CAR_Public/050315.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 15, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 52

                         Headlines

ALAMOSA PCS: Working on Settlement of NY Securities Fraud Suit
ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
AMAZON.COM: Reaches $27.5M Securities Lawsuit Settlement in WA
CALIFORNIA: UC Weapons Lab Reaches $1.8M Racial Bias Settlement
CAREMARK RX: TN Court Hears Motion To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit

CAREMARK RX: AL Court Certifies Lawsuit V. 1999 Suit Settlement
CAREMARK RX: Discovery Proceeds in IL Antitrust Violations Suit
CAREMARK RX: AL Court Refuses Motion To Alter Lawsuit Dismissal
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Hearing Set For May 23, 2005
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Forges Settlement For MO Securities Suit

COMPUSA INC.: Reaches Settlement For FTC Consumer Fraud Charges
FLORIDA: NHP Launches Counter Suit Against Dr. Kenneth Fischer
KENTUCKY: Accused Scalper Launches Lawsuit V. City Of Lexington
KNIGHT-RIDDER INC.: Working To Settle Freelance Authors' NY Suit
MERRILL LYNCH: FL Woman To Testify in Sex Discrimination Hearing

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: UM To Use Settlement For Biology Center
PEP BOYS: PR Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud, Unfair Trade Suit
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in TX
PLAINS RESOURCES: DE Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Mulls Appeal of OK Stock Lawsuit Dismissal

PRE-PAID LEGAL: Arbitration Proceeds in OK Suit V. Memberships
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Plaintiffs Move To Vacate, For New Trial in Suit
PRE-PAID LEGAL: Interlocutory Appeal of Suit Certification Nixed
PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Denies Charges in Hibernia Foods Lawsuit
PRIME GROUP: Enters Agreement, Dropped As Defendant in NY Suit

SOUTH CAROLINA: Honda To Pay $2M To Settle Employees' Wage Suit
SPYWARE ASSASSIN: FTC Halts Bogus Spyware Software Distribution
STAR GAS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CT Court
VI TECHNOLOGIES: NY Employees File Overtime Suit in State Court
WASHINGTON: County's Strip Search Policy Ruled Unconstitutional

WEYERHAUSER CO.: Appeals Court Mulls OR Antitrust Suit Judgment
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Appeals Denial of Judgment Motion in OR Lawsuit
WEYERHAUSER CO.: Trial in Antitrust Suit Rescheduled To June 21

                  New Securities Fraud Cases  

51JOB INC.: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
APPLIED SIGNAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges NJ Securities Suit
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Stock Suit in NJ
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in WA

CELL THERAPEUTICS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in WA
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Brain M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in CA
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in GA
CIB MARINE: Phebus & Koester Lodges Stock Fraud Complaint in IL
DELPHI CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges MI Securities Fraud Suit

DELPHI CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MI
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Chitwood & Harley Lodges CO Stock Suit
FOREST LABORATORIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in VA
IMEREGENT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges UT Securities Suit
INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in TX

LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit
SINA CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NY
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in MA

                          *********

ALAMOSA PCS: Working on Settlement of NY Securities Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alamosa PCS Holdings, Inc. is working on the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, styled "In re Alamosa PCS Holdings Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, docket No. 01 Civ. 11235," arising out of
its initial public offering (IPO).  Various underwriters of the
IPO also are named as defendants in the suit.

The action against us is one of more than 300 related class
actions consolidated and pending in the same court.  The
complainants seek to recover damages and allege, among other
things, that the registration statement and prospectus filed
with the SEC for purposes of the IPO were false and misleading
because they failed to disclose that the underwriters allegedly:

     (1) solicited and received commissions from certain
         investors in exchange for allocating to them shares of
         common stock in connection with the IPO, and

     (2) entered into agreements with their customers to
         allocate such stock to those customers in exchange for
         the customers agreeing to purchase additional Company
         shares in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.

On February 19, 2003, the Court granted motions by the Company
and 115 other issuers to dismiss the claims under Rule 10b-5 of
the Exchange Act asserted against them. The Court denied the
motions by the Company and virtually all of the other issuers to
dismiss the claims asserted against them under Section 11 of the
Securities Act.  

The issuers in the IPO cases, including the Company, have
reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle
the claims asserted by the plaintiffs against them. Under the
terms of the proposed settlement, the insurance carriers for the
issuers will pay the plaintiffs the difference between $1
billion and all amounts the plaintiffs recover from the
underwriter defendants by way of settlement or judgment.
Accordingly, no payment on behalf of the issuers under the
proposed settlement will be made by the issuers themselves. The
claims against the issuers will be dismissed, and the issuers
and their officers and directors will receive releases from the
plaintiffs. Under the terms of the proposed settlement, the
issuers will also assign to plaintiffs certain claims which they
may have against the underwriters arising out of the Company's
IPO, and the issuers will also agree not to assert certain other
claims which they may have against the underwriters, without
plaintiffs' consent. The proposed settlement is subject to
agreement among the parties on final settlement documents and
the approval of the court.  The court has issued a decision and
order preliminarily approving the settlement as to the issuers.
A hearing date has been scheduled by the court for March 18,
2005 where they will approve the form and substance of a notice
to be sent to class members describing the settlement and giving
class members the opportunity to opt out of or object to the
settlement. The court will also set a date for a fairness
hearing that will likely take place later in 2005.


ALAMOSA HOLDINGS: Asks TX Court To Dismiss Securities Fraud Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alamosa Holdings, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas to dismiss the consolidated
securities class actions filed against it and certain of its
officers and directors.

In November and December 2003 and January 2004, multiple
lawsuits were filed against the Company and David E. Sharbutt,
its Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Kendall W. Cowan, its
Chief Financial Officer and Steven Richardson, its Chief
Operating Officer, on behalf of a putative class of persons who
and/or entities that purchased Alamosa Holdings' securities
between January 9, 2001 and June 13, 2002, inclusive, and seeks
recovery of compensatory damages, fees and costs.  Each lawsuit
was filed in the United Stated District Court for the Northern
District of Texas, in either the Lubbock Division or the Dallas
Division.  On February 27, 2004, the lawsuits were consolidated
into one action pending in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Texas, Lubbock Division, styled
"Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity Fund, et. al. v. Alamosa
Holdings, et. al., case no. 5:03-cv-289-c."  On March 4, 2004,
the Court appointed the Massachusetts State Guaranteed Annuity
Fund to serve as lead plaintiff and approved its selection of
lead counsel for the consolidated action.

On May 18, 2004, the lead plaintiff filed a consolidated
complaint. The consolidated complaint names three of the
original defendants (the Company, David Sharbutt and Kendall
Cowan), drops one of the original defendants (Steven Richardson)
and names two new defendants who are outside directors (Michael
Roberts and Steven Roberts). The putative class period remains
the same. The consolidated complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, and Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities
Act. The consolidated complaint seeks recovery of compensatory
damages, fees, costs, rescission or rescissory damages in
connection with the Sections 11 and 15 claims, and injunctive
relief and/or disgorgement in connection with defendants'
alleged insider trading proceeds.

At the end of the putative class period on June 13, 2002, the
Company announced that its projection of net subscriber
additions for the second quarter of 2002 would be less than
previously projected. The consolidated complaint alleges, among
other things, that the Company made false and misleading
statements about subscriber additions during the putative class
period.  The consolidated complaint also alleges that its
financial statements were false and misleading because the
Company improperly recognized revenue and failed to record
adequate allowances for uncollectible receivables.  


AMAZON.COM: Reaches $27.5M Securities Lawsuit Settlement in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com has paid US$27.5 million to settle a class-action
suit that accused the internet retailer of violating security
laws, the iT News, Australia reports.  The federal lawsuit
against the Seattle-based Company was filed in 2001 by
shareholders, who claim that Amazon.com executives and directors
made false and misleading statements from 29 October 1998 to 23
October 2001.

According to a recent filing with the US Securities and Exchange
Commission, the alleged statements were related to the Company's
business, financial condition and results, inventories, future
prospects and strategic alliance transactions.  The Company also
said in the filing, "We dispute the allegations of wrongdoing in
these complaints and have been vigorously defending ourselves in
these matters." Nevertheless, the Company added that it paid
$27.5 million to settle the suit, which is still pending
approval from the US District Court in Washington.


CALIFORNIA: UC Weapons Lab Reaches $1.8M Racial Bias Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Asian-American scientists and engineers at Lawrence Livermore
nuclear weapons lab reached a $1.18 million tentative settlement
agreement with the lab's operator, the University of California
(UC), on claims that lab supervisors systematically denied them
equal pay and promotions for more than a decade, the Tri-Valley
Herald reports.

If approved by a state judge in Alameda County and most of the
nearly 465 plaintiffs, the settlement agreement would close a
chapter in long-standing complaints that Livermore lab treated
its Asian-American employees differently.

Those protracted complaints came to a head in 1998, when workers
filed an administrative complaint with the state's Department of
Fair Employment and Housing, which later reached a settlement
with the university on their behalf. Eventually, the workers
sued the university on their own in December 2001.

Under the settlement, four lead plaintiffs would receive $15,000
each, and the remaining 460 would share $765,000, plus $350,000
in legal fees and costs. The university's governing Board of
Regents agreed that the laboratory would be under an injunction
against racial discrimination in matters of pay and promotion,
to be overseen by the court.  The scientists and engineers will
be notified of the terms of the proposed settlement if the court
grants tentative approval and then will decide whether to accept
it.

At least five of the original plaintiffs have decided not to
participate in the settlement negotiations and are continuing
their portion of the lawsuit. Michael Sorgen, a San Francisco
lawyer who represents the five workers, told the Tri-Valley
Herald "We feel the settlement is very favorable to the lab
that's why we didn't go along with it."


CAREMARK RX: TN Court Hears Motion To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Middle District of
Tennessee heard Caremark Rx, Inc.'s and Caremark, Inc.'s motion
to dismiss the purported private class action lawsuit that was
filed against them by Robert Moeckel, on behalf of the John
Morrell Employee Benefits Plan.

The suit alleges the defendants each act as a fiduciary as that
term is defined by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and that the defendants have breached certain purported
fiduciary duties under ERISA.  This lawsuit seeks unspecified
monetary damages and injunctive relief.  

The defendants have filed motions seeking the complete dismissal
of this action on various grounds.  In January 2005, a hearing
was held on the motions, but the court has not yet issued a
ruling on the pending motions.

The suit is styled "Moeckel v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al.," case
no. 04-CV-633, filed in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee, under Judge Aleta A. Trauger.

The plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) John A. Day, Branham & Day, P.C., 5300 Maryland Way,
         Suite 300, Brentwood, TN 37027, Phone: (615) 742-4880
     
     (2) Stephen J. Herman, Maury A. Herman, Herman, Herman,
         Katz & Cotlar, LLP, 820 O'Keefe Avenue, New Orleans, LA
         70113, Phone: (504) 581-4892

     (3) Mike Miller, Stacey E. Tjon, Solberg Stewart Miller &
         Tjon, 1129 Fifth Avenue South, P.O. Box 1897, Fargo, ND
         58107-1897, Phone: (701) 237-3166

     (4) David A. McKay, Herman Mathis Casey Kitchens & Gerel,
         LLP, 230 Peachtree Street, NW, Suite 2260, Atlanta, GA
         30303, Phone: (404) 880-9500

The Company is represented by Joseph A. Woodruff, Mark H.
Wildasin, Jennifer L. Weaver of Waller, Lansden, Dortch & Davis,
Nashville City Center, 511 Union Street, Suite 2100, Nashville,
TN 37219, Phone: (615) 244-6380; and Frank E. Pasquesi, Robert
H. Griffith, Ungaretti & Harris, 3500 Three First National
Plaza, Chicago, IL 60602-4283, Phone: (312) 977-4400.


