CAR_Public/050316.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 16, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 53


                            Headlines

AMEREN CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Retirees' Suit Dismissal
AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Abraxane Complaints Voluntarily Dropped
EASTSIDE DELI: Recalls Sandwiches Due To Listeria Contamination
ELEC-TECH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Blenders Due To Injury Hazard
FEDEX CORPORATION: SD Drivers Launch Suit Over Contractor Status

GEORGIA: High Court Rules V. Plaintiffs in Junk Faxes Complaint
HPL TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
ISRAEL: Court Repeals Clearing Fees Suit V. Banks, Credit Firms
JDS UNIPHASE: CA Stock Suit Management Conference Set April 2005
JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court Mulls Motion To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit

LEHMAN BROTHERS: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Securities Suit Dismissal
LEHMAN BROTHERS: TX Court Approves Enron Securities Lawsuit Pact
LEHMAN BROTHERS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in TX
LEHMAN BROTHERS: 83 Consolidated Stock Suits Filed in NY Court
LITHONIA LIGHTING: Recalls 120T Reflectors Due To Injury Hazard

LIVEDOOR CO.: Mulls Suit V. Nippon Broadcasting Over Pony Sale
MONTRAIL INC.: Recalls 969 Pairs Of Crampons Due To Injury Risk
NEW YORK: SEC Charges Ex-NYSE Floor Clerk With Securities Fraud
OHIO: Judge Rules That Jail Conditions Are Unconstitutional
ONEOK INC.: KS Court To Hear Gas Suit Certification April 1

ONEOK INC.: Mulling Appeal of Damages Ruling in KS Injury Suits
ONEOK INC.: Discovery Proceeds in NY Natural Gas Securities Suit
SALTON INC.: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss IL Securities Suit
SALTON INC.: Consumers File Lawsuit V. Russell Hobbs Tea Kettle
SPIN RITE: Recalls 730T Bernat "Fur Out" Yarns Due To Burn Risk

TALX CORPORATION: Settles SEC Charges, Consents To $2.5M Penalty
TOKYO ELECTRIC: Shareholders Demand Damages Suit For Nippon Sale  
UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Elevator Manufacturers Antitrust Suit
WHITE ELECTRONIC: AZ Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated

                
               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLIED SIGNAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in CA
APPLIED SIGNAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
AXONYX INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Files Stock Suit in NJ
DELPHI CORPORATION: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in NY

DELPHI CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Lodges ERISA Complaint in OH
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in CO
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Suit in CO
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files CO Securities Suit
ELAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in MA

FOREST COMMUNICATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in NY
FOREST LABORATORIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges NY Securities Suit
FOREST LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in AZ
IMERGENT INC.: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT

INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Lodges NC Stock Suit
MOLEX INCORPORATED: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in IL
MOLEX INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL
SINA CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit


                          *********


AMEREN CORPORATION: Plaintiffs Appeal Retirees' Suit Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Illinois' dismissal of a class action filed
against Ameren Corporation by 20 retirees and surviving spouses
of retirees of various Ameren companies.  The suit also names as
defendants:

     (1) Union Electric Company (UE),

     (2) Central Illinois Public Service Company (CIPS),

     (3) Ameren Energy Generating Company,

     (4) Ameren Services Company, and

     (5) the Company's Retiree Medical Plan

The retirees were members of various local labor unions of the
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) and the
International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE), according to
an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 19,2004).  The
complaint, referred to as Barnett, et al. vs. Ameren
Corporation, et al., alleges that:

     (i) the labor organizations which represented the
         plaintiffs have historically negotiated retiree medical
         benefits with the defendants and that pursuant to the
         negotiated collective bargaining agreements and other
         negotiated documents, the plaintiffs are guaranteed
         medical benefits at no cost or at a fixed maximum cost
         during their retirement;

    (ii) Ameren has unilaterally announced that, beginning in
         2004, retirees must pay a portion of their own
         healthcare premiums and either an increasing portion of
         their dependents' premiums or newly imposed dependents'
         premiums, and that surviving spouses will be paying
         increased amounts for their medical benefits;

   (iii) the defendants' actions deprive the plaintiffs of
         vested benefits and thus violate the Employee
         Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the Labor
         Management Relations Act of 1947, and constitute a
         breach of the defendants' fiduciary duties; and

    (iv) the defendants are estopped from changing the plan
         benefits. (This allegation was subsequently dropped
         from the amended complaint).

The plaintiffs filed the complaint on behalf of themselves,
other similarly situated former non-management employees and
their surviving spouses who retired from January 1, 1992 through
October 1, 2002, and on behalf of all subsequent non-management
retirees and their surviving spouses whose medical benefits are
reduced or are threatened with reduction.  The plaintiffs seek
to have this lawsuit certified as a class action, seek
injunctive relief and declaratory relief, seek actual damages
for any amounts they are made to pay as a result of the
defendants' actions, and seek payment of attorney fees and
costs.

In response to the court's ruling on the defendants' motions to
dismiss various counts of the complaint, a second amended
complaint was filed on December 15, 2003, clarifying some of the
allegations, and adding the Ameren Group Medical Plan as a
defendant.  In April 2004, the District Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss one of the counts brought in
connection with the amended complaint alleging the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA.  In July 2004, the
District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to certify this
lawsuit as a class action and in September 2004, the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs' application to
appeal the District Court's decision.  In August 2004, the
defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, which is pending
before the District Court.

In January 2005, the District Court granted the defendants'
motion for summary judgment, which dismisses the plaintiffs'
complaint against the defendants with prejudice. In February
2005, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal of the District
Court's ruling with the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The suit is styled "Barnett, et al v. Ameren Corporation, et
al., case no. 3:03-cv-00402-GPM," filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois, under
Judge G. Patrick Murphy.

Lawyers for the defendants are Elizabeth C. Carver, Daniel M.
O'Keefe, Jeffrey S. Russell, Thomas E. Wack of Bryan Cave - St.
Louis, Generally Admitted, 211 North Broadway, One Metropolitan
Square, Suite 3600, St. Louis, MO 63102, Phone: 314-259-2000, E-
mail: eccarver@bryancave.com

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are: Cary Hammond, Sherrie A.
Schroder, Janet E. Young of Diekemper, Hammond et al., 7730
Carondelet, Suite 200, St. Louis, MO 63105, Phone: 314-727-1015
E-mail: cmercer@dhstl.com and William Payne, 1007 Mount Royal
Boulevard, Pittsburgh, PA 15223, Phone: 412-492-8797, E-mail:
wpayne@stargate.net.


AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL: Abraxane Complaints Voluntarily Dropped
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Pharmaceutical Partners Inc. reports that the lawsuits
seeking class action status, which were filed against the
Company over its cancer treatment Abraxane have been voluntarily
dropped by the plaintiffs, the Associated Press reports.

Filed against the Company, certain members of its management,
and the Company's strategic partner American BioScience Inc.,
the suits had alleged that certain officers made false and
misleading statements about Abraxane, which is indicated for the
treatment of breast cancer after combination chemotherapy.

The suits covered investors who had purchased American
Pharmaceutical Partners' stock from February 19, 2002 to October
6, 2003. Plaintiffs claimed the Company said that Abraxane was
safer and more effective than cancer drug Taxol but failed to
safeguard the clinical trial against research bias. Following
the release of the clinical trial data on September 24, 2003,
shares of American Pharmaceutical Partners fell 29 percent to
close at $30.81 on Sept. 26, 2003.

In addition, American Pharmaceutical Partners said that a
related derivative lawsuit, filed against some of the Company's
directors and officers, has similarly been dropped. They
reiterated that they did not make any payments to plaintiffs in
order to facilitate the lawsuits' end.


EASTSIDE DELI: Recalls Sandwiches Due To Listeria Contamination
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eastside Deli Supply, Inc. is recalling its 8-oz. "Beef & Cheese
Sub Sandwich" because they have the potential to be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes, an uncommon organism that can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail
or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.  The recalled
"Beef & Cheese Sub" sandwiches were distributed to convenience
stores in parts of Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, most have been
removed from circulation. The recall includes all "Beef & Cheese
Sub" sandwiches up to and including products dated 3-22-05.  The
Product is in a clear sealed film and has the description name:
"Beef & Cheese Sub Sandwich" product may also be on display with
the label "Fresh from the Deli".

Production of the product has been voluntarily suspended pending
an investigation into the source of the problem.  No illnesses
have been reported to date in connection with this problem.  The
potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the Michigan Department of Agriculture revealed the presence of
Listeria monocytogenes in 8-oz. "Beef & Cheese Sub" sandwiches.

