CAR_Public/050314.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 14, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 51


                            Headlines

21st CENTURY: Consumers Launch Suit V. Appraisal Software in CA
21st CENTURY: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit in CA State Court
3M CO.: Working To Resolve Tape Antitrust Lawsuits in Ten States
ALLSTATE FLORIDIAN: Cape Coral Woman Files Mold Remediation Suit
AON CORPORATION: Settles Contingent Commissions Lawsuit For $38M

ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES: Law Firm Files Suit Over AIK Comp Failure
AUTONATION INC.: Reaches Settlement For TX Consumer Fraud Suits
AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of GA Beryllium Injury Suit
AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Inks Settlement for GA Securities Fraud Suit
CANADA: Toronto Private School Sells Assets To Fund Settlement

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Spells Out Terms For $144M Settlement
DELPHI CORPORATION: MI Residents Joins Retiree's Pension Lawsuit
E.A. SWEEN: Recalls 12.6T Sandwiches For Listeria Contamination
ERIE FAMILY: Parties Continue PA Suit Settlement Discussions  
KIEN IMPORT: Recalls Fish Because of Clostridium Contamination

KRISPY KREME: Workers Lodge NC Suit Over Lost Retirement Savings
NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Shareholders Launch Lawsuit, Seek $3B
PERINI CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For MA Securities Lawsuit
PPG INDUSTRIES: Wants To Appeal PA Antitrust Suit Reinstatement
PPG INDUSTRIES: Discovery Proceeds in Auto Refinish Suit

SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit in IL
SEARS ROEBUCK: Seeks Partial Dismissal of IL Securities Lawsuit
SEARS ROEBUCK: IL Court Stays Investor Lawsuit V. Kmart Merger
SEARS ROEBUCK: Plaintiffs File Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
TENET HEALTHCARE: Opts To Settles Several Pricing Complaints

TEXTRON INC.: RI Court Junks Several Claims in Securities Suit
US RESTAURANT: Limited Partners Launch Fiduciary Duty Suit in TX
UNITED STATES: NY Judge Dismisses Vietnamese Defoliant Lawsuit
UTAH: Senate Bill 227 Opponents Mull Legal Action, More Protests
VISION I: Agrees To Settle FTC Charges Over Consumer Information

WAL-MART STORES: Both Sides In Settlement Talks, Sources Say
WASTE MANAGEMENT: Appeals Remand of Stock Suit To IL State Court
WORLDCOM LITIGATION: More Foreign Banks Opt To Settle Lawsuit

                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CELL THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in WA
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
DELPHI CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
DELPHI CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in OH

DELPHI CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood ERISA Fraud Complaint in MI
DELPHI CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
DIRECT GENERAL: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in TN
IMERGENT INC.: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in UT
IMERGENT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT

IMERGENT INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in UT
IMERGENT INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT
IMERGENT INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in UT
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Suit in MA

VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in MA
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in MA
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Roy & Jacobs Lodges Securities Suit in MA
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Suit in MA

                            *********

21st CENTURY: Consumers Launch Suit V. Appraisal Software in CA
---------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Company, 21st Century Casualty Company and
21st Century Insurance Group faces a class action filed in
California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles, styled
"Bryan Speck, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. 21st Century Insurance Company, 21st Century
Casualty Company, and 21st Century Insurance Group."

Plaintiff seeks California class action certification,
injunctive relief, and unspecified actual and punitive damages.
The complaint contends that the Company uses "biased" software
in determining the value of total-loss automobiles.  Plaintiff
alleges that database providers use improper methodology to
establish comparable auto values and populate their databases
with biased figures and that the Company and other carriers
allegedly subscribe to the programs to unfairly reduce claims
costs.  This case is consolidated with similar actions against
other insurers for discovery and pre-trial motions.


21st CENTURY: Consumers Launch Fraud Lawsuit in CA State Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
21st Century Insurance Group faces a class action filed in the
Los Angeles Superior Court in California, styled "Thomas Theis,
on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. 21st Century Insurance."

Plaintiff seeks California class action certification,
injunctive relief, and unspecified actual and punitive damages.  
The complaint contends that after insureds receive medical
treatment, the Company used a medical-review program to adjust
expenses to reasonable and necessary amounts for a given
geographic area.  Plaintiff alleges that the adjusted amount is
"predetermined" and "biased," creating an unfair pretext for
reducing claims costs.  This case is consolidated with similar
actions against other insurers for discovery and pre-trial
motions.


3M CO.: Working To Resolve Tape Antitrust Lawsuits in Ten States
----------------------------------------------------------------
3M Co. is working to resolve the putative class actions brought
on behalf of indirect purchasers of tape.  Twelve are now
pending in California, Pennsylvania, Florida, Tennessee,
Wisconsin, Kansas, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Iowa, and two
are pending in the United States District Court in Philadelphia
(some of the pending actions were filed in the fourth quarter of
2004 and one was filed in January 2005).

These cases allege that the Company competed unfairly and
unlawfully monopolized alleged markets for transparent tape, and
they seek to recover on behalf of variously defined classes of
direct and indirect purchasers damages in the form of price
overcharges the Company allegedly charged for these products.

In the case in federal court in California in which the lower
court previously granted the Company's motion for summary
judgment, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted the
parties' joint request to hold the plaintiffs' appeal of the
summary judgment ruling in abeyance pending settlement
discussions.  

The Company reached a proposed settlement in February 2005 with
all named plaintiffs in the 12 indirect purchaser antitrust
putative class actions pending against the Company in the
various state courts noted above and in the California federal
court.  If an agreement is executed by the parties and receives
federal court approval and all conditions in the agreement are
satisfied, the settlement would terminate all 12 actions and
release the claims of class members nationwide.  The amount of
the proposed settlement is not material to the Company.  The
proposed settlement does not affect the class and individual
actions brought by direct purchasers of 3M transparent tape that
are pending in a federal court in Pennsylvania and does not
constitute any admission of liability by the Company.

Pretrial proceedings continue in the direct purchaser class
action pending in the federal court in Philadelphia.  In August
2004, that court certified a class consisting of all 3M
customers who directly bought transparent and invisible tape
(but not private label tape) from October 1998 to the present.
Thereafter, two additional lawsuits were filed against the
Company by alleged direct tape purchasers in the federal court
in Philadelphia. In one, the plaintiff opted out of the class
described above and filed an individual lawsuit in September
2004. In the other, the plaintiff filed a purported class action
in December 2004 on behalf of customers (private label tape
purchasers) excluded from the August class certification order;
the Company has moved to dismiss that action as untimely and on
other grounds.


ALLSTATE FLORIDIAN: Cape Coral Woman Files Mold Remediation Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luann Guy, a single mother of two, who lives in a Cape Coral
home that was submerged in water and infested with mold in the
wake of Hurricane Charley, filed what her lawyers hope will
become a class action case against the Allstate Floridian
Insurance Co., for failing to pay mold remediation, the Naples
Daily News reports.

A thorough review of Florida federal lawsuits filed against
Allstate since the hurricanes reveals that Mrs. Guy's suit is
likely the first of its kind against the insurance giant. "Ms.
Guy is not alone in this thing by any means," her attorney,
Bryan Aylstock, told Naples Daily News, a day after the suit was
filed in U.S. District Court in Fort Myers.

Since Hurricane Charley, Florida's Department of Financial
Services' Division of Consumer Services received 4,479
complaints about problems with Allstate insurance. Of these, 749
were mold-related, spokeswoman Tami Torres said. Of these 4,479
complaints, 314 remain open.

In her suit, Mrs. Guy, 50, said water seeped into her home after
Hurricane Charley blew a portion of her roof off when it hit on
August 13. According to Mr. Aylstock and attorney Justin Witkin,
she didn't know it at the time, but her homeowner's insurance
policy contained a provision stating Allstate would provide
coverage up to $10,000 to rid her home of mold "associated with
a covered peril."

Mr. Aylstock also pointed out that not only did Mrs. Guy's home
not receive a mold inspection through the insurance Company, but
also she still hasn't obtained any cash to rid her three-
bedroom, two-bathroom house of mold. The Company is legally
required to pay up, both Mr. Aylstock and Mr. Witkin added.

Mr. Witkin told the Naples Daily News, "The insurance companies
have a superior level of knowledge. Most consumers don't know
they have coverage. If you look at a mold rider . it's easily
missed or misunderstood."   He contended that Mrs. Guy paid her
homeowner's insurance policy from November 2003 through November
2004, which covered Hurricane Charley's strike date, but she
only received about $27,000 for "substantial damage" done to the
home. Both attorneys also added that the money didn't include
cash to wipe out the mold.

Mrs. Guy reported damage to the home in August, and in September
an adjuster visited the home, however, Mrs. Guy called Allstate
staff two times a day every day throughout November leaving
messages with her calls, but she couldn't reach an adjuster
about mold growth inside, Mr. Aylstock said. "Some were told
'paint over it' and it will go away," Aylstock added. Mrs. Guy
didn't receive the first $2,000 check until two weeks before
Christmas, he said.

Mrs. Guy is currently the only plaintiff in this suit for now,
but other residents, who had an Allstate policy and were
affected by the hurricanes, could become members of the class
action and become eligible to join once the case is certified as
a class action complaint, Mr. Witkin said. He estimates that if
it is ever certified thousands of residents could join.


AON CORPORATION: Settles Contingent Commissions Lawsuit For $38M
----------------------------------------------------------------
Aon Corporation reached a $38 million tentative settlement to
resolve a class action lawsuit that accuses the Chicago-based
brokerage of breaching its fiduciary duty by collecting
contingent commissions from insurers without disclosing them to
clients, a Company spokesman confirmed, according to the BI
Daily News.

The Cook County Circuit Court judge gave preliminary approval to
the settlement, which comes on the heels of the Company's $190
million joint settlement to resolve charges by officials in
Connecticut, Illinois and New York that it fraudulently steered
clients to maximize its contingent commissions and linked
insurance placements to reinsurance brokerage business.  
According to Aon, it had established a $40 million reserve in
connection with related litigation matters.