CAREMARK RX: AL Court Certifies Lawsuit V. 1999 Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama granted class
certification to a lawsuit filed against Caremark Rx, Inc. by
John Lauriello on behalf of a purported class of persons who
were participants in the 1999 settlement of then pending
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against the
Company and others.  Also named as defendants are several
insurance companies that had provided coverage to the Company up
to the time of the settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.  Alternatively, the
lawsuit seeks to re-open the judgment approving the 1999
settlement.

After the Court overruled the defendants' joint motion to
dismiss in July 2004, the defendants filed their answers, which,
among other things, denied all of the material allegations of
the complaint.  The parties then filed pleadings setting out
their respective positions as to how this case should proceed.  
In January 2005, the court signed an order on class
certification that, among other things, held that this case will
proceed as a class action and set out a schedule for challenging
the adequacy of John Lauriello to serve as class representative,
as well as the appointment of Lauriello's lawyers to act as
class counsel.  The defendants have asked the trial court to
stay all discovery and deadlines in the case while they pursue
available appellate remedies.

In November 2003, a second class action lawsuit was filed by
Frank McArthur in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama
arising out of the same 1999 settlement of then pending
securities class action and derivative lawsuits against the
Company and others.  This lawsuit also was filed on behalf of a
purported class of persons who were participants in the 1999
settlement, and named as defendants the Company, several
insurance companies that had provided coverage to the Company up
to the time of the settlement, and a number of lawyers and law
firms involved in negotiating and securing the approval of the
1999 settlement.

The lawsuit seeks, among other things, to recover approximately
$3.2 billion in compensatory damages plus unspecified punitive
damages, pre-judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees from
the defendants for their alleged intentional, reckless and/or
negligent misrepresentation and suppression of material facts
relating to the amount of insurance coverage that was available
to pay any settlement or judgment arising out of the claims that
were resolved by the 1999 settlement.

In December 2003, John Lauriello, the plaintiff in the lawsuit
described above, filed a motion to intervene and a motion to
dismiss, abate or stay this lawsuit on the grounds that it was a
duplicative, later-filed, class action complaint. In January
2004, Caremark Rx and the other defendants filed their own
motion to abate, dismiss or stay the lawsuit as a later-filed
class action that is substantially similar to the Lauriello
lawsuit.  The defendants' motion to stay was granted by the
court, and the lawsuit was transferred to an Administrative
Docket where it will be reviewed every ninety (90) days.

In February 2005, the plaintiffs in the stayed McArthur case
filed motions in the Lauriello case seeking to intervene in that
litigation and asking for the right to challenge the adequacy of
John Lauriello as class representative and his lawyers as class
counsel.  The court heard argument on the intervention motions
and has set out a schedule for completing the briefing on
certain of the issues raised in the McArthur plaintiffs'
pleadings.


CAREMARK RX: Discovery Proceeds in IL Antitrust Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Initial discovery is proceeding in the class action filed
against Caremark Rx, Inc., Caremark, Inc. and AdvancePCS (now
known as CaremarkPCS) and two pharmacy benefit manager
competitors in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.  North Jackson Pharmacy, Inc. and C& C,
Inc. d/b/a Big C Discount Drugs, Inc., two independent
pharmacies filed the suit originally in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, which
asserted two claims under a single count purportedly arising
under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

The court granted a motion filed by Caremark Rx and Caremark to
transfer venue to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois pursuant to the terms of the
pharmacy services agreements between Caremark and the
plaintiffs.  The court also granted a motion filed by AdvancePCS
to compel arbitration of any claims between it and the
plaintiffs pursuant to the pharmacy services agreements it has
with the plaintiffs. The case against Caremark Rx and Caremark
is in the initial stages of discovery.  The plaintiffs are
seeking three times actual money damages and injunctive relief
enjoining the alleged antitrust violations.

The suit is styled "N Jackson Pharm Inc, et al v. Caremark RX
Inc, et al, case no. 1:04-cv-05674," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under
Judge Milton I. Shadur.

Representing the defendants are:

     (1) W. Michael Atchison, Victor E. Grimm, Anthony C.
         Harlon, Starnes & Atchison, P.O. Box 598512,
         Birmingham, AL, 35259-8512, Phone: (205) 868-6000

     (2) Erik F. Dyhrkopp, Michael Edward Martinez, Scott M.
         Mendel, Paula W. Render, Michael Sennett, Bell, Boyd &
         Lloyd LLC, 70 West Madison Street, Suite 3300, Chicago,
         IL 60602-4207, Phone: (312) 372-1121

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (i) Andrew C. Allen, Russell J. Drake, Othni Lathram, Joe
         R. Whatley, Whatley, Drake, LLC, 2323 2nd Avenue North,
         P.O. Box 10647, Birmingham, AL 35202-0647, Phone: (205)
         328-9576

    (ii) Christopher W. Cantrell, A. David Fawal, Archie J.
         Lamb, Law Offices of Archie Lamb, LLC, 2017-2nd Avenue
         North #200, Birmingham, AL 35203, Phone: (205)324-4644

   (iii) Kathleen Currie Chavez, Chavez Law Firm, 1245 Executive
         Place, Suite F-100, Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630)232-
         4480

    (iv) Gregory C. Cook, Balch & Bingham, Post Office Box 306,
         Birmingham, AL 35201-0306, Phone: (205) 251-8100

     (v) Robert M. Foote, Craig S. Mielke, Foote, Meyers,
         Mielke, Flowers & Solano, 416 South Second Street,
         Geneva, IL 60134, Phone: (630) 232-6333

    (vi) Gail A McQuilkin, Harley S. Tropin, Kozyak Tropin &
         Throckmorton PA, 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor, Coral
         Gables, FL 33134, Phone: 305-372-1800, Fax: 305-372-
         3508

  (viii) Nicholas B Roth, Eyster Key Tubb Weaver & Roth
         P.O. Box 1607, Decatur, AL 35602, Phone: (256)353-6761

    (ix) Edward K. Wood, Jr., Law Offices of Edward Kirk Wood
         P.O. Box 382434, Birmingham, AL 35238, Phone: (205)612-
         0243


CAREMARK RX: AL Court Refuses Motion To Alter Lawsuit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama refused plaintiff's motion to alter or amend its
dismissal ruling for the class action filed against Caremark Rx,
Inc. and Caremark, Inc.

Roland Bickley originally filed the suit in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California, on behalf
of the Georgia Pacific Corporation Life, Health and Accident
Plan, alleging that the defendants each act as a fiduciary as
that term is defined in the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA) and that the defendants have breached certain
purported fiduciary duties under ERISA. In August 2002, this
case was ordered transferred to the United States District
Court, Northern District of Alabama.

The Company was subsequently served in May 2002 with a virtually
identical lawsuit, containing the same types of allegations,
which was filed by Mary Dolan, on behalf of Wells Fargo Health
Plan, and also filed in the United States District Court,
Central District of California. In December 2002, this case was
also ordered transferred to the United States District Court,
Northern District of Alabama.  Both of these lawsuits were
amended to name the Company as a defendant, and Caremark Rx was
dismissed from the second case filed.

The defendants, as applicable, filed motions seeking the
complete dismissal of both of these actions on various grounds.
In December 2004, the court presiding over the Bickley matter
entered an order dismissing that casein its entirety with
prejudice, finding that the plaintiff lacked standing, had
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies and that Caremark
was not a fiduciary under ERISA as to the plaintiff.  In January
2005, Mr. Bickley filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the court's
order seeking only to limit the bases upon which the Court
dismissed the case.  

The suit is styled "Bickley v. Caremark RX, Inc., et al, case
no. 2:02-cv-02197-VEH," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama, under Judge Virginia
Emerson Hopkins.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement Hearing Set For May 23, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross, LLP reports that
the Class Action Plaintiff in the action pending in the United
States District Court, Eastern District of Missouri entitled, In
re Charter Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL
Docket No. 1506 (CAS), has entered into Stipulations of
Settlement, which is worth up to $146,250,000, consisting of
cash in the amount of $66.25 million (plus accrued interest),
dated as of January 24, 2005 with Settling Class Action
Defendants Charter Communications, Inc., Paul G. Allen, Jerald
L. Kent, Carl E. Vogel, Kent Kalkwarf, David G. Barford, Paul E.
Martin, David L. McCall, Bill Shreffler, Chris Fenger, James H.
Smith III, and Arthur Andersen LLP to resolve the issues raised
in the Class Action as against the Settling Class Action
Defendants.

According to the firm, the Settlement Hearing will be held on
May 23, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., before the Honorable Charles A.
Shaw, Judge of the United States District Court, at the United
States Courthouse, 111 South 10th Street, Suite 12.148, St.
Louis, MO 63102.

For more details, contact Charter Securities Litigation, c/o
Berdon Claims Administration LLC by Mail: P.O. Box 9014,
Jericho, NY 11753-8914 by Phone: 800/766-3330 by Fax:
516/931-0810 or visit their Web site:
http://www.berdonllp.com/claimsOR   
Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP by Mail: 100 Park
Avenue, New York, NY 10017 or by Phone: (212) 661-1100.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Forges Settlement For MO Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in the consolidated securities class action filed
against Charter Communications, Inc. and certain of its former
and present officers entered a settlement for the suit, filed in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri.

Fourteen putative federal class action lawsuits were initially
filed in various jurisdictions allegedly on behalf of all
purchasers of the Company's securities during the period from
either November 8 or November 9, 1999 through July 17 or July
18, 2002.  Unspecified damages were sought by the plaintiffs.  
In general, the lawsuits alleged that the Company utilized
misleading accounting practices and failed to disclose these
accounting practices and/or issued false and misleading
financial statements and press releases concerning the Company's
operations and prospects.  

In October 2002, the Company filed a motion with the Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPMDL) to transfer the suits
to the Eastern District of Missouri.  On March 12, 2003, the
JPMDL transferred the six suits not filed in the Eastern
District of Missouri to that district for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the eight suits already
pending there.  The transfer order assigned the Federal Class
Actions to Judge Charles A. Shaw.  By virtue of a prior court
order, StoneRidge Investment Partners LLC became lead plaintiff
upon entry of the Panel's transfer order.  StoneRidge
subsequently filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint.  The Court
subsequently consolidated the suits into a single action for
pretrial purposes.

On June 19, 2003, following a status and scheduling conference
with the parties, the Court issued a Case Management Order
setting forth a schedule for the pretrial phase of the
Consolidated Federal Class Action.  Motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint were filed.  On February 10,
2004, in response to a joint motion made by StoneRidge and
Defendants Charter, Vogel and Allen, the Court entered an order
providing, among other things, that the parties who filed such
motion engage in a mediation within ninety (90) days; and all
proceedings in the Consolidated Federal Class Actions were
stayed until May 10, 2004.

