619/231-1058 by E-
mail: wsl@lerachlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com/cases/imergent/.  


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Morris and Morris Lodges NC Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The offices of Morris and Morris LLC Counselors at Law initiated
a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for
the Middle District of North Carolina on behalf of purchasers of
securities of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ:ISPH)
between June 2, 2004 and February 8, 2005 inclusive, (the "Class
Period"), pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. A
copy of this complaint is available from the Court, or can be
obtained by contacting Morris and Morris.

The Complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements regarding the actual endpoint for the FDA
mandated Stage III trial of its dry eye drug, diquafosol
tetrasodium. Defendants allegedly failed to disclose, and
actually misrepresented, that the study endpoint was corneal
staining rather than the more stringent endpoint of corneal
clearing. The Company had already met the corneal staining
endpoint in a previous study. The complaint further alleges that
as a result, the value of Inspire stock was artificially
inflated during the Class Period. After the disclosure of the
true study endpoint on February 9, 2005, Inspire lost almost
$300 million in market capitalization, closing at $8.88.

For more details, contact Patrick F. Morris of Morris and Morris
LLC Counselors at Law by Mail: 1105 N. Market Street, Suite 803,
Wilmington, DE 19801 by Phone: (302) 426-0400 or by E-mail:
pmorris@morrisandmorrislaw.com.  


MOLEX CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges IL Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Molex, Inc. ("Molex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MOLXE)
between April 15, 2004 and February 14, 2005 inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois against defendants Molex
Incorporated, John H. Krehbiel Jr., Frederick A. Krehbiel, J.
Joseph King, Louis Hecht and Diane S. Bullock. The complaint
alleges that Defendants issued, or caused to be issued, false
and misleading statements during the Class Period to
artificially inflate the value of Molex stock. More
specifically, the complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company omitted $5.8 million in inventory
         expenses in order to inflate its earnings;

     (2) that as a result the foregoing, Molex had to take an
         $9.1 million inventory charge;

     (3) that, in addition to hiding inventory expenses, the
         Company improperly accounted for its accrual of
         vacation pay, its recording of a contingent gain, and
         its recording of the first quarter profit-in-inventory
         charge;

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

     (5) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls;

     (6) that as a result of the above, the Company's financial
         results were materially inflated at all relevant times;
         and
   
     (7) that during the Class Period, Company insiders sold
         1,222,981 shares of Molex securities for proceeds of
         $35.4 million.

Beginning on April 15, 2004, the Company provided positive
guidance to the market on its operations and profitability for
the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2004. Just days later, Company
insiders Martin Stark, Louis Hecht, John Krehbiel and Frederick
Krehbiel sold 174,969 shares of stock for total proceeds of
$11.4 million. While in violation of GAAP, the Company issued
another press release announcing record revenues on July 27,
2004. Two days after this announcement, Defendants John and
Frederick Krehbiel unloaded 481,750 shares for proceeds of $13.2
million. On November 11, 2004, Molex announced that it was
delaying the filing of its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended September 30, 2004. The Company also revealed that
it identified certain improper accounting practices. Deloitte &
Touche LLP, the Company's independent auditors, resigned on
November 13, 2004, when the Company refused to remove its CEO
and CFO. After engaging Ernst & Young LLP as its new auditor,
the Company announced on February 14, 2005 further adjustments
to the first quarter of fiscal year 2005 and possibly other
periods. Immediately following the February 14, 2005 press
release, Molex's stock fell $3.34 per share, or 11.6 percent, on
unusually high trading volume of 1.89 million shares, from its
closing price of $28.79 on February 14, 2005, to a closing price
of $25.45 on February 15, 2005.

For more details, contact Steven G. Schulman by Mail: One
Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th fl., New York, NY, 10119-0165 by Phone:
(800) 320-5081 or by E-mail: sfeerick@milbergweiss.com OR Maya
Saxena or Joseph E. White by Mail: 5200 Town Center Circle,
Suite 600, Boca Raton, FL 33486 by Phone: (561) 361-5000 by E-
mail: msaxena@milbergweiss.com or jwhite@milbergweiss.com or
visit their Web site: http://www.milbergweiss.com.


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Paskowitz & Associates Lodges MA Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Paskowitz & Associates initiated a class action
suit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Viisage Technology, Inc. ("Viisage" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:
VISG- News) between October 25, 2004 and March 2, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies for
securities fraud under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act"). The named defendants are Viisage; its CEO,
Bernard Bailey; its CFO, William K. Aulet; and its Chairman of
the Board, Denis K. Berube.

The Complaint alleges that, after a prolonged period of
unprofitability, Viisage was forced to borrow funds from its
controlling shareholder, and was in dire need of a credit line
adequate to finance its ongoing business needs. In order to
secure such credit, the defendants engaged in a scheme to
artificially engineer a profit in the third quarter of 2004
(ending Sept. 26, 2004), and made earnings projections known by
them to be baseless and unsupportable. The third quarter profit,
which was reported on October 25, 2004, was only made possible
through various accounting manipulations, whereby certain assets
were prematurely recognized, while certain expenses were
artificially deferred from the third quarter of 2004 into the
fourth quarter of 2004.

After obtaining the desired credit line, the defendants waited
until February 27, 2005 to shock investors with the news of
numerous fourth quarter charges and a significant asset
impairment, all of which returned Viisage to substantial
unprofitability. This news caused Viisage stock to drop over 20%
on heavy trading. Then, on March 2, 2005, defendants again
shocked the market by announcing a "material weakness" in its
internal financial controls, and that "management will be unable
to conclude that the Company's internal controls over financial
reporting are effective as of December 31, 2004. Therefore, BDO
Seidman LLP, the Company's external accounting firm, will issue
an adverse opinion with respect to the effectiveness of the
Company's internal controls over financial reporting." On this
news, the stock dropped another 20%, closing on March 3, 2005 at
$4.50 per share, down from almost $7 per share at the
commencement of the Class Period.

For more details, contact Paskowitz & Associates by Phone:
800-705-9529 or by E-mail: classattorney@aol.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  * * *