---

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

              Monday, March 21, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 56

                          Headlines

AMGEN INC.: Continues To Face Consumer Suits in Various Courts
CAMDEN PROPERTY: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit Over Summit Merger
CREDITRUST CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 2, 2005
ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Dismisses Securities Suit
ELANCO ANIMAL: Recalls Micotil Antibiotic For Lack Of Labeling

EZEE MANUFACTURING: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set May 31, 2005
FINLAND: Report On Feasibility Of Class Action Lawsuits Delayed
FLORIDA: Judge Accepts, Certifies Nazi Gold Train Settlement
GENERAL MOTORS: Scott + Scott Plans To Launch ERISA Complaint
H&R BLOCK: Trial in RAL Lawsuit Set For October 2005 in WV Court

H&R BLOCK: Discovery Begins in IL Suit V. Peace of Mind Program
HGK ASSET: Reveals Details of J.P. Morgan's WorldCom Settlement
IDAHO: Attorney General Wasden Obtains Refunds For Remeron Drug
ILLINOIS: Uninsured Patient Files Suits V. Belleville Hospitals
IRWIN BUSINESS: NorVergence Customers File Fraud Lawsuit in FL

IRWIN HOME: Parties Settle MA TILA Suit, Court Issues Dismissal
IRWIN MORTGAGE: IN Consumers Sue Over Document Preparation Fees
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Reaches Settlement For Borrowers' Lawsuit in TX
IRWIN MORTGAGE: Faces Mortgage Broker Fees Lawsuit in AL Court
IRWIN UNION: Move To Transfer Community Loans Suits To W.D. PA

LUTHERAN BROTHERHOOD: Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 7, 2005
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Reaches Settlement For NYAG Probe, Civil Suit
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Litigation Over Broker Fee Agreements
MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Market-Timing, Late Trading Litigation
MURRAY TITLE: IL Suit Settlement Hearing Scheduled April 6, 2005

NEW CENTURY: Suit Settlement Hearing Scheduled For April 5, 2005
NORTEL NETWORKS: Purchasers Of Company's Chares Files $3B Suit
NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Stock Suit
PEMSTAR INC.: Reaches $12M Settlement For Shareholder Complaints
PENNSYLVANIA: Lawyers For Sanders Case Seek $760T in Legal Fees

PEROT SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
RYLAND HOMES: 100 Homeowners Lodges Suit Over In Leaking Homes
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Probes, Litigation Due To AWP Practices
SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit in NJ
SCHERING-PLOUGH: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Suit Dismissal Appeal

SOUTH KOREA: Policyholders Mull Suit V. State-Run Postal Agency
STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in NM
TEXAS: Attorney General Alerts Consumers To Remeron Settlement
TRIAD GUARANTY: Faces NC Suit By Residential Mortgage Borrowers
TRINITY SOUTHERN: AG Obtains Judgment V. Fraudulent "University"

UNIPROP: Park Residents File Suit Over Living Conditions in MI
UNITED STATES: FTC Supports Mint's Fight V. False Collectibles
UTENDAHL CAPITAL: Reaches Settlement in WorldCom Litigation
ZILA CORPORATION: Consumers Launch AZ Suit V. Zicam Cold Remedy

                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AUDIBLE INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
AUDIBLE, INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Lawsuit in NC
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
CHOICEPOINT INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA


                            *********


AMGEN INC.: Continues To Face Consumer Suits in Various Courts
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amgen, Inc. and Immunex Corporation are named as defendants,
either separately or together, in numerous civil actions broadly
alleging that they, together with many other pharmaceutical
manufacturers, reported prices for certain products in a manner
that allegedly inflated reimbursement under the Medicare and/or
Medicaid programs, and commercial insurance plans, including co-
payments paid to providers who prescribe and administer the
products.

The complaints generally assert varying claims under the federal
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO)
statutes, their state law corollaries, as well as state law
claims for deceptive trade practices, common law fraud, and
various related state law claims.  The complaints seek an
undetermined amount of damages, as well as other relief,
including declaratory and injunctive relief.

The average wholesale price (AWP) litigation was commenced
against the Company and Immunex on December 19, 2001 with the
filing of "Citizens for Consumer Justice et al. v. Abbott
Laboratories, Inc., et al."  Additional cases have been filed
since that time.  Most of these actions, have been consolidated,
or are in the process of being consolidated, in a federal Multi-
District Litigation proceeding, captioned "In Re: Pharmaceutical
Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation MDL No. 1456" and
pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. These cases that are, or are in the process of
being consolidated into the MDL Proceeding, are being brought by
consumer classes and certain state and local governmental
entities.  The cases consist of the following:

     (1) Citizens for Consumer Justice, et al., v. Abbott
         Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

     (2) Teamsters Health & Welfare Fund of Philadelphia, et
         al., v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

     (3) Action Alliance of Senior Citizens of Greater
         Philadelphia v. Immunex Corp.;

     (4) Constance Thompson, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories,
         Inc., et al.;

     (5) John Rice, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

     (6) Ronald Turner, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;
    

     (7) Congress of California Seniors v. Abbott Laboratories,
         et al.;

     (8) State of Montana v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

     (9) State of Nevada v. American Home Products Corp., et
         al.;

    (10) County of Suffolk v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;

    (11) IUOE, Local 68 v. AstraZeneca, PLC, et al.;

    (12) County of Westchester v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;
    
    (13) County of Rockland v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.;

    (14) City of New York v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al.;
         
    (15) County of Nassau v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et al;
         and

    (16) County of Onondaga v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et
         al.

In the MDL Proceeding, the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts has set various deadlines relating to motions
to dismiss the complaints, discovery, class certification,
summary judgment and other pre-trial issues.  For the class
action cases, the Court has divided the defendant companies into
a Phase I group and a Phase II group.  The class certification
hearing for the Phase I group was held on February 10, 2004.
Both Amgen and Immunex are in the Phase II group, and plaintiffs
have yet to file their motion for class certification as to the
Phase II companies.

Certain AWP cases are not a part of the MDL Proceeding. These
cases are:

     (i) Robert J. Swanston v. TAP Pharmaceutical Products,
         Inc., et al.  This Arizona state class action was filed
         against Amgen and Immunex on December 20, 2002 in the
         Maricopa County, Arizona Superior Court. The Court has
         set a hearing on plaintiffs' motion to certify a
         statewide class for May 13, 2005.

    (ii) Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. TAP Pharmaceutical
         Products, Inc., et al.  This case was filed against the
         Company in the Commonwealth Court for Pennsylvania in
         Harrisburg, Pennsylvania on March 10, 2004.  On
         February 1, 2005, the court sustained defendants
         Preliminary Objections, and gave the Commonwealth of
         Pennsylvania 30 days in which to file an amended
         complaint.

   (iii) State of Wisconsin v. Amgen, Inc., et al.  An amended
         complaint was filed against Amgen and Immunex on
         November 1, 2004 in the Circuit Court for Dane County,
         Wisconsin. Defendants filed their motions to dismiss
         the complaint on January 20, 2005.

    (iv) Commonwealth of Kentucky v. Alphapharma, Inc., et al.  
         This case was filed against Amgen and Immunex on
         November 4, 2004 in the Franklin County Circuit Court,
         Franklin County, Kentucky. Defendants filed their
         motions to dismiss the complaint on February 1, 2005.

     (v) State of Alabama v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., et. al.  
         This case was filed against Amgen and Immunex on
         January 26, 2005 in the Circuit Court of Montgomery
         County, Alabama.

    (vi) People of State of Illinois v. Abbott, et. al.  This
         case was filed against Amgen and Immunex on February 7,
         2005 in the Circuit Court for Cook County, Illinois.


CAMDEN PROPERTY: Settles Shareholder Lawsuit Over Summit Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Camden Property Trust (NYSE:CPT) entered into a memorandum of
understanding setting forth the terms of a settlement with
plaintiff's counsel of a purported class action lawsuit filed on
October 6, 2004 against Camden, Summit Properties Inc. and each
then member of the Board of Directors of Summit in the General
Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, of Mecklenburg
County, North Carolina in connection with the merger of Camden
and Summit, which closed on February 28, 2005.

Under the terms of the memorandum, the parties agreed to settle
the lawsuit subject to, among other things, court approval. If
the court approves the settlement, the lawsuit will be dismissed
with prejudice and the defendants will be released of all claims
related to the merger. In connection with negotiations relating
to the memorandum of understanding, the parties agreed to
include, and have included, in the joint proxy statement/
prospectus relating to the merger additional disclosures
regarding the merger. If the conditions are satisfied and the
action dismissed with prejudice, the plaintiff's counsel will
seek and Camden, as successor to Summit, will pay $383,000 in
settlement of this action for attorneys' fees and expenses.

The defendants deny all liability with respect to the facts and
claims alleged in this action, and specifically deny that any
further supplemental disclosure was required under any
applicable rule, statute, regulation, or law. However, the
defendants considered it desirable that these actions be settled
to avoid the substantial burden, expense, risk, inconvenience
and distraction of continued litigation and to fully and finally
resolve the settled claims.

For more details, contact Camden's Investor Relations Department
by Phone: 1-800-9Camden or 713-354-2787 or visit their Web site:
http://www.camdenliving.com.


CREDITRUST CORPORATION: Suit Settlement Hearing Set May 2, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed $7.5 million
settlement in the matter: In Re: Creditrust Corporation
Securities Litigation on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of the company during the period July 29, 1998
through May 31, 2000.

According to the Court, the hearing will be held before the
Honorable Marvin J. Garbis in the United States District Court,
District of Maryland, Garmatz Courthouse, 101 West Lombard
Street, Baltimore, MD 21201 at 10:00 a.m., on May 2, 2005.    

For more details, contact Creditrust Corporation Securities
Litigation c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP, Claims
Administrator by Mail: P.O. Box 1520, Philadelphia, PA 19105-
1520 or by Phone: (215) 665-1124.