On May 11, 2004, the Court extended the stay in the Consolidated
suit for an additional sixty (60) days.  On July 12, 2004, the
parties submitted a joint motion to again extend the stay, this
time until September 10, 2004.  The Court granted that extension
on July 20, 2004.  On August 5, 2004, Stoneridge, Charter and
the individual defendants who were the subject of the suit
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding setting forth
agreements in principle to settle the consolidated suit.  These
parties subsequently entered into Stipulations of Settlement
dated as of January 24, 2005 which incorporate the terms of the
August 5, 2004 Memorandum of Understanding.

The Consolidated Federal Class Action is entitled: "In re
Charter Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL Docket
No. 1506 (All Cases), StoneRidge Investments Partners, LLC,
Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v.
Charter Communications, Inc., Paul Allen, Jerald L. Kent, Carl
E. Vogel, Kent Kalkwarf, David G. Barford, Paul E. Martin, David
L. McCall, Bill Shreffler, Chris Fenger, James H. Smith, III,
Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Motorola, Inc. and Arthur Andersen,
LLP, Consolidated Case No. 4:02-CV-1186-CAS."


COMPUSA INC.: Reaches Settlement For FTC Consumer Fraud Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------
Under the terms of two separate consent agreements, the Federal
Trade Commission has settled charges against nationwide computer
superstore CompUSA Inc. and the officers of computer peripherals
manufacturer Q.P.S. Inc., whose products were marketed and sold
by CompUSA, for allegedly failing to pay, in a timely manner,
thousands of rebates for products sold under the CompUSA and QPS
brands. Under the terms of the settlement with the superstore,
CompUSA will pay consumers who purchased QPS products at CompUSA
their due or past-due rebates, which ranged from $15 to $100
each.

The case represents the first time the FTC has charged a
nationwide retailer over its rebate advertising practices,
including its advertising of manufacturer mail-in rebates. The
administrative consent agreements announced today settle all
charges against CompUSA and QPS's principals Priti Sharma and
Rajeev Sharma.

"When it comes to rebates, retailers must deliver on their
promises," said Lydia Parnes, Acting Director of the FTC's
Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The message to retailers is
clear - the FTC is on the beat and will take action if you
advertise manufacturers' rebates when you know they aren't
honoring their promises."

In its complaint against the superstore, the FTC alleges that
CompUSA engaged in deceptive and unfair practices relating to
rebate offers made for both its own branded products, as well as
QPS products that it marketed and sold. Specifically, according
to the FTC, CompUSA was involved with the creation of the rebate
program for QPS-funded mail-in rebates for products sold at
CompUSA. The complaint also alleges that in marketing QPS's
rebates, it falsely represented that QPS-funded rebate checks
would be mailed to buyers of QPS products within six to eight
weeks, or within a reasonable period of time. Between September
and December 2001, however, many consumers experienced delays of
between one and six months before receiving their rebates, and
some never received the promised rebates at all. Similarly,
between January and July 2002, many consumers experienced delays
and thousands never received their rebates from QPS. Despite
knowing about these problems, the FTC contends, CompUSA
continually advertised QPS's rebates until shortly before the
Company filed for bankruptcy in August 2002.

With regard to marketing CompUSA's own branded products, the
FTC's complaint alleges that CompUSA promised that it would
deliver its rebates, ranging from $3 to $100 in value, within
six to eight weeks, or within a reasonable period of time.
Between September 2001 and June 2002, however, many consumers
experienced delays ranging from a week to more than three months
before getting their money. Finally, the complaint against
CompUSA alleges that in many cases, after receiving valid rebate
requests for CompUSA-branded products, the Company unfairly
unilaterally extended the time period in which it would deliver
the rebates, without consumers agreeing to the time extension.

The complaint against QPS principals Priti and Rajeev Sharma
also challenges their rebate-related conduct as deceptive and
unfair. The Company is now in bankruptcy and is not currently
operating.

The Commission has approved two separate consent orders, one
addressing the alleged conduct of CompUSA, and the second with
QPS's principals.  The consent order with CompUSA prohibits it
from, among other things, representing the time in which it will
mail any cash rebate that it will fund, unless it has
substantiation for that claim. It also prohibits CompUSA from
failing to provide any such rebate within the time specified to
consumers, or, if no time is specified, within 30 days. The
Company also is prohibited from misrepresenting any material
terms of any CompUSA rebate program.

Further, the order addresses CompUSA's role as a retailer in
advertising manufacturers' rebates - that is, those to be funded
by the manufacturers. Under the terms of the order, CompUSA is
prohibited from advertising the availability of a manufacturer's
rebate unless:

     (1) it has an established record with the manufacturer
         demonstrating that the manufacturer has consistently
         paid rebates in a timely manner; or

     (2) if it does not have such an established record with the
         manufacturer, CompUSA has conducted a reasonable
         financial analysis of the manufacturer that
         demonstrates the manufacturer's ability to pay the
         offered.

Finally, the order requires CompUSA to pay all valid QPS rebate
requests that were received from consumers who bought QPS
products at CompUSA, and which are due or past due. CompUSA also
is required to send a rebate to any eligible consumer who
contacts CompUSA or the FTC within 75 days after the order is
served on the Company.

The order also contains standard reporting and record-keeping
requirements to ensure CompUSA complies with its terms. In
addition, the order requires CompUSA to provide a copy of the
order to manufacturers currently offering rebates exclusively at
the computer superstore and to those that do so in the future.

The order with QPS's principals prohibits them from engaging in
practices similar to those alleged in the Commission's
complaint, specifically those related to any rebate program
involving any product or service.

The Commission vote to accept the consent agreements was 5-0.
The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the agreements in
the Federal Register shortly. The agreements will be subject to
public comment for 30 days, until April 9, 2005, after which the
Commission will decide whether to make it final.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580,
Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357) or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov.


FLORIDA: NHP Launches Counter Suit Against Dr. Kenneth Fischer
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a move its lawyers say is somewhat unusual, but necessary,
Neighborhood Health Partnership (NHP), the largest commercial
health maintenance organization in Miami-Dade, and the second
largest in Broward has filed a counter suit against Dr. Kenneth
Fischer, a Miami neurologist who is the single named plaintiff
in a class action suit recently filed against the Miami-based
Company.

Dr. Fischer filed a class action suit against NHP, claiming the
Company improperly reduced his reimbursement payments. As a
result of the suit, NHP conducted an audit of Dr. Fischer's
claims. The review showed he was overpaid.  "Dr. Fischer's claim
is, essentially, that we didn't reimburse him properly. It turns
out he's quite right -- we overpaid him," said Hilarie Bass of
Greenberg Traurig, NHP's Florida legal counsel.

In a court filing, NHP says it hired Seim, Johnson Sestak &
Quist, LLP, an outside, independent auditing firm based in Omaha
with a specialty in health care issues, to review Dr. Fischer's
claims. The auditors reviewed claims of Dr. Fischer for a two-
year period, 2002-2003.

Based on the audit, Seim Johnson concluded that there was no
instance in which Dr. Fischer was reimbursed for an amount less
than that which was supported by the medical records he
submitted, and that there were 62 instances where he was
overpaid.  

"The medical records simply did not support the claims and the
payments sought by Dr. Fischer," said Ms. Bass.

"We were very reluctant to file this counterclaim," noted David
Pollack, NHP president. "We consider physicians to be our
partners. However, after the audit of Dr. Fischer's claims, we
felt we were left with no other choice."

NHP has requested a trial and has indicated it will seek
compensatory damages and legal fees.


KENTUCKY: Accused Scalper Launches Lawsuit V. City Of Lexington
---------------------------------------------------------------
Craig A. Wilson, a man who was arrested for selling tickets
within two blocks of Rupp Arena is suing the city of Lexington
in U.S. District Court, alleging that his First Amendment right
of free speech was violated, that he was deprived of the use of
his basketball game tickets and that he was subjected to
unlawful search and seizure, the Associated Press reports.

According to court documents, Mr. Wilson was one of 20 people
arrested by police on January 5 for scalping tickets or selling
them within two blocks of the arena.  A city ordinance prohibits
selling anything, including food, tickets or T-shirts, along
streets or sidewalks within two blocks of Rupp Arena from two
hours before an event to one hour after.  Mr. Wilson, who is
asking a judge to certify the lawsuit as a class action, is
seeking a preliminary injunction stopping police from enforcing
the ordinance.

The suit states that Mr. Wilson had two extra tickets to the
January 5 basketball game between the University of Kentucky and
the University of South Carolina. Mr. Wilson brought the extra
tickets to the game, hoping to sell them to recover some, if not
all, of his purchase price, according to court documents. Two
Lexington police officers approached Mr. Wilson, and he offered
them the tickets for less than face value. He then alleges that
the officers searched and detained him before confiscating his
tickets, AP reports.


KNIGHT-RIDDER INC.: Working To Settle Freelance Authors' NY Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Knight-Ridder, Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary,
MediaStream, Inc. is working to settle a consolidated class
action filed against it before the Judicial Panel on Multi-
District Litigation, under the caption "In re Literary Works in
Electronic Databases Copyright Litigation, M.D.L. Docket No.
1379."

The two lawsuits originally filed against MediaStream in
September 2000 were "The Authors Guild, Inc. et al. v. The
Dialog Corporation et al.," and "Posner et al. v. Gale Group
Inc. et al."  These lawsuits were brought by or on behalf of
freelance authors who allege that the defendants have infringed
plaintiffs' copyrights by making plaintiffs' works available on
databases operated by the defendants.  The plaintiffs are
seeking to be certified as class representatives of all
similarly situated free-lance authors.  In the Multi-District
Litigation, plaintiffs seek actual damages, statutory damages
and injunctive relief, among other remedies.

The two lawsuits were initially stayed pending disposition by
the U.S. Supreme Court of "New York Times Company et al. v.
Tasini et al., No. 00-21."  On June 25, 2001, the Supreme Court
ruled that the defendants in Tasini did not have a privilege
under Section 201 of the Copyright Act to republish articles
previously appearing in print publications absent the author's
separate permission for electronic republication.  The judge has
ordered the parties in the Multi-District Litigation to try to
resolve the claims through mediation, which commenced November
2001, and the parties have agreed to a limited stay to respond
to the complaint during such mediation, which may be terminated
by the plaintiffs upon 30-days prior written notice.

In September 2001, the plaintiffs submitted an amended
complaint, which named the Company as an additional defendant
and made reference to Knight Ridder Digital.  Settlement
discussions that originally commenced during the mediation are
continuing, and plaintiffs and defendants in the Multi-District
Litigation are in the process of obtaining and exchanging
signatures to a proposed settlement agreement.  In the event
that the foregoing parties are unable to finally settle this
matter and the litigation resumes, the Company and MediaStream
intend to contest liability and vigorously defend their
positions in the litigation, including opposing class
certification.  


MERRILL LYNCH: FL Woman To Testify in Sex Discrimination Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
At the start of a weeklong arbitration hearing, Elaine Marcus, a
Delray Beach woman, seeking $5 million from Merrill Lynch for
alleged sex discrimination, is set to testify against her former
employees, the Boca Raton News reports.