Consumers who have purchased this product are urged to return
them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the Company at 1-517-485-4630.


ELEC-TECH INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Blenders Due To Injury Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Elec-Tech International Co. Ltd., of China and Applica
Consumer Products Inc., of Miramar, Fla., is voluntarily
recalling about 500,000 Black & Deckerr brand ProBlendr
blenders.

The blades can weaken or break during use while making frozen
beverages. A broken blade presents a risk of injury if taken
into the mouth or swallowed. Applica Consumer Products Inc. has
received reports of 18 incidents of broken blades associated
with this problem. No injuries have been reported.

The recall includes Black & Deckerr brand ProBlendr models
BL5000, BL5900 and BL6000. The recalled ProBlendr products are
5-speed, 550-watt blenders with 48-ounce marked glass jars. Each
model has a die-cast, brushed stainless steel base bearing the
name "Black & Decker." The model number is located on the bottom
of the product.  Manufactured in China, the blenders were sold
by retailers nationwide from December 2003 to January 2005 for
between $40 and $60.

Consumers should stop using the product immediately and contact
Applica Consumer Products Inc. to receive a free replacement
blade assembly.  For details, contact Applica Consumer Products
Inc. toll-free at (800) 385-6686 between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. CT
Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.regcen.com/blenderrecall.


FEDEX CORPORATION: SD Drivers Launch Suit Over Contractor Status
----------------------------------------------------------------
Several delivery drivers filed a class-action lawsuit against
FedEx Corporation for allegedly violating South Dakota law by
treating drivers as independent contractors instead of
employees, the Associated Press reports.

Attorney Matthew Tobin, of the Sioux Falls firm Johnson,
Heidepriem, Miner, Marlow and Janklow LLP, told AP the suit in
South Dakota state court claims FedEx failed to reimburse the
drivers for job-related expenses, and avoided paying workers'
compensation and unemployment insurance.  Mr. Tobein further
stated, "This lawsuit is about fundamental fairness, and the
right of every employee in South Dakota to be reimbursed for
their employment expenses, and to be treated in a manner
consistent with the requirements of South Dakota law."

FedEx Ground spokesman Perry Colosimo told AP he can't comment
on pending litigation, but also said that FedEx considers
independent contractors small business owners and has used that
business model since it started in 1985.  He added that
contractors have flexibility, drive and spirit not found in the
traditional labor force and that FedEx and its contractors have
benefited from that way of doing business.


GEORGIA: High Court Rules V. Plaintiffs in Junk Faxes Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Georgia Supreme Court ruled against former Gov. Roy Barnes
and several other lawyers who were seeking class-action status
for a lawsuit against people who send unsolicited faxes, the
Associated Press reports.

Gov. Barnes is representing a Gwinnett County woman, Michelle
Hammond, who had sued a car wash company for junk faxes under
the 1991 federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, which bans
junk faxes and allows individuals to collect damages of $500
from violators.  If a court found willful violation of the law,
damages could be tripled.

According to court documents, Ms. Hammond received her fax in
late April 2002.  A trial court ruled there should be no class
action, but the Court of Appeals reversed that ruling, and it
went all the way to the Georgia Supreme Court.  The lawsuit was
filed against Carnett's, a car-wash franchise in the Atlanta
area, which, in turn, sued the Company it hired to send the
faxes.


HPL TECHNOLOGIES: CA Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
San Jose-based HPL Technologies Inc. reports that the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California has
approved the settlement of the securities class action pending
against the Company and some of its executives, the Electronic
News reports.

According to the Company, it also settled its litigation in
connection with the acquisition of Covalar Technologies Group
Inc., which was filed in Texas State Court, as well as the
acquisition of FabCentric Inc., which was filed in California
State Court, both of which were contingent upon the final
approval of the federal securities class action litigation.

The total cost to HPL in settling all of its litigation in
connection with its financial restatement is the issuance of
approximately 9,665,000 new common shares. All cash payments to
be made in the settlements are being funded by directors' and
officers' liability insurance, the Company said.

In a press statement regarding the settlement, Cary Vandenberg,
president and CEO of HPL said, "This is a major milestone for
the Company. We can now move forward with our vision on the
future and place our full concentration on developing innovative
solutions for yield optimization and design-for-manufacturing
solutions."


ISRAEL: Court Repeals Clearing Fees Suit V. Banks, Credit Firms
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court threw out a $231.85M (NIS 1 billion) class
action lawsuit against Bank Leumi, Israel Discount Bank and
their credit card companies, Ha'aretz, Israel reports.  In their
ruling, Justices Dorit Beinisch, Miriam Naor and Eliahu Mazza
reversed a Tel Aviv District Court decision by Judge Gabriel
Kling, who had approved a motion to turn the lawsuit into a
class action.

The original plaintiff, pharmacist Howard Rice claimed that the
banks and credit companies had conspired to charge excessive
clearing fees. Leumi, Discount, Visa ICC, Diners Club, Isracard
and American Express had appealed Judge Kling's ruling in which
an August 1998 lawsuit filed by Mr. Rice was turned into a NIS 1
billion class action.  Mr. Rice also claimed that the credit
card companies abused their monopolistic power in charging
companies excessive fees for clearing services, thus he filed
the lawsuit on behalf of all companies that paid clearing fees
of more than 2 percent from May 1996 to August 1998.  Small- and
medium-sized businesses were charged much higher fees than large
companies, the suit further alleged. When Alpha Card, and soon
thereafter Leumi Card, entered the market in July 1998 and
started clearing for Visa, fees began to plummet.  

Judge Kling accepted that anti-competitive practices existed and
promptly turned the suit into a class action, which was
successfully appealed by the defendants.

Mr. Rice told Ha'aretz that he was intensely disappointed that
the Supreme Court had given a green light to the banks and
credit card companies to continue gouging the public, and added
that he might petition the courts to revisit the case.


JDS UNIPHASE: CA Stock Suit Management Conference Set April 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
Case management conference for the consolidated securities class
action filed against JDS Uniphase Corporation and certain of its
former and current officers and directors in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, styled
"In re JDS Uniphase Corporation Securities Litigation, C-02-
1486," is set for April 29,2005.

The suit purports to be brought on behalf of a class consisting
of those who acquired the Company's securities from October 28,
1999, through July 26, 2001, as well as on behalf of subclasses
consisting of those who acquired the Company's common stock
pursuant to its acquisitions of OCLI, E-TEK, and SDL.  The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and alleges various
violations of the federal securities laws, specifically Sections
10(b), 14(a), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 23,2004)
states.

The Company asked the court to dismiss the suit, but on January
6,2005, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims against
the Company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, and Charles Abbe
and granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss
claims against Kevin Kalkhoven.  Defendants' answers to the
complaint are due by February 25, 2005.  

In "Zelman v. JDS Uniphase Corp., No. C-02-4656," a related
securities case, an Amended Complaint was filed on February 4,
2005.  The complaint is based on the same events alleged by the
plaintiffs in the suit above, and asserts claims against the
Company, Jozef Straus, Anthony R. Muller, Charles Abbe, and
Kevin Kalkhoven pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5.  The complaint
alleges a class period from March 6, 2001 through July 26, 2001,
and purports to seek damages on behalf of a class of purchasers
of securities issued by an investment bank that were allegedly
linked to the price of JDSU stock.  The Zelman plaintiffs seek
an unspecified amount of damages. Defendants' responses to the
Amended Complaint are due by February 25, 2005.  If Defendants
choose to respond by moving to dismiss, their motions will be
heard on April 29, 2005.


JDS UNIPHASE: CA Court Mulls Motion To Dismiss ERISA Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California is set to hear JDS Uniphase Corporation's motion to
dismiss the consolidated class action filed against it, styled
"In re JDS Uniphase Corporation ERISA Litigation, Master File
No. C-03-4743 CW," on April 29,2005.

The suit charges the Company and certain of its former and
current officers and directors with violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) on behalf of a purported
class of participants in the Company's 401(k) Plan, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (September 21,2004) reports.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Plaintiffs Appeal NY Securities Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs appealed the United States District Court for
Southern District of New York's ruling granting summary judgment
in favor of Lehman Brothers, Inc. in the class action filed
against the Company, styled "DeMarco v. Lehman Brothers, Inc.,
et al."