ECHOSTAR COMMUNICATIONS: CO Court Dismisses Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court of Colorado dismissed without
prejudice the securities fraud class action complaint filed
against EchoStar Communications Corporation ("EchoStar" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: DISH), Charles W. Ergen, David Rayner,
Michael R. McConnell, Paul W. Orban and David Moskowitz on
behalf of purchasers of DISH securities during the period
between August 10, 2004 and March 9, 2005 (the "Class Period").
No class had been certified in this case before its dismissal.

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

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

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

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

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

Chitwood & Harley is not aware of any other securities class
action complaints presently pending against EchoStar, based on
its review of publicly available pleadings on the federal
court's PACER system, as of the issuance of this press release.

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


ELANCO ANIMAL: Recalls Micotil Antibiotic For Lack Of Labeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elanco Animal Health, Greenfield, IN initiated a recall of Lot
Number 43650A of Micotil 300 (tilmicosin Injection), 250 ml
vial.

Micotil is a macrolide antibiotic used for the treatment of
respiratory infections in cattle and sheep. The lot of Micotil
was distributed without the Client Information Sheet included.
The remainder of the product labeling (label, package insert)
was correctly placed on the product; and these items do contain
the same information. There are no other product defects
associated with this lot.

As the Client Information Sheet was not included, there is a
risk that individuals utilizing the product might be less apt to
fully read all the information on the human safety risks
associated with exposure when giving the product to cattle or
sheep. To date there have been no reported injuries associated
with the distribution of this lot.

Elanco initiated a voluntary recall of this lot on January 26,
2005. This recall has been recently classified as a Class I
recall. Since the initiation of the recall, over 97% of the
product has been returned or confirmed as having already been
used, and fewer than 130 vials from this lot remain in the
market. Elanco first notified its channel partners
(distributors) regarding this recall on January 26, 2005.

Anyone who has a vial of only this specific lot number, 43650A,
is requested to return it to the veterinarian or distributor
from which they purchased the product to receive a replacement
vial. Micotilr is a trademark for Elanco's brand of tilmicosin
injection.

For questions pertaining to the recall process, call Elanco
Customer Service at 1-800-782-897, option 1 or visit
http://www.elancous.com/docs/micotil/mico300.pdf.


EZEE MANUFACTURING: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set May 31, 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: In Re: James Brill v. EZEE
Manufacturing, Inc. (Case No. 03 CH 1096) on behalf of all
persons who on or after January 20, 1999 were sent advertising
faxes by the company.

The plaintiff filed the action in on behalf of a putative class
alleging that the defendant violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 ("TCPA"), and state law by
sending unsolicited facsimile advertisements. Defendant denies
plaintiff's allegations, and has raised defenses to plaintiff's
claims. Defendant also claims that the TCPA is unconstitutional.
Judge Patrick E. McGann disagreed, as have other trial and
appellate courts in various places, but there is no case from
the Illinois Appellate or Supreme Courts or the U. S. Supreme
Court addressing that issue.

According to the Court, the fairness hearing will take place on
May 31, 2005 at 11:00 a.m., in Room 2508 of the Circuit Court of
Cook County, Illinois, Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago,
Illinois, 60602.

For more details, contact Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC by Mail: 120 South LaSalle Street, 18TH
fl., Chicago, Illinois 60603 by Phone: (312) 739-4200 or Fax:
(312) 419-0379 by E-mail: edcombs@aol.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.edcombs.com.


FINLAND: Report On Feasibility Of Class Action Lawsuits Delayed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The publication of a report by a working group that is examining
the possibility of introducing class-action lawsuits to Finnish
civil law will be delayed until early next month, the Helsingin
Sanomat reports.
      
Under its mandate, the working group, which was originally given
a deadline of until the end of October of last year to publish
its findings, will not make a concrete proposal for a law on
class-action suits. Instead, it will present the various
arguments for and against the practice.

Class-action suits make it possible for a large number of
citizens to join forces in court against a company making a
defective product, or causing environmental damage, for
instance. Consumer groups see class action suits as an effective
way to protect consumer rights.  Finland's business community
though is opposed to any such legislation, fearing that they
might face frivolous legal action.  

Minister of Justice Johannes Koskinen rejected those fears as
baseless.  Previous attempts to get passage of a class-action
law in the 1990s foundered over opposition from business, and
from ministers of justice representing the pro-business National
Coalition Party.  The minister of justice hopes to win passage
of a class-action law during the present electoral term.


FLORIDA: Judge Accepts, Certifies Nazi Gold Train Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz gave the green light to the
settlement of a Holocaust lawsuit that requires the U.S.
government to admit plundering Jewish valuables from a Nazi Gold
Train, open up historical records and pay $25.5 million to help
needy Hungarian survivors, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel
reports.

The federal judge, who had appointed the Jewish Conference on
Material Claims to oversee distribution of the settlement fund,
accepted the terms and certified the suit as a class action,
thus keeping a final settlement on track for late October. At
the hearing, the judge also praised both parties, calling them
"peacemakers" and pointed out that the settlement gives the
government "the opportunity to step up to correct an injustice
that may have occurred 60 years ago."

Survivors who had brought the suit attended the four-hour
hearing in Miami, urging Judge Seitz to accept the terms so they
can experience emotional closure, help others, and leave behind
an accurate history of the disappearance of a three-ton treasure
trove.

Jack Rubin, of Boynton Beach, Fla., recounted to Judge Seitz
that he was 15 when the Nazis herded his family into the ghetto
in Beregszasz. He was given a five-gallon bucket and the job of
collecting Jewish valuables. He further recounted, "I had to go
to my very own father and mother. I had to say, `Mommy, put
everything in this pail - your rings, your watches so maybe it
will go easier for us.'" Mr. Rubin also adds that he was proud
that the United States had liberated him and now 60 years later
owned up to its role in the plunder of the Gold Train. He even
heartily shook the hand of a government lawyer, Daniel Meron,
who appeared to be moved by the gesture, the Sun-Sentinel
reports.

Irving Rosner, of Aventura, Fla., the lead plaintiff, told the
Sun-Sentinel "We brought this suit because a great country
should admit its mistakes. We believe this outcome does the most
good."

As previously reported in the June 30, 2004 edition of the Class
Action Reporter, the families claim that an estimated $50
million to $120 million in gold, jewels, art and other valuables
was taken from 800,000 Hungarian Jews during the closing days of
World War II by Nazi Germany and later by the U.S. Army, from
generals on down from the train that wound its way through
Hungary and Austria.

The American government had denied the train even existed up
until 1999. During that period, the Clinton administration's
Advisory Commission on Holocaust Assets declassified documents
from the National Archives that clearly shows American soldiers
had helped themselves to the Gold Train loot to decorate their
villas and officers clubs while overseeing the rebuilding of
Europe.

The commission's findings sparked the filing of the suit, which
was filed in 2001 and was actually the only Holocaust claim to
name the United States as a defendant. About 30,000 Hungarian
Jews and their survivors seek a trial on class-action claims of
large-scale looting and official denials about the train.

The settlement stipulates that individual plaintiffs will not
receive any money--instead the $21 million is slated for social
service agencies serving Hungarian survivors, $3.85 million for
legal fees, and $500,000 to set up historical archives. It also
stipulates that potential members of the class will be notified
and given the opportunity to object.

The legal fees could be one area of contention, Judge Seitz
noted. Already, she said, she has received a letter from a
member of the presidential commission, Sun-Sentinel reports.  In
that letter, Roland Kent wrote that in previous Holocaust
restitution suits, attorneys have sought fees as low as 1
percent, leaving more for the survivors. He also wrote that in
this case, "the lawyers did not uncover the facts," but simply
reviewed the commission's 2000 report.

However, Sam Dubbin, a Miami lawyer for the plaintiffs, pointed
out that the legal team traveled to Hungary and Israel to dig up
facts for a more detailed complaint filed in 2003. "We basically
finished the commission's work," Mr. Dubbin told the Sun-
Sentinel.


GENERAL MOTORS: Scott + Scott Plans To Launch ERISA Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Scott + Scott, LLC, which has filed an ERISA
(Employee Retirement Income Securities Act of 1974) case on
behalf of Delphi ERISA plan participants, after investigation,
will be filing a similar lawsuit on behalf of General Motors
(NYSE:GM) plan participants which include current and former
General Motors employees and their beneficiaries. The GM ERISA
plans at issue currently are:

     (1) The General Motors Personal Savings Plan

     (2) The General Motors Savings-Stock Purchase Programs

     (3) The GMAC Mortgage Group, Inc. Savings Incentive Plan

The General Motors Investment Corporation was named in a
previous lawsuit. In this lawsuit, individuals who acted as
fiduciaries for the General Motors 401(k) plans and will be
named in the complaint include: Richard Wagoner, Jr., E. Stanley
O'Neal, Armando Codina, Kent Kresa, Eckhard Pfeiffer, Phillip A.
Laskawy, Percy N. Barnevik, Nobuyjki Idei, John F. Smith, Jr.,
George M.C. Fisher, J. Willard Marriott, Jr. and Ellen J.
Kullman. The complaint to be filed represents those who
participated in the GM Plans/Programs since March 17, 1999.
Since that date, the stock price has fallen over 50%. It is
alleged that General Motors has been struggling for years to
fund high health care costs, skyrocketing materials costs,
pension costs, and more. It is also alleged that the Company has
experienced significant problems with their financing division.
Upon news earlier today that GM planned to slash its first
quarter earnings, the stock plunged approximately 14%.

According to Forbes, Standard & Poor's Equity Research
maintained a "sell" rating on General Motors and cut the target
price to $26 from $32, saying the magnitude of the automaker's
first-quarter warning is "very disappointing." GM warned
Wednesday that it will miss first-quarter and full 2005
expectations, with a first-quarter loss-per-share now forecasted
at $1.50 and a full-year earnings-per-share of $1 to $2. S&P
Equity Research lowered its first-quarter estimate to a loss per
share of $1.45 from earnings of 14 cents. The research firm
lowered the 2005 and 2006 earnings-per-share estimates on GM to
50 cents and $4, respectively, from $3.85 and $4.96.

For more details, contact Neil Rothstein by Phone: 800/404-7770
(EST) or 800/332-2259 (PST) or 619/251-0887 (Direct) by E-mail:
nrothstein@scott-scott.com or visit their Web site:
http://www.scott-scott.com.   