Joseph R. Fazio III, a Fort Lauderdale attorney, who represents
Ms. Marcus, told the Boca Raton News her testimony in the quasi-
judicial hearing before three arbitrators in Boca Raton would
reveal a pattern of discrimination against women by the national
brokerage firm including exclusion from social events and biased
employee awards. He added, "My client simply wasn't given the
same opportunities as men for leads with clients and business
deals. This is also a whistle-blower claim. She turned in her
boss for defrauding clients and Merrill Lynch itself by engaging
in expense report fraud and manipulating client life insurance
policies and annuities."

Mr. Fazio also said that Merrill Lynch executives in Fort
Lauderdale, Aventura and Palm Beach Gardens treated his client
with "some element of sex harassment, but it was more
retaliation for her objections to their illegal activities."

However, William Halldin, Merrill Lynch spokesman, told Boca
Raton News the Company believes there is no merit to the Ms.
Marcus' claim, saying, "At all times during her tenure with
Merrill Lynch, Ms. Marcus was treated fairly. We thanked her for
bringing the information [about the boss] to our attention. We
investigated it, disciplined the employee, and then we thanked
her again."

Ms. Marcus' complaint is part of a class action lawsuit
originally filed by eight women financial advisors against
Merrill Lynch in 1997. That lawsuit was eventually awarded class
action status by a Chicago judge in 1998. That same year the
judge ruled that it should be settled in independent arbitration
rather than civil court. Nearly 1,000 women though, including
Ms. Marcus in 1999, subsequently joined the lawsuit. But less
than five percent of those nearly 1,000 complainants, Ms. Marcus
included, have advanced to the third-stage arbitration hearing
that begins soon.

San Antonio broker Hydie Sumner, one of the original 1997
plaintiffs, set the benchmark for the sex discrimination lawsuit
in April 2004 when a panel awarded her $2.2 million. However,
she was back in arbitration recently after asking for her old
job back on top of the award.

Merrill Lynch officials stressed recently that of the 2,800
women who held the position of financial advisor between June of
1994 and March of 1998, making them eligible to join the
lawsuit, less than 1,000 did. In addition, the Company pointed
out that Ms. Marcus was a financial advisor for just two months
from July to September 1994 something that could impugn her
motives or limit the scope of her testimony.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: UM To Use Settlement For Biology Center
--------------------------------------------------------------
The University of Minnesota will use money from a 2004
settlement of the state's antitrust class action lawsuit against
Microsoft to set up a Consortium for Bioinformatics and
Computational Biology, according to the university's president,
Robert Bruininks, the Associated Press reports.  Although the
university was not a plaintiff in the case, it received $2.5
million in cash and the same amount in vouchers for Microsoft
products as part of the settlement.

The new center, which combines the fields of molecular and
cellular biology and digital technology, will be based in the
school's Digital Technology Center. Up to nine colleges on the
Twin Cities campus and the university's Duluth campus will be
involved in the center, which will have five faculty members.  
To set up the center, the university will match the Microsoft
money, Mr. Bruininks told AP. After five years, it will be fully
supported by the university.


PEP BOYS: PR Court Dismisses Consumer Fraud, Unfair Trade Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico
dismissed the class action field against Pep Boys Corporation,
styled "Tomas Diaz Rodriguez; Energy Tech Corporation v. Pep
Boys Corporation; Manny, Moe & Jack Corporation Puerto Rico,
Inc. d/b/a Pep Boys"

The suit was previously instituted against the Company in the
Court of First Instance of Puerto Rico, Bayamon Superior
Division on March 15, 2002.  The action was subsequently removed
to, and is currently pending in, the United States District
Court for the District of Puerto Rico.  Plaintiffs are
distributors of a product that claims to improve gas mileage.  
The plaintiffs alleged that the Company entered into an
agreement with them to act as the exclusive retailer of the
product in Puerto Rico that was breached when the Company
determined to stop selling the product.


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Employees Launch Overtime Wage Lawsuit in TX
-------------------------------------------------------------
Former and current Pilgrim's Pride employees launched a class-
action lawsuit in federal court against the Company, alleging
that they worked overtime but were never paid for the hours, The
Lufkin Daily News reports.  

According to claims in the suit, which was filed by Amy K.
Witherite, a Dallas attorney representing the employees, the
Company required or permitted various employees to work more
than 40 hours, but refused to pay them, a violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Pilgrim's Pride is the second-largest poultry Company in the
United States and Mexico, and the largest in Puerto Rico. The
Company employs more than 40,000 people and has major operations
in 17 states, with locations in Lufkin, Nacogdoches and Center,
according to statements on the Company's Web site.

Thelma Uyi of Nacogdoches, a former employee who had allegedly
been denied overtime pay is the lead plaintiff named in the
case.  The suit claims employees at all levels, including
managers, supervisors, foremen and line workers, frequently
worked more than 40 hours a week without overtime compensation
of time and a half.  The suit alleges that Pilgrim's Pride acted
in a pattern or practice of "knowing, willful and reckless
disregard" for labor regulations, which was "neither reasonable,
nor in good faith." The plaintiffs are seeking a jury trial,
with awards of court costs and back pay, plus interest.


PLAINS RESOURCES: DE Court Approves Shareholder Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Delaware Chancery Court for New Castle County approved the
settlement of the class action filed against Plains Resources,
Inc., styled "Alfons Sperber v. Plains Resources Inc., et al."

This suit, brought on behalf of a putative class of Plains All
American Pipeline, L.P. common unitholders, asserted breach of
fiduciary duty and breach of contract claims against Plains All
American L.P., Plains AAP, L.P., and Plains All American GP LLC
and its directors, as well as breach of fiduciary duty claims
against the Company and its directors.

The complaint sought to enjoin or rescind a proposed acquisition
of all of the Company's outstanding stock as well as declaratory
relief, an accounting, disgorgement and the imposition of a
constructive trust, and an award of damages, fees, expenses and
costs, among other things. This lawsuit has been settled in
principle. The court has approved the settlement and, assuming
no appeals are filed, the settlement will become final in March
2005.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Court Mulls Appeal of OK Stock Lawsuit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the securities class
action filed against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. and various
of its executive officers.

Several suits were initially filed in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma in early 2001 seeking
unspecified damages on the basis of allegations that the Company
issued false and misleading financial information, primarily
related to the method the Company used to account for commission
advance receivables from sales associates.  

On March 5, 2002, the Court granted the Company's motion to
dismiss the complaint, with prejudice, and entered a judgment in
favor of the defendants.  Plaintiffs thereafter filed a motion
requesting reconsideration of the dismissal, which was denied.  
The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment and the order denying
their motion to reconsider the judgment to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.  In August 2002 the lead institutional   
plaintiff withdrew from the case, leaving two individual
plaintiffs as lead plaintiffs on behalf of the putative class.  
As of December 31, 2003, the briefing in the appeal had been
completed.  On January 14, 2004 oral argument was held in the
appeal and as of February 22, 2005, a decision was pending.  


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Arbitration Proceeds in OK Suit V. Memberships
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arbitration is proceeding in the class action filed against Pre-
Paid Legal Services, Inc. and certain of its officers, in the
District Court of Creek County, Oklahoma, over the sale of its
legal expense plans called "memberships."

Beginning in the second quarter of 2001, multiple lawsuits were
filed against the Company, certain officers, employees, sales
associates and other defendants in various Alabama and
Mississippi state courts by current or former members seeking
actual and punitive damages for alleged breach of contract,
fraud and various other claims in connection with the sale of
Memberships.  During 2004, there were at one time as many as 30
separate lawsuits involving approximately 285 plaintiffs in
Alabama.  As of February 22, 2005, as a result of dismissals,
summary judgments, or settlements for nominal amounts, the
Company was aware of approximately 15 separate lawsuits
involving approximately 56 plaintiffs that have been filed in
multiple counties in Alabama.  

As of February 22, 2005, the Company is aware 16 separate
lawsuits involving approximately 426 plaintiffs in multiple
counties in Mississippi.  Certain of the Mississippi lawsuits
also name the Company's former provider attorney in Mississippi
as a defendant.  Proceedings in several of the eleven cases
which name the Company's provider attorney as a defendant had
been stayed pending the Mississippi Supreme Court's ruling on
the Pre-Paid defendants' appeal of a trial court's granting of a
partial summary judgment that the action is not required to be
submitted to arbitration.  On April 1, 2004, the Mississippi
Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's partial summary
judgment that arbitration should not be had in one of the cases
on appeal.  The Company asked the Mississippi Supreme Court to
rehear that issue but that motion was denied on June 3, 2004 and
the Company sought certiorari on that issue with the United
States Supreme Court on September 1 and 8, 2004 which was denied

At least three complaints have been filed by the law firm
representing plaintiffs in eleven of the cases on behalf of
certain of the Mississippi plaintiffs and others with the
Attorney General of Mississippi in March 2002, December 2002 and
August 2003.  The Company has responded to the Attorney
General's requests for information with respect to these
complaints, and as of February 22, 2005, the Company was not
aware of any further actions being taken by the Attorney
General.  

In Mississippi, the Company filed lawsuits in the United States
District Court for the Southern and Northern Districts of
Mississippi in which the Company seeks to compel arbitration of
the various Mississippi claims under the Federal Arbitration Act
and the terms of its Membership agreements.  One of the federal
courts has ordered arbitration of a case involving 8 plaintiffs.
These cases are all in various stages of litigation, including
trial settings in Alabama in April 2005, and in Mississippi in
May 2005, and seek varying amounts of actual and punitive
damages.  The first trial in Mississippi on these cases resulted
in a unanimous jury verdict in the Company's favor, including
other named defendants, on all claims on October 19, 2004, while
the second trial in Mississippi resulted in an insubstantial
plaintiff's verdict on February 15, 2005. Although the amount of
Membership fees paid by the plaintiffs in the Mississippi cases
is $500,000 or less, certain of the cases seek damages of $90
million.  Additional suits of a similar nature have been
threatened.  

On April 19, 2002, counsel in certain of the above-referenced
Alabama suits also filed a similar suit against the Company and
certain of its officers in the District Court of Creek County,
Oklahoma on behalf of Jeff and Jana Weller individually and
doing business as Hi-Tech Auto making similar allegations
relating to the Memberships and seeking unspecified damages on
behalf of a "nationwide" class. The Pre-Paid defendants'
preliminary motions in this case were denied, and on June 17,
2003, the Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals reversed the trial
court's denial of the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to compel
arbitration, finding that the trial court erred when it denied
Pre-Paid's motion to compel arbitration pursuant to the terms of
the valid Membership contracts, and remanded the case to the
trial court for further proceedings consistent with that
opinion.  On December 3, 2004, the District Court ordered the
plaintiffs to proceed with the arbitration.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Plaintiffs Move To Vacate, For New Trial in Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate and/or for a new trial in
the class action filed against Pre-Paid Legal Services, Inc. in
the District Court of Canadian County, Oklahoma.  