Since the announcement of the final global regulatory settlement
regarding alleged research analyst conflicts of interest at
various investment banking firms in the United States, including
the Company (the "Final Global Settlement"), and various federal
and state regulators and self-regulatory organizations in April
2003, a number of purported class actions were filed, resulting
in three consolidated actions, against the Company in federal
court, which are specific to its research of particular
companies Razorfish, Inc., RealNetworks, Inc. and RSL
Communications, Inc.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Swack, et al. v. Lehman Brothers Inc, filed in the
         United States District Court for the District of
         Massachusetts (Razorfish);

     (2) DeMarco v. Lehman Brothers, Inc., et al., filed in the
         United States District Court for the Southern District
         of New York (RealNetworks); and

     (3) Fogarazzo v. Lehman Brothers, Inc., file in the United
         States District Court for the Southern District of New
         York, (RSL Communications)

All the actions allege conflicts of interest between the
Company's investment banking business and research activities
and seek to assert claims pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.  In the purported
class action relating to RSL Communications, plaintiffs have
filed an amended consolidated complaint, containing essentially
the same allegations as the original complaints, but adding two
other investment banks as defendants.

In DeMarco, which relates to Real Networks, the New York
District Court issued an order on July 6, 2004, denying
plaintiffs' motion for class certification.  On November 20,
2004, the Court issued an order granting the Company's motion
for summary judgment and dismissing the claims.  That order has
been appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit").


LEHMAN BROTHERS: TX Court Approves Enron Securities Lawsuit Pact
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas granted approval to the settlement of a consolidated
securities class action, styled "In re Enron Corporation
Securities Litigation," filed against Lehman Brothers Holdings,
Inc., eight other commercial or investment banks, 38 current or
former Enron officers and directors, Enron's accountants, Arthur
Andersen LLP ("Andersen") (and affiliated entities and partners)
and two law firms.  

The consolidated suit alleges claims for violation of Sections
11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act"),
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5
thereunder, and the Texas Securities Act.  The case is brought
on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of Enron
Corporation's publicly traded equity and debt securities between
October 19, 1998 and November 27, 2001.  The complaint seeks
unspecified compensatory and injunctive relief based on the
theory that defendants engaged or participated in manipulative
devices to inflate Enron's reported profits and financial
condition, made false or misleading statements and participated
in a scheme or course of business to defraud Enron's
shareholders.

In December 2002, the Texas District Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the Section 10(b) claim.  In May 2003,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Company and
Lehman Brothers, Inc. (LBI) among others, re-asserting claims
under Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (the "Exchange
Act claims") and asserting a claim for violation of Section 12
of the Securities Act.

In January 2004, plaintiffs voluntarily withdrew their
opposition to Lehman Brothers' motion to dismiss the Exchange
Act claims, and the Texas District Court entered an order
dismissing them on February 4, 2004.  The Company and LBI have
reached an agreement in principle to settle this case, as well
as the Washington State Investment Board action, discussed
below, for $222.5 million.  On February 4, 2005, the settlement
was preliminarily approved by the Texas District Court, and
final approval is scheduled for April 11, 2005.

In May 2002, American National Insurance Company ("ANICO") and
certain of its affiliates filed a complaint against LBI, the
Company, Lehman Commercial Paper Inc. ("LCPI") and a broker
formerly employed by Lehman. The amended complaint, filed in
October 2003, is based on allegations similar to those in the
Enron Litigation and asserts that plaintiffs relied on
defendants' allegedly false and misleading statements in
purchasing and continuing to hold Enron debt and equities in
their LBI accounts.  The amended complaint alleges violations of
the Texas Securities Act, violations of the Texas Business and
Commerce Code, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, negligence and
professional malpractice, and seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages.  This action has been coordinated for pretrial
purposes with the Enron Litigation in the Texas District Court.

In August 2002, a complaint was filed against the Company and
four other commercial or investment banks, among other
defendants, by the Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio
and three other state employee retirement plans, containing
allegations similar to those in the Enron Litigation. Against
the Company, the complaint alleges claims for common law fraud
and deceit, aiding and abetting common law fraud, conspiracy to
commit fraud, negligent misrepresentation and violation of the
Texas Securities Act, and seeks unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages. This action has been consolidated with the
Enron Litigation in the Texas District Court.

In September 2002, the Washington State Investment Board, which
is a named plaintiff in the Enron Litigation, filed a new
purported class action. This action mirrors the Enron Litigation
but alleges a longer class action period of September 9, 1997 to
October 18, 1998.  The amended complaint alleges claims against
the Company and LBI for violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the
Securities Act. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory
damages, an accounting and disgorgement of certain defendants'
alleged insider-trading proceeds, restitution and rescission.
This action has been consolidated with the Enron Litigation in
the Texas District Court.  As indicated above, the Company and
LBI have reached an agreement to settle this case that is
awaiting final approval by the Texas District Court.

In September 2003, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and seven other commercial or investment
banks, among other defendants, by Sara McMurray on behalf of
purchasers of Enron common stock between October 16, 1998 and
November 27, 2001, making similar allegations as the Enron
Litigation.  Plaintiff alleges negligent misrepresentation,
common law fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and seeks unspecified damages
for lost investment opportunities and lost benefit of the
bargain. This action has been consolidated with the Enron
Litigation in the Texas District Court.

In January 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed
against the Company and other commercial or investment banks,
among other defendants, by William Young and Frank Conway on
behalf of all persons who held Enron shares from April 13, 1999
through November 8, 2001.  Making allegations similar to those
in the Enron Litigation, plaintiffs allege claims for negligent
misrepresentation and common law fraud and seek unspecified
compensatory damages. This action has been coordinated for
pretrial purposes with the Enron Litigation in the Texas
District Court.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: Plaintiffs File Amended Securities Suit in TX
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended securities class action naming
Lehman Brothers, Inc. as one of the defendants in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, styled
"Massachusetts State Carpenters Pension Fund v. Fleming
Companies, Inc., et al."

The suit was initially filed in Texas State Court in January
2003, asserting claims arising under Sections 11, 12(a) (2), and
15 of the Securities Act.  The action was brought on behalf of a
purported class of investors who purchased in two simultaneous
Fleming securities offerings in June 2002 that raised
approximately $378 million. The Company's share of these
offerings as underwriter was 27.5%. The complaint alleges that
the prospectus and registration statement for the offerings
contained false and misleading statements or omitted material
facts concerning, among other things, deductions Fleming took on
vendor invoices, its accounting for recognition of income,
amortization of long term assets and use of capitalized interest
and the performance of Fleming's retail operations. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages and costs. In addition to
Fleming, the suit named as defendants ten officers and/or
directors of Fleming, Fleming's auditor, and the underwriters of
the offerings, including the Company.

The case was removed to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Texas. The underwriters are contractually
entitled to customary indemnification from Fleming, but in
April 2003, Fleming filed for bankruptcy protection. Also in
April 2003, plaintiffs filed a virtually identical second
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas.


In June 2003, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
consolidated certain securities litigations concerning Fleming,
to which the Company is not a party, in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Subsequently,
in September 2003, plaintiffs in the two "Massachusetts State
Carpenters Pension Fund" cases to which the Company is a party,
and plaintiffs in the consolidated actions, jointly filed a
Third Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint, which, as to
the Company, in substance re-alleges the claims set forth in the
original "Massachusetts State Carpenters Pension Fund" cases.
Thereafter, in June 2004, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Consolidated
Amended Class Action Complaint adding details to the allegations
in the prior complaint concerning lead plaintiffs' purchases in
the offerings, and a Fifth Complaint was filed in December 2004,
which added no new allegations or claims against the Company.


LEHMAN BROTHERS: 83 Consolidated Stock Suits Filed in NY Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lehman Brothers, Inc. and other underwriting firms face 83
consolidated class actions filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging violations
of federal securities laws.

The Company was initially named as a defendant in approximately
192 purported securities class actions that were filed between
March and December 2001.  The actions, which allege improper
initial public offering (IPO) allocation practices, were brought
by persons who, either directly or in the aftermarket, purchased
IPO securities during the period between March 1997 and December
2000.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company and other IPO
underwriters required persons receiving allocations of IPO
shares to pay excessive commissions on unrelated trades and to
purchase shares in the aftermarket at specified escalating
prices.  The plaintiffs, who seek unspecified compensatory
damages, claim that these alleged practices violated various
provisions of the federal securities laws, specifically sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act, sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The 192 actions in which LBI was
named a defendant have been consolidated into 83 cases, each
involving a distinct offering. Those 83 consolidated cases, and
approximately 226 others in which LBI is not named as a
defendant, have been coordinated for pretrial purposes before a
single judge.


LITHONIA LIGHTING: Recalls 120T Reflectors Due To Injury Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Lithonia Lighting, of Conyers, Ga., is voluntarily
recalling about 120,000 High Intensity Discharge (HID) light
fixtures with acrylic reflectors.