H&R BLOCK: Trial in RAL Lawsuit Set For October 2005 in WV Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against H&R Block, Inc., styled
"Deandra D. Cummins, et al. V. H&R Block, Inc., et al., Case No.
03-C-134," is set for October 2005 in the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, West Virginia.

The suit relates to the Company's refund anticipation loan (RAL)
programs.  The suits allege a variety of legal theories,
including allegations that, among other things:

     (1) disclosures in the RAL applications were inadequate,
         misleading and untimely;

     (2) the RAL interest rates were usurious and
         unconscionable;

     (3) the company did not disclose that it would receive part
         of the finance charges paid by the customer for such
         loans;

     (4) breach of state laws on credit service organizations;

     (5) breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair and
         deceptive acts or practices;

     (6) violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and
         Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act;

     (7) violations of the federal Fair Debt Collection
         Practices Act; and

     (8) that the company owes and breached a fiduciary duty to
         its customers in connection with the RAL program.

On December 30, 2004, the trial court certified a class
consisting of all West Virginia residents who obtained RALs from
January 1, 1994 to present.  On February 23, 2005, the U.S.
Supreme Court denied the Company's request to review the West
Virginia Supreme Court's decision not to review the trial
court's denial of the Company's motion to compel arbitration.


H&R BLOCK: Discovery Begins in IL Suit V. Peace of Mind Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the class action filed against H&R
Block, Inc. in the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois
styled "Lorie J. Marshall, et al. v. H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., et al., Civil Action 2002L000004."

Plaintiffs' claims consist of five counts relating to the
defendants' Peace of Mind program under which the applicable tax
return preparation subsidiary assumes liability for the cost of
additional tax assessments attributable to tax return
preparation error.  The plaintiffs allege that defendants' sale
of its Peace of Mind guarantee constitutes statutory fraud by
selling insurance without a license, an unfair trade practice by
omission and by "cramming" (i.e., charging customers for the
guarantee even though they did not request it and/or did not
want it), and constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty.

In August 2003, the court certified the following plaintiff
classes:

     (1) all persons who were charged a separate fee for Peace
         of Mind by H&R Block or a defendant H&R Block class
         member from January 1, 1997 to final judgment;

     (2) all persons who reside in certain class states and who
         were charged a separate fee for Peace of Mind by H&R
         Block, or a defendant H&R Block class member, and that
         was not licensed to sell insurance, from January 1,
         1997 to final judgment; and

     (3) all persons who had an unsolicited charge for Peace of
         Mind posted to their bills by H&R Block, or a defendant
         H&R Block class member from January 1, 1997, to final
         judgment.

Among those excluded from the plaintiff classes are all persons
who received the Peace of Mind guarantee through an H&R Block
Premium office and all persons who reside in Texas and Alabama.
The court also certified a defendant class consisting of any
entity with the names "H&R Block" or "HRB" in its name, or
otherwise affiliated or associated with H&R Block Tax Services,
Inc., and which sold or sells the Peace of Mind product.  The
trial court subsequently denied the defendants' motion asking
the trial court to certify the class certification issues for
interlocutory appeal.  No trial date has been set.

There is one other putative class action pending against the
Company in Texas that involves the Peace of Mind guarantee. This
case is being tried before the same judge that presided over the
Texas RAL Settlement and involves the same plaintiffs attorneys
that are involved in the Marshall litigation in Illinois and
substantially similar allegations. No class has been certified
in this case.


HGK ASSET: Reveals Details of J.P. Morgan's WorldCom Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
HGK Asset Management, Inc. reports that J.P. Morgan Chase and
certain of its affiliates agreed to pay $2.0-billion in
settlement of claims asserted against them in the WorldCom class
action litigation.

The amount to be paid by J.P. Morgan Chase represents a premium
of about 50% over the settlement formula used by the Citigroup
Defendants in May 2004 to settle the bond portions of the claims
against them. J.P. Morgan Chase is the second largest U.S. bank
and the last major financial institution to settle the class-
action lawsuit.

If the Court approves the J.P. Morgan Chase settlement, the
total amount recovered for WorldCom investors will be
$6,001,500,000 -- by far the largest class action settlement in
U.S. history, according to HGK.

"This is wonderful news for WorldCom's former shareholders and
bondholders, and brings the case near final resolution," said
Jeffrey T. Harris, Chairman of HGK Asset Management, Inc.
("HGK"). "When the defendants' wrongful conduct damaged our
clients, we felt duty-bound to come aggressively to their
defense," said Mr. Harris. "And the best way to do that was to
participate in the litigation and recover as much of our
clients' investment as possible," Mr. Harris concluded. Since
the passage of Private Securities Litigation Reform Act in 1995,
only a handful of professional asset management organizations
have stepped forward to lead a class action suit, and HGK's
success in this litigation is unparalleled. HGK is participating
in the case as an Additional Named Plaintiff and Certified Class
Representative.

Remaining defendants in the ongoing case include WorldCom's
former auditor, Arthur Andersen LLP, and 12 former company
directors.

The class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of all persons or
organizations that purchased or otherwise acquired publicly
traded securities of WorldCom during the period April 29, 1999
through June 25, 2002, inclusive.

HGK, a registered investment advisor under the Investment
Advisors Act of 1940, is an employee-owned organization with
about $3-billion under management whose clients consist
primarily of multi-employer benefit funds. HGK was represented
in this litigation by the New York-based law firm, Schoengold,
Sporn, Laitman and Lometti.

For more details, contact Jeffrey T. Harris, Chairman, or Arthur
E. Coia II, President, both of HGK Asset Management, Inc. by
Phone: +1-201-659-3700.


IDAHO: Attorney General Wasden Obtains Refunds For Remeron Drug
---------------------------------------------------------------
Idaho residents who use the antidepressant drug Remeron may
apply for refunds under an antitrust settlement between the 50
states and the drug's manufacturer, Idaho Attorney General
Lawrence Wasden announced in a statement.  In addition, the
State of Idaho will be compensated for overpayments by
governmental entities, such as Medicaid, that paid for the
drugs. The amount paid to the state will be determined at a
later date.  Third-party payors, such as health insurance plans,
are also eligible to recover money.

Mr. Wasden encouraged consumers who purchased the prescription
drug Remeron or its generic equivalent, mirtazapine, between
June 15, 2001 and January 25, 2005 to file claims in the $36
million nationwide settlement with drug maker Organon USA Inc.  
and its parent company Akzo Nobel N.V.  Links to the claim form
and additional information are available on the Consumer
Protection section of Attorney General Wasden's website
(http://www.ag.idaho.gov).Consumers may also call a toll-free  
number (1-866-401-6807) to obtain a claim form and more
information.   

"The defendants in this case abused the regulatory scheme to
stifle competition and prevent consumers from having access to
low-cost, generic equivalents of this drug," Mr. Wasden said.
"The settlement prohibits the defendants from engaging in such
conduct in the future and represents a way for Idaho to help
lower prescription drug costs for its consumers."

The states alleged that Organon unlawfully extended its monopoly
by improperly listing a new "combination therapy" patent with
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In addition, the
complaint alleged that Organon delayed listing the patent with
the FDA in another effort to delay the availability of lower-
cost generic substitutes. This resulted in higher prices for the
drug.  Remeron, at its peak, was the Organon's top-selling drug
with annual sales in excess of $400 million.  The settlement,
when it receives final court approval, will resolve both claims
brought by state attorneys general, as well as a private class
action brought on behalf of a class of end payors.

Consumers must file a claim form in order to obtain a refund.
The deadline for filing claims is June 13, 2005.  Claims may be
submitted online or mailed to the settlement administrator.  
Claims must be submitted online or postmarked no later than June
13, 2005.  Affected consumers who do not wish to remain part of
the settlement class must exclude themselves in writing on or
before April 27, 2005.  Information on "opting-out" of the
settlement also is available at the settlement website or by
calling the toll-free number.


ILLINOIS: Uninsured Patient Files Suits V. Belleville Hospitals
---------------------------------------------------------------
St. Elizabeth's and Memorial Hospitals face class actions filed
by Robert Schmitt, claiming that they charged higher rates to
uninsured patients, the Madison County Record reports.  The
suits, filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court, are nearly
identical and allege breach of contract and violation of the
Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

In his suit, Mr. Schmitt, who was an uninsured patient at both
hospitals, contends that the healthcare providers sometimes
charge uninsured patients twice as much as they do to insurance
companies and government payors such as Medicare, Medicaid and
Illinois Public Aid.

"In reality, Memorial (and St. Elizabeth's) is anything but
charitable. While Memorial promises to provide charity care to
the uninsured poor, Memorial engages in a pattern and practice
of charging unreasonable, excessive and inflated rates for
medical care to its uninsured patients who are all too often
impoverished members of the community with little or no means to
pay," states Mr. Schmitt, who is represented by Mark Goldenberg,
Elizabeth Heller and W. Stan Faulkner of the Edwardsville firm
Goldenberg, Miller, Heller & Antognoli P.C., the Madison County
Record reports.

Court documents reveal that on September 11, 2003, Schmitt was
admitted to Memorial Hospital's emergency room for an injured
right knee, where he was billed for a total of $3,757. The
documents also reveal that on August 28, 2004, Schmitt was
treated at St. Elizabeth's Hospital's emergency room for
injuries to his right foot, where he was charged $580.

The hospitals employed collection agencies to pursue payment for
both visits, according to the suits. "Not only does Memorial
charge its uninsured patients the highest rates for medical
care, which most cannot afford to pay, it has also engaged in
the uniform pattern and practice of aggressively pursuing such
debt through collection efforts," the suit further states. "It
has filed hundreds of lawsuits, garnished patients' wages and
seized tax refunds," the suits add.

Mr. Schmitt, a St. Clair County resident, also claims the
hospitals "scheme" to dissuade uninsured patients from applying
for financial assistance. He points out in his suits, "Memorial
routinely places obstacles in the way of patients applying for
charity care that have the impact of discouraging class members
from making legitimate application for charity cases."