In 2002, the petition was amended to add five additional named
plaintiffs and to add and drop certain claims.  This action was
originally a putative class action brought by Gina Kotwitz,
later adding, George Kotwitz, Rick Coker, Richard Starke, Jeff
Turnipseed and Aaron Bouren, on behalf of the Company's sales
associates.  The amended petition seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, with such other damages as the court deems
appropriate, for alleged violations of the Oklahoma Uniform
Consumer Credit Code in connection with the Company's commission
advances, and seeks injunctive and declaratory relief regarding
the enforcement of certain contract provisions with sales
associates, including a request stated in June 2003 for the
imposition of a constructive trust as to earned commissions
applied to the reduction of debit balances and disgorgement of
all earned renewal commissions applied to the reduction of debit
balances.  On September 23, 2003 the court entered an order
dismissing the class action allegations upon the motion of the
plaintiffs.  The order provides that the action will proceed
only on an individual basis, and that the hearing on plaintiffs'
motion for class certification previously set for February 2004
was cancelled.  Oral argument on the Company's motion for
summary judgment was held on July 2, 2004 and on December 17,
2004 the District Court granted its motion for summary judgment.  
On January 27, 2005 three of the five plaintiffs filed a motion
to vacate and/or for new trial.  This motion is set for hearing
on April 22, 2005.  The claims of the remaining two plaintiffs
have been dismissed with prejudice.


PRE-PAID LEGAL: Interlocutory Appeal of Suit Certification Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals denied
plaintiffs' petition for interlocutory appeal of the class
certification ruling for the lawsuit filed against Pre-Paid
Legal Services, Inc. in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Oklahoma.

Caroline Sandler, Robert Schweikert, Sal Corrente, Richard
Jarvis and Vincent Jefferson filed the suit against the Company
and certain executive officers.  This action is a putative class
action seeking unspecified damages filed on behalf of the
Company's sales associates and alleges that the marketing plan
offered by the Company constitutes a security under the
Securities Act of 1933 and seeks remedies for failure to
register the marketing plan as a security and for violations of
the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with
representations alleged to have been made in connection with the
marketing plan. The complaint also alleges violations of the
Oklahoma Securities Act, the Oklahoma Business Opportunities
Sales Act, breach of contract, breach of duty of good faith and
fair dealing and unjust enrichment and violation of the Oklahoma
Consumer Protection Act and negligent supervision.  This case is
subject to the Private Litigation Securities Reform Act.

Pursuant to the Act, the Court has approved the named plaintiffs
and counsel and an amended complaint was filed in August 2002.  
The Pre-Paid defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint
and to strike the class action allegations on September 19,
2002, and discovery in the action was stayed pending a ruling on
the motion to dismiss.  On July 24, 2003, the Court granted in
part and denied in part the Pre-Paid defendants' motion to
dismiss.  The claims asserted under the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and the Oklahoma Securities Act were dismissed without
prejudice. The motion was denied as to the remaining claims.  

On September 8, 2004, the Court denied plaintiffs motion for
class certification.  Plaintiffs petitioned the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the class
certification ruling, and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
denied the petition for interlocutory appeal.  


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS: Denies Charges in Hibernia Foods Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a recently prepared legal document, PricewaterhouseCoopers
(PwC) says that the multimillion euro class action taken against
it by shareholders in Hibernia Foods, the failed food Company,
is "bereft of any factual basis", The Sunday Business Post
reports.  In that document, the Company contends that the action
should be dismissed due to the fact that the claimants had
failed to "plead any factual basis" for their allegations
against PwC.

As previously reported in the June 17, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the law firm of Weiss & Yourman had initiated a
class action lawsuit against Hibernia Foods PLC ("Hibernia" or
the "Company") (OTC: HIBNY.PK) its former chairman Oliver
Murphy, and chief financial officer Colm Delves in the United
States District Court, Southern District of New York, on behalf
of purchasers of Hibernia securities between August 2, 1999 and
October 21, 2003.

That complaint charges that the defendants with violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, alleging that defendants
issued false and misleading statements during the Class Period.
Specifically, the lead plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
had access to adverse undisclosed information about Hibernia's
business, operations and financial condition. Also, they claim
that Mr. Murphy and Mr. Delves sold personal shares worth $26
million and $4.4 million respectively during the period.

However, US Securities & Exchange Commission documents obtained
by The Sunday Business Post reveal that the men did not dispose
of any shares during the dates covered in the class action. Mr.
Murphy held 1.74 million ordinary shares in Hibernia for the
year ending March 31, 2002.

In their statement, the lead claimants, the Central Laborer's
Pension Fund and the Whalen Family, accused the defendants of
false sales, misreported inventories and unrecorded loans from
directors. The claim alleges that PwC was aware of this and did
nothing.

The PwC defense document contends that "accountants do not have
a crystal ball" and that auditors "have no more power of
clairvoyance than anyone else, and PwC merely reported on
historical financial statements". It also states: "Accordingly,
PwC cannot be held responsible for the fact that a creditor
decided to put Hibernia into receivership 14 months after PwC
issued its last report on the Company's financial statements."  
The claimants allege that Hibernia had overvalued its stock and
maintained stock that was up to 12 years old, but PwC argued
that the allegation "makes no sense here because Hibernia was in
the frozen foods business for only six years".


PRIME GROUP: Enters Agreement, Dropped As Defendant in NY Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Prime Group Realty Trust entered into an agreement, releasing it
as a defendant in a class action filed by Winstar
Communications, LLC and Winstar of New York LLC ("Winstar") in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.

Winstar brought suit against a number of commercial real estate
companies and a trade association, the Building Owners and
Managers Association of New York (BOMA).  The suit asserts
claims for certain alleged violations of federal and state
antitrust laws and a declaratory judgment that the defendants
are precluded from terminating Winstar's building access or
interfering with Winstar's communications operations until
Winstar is permitted to lawfully discontinue service.  The suit
seeks damages, attorney's fees and a declaratory judgment.  The
claims are premised upon allegations that the real estate firms,
through and with BOMA, colluded and agreed to charge Winstar
disadvantageous and discriminatory fees that were higher than
those charged to the incumbent local telephone companies.  As a
result of this alleged collusive conduct, Winstar claims that it
has been damaged in its ability to provide competitive
telecommunications services to customers leasing office space in
the defendants' commercial real estate properties.  

The Company was not a named defendant in this litigation, but
Winstar is attempting to have certified a class action of
defendants consisting of all companies having agreements with
Winstar for access to buildings and Winstar has identified us as
a member of that defendant class.  In separate correspondence to
the Company, Winstar has alleged potential damages in excess of
$2 billion against the defendant class.  On November 10, 2004,
the Company entered into an agreement with Winstar pursuant to
which it released Winstar from their obligation to pay certain
de minimis rental obligations to the Company and Winstar
released the Company from all potential liability relating to
this matter.


SOUTH CAROLINA: Honda To Pay $2M To Settle Employees' Wage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Honda of South Carolina Manufacturing Incorporated will pay a $2
million settlement to employees and temporary workers, who
complained that the Company should have paid them for the time
it took to prepare for work, the Associated Press reports.

The suit, which was filed by Honda employees Carol Blackmon and
Tony Oliver in the US District Court in Florence, asks the
Company to pay workers overtime for time spent changing into and
out of uniforms at the Timmonsville plant from July 1, 2001 to
July 31, 2003.

It takes about seven minutes to change each shift, according to
Justin Lucey, who is representing the Honda workers. He adds
that up to 1200 workers could be eligible for compensation from
the settlement with the average amount each worker will receive
at $750.


SPYWARE ASSASSIN: FTC Halts Bogus Spyware Software Distribution
---------------------------------------------------------------
An operation that offered consumers free spyware detection scans
that "detected" spyware even if there was not any, to market
anti-spyware software that does not work has been barred from
making deceptive claims by a U.S. district court at the request
of the FTC. The FTC will seek a permanent halt to the marketing
scam and redress for consumers.

In papers filed with the court, the FTC alleges that Spyware
Assassin and its affiliates used Web sites, e-mail, banner ads,
and pop-ups to drive consumers to the Spyware Assassin Web site.
After exposing consumers to a litany of the dire consequences of
having spyware on their computers, the Web site warns, "you WILL
eventually experience credit card and/identity theft and your
computer will ultimately crash and cease working for good . . .
It's not a matter of if, but truly a matter of when."

According to the FTC complaint, the Web site offers to scan
consumers' computers at no cost to determine whether they're
infected with spyware. One "scan"- the remote scan - is
performed when consumers land on the Web site. The free "scan"
displays a pop-up message that states, "URGENT ERROR ALERT: You
have dangerous spyware virus infections on your computer. Click
OK to install the latest free update to fix these errors.
Immediate action is highly recommended before you continue!" The
other "scan"- the "local scan" - is performed when consumers
click to download the defendants' software. Both scans warn
consumers that they have spyware installed on their system.

The FTC charges that, "the defendants' free remote scan is
phony, and the defendants' representations that they have
detected spyware on the consumer's computer are deceptive."
According to the agency, the pop-up that announces that
consumers have spyware pops up automatically, even when the
computer is clean and does not have spyware installed on it.

During the "local" scan consumers are warned that their computer
is infected with spyware and a message flashes on the screen
listing the names and file locations of the spyware on the
system. Even when the computer is clean of all spyware, the
defendants report that spyware has been detected, and the file
folders the defendants claim contain the spyware are either
empty or contain files that do not contain spyware, according to
the agency.

The defendants claim that the software they sell for $29.95 will
"remove all spyware programs and files" and will "prevent any
future breaches." According to the FTC, the "anti-spyware"
software does not remove all or substantially all spyware, and
the defendants' deceptive claims violate the FTC Act, which bars
deceptive claims.

The agency will seek a permanent ban on the deceptive claims and
will ask the court to order consumer redress from defendants
MaxTheater, Inc., a Washington corporation and Thomas L.
Delanoy, its principal.

The FTC held a workshop in April 2004 titled "Monitoring
Software on Your PC: Spyware, Adware, and Other Software." On
March 7, FTC staff issued a report on the proceedings, and,
after reviewing more than 750 comments submitted to supplement
the workshop record, the FTC staff has concluded that spyware is
a real and growing problem that can impair the operation of
computers and create substantial privacy and security risks for
consumers' information. Copies of the report can be found at
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2005/03/050307spywarerpt.pdfConsumers who  
want to learn more about spyware, including how to detect it,
and how to prevent it, can go to
http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/alerts/spywarealrt.htm

The Commission vote to authorize staff to file the complaint was
5-0. The complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Washington in Spokane. The court entered a
temporary restraining order on March 8, 2005, under seal. The
seal was lifted March 10.

Copies of the complaint are available from the FTC's Web site at
http://www.ftc.govand also from the FTC's Consumer Response  
Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington,
D.C. 20580. The FTC works for the consumer to prevent
fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices in the
marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot,
stop, and avoid them. To file a complaint in English or Spanish
(bilingual counselors are available to take complaints), or to
get free information on any of 150 consumer topics, call toll-
free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the complaint form
at http://www.ftc.gov.The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing,  
identity theft, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer
Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of
civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and
abroad.