In July 2004, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Julia M. Norwicki
had ruled that the 1999 lawsuit over the controversial industry
practice could proceed as a nationwide class action against
Chicago-based Aon and its subsidiaries Aon Group Inc. and Aon
Services Group Inc.

That lawsuit had alleged that Aon "devised, implemented,
supervised and enforced" a scheme to conceal the commissions
from its clients. The plaintiffs, led by two Aon clients, sought
to collect any undisclosed commissions and profits Aon received
from the arrangements.


ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES: Law Firm Files Suit Over AIK Comp Failure
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Frost Brown Todd LLC has initiated a lawsuit
that seeks to hold Associated Industries of Kentucky Inc. and
other parties involved with managing the failed AIK Comp
workers' compensation insurance fund responsible for its
downfall, Business First of Louisville reports.

Filed in Franklin Circuit Court in Frankfort, the lawsuit is
seeking class-action status on behalf of businesses that were
members of the fund. The lawsuit names Associated Industries,
the fund's sponsor, AIK Comp's trustees, former officers and
directors and the accounting firm of Ernst & Young LLP, which
provided accounting and auditing services for AIK Comp. Others
named in the suit are Actuarial & Technical Solutions Inc. of
New York and Nashville, Tenn.-based Alternative Services
Concepts LLC.

Court documents provided by Frost Brown Todd revealed that the
lawsuit claims the parties who managed and sponsored the AIK
fund were negligent and did not adequately represent the members
of the self-insured fund.

Carl Breeding, an attorney and member of the law firm Greenebaum
Doll & McDonald PLLC, which represents Associated Industries,
told the Business First of Louisville that he could not comment
on specifics of the lawsuit because he had just received a copy.
In addition, he stated that similar lawsuits have been filed in
the Boone Circuit and Gallatin Circuit courts in Kentucky,
although those suits have been put on hold while the Franklin
Circuit Court considers a rehabilitation plan that was submitted
by state regulators.  Mr. Breeding also stressed that Associated
Industries is a separate entity from AIK Comp and has maintained
"an arms-length relationship" with the insurance fund. In
accordance with Kentucky law, Associated Industries, as sponsor
of AIK Comp, appointed the trustees to independently oversee the
fund, Mr. Breeding adds.

AIK Comp was taken over by state insurance commissioners last
year after reporting a $58.5 million net-worth deficit from 1999
to 2003.  In October, the Kentucky Office of Insurance, which
now is managing the fund, announced that it no longer is writing
new policies or renewing business. The KOI has assessed
retroactive premiums to cover the million net-worth deficits,
which now might be in excess of $140 million, according to the
lawsuit.


AUTONATION INC.: Reaches Settlement For TX Consumer Fraud Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Autonation, Inc.'s Texas dealership subsidiaries reached a
settlement with parties in the three class action lawsuits filed
against the Texas Automobile Dealers Association (TADA) and
approximately 700 new vehicle stores in Texas that are members
of the TADA, including the Company's subsidiaries.

The three actions allege that since January 1994 Texas dealers
have deceived customers with respect to a vehicle inventory tax
and violated federal antitrust and other laws as well.  In April
2002, in two actions (which have been consolidated) the state
court certified two classes of consumers on whose behalf the
action would proceed.  In October 2002, the Texas Court of
Appeals affirmed the trial court's order of class certification
in the state action and the Company and the other dealership
defendants appealed that ruling to the Texas Supreme Court,
which on March 26, 2004 declined to review the class
certification.  The defendants petitioned the Texas Supreme
Court to reconsider its denial of review of the class
certification and that petition was denied on September 10,
2004.

In the federal antitrust case, in March 2003, the federal court
conditionally certified a class of consumers.  The Company and
the other dealership defendants appealed the ruling to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals, which on October 5, 2004 reversed the
class certification order and remanded the case back to the
federal district court for further proceedings.

In February 2005, the Company and the plaintiffs in both the
state and federal cases agreed to settlement terms in the
respective cases.  The settlements are contingent upon court
approval and the hearing on that approval has not yet been
scheduled. The estimated expense of the settlements is not a
material amount and includes the Company's stores issuing
coupons for discounts off future vehicle purchases, refunding
cash in certain circumstances, and paying attorneys' fees and
certain costs.  Under the terms of the settlements, the
Company's stores would be permitted to continue to itemize and
pass through to the customer the cost of the inventory tax.  


AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Seeks Dismissal of GA Beryllium Injury Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Axsys Technologies, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia to dismiss it from the
class action, styled "Neal Parker, et al., v. Brush Wellman
Inc., case number 2004CV80827."

The suit was originally filed in the Superior Court of Georgia
for Fulton County, and the named plaintiffs are Neal Parker,
Wilbert Carlton, Stephen King, Ray Burns, Deborah Watkins,
Leonard Ponder, Barbara King and Patricia Burns, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (November 10,2004) states.  The suit
also names as defendants:

     (1) Brush Wellman, Inc.,

     (2) Brush Wellman,

     (3) Schmiede Machine and Tool Corporation,

     (4) Thyssenkrupp Materials NA Inc., d/b/a Copper and Brass
         Sales,

     (5) Alcoa, Inc.,

     (6) McCann Aerospace Machining Corporation,

     (7) Cobb Tool, Inc. and

     (8) Lockheed Martin Corporation.

Messrs. Parker, Carlton, King and Burns and Ms. Watkins are
current employees of Lockheed.  Mr. Ponder is a retired
employee, and Ms. King and Ms. Burns are family members. The
plaintiffs have brought claims for negligence, strict liability,
fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy and punitive damages.
The plaintiffs seek a permanent injunction requiring the
defendants to fund a court-supervised medical monitoring
program, attorneys' fees and punitive damages.

The named plaintiffs are employees, former employees, or family
members of employees and former employees, of Lockheed Martin
Corporation.  The plaintiffs claim that they have suffered
personal injuries or are at an increased risk of developing
personal injuries as a result of exposure to beryllium-
containing materials used at Lockheed's facility.  The
plaintiffs purport to represent a class of persons whom they
claim are similarly situated.  The defendants include Lockheed
and various other companies, including the Company, who are
alleged to have supplied beryllium-containing materials used at
the facility.

The suit is styled "Parker, et al v. Brush Wellman Inc., et al,
case no. 1:04-cv-00606-RWS," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, under Judge Richard
W. Story.

Representing the Company are:

     (1) J. Kevin Buster, Barry Goheen, Richard Anthony
         Schneider, Carmen R. Toledo, King & Spalding, 191
         Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30303-1763, Phone:
         404-572-4600, E-mail: kbuster@kslaw.com,
         bgoheen@kslaw.com, dschneider@kslaw.com,
         ctoledo@kslaw.com

     (2) LeeAnn Jones, Melissa Davis Strickland, Powell
         Goldstein Frazer & Murphy, 191 Peachtree Street, N.E.
         Sixteenth Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, Phone: 404-572-
         6600, E-mail: ljones@pgfm.com, mdavis@pgfm.com  

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) William Grady Hasty, Jr., Hasty Pope & Ball, P.O. Box
         1818, 211 East Main Street, Canton, GA 30114-1818,
         Phone: 770-479-0366

    (ii) Robert E. Shields, Doffermyre Shields Canfield Knowles
         & Devine, 1355 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 1600
         Atlanta, GA 30309, Phone: 404-881-8900, E-mail:
         rshields@dsckd.com  

   (iii) James Hugh Webb, Jr., Webb Lindsey & Wade, 400 Westpark
         Court, Suite 220 Peachtree City, GA 30269, Phone: 770-
         631-1811, E-mail: dstrube@webb-firm.com   


AXSYS TECHNOLOGIES: Inks Settlement for GA Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Axsys Technologies, Inc. reached a settlement for the class
action filed against it and three of its directors in the Court
of Chancery in the State of Delaware on behalf of a purported
class of persons who purchased the Company's preferred stock.

The plaintiff challenged the Company's decision to redeem all of
its outstanding shares of the preferred stock.  The plaintiff
claimed that the defendants:

     (1) breached fiduciary duties in setting the redemption
         price too low and unfairly seeking to advantage holders
         of common stock and

     (2) breached contractual duties as set forth in the
         Certificate of Designation governing the preferred
         stock, as well as an implied covenant of good faith and
         fair dealing.


CANADA: Toronto Private School Sells Assets To Fund Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a bid to cover its burgeoning legal costs, the Upper Canada
College, a prestigious Toronto private school is auctioning off
millions of dollars worth of art and property, The Globe and
Mail reports.

Citing a letter sent to alumni, students' parents and donors
this week, the newspaper reports that Upper Canada College is
offering for sale a collection that includes at least one Group
of Seven painting.  Board of governors chair Andrew Pringle said
in the letter, "The decision will be difficult for some people,
but the art is not crucial to the education of the students
here."

In addition to the artwork, which is expected to fetch between
$1-million and $2-million at auction, the historic boarding
school is also selling off a portion of the 182-hectare property
it owns west of the city. Referring to the parcel acquired in
1913, the letter stated, "While over the years the board has
gone back and forth on the advisability of such a sale, the
financial requirements of this case and the very advantageous
market conditions have led us to conclude that this is the right
time."

Although a portion of settlements will also come from the
school's operating budget, Mr. Pringle's letter says recent
hikes in the $21,725-annual tuition fee are unrelated. Instead,
he states that the school's strategy is to spread the financial
burden among current parents, former students and the school's
own insurance.

Mr. Pringle also wrote in the letter, "I know that not everyone
will agree with all aspects of this strategy. However, we have
tried to remain true to our guiding principles. We are sharing
the burden among different groups, and most importantly, we have
made decisions that will not have a significant negative impact
on the experiences of our students."

The school is desperate for cash to settle claims stemming from
a $62-million class-action lawsuit filed by former students, who
suffered sexual abuse by former teacher and dormitory supervisor
Douglas Brown. Those students had accused administrators of
knowing what was going on, but failing to take suitable action.