IRWIN BUSINESS: NorVergence Customers File Fraud Lawsuit in FL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Business Finance Corporation was named as defendant, along
with other lenders, in a class action filed in the Circuit Court
of the 11th Judicial Circuit, Miami-Dade County, Florida,
related to NorVergence, Inc.

A portion of the Company's telecommunications portfolio involves
leases of equipment acquired from NorVergence, Inc., a New
Jersey-based telecommunications company. After assigning leases
to Irwin and other lenders, NorVergence became a debtor in a
Chapter 7 bankruptcy, which is currently pending in the United
States Bankruptcy Court in New Jersey.  The sudden failure of
NorVergence left many of its customers without
telecommunications service. These customers became very angry
when commitments made to them by NorVergence went unfulfilled.

The suit seeks class certification on behalf of Florida persons
or entities who leased equipment from NorVergence and whose
agreement was assigned to one of the named lenders. The
plaintiffs allege that NorVergence engaged in false, misleading
and deceptive sales and billing practices.  The complaint
alleges violations of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act, the FTC Holder Rule, and breach of contract and
warranties. Plaintiffs seek, among other relief, compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive and/or declaratory relief
prohibiting enforcement of the leases, rescission, return of
payments, interest, attorneys' fees and costs.

A similar class action styled "Sterling Asset & Equity
Corporation et al. v. Preferred Capital, Inc. et al," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida in October 2004, was voluntarily dismissed in January
2005.


IRWIN HOME: Parties Settle MA TILA Suit, Court Issues Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in Massachusetts dismissed the
class action filed against Irwin Home Equity Corporation and
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company, styled "McIntosh v. Irwin
Home Equity Corporation."

The case involved loans purchased by Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Company from an unaffiliated third-party originator.  The
plaintiffs alleged a failure to comply with certain disclosure
provisions of the Truth in Lending Act relating to high-rate
loans in making second mortgage home equity loans to the
plaintiff borrowers.  The complaint sought rescission of the
loans and other damages.

A limited class was certified. As originally specified, the
plaintiff class included those borrowers who obtained a mortgage
loan originated by the third-party originator with prepayment
penalty provisions during the three-year period prior to the
filing of the suit.  Subsequently, the court further restricted
the class to those borrowers with high-rate loans subject to the
Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act who refinanced their
loans and paid a prepayment penalty. A preliminary analysis led
the Company to conclude that fewer than 100 loans qualified for
class membership.  The parties settled this matter for a
nonmaterial amount.  

The suit is styled "McIntosh et al v. Irwin Union Bank, et al,
case no. 1:01-cv-11174-WGY," filed in the United States District
Court in Massachusetts, under Judge William G. Young.  
Representing the Company are Padmini B. Connelly, Brian Marc
Forbes and Irene C. Freidel, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, 75 State
Street, Boston, MA 02109, Phone: 617-261-3143, Fax:
617-261-3175, E-mail: mconnelly@kl.com, bforbes@klng.com,
ifreidel@kl.com.  Representing the plaintiffs are Tara L.
Goodwin, Edelman, Combs & Latturner, 18th Floor 120 S. LaSalle
Street, Chicago, IL 60603, Phone: 312-739-4200, Fax:
312-419-0379, E-mail: courtecl@aol.com; and Christopher M.
Lefebvre, PO Box 479, Pawtucket, RI 02862, Phone: 401-728-6060,
Fax: 401-728-6534, E-mail: lefeblaw@aol.com.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: IN Consumers Sue Over Document Preparation Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation faces a class action filed in the
Marion County, Indiana Superior Court, styled "Silke v. Irwin
Mortgage Corporation."  The complaint alleges that the Company
charged a document preparation fee in violation of Indiana law
for services performed by clerical personnel in completing legal
documents related to mortgage loans.

The Company filed an answer on June 11, 2003 and a motion for
summary judgment on October 27, 2003.  On June 18, 2004, the
court certified a plaintiff class consisting of Indiana
borrowers who were allegedly charged the fee by the Company any
time after April 17, 1997.  This date was later clarified by
stipulation of the parties to be April 14, 1997.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Reaches Settlement For Borrowers' Lawsuit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation reached a settlement for a class
action filed against it in the District Court of Nueces County,
Texas, styled "Gutierrez v. Irwin Mortgage Corporation."  The
complaint alleged that the Company improperly charged borrowers
fees for the services of third-party vendors in excess of the
Company's costs, and charged certain fees to which plaintiffs
did not agree. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class
consisting of similarly situated borrowers.  

In August 2004, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to remove
the allegations that the Company charged excess fees.  After a
period of discovery, the parties settled this case for a
nonmaterial amount.


IRWIN MORTGAGE: Faces Mortgage Broker Fees Lawsuit in AL Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Mortgage Corporation (formerly known as Inland Mortgage
Corporation) continues to face a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, styled "Culpepper v. Inland Mortgage Corporation."

The suit alleges that the Company violated the federal Real
Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) relating to the
Company's payment of broker fees to mortgage brokers.  In June
2001, the Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld the
district court's certification of a plaintiff class and the case
was remanded for further proceedings in the federal district
court.

In November 2001, by order of the district court, the parties
filed supplemental briefs analyzing the impact of an October 18,
2001 policy statement issued by the Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) that explicitly disagreed with the
judicial interpretation of RESPA by the Court of Appeals for the
11th Circuit in its ruling upholding class certification in this
case.  In response to a motion from the Company, in March 2002,
the district court granted the Company's motion to stay
proceedings in this case until the 11th Circuit decided the
three other RESPA cases originally argued before it with this
case.

The 11th Circuit subsequently decided all of the RESPA cases
pending in that court. In one of those cases, the 11th Circuit
concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in
certifying a class action under RESPA.  Further, in that
decision, the 11th Circuit expressly recognized it was, in
effect, overruling its previous decision upholding class
certification in our case.  In March 2003, the Company filed a
motion to decertify the class and the plaintiffs filed a renewed
motion for summary judgment.  On October 2, 2003 the case was
reassigned to another U.S. district court judge.  In response to
an order from the court, the parties met and submitted a joint
status report at the end of October 2003.  On June 14, 2004, at
the court's request, the parties engaged in mediation, which was
unsuccessful.  The court then reassigned this case to a new
judge.

If the class is not decertified and the district court finds
that the Company violated RESPA, the Company could be liable for
damages equal to three times the amount of that portion of
payments made to the mortgage brokers that is ruled unlawful.
Based on notices sent by the plaintiffs to date to potential
class members and additional notices that might be sent in this
case, the Company believes the class is not likely to exceed
32,000 borrowers who meet the class specifications.

The suit is styled Culpepper et al. v. Inland Mortgage
Corporation, case no. 2:96-cv-00917-VEH-HGD Culpepper, filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Alabama, under Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins.

Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) David R. Donaldson, David J. Guin, Tammy McClendon
         Stokes, DONALDSON & GUIN LLC, Two North Twentieth
         Building 2 North 20th Street, Suite 1100, Birmingham,
         AL 35203, Phone: 226-2282, Fax: 226-226-2357, E-mail:
         DavidD@dglawfirm.com, davidg@dglawfirm.com,
         tstokes@dglawfirm.com

     (2) Richard S Gordon, Kieron F. Quinn, QUINN GORDON & WOLF,
         40 West Chesapeake Avenue, Suite 408, Baltimore, MD
         21204-4803, Phone: 1-410-825-2300, Fax: 1-410-825-0066

Representing the Company are:

     (i) David S. Hay, Janel E. LaBoda, Alan Hall Maclin, J.
         Patrick McDavitt, Robert J. Pratte, Margaret K. Savage,
         BRIGGS & MORGAN, 2200 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street,
         Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: 1-612-977-8400, Fax: 1-
         612-977-8650

    (ii) Sarah Y. Larson, Alexander J. Marshall III, Cathy S.
         Wright, MAYNARD COOPER & GALE PC, AmSouth Harbert
         Plaza, Suite 2400, 1901 6th Avenue North, Birmingham,
         AL 35203-2618, 254-1000, Fax: 254-1999, E-mail:
         slarson@mcglaw.com


IRWIN UNION: Move To Transfer Community Loans Suits To W.D. PA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Irwin Union Bank and Trust Company moved to transfer three class
actions filed against it in connection with loans it purchased
from Community Bank of Northern Virginia (Community) to the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania.

The first suit, styled "Hobson v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Company," was filed on July 30, 2004 in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.  As amended
on August 30, 2004, the Hobson complaint, seeks certification of
both a plaintiffs' and a defendants' class, the plaintiffs'
class to consist of all persons who obtained loans from
Community and whose loans were purchased by Irwin Union Bank.
The suit alleges that defendants violated the Truth-in-Lending
Act (TILA), the Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act
(HOEPA), the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and
the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).  
On October 12, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
Hobson claims as untimely filed and substantively defective.

Another suit, styled "Kossler v. Community Bank of Northern
Virginia," was originally filed in July 2002 in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
Irwin Union Bank and Trust was added as a defendant in December
2004.  The Kossler complaint seeks certification of a
plaintiffs' class and seeks to void the mortgage loans as
illegal contracts.  Plaintiffs also seek recovery against the
Company for alleged RESPA violations and for conversion.

The plaintiffs in Hobson and Kossler claim that Community was
allegedly engaged in a lending arrangement involving the use of
its charter by certain third parties who charged high fees that
were not representative of the services rendered and not
properly disclosed as to the amount or recipient of the fees.
The loans in question are allegedly high cost/high interest
loans under Section 32 of HOEPA.  Plaintiffs also allege illegal
kickbacks and fee splitting.

In Hobson, the plaintiffs allege that the Company was aware of
Community's alleged arrangement when the Company purchased the
loans and that the Company participated in a RICO enterprise and
conspiracy related to the loans.  Because the Company bought the
loans from Community, the Hobson plaintiffs are alleging that
the Company has assignee liability under HOEPA.