For more details, contact Claudia Bourne Farrell, Office of
Public Affairs, Phone: 202-326-2181 or Mona Spivack, Bureau of
Consumer Protection, Phone: 202-326-3795


STAR GAS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits in CT Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Star Gas Partners, L.P. faces several securities class actions
filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Connecticut.  The suits also name as defendants various
subsidiaries and officers and directors, and are styled:

     (1) Carter v. Star Gas Partners, L.P., et al, No 3:04-cv-
         01766-IBA, et. al

     (2) Feit v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1832
         (filed on 10/29/2004),

     (3) Lila Gold v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1791
         (filed on 10/22/2004),

     (4) Jagerman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1855
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (5) McCole, et al v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-
         1859 (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (6) Prokop v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1785
         (filed on 10/22/2004),

     (7) Seigle v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1803
         (filed on 10/25/3004),

     (8) Strunk v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1815
         (filed on 10/27/2004),

     (9) Harriette S. & Charles L. Tabas Foundation v. Star
         Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1857 (filed on
         11/3/2004),

    (10) Weiss v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1807
         (filed on 10/26/2004),

    (11) White v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1837
         (filed on 10/9/2004),

    (12) Wood v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1856
         (filed on 11/3/2004)

    (13) Yopp v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1865
         (filed on 11/3/2004),

     (14) Kiser v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1884
          (filed on 11/9/2004),

     (15) Lederman v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-1873
          (filed on 11/5/2004),

     (16) Dinkes v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No.04-1979
         (filed 11/22/04) and

     (17) Gould v. Star Gas, et al, Civil Action No. 04-2133
          (filed on 12/17/2004)

The Class Action plaintiffs generally allege that the
Partnership violated Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Securities and Exchange
Commission Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, by purportedly
failing to disclose, among other things:

     (i) problems with the restructuring of the Company's
         dispatch system and customer attrition related thereto;

    (ii) that the Company's heating oil division's business
         process improvement program was not generating the
         benefits allegedly claimed;

   (iii) that Star Gas was struggling to maintain its profit
         margins in its heating oil division;

    (iv) that Star Gas' second quarter 2004 profit margins were
         not representative of its ability to pass on heating
         oil price increases; and

     (v) that Star Gas was facing an inability to pay its debts
         and that, as a result, its credit rating and ability to
         obtain future financing was in jeopardy.

The Class Action plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of
compensatory damages including interest against the defendants
jointly and severally and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses.


VI TECHNOLOGIES: NY Employees File Overtime Suit in State Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
VI Technologies, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Supreme
Court of the State of New York, Suffolk County, by an employee
of its Melville, New York plant.  This suit, to which Precision
Pharma Services is also a party, alleges that the Company
underpaid overtime due to employees of the processing plant.  
The complaint alleges an amount in excess of $125,000 in unpaid
overtime pay plus the costs of the action and reasonable
attorney's fees due from the two defendants.

The Company is in the process of analyzing employee payroll
records for the period in question, which based on the statute
of limitations, we believe to be from February 1999 to August,
2001, and intends to contest the claim vigorously, it stated in
a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


WASHINGTON: County's Strip Search Policy Ruled Unconstitutional
---------------------------------------------------------------
Thurston County Superior Court Judge Paula Casey has ruled that
Pierce County Jail officers followed state law when they
mistakenly strip-searched a woman three years ago and also
granted the woman's claim for class-action status, but the judge
also ruled that the law itself is unconstitutional, The News
Tribune reports.  The ruling came during pretrial motions on a
lawsuit filed by the woman, Abra Plemmons, against Pierce County
and jail officials.

According to Seattle attorney Fred Diamondstone, Ms. Plemmons'
attorney, the judge's ruling means that people who have been
strip-searched while being booked into the jail after a court
hearing since December 24, 2000, could be compensated. Though it
is unclear how many people could be added to the suit Mr.
Diamondstone estimated it could be up to 500.

Ms. Plemmons, a Montana college student, had sued last year
after a lengthy ordeal that started in October 2001 when her
purse was stolen while she was visiting Lakewood. The thief had
used her identity to open an account at a Tacoma check-cashing
store and forged a check for more than $1,800.

Prosecutors, suspecting Ms. Plemmons had written the fraudulent
check, charged her with forgery and thus a warrant was issued
for her arrest. Three months later, she was stopped for a
traffic violation in Montana and arrested on the outstanding
warrant. She was then returned to Tacoma, arraigned on the
forgery charge March 28, 2002, and jailed. She was strip-
searched and held until her mother paid her $5,000 bail that
evening. Eventually though, the forgery charge against Ms.
Plemmons was dropped in April 11, 2002.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Plemmons argued that Pierce County violates
state law by strip-searching everyone booked into the jail.
During a strip search, inmates must take off their clothes so a
corrections officer can look for drugs, weapons or other
contraband in their hair, behind their ears and in their body
cavities.

Judge Casey though ruled that Ms. Plemmons' search did not
violate state law.  She did rule that the statute was
unconstitutional under the U.S. Constitution since it permitted
strip searches of people sent to jail as pretrial detainees to
assure their presence at trial, regardless of the nature of the
crime they faced or whether guards suspected they were
concealing contraband. The judge though did not cite a specific
reason why she found the law unconstitutional.
    
For its part, deputy prosecutor Pat Cooper, who is representing
the county in the lawsuit told the News Tribune, "Our officers
in the jail were following everything we had to believe was
appropriate under state law."  

Since the lawsuit, jail officials have changed their strip-
search policy. In general, guards now strip-search an inmate if
the person is being held on violent crimes or drug offenses, or
if the guards have reasonable suspicion that the inmate is
concealing evidence of a crime, contraband or a weapon.  No
trial date though has been set for Ms. Plemmons' lawsuit.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Appeals Court Mulls OR Antitrust Suit Judgment
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has heard
Weyerhauser Co.'s appeal of a lower court ruling denying summary
judgment in the class action filed against it, alleging that
from 1996 to the present, the Company had monopoly power or
attempted to gain monopoly power in the Pacific Northwest market
for alder logs and finished alder lumber.  The suit was
initially filed in the United States District Court in Oregon.

In April 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of one of
the plaintiffs in the amount of $26 million, which was
automatically trebled to $79 million under the antitrust laws.
The Company recognized a pretax charge of $79 million in the
first quarter of 2003. The Company's motion for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict was denied in July 2003.  The
Company appealed the matter.  A hearing on the appeal occurred
in December 2004 and the Company is awaiting a decision on the
merits.

In January 2005, the Company received a copy of a "complaint in
equity" filed in U.S. District Court of Oregon to set aside the
judgment in the Initial Alder Case on behalf of a plaintiff who
did not prevail in the jury trial held in April 2003.  The
plaintiff alleges a fraud was committed on the court during the
initial trial and argues that as a result the judgment against
the plaintiff should be vacated and a new trial set on
plaintiff's claim of monopolization of the alder sawlog market.
The complaint alleges damages with trebling of $20 million.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Appeals Denial of Judgment Motion in OR Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Weyerhauser Co. appealed the United States District Court in
Oregon's denial of their motion for judgment in the class action
field against it by Washington Alder, an alder sawmill located
in Washington.

The complaint alleged monopolization of the alder log and lumber
markets from 1998 to the present and sought damages, after
trebling, of $32 million, which was increased to $36 million in
March 2004, as well as divestiture of the Company's Northwest
Hardwoods Division and alder sawmills in Oregon, Washington and
British Columbia.

In May 2004, a jury awarded damages, after trebling, of $16
million for the period for which the judge had determined there
was issue preclusion as a result of the Initial Alder Case, but
found no monopolization or attempted monopolization for the
period for which issue preclusion did not apply. As a result of
the judgment, the Company recognized a pretax charge of $16
million in the second quarter of 2004. The Company believes that
the finding of issue preclusion was incorrect as a matter of law
and that a number of significant legal errors were made by the
trial court.  It filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law
which was denied in July 2004. The Company has since filed an
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  It
is awaiting a date for oral argument.


WEYERHAUSER CO.: Trial in Antitrust Suit Rescheduled To June 21
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the civil antitrust suit filed against Weyerhauser Co.
in the United States District Court in Oregon has been moved to
June 21,2005.

The complaint alleged that as a result of the Company's alleged
monopolization of the alder sawlog market in the Pacific
Northwest as determined in the Initial Alder Case currently on
appeal, it monopolized the market for finished alder lumber in
the Pacific Northwest and, as a consequence, has been able to
charge monopoly prices for finished alder lumber.  The lawsuit
requested class certification primarily for businesses that
purchased finished alder lumber produced by the Company from
2000 to the present.

The original complaint alleged that the purported class may have
realized over $100 million in direct damages, and sought direct
and treble damages under the antitrust laws in an amount to be
determined at trial.  The lawsuit also requested injunctive
relief to ensure the availability of alder sawlogs for sawmills
competing with the Company, which could include termination of
certain of the Company's contracts to purchase alder logs or the
Company's control over certain timberlands. The lawsuit was
assigned to the same judge who presided over the other alder
cases.

In August 2004, the court dismissed the finished alder
allegations with leave to refile and reserved ruling on whether
the sawlog allegations should be dismissed.  On August 30, 2004,
plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint which again asserted
monopolization of the alder finished lumber market and expanded
the claimed market from the Pacific Northwest to the entire U.S.
but deleted the allegations dealing with alder sawlogs.  The
amended complaint no longer mentions any amount sought, but
requests that any actual damages be trebled and that the Company
be enjoined from certain business practices.

In September 2004, the judge denied the Company's motion to
dismiss and lifted the stay on discovery.  In December, the
Judge issued an order certifying the plaintiff as a class
representative for all U.S. purchasers of finished alder lumber
between April 28, 2000, and March 31, 2004, for purposes of
awarding monetary damages.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit denied the Company's request that it review the
certification of the class.  

The plaintiffs in the Initial Alder Case also claimed that the
Company had monopolized the finished alder lumber market in the
Pacific Northwest, but the jury found in favor of the Company on
this claim and those plaintiffs have not appealed this finding.
The claim of attempted monopolization of the finished alder
lumber market was also made in the Washington Alder litigation,
but was abandoned by plaintiff during trial.  

On October 22, 2004, the Company filed a mandamus action with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit asking that
trial of this lawsuit be stayed pending the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision on the Initial Alder
Case that is currently on appeal.  In December 2004, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit refused to stay the
matter. In January 2005, the trial judge ruled against class
plaintiff's attempt at precluding the Company from disputing
anticompetitive acts.  In January 2005, the Company filed a
motion for summary judgment, which will be argued sometime in
the second quarter.  In February 2005, class counsel notified
the court that approximately 5 percent of the class members have
elected to opt out of the class action lawsuit. The Company has
no litigation pending with any entity that has opted out of the
class, but it is possible that entities who have opted out may
file lawsuits against the Company in the future.


                  New Securities Fraud Cases  

51JOB INC.: Alfred G. Yates Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of 51job, Inc. ("51job")
(NASDAQ:JOBS) securities (ADRs) during the period between
November 4, 2004 and January 14, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The action, case number 05-CV-2751, is pending in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against defendants 51job, Inc., Rick Yan (President and CEO) and
Kathleen Chien (CFO).

The complaint charges 51job and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. 51job describes itself as the "leading provider of
integrated human resource services in China with a strong focus
on recruitment related services."

The complaint alleges that, during the Class Period, defendants
reported the Company's operating results for the third quarter
of 2004 and made positive statements regarding its outlook for
the fourth quarter of 2004. According to the complaint, in truth
and in fact, however, 51job's financial statements for the third
quarter of 2004 were artificially inflated as a result of the
Company's premature recognition of revenue in its online
services segment, which also violated Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles ("GAAP") and its own revenue recognition
policies. In addition, the complaint alleges that defendants
knowingly or recklessly made positive statements, which were
lacking in any reasonable basis, about the Company's outlook for
the fourth quarter of 2004. Specifically, the Company estimated
that total revenues for the fourth quarter of 2004 would be in
the range of RMB140 million to RMB145 million and diluted
earnings per share would be between RMB0.42 and RMB0.44. On
January 18, 2005, the Company drastically cut its estimates for
its revenues and earnings per share by approximately 17% and
40%, respectively. The Company now expects to earn total
revenues of RMB117 and RMB121 million and earnings per common
share of between RMB0.24 and RMB0.27.

Upon this news, shares of the Company's ADRs fell more than 35%,
or $15.50 per share, to close at $28.32 per share, on extremely
high trading volume.

For more details, contact Alfred G. Yates, Jr. by Phone:
1-800-391-5164 or by E-mail: yateslaw@aol.com.


APPLIED SIGNAL: Schiffrin & Barroway Files Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Applied Signal Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: APSG)
("Applied Signal" or the "Company") between May 25, 2004 and
February 22, 2005 inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Applied Signal, Gary Yancey, and James
Doyle 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 the Company, despite representations to the
         contrary, lacked the staffing necessary to execute on
         current projects while bidding for new business;

     (2) that the Company struggled to maintain adequate levels
         of backlog; and

     (3) as a consequence of the foregoing defendant's positive
         statements about managing Applied Signal's workflow and
         growth while maintaining the Company's profitability
         were lacking in all material basis when made.

On February 22, 2005, Applied Signal announced its operating
results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2005 ended January
28, 2005. The results were below expectations. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of Applied Signal fell $4.28 per
share or 15.55 percent, on February 23, 2005, to close at $23.24
per share.

For more 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.


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Milberg Weiss Lodges NJ Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bradley" or the "Company")
(NYSE: BDY) between October 30, 2003 to February 25, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period") seeking to pursue remedies under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, captioned Empire Capital Investors v. Bradley
Pharmaceuticals Inc., is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey against defendants Bradley,
Daniel Glassman (Chairman, President and CEO) and R. Brent
Lenczycki (CFO).

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants issued numerous press releases, and filed quarterly
reports with the SEC, announcing spectacular revenue and
earnings growth. In fact, however, the Company's reported
financial results were materially false and misleading when made
because they failed to disclose and misrepresented the following
material adverse facts, among others:

     (1) that the Company had materially overstated its
         financial performance by improperly recognizing revenue
         and improperly capitalizing payments received;

     (2) the Company's impressive growth was fueled, in material
         part, by improper accounting, and, therefore, the
         Company's financial statements did not reflect its true
         performance and prospects and deceived investors; and

     (3) Contrary to defendants express representations, the
         Company's financial reports were not prepared in
         accordance with generally accepted accounting
         principles and did not fairly present the Company's
         results.

The truth was revealed on February 28, 2005. On that day, before
the open of ordinary trading, Bradley issued a press release
announcing that the SEC was conducting an investigation of the
Company for violations of the federal securities laws. In
connection with the investigation, the SEC requested documents
relating to revenue recognition and capitalization of certain
payments. According to the release, the Company will wait to
release its fourth quarter and year 2004 financial results until
after the investigation is complete. In reaction to this
announcement, the price of Bradley common stock dropped from
$13.25 per share on February 25, 2005 to $9.75 per share on
February 28, 2005, the next trading day, a drop of 26.4% on
unusually heavy trading volume of 2.7 million shares. The
complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to
commit the wrongdoing alleged herein so that the Company's
December 11, 2003 follow-on offering could be priced higher than
it would have been had the Company's true results of operations
been known.

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


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Wolf Haldenstein Files Stock Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock of Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Bradley" or the "Company") [NYSE: BDY] between October 8, 2003
and February 25, 2005, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against
defendants Bradley and certain officers of the Company.

The case name is Lederer v. Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et
al. The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, statements
made by defendants were materially false and misleading when
made because defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented
the following adverse facts, which were known to defendants, or
recklessly disregarded by them, at all relevant times:

     (1) that Bradley was materially overstating its financial
         results by engaging in improper accounting practices
         generally accepted in the U.S.;

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

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

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

For more details, contact Fred Taylor Isquith, Esq., Gregory M.
Nespole, Esq., Christopher S. Hinton, Esq., or Derek Behnke of
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by Mail: 270 Madison
Avenue, New York, New York 10016 by Phone: (800) 575-0735 by E-
mail: classmember@whafh.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.whafh.com.  


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in WA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Cell
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CTIC) ("CTI" or "the Company")
between June 7, 2004 and March 4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that CTI violated federal securities laws
by issuing false or misleading information concerning the
development of its drug XYOTAX. Specifically, the Complaint
alleges that CTI failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, which were 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. On
this news, CTI shares fell $4.75 per share or 47.5%, on March 7,
2005, to close at $5.25 per share.

For more details, contact Wayne T. Boulton or Nancy A. Kulesa of
Schatz & Nobel by Phone: +1-800-797-5499 or by E-mail:
sn06106@aol.com.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Cell
Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq:CTIC) between June 7, 2004 and March
4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Brain M. Felgoise Lodges Securities Suit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Brian M. Felgoise, P.C. initiated a
securities class action on behalf of shareholders who acquired
ChoicePoint Inc. (NYSE: CPS) securities between April 22, 2004
and March 3, 2005, inclusive (the Class Period).

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, against the Company and certain
key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the 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 Brian M. Felgoise, Esq. By Mail: 261
Old York Road, Suite 423, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, 19046 by
Phone: (215) 886-1900 or by E-mail: FelgoiseLaw@aol.com.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Chitwood & Harley Lodges Securities Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia against ChoicePoint, Inc.
("ChoicePoint" or the "Company"), Derek Smith, Doug Curling, and
Darryl Lemecha on behalf of purchasers of ChoicePoint common
stock (NYSE: CPS) between November 24, 2003 through March 3,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Unbeknownst to the market until February
15, 2005, from approximately October 2003 through October 2004
criminals using "low-tech" methods had been able to access
thousands of records containing personal information maintained
by ChoicePoint. Throughout the Class Period, the Defendants made
material misrepresentations and/or omitted to make material
disclosures by falsely claiming that ChoicePoint had unique
capabilities and systems in place to enable the responsible use
of information while ensuring the protection of personal
privacy. Defendants also falsely claimed during the Class Period
that the theft of consumer data they recently announced was
unprecedented and that the Company welcomes national discussion
on how to ensure that information is used responsibly.

As the market learned in February 2005, ChoicePoint did not have
adequate controls in place to protect the privacy of the
information it compiled and sold. Defendants became aware of the
criminals' access of the Company's records in October of 2004.
Despite knowing of this serious threat to consumer privacy and
despite knowing that their representations about the security of
ChoicePoint's data were inaccurate, Defendants waited until
February 15 of this year to disclose any information about the
breach in Company security. As the market learned on March 2,
2005, a similar incident occurred five years ago resulting in
the disclosure of 7,000 records. Notwithstanding their
nondisclosure and misstatements, Defendants Smith and Curling
sold over eighteen million dollars of stock between the time
they discovered the criminals' access and their initial
disclosure of the breach of their system in February.

When Defendants belatedly acknowledged that the security of
ChoicePoint's database had been breached and when the truth
about Defendants' prior conduct and misrepresentations began to
emerge, the market's reaction to the disclosures was swift and
severe. Following these disclosures, the market price of
ChoicePoint's common stock dropped from a high of $47.95 per
share during the Class Period to as low as $37.65 per share on
March 4, 2005.

For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. or Leslie
Glover Toran, Esq. Of Chitwood & Harley by E-mail:
lsa@classlaw.com or lgt@classlaw.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.classlaw.com.


CIB MARINE: Phebus & Koester Lodges Stock Fraud Complaint in IL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Phebus & Koester, initiated in the United States
District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Urbana
Division, on behalf of shareholders of stock in CIB Marine
Bancshares, Inc., a Wisconsin corporation (previously doing
business as Central Illinois Bancorp, Inc., who purchased the
stock between January 21, 2000, and June 24, 2004 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges defendants with violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The complaint alleges that
defendants engaged in fraudulent conduct in connection with the
purchase or sale of a security by concealing adverse information
regarding defendants' manipulative or deceptive practices. The
complaint further alleges that the defendants engaged in efforts
to maintain artificially high market prices for CIB Marine
stock. This suit does not involve a claim against the bank
itself.

For more details, contact Joseph W. Phebus, Gary D. Forrester,
or Daniel J. Pope of Phebus & Koester by Phone: +1-217-337-1400
or by E-mail: jwphebus@phebuslaw.com, gforrester@phebuslaw.com
or dpope@phebuslaw.com.


DELPHI CORPORATION: Abbey Gardy Lodges MI Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court of Michigan on
behalf of a class (the "Class") of all persons who purchased or
acquired securities of Delphi Corporation ("Delphi" or the
"Company") (NYSE:DPH) between January 17, 2001 and March 3, 2005
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period thereby
artificially inflating the price of Delphi securities. The
Complaint names as defendants Delphi, J.T. Battenberg III and
Alan S. Dawes. The complaint alleges that during the proposed
Class Period defendants issued a series of materially false and
misleading statements about the Company's financial results that
caused Delphi's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels.

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. On march 4, 2005, Delphi
announced that as a result of the internal investigation,
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.
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. Delphi also 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 (.)"

On this news, shares of Delphi dropped from $6.37 on March 3,
2005 to $5.46 on March 4, 2005.

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


DELPHI CORPORATION: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Suit in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Delphi Corporation ("Delphi" or the "Company") (NYSE:DPH)
between April 12, 2000 and March 3, 2005 inclusive, (the "Class
Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan against defendants J.T.
Battenberg, III, Alan S. Dawes, Paul R. Free, John D. Sheehan
and Deloitte & Touche LLP. The complaint alleges that throughout
the Class Period the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's improper accounting for off-balance  
         sheet transactions in the amount of $200 million, and
         financing activities of $20 million in 2000, caused the
         Company to overstate cash flow by 82%, requiring a $220
         million restatement;

     (2) pre-tax income for 2000 was overstated by approximately
         $100 million as a result of 'round trip' transactions
         whereby the Company bought and sold inventory to the
         same third party in an effort to "smooth" or manipulate
         earnings;

     (3) the Company improperly accounted for Rebate
         Transactions in 2001 causing it to overstate income by
         $61 million;

     (4) the Company improperly failed to recognize certain
         liabilities and did not appropriately defer recognition
         of payments and credits that were received in
         conjunction with agreements for future information
         technology services;

     (5) the Company improperly deferred recognition of expense
         for payments made for system implementation services in
         2002 and 2003; and

     (6) the Company improperly recorded asset dispositions, in
         a series of transactions, of approximately $135 million
         of indirect materials to an indirect material
         management Company.