In a related matter, last January, Mr. Brown was sentenced to
three years in prison for sexually assaulting six students
during the period from 1975 to 1980.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Spells Out Terms For $144M Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charter Communications Inc. stockholders have until this summer
to claim some of the $144 million the cable TV provider will pay
to settle shareholder lawsuits over the Company's federally
investigated accounting practices, accounting to the Company's
annual report, which was recently filed with federal securities
regulators, the Associated Press reports.

In that annual report, Charter, the nation's third-largest cable
TV provider, spelled out the guidelines for the payouts, noting
that shareholders could split $66.25 million in cash, along with
$80 million in stock and related warrants.  The reports also
states that St. Louis-based Charter will pay $144 million, with
an additional $2.25 million to come from its former accounting
firm, Arthur Andersen LLP.

The settlement applies to shareholders who bought stock between
November 8, 1999, and August 16, 2002. During that span, Charter
says, New York-based attorneys for those who sued the Company
estimate that nearly 456 million shares changed hands, meaning
that if all affected stockholders applied for a piece of the
settlement the average per-share payout would be 53 cents before
deduction of any fees or expenses.  Shareholders seeking part of
the settlement must file a proof of claim and release form by
June 24 while those looking to be excluded from the case have
until April 29 to apply to do so, the Company said.  

The shareholders' lawsuits had accused Charter of scheming to
dupe investors by inflating its financial results and customer
numbers, resulting in allegations that eventually propelled
investigations by federal prosecutors and the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  Charter's former chief financial officer
Kent Kalkwarf, former chief operating officer David Barford and
former senior vice presidents David McCall and James Smith III
each have pleaded guilty to a felony count of conspiracy to
defraud. The four are to be sentenced separately on April 22.

Federal prosecutors have alleged the executives schemed in 2000
and 2001 to inflate revenue and operating cash flow while
indicating that the Company had more cable subscribers than it
did. The scheme began as Charter, which was controlled by
Microsoft Corp. co-founder Paul Allen was finding it difficult
to meet its projected subscriber goals because of the weak
economy and increased competition from satellite dish companies.


DELPHI CORPORATION: MI Residents Joins Retiree's Pension Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Brewer, 60, a Buena Vista Township resident has joined a
class action lawsuit claiming that Delphi Corp.'s pension fund
managers were not truthful about the auto parts-maker's stock
and should have known about accounting irregularities, The
Saginaw News reports.

Mrs. Brewer is among 19,000 salaried Delphi employees and
retirees who filed the suit in U.S. District Court in Detroit.
The affected pension fund is called the Delphi Savings Stock
Purchase Program for Salaried Employees in the United States,
which had invested hundreds of millions of dollars in Delphi
stock over the last few years, according to the suit.

Mrs. Brewer's attorney, Barry D. Adler of Farmington Hills, told
Saginaw News his client along with other employees had relied on
Delphi and the Delphi board to manage their pension plans. He
contends that the board and the Company knew or should have
known that the Company's financial condition was overstated and
was artificially inflating the stock price. "Delphi had a duty
to advise the employees and let them know the stock was
overvalued," Mr. Adler added.

With regards to her motive for joining the suit, Mr. Adler said,
"She sued because she knew her pension plan money was stolen
from her. She feels that what the Company has done should be
investigated through the lawsuit, and other employees and
retired should be compensated."

Mrs. Brewer retired in May 2002, Adler said. She worked at the
Company for nearly 30 years, first with General Motors Corp. and
then for Delphi when it spun off from GM in 1999. She was a
supervisor for 25 years.

The suit also alleges that Delphi's stock-savings plans required
that 50 percent of the plaintiffs' contributions should go in a
stock fund that primarily held Delphi shares, which were falling
in value even before the accounting problems were revealed.


E.A. SWEEN: Recalls 12.6T Sandwiches For Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
E.A. Sween Company initiated a voluntary recall of 12,600 Deli
Express Turkey & Cheese Sandwiches because they have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Healthy
individuals may suffer short-term symptoms such as high fever,
severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea.
Listeria infection in pregnant women may result in premature
deliveries, miscarriages or stillbirths.

The Deli Expressr product code #121 included in this recall --
the 4.2 ounce Turkey & Cheese Sandwich -- was distributed
through their direct store delivery (DSD) channel to select
convenience stores nationwide, and contains the manufacturer
date code 450191. The product has been available for purchase in
the refrigerated section of select convenience stores. No
illnesses have been reported related to this voluntary recall.
No other Deli Expressr products are affected by this voluntary
recall.

Routine sampling of the product revealed that a single sandwich
in this lot contained Listeria monocytogenes. This specific lot
of product has been recalled as a precautionary measure.

Customers are asked to check any purchased Deli Express Turkey &
Cheese Sandwich they may have at home for the above-mentioned
manufacture date and to return product with the above date code
to the convenience store of purchase for a full refund.

E.A. Sween's number one concern is the safety of its consumers.
Consumers with questions are asked to call Sandy at 866-787-8862
for information


ERIE FAMILY: Parties Continue PA Suit Settlement Discussions  
------------------------------------------------------------
Parties are continuing settlement negotiations for the class
action filed against Erie Family Life Insurance Company in the
Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.

The Company issued a life insurance policy to the plaintiff. The
class action alleges that the Company charged and collected
annual premium for the first year, but did not provide 365 days
of insurance coverage.  The Complaint alleges that the policy
forms and applications used by the Company do not disclose "that
a portion of the first premium will cover a period of time
during which the Company does not provide insurance coverage."  
The Complaint contains four counts.  In Count I, Plaintiff
alleges that the conduct of the Company violated the
Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.
Count II of the Complaint alleges a cause of action for breach
of contract. Count III alleges that the Company breached its
duty of good faith and fair dealing. In Count IV of the
Complaint, Plaintiff asserts a cause of action for unjust
enrichment and/or restitution.

In early 2004, the parties reached an agreement to settle this
lawsuit. Under the Settlement Agreement, the Company agreed to
provide supplemental life insurance coverage to qualifying class
members in an amount equal to 4.62% of the face value of the
underlying policy for a period of 180 days.  On April 30, 2004,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement
Agreement.  After the filing of the Motion for Preliminary
Approval, Plaintiff and the Company agreed the Company would pay
attorneys' fees in an amount up to $150,000, and to reimburse
certain litigation costs and expenses in an amount up to
$15,000.

The Court preliminarily reviewed the proposed settlement. As a
result of conferences with the Court, the parties have engaged
in further settlement negotiations. A new Settlement Agreement
has not been finalized or executed.  If and when a new
Settlement Agreement is finalized, it will be submitted to the
Court for approval.


KIEN IMPORT: Recalls Fish Because of Clostridium Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kien Import Corporation, 330 Calyer Street, Brooklyn, NY 11222
is recalling 1824 packages of uneviscerated fish. Kien Import
Frozen Cooked Mackerel Fish was discovered by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspectors during
routine inspection.

This product may be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum
spores, which can cause Botulism, a serious and potentially
fatal food-borne illness.

The sale of this type of fish is prohibited under New York State
Agriculture and Markets regulations because Clostridium
botulinum spores are more likely to be concentrated in the
viscera than any other portion of the fish. Uneviscerated fish
has been linked to outbreaks of botulism poisoning. Symptoms of
botulism include blurred or double vision, general weakness,
poor reflexes, difficulty swallowing and respiratory paralysis.  
Kien Import Frozen Cooked Mackerel Fish is vacuum packed, 2
pieces per basket (1 lb.) with no code. The recalled product was
sold throughout the United States.

No illnesses have been reported to date.  Consumers who have
Kien Import Frozen Cooked Mackerel Fish are advised not to eat
it, but should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers
with questions should contact the Company at 1-718-349-8282.


KRISPY KREME: Workers Lodge NC Suit Over Lost Retirement Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme workers, who say they lost retirement savings
because the Company executives hid evidence of declining sales
and profits, have initiated a class action lawsuit in Greensboro
federal court, the Associated Press reports.

Court documents reveal that the suit was filed on behalf of
workers who owned stock in the Company's retirement or stock
ownership plans after January 1, 2003, which was around the time
the Company's sales allegedly began to decline.  Specifically,
the workers are contending in their suit that because the
executives said nothing about the Company's troubles, workers
who bought Krispy Kreme stock for their 401(k) accounts, or were
paid stock in bonus plans, had no way of knowing what those
executives knew.  Former chief executive officer Scott
Livengood, who was forced out in January, is among those named
as defendants in the lawsuit.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Canadian Shareholders Launch Lawsuit, Seek $3B
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks is facing another class-action suit this time
seeking $3 billion that was filed on behalf of investors, who
bought the Company's shares in the year preceding the firing of
former CEO Frank Dunn, The Canadian Press reports.  Filed with
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, the claim alleges
misrepresentation of Nortel's financial situation between April
24, 2003 and April 27, 2004.

Nortel announced last April 28 that it had dismissed Mr. Dunn
and two other executives for cause, along with that dismissal,
the Company also disclosed that its 2003 profit was
substantially less than it had stated three months earlier.  
That news alone sent Nortel shares plunging and the Brampton,
Ontario-based Company has since spent months in a massive effort
to analyze its accounting system and restate results as far back
as 2001. In January, Nortel announced that its 2003 earnings
were $434 million US - $298 million less than reported in
January 2004.

The Toronto law firm Rochon Genova LLP with Lerners LLP
assisting as counsel is representing the plaintiff and the
prospective class members in the latest suit. The same two law
firms have also filed a previous class action in 2001 against
Nortel, spanning an earlier period when the Company was under
the leadership of John Roth with Mr. Dunn as chief financial
officer.

Though providing no concrete details regarding the suit, a
Nortel spokeswoman told the Canadian Press only that the
telecommunications equipment maker is aware of the litigation
and will fight the allegations.  The action also names the
Company's auditors, Deloitte and Touche LLP, and former Nortel
officers and directors including Mr. Dunn.  Nortel (TSX:NT) also
faces shareholder suits in the United States, as well as police
and regulatory probes on both sides of the border.


PERINI CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For MA Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Perini Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated
class action filed against certain of its current and former
directors in the United States District Court for the District
of Massachusetts.