If the Hobson and Kossler plaintiffs are successful in
establishing a class and prevailing at trial, possible RESPA
remedies could include treble damages for each service for which
there was an unearned fee, kickback or overvalued service, the
Company stated in a regulatory filing.  Other possible damages
in Hobson could include TILA remedies, such as rescission,
actual damages, statutory damages not to exceed the lesser of
$500,000 or 1% of the net worth of the creditor, and attorneys'
fees and costs; possible HOEPA remedies could include the
refunding of all closing costs, finance charges and fees paid by
the borrower; RICO remedies could include treble plaintiffs'
actually proved damages. In addition, the Hobson plaintiffs are
seeking unspecified punitive damages.  Under TILA, HOEPA, RESPA
and RICO, statutory remedies include recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs.  Other possible damages in Kossler could include the
refunding of all origination fees paid by the plaintiffs.

The Company is also a defendant, along with Community, in two
individual actions, styled "Chatfield v. Irwin Union Bank and
Trust Company, et al." and "Ransom v. Irwin Union Bank and Trust
Company, et al.," filed on June 9, 2004 in the Circuit Court of
Frederick County, Maryland, involving mortgage loans the Company
purchased from Community.  On July 16, 2004, both of these
lawsuits were removed to the United States District Court for
the District of Maryland.  The complaints allege that the
plaintiffs did not receive disclosures required under HOEPA and
TILA.  The lawsuits also allege violations of Maryland law
because the plaintiffs were allegedly charged or contracted for
a prepayment penalty fee.

The Company believes the plaintiffs received the required
disclosures and that Community, a Virginia-chartered bank, was
permitted to charge prepayment fees to Maryland borrowers.  
Under the loan purchase agreements between the Company and
Community, the Company has the right to demand repurchase of the
mortgage loans and to seek indemnification from Community for
the claims in these lawsuits.  Under the loan purchase agreement
between the Company and Community, the Company has the right to
demand repurchase of the mortgage loans and indemnification from
Community for these claims.  On September 17, 2004, the Company
made a demand for indemnification and a defense to Hobson,
Chatfield and Ransom.  Community denied this request as
premature.

On December 22, 2004, the Company filed a motion with the
Judicial Panel On Multidistrict Litigation requesting a transfer
of Hobson, Chatfield and Ransom to the Western District of
Pennsylvania for coordinated or consolidated proceedings with
the Kossler action.  That motion was accepted by the Panel, and
plaintiffs filed a motion in opposition.


LUTHERAN BROTHERHOOD: Suit Settlement Hearing Set June 7, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed settlement in the
matter: In Re: Lutheran Brotherhood Insurance Product Sales
Practices Litigation on behalf of all persons who own or owned
life insurances issued by the Company or Thrivent Financial for
Lutherans during the period form January 1, 1982 through
September 15, 2004.

According to the court, the hearing will be held before Judge
Paul A. Magnuson on June 7, 2005, at the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota, 730 Federal Building, 316
N. Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101.

For more details, contact Lutheran Brotherhood Class Action
Information Center by Mail: P.O. Box 7904, Des Miones, IA 50323-
7904.   


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Reaches Settlement For NYAG Probe, Civil Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. is still working on the
settlement of the investigation and civil complaint filed by the
Office of the New York State Attorney General (NYAG) Eliot
Spitzer over broker compensation arrangements, generally and
compensation under placement or market service agreements,
specifically.

In April 2004, the NYAG commenced an investigation, and issued a
subpoena to the Company on April 7, 2004.  The NYAG followed
with additional subpoenas in the summer and fall of 2004.  On
October 14, 2004, NYAG filed a civil complaint in New York State
court against the Company and Marsh Inc. (collectively "Marsh")
asserting claims under New York law for fraudulent business
practices, antitrust violations, securities fraud, unjust
enrichment, and common law fraud.

The complaint alleged that market service agreements between
Marsh and various insurance companies (the "Agreements"),
created an improper incentive for Marsh to steer business to
such insurance companies and to shield them from competition.
The complaint further alleged that these Agreements were not
adequately disclosed to Marsh's clients or to Marsh's investors.  
In addition, the complaint alleged that Marsh engaged in bid-
rigging and solicited fraudulent bids to create the appearance
of competitive bidding.  The complaint sought relief that
included an injunction prohibiting Marsh from engaging in the
alleged wrongful conduct, disgorgement of all profits related to
such conduct, restitution and unspecified damages, attorneys'
fees, and punitive damages.

On October 21, 2004, the New York State Insurance Department
(the "NYSID") issued a citation, amended on October 24, 2004
(the "Amended Citation"), that ordered the Company and a number
of its subsidiaries and affiliates that hold New York insurance
licenses to appear at a hearing and show cause why regulatory
action should not be taken against them. The amended citation
charged the respondents with the use of fraudulent, coercive and
dishonest practices; violations of Section 340 of the New York
General Business Law relating to contracts or agreements for
monopoly or in restraint of trade; and violations of the New
York Insurance Law that resulted from unfair methods of
competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices.  The
Amended Citation contemplated a number of potential actions the
NYSID could take, including the revocation of licenses held by
the respondents.

On October 25, 2004, NYAG announced that it would not bring
criminal charges against Marsh.  On January 30, 2005, Marsh
entered into an agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") with NYAG
and the NYSID to settle the NYAG Lawsuit and the Amended
Citation.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Marsh will establish a
fund of $850 million (the "Fund"), payable over four years, for
Marsh policyholder clients.  As a general matter, U.S.
policyholder clients who retained Marsh to place insurance
between 2001 and 2004 that resulted in Marsh receiving market
service revenue will be eligible to receive a pro rata
distribution. No showing of fault, harm or wrongdoing is
required in order to receive a distribution. No portion of the
Fund represents a fine or penalty against Marsh and no portion
of the Fund will revert to Marsh. Clients who voluntarily elect
to participate in the Fund will tender a release relating to the
matters alleged in the NYAG Lawsuit or the Amended Citation,
except for claims which are based upon, arise out of or relate
to the purchase or sale of Marsh securities. The Settlement
Agreement further provides that Marsh will not seek or accept
indemnification pursuant to any insurance policy for amounts
payable pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.

Marsh also agreed to undertake the following business reforms
within 60 days of the date of the Settlement Agreement:

     (1) Marsh will accept compensation for its services in
         placing, renewing, consulting on or servicing any
         insurance policy only by a specific fee paid by the
         client; or by a specific percentage commission on
         premium to be paid by the insurer; or a combination of
         both. The amount of such compensation must be fully
         disclosed to, and consented to in writing, by the
         client prior to the binding of any policy;

     (2) Marsh must give clients prior notification before
         retaining interest earned on premiums collected on
         behalf of insurers;

     (3) In placing, renewing, consulting on or servicing any
         insurance policy, Marsh will not accept from or request
         of any insurer any form of contingent compensation;

     (4) In placing, renewing, consulting on or servicing any
         insurance policy, Marsh will not knowingly use
         wholesalers for the placement, renewal, consultation on
         or servicing of insurance without the agreement of its
         client;

     (5) Prior to the binding of an insurance policy, Marsh will
         disclose to clients all quotes and indications sought
         or received from insurers, including the compensation
         to be received by Marsh in connection with each quote.
         Marsh also will disclose to clients at year-end Marsh's
         compensation in connection with the client's policy;
         and

     (6) Marsh will implement company-wide written standards of
         conduct relating to compensation and will train
         relevant employees in a number of subject matters,
         including business ethics, professional obligations,
         conflicts of interest, anti-trust and trade practices
         compliance, and record keeping.

The Company's Board of Directors has established a committee of
the Board to monitor compliance with the standards of conduct
regarding compensation from insurers and will make quarterly
reports to the Board of the results of its monitoring activity
for a period of five years.  The Settlement Agreement further
provides that Marsh reserves the right to request that NYAG and
the NYSID modify the Settlement Agreement if compliance with any
portion thereof proves impracticable.

Though Mercer Inc. ("Mercer") was not a defendant in the NYAG
Lawsuit, U.S. policyholder clients that retained Mercer to
place, renew, consult on or service insurance between 2001 and
2004 that related to Mercer receiving contingent commissions or
overrides are eligible to participate in the Fund.

On January 6, 2005, NYAG filed a felony complaint against former
Marsh employee Robert Stearns as to which Mr. Stearns has
entered a guilty plea.  On February 15, 2005 and February 24,
2005, former Marsh employees, Joshua Bewlay and Kathryn Winter,
respectively, pled guilty to certain claims.

The Settlement Agreement does not resolve any investigation,
proceeding or action commenced by NYAG or NYSID against any
former or current employees of Marsh. As part of the Settlement
Agreement, Marsh apologized for the improper conduct of certain
employees.  Marsh also agreed to continue to cooperate with NYAG
and NYSID in connection with their ongoing investigations of the
insurance industry, and in any related proceedings or actions.
NYAG has publicly stated that additional charges and/or guilty
pleas involving Marsh personnel and others are highly likely.  
Investigations by the offices of attorneys general in 18
jurisdictions, and the departments of insurance or other state
agencies in 29 other jurisdictions remain pending.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Litigation Over Broker Fee Agreements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC), one or more of its
subsidiaries and its current and former officers and directors
continue to face numerous lawsuits, relating to matters alleged
in the New York Attorney General Lawsuit, relating to broker
compensation arrangements, generally and compensation under
placement or market service agreements, specifically.

Fifteen putative class actions have been brought purportedly on
behalf of policyholders in various federal courts, including the
Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New
Jersey, the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the Northern
District of Illinois, the Southern District of Texas and the
Northern District of California.  These actions generally
include statutory claims for violations of the Racketeering
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, federal and state
antitrust laws and state unfair business practice laws, and
common law claims for, among other things, breach of contract,
fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of duty of loyalty, and
unjust enrichment.  The complaints seek a variety of remedies
including unspecified monetary damages, treble damages,
disgorgement, restitution, punitive damages, injunctive relief,
an accounting, and attorneys' fees and costs. The longest class
period alleged in these policyholder cases begins on January 1,
1994 and continues to February 4, 2005. On February 17, 2005,
the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred a
number of these federal cases to the District of New Jersey for
coordination or consolidated pretrial proceedings. It is
anticipated that all of the other federal cases brought by
policyholders will be transferred as well. Five similar class or
representative actions are pending in state courts -- two in
California, one in New York, one in Massachusetts and one in
Texas.  Two putative class actions are pending in Canada. There
are at least two actions brought by individual policyholders and
additional suits may be filed by other policyholders.