The cord of the light fixture can drip plasticizer fluid onto
the light fixture, which can degrade the acrylic reflector,
causing it to crack and fall. Falling pieces of acrylic can
injure a person below the fixture. Lithonia has received reports
of about 336 fixtures in which acrylic reflectors cracked,
including reports of about 24 acrylic reflectors or pieces
falling from fixtures. No injuries have been reported.

These are indoor HID light fixtures with acrylic reflectors and
cords. They are generally used in locations such as retail
spaces, light manufacturing areas, warehouse spaces, and
gymnasiums. Only certain models of specific wattage lights are
included in the recall. Recalled fixtures have a date of
manufacture from June 3, 1999 through May 31, 2002. Check the
Lithonia Web site for a list of the specific model and wattage
combinations included.

Manufactured in the United States and Mexico, the reflectors
were sold at all lighting and electrical supply distributors
nationwide from June 1999 through May 2002 for between $100 and
$320.

Building owners and managers with recalled fixtures should
contact Lithonia Lighting to verify that the fixtures are
included in the recall and to arrange for a replacement of the
cord, and if necessary, the reflector. Lithonia Lighting and its
distributors are directly notifying customers who purchased the
recalled fixtures.  For more details, contact Lithonia Lighting
toll-free at 866-799-6173 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. ET Monday
through Friday or go to their Web site at
http://www.lithonia.com/HIDCordRecall.


LIVEDOOR CO.: Mulls Suit V. Nippon Broadcasting Over Pony Sale
--------------------------------------------------------------
Internet service provider livedoor Co. is mulling over the
possibility of filing a class-action lawsuit against board
members of Nippon Broadcasting System Inc., if the Company
decides to sell its stake in Pony Canyon Inc., a major record
label, the Jiji Press reports.  According to a senior official
at livedoor, selling Pony Canyon shares would significantly
damage Nippon Broadcasting's corporate value.

Nippon Broadcasting officials had earlier indicated the
Company's intention to sell Pony Canyon shares to other members
of Fujisankei Communications Group to fend off livedoor's
hostile bid for Nippon Broadcasting.  In a bid to control the
entire Fujisankei Communications Group through Nippon
Broadcasting, the Internet Company is now in a fierce takeover
battle with Fuji Television Network Inc. to acquire Nippon
Broadcasting.

Nippon Broadcasting, a small Tokyo-based AM radio station, is
the top shareholder of Fuji TV, the core firm of the media
group, with a stake of 22 pct. It also has a 56 percent stake in
Pony Canyon.  More than 70% of Nippon Broadcasting's 109.4
billion yen in consolidated sales comes from its subsidiaries,
including Pony Canyon.

Informed sources told the Jiji Press that to avoid being sued by
livedoor, Fujisankei Communications Group is considering the
alternative of increasing Pony Canyon's capital. Under that
plan, Fuji TV would inject capital into Pony Canyon to make it a
subsidiary while substantially lowering Nippon Broadcasting's
stake in the record label from the current 56 pct.

A senior Fujisankei group official said, as outstanding shares
of unlisted Pony Canyon are entirely held by Fujisankei group
firms, livedoor will have no say about the capital increase
scheme, the Jiji Press reports.


MONTRAIL INC.: Recalls 969 Pairs Of Crampons Due To Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Montrail Inc., of Seattle, Wash., is voluntarily
recalling about 969 pairs of Crampons (used for ice climbing and
mountaineering).

The vertical rails at the front of these crampons can break,
which could result in falls and injuries to consumers. Montrail
has received three reports of crampons breaking. No injuries
were reported.  The recall includes models I354, I356, and K364
sold under brand names I.C.E. 9 and Khumbu. The recall includes
products with UPC numbers beginning with 619120036 and ending
with 204, 211, 464, or 457. These model and UPC numbers are
listed only on the packaging, but not on the products
themselves.

Manufactured in Korea, the crampons were sold at all outdoor
equipment retailers nationwide from September 2003 through
February 1, 2005 for between $135 and $185.  

Consumers should stop using these crampons immediately and
contact Montrail to find out how to return them and for further
recall details.  For more details, contact Montrail toll-free at
(800) 826-1598 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. PST Monday through
Friday.


NEW YORK: SEC Charges Ex-NYSE Floor Clerk With Securities Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive
action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
New York against Frank J. Furino (Furino), a former floor clerk
on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), alleging securities
fraud. The Commission's complaint alleges that from
approximately August 2000 through December 2001, Mr. Furino
provided a day trader with confidential information about
unexecuted customer orders, and the day trader then traded ahead
of those orders.

The complaint was filed against Mr. Furino, 49 years old, a
resident of Port Washington, New York. At all relevant times,
Furino was employed by a floor broker as a clerk on the floor of
the NYSE.
     
More specifically, the complaint alleged the following. As a
floor clerk, Mr. Furino had access to the purchase and sell
orders of the floor broker's customers. Mr. Furino routinely
informed the day trader by telephone of the security, quantity,
price, and side (buy or sell) associated with large customer
orders, after the floor broker received, but before it executed,
these orders. On at least 58 occasions, the day trader used the
information obtained from Mr. Furino to trade ahead of the floor
broker's customers. For example, after Mr. Furino informed the
day trader about a customer's block order to purchase shares of
Computer Associates International, Inc. stock on Oct. 25, 2000,
the day trader bought 17,000 shares of Computer Associates stock
at an average price of $28.27. Within one minute, the day trader
sold the 17,000 shares of Computer Associates stock through the
floor broker at $29 per share, at the same time that the floor
broker's customer's buy order for 84,500 shares was executed.  
The rise in share price resulted in the day trader making a
profit of approximately $12,091. Overall, the day trader made
more than $300,000 from this scheme. Additionally, the day
trader compensated Mr. Furino for the confidential order flow
information through undisclosed cash payments (approximately
$50,000) and commissions.
     
The Commission charged Mr. Furino with violating Section 17(a)
of the Securities Act of 1933 (Securities Act) and Section 10(b)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) and Rule
10b-5 thereunder. The Commission seeks a permanent injunction
against future violations of these provisions, disgorgement plus
prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.
     
The Commission expresses its appreciation to the U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of New York and the United  
States Postal Inspection Service for their assistance in the
investigation of this matter. The action is entitled, SEC v.
Frank J. Furino, Civil Action No. CV 05 1259, EDNY] (LR-19126).


OHIO: Judge Rules That Jail Conditions Are Unconstitutional
-----------------------------------------------------------
In both a victory for the inmates and maybe a loss for the
taxpayers, a federal judge ruled that the conditions at the
Mahoning County jail are unconstitutional, the WKBN/WYFX-TV
reports.

Last year, inmates filed a class action suit, complaining the
jail is overcrowded and understaffed. The inmates further
complained that they are frequently locked in their cells 23
hours a day, with little access to legal materials, showers and
visitation.  

Heading the inmates' complaints, Judge David Dowd agreed that
the problems stem from a lack of funding, thus he will appoint a
special master to oversee changes.  It is uncertain though where
the county commissioners will find additional money to correct
the problems in the jail.


ONEOK INC.: KS Court To Hear Gas Suit Certification April 1
-----------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Stevens County, Kansas, 26th Judicial
District is set to hear class certification motions for two
class actions against ONEOK, Inc., five of its subsidiaries and
hundreds of other defendants on April 1,2005.

The first suit, styled "Will Price, et al. v. Gas Pipelines, et
al. (f/k/a Quinque Operating Company, et al. v. Gas Pipelines,
et al.), 26th Judicial District, District Court of Stevens
County, Kansas, Civil Department, Case No. 99C30 ("Price I"),"
sought class certification for its claims that the defendants
had underpaid gas producers and royalty owners throughout the
United States by intentionally understating both the volume and
the heating content of purchased gas.  After extensive briefing
and a hearing, the Court refused to certify the class sought by
plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs then filed an amended petition limiting
the purported class to gas producers and royalty owners in
Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming and limiting the claim to
undermeasurement of volumes.

The second suit, styled "Will Price and Stixon Petroleum, et al.
v. Gas Pipelines, et al., 26th Judicial District, District Court
of Stevens County, Kansas, Civil Department, Case No. 03C232
("Price II")," was filed by the plaintiffs on May 12, 2003,
after the Court had denied class status in Price I.  Plaintiffs
claim that 21 groups of defendants, including the Company and
four of its subsidiaries, intentionally underpaid gas producers
and royalty owners by understating the heating content of
purchased gas in Kansas, Colorado and Wyoming. Price II has been
consolidated with Price I for the determination of whether
either or both cases may properly be certified as class actions.


ONEOK INC.: Mulling Appeal of Damages Ruling in KS Injury Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc. is considering its option to appeal the District
Court of Reno County, Kansas' decision awarding damages and
attorneys fees for the plaintiffs in the two class actions filed
against it and certain of its subsidiaries, relating to certain
gas explosions in Hutchison, Kentucky. The suits are styled
"Loyd Smith, et al v. Kansas Gas Service Company, Inc., ONEOK,
Inc., Western Resources, Inc., Mid Continent Market Center,
Inc., ONEOK Gas Storage, L.L.C., ONEOK Gas Storage Holdings,
Inc., and ONEOK Gas Transportation, L.L.C., Case No. 01-C-0029;"
and "Gilley et al. v. Kansas Gas Service Company, Western
Resources, Inc., ONEOK, Inc., ONEOK Gas Storage, L.L.C., ONEOK
Gas Storage Holdings, Inc., ONEOK Gas Transportation L.L.C. and
Mid Continent Market Center, Inc., Case No. 01-C-0057."

The court certified two separate classes of claimants, which
included all owners of residential real estate in Reno County,
Kansas whose property had allegedly declined in value, and
owners of businesses in Reno County whose income had allegedly
suffered.  Both cases were adjudicated in September 2004 and
resulted in jury verdicts.

In the class action relating to the residential claimants, the
jury awarded $5 million in actual damages, which is covered by
insurance. In the business owners' class action, the jury
rendered a defense verdict awarding no actual damages.  The jury
rejected claims for punitive damages in both cases.  In a
separate hearing on Plaintiffs' attorney fees, the Judge awarded
$2,047,406 in fees and $646,090.78 in expenses, which is also
covered by insurance.  The Company is reviewing its options for
appeal of the residential claimants' class action verdict and
subsequent award of attorney fees.

Another suit, styled "Loyd Smith, et al v. Kansas Gas Service
Company, Inc., ONEOK, Inc., Western Resources, Inc., Mid
Continent Market Center, Inc., ONEOK Gas Storage, L.L.C., ONEOK
Gas Storage Holdings, Inc., and ONEOK Gas Transportation,
L.L.C., Case No. 03-C-0029," was filed in the same court against
the Company, several of its subsidiaries, and others on January
17, 2003 relating to the same gas explosions in Hutchinson,
Kansas referenced in the above paragraph.  The petition seeks
recovery on behalf of the residents of Reno County, Kansas, who
have suffered or will suffer damage and/or economic losses
relating to personal property and displacement costs as a result
of the explosion.  However, the Company has never been served in
this matter.   


ONEOK INC.: Discovery Proceeds in NY Natural Gas Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is commencing in the class action filed against ONEOK,
Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, styled "Cornerstone Propane Partners,
L.P., et al. v. E Prime, Inc., ONEOK Energy Marketing and
Trading Company, L.P., ONEOK, Inc., and Calpine Energy services,
L.P., Case No. 04-CV-00758."  The suit also names as defendants
the Company's wholly owned subsidiary, ONEOK Energy Services,
L.P. (formerly ONEOK Energy Marketing and Trading Company,
L.P.).

The suit was brought on behalf of persons who bought and sold
natural gas futures and options contracts on the New York
Mercantile Exchange during the years 2000 through 2002. The
Complaint seeks class certification, actual damages in
unspecified amounts for alleged violations of the Commodities
Exchange Act, recovery of costs of the suit, including
attorney's fees, and other appropriate relief.

On August 17, 2004, this case was consolidated for all purposes
with a related lawsuit which names a number of other defendants
in the energy industry.  Plaintiffs in the related case assert
allegations similar to those alleged against the Company in this
case.


SALTON INC.: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss IL Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed a shareholder class action
filed against Salton, Inc. and certain of its executives in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, styled "Mariss Partners, LLP v. Salton, Inc., Leonhard
Dreimann and David M. Mulder."

Two suits were initially filed, namely the Mariss Partners suit
and another suit styled "Warren Beeler v. Salton, Inc., Leonhard
Dreimann and David Mulder."  The complaints allege that the
defendants violated the federal securities laws, specifically
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, by
making certain alleged false and misleading statements.  The
plaintiffs seek unspecified damages on behalf of a purported
class of purchasers of the Company's securities during the
period from November 11, 2002 through May 11, 2004.

The remaining suit is styled "Beeler v. Salton, Inc., et al,
case no. 1:04-cv-03658," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois, under Judge Milton
I. Shadur.  Plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) Richard A. Maniskas, Tamary Skvirvy, Marc A. Topaz,
         Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza East, Suite
         400, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: (610) 667-7706

     (2) Marvin Alan Miller, Jennifer Winter Sprengel, Matthew
         Eric Van Tine, Miller Faucher and Cafferty, LLP, 30
         North LaSalle Street, Suite 3200, Chicago, IL 60602
         Phone: (312) 782-4880

     (3) David A Rosenfeld, Geller Rudman, PLLC, 200 Broadhollow
         Road, Suite 406, Melville, NY 11747, Phone: (631) 367-
         7100

     (4) Samuel H Rudman, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
         Robbins LLP, 200 Broadhollow Road #406, Melville, NY
         11747, Phone: (631) 367-7100

Representing the Company are Harold C. Hirshman, Christopher
Qualley King, John Randolph Labbe, Natalie J. Spears,
Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, LLP, 233 South Wacker Drive,
8000 Sears Tower, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 1-312-876-8000


SALTON INC.: Consumers File Lawsuit V. Russell Hobbs Tea Kettle
---------------------------------------------------------------
Salton, Inc. faces a class action filed in New York State
Supreme Court, styled "DiNatale vs. Salton," seeking unspecified
damages, and alleging that the plaintiffs were injured by water
contaminated with lead taken from a tea kettle sold by the
Company under its Russell Hobbs brand.

The manufacturer of the product and its insurer are defending
this lawsuit.  The Company's attorneys and its insurers are
cooperating in the defense of the lawsuit.  Shortly after
receiving notice of the lawsuit, the Company voluntarily
suspended selling the product. The Company believes that at
substantially the same time, the two retailers who had purchased
the kettle from the Company also suspended selling the product.
Based on information received from the two retailers, the
Company believes that only a limited number of the kettles were
sold to consumers. The Company voluntarily contacted the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration and has shared its information and
test results concerning the product with the agency.


SPIN RITE: Recalls 730T Bernat "Fur Out" Yarns Due To Burn Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
In cooperation with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC), Spin Rite LP of Ontario, Canada, is voluntarily
recalling about 730,000 1.75-ounce balls of Bernat "Fur Out"
yarns.

"Fur Out" yarn is flammable when used as the sole yarn in a
garment. Garments constructed of "Fur Out" yarn are dangerously
flammable when exposed to a flame, posing a burn risk to
consumers. Bernat has received two reports of garments made of
the recalled yarn burning, with one person receiving singed
eyebrows.

All 17 Bernat "Fur Out" yarn colors are involved in this recall.
The recalled yarn can be identified by UPC numbers beginning
with "05735527" and ending with one of the following numbers:
1319, 1326, 1333, 1340, 1357, 1364, 1371, 1388, 1395, 1401,
1685, 2583, 2590, 2606, 2613, 2620 & 2637.  Manufactured in
Turkey, the yarns were sold at all yarn and craft stores
nationwide and in Canada since April 2004 for between $4 and $6
per ball.

Consumers should stop using Bernat "Fur Out" yarn and items made
with Bernat "Fur Out" yarn immediately and contact the
manufacturer for instructions on how to return the products and
receive a full refund.  For more details, contact Bernat Yarn at
(800) 641-5634 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday
or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bernat.com.  


TALX CORPORATION: Settles SEC Charges, Consents To $2.5M Penalty
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities and Exchange Commission instituted and
simultaneously settled a cease-and-desist proceeding against
TALX Corporation, a St. Louis-based provider of employment and
income verification and other human resources services. In
addition, the Commission filed a related action for civil
penalties in the amount of $2.5 million against TALX in the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
     
In the Order Instituting Proceedings Pursuant to Section 8A of
the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21C of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing a Cease-and-
Desist Order (Order), the Commission found that TALX made    
material financial misrepresentations in Forms 8-K, 10-K and 10-
Q for fiscal years 2001 through the second quarter of 2004, and
in its fiscal 2002 registration statement. During fiscal 2001,
and through a secondary offering of common stock completed on
Aug. 3, 2001, in which TALX raised approximately $82 million,
TALX placed emphasis on meeting financial projections and
highlighted its earnings growth to the market. TALX met its 2001
financial targets and increased its stock price, however,
through intentional and unintentional accounting misstatements.
   
TALX's intentional misstatements involved an improper bill and
hold transaction and other premature revenue recognition;
capitalizing costs relating to a patent infringement claim that
should have been expensed; and expensing bonuses in the wrong
period. As a result of these intentional misstatements, TALX
overstated its fiscal 2001 pre-tax income by approximately $2.1
million. In addition, TALX used the wrong method of accounting
for certain other service transactions prior to and in its 2001
fiscal year, and as a result overstated income in 2001 by
approximately $2 million. The combined misstatements resulted in
TALX overstating its 2001 pre-tax income by approximately 122%
and inflated artificially TALX's 2001 stock price leading up to
its August 3, 2001 secondary offering. Without the combined
misstatements, TALX would have received less than the $82
million realized in the secondary offering.
    
Without admitting or denying the findings in the Commission's
Order, TALX has agreed to settle the Commission's claims by
consenting to the entry of an administrative order requiring it
to cease and desist from committing or causing any violations
and any future violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act
of 1933 and Sections 10(b), 13(a), and 13(b)(2) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 10b-5, 12b-20, 13a-1,
13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder. The Commission's complaint in the
district court action alleges the same conduct referenced above,
and TALX, without admitting or denying the allegations in the
complaint, has consented to the entry of judgment by the U.S.
District Court requiring it to pay a civil penalty of $2.5
million. The Commission's staff intends to distribute the
penalty to injured investors pursuant to the Fair Funds
provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The entitled SEC v.
TALX Corporation, Civil Action No. 4:05-cv-368 (HEA), U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri] (LR-19120;
AAE Rel. 2199).


TOKYO ELECTRIC: Shareholders Demand Damages Suit For Nippon Sale  
----------------------------------------------------------------
In a written request, shareholders of Tokyo Electric Power Co.
have demanded that the Company file a damages lawsuit against
board members for selling its shareholdings in Nippon
Broadcasting System Inc. below fair value and causing billions
of yen in losses, the Jiji Press reports.

According to the shareholders, the Company incurred a loss of
some 60 million yen because of board members' decision to sell
Nippon Broadcasting shares to Fuji Television Network Inc.
through a tender offer.

Fuji TV offered to buy Nippon Broadcasting shares at 5,950 yen
per share in the tender offer launched on January 18. But, after
livedoor Co. emerged as a hostile bidder in early February,
Nippon Broadcasting share prices shot up to a high of 8,800 yen
at one point. Nippon Broadcasting shares ended at 6,600 yen on
March 7, when Fuji TV finally closed the stock-purchasing period
after extending the deadline twice.

The Tokyo Electric shareholders told the Jiji Press that they
intend to launch a class-action lawsuit, if the Company fails to
take action within 60 days of receiving their request.


UNITED TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Elevator Manufacturers Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Technologies Corporation, Otis Elevator Co. and other
elevator and escalator manufacturers face a consolidated class
action filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  The suit alleges a worldwide
agreement among elevator and escalator manufacturers to fix
prices in violation of the Sherman Act.  The lawsuit does not
specify the amount of damages claimed.  

The suit is styled "In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, case
no. 1:04-cv-01178-TPG," filed in the United States District
Coiurt for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Thomas
P. Griesa.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Mary Jane Fait, Frederick Taylor Isquith, Sr., Stuart
         S. Saft, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz,
         L.L.P., 270 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         (212) 545-4600, E-mail: fait@whafh.com,
         isquith@whafh.com;

     (2) Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401
         B Street, Suite 1700, San Diego, CA 92101 USA, Phone:
         619-231-7423

     (3) Nadeem Faruqi, Beth Ann Keller, Anthony Vozzolo, Faruqi
         & Faruqi, LLP, 320 East 39th Street, New York, NY
         10016, Phone: (212)983-9330, Fax: (212) 983-9331, E-
         mail: nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com, bkeller@faruqilaw.com,
         avozzolo@faruqilaw.com  

Representing the Company is Deborah M. Buell, Cleary Gottlieb
Steen & Hamilton, LLP, 1 Liberty Plaza, New York, NY 10006,
Phone: 212-225-2000, Fax: 212-225-3499, E-mail:
maofiling@cgsh.com.


WHITE ELECTRONIC: AZ Court Orders Securities Suits Consolidated
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Arizona
ordered consolidated four shareholder class actions filed
against White Electronic Designs Corporation and certain of its
current and former officers, namely:

     (1) McJimsey v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et
         al. (Case No. CV04-1499-PHX-SRB),

     (2) Afework v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al
         (Case No. CV04-1558-PHX-JWS),

     (3) Anders v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et al.
         (Case No. CV04-1632-PHX-JAT), and

     (4) Sammarco v. White Electronic Designs Corporation, et
         al. (Case No. CV04-1744-PHX-EHC)

The complaints allege, among other things, that between January
23, 2003 and June 9, 2004, the Company made false and misleading
statements concerning its financial results and business, in
violation of the federal securities laws.  The complaints seek
unspecified monetary damages.  The Court has consolidated the
four cases into one action and has appointed Wayne County
Employees' Retirement System as lead plaintiff.


                
               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

March 25, 2005
EXPERT TESTIMONY IN CIVIL LITIGATION
Reconferences.Com
Manchester Grand Hyatt San Diego
Contact: 818-784-7701; www.reconferences.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

APPLIED SIGNAL: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Fraud Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Applied Signal Technology,
Inc. ("Applied Signal" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:APSG), between
May 25, 2004 and February 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of Applied Signal
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


APPLIED SIGNAL: Charles J. Piven Lodges Securities Suit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven, P.A. initiated a securities
class action on behalf of shareholders who purchased, converted,
exchanged or otherwise acquired the common stock of Applied
Signal Technology, Inc. (Nasdaq:APSG) between May 25, 2004 and
February 22, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California against defendant Applied
Signal, Gary Yancey and James Doyle. The action charges that
defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing a series
of materially false and misleading statements to the market
throughout the Class Period, which statements had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.  


AXONYX INC.: Finkelstein Thompson Files Securities Lawsuit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran initiated a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York, on behalf
of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly-
traded common stock of Axonyx, Inc. (Nasdaq: AXYX) ("Axonyx" or
the "Company") between June 26, 2003 and February 4, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period,
defendants misrepresented and omitted material facts concerning
the efficacy of, and likelihood of achieving positive results
from a pivotal Phase III clinical trial of, Anxonyx's Phenserine
product. Plaintiff's investigation revealed that Axonyx publicly
stated that Phenserine could be the next drug approved by the
FDA to treat Alzheimer's, that it was a "dual-action" drug that
improved both memory retention while helping to prevent the root
cause of Alzheimer's, and that Axonyx omitted to state that a
failed clinical trial would cause extreme financial hardships to
the corporation because Phenserine was its "leading drug
candidate" on which Axonyx had invested most of its research and
development resources. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that at
all times during the Class Period, Defendants were aware or
recklessly disregarded the risks that Phenserine would likely
fail its pivotal Phase III trial, thereby materially harming the
financial well being of the Company. Nevertheless, Defendants
concealed these facts from the investing public.

On February 7, 2005, Axonyx issued a press release stating that
Phenserine "did not result in a statistically significant
improvement over placebo" in its Phase III clinical trial. As a
result of this revelation, Axonyx's share price dropped from a
closing price of $4.85 on February 4, 2005 to $1.81 on February
7, 2005 -- a drop of over 62%.

For more details, contact Donald J. Enright or Benjamin J. Weir,
of Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran by Phone: +1-866-592-1960 or
by E-mail: bjw@ftllaw.com.


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Scott + Scott Files Stock Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action lawsuit in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
behalf of purchasers of Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Bradley
Pharmaceuticals" or the "Company") (NYSE: BDY) common stock
during the period between October 8, 2003 and February 25, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that from October 8, 2003 and February 25,
2005, defendants issued materially false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's increasing financial
performance and future prospects. As alleged in the complaint,
these statements were materially false and misleading because
they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following
negative facts which were known to defendants, or recklessly
disregarded by them, at all relevant times. These alleged facts
include that the Company was materially overstating its
financial results by engaging in improper accounting practices
and that the Company's future sales growth from its Keralac
franchise would be hindered by generic competition, and that as
a result of the foregoing, there was no reasonable basis for the
Company's revenue and earnings guidance.