Frederick Doppelt, Arthur I. Caplan and Leland D. Zulch filed a
lawsuit individually, and as representatives of a class of
holders of the $2.125 Depositary Convertible Exchangeable
Preferred Shares, representing 1/10 Share of $21.25 Convertible
Exchangeable Preferred Stock against certain current and former
directors of the Company.  This lawsuit is captioned "Doppelt,
et al. v. Tutor, et al."  Mr. Doppelt is a current director of
Perini and Mr. Caplan is a former director of the Company.

Specifically, the original complaint alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties owed to the holders of the
Depositary Shares and to the Company. The plaintiffs principally
allege that the defendants improperly authorized the exchange of
Series B Preferred Stock for common stock while simultaneously
refusing to pay accrued dividends due on the Depositary Shares.

In July 2003, the plaintiffs filed an amended Complaint. The
amended complaint added an allegation that the defendants have
further breached their fiduciary duties by authorizing a tender
offer for the purchase of up to 90% of the Depositary Shares and
an allegation that the collective actions of the defendants
constitute unfair and deceptive business practices under the
provisions of the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act.  The
amended complaint withdrew the allegation of a breach of
fiduciary duty owed to Perini, but retained the allegation with
respect to a breach of those duties owed to the holders of the
Depositary Shares.

On April 12, 2004, pursuant to Defendants' Motions to Dismiss,
the Court dismissed the claim under the Massachusetts Consumer
Protection Act. The Court did not dismiss the claim for breach
of fiduciary duty, except as such claim relates to the tender
offer for the purchase of the Company's Depositary Shares.
Pursuant to the Court's April 12, 2004 Order, in May 2004 the
plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint and a motion for
class certification.  Defendants filed an answer denying any and
all claims of wrongdoing and asserting affirmative defenses.

On November 30, 2004, Perini announced that the parties had
reached an agreement for settlement of the Action.  Under the
terms of the settlement, Perini would purchase all of the
Depositary Shares submitted in the settlement for consideration
of $19.00 per share in cash and one share of Perini common
stock. The named plaintiffs have agreed to support the
settlement. As of December 31, 2004, there were 559,273
Depositary Shares outstanding. In the event that fewer than
200,000 Depositary Shares are submitted in the settlement,
Perini may terminate the settlement agreement and the parties
will revert to their previous positions in the litigation.  The
proposed settlement is subject to the approval of the Court.  
Frederick Doppelt will resign from his position as a director of
the Company upon Court approval of the settlement.

The suit is styled Doppelt, et al v. Tutor, et al., 1:02-cv-
12010-MLW, and is pending in the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts, under Judge Mark L. Wolf.  
The law firms involved in this litigation are:

     (1) Samuel E. Bonderoff of Paul, Weis, Rifkind, Wharton &
         Garrison, NY, representing plaintiffs Leland D. Zulch,
         Arthur I. Caplan and defendants Arthur J. Fox, Jr.,
         Bonnie R. Cohn, Christopher H. Lee, Douglas J.
         McCarron, Jane E. Newman, Marshall M. Crider, Nancy
         Hawthorne, Peter Arkley, Raymond R. Oneglia, Richard J.
         Boushka, Robert A. Band, Robert A. Kennedy, Ronald N.
         Tutor and Wayne L. Berman;

     (2) Robert T. Cronan of Goodwin Procter LLP Mail: Exchange
         Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-
         570-1389 or 617-523-1231, E-mail:
         tcronan@goodwinproctor.com, representing defendants
         Arthur J. Fox, Jr., Bonnie R. Cohn, Christopher H. Lee,
         Douglas J. McCarron, Jane E. Newman, Marshall M.
         Crider, Nancy Hawthorne, Peter Arkley, Raymond R.
         Oneglia, Richard J. Boushka, Robert A. Band, Robert A.
         Kennedy, Ronald N. Tutor and Wayne L. Berman and
         plaintiff Arthur I. Caplan;

     (3) Felicia S. Ennis of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene
         Genovese & Gluck, Mail: 31st Floor, 1345 Avenue of the
         Americas New York, NY 10105-0143, Phone: 212-603-6300,
         Fax: 212-956-2164 E-mail: fse@robinsonbrog.com
         representing plaintiffs Frederick Doppelt and Arthur I.
         Caplan and defendant Richard J. Boushka;

     (4) Stuart M. Glass of Goodwin Procter, LLP, Mail: Exchange
         Place, 53 State Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-
         570-1920, Fax: 617-523-1231, E-mail:
         sglass@goodwinprocter.com, representing defendants
         Arthur J. Fox, Jr., Bonnie R. Cohn, Christopher H. Lee,
         Douglas J. McCarron, Jane E. Newman, Marshall M.
         Crider, Nancy Hawthorne, Peter Arkley, Raymond R.
         Oneglia, Richard J. Boushka, Robert A. Band, Robert A.
         Kennedy, Ronald N. Tutor, Michael R. Klein and Wayne L.
         Berman and plaintiff Arthur I. Caplan;

     (5) Daniel J. Kramer of Paul Weiss Rivkind Wharton &
         Garrison LLP, Mail: 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New
         York, NY 10019 Phone: 212-373-300 Fax: 212-757-3990 E-
         mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com, representing plaintiff
         Arthur I. Caplan,

     (6) Alan M. Pollack of Robinson Brog Leinwand Greene
         Genovese & Gluck, Mail: 31st Floor, 1345 Avenue of the
         Americas, New York, NY 10105-0143 Phone: 212-603-6316,
         Fax: 212-956-2164 or E-mail: amp@robinsonbrog.com
         representing plaintiff Frederick Doppelt and defendant
         Richard J. Boushka;

     (7) Steven L. Schreckinger of Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Mail:
         111 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02199, Phone: 617-
         239-0167, Fax: 617-227-4420, E-mail:
         sschreckinger@palmerdodge.com, representing plaintiffs
         Arthur I. Caplan, Frederick Doppelt, Yvonne Weber,
         Leland D. Zulch and defendants Richard J. Boushka, and
         Martin Ahubik,

     (8) Eryn Starun of Paul Weiss Rivkind Wharton & Garrison
         LLP, Mail: 1285 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY
         10019, Phone: 212-373-300, Fax: 212-757-3990, E-mail:
         estarun@paulweiss.com, representing plaintiff Arthur I.
         Caplan

     (9) Matthew J. Weiss of Weiss & Associates, 419 Park Avenue
         South 2nd Floor New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-683-7373
         Fax: 212-726-0135 E-mail:
         mjweiss@weissandassiciatespc.com representing
         plaintiffs Arthur I. Caplan, Frederick Doppelt, Leland
         D. Zulch, Martin Ahubik and Yvonne Weber


PPG INDUSTRIES: Wants To Appeal PA Antitrust Suit Reinstatement
---------------------------------------------------------------
PPG Industries, Inc. sought the United States Supreme Court's
permission to appeal an appeals court ruling partially
reinstating the consolidated antitrust class action filed
against it and various co-defendants.

A number of suits were initially filed against the Company,
alleging that it acted with competitors to fix prices and
allocate markets in the flat glass industry.  Twenty-nine glass
antitrust cases were filed in federal courts, all of which have
been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania located in Pittsburgh.  The Court has
ruled that the case may proceed as a class action.  Similar
state court actions are inactive pending resolution of the
federal proceedings.  All of the initial defendants in the glass
class action antitrust case, other than the Company, have
entered into settlement agreements with the plaintiffs.

On May 29, 2003, the Court granted the Company's motion for
summary judgment dismissing the claims against the Company in
the glass class action antitrust case. The plaintiffs in that
case appealed that order to the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals.  On September 30, 2004, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of
Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part the dismissal of
the Company and remanded the case for further proceedings.  The
Company has since petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for
permission to appeal the decision of the U.S. Third Circuit
Court of Appeals.  If the U.S. Supreme Court rejects the
petition for review, the case will likely proceed to trial in
2006.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Discovery Proceeds in Auto Refinish Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is continuing in the consolidated antitrust class
action filed against PPG Industries, Inc. and other defendants
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennysylvania (Philadelphia).

Approximately 60 cases alleging antitrust violations in the
automotive refinish industry were initially filed in various
state and federal jurisdictions.  The suits charged the Company
and the other defendants with conspiring to fix prices and
allocate markets in the automotive refinish industry.  The
approximately 55 federal cases were consolidated.  Certain of
the defendants in the federal automotive refinish case have
settled. This case is still at an early stage and discovery is
continuing with the remaining defendants.  Except for a case in
California and a recently filed case in Vermont, the state
automotive refinish cases have either been stayed pending
resolution of the federal proceedings or have been dismissed.  
The plaintiffs in these various antitrust cases are seeking
economic and treble damages as well as injunctive relief.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Discovery Proceeds in ERISA Violations Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the consolidated class action filed
against Sears Roebuck & Co. in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois.  The suit also names as
defendants certain of the Company's officers and directors, and
alleged fiduciaries of the Company's 401(k) Savings Plan.

The suit seeks damages and equitable relief under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).  The plaintiffs
purport to represent participants in the Plan, and allege
breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA in connection with the
Plan's investment in the Company's common shares and alleged
communications made to Plan participants regarding the Company's
financial condition.

The suit is styled "Page v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al, case no.
1:02-cv-06233," filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge James B. Zagel.  
Representing the plaintiffs are Ellen Marie Avery and Cary E.
Donham, Shefsky & Froelich, Ltd, 444 North Michigan Avenue,
Suite 2500, Chicago, IL 60611, Phone: (312) 527-4000.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Seeks Partial Dismissal of IL Securities Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sears Roebuck & Co. asked the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois to partially dismiss a
consolidated amended securities class action filed against it
and certain of its officers.

On June 17, 2003, an action was filed, purportedly on behalf of
a class of all persons who, between June 21, 2002 and October
17, 2002, purchased the 7% notes that the Company's domestic
wholly-owned financing subsidiary, Sears Roebuck Acceptance
Corporation (SRAC), issued on June 21, 2002.  An amended
complaint has been filed, naming as additional defendants
certain former officers, SRAC and several investment banking
firms who acted as underwriters for SRAC's March 18, May 21 and
June 21, 2002 notes offerings.