On January 21, 2005, the State of Connecticut commenced a
lawsuit against Marsh challenging Marsh's conduct in connection
with the placement of a loss portfolio transfer of workers'
compensation claims for the State of Connecticut's Department of
Administrative Services. The complaint alleges that Marsh
violated Connecticut's Unfair Trade Practices Act by, among
other things, failing to disclose a $50,000 payment Marsh
received from the insurer in connection with the transfer. The
complaint seeks remedies that include an accounting, actual and
punitive damages, and the costs of investigation and conduct of
the lawsuit.

Four purported class actions on behalf of individuals and
entities who purchased or acquired the Company's publicly-traded
securities during the purported class periods are pending in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The purported class periods extend from October 15, 1999
to October 14, 2004. These complaints allege, among other
things, that the Company inflated its earnings during the class
period by engaging in unsustainable business practices as
alleged in the NYAG lawsuit. These complaints further allege,
among other things, that defendants deceived the investing
public regarding MMC's business, operations, management, and the
intrinsic value of MMC's stock, and caused the plaintiffs and
other members of the purported class to purchase MMC's
securities at artificially inflated prices. The complaints
allege, among other things, that MMC failed to disclose that the
revenue derived from MSA agreements with insurers was part of an
unlawful scheme, which could not be sustained and which exposed
the Company to significant regulatory sanctions, and that MMC
failed to disclose certain alleged anti-competitive and illegal
practices, such as "bid rigging" and soliciting fictitious
quotes, at MMC's subsidiaries. The complaints further allege
that MMC's revenues and earnings would have been significantly
lower had MMC's subsidiaries not engaged in these allegedly
unlawful business practices. The complaints contain factual
allegations similar to those asserted in the NYAG Lawsuit and
include claims for violations of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 based on the
company's allegedly false or incomplete disclosures and seek
unspecified compensatory damages and attorneys' fees. On January
26, 2005, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York issued an order consolidating these
complaints into a single proceeding and appointing co-lead
plaintiffs and co-lead counsel to represent the purported class.
On February 18, 2005, the Court entered an order requiring the
co-lead plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint by April 19,
2005, and providing that the Company will have until July 5,
2005 to answer or otherwise respond to the consolidated
complaint.

Several shareholder derivative actions are pending against the
Company's current and former directors and officers in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York and the New York
Supreme Court for New York County. These actions allege, among
other things, that current and former directors and officers of
MMC breached their fiduciary duties with respect to the alleged
misconduct described in the NYAG Lawsuit, are liable to MMC for
damages arising from their breaches of fiduciary duty, and must
contribute to or indemnify MMC for any damages MMC has suffered.  
MMC has also received six demand letters from shareholders
asking the MMC Board of Directors to take appropriate legal
action against those directors and officers who are alleged to
have caused damages to MMC based on the facts alleged in the
NYAG Lawsuit.

Nineteen purported class actions alleging violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") have been
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of participants in one or more
MMC and Putnam sponsored employee benefit plans (the "Plans").
The purported class periods vary, with the longest alleged class
period extending from October 1, 1998 to February 10, 2005.
These complaints allege, among other things that, in view of the
allegedly fraudulent bids and the receipt of contingent
commissions pursuant to the Agreements, the defendants knew or
should have known that the investment of the Plans' funds in MMC
stock was imprudent. These complaints assert claims for
violations of ERISA based on, among other things, the alleged
failure to manage the Plans' assets properly, to monitor the
Plans' fiduciaries, to provide complete and accurate information
to participants and beneficiaries of the Plans, and to avoid
conflicts of interest and prohibited transactions. The
complaints seek, among other things, unspecified compensatory
damages, restitution, disgorgement, injunctive relief and
attorneys' fees.

The amount of Plan assets invested in MMC stock at October 13,
2004 (immediately prior to the announcement of the NYAG Lawsuit)
was approximately $1.2 billion. The MMC stock price declined
upon the announcement of the NYAG Lawsuit from approximately $45
per share immediately prior to such announcement to a low of
$22.75 after such announcement. On February 9, 2005, the Court
issued an order consolidating these complaints into a single
proceeding and appointing co-lead plaintiffs and lead counsel to
represent the purported class. The order requires plaintiffs'
counsel to confer on the timing of a consolidated complaint and
submit a proposed scheduling order to the court.


MARSH & MCLENNAN: Faces Market-Timing, Late Trading Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marsh & McLennan, Inc. and Putnam Investments Trust have
received complaints in over 70 civil actions based on
allegations of "market-timing" and in some cases "late trading"
activities.  These actions were filed in courts in New York,
Massachusetts, California, Illinois, Connecticut, Delaware,
Vermont, Kansas, and North Carolina. All of the actions filed in
federal court have been transferred, along with actions against
other mutual fund complexes, to the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. The lead plaintiffs in those cases filed
consolidated amended complaints on September 29, 2004.  The
Company and Putnam intend to move to dismiss the non-ERISA
consolidated amended complaints on February 25, 2005 and the
ERISA-related complaints on March 25, 2005.

The Company and Putnam, along with certain of their former
officers and directors, have been named in a consolidated
amended class action complaint (the "MMC Class Action")
purportedly brought on behalf of all purchasers of the publicly-
traded securities of the Company between January 3, 2000 and
November 3, 2003 (the "Class Period").  In general, the MMC
Class Action alleges that the defendants, including the Company,
allowed certain mutual fund investors and fund managers to
engage in market-timing in the Putnam family of funds.

The complaint further alleges that this conduct was not
disclosed until late 2003, in violation of sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that, as a result
of defendants' purportedly misleading statements or omissions,
the Company's stock traded at inflated levels during the Class
Period. The suit seeks unspecified damages and equitable relief.

The Company and Putnam have also been named as defendants in a
consolidated amended complaint filed on behalf of a putative
class of investors in certain Putnam funds, and in another
consolidated amended complaint in which certain fund investors
purport to assert derivative claims on behalf of all Putnam
funds. These suits seek to recover unspecified damages allegedly
suffered by the funds and their shareholders as a result of
purported market-timing and late-trading activity that allegedly
occurred in certain Putnam funds. The derivative suit seeks
additional relief, including termination of the investment
advisory contracts between Putnam Investment Management and the
funds, cancellation of the funds' 12b-1 plans and the return of
all advisory and 12b-1 fees paid by the funds over a certain
period of time. In addition to the Company and Putnam, various
Putnam affiliates, certain trustees of Putnam funds, certain
present and former Putnam officers and employees, and persons
and entities that allegedly engaged in or facilitated market-
timing or late trading activities in Putnam funds are named as
defendants.

The complaints allege violations of sections 11, 12(a), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, sections 36(a) and (b), 47 and 48(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940, and sections 206 and 215 of the
Investment Advisors Act, as well as state law claims for breach
of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, unjust enrichment and
civil conspiracy. Putnam has also been named as a defendant in
its capacity as a sub-advisor to a non-Putnam fund in a class
action suit pending in the District of Maryland against another
mutual fund complex.

A consolidated amended complaint asserting shareholder
derivative claims has been filed, purportedly on behalf of the
Company, against current and former members of its Board of
Directors, two of Putnam's former officers, and the Company as a
nominal defendant (the "MMC Derivative Action"). The MMC
Derivative Action generally alleges that the members of the
Company's Board of Directors violated the fiduciary duties they
owed to the Company and its shareholders as a result of a
failure of oversight of market-timing in Putnam mutual funds.
The Derivative Action alleges that, as a result of the alleged
violation of defendants' fiduciary duties, the Company suffered
damages. The suit seeks unspecified damages and equitable
relief.  The Company has also received two demand letters from
stockholders asking the MMC Board of Directors to take action to
remedy alleged breaches of duty by certain officers, directors,
trustees or employees of the Company or Putnam, based on market
timing in the Putnam funds.  The first letter asked to have the
Board of Trustees of the Putnam Funds, as well as the MMC Board,
take action to remedy those alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.  
The second letter demanded that the Company commence legal
proceedings against the MMC directors, the senior management of
Putnam, the Putnam Trustees and MMC's auditor to remedy those
alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.

The Company, Putnam, and various of their current and former
officers, directors and employees have been named as defendants
in two consolidated amended complaints that purportedly assert
class action claims under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA).  The ERISA Actions, which have been
brought by participants in MMC's Stock Investment Plan and
Putnam's Profit Sharing Retirement Plan, allege, among other
things, that, in view of the market-timing trading activity that
was allegedly allowed to occur at Putnam, the defendants knew or
should have known that the investment of the plans' funds in MMC
stock and Putnam's mutual fund shares was imprudent and that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plan
participants in making these investments. The ERISA actions seek
unspecified damages, as well as equitable relief including the
restoration to the plans of all profits the defendants allegedly
made through the use of the plans' assets, an order compelling
the defendants to make good to the plans all losses to the plans
allegedly resulting from defendants' alleged breaches of their
fiduciary duties, and the imposition of a constructive trust on
any amounts by which any defendant allegedly was unjustly
enriched at the expense of the plans.

Putnam has agreed to indemnify the Putnam funds for any
liabilities arising from market-timing activities, including
those that could arise in the above securities litigations, and
the Company has agreed to guarantee Putnam's obligations in that
regard.


MURRAY TITLE: IL Suit Settlement Hearing Scheduled April 6, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
settlement in the matter: In Re: Campbell V. Murray Title
Agency, LLC d/b/a Lakeshore Title Agency (Case No. 03 CH 8410
(9911)) on behalf of all persons who were parties to a
residential sale or closing transaction involving Illinois real
estate on whom Murray Title Agency, LLC d/b/a Lakeshore Title
Agency imposed a recording or UPS fee in excess of amounts
actually remitted to the Recorder of Deeds or UPS, on or after
May 14, 1998.