On February 28, 2005, the Company issued a press release
announcing that the staff of the Securities and Exchange
Commission ("SEC") is conducting an informal inquiry to
determine whether there have been violations of the federal
securities laws by the Company. In connection with the inquiry,
the SEC staff has requested that the Company provide it with
certain information and documents concerning issues related to
revenue recognition and capitalization of certain payments. In
light of the ongoing SEC staff inquiry and separate counsel's
review, the Company also announced that it would be delaying the
release of its 2004 earnings. Market reaction to the above was
swift. On February 28, 2005, Bradley stock fell almost 30% per
share.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC by Mail: 108
Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone: 860/537-3818 or
by Fax: 860/537-4432 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com.


DELPHI CORPORATION: Much Shelist Lodges Securities Suit in NY
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Much Shelist Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein,
P.C. initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf
of purchasers of Delphi Corporation (NYSE:DPH) ("Delphi") common
stock during the period between April 12, 2000 and March 3, 2005
(the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Delphi and certain of its officers
and directors violated the federal securities laws by issuing a
series of materially false and misleading statements to the
market during the Class Period. These misstatements had the
effect of artificially inflating the price of Delphi publicly
traded securities.

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

On March 4, 2005, Delphi issued a press release announcing the
resignation of Alan Dawes, the Company's CFO, and detailing
serious and 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 pervasive that the
Company's Audit Committee warned 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. Based on
the Company's 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 total of $166 million for
the years 1999 to 2001 and to increase cash flow from operations
by a total of $446.5 million for 1999 through 2003.

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

For more details, contact Carol V. Gilden, Esq. of Much Shelist
Freed Denenberg Ament & Rubenstein, P.C. by Phone:
(800) 470-6824 or by E-mail: investorhelp@muchshelist.com.


DELPHI CORPORATION: Scott + Scott Lodges ERISA Complaint in OH
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott + Scott, LLC initiated a class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of participants and beneficiaries of the Delphi
Corporation's (NYSE:DPH) pension plans.

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

The complaint charges fiduciaries of the plans with violations
of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The
lawsuit alleges that plan fiduciaries breached such duties and
responsibilities by, among other things, failing to investigate
the prudence of investing in Delphi stock and by making
misrepresentations about the Company's accounting practices
dating back to 1999. It is alleged that defendants made various
material misrepresentations negligently and by the negligent
manipulation and disclosure of such facts. Upon these
disclosures, Delphi's stock dropped to as low as $5.41 per share
before closing at $5.46 per share on March 4, 2005, some 68%
below the Class Period high of $17.40 per share and a one-day
drop of 14%, on volume of 24 million shares. The stock is
currently trading at $5.12 per share. Many current and former
Delphi employees have already chosen to participate in this
lawsuit. These employees are organizing a structure to direct
the lawsuit. Those employees who choose to participate in the
lawsuit can do so confidentially. It is unlawful for any
fiduciary or defendant to take any retaliatory action against
any employee who chooses to participate in the suit. Scott +
Scott has heard from a significant number of plan participants
in many states.

For more details, contact Scott + Scott, LLC by Mail: 108
Norwich Avenue, Colchester, CT 06415 by Phone: 860/537-3818 or
by Fax: 860/537-4432 by E-mail: nrothstein@scott-scott.com.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of EchoStar Communications,
Corp. ("EchoStar" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:DISH), between
August 10, 2004 and March 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period"). The class action lawsuit was filed in the United
States District Court for the District of Colorado.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of EchoStar securities.
No class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Charles J. Piven Files Stock Suit in CO
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 EchoStar
Communications Corporation (NASDAQ:DISH) between August 10, 2004
and March 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado against defendants EchoStar, Charles W.
Ergen, David Rayner, Michael R. McConnell, Paul W. Orban and
David Moskowitz. The action charges that defendants violated
federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false
and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class
Period, which statements had the effect of artificially
inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class
has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.  


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: Schatz & Nobel Files CO Securities Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C. initiated lawsuit seeking
class action status in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of EchoStar Communications
Corporation (Nasdaq: DISH) ("EchoStar" or "the Company") between
August 10, 2004 and March 9, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The Complaint alleges that EchoStar violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
EchoStar's financial statements were materially false and
misleading because EchoStar lacked internal controls adequate to
ensure that the information contained in the Company's financial
reports fairly presented the Company's financial condition and
results of operations and EchoStar improperly booked certain
transactions with vendors and engaged in improper accounting.

On March 10, 2005 it was disclosed that EchoStar's audit
committee had launched an internal accounting probe and that the
Company and Defendant Ergen, the Chief Executive Officer, 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 Ergen's. A Bloomberg article reported unnamed sources 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.

On this news, EchoStar dropped to $28.20 per share on March 10,
2005. During the Class Period, EchoStar's shares traded as high
as $34.38.

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


ELAN CORPORATION: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in MA
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on behalf of securities purchasers of
Elan Corporation, plc (NYSE: ELN) ("Elan" or the "Company")
February 18, 2004, and February 25, 2005 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Elan, Kelly Martin, Lars Eckman, and Shane
Cooke 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 TYSABRI posed serious immune-system side effects;

     (2) that TYSABRI, like other MS drugs, made patients
         susceptible to progressive multifocal
         leukoencephalopathy ("PML") by changing the way certain
         white blood cells function thereby allowing PML, a
         normally dormant virus, to run rampant within the human
         body;

     (3) that defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded
         documented facts that MS drugs can cause greater
         incidents of PML to occur; and

     (4) that defendants concealed these facts in order to fast
         track TYSABRI for FDA approval so that they could reap
         the financial benefits from the sales of the drug.

On February 28, 2005, before the market opened, Elan announced a
voluntary suspension in the marketing of TYSABRI(R)
(natalizumab), a treatment for multiple sclerosis (MS), because
of two serious adverse events that have occurred in patients
treated with TYSABRI in combination with AVONEX(R) (Interferon
beta-1a) in clinical trials. News of this shocked the market.
Shares of Elan fell $18.90 per share, or 70.26 percent, to close
at $8.00 on unusually high trading volume.

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


FOREST COMMUNICATIONS: Brodsky & Smith Lodges Stock Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law offices of Brodsky & Smith, LLC initiated a securities
class action lawsuit on behalf of shareholders who purchased the
common stock and other securities of Forest Laboratories, Inc.
("Forest" or the "Company") (NYSE:FRX), between August 15, 2002
and September 21, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). The
class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated federal
securities laws by issuing a series of material
misrepresentations to the market during the Class Period,
thereby artificially inflating the price of FRX securities. No
class has yet been certified in the above action.

For more details, contact Evan J. Smith, Esq. or Marc L.
Ackerman, Esq. of Brodsky & Smith, LLC by Mail: Two Bala Plaza,
Suite 602, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004 by Phone: 877-LEGAL-90 or by E-
mail: clients@brodsky-smith.com.


FOREST LABORATORIES: Charles J. Piven Lodges NY Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 Forest
Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE:FRX) between August 15, 2002 and
September 1, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

For more details, contact the Law Offices Of Charles J. Piven,
P.A. by Phone: The World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401 East Pratt
Street, Suite 2525, Baltimore, Maryland 21202 by Phone:
410/986-0036 or by E-mail: hoffman@pivenlaw.com.  


FOREST LABORATORIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated a lawsuit
seeking class action status in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons
who purchased the publicly traded securities of Forest
Laboratories, Inc. (NYSE: FRX) ("Forest Labs") between August
15, 2002 and September 1, 2004 (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that Forest Labs violated federal
securities laws by issuing false or misleading public
statements. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Forest Labs
concealed deficiencies with its Celexa/Lexapro drugs in treating
adolescent depression and 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, the price of Forest Labs stock dropped to as low as $36
per share.

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

HYPERCOM CORPORATION: Cohen Milstein Files Securities Suit in AZ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
other similarly situated purchasers of the securities of
Hypercom Corporation ("Hypercom") (NYSE: HYC) common stock
between April 30, 2004 and February 3, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"), in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona.

The complaint names as defendants Hypercom, Christopher S.
Alexander (Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief Executive
Officer), and John W. Smolak (Chief Financial Officer)
(collectively "Defendants"). According to the complaint,
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. Hypercom manufactures, designs, and
sells end-to-end electronic payment solutions that include
point-of-sale /point-of-transaction terminals, peripheral
devices, transaction management systems and application software
and provides related support and services.