The amended complaint alleges that the defendants made
misrepresentations or omissions concerning its credit business
during the class period and in the registration statements and
prospectuses relating to the offerings.  The amended complaint
alleges that these misrepresentations and omissions violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11, 12 and 15 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and purports to be brought on behalf of a
class of all persons who purchased any security of SRAC between
October 24, 2001 and October 17, 2002, inclusive.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action.  On
September 24, 2004, the court granted these motions in part, and
denied them in part.  The court dismissed the claims related to
the March 18 and May 21, 2002 note offerings because the
plaintiff did not purchase notes in those offerings.  The court
dismissed the Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claims against
several of the individual defendants because the plaintiff
failed to adequately plead such claims.  The court sustained the
remaining claims.

By leave of court, the plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on November 15, 2004.  Defendants (other than one of
the underwriter defendants) filed motions to partially dismiss
the second amended complaint on January 10, 2005.  The defendant
that did not move to partially dismiss filed an answer to the
second amended complaint on January 28, 2005, denying all
liability.

The suit is styled "Ong et al v. Sears Roebuck & Co, et al, case
no. 1:03-cv-04142," filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Rebecca R.
Pallmeyer.

Representing the Company are Mary B Anderson, Jefferey S.
Davies, Harold C. Hirshman, Christopher Qualley King, John
Claiborne Koski, Veronica M. Lei, Steven Lawrence Merouse,
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: (312)876-8000; and
Warren Roger Stern, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, 51 West 52nd
Street, New York, HY 10019, Phone: (212)403-1000.  Representing
the plaintiffs are Carol V. Gilden and Christopher James Stuart,
Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament & Rubenstein, P.C., 191
North Wacker Drive, Suite 1800 Chicago, IL 60605-1615, Phone:
(312)521-2000


SEARS ROEBUCK: IL Court Stays Investor Lawsuit V. Kmart Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
The consolidated lawsuit filed against Sears Roebuck & Co. filed
in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois has been stayed,
pending resolution of similar litigation in New York State
Court.

On November 17, 2004, the Company and Kmart Holding Corporation
announced that they had signed a definitive merger agreement
that will combine the Company and Kmart into a major new retail
Company named Sears Holdings Corporation.  Three suits were
initially filed, asserting claims on behalf of a purported class
of the Company's stockholders against the Company and certain of
its officers and directors, together with Kmart Corporation,
Edward S. Lampert and other affiliated entities, alleging breach
of fiduciary duty in connection with the mergers.  

The plaintiffs allege that the mergers favor interested
defendants by awarding them disproportionate benefits, and that
the defendants failed to take appropriate steps to maximize the
value of a merger transaction for the Company's stockholders.
The actions have been consolidated, and an amended complaint was
filed in early January 2005. The amended complaint asserts
similar breach-of-fiduciary duty claims, as well as alleging
that defendants have made insufficient and misleading
disclosures in connection with the mergers, and seeks injunctive
relief. The plaintiffs have moved for expedited discovery.

On February 1, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion to
stay or dismiss these actions in favor of the pending New York
actions discussed below. Accordingly, these actions are stayed
pending resolution of the New York actions. Plaintiffs have
filed a notice of appeal of the stay order to the Appellate
Court of Illinois-First District.

Two actions have been filed in the Supreme Court of the State of
New York, New York County, asserting substantially similar
claims against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors.  The parties have agreed to consolidate these two
actions. Pending consolidation, the defendants moved to dismiss
the complaint in both actions for lack of standing and failure
to state a cause of action.

On February 15, 2005, the Court ordered that the two cases be
consolidated as a single action. On February 16, 2005, the
plaintiffs filed a superceding consolidated amended class action
complaint.  The amended complaint asserts claims on behalf of a
purported class of the Company's stockholders against the
Company and certain of its officers and directors for breach of
fiduciary duty in connection with the mergers on the grounds
that defendants allegedly failed to take proper steps to
maximize the value of a merger transaction for the Company's
stockholders.  Additionally, the plaintiffs claim that the
defendants made insufficient and misleading disclosures in
connection with the mergers.  The amended complaint also names
Kmart, Edward S. Lampert, and ESL, Inc. as defendants on the
grounds that they aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty. The amended complaint seeks provisional and
permanent injunctive relief, as well as damages.

Also on February 16, 2005, the plaintiffs filed an order to show
cause seeking expedited discovery about the appraisal of the
Company's real estate. A briefing schedule on the motion has not
been set.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Plaintiffs File Securities Fraud Suit in N.D. IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action against
Sears Roebuck & Co. and Alan J. Lacy in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. This
action asserts claims under the federal securities laws on
behalf of a purported class of the Company's stockholders.

The suit charges the defendants with allegedly failing to make
timely disclosure of merger discussions with Kmart Holdings
Corporation during the period November 8 through 16, 2004, and
seeks damages. The court has appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.


TENET HEALTHCARE: Opts To Settles Several Pricing Complaints
------------------------------------------------------------
Tenet Healthcare Corporation has agreed to settle some class-
action lawsuits over prices that uninsured and underinsured
patients were charged at hospitals owned by the chain's
subsidiaries, the Associated Press reports.

Though still subject to court approval and not expected to
become final for several months, the Dallas-based operator of
acute-care hospitals told AP that it has established a reserve,
which will cover settlement expenses.

Class-action lawsuits are pending against Tenet hospitals in
Alabama, California, Florida, Louisiana, Missouri, Pennsylvania,
South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. If the California court
approves a nationwide settlement, the cases will be subject to
dismissal.

E. Peter Urbanowicz, Tenet's general counsel, told AP "The
settlement reflects Tenet's ongoing commitment to provide fair
treatment to patients without health insurance. This settlement
also is another important step in resolving the legacy legal
issues facing our Company. We have said that where reasonable
resolutions of legal issues can be reached, we will work hard to
make those resolutions happen."

Under the agreement, which would cover four years, Tenet would
provide financial counseling to uninsured patients, including
help in understanding and applying for governmental financial
assistance and charity care programs.

The Company also said it would treat uninsured patients fairly
and respectfully and discloses estimated charges for anticipated
treatments. Also, Tenet told AP that under the greement it would
follow a uniform credit and collection policy, including a
commitment not to pursue legal action for nonpayment of bills
against unemployed patients or to place a lien on a patient's
home.

In addition, the Company said it would provide uninsured
patients with discounted pricing at rates comparable to the
hospital's current managed care rates, and that it would
reimburse uninsured patients who received medically necessary
services at any of its hospitals between June 15, 1999, and Dec.
31, 2004, who were charged more than a certain percentage of the
hospital's gross charges.  Tenet also stated that aside from the
aforementioned actions, it would also make a $4 million
contribution to a health care-related charity chosen by the
plaintiffs' counsel.


TEXTRON INC.: RI Court Junks Several Claims in Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Rhode Island dismissed
several claims in the consolidated class action filed against
Textron, Inc., certain of its present and former officers and
certain of Bell Helicopter's present and former officers.

Company shareholders filed two identical lawsuits purporting to
be class actions were filed in 2002 on their own behalf and on
behalf of a purported class of Company shareholders.  The suits
were later consolidated.  The consolidated suit alleges that the
defendants failed to make certain accounting adjustments in
response to alleged problems with Bell Helicopter's V-22 and H-1
programs and that the Company failed to timely write down
certain assets of its OmniQuip unit.  The complaint requests
unspecified compensatory damages.

The Court ruled that the plaintiffs could not maintain the
claims that were based on allegations relating to the H-1
program or to OmniQuip, and also ruled that all claims against
one of the individual defendants should be dismissed. The
lawsuit will continue with respect to the remaining claims.

The suit is styled "Simon-Grech, et al v. Textron, Inc., et al.,
case no. 02-CV-491," filed in the United States District Court
in Rhode Island, under Judge William E. Smith.  Representing the
plaintiffs is David J. Strachman, McIntyre, Tate, Lynch & Holt,
Counsellors at Law, 321 South Main Street, Suite 400,
Providence, RI 02903, Phone: 351-7700.  Representing the Company
are:

     (1) Paul V. Curcio, John A. Tarantino, Adler Pollock &
         Sheehan, 2300 Financial Plaza, Providence, RI 02903,
         Phone: 274-7200

     (2) Karl G. Nelson, Esq., Suite 1100, 2100 McKinney Avenue,
         Dallas, TX 75201, Phone: 214-698-3213


US RESTAURANT: Limited Partners Launch Fiduciary Duty Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
US Restaurant Properties, Inc. faces a class action filed in the
District Court of Dallas County, Texas, case no. 05-00083
against it, CNL Restaurant Properties, Inc. (CNLRP), 18 CNL
Income Funds, the general partners of the Income Funds, CNL
Restaurant Investments, Inc. and CNL Restaurants Capital
Corporation.

On January 5, 2005, Robert Lewis and Sutter Acquisition Fund,
LLC, two limited partners in the Income Funds, filed the suit,
alleging that the general partners of the Income Funds breached
their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed mergers
between the Income Funds and subsidiaries of the operating
partnership of the Company and that the Company and CNLRP aided
and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.  The
complaint further alleges that the Income Funds' general
partners violated provisions of the Income Funds' partnership
agreements and demands an accounting as to the affairs of the
Income Funds.  The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified
compensatory and exemplary damages and equitable relief,
including an injunction of the mergers.


UNITED STATES: NY Judge Dismisses Vietnamese Defoliant Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
A federal judge in New York has dismissed a damage suit, which
was filed on behalf of millions of Vietnamese that charged
American chemical companies with committing war crimes by
supplying the military with the defoliant Agent Orange, the New
York Times reports.

Filed the year before, the civil suit had sought what could have
been billions of dollars in damages and the environmental
cleanup of Vietnam. The case had drawn international attention
for its charges about Agent Orange, a widely used defoliant by
the U.S. military to clear the Vietnam's jungles until 1971.  
According to the suit, the defoliant, which contained the highly
toxic substance dioxin, left a legacy of poison in Vietnam that
caused birth defects, cancer and other health problems and
amounted to a violation of international law.

However, the judge, Jack Weinstein of the U.S. District Court in
the New York borough of Brooklyn, sided with the chemical
companies and the Justice Department, which had argued that
supplying the defoliant did not amount to a war crime.  In his
ruling the judge specifically wrote, "No treaty or agreement,
express or implied, of the United States operated to make use of
herbicides in Vietnam a violation of the laws of war or any
other form of international law until at the earliest April of
1975."

By 1975, President Gerald Ford had adopted a national policy
renouncing the first use of herbicides in warfare. In that same
year, the Senate also ratified an international Geneva accord
dating from 1925, which outlawed the use of poisonous gases
during war.  Even with the decision not going their way, William
Goodman, a lawyer for an association of Vietnamese that filed
the suit as a class action, told the New York Times that they
would appeal.


UTAH: Senate Bill 227 Opponents Mull Legal Action, More Protests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Opponents to Senate Bill 227 otherwise known as the driver
privilege card bill, which was recently signed into law by Gov.
Jon Huntsman despite protests from the Hispanic community, are
preparing to fight back, be it through a lawsuit or other means,
according to Archie Archuleta, chairman of the Utah Hispanic
Democratic Caucus, The BYU Newsnet reports.

Mr. Archuleta pointed out, "There is a possibility that it will
be taken to court. People are going to be frightened because it
pinpoints them. You may get a lot of civil disobedience,"
according to BYU Newsnet.

The recently signed bill, according to it supporters, allows
illegal immigrants to get driver privilege cards, but the cards
cannot be used for official identification.

Another opponent to the bill, Robert Gallegos, head of the Utah
Hispanic organization, RAZ-PAC Political Action Committee, told
The BYU Newsnet that he plans to file a class-action lawsuit
against the law on grounds that it is discriminatory and
violates the Constitution.  However, the bill's sponsor, Sen.
Curtis Bramble is accusing Mr. Gallegos of exploiting a fair
bill for his own gain. He said, "He is fostering fear and
paranoia, and I think he's doing that for his own objective, to
be viewed as a leader in the community. If they have grounds to
challenge this law, what would stop Utah from doing like 40
other states and repealing driving privileges entirely?"

Though the new law was spurred by a legislative audit showing
more than 300 illegal immigrants registered to vote, and 14
actually voted in the last election, this information, according
to Mr. Archuleta has not been sufficiently looked into. He
further said, "It [the bill] was pushed by the hysteria that
illegal immigrants were getting driver's licenses and some were
voting. If 14 people actually voted, why aren't they being found
and prosecuted? The information that triggered the bill was not
adequately looked into."

Since the bill passed in both the House and Senate with a two-
thirds majority, it went into effect immediately. In essence,
the law creates a separate driving privilege card for those
without a Social Security number. Opponents to the law though
are upset that the card separates illegal immigrants.

Mr. Archuleta said, "It's absolutely a negative. It points out
Hispanics and Mexicans, and it forces people to be identified in
a very negative fashion. It facilitates racial profiling."

Sen. Bramble said those who feel the card will lead to racial
profiling are misled. He said, "When a law enforcement officer
pulls someone over, do they know what the driver has in his or
her pocket or purse?"  

In a recent news release, Gov. Huntsman commented on the signing
of the bill by saying, "This bill represents a good compromise.
The privilege card will allow undocumented individuals, foreign
students, foreign businesspeople and others who are here for an
extended length of time, the ability to maintain mobility in
Utah. . However, the privilege card will not be accepted by
government entities for the purpose of identification."

Aside from the aforementioned provision of the law, it also
contains changes for those with Social Security numbers. In
essence the new law also requires driver's license applicants to
provide two documents that prove Utah residency, such as a
utility bill or official government record, in addition to the
required two government-issued identifications.

According to Department of Public Safety spokesman Doug McCleve,
applicants who receive the driver's privilege card will get a
temporary document, since the cards themselves are not ready
yet. The temporary document will look similar to current
temporary driver's licenses with a red stamp that reads: "For
driving only - not for identification," which according to Mr.
McCleeve will be only good for six months.


VISION I: Agrees To Settle FTC Charges Over Consumer Information
----------------------------------------------------------------
An Internet Company that provides shopping cart software to
online merchants has agreed to settle Federal Trade Commission
charges that it rented personal information about merchants'
customers to marketers, knowing that such disclosure
contradicted merchant privacy policies.

The settlement will bar use of the personal data the Company has
already collected, as well as future misrepresentations about
the collection, use, or disclosure of personally identifiable
information. The settlement also requires the Company to ensure
that consumers receive a clear and conspicuous notice before
their personal information is disclosed to other companies for
marketing purposes. Finally, the settlement requires that the
Company give up the fees it made renting the consumer
information.

Vision I Properties, LLC, doing business as CartManager
International, provides shopping cart software and related
services to thousands of online merchants. When consumers are
ready to make a purchase, they enter information on "shopping
cart" and "check out" pages that ask for their name, address,
phone number, e-mail address, credit card number, and
merchandise. The pages are designed to look like the other pages
on the merchants' sites, and typically display the merchants'
names and logos, but are actually located on the CartManager
site.

According to the FTC, some of the merchants who used
CartManager's shopping cart and check out software made privacy
pledges to their customers such as "PRIVACY POLICY: It's simple.
We don't sell, trade, or lend any information on our customers
or visitors to anyone." But CartManager collected and rented the
personal information of nearly one million consumers who shopped
at merchant sites. The FTC alleges that CartManager did not
adequately inform consumers or merchants that it would collect
and rent this information and that it acted knowing that renting
the information was contrary to many merchants' privacy
policies. The agency charged that CartManager was unfair and
violated federal law.

"Companies and service providers must make sure that their
privacy policies are in sync," said Lydia Parnes, Acting
Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "A service
provider cannot secretly collect and rent consumers' personal
information, contrary to a merchant's privacy policy. At the
same time, merchants have an obligation to know what their
service providers are doing with consumers' personal
information."

The settlement bars disclosure of previously collected personal
information and bars misrepresentations about the collection,
use, or disclosure of personally identifiable information. It
requires that CartManager and merchants' privacy practices be
consistent, or, if not, that CartManager post a clear and
conspicuous disclosure to consumers on each of its pages stating
that consumers are on a CartManager site and that personal
information collected on the site will be used, sold, rented, or
disclosed to third parties. The settlement also requires that
CartManager give up $9,101.63 it made by selling the
information. Finally, the settlement contains certain record-
keeping provisions to allow the Commission to monitor compliance
with its order.

The Commission vote to accept the proposed consent agreement was
5-0. The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the
agreement in the Federal Register shortly. The agreement will be
subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and
continuing through April 11, after which the Commission will
decide whether to make it final. Comments should be addressed to
the FTC, Office of the Secretary, Room H-159, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20580. The FTC is requesting that any
comment filed in paper form near the end of the public comment
period be sent by courier or overnight service, if possible,
because U.S. postal mail in the Washington area and at the
Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security
precautions.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20580,
Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office  
of Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2181 or Jessica Rich, Bureau
of Consumer Protection, Phone: 202-326-3224


WAL-MART STORES: Both Sides In Settlement Talks, Sources Say
------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores is reportedly working behind the scenes to
settle a class-action lawsuit that could turn out to be the
largest of its kind in U.S. history, the Springdale Morning News
reports.

According to an article in The Recorder, a legal newspaper
published in California, the Bentonville-based retailer is in
settlement talks with attorneys for the plaintiffs in the Dukes
v. Wal-Mart suit, which has the potential of representing 1.6
million female employees, who claim that the world's largest
retailer discriminates against women in pay and promotions.

Settlement talks have been ongoing for several months and
recently gained momentum, according to The Recorder. In its
article the newspaper says that both sides have hired a well-
known class-action mediator, Hunter Hughes III of Atlanta, to
handle the negotiations.

Wal-Mart spokeswoman Sarah Clark said the Company had no comment
on the report. She told The Recorder, "There's nothing to
provide at this point and no additional information to share. I
would not be able to comment on the effort."

The Impact Fund of San Francisco, a nonprofit legal
organization, which represents the plaintiffs along with
attorney and spokeswoman Jocelyn Larkin also, said that she
could not comment on the report of settlement talks.

According to The Recorder, Mr. Hughes "wins high marks as a
peacemaker." He is a partner in the Atlanta law firm Rogers &
Hardin and successfully served as the mediator in numerous
employment class actions, according to the firm's Web site.
Mr. Hughes' mediations include an $81.5 million settlement
between female employees and Publix stores, an $87.5 million
agreement for gender discrimination claims against Home Depot
and a $192.5 million deal between Coca-Cola and employees
claiming race discrimination.

The Recorder also stated that Wal-Mart has also hired Meyer
Koplow, engineer of a nationwide $200 billion tobacco settlement
in 1998 and currently a partner at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz in New York, to represent it in the settlement talks.   
Brad Seligman, director of The Impact Fund, is leading a group
of private firms and nonprofit groups in representing the
plaintiffs in the class-action suit.


WASTE MANAGEMENT: Appeals Remand of Stock Suit To IL State Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Waste Management, Inc. has appealed a ruling remanding the
shareholder class action filed against it, five former officers
of WM Holdings and Arthur Andersen, LLP, WM Holdings' former
independent auditor, to Illinois state court.

In December 1999, an individual brought an action on behalf of a
proposed class of individuals who purchased WM Holdings common
stock before November 3, 1994, and who held that stock through
February 24, 1998.  The action is for alleged acts of common law
fraud, negligence and breach of fiduciary duty.  

This case has remained in the pleadings stage for the last
several years due to numerous motions and rulings by the court
related to the viability of these claims.  The defendants
removed the case to federal court in Illinois, but a remand
order has been issued.  Only limited discovery has occurred and
the defendants continue to defend themselves vigorously.

In April 2002, a former participant in WM Holdings' Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) plans and another
individual filed a lawsuit in Washington, D.C. against WMI, WM
Holdings and others, attempting to increase the recovery of a
class of ERISA plan participants based on allegations related to
both the events alleged in, and the settlements relating to, the
securities class action against WM Holdings that was settled in
1998 and the securities class action against the Company that
was settled in November 2001.  Subsequently, the issues related
to the latter class action have been dropped as to the Company,
its officers and directors.  The case is ongoing with respect to
WM Holdings and others, and WM Holdings intends to defend itself
vigorously.