Delphi is the target of two SEC investigations, announced on
September 29, 2004 and October 18, 2004, relating to
transactions valued at $86 million between Delphi and Electronic
Data Systems Corp. and Delphi's pension accounting,
respectively. Delphi's stock price did not decline on the
announcement of these two investigations. However, as announced
on March 4, 2005, the internal investigation undertaken by
Delphi in response to these SEC investigations has brought to
light serious and more widespread accounting failures at Delphi
that resulted in the reporting of materially false financial
statements throughout the Class Period. Delphi and certain
officers engaged in an accounting fraud so widespread that the
Company's Audit Committee has now cautioned investors that they
cannot rely on any of Delphi's financial statements for the last
four years and that financial statements will have to be
restated. On March 4, 2005, the Company concluded in essence
that, based on its preliminary findings, Delphi executives used
'roundtrip' transactions or sham sales of assets, improper
deferral of expenses, and other improper accounting maneuvers to
inflate reported pretax earnings by a combined total of $166
million for the years 1999 to 2001 and increase cash flow from
operations by a total of $446.5 million for 1999 through 2003.
In the fourth quarter of 2000, when the industry was suffering
from production cuts and suppliers were laying off thousands of
workers, Delphi was thus able to report full-year cash flow from
operations of $268 million, a figure Delphi now says was
inflated by $220 million, or nearly 82%. As a result of the
multitude and magnitude of the restatements, the Audit Committee
announced that it had "lost confidence" in Vice Chairman and
Chief Financial Officer Alan Dawes and accepted his immediate
resignation. Immediately following the Company's March 4, 2004
release, Delphi's stock plummeted, on usually high trading
volume of 24.5 million shares, from its closing price of $6.37
on March 3, 2005, to a closing price of $5.46 on March 4, 2005 -
a one-day drop of over 14 percent.

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


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Chitwood & Harley Lodges CO Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Chitwood & Harley LLP initiated a national
securities fraud class action complaint in the United States
District Court of Colorado against EchoStar Communications
Corporation ("EchoStar" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: DISH),
Charles W. Ergen, David Rayner, Michael R. McConnell, Paul W.
Orban and David Moskowitz on behalf of purchasers of DISH
securities during the period between August 10, 2004 and March
9, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder, by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market concerning EchoStar's
results of operation. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company's Class Period financial statements and
disclosures were materially false and misleading and in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP")
because, among other things:

     (1) the Company lacked internal controls adequate to ensure
         that the information contained in the Company's
         financial reports fairly presented in all material
         respects, the financial condition and results of
         operations of the Company; and

     (2) the Company improperly booked certain transactions with
         vendors and engaged in improper accounting.

The truth began to emerge on March 10, 2005 when the market
learned that EchoStar's audit committee had launched an internal
accounting probe and that the Company and Defendant Ergen were
the subjects of an SEC inquiry. According to a March 10, 2005
Reuters article, the probe relates to the booking of
transactions with suppliers and consulting payments to a friend
of Defendant Ergen, the Company's Chief Executive Officer.
Bloomberg reported that the probe by EchoStar's audit committee
was prompted by KPMG's audit of the Company and that the SEC
inquiry concerns Defendant Ergen's role in to the Company's
accounting. Bloomberg cited unnamed sources familiar with the
internal investigation who claimed that the investigation had
uncovered "evidence," including "Company records that showed
Ergen may have directed or authorized vendor transactions and
consulting payments to an unidentified friend." The Bloomberg
article also noted that since July 2004, the SEC has been
examining the way EchoStar and other companies in the
telecommunications industry account for subscribers. During the
Class Period, several of the Individual Defendants and other
officers and/or directors of EchoStar engaged in massive insider
trading, which Ft.com reported last night regulators are
probing.

Following the March 10, 2005 disclosure, the market price of
EchoStar's common stock dropped from a high of $34.38 per share
during the Class Period to as low as $28.20 per share on March
10, 2005, the lowest price at which EchoStar has traded since
August 2004. Trading in EchoStar common stock on March 10, 2005
exceeded 15 million shares, which is nearly eight times the
average daily trading volume for DISH common stock for the
previous three months of 1.876 million shares.

For more details, contact Lauren S. Antonino, Esq. Of Chitwood &
Harley LLP by Phone: 1-888-873-3999 ext. 6888 or by E-mail:
lsa@classlaw.com.  


FOREST LABORATORIES: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Suit in VA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of purchasers of Forest Laboratories, Inc. ("Forest
Labs") (NYSE:FRX) common stock during the period between August
15, 2002 and September 1, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Forest Labs and certain of its officers
and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Forest Labs develops, manufactures and sells prescription
drug products, as well as non-prescription pharmaceutical
products.

According to the complaint, during the Class Period, defendants
caused Forest Labs' stock price to be overstated by concealing
deficiencies with its Celexa/Lexapro drugs in treating
adolescent depression. When Forest Labs ultimately disclosed an
agreement with the New York State Attorney General to make
available summaries of previously undisclosed studies on the
drugs to the public, the price of Forest Labs stock dropped to
as low as $36 per share.

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


IMEREGENT INC.: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges UT Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah on behalf of all securities purchasers of
iMergent, Inc. (Amex: IIG) ("iMergent" or the "Company") between
November 30, 2004 and February 25, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges iMergent, Brandon B. Lewis, Robert M.
Lewis, Donald L. Danks, David L. Rosenvall, David T. Wise, Peter
Fredericks and Thomas Scheiner 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 Company, in its workshops, targeted and exploited
         technologically unsophisticated customers, by
         misrepresenting that its software and services would
         enable a customer to set up successful Web sites and
         sell various products or services at a large profit;

     (2) that the Company's software did not operate properly;

     (3) that the Company induced customers to spend additional
         money on "expert technical assistance services" that
         customers believed to be inclusive of the initial
         software purchase;

     (4) that the Company's future revenues depend on the sale
         of defective products to unsuspecting customers; and

     (5) that the Company had been subject to other lawsuits in
         California and Washington, alleging similar misconduct,
         prior to the State of Texas lawsuit.

On February 22, 2005, the Texas Attorney General filed a lawsuit
against iMergent in support of a nationwide roundup targeting
the operators of fraudulent business opportunities. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of iMergent fell $3.33 per share or
14.75 percent, on February 23, 2005, and another $2.80 per share
or 14.55 percent, on February 24, 2005, to close at $16.45 per
share.

On February 25, 2005, before the opening of the market, the
Company responded to the Attorney General's allegations. On this
announcement shares of iMergent fell another $0.39 per share or
2.37 percent, on February 25, 2005, to close at $16.06 per
share.

For more 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.


INPUT/OUTPUT INC.: Bull & Lifshitz Lodges Securities Suit in TX
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Bull & Lifshitz, LLP initiated a securities
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Texas on behalf of purchasers of the securities of
Input/Output Inc. ("IO" or the "Company") (NYSE:IO).

The complaint alleges that defendants issued materially false
and misleading statements regarding the Company's financial
results and its business and prospects. According to the
complaint, defendants failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts, known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the Company's products were defective;

     (2) that customers were wrongfully induced into buying the
         Company's products;

     (3) that the integration of GX Technology ("GXT"), acquired
         by the Company in May 2004, and Input/Output was
         suffering from massive problems, preventing the
         acquisition from being as accretive as claimed;

     (4) that the GXT project pipeline was not on track, as
         defendants had claimed; and

     (5) that as a result of the above, the defendants'
         statements about the Company were lacking in any
         reasonable basis when made.

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


LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Files CA Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California on behalf of all securities
purchasers of Leadis Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq: LDIS) ("Leadis"
or the "Company") pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's
initial public offering ("IPO") on or about June 16, 2004.

The complaint charges Leadis, Sung Tae ("Steve") Ahn, Victor
Lee, Keunmyung ("Ken") Lee, Lip-Bu Tan, Kenneth Goldman, James
Plummer and Arati Prabhakar with violations of Sections 11,
12(a) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933. More specifically,
the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and
misrepresented the following material adverse facts, known to
defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the demand for the Company's OLED displays was
         declining due to pricing pressure;

     (2) that in order to make the Company appear more
         successful Leadis overshipped OLED displays, thereby
         demonstrating artificially high product demand levels;

     (3) that the lagging demand and pricing pressures would
         erode the Company's earnings; and

     (4) as a consequence of the foregoing any statements the
         Company made about the demand for and the success of
         its technology lacked in any rational basis.

On October 22, 2004, Leadis announced that its fourth quarter
results would be much lower than analysts' expectations. Leadis
admitted that a drop in sales from OLED was going to hurt profit
in the quarter as handset makers bought less expensive
equipment. Shares of Leadis fell $8.15 per share to close on
October 22, 2004 at $8.79 per share. On January 10, 2005, Leadis
announced that with regard to fiscal year 2005, the Company had
indicated that it was not comfortable with the First Call
estimates of its revenues for the first quarter. On this news,
shares of Leadis fell $0.75 per share or 8.37 percent, on
January 10, 2005, to close at $8.21 per share.

For more 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.


SINA CORPORATION: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York on behalf of purchasers of SINA Corporation ("SINA" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: SINA) common stock during the period between
October 26, 2004 and February 7, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges SINA and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. SINA describes itself as a "leading online media Company
and value-added information service provider in the People's
Republic of China (the "PRC" or "China") and the global Chinese
communities."

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

     (1) that the Company's earnings from its Mobile value-added
         services division were dependent upon revenues from its
         fortune-telling services;

     (2) that the Company's revenues from its Mobile value-added
         services division would be impacted by the Chinese
         government's ban on "fortune telling" commercials;

     (3) that the Company was utilizing aggressive accounting
         practices in connection with its billing process for
         the Company's Multimedia Messaging Service and would
         experience a significant reduction in revenues when it
         switched to a more conservative approach; and

     (4) that, based on the foregoing, the Company had no
         reasonable basis for its current and future prospects.

Then, on February 7, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that, in late January, the Chinese State
Administration of Radio, Film and Television ("SARFT"), which
regulates radio and television stations in China, issued a
notice which stated that certain commercials for mobile value-
added services relating to "fortune-telling" are prohibited from
airing on radio and television stations and that all radio and
television stations must comply with the notice by February 7,
2005. The effect of such prohibitions will effectively stop
almost all of the Company's current promotional efforts for its
usage-based Short Messaging Service products via direct
advertising on radio and television and therefore impact its
revenues. Moreover, the Company announced that the Company
changed its billing process for its Multimedia Messaging
Services which resulted in significant reduction in revenues
from Multimedia Messaging Services. In addition, the Company
will start to migrate Multimedia Messaging Services onto MISC
platform, which may result in a further negative impact on
Multimedia Services revenues.

Upon this news, on February 8, 2005, shares of SINA common stock
closed at $24.39 per share, a decline of $2.96 per share, or
11%, from the previous day's close.

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


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Wechsler Harwood Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wechsler Harwood 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 Chief Executive Officer Bernard
Bailey; its Chief Financial Officer, William K. Aulet; and its
Chairman of its Board of Directors, 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 startled the market a second time 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 were
effective as of December 31, 2004," and that the Company's
independent auditors, BDO Seidman LLP, were issuing an adverse
opinion with respect to these internal control deficiencies.
Shares of Viisage stock dropped another 20% on March 3, 2005.

For more details, contact Virgilio Soler, Jr. of Wechsler
Harwood LLP by Mail: 488 Madison Avenue, 8th Floor, New York,
New York 10022 by Phone: (877) 935-7400 or by E-mail:
vsoler@whesq.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  * * *