The complaint further alleges that during the Class Period,
Defendants caused Hypercom's shares to trade at artificially
inflated levels through the issuance of materially false and
misleading financial statements. In addition, the complaint
charges that on February 4, 2005, before the market opened, the
Company issued a press release announcing that its financial
results for the first three quarters of 2004 would be restated
following "determination that certain leases originated during
that period by the Company's UK subsidiary, Hypercom EMEA, Inc.,
were incorrectly accounted for as sales-type leases, rather than
operating leases. This accounting error, which relates to
approximately 3,200 leases, resulted in an overstatement of net
revenue for the first three quarters of 2004. The Company
currently estimates that the adjustment to its financial
statements will decrease net revenue for the nine months ended
September 30, 2004 by up to $4.0 million as compared to
previously announced results, and that operating profit for the
same period will decrease by approximately 65 to 75% of the
amount of the net revenue reduction." Following the
announcement, Hypercom shares closed down 18.3% at $4.46 per
share on volume of 2.9 million shares, more than six-times the
stock's average full-day turnover.

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


IMERGENT INC.: Alfred G. Yates Files Securities Fraud Suit in UT
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Alfred G. Yates Jr., PC initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Utah on behalf of purchasers of iMergent, Inc.
("iMergent") (AMEX:IIG) publicly traded securities during the
period between November 30, 2004 and February 25, 2005 (the
"Class Period").

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

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

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

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


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Berger & Montague Lodges NC Stock Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berger & Montague, P.C. initiated a securities
fraud class action complaint in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of North Carolina against Inspire
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Inspire" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
ISPH) and certain of its officers and directors on behalf of
purchasers of Inspire's securities during the period between
June 2, 2004 and February 8, 2005 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that defendants disseminated false and
misleading statements regarding the Stage III trial of its dry
eye drug, Diquafosol tetrasodium. Beginning with its June 2,
2004 announcement of the initiation of its Stage III trial,
Study 109, the Company failed to inform investors that the
primary endpoint mandated by the FDA had changed from corneal
staining to a more stringent corneal clearing. In fact,
defendant Shaffer, in responding to a Deutsche Bank analyst's
question during the November 4, 2004 conference call, stated
that the primary endpoint was "corneal staining." Analysts
believed that the drug had a very good chance of success because
it had met the corneal staining endpoint in the previous trial,
Study 105. Had investors known the truth about the primary
endpoint, the value of Inspire stock would not have been
artificially inflated almost 81% to $16.00 per share at the end
of the Class Period. After the pre-market opening disclosure on
February 9, 2005, Inspire lost almost $300 million in market
capitalization, closing at $8.88 on trading volume of 17.4
million shares -- a staggering 65 times its average volume.

For more details, contact Berger & Montague, P.C. by E-mail:
investorprotect@bm.net.  


MOLEX INCORPORATED: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Suit in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 Northern District of Illinois on
behalf of purchasers of Molex Incorporated ("Molex")
(NASDAQ:MOLXE) publicly traded securities during the period
between April 15, 2004 and February 14, 2005 (the "Class
Period").

The complaint charges Molex and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Molex manufactures and sells more than 100,000 electronic
component products, including terminals, connectors, planar
cables, cable assemblies, interconnection systems, fiber-optic
interconnection systems, backplanes, mechanical and electronic
switches, and other products.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
caused Molex's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels
through the issuance of false and misleading financial
statements. As a result of this inflation, certain of Molex's
officers and directors were able to sell over $34 million worth
of the Company's common stock at inflated prices.

According to the complaint, on November 11, 2004, Molex
announced that it had replaced and demoted its Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO"), delayed its latest quarterly report to federal
securities regulators, and said it would report a charge against
earnings because of inventory accounting issues. The Company's
press release indicated that its independent auditors, Deloitte
& Touche LLP ("Deloitte"), faulted the Company's Chief Executive
Officer ("CEO") and CFO, stating that problems regarding
inventory accounting information should have been disclosed by
them to the auditor earlier. The Company's press release also
stated that Deloitte would never again accept the signature of
the Company's CFO on the Company's financial results and was
reviewing whether it would ever again accept the signature of
the Company's CEO on future financial filings. On November 15,
2004, Deloitte resigned, citing Molex's refusal to oust its CEO
or its CFO (who had merely been demoted to Treasurer).
Thereafter, in a regulatory filing, Deloitte disputed many of
Molex's characterizations of what happened during the chain of
events leading up to Deloitte's resignation. As a result of
Deloitte's resignation, the Company's first quarter 2005
financial results were filed without being audited.
Consequently, Molex was notified by the Nasdaq it was not in
compliance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule 4310(c)(14), which
required Molex to file audited financial statements with the
SEC, and the Company's securities were, therefore, subject to
delisting from The Nasdaq National Market. Defendants still
maintained they had done nothing wrong. On December 10, 2004,
both Molex's CEO and CFO were terminated at the insistence of
the new auditors hired to replace Deloitte.

Finally, on February 14, 2005, Molex revealed that its results
for its first quarter 2005, and possibly other quarters, were
false when issued and that the SEC was investigating and did not
agree with the Company's accounting treatment. On this news, the
Company's stock dropped below $25 per share, erasing millions of
dollars of shareholder value. Meanwhile, several insiders
obtained tens of millions of dollars in insider trading
proceeds.

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/molex/.  


MOLEX INC.: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Molex
Incorporated ("Molex" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:MOLXE) between
April 15, 2004 and February 14, 2005, inclusive (the "Class
Period").

The complaint alleges that, on November 11, 2004, Molex
announced it had replaced and demoted its Chief Financial
Officer ("CFO"), delayed its most recent quarterly report to
federal securities regulators, and reported it would record a
charge against earnings as the result of inventory accounting
issues. The Company's press release indicated that Deloitte &
Touche LLP ("Deloitte"), the Company's independent auditors,
placed the blame on the Company's Chief Executive Officer
("CEO") and CFO, stating that the inventory accounting problems
should have been disclosed to the auditor earlier. The Company's
press release went on to say that, going forward, Deloitte would
never accept the signature of the Company's CFO on the Company's
financial results. Moreover, Deloitte was reviewing whether the
signature of the Company's CEO on future financial filings
deserved the same treatment as the CFO's. On November 15, 2004,
Deloitte resigned as the result of Molex's refusal to remove its
CEO or its CFO (who was demoted to Treasurer). Thereafter, in a
regulatory filing, Deloitte disputed Molex's version of what
took place leading up to Deloitte's resignation.

As a result of Deloitte's resignation, the Company's first
quarter 2005 financial results were filed but were not
independently audited. Accordingly, Nasdaq notified Molex that
it was not in compliance with Nasdaq Marketplace Rule
4310(c)(14), which would subject to the Company to delisting
from The Nasdaq National Market. Defendants remained
recalcitrant; however, on December 10, 2004, both Molex's CEO
and CFO were terminated at the insistence of the Company's new
auditors.

On February 14, 2005, Molex reported that its results for its
first quarter 2005, and possibly other quarters, were false when
issued. Furthermore, the SEC was investigating the Company and
did not agree with the Company's accounting treatment. On this
news, the Company's stock dropped below $25 per share, causing
the loss of millions of dollars of market capitalization and
shareholder value, while several insiders reaped tens of
millions of dollars in insider trading proceeds.

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


SINA CORPORATION: Glancy Binkow Lodges NY Securities Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired securities of SINA Corporation ("SINA" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:SINA) between October 26, 2004 and February
7, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint charges SINA, Wang Yan, and Charles Chao with
violations of federal securities laws. Plaintiff claims
defendants' omissions and material misrepresentations during the
Class Period artificially inflated the Company's stock price,
inflicting damages on investors. SINA Corporation is an online
media Company and value added information services provider for
Chinese communities worldwide. The Complaint alleges the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts, which defendants knew or recklessly disregarded:

     (1) the Company was increasingly relying on services
         related to such "fortune telling" advertising as
         horoscopes and astrology to meet earnings forecasts and
         generate a positive revenue stream;

     (2) the Chinese government's crackdown on "fortune telling"
         advertising would have a material effect on the
         Company's revenue;

     (3) China Mobile Communication Corp.'s recent change in its
         billing process for multimedia messaging services SINA
         provides to China Mobile subscribers had a material
         effect on the Company's business; and

     (4) as a result, defendants' positive statements about
         SINA's growth and prospects were lacking any reasonable
         basis when made.

On February 7, 2005, SINA's business outlook and financial
results for the fourth quarter and full year ended December 31,
2004, shocked the market, causing SINA shares to fall $2.96 per
share, or 10.82 percent, on unusually high trading volume.

The law firm of Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg of Glancy
Binkow & Goldberg LLP, Los Angeles by Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224 by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.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  * * *