WORLDCOM LITIGATION: More Foreign Banks Opt To Settle Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
WestLB AG of Germany agreed to pay $75 million and Caboto
Holding SIM SpA of Italy agreed to pay $37.5 million to settle a
class action lawsuit alleging they misled investors who bought
bonds from WorldCom, according to New York State Comptroller
Alan Hevesi, who represents investors, the Agence France-Presse
(AFP) reports.

Mr. Hevesi told AFP that these additional settlements along with
the combined $428 million settlement by Dutch-based ABN Amro,
BNP Paribas of France and Japan's Mitsubishi Securities and
Mizuho International bring the total recovery for the class to
an estimated $3.7 billion.

As previously reported in the March 11, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, Mr. Hevesi had reached an agreement with
Amsterdam-based ABN AMRO Bank for $278.4 million, while
Mitsubishi Securities International PLC agreed to pay $75
million. In addition, according to Mr. Hevesi, BNP Paribas
Securities Corp. and Mizuho International both agreed to pay
$37.5 million.

In a related matter, Deutsche Bank recently reported that it too
has reached a settlement of $325 million to settle its
litigation over WorldCom securities. According to the bank,
"Although it denies that it engaged in any wrongdoing, Deutsche
Bank is pleased to resolve this matter."

The banks are the latest to settle, following similar decisions
by Bank of America, Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs, Credit
Suisse First Boston and UBS Warburg.

The WorldCom suit was brought against former officers and
directors of the Company, its accountant, Arthur Andersen LLP
and more than a dozen banks and brokerages that were
underwriters of WorldCom bonds. The parties that filed the suit
claimed the defendants should have been aware of the telecom
group's accounting problems when they sold its bonds. WorldCom
has since emerged from bankruptcy as MCI Inc.

Mr. Hevesi also told AFP that the remaining defendants in the
case, including JP Morgan Chase, are scheduled to go on trial on
March 17. With regards to the settlement, all the court-
appointed lead plaintiff in the securities class action could
only say was, "We are very pleased to have been able to obtain
these additional excellent recoveries for the class from these
firms, which we commend for putting this issue behind them."

"While we remain willing to talk with other defendants about
potential settlements, we are looking forward to the start of
trial against any remaining defendants next week," he adds.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

CELL THERAPEUTICS: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Stock Suit in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Cell Therapeutics Inc., (Nasdaq: CTIC) ("CTI" or
the "Company") between June 7, 2004 and March 4, 2005, inclusive
(the "Class Period").

The complaint charges CTI, Max Link, and James Bianco with
violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that contrary to the defendant's express and repeated
         representations the results of STELLAR 3 trial were not
         encouraging;

     (2) that XYOTAX failed to boost survival for non-small cell
         lung cancer:

     (3) that XYOTAX failed to show greater survival benefit
         than Taxol, the leading drug on the market; and

     (4) that based on the results of the trial the Company
         would not be able to begin pre-launch activities and to
         position itself to submit a new drug application for
         XYOTAX.

On March 7, 2005, prior to the opening of the market, CTI
announced that a phase III study of XYOTAX in combination with
carboplatin, known as STELLAR 3, missed its primary endpoint.
News of this shocked the market. Shares fell $4.75 per share or
47.5 percent, on March 7, 2005, to close at $5.25 per share, on
unusually high volume.

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


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of ChoicePoint Inc.
("ChoicePoint" or the "Company") (NYSE:CPS), between April 22,
2004 and March 3, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of ChoicePoint
securities.

For more details, contact Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Phone:
877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action on behalf of an
institutional investor in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California on behalf of purchasers of
ChoicePoint Inc. ("ChoicePoint") (NYSE:CPS) common stock during
the period between April 22, 2004 and March 3, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges ChoicePoint and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. ChoicePoint is a provider of identification and credential
verification services to business, government and individual
customers. The Company operates its business through three
primary service groups: Insurance Services, Business and
Government Services and Marketing Services.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
disseminated materially false and misleading statements
concerning the security of the Company's systems, its results
and operations. Prior to and during the Class Period,
ChoicePoint suffered breaches of its systems wherein consumer
information was obtained by criminals. At the same time
ChoicePoint's security breaches were concealed, two of the
Company's top officers sold $20.89 million worth of their
ChoicePoint stock. The complaint further alleges that the true
facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed
from the investing public during the Class Period, were as
follows:

     (1) ChoicePoint's customer credentialing process procedures
         were inadequate and ineffective at limiting the
         dissemination of information to only authorized users;

     (2) ChoicePoint did not have the proper audit procedures in
         place in order to verify that the Company was properly
         limiting the dissemination of information to only
         authorized users;

     (3) ChoicePoint did not have the proper fraud detection
         procedures in place in order to timely detect
         fraudulent activity in case a security breach did
         occur;

     (4) ChoicePoint's security had been breached in similar
         fashion on at least two occasions, once in 2000 and
         again in 2002; and

     (5) due to ChoicePoint's failures to maintain proper
         security measures, over 500,000 people were exposed to
         the risk of identity theft.

It was subsequently revealed that its databases had been
accessed by criminals, later admitting that some 145,000 people
had been victimized by having their personal data exposed. On
this news, ChoicePoint's stock fell to $38.72 per share.

Later, on March 4, 2005, prior to the market opening,
ChoicePoint announced an exit from part of its business due to
the security problems and an SEC investigation. On this news,
the stock dropped below $38.00 per share.

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


DELPHI CORPORATION: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of all securities purchasers
Delphi Corporation (f/k/a/ Delphi Automotive Systems) (NYSE:
DPH) from January 17, 2001 through March 3, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The complaint charges Delphi, J.T. Battenberg III, Alan S.
Dawes, Paul R. Free, and John D. Sheehan with violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges
that defendants, during the Class Period, issued a series of
material misrepresentations to the market concerning the
Company's financial condition thereby artificially inflating the
price of Delphi's publically traded securites. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them:

     (1) that improper accounting for off-balance sheet
         financing transactions in 2000 resulted in the Company
         overstating cash flow from operations, determined in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles (GAAP), for that year by approximately $200
         million;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


DELPHI CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Lodges Securities Suit in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action
lawsuit on behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the
Delphi Corporation's (NYSE: DPH) pension plans.

The lawsuit, in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, is on behalf of those participants
since May 28, 1999 in the Delphi Savings-Stock Purchase Program
for Salaried Employees in the U.S., Delphi Personal Savings Plan
for Hourly-Rate Employees in the U.S., ASEC Manufacturing
Savings Plan and Delphi Mechatronic Systems Savings-Stock
Purchase Program.

The lawsuit alleges that plan fiduciaries breached such duties
and responsibilities by, among other things, failing to
investigate the prudence of an investment in Delphi stock and by
making misrepresentations about the Company's accounting
practices dating back to 1999. Several current and former Delphi
employees have already chosen to participate in the lawsuit.
These employees are organizing a structure to direct the
lawsuit. Those employees who choose to participate in the
lawsuit can do so confidentially. It is unlawful for any
fiduciary or defendant to take any retaliatory action against
any employee who chooses to participate in the suit.

The complaint charges fiduciaries of the plans with violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 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 knew or should have known
that Delphi 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, which 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. 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 ...." Delphi
is reported to have inherited high wage, pension and health-care
costs in its spinoff from General Motors Corp. in 1999.

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. The
stock is currently trading under $5 per share.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein of Scott + Scott, LLC
by Phone: +1-619-251-0887 or by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-
scott.com.


DELPHI CORPORATION: Wechsler Harwood ERISA Fraud Complaint in MI
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood LLP iniitated a Federal class
action under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
("ERISA") on behalf of participants in the Delphi Savings Stock
Purchase Program for Salaried Employees (the "Plan") who
invested in the Delphi Common Stock Fund from May 28, 1999 to
the present.

The action, entitled Kramer v. Delphi Corp., et al., Case No.
(not yet assigned), is pending in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, and names as
defendants, the Company, as well as certain senior officers,
directors, and Plan administrators who are either named or
deemed Plan fiduciaries under ERISA.

The Complaint alleges that Delphi and other Plan fiduciaries
violated provisions of ERISA by negligently misrepresenting and
negligently failing to disclose material facts to the Plan and
by negligently permitting the Plan to purchase and hold Delphi
stock when it was imprudent to do so. Specifically, the
Complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts which were
known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that improper accounting for off-balance sheet
         financing transactions in 2000 resulted in the Company
         overstating cash flow from operations, determined in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles ("GAAP"), for that year by approximately
         $200 million;

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

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

     (4) that the Company's financial statements were not
         prepared in accordance with GAAP;

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

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

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

On March 3, 2004, Delphi announced that, "Vice Chairman and
Chief Financial Officer, Alan S. Dawes, is leaving the Company
and has resigned from its Board of Directors and its strategy
board. Additionally, the Company stated: "Mr. Dawes agreed to
resign after the audit committee expressed a loss of confidence
in him(.)" Additionally, the Company stated it would restate
results after finding accounting errors from 1999 to 2004.
Delphi stated that it overstated cash flow from operations by
$200 million in 2000 because of errors in off-balance sheet
financing and overstated pretax income by $61 million in 2001
because of improper accounting for rebates. As a result,
financial statements from 2001 on cannot be relied upon. Delphi
had not yet determined which prior results will have to be
restated, but it expects to complete the changes by June 30.

News of the above shocked the market causing the publicly traded
shares of Delphi to fall $0.91 per share, or 14.29 percent, to
close at $5.46 per share on unusually high trading volume.

For more details, contact Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq. of Wechsler
Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York,
New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 (ext. 286) or by E-mail:
jmn@whesq.com.


DELPHI CORPORATION: Wolf Popper Files Securities Suit in S.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Popper LLP initiated a securities fraud
lawsuit against Delphi Corporation ("Delphi") (NYSE: DPH) and
certain of its officers and directors, on behalf of all persons,
including preferred shareholders, who purchased Delphi
securities on the open market from April 12, 2000 through March
3, 2005. The action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The complaint alleges that during the class period, defendants
caused Delphi to issue materially false and misleading press
releases and SEC filings touting Delphi's financial performance.
Defendants failed to disclose in those public statements that
Delphi, through a variety of intentional accounting
manipulations, had, among other things,

     (1) overstated cash flow from operations in 2000 by   
         approximately $200 million;

     (2) overstated pre-tax income in 2001 and prior periods in
         excess of $100 million;

     (3) prematurely recognized revenue for technology contracts
         and rebates that should have been spread over the life
         of the contract; and

     (4) improperly capitalized expenses that should have been
         recognized immediately; and

     (5) boosted cash flow from operations and pretax earnings
         by claiming it sold assets and inventory that it had
         agreed to buy back later.

Defendants' improper actions were revealed on March 4, 2005,
when Delphi announced the resignation of Alan Dawes, Delphi's
CFO, after the Audit Committee "expressed a loss of confidence
in him" and reported that, due to the extensive accounting
improprieties, Delphi's previously announced financial results
would be restated and its Form 10-Q for the period ended
September 30, 2004 and audited financial results for year ended
2004 would be delayed pending the completion of an internal
investigation.

In response to the March 4, 2005 disclosures, Delphi common
stock plummeted to $5.46 per share on extremely heavy volume of
24.5 million shares, as compared to a closing price of $6.37 per
share on volume of 2.6 million shares the prior day. On March 8,
2005, Moody's slashed Delphi's credit rating to junk status.

For more details, contact Renee Karalian, Esq. of Wolf Popper
LLP by Phone: 845 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10022 by Phone:
212.451.9621 or 877.370.7703 by Fax: 212.486.2093 or
877.370.7704 by E-mail: irrep@wolfpopper.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.wolfpopper.com.


DIRECT GENERAL: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Fraud Suit in TN
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the United States District Court for the Middle
District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Direct General Corp. (NASDAQ: DRCT) between August 11, 2003,
through January 26, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"),
seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending against defendants Direct General Corp.,
William Adair, Jr., Barry Elkins, Brian Moore, Jacqueline Adair,
and Tammy Adair. The complaint alleges that throughout the Class
Period, Defendants issued, or caused to be issued, false and
misleading statements to artificially inflate the value of
Direct General Stock. Specifically, Defendants concealed from
the investing public the negative effect a change in the Florida
Personal Injury Protection scheme would have on the Company's
business operations. The Company also failed to properly reserve
for its insurance losses as a result of the change in the
Florida statute. While the stock's value was just a few dollars
from its Class Period high, and almost $15 from its current
price, Defendants and other insiders sold over 3.3 million
shares for net proceeds of $108 million. On January 26, 2005,
the Company admitted that its current reserves were inadequate
and disclosed for the first time the substantial impact the
revised Florida PIP Statute was having on its operations.

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


IMERGENT INC.: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in UT
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah on behalf of purchasers of iMergent, Inc. (AMEX:IIG)
("iMergent" or the "Company") securities during the period
between November 30, 2004 and February 25, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that iMergent violated federal securities
laws by issuing misleading information pertaining to its
StoresOnline, Inc. subsidiary. iMergent concealed the fact that
its sales practices violated the laws of many of the states it
operates in and the inability to collect on its installment
contracts with its clients.

On February 22, 2005, the Texas Attorney General filed suit
against the Company, its Chairman, Donald L. Danks ("Danks"),
and its President, Brandon B. Lewis, alleging the Company's
wholly owned subsidiary, StoresOnline.com, was marketing
defective storefront software that falsely promised outsized
returns on a customer's investment.

On February 25, 2005, Danks admitted in an investment conference
that the Company had been selling the software packages to
customers with subprime credit, many of which did not even meet
the Company's own credit requirements. Many of these customers
had little success with iMergent's software and then failed to
uphold their contractual obligations, which resulted in only 56%
recovery of the purchase price through the subprime customers on
installment contracts.

The market reacted negatively to this news, and iMergent's stock
plummeted to below $12 per share on March 1, 2005. The Company's
shares currently trade at less than half of the price reached
during the Class Period. Additionally, while the stock was
artificially inflated, the Company's executives sold more than
$6.5 million worth of their own shares.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Max Jodry
of Baron & Budd, P.C. by Phone: 1-800-222-2766 or by E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com.  


IMERGENT INC.: Brodsky & Smith Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of iMergent, Inc. ("iMergent"
or the "Company") (AMEX:IIG), between November 30, 2004 and
February 25, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period"). The class
action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of Utah.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of iMergent securities.

For more details, contact Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Phone:
877-LEGAL-90 or by E-mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


IMERGENT INC.: Charles J. Piven Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in UT
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of iMergent,
Inc. (AMEX:IIG) between November 30, 2004 and February 25, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


IMERGENT INC.: Lasky & Rifkind Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lasky & Rifkind, Ltd., initiated a lawsuit in
the United States District Court for the District of Utah, on
behalf of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of iMergent, Inc. ("iMergent" or the
"Company") (AMEX:IIG) between November 30, 2004 and February 25,
2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed
against iMergent and certain officers and directors
("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
iMergent represented itself to the investment community that it
was a successful software Company while concealing that its
sales practices violated numerous state laws.

On February 22, 2005, it was disclosed that the Texas Attorney
General had filed suit against the Company alleging that the
Company's wholly owned subsidiary, StoresOnline.com, was selling
defective software and service packages and extorting thousands
of dollars from its customers when they could not use the
software packages. As the market digested this lawsuit, shares
of iMergent stock fell dramatically in value from more than $25
per share on February 9, 2005 to below $12 per share on March 1,
2005, when trading was halted.

For more details, contact Lasky & Rifkind by Phone:
(800) 495-1868 or by E-mail: investorrelations@laskyrifkind.com.  


IMERGENT INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in UT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah on behalf of purchasers of iMergent, Inc. (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 the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by
E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of
purchasers of Veeco Instruments, Inc. (NASDAQ: VECO) common
stock during the period between April 26, 2004 and February 10,
2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Veeco and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Veeco designs, manufactures, markets and services a broad
line of equipment primarily used by manufacturers in the data
storage and semiconductors industry.

Prior to the start of the Class Period, on November 3, 2003, the
Company announced the acquisition of Emcore Corporation's
TurboDiscr Metal Organic Chemical Vapor Deposition (MOCVD)
business. Throughout the Class Period, defendants issued
numerous positive statements and filed quarterly reports with
the SEC which described the Company's increasing financial
performance due in part to the success of its TurboDisc
division. In fact, defendants reported that the Company exceeded
its quarterly guidance for the first and second quarters of
2004. These statements were materially false and misleading
because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that Veeco was materially overstating its financial
         results by engaging in improper accounting practices.
         As detailed herein, Veeco has admitted that its prior
         financial reports are materially false and misleading
         as it announced that it is going to restate its results
         for the first three quarters of 2004;

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

     (3) that as a result of the foregoing, the values of the
         Company's inventory, accounts payable, revenue and net
         income were materially overstated at all relevant
         times.

Then, on February 11, 2005, Veeco announced that it would delay
releasing its fourth-quarter and yearly results while it
examines improper accounting at its TurboDisc division.
According to the press release, the Company's investigation is
focusing mainly on the value of inventory, accounts payable and
certain revenue items.

Upon this shocking news, shares of the Company's stock fell
$1.90 per share, or almost 10%, to close at $16.96 per share, on
unusually heavy trading volume.

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


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Baron & Budd Lodges Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Baron & Budd, P.C. initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers of Viisage Technology,
Inc. (Nasdaq:VISG) ("Viisage" or the "Company") securities
during the period between October 25, 2004 and March 2, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Viisage manipulated its financial
statements in order to acquire a much needed line of credit. In
order to secure such credit, the defendants engaged in a scheme
to artificially record a profit in the third quarter of 2004,
and made earnings projections known by the Company to be
materially inflated. On October 25, 2004, the Company announced
a third quarter profit which in fact was the product of
accounting shenanigans by pulling revenue into the quarter and
pushing expenses into the next reporting period.

On February 27, 2005, after obtaining the much needed credit
line, the defendants began to reveal their scheme by announcing
numerous fourth quarter charges and a significant asset
impairment. The result is that once again Viisage reported a
significant loss. As a result of this announcement, Viisage's
stock dropped 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 plummeted
another 20% closing at $4.50 per share on March 3, 2005, down
from almost $7 per share at the commencement of the Class
Period.

For more details, contact Randall K. Pulliam, Esq. or Max Jodry
of Baron & Budd, P.C. by Phone: 1-800-222-2766 by E-mail:
info@baronbudd.com.


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Charles J. Piven Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Viisage
Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:VISG) between October 25, 2004 and
March 2, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a class action
lawsuit a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of purchasers
of the securities of Viisage Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: VISG)
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 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 the Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel by
Mail: 273 Montgomery Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by
Phone: 610-660-8000 or 888-643-6735 by Fax: 610-660-8080 or by
E-Mail: mhenzel182@aol.com.


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Roy & Jacobs Lodges Securities Suit in MA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Roy Jacobs & 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) 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 Roy Jacobs & Associates by Phone:
888-884-4490 or by E-mail: classattorney@pipeline.com.  


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Shapiro Haber Lodges Securities Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Boston, Massachusetts law firm of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
initiated a class action securities fraud 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) between October
25, 2004 and March 2, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period")
seeking damages 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, in part, that Viisage manipulated its
third quarter financial statements to artificially show a profit
for the quarter by prematurely recognizing certain revenue and
deferring certain expenses. On February 27, 2005, Viisage
shocked 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. On March
2, 2005, defendants again surprised 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." Shares of Viisage stock dropped another 20%
on March 3, 2005.

For more details, contact Ted Hess-Mahan, Esq. or Alyssa
Petroff, paralegal of Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP by Mail: 53 State
Street, Boston, MA 02109 by Phone: (800) 287-8119 by Fax:
(617) 439-0134 or by E-mail: cases@shulaw.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 2005.  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  * * *