The complaint alleges that the defendant charged plaintiff and
the class members more than was necessary to record their
mortgage and/or release documents and retained the overcharge.
In addition, it also alleges that the defendant charged
plaintiff and the class members more than was necessary to
obtain courier services, and retained the overcharge. Thus, the
Normal Campbell, the lead plaintiff in the complaint alleges
that the practices violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, 815
ILCS 505/2 et seq., constituted breach of contract, breach of
fiduciary duty, and resulted in the unjust enrichment of the
defendant. The Court though dismissed all claims except
plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment. Defendant does not
admit to any wrongdoing, and denies that it is liable for the
claims alleged.

According to the Court, the hearing will take place on April 6,
2005 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 2305 of the Richard J. Daley Center,
Chicago, IL 60602.

For more details, contact Michelle R. Teggelaar of Edelman,
Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC by Mail: 120 South LaSalle
Street, Suite 1800, Chicago, IL 60603 by Phone: (312) 739-4200
by Fax: 312-419-0379 by E-mail: edcombs@aol.com or visit their
Web site: http://www.edcombs.com.


NEW CENTURY: Suit Settlement Hearing Scheduled For April 5, 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department,
Chancery Division will hold a fairness hearing for the proposed
$1.96 million settlement in the matter: In Re: Paul Bernstein v.
New Century Mortgage Corporation (Case No. 02 CH 6907) on behalf
of all persons or entities located anywhere in the United States
who, on or after April 4, 1997 were sent or received an
unsolicited advertising fax from or on behalf of the company.  

Persons or entities, which have previously entered into
settlement agreements with New Century Mortgage regarding the
transmission of unsolicited facsimile ads, are excluded from the
Settlement Class.  

According to the Court, a fairness hearing will take place
before Judge Patrick E. McGann on April 5, 2005 at 11:00 a.m.,
in Room 2508 of the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois,
Daley Center, 50 W. Washington, Chicago, Illinois, 60602.

For more details, contact Daniel A. Edelman of Edelman, Combs,
Latturner & Goodwin, LLC by Mail: 120 South LaSalle Street, 18TH
fl., Chicago, Illinois 60603 by Phone: (312) 739-4200 or Fax:
(312) 419-0379 or visit their Web site: http://www.edcombs.com.


NORTEL NETWORKS: Purchasers Of Company's Chares Files $3B Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nortel Networks is facing another class-action suit, claiming $3
billion on behalf of people who bought the company's shares in
the year preceding the firing of former CEO Frank Dunn, Torstar
News Service.  The claim, filed with the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice, alleges misrepresentation of Nortel's financial
situation between April 24, 2003, and April 27, 2004.

Nortel announced last April it had dismissed Mr. Dunn and two
other executives for cause. It also disclosed that its 2003
profit was substantially less than it had stated three months
earlier.  The announcement sent Nortel shares plunging and the
Brampton-based company has since spent months in a massive
effort to analyze its accounting system and restate results as
far back as 2001.  In January, Nortel announced that its 2003
earnings were $434 million (U.S.)-- $298 million less reported
in January 2004.

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


NOVEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Plaintiffs Voluntarily Dismiss Stock Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The lead plaintiffs appointed by the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida to represent all
persons ("the Class") who purchased Noven Pharmaceuticals,
Inc.'s ("Noven") (NASDAQ:NOVN) common stock during the period
between October 29, 2001, and April 28, 2003 (the "Class
Period"), filed an Agreed Motion and Proposed Order of Voluntary
Dismissal in In re Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 03-22120-CIV-SEITZ.

According to the law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman
& Robbins LLP on March 15, 2005, United States District Judge
Patricia A. Seitz granted the plaintiffs' Agreed Motion and
entered an Order voluntarily dismissing this lawsuit without
prejudice.

The Complaint in this case charges Noven and certain of its
officers and directors with violating the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that the defendants' false
and misleading statement concerning the development and testing
of its methylphenidate transdermal patch, used in the treatment
of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, artificially
inflated the price of the stock to a Class Period high of
$27.45.

After further investigating this matter, the lead plaintiffs and
their counsel concluded that the Complaint should be voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1), the lead plaintiffs notified
the defendants of their intent, and defendants agreed to the
dismissal, with each side bearing its own costs. No
consideration has been exchanged, and neither lead plaintiffs
nor their counsel will receive any compensation or reimbursement
of expenses.

For more details, contact Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins LLP by Phone: 1-800-449-4900 or visit their Web site:
http://www.lerachlaw.com.


PEMSTAR INC.: Reaches $12M Settlement For Shareholder Complaints
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pemstar Inc. has agreed to settle two shareholder lawsuits filed
in 2002 that alleged the company had misled investors about its
financial situation, the Twin Cities Business Journal reports.
   
According to the Rochester-based technology manufacturing and
engineering company, it will pay $12 million to settle the class
action suit, but the company's insurers will cover $11.75
million of the cost. The company's insurers, the company says,
will also pay the plaintiff's attorney fees.

Under the settlement for the derivative lawsuits, Pemstar, which
denies any violation of securities laws, will be required to
enhance its corporate governance policies.  The company noted
though that the settlements would not affect its earnings.


PENNSYLVANIA: Lawyers For Sanders Case Seek $760T in Legal Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyers who represented Allegheny County public housing
residents in a landmark class action lawsuit that sought to
desegregate public housing are seeking more than $760,000 in
fees for about 4,300 hours of work on the case, the Pittsburgh
Tribune-Review reports.

Donald Driscoll, the lead attorney for the plaintiffs in Sanders
v. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, is claiming
$691,267 in fees for 3,879 hours, while four other attorneys are
seeking $71,526 for 401 hours of work. The billings represent
work dating as far back as 1999.  The attorneys, who filed their
claims in a motion dated February 18, are claiming discounted
hourly rates of $215.45 and $161.59. Market rate fees of $250
and $175 would have pushed the total cost to more than $1.1
million. The attorneys received $551,000 for work billed from
1995-98.

According to Mr. Driscoll, any money he receives from the
consent decree will go back into his organization, the Community
Justice Project, to fund future legal cases. "It's a very
discounted rate. The actual amount based on community market
rates would be significantly greater," he told the Tribune-
Review.

Braddock public housing resident Cheryl Sanders and Neighborhood
Legal Services filed a lawsuit in 1988, alleging the Allegheny
County Housing Authority failed to take steps to desegregate
public housing. The federal lawsuit was certified as a class
action.

In 1994, Senior U.S. District Judge Gustave Diamond issued a
consent decree that called for a task force to spend $30 million
in federal aid to end public housing segregation. The initial
project included the construction of 100 public housing units in
Braddock, Clairton, Duquesne, Rankin, McKees Rocks, Homestead
and Wilkinsburg.  In January, Judge Diamond approved an
agreement ending the decree because its goals had been
accomplished.


PEROT SYSTEMS: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Perot Systems
Corporation, certain of its current and former officers and the
investment banks that underwrote the Company's initial public
offering.

In July and August 2001, two suits, styled "Seth Abrams v. Perot
Systems Corp. et al." and "Adrian Chin v. Perot Systems, Inc. et
al.," were filed, alleging violations of Rule 10b-5, promulgated
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Sections 11,
12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  Approximately
300 issuers and 40 investment banks have been sued in similar
cases.  The suits against the issuers and underwriters have been
consolidated for pretrial purposes in the IPO Allocation
Securities Litigation. The lawsuit involving the Company focuses
on alleged improper practices by the investment banks in
connection with the Company's initial public offering in
February 1999.

The plaintiffs allege that the investment banks, in exchange for
allocating public offering shares to their customers, received
undisclosed commissions from their customers on the purchase of
securities and required their customers to purchase additional
shares in aftermarket trading. The lawsuit also alleges that the
Company should have disclosed in its public offering prospectus
the alleged practices of the investment banks, whether or not
the Company was aware that the practices were occurring. The
plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages, statutory
compensation, and costs and expenses of the litigation.

During 2002, the current and former officers and directors of
The Company that were individually named in the lawsuits
referred to above were dismissed from the cases.  In exchange
for the dismissal, the individual defendants entered agreements
with the plaintiffs that toll the running of the statute of
limitations and permit the plaintiffs to re-file claims against
them in the future. In February 2003, in response to the
defendant's motion to dismiss, the court dismissed the
plaintiffs' Rule 10b-5 claims against the Company, but did not
dismiss the remaining claims.

The Company has accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants.  Pursuant to the proposed settlement,
plaintiffs would dismiss and release all claims against the
Company and its current and former officers and directors, in
exchange for an assurance by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the
IPO cases that the plaintiffs will achieve a minimum recovery
(including amounts recovered from the underwriters), and for the
assignment or surrender of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters.  The company would not be required to
make any cash payment with respect to the settlement.  The
underwriters are opposing approval of the proposed settlement
and have requested that, if the settlement is approved, they
receive a corresponding reduction in any judgment amounts that
they may be ordered to pay if they are found liable in the
actions.

The approval is subject to the issuers, their insurers, and the
plaintiffs conforming the proposed bar order restricting
possible claims by the underwriters against the issuers to
certain statutory requirements. In addition, the proposed
settlement will be subject to approval by the members of the
class.


RYLAND HOMES: 100 Homeowners Lodges Suit Over In Leaking Homes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Over 100 homeowners in Florida have filed a class action against
nation-wide homebuilder Ryland Homes for building homes, which
leak.

The suit, filed in the Florida State Circuit Court in Orlando,
Case No. 2005-CA-1930-O, alleges the homes were built with an
exterior coating called "texturized cement finish" or "TCF"
which was misrepresented to the buyers as a traditional stucco
exterior. The suit alleges the TCF is an inferior product as
compared to traditional stucco and TCF allows water to intrude
into the homes, but does not allow for the water to drain out,
thus causing mold and structural damage.

The leaks became widely publicized following the three
hurricanes that hit Florida last summer. Many builders,
including Ryland Homes, and home insurance carriers, have denied
responsibility for the leaks. If the class is certified by the
Court, the class will include homeowners throughout the State of
Florida who own homes with the TCF exterior.

The homeowners are being represented by Frank Rapprich of
Fisher, Rushmer, Werrenrath, Dickson, Talley and Dunlap, P.A. in
Orlando. Of Counsel for the Plaintiffs are Gary Jackson,
Charlotte, N.C. and W. Dixon Robertson III, Columbia, S.C.
Ryland has not yet been served with the lawsuit, so no counsel
of record has appeared on Ryland's behalf in the suit.

For more details, contact Frank Rapprich of Fisher, Rushmer et
al. by Phone: 407-843-2111.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Faces Probes, Litigation Due To AWP Practices
--------------------------------------------------------------
Schering-Plough Corporation continues to face investigations and
litigation relating to the Company's practices regarding average
wholesale price (AWP).

The Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of
Justice and certain states have launched investigations into
industry and Company AWP practices.  These investigations
include a Department of Justice review of the merits of a
federal action filed by a private entity on behalf of the U.S.
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida,
as well as an investigation by the U.S. Attorney's Office for
the District of Massachusetts, regarding, inter alia, whether
the AWP set by pharmaceutical companies for certain drugs
improperly exceeds the average prices paid by dispensers and, as
a consequence, results in unlawful inflation of certain
government drug reimbursements that are based on AWP.

In March 2001, the Company received a subpoena from the
Massachusetts Attorney General's office seeking documents
concerning the use of AWP and other pricing and/or marketing
practices.  The Company has also responded to subpoenas from the
Attorney General of California concerning these matters. The
Company is cooperating with these investigations. The outcome of
these investigations could include the imposition of substantial
fines, penalties and injunctive or administrative remedies.

In December 2001, the Prescription Access Litigation project
(PAL), a Boston-based group formed in 2001 to litigate against
drug companies, filed a class action suit in the United States
District Court in Massachusetts against the Company.  In
September 2002, a consolidated complaint was filed in this court
as a result of the coordination by the Multi-District Litigation
Panel of all federal court AWP cases from throughout the
country.  The consolidated complaint alleges that the Company
and Warrick Pharmaceuticals (Warrick), the Company's generic
subsidiary, conspired with providers to defraud consumers by
reporting fraudulently high AWPs for prescription medications
reimbursed by Medicare or third-party payers.  The complaint
seeks a declaratory judgment and unspecified damages, including
treble damages.

Included in the litigation described in the prior paragraph are
lawsuits that allege that the Company and Warrick reported
inflated AWPs for prescription pharmaceuticals and thereby
caused state and federal entities and third-party payers to make
excess reimbursements to providers.  Some of these actions also
allege that the Company and Warrick failed to report accurate
prices under the Medicaid Rebate Program and thereby underpaid
rebates to some States.

Some cases filed by State Attorneys General also seek to recover
on behalf of citizens of the State and entities located in the
State for excess payments as a result of inflated AWPs.  These
actions, which began in October 2001, have been brought by state
Attorneys General, private plaintiffs, nonprofit organizations
and employee benefit funds.  They allege violations of federal
and state law, including fraud, antitrust, Racketeer Influenced
Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and other claims.  During the
first quarter of 2004, the Company and Warrick were among five
groups of companies put on an accelerated discovery track in the
proceeding.  In addition, Warrick and the Company are defendants
in a number of such lawsuits in state courts.  The actions are
generally brought by states and/or political subdivisions and
seek unspecified damages, including treble and punitive damages.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: Discovery Proceeds in Securities Lawsuit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
Discovery is proceeding in the securities class action filed
against Schering-Plough Corporation in the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On February 15, 2001, the Company stated in a press release that
the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had been conducting
inspections of the Company's manufacturing facilities in New
Jersey and Puerto Rico and had issued reports citing
deficiencies concerning compliance with current Good
Manufacturing Practices, primarily relating to production
processes, controls and procedures.

The next day, February 16, 2001, a lawsuit was filed against the
Company and certain named officers alleging violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.  Additional lawsuits of
the same tenor followed.  These complaints were consolidated
into one action and a lead plaintiff, the Florida State Board of
Administration, was appointed by the Court on July 2, 2001. On
October 11, 2001, a consolidated amended complaint was filed,
alleging the same violations described above and purporting to
represent a class of shareholders who purchased shares of
Company stock from May 9, 2000, through February 15, 2001.  The
complaint seeks compensatory damages on behalf of the class.

The Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint was denied on May 24, 2002.  On October 10, 2003, the
Court certified the shareholder class.

The suit is styled "Myers, et al v. Schering-Plough, et al, case
no. 2:01-cv-00829-KSH-MF," filed in the United States District
Court in New Jersey, under Judge Katharine S. Hayden.  Lead
plaintiff Florida State Board of Administration is represented
by Samuel Robbins Simon, BARRACK, RODOS & BACINE, ESQS, 14 Kings
Highway West, Haddonfield, NJ 08033, Phone: (856) 354-0707.  
Representing the Company is Douglas Scott Eakeley, Lowenstein
Sandler PC, 65 Livingston Avenue, Roseland, NJ 07068-1791,
Phone: (973) 597-2500.


SCHERING-PLOUGH: NJ Court Yet To Rule on Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court in New Jersey has yet to rule
on plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the class action filed
against Schering-Plough Corporation, Richard Jay Kogan, former
Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, President and
Director of the Company.

The suit was filed on March 31, 2003, alleging that the Company,
Mr. Kogan (who resigned as Chairman of the Board November 13,
2002, and retired as Chief Executive Officer, President and
Director of the Company April 20, 2003) and the Company's
Employee Savings Plan (Plan) administrator breached their
fiduciary obligations to certain participants in the Plan.

In May 2003, the Company was served with a second putative class
action complaint filed in the same court with allegations nearly
identical to the complaint filed March 31, 2003.  On October 6,
2003, a consolidated amended complaint was filed, which names as
additional defendants' seven current and former directors and
other corporate officers.  The complaint seeks damages in the
amount of losses allegedly suffered by the Plan.  The Court
dismissed this complaint on June 29, 2004.  On July 16, 2004,
the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal.


SOUTH KOREA: Policyholders Mull Suit V. State-Run Postal Agency
---------------------------------------------------------------
Korea Post customers, who were angered by the agency's alleged
failure to properly notify them when it sold a savings-type
insurance policy five years ago, are mulling over the
possibility of filing a class action lawsuit against South
Korea's state-run postal service agency, according to a local
attorney, The Yonhap news agency reports.

In 2000, Korea Post sold the savings-type insurance product with
a five-year maturity to about 247,000 policyholders. At that
time, the agency's ad pamphlets showed the product promised to
refund premiums with a fixed interest rate of 9.5 per cent a
year by 2005.

However, the product has raised policyholders' ire after Korea
Post began to refund their premiums with a floating interest
rate of 5 per cent. Policyholders say Korea Post failed to
properly notify them about the interest rate.  In response, a
group of policyholders is preparing to sue Korea Post for the
financial damage incurred.

Song Chang-ho, the attorney of the Duksu Law Offices hired by
the policyholders, told the Post "We will file the lawsuit,
maybe a class-action one, by the end of this month." He also
told The Yonhap news agency in a telephone interview, "So far,
about 50 plaintiffs have been rounded up and the number is
growing." An internal review found other instances of
malpractice in the sale of the product, the attorney adds.

The dispute is expected to flare up because 86,515 policyholders
whose contracted premiums were worth 2.09 trillion won (US$2.08
billion) are due to mature by the end of this year.  Documents
recently released by Korea Post revealed that a 40-year-old man,
who purchased the savings-type insurance policy with a
contracted premium of 10 million won, would receive a refund of
9.63 million won under the floating interest rate. But according
to the agency's sales pamphlet issued five years ago, the man
should be able to expect a refund of 10.96 million won after
maturity.

Korea Post officials argue the brokers should take the
responsibility because they sold the product as if it would be
refunded with a fixed interest rate. As interest rates have
continued to fall since 2000, the agency stopped selling the
savings-type insurance policy from 2001.  Korea Post, affiliated
with the Ministry of Information and Communication, sells and
manages a wide range of financial products, including life
insurance, savings and derivatives.


STAKTEK HOLDINGS: Shareholders Lodge Securities Fraud Suit in NM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Staktek Holdings, Inc. and two of its executive officers face a
securities class action complaint filed in the United States
District Court in New Mexico, alleging that the Company failed
to disclose to the public an anticipated shortage of computer
memory chips and that they knew or recklessly disregarded that
the anticipated shortage would have a materially adverse impact
on the Company's revenue and earnings.  

In addition, the plaintiff claims that the Defendants failed to
disclose to investors that the industry's transition to a new
generation of higher-capacity memory chips was causing computer
makers to stockpile supplies of older memory chips, increasing
the shortage.  The suit covers individuals who purchased the
Company's stock between November 26, 2003 and May 19, 2004.


TEXAS: Attorney General Alerts Consumers To Remeron Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott alerted consumers in Texas
and other states that advertisements and other notices will
begin this week to solicit claims from those who may have been
overcharged for the antidepressant drug Remeron or its generic
equivalent, mirtazapine.  The $36 million national antitrust
settlement, spearheaded by Attorney General Abbott, applies to
drugs purchased from June 15, 2001, through January 25, 2005.

"I am pleased that many Texans who paid far too much money for
this critical drug will get some relief in terms of return of
their money," said Attorney General Abbott.  "Our antitrust team
led the way in uncovering this company's scheme to manipulate
the market and block competition to keep less expensive versions
of this medication out of the hands of consumers."

Consumers will begin seeing numerous public service
announcements and advertisements this week in publications such
as Reader's Digest, Parade, USA Today and many others. Consumers
will receive the money as damages as a result of their paying
high prescription prices for the antidepressant drug, which is
manufactured by Organon USA of New Jersey, and its Dutch parent
company Akzo Nobel N.V.

Texas consumers who believe they may be entitled to a refund may
request claim forms by calling toll-free at (866) 401-6807, or
refer to forms and other information on the Web site for the
national settlement administrator at www.remeronsettlement.com

The Company agreed to settle the matter with the states after
engaging in a misleading scheme that extended the Company's
monopoly over the drug, wrongly generating millions of dollars
in profits.  Generic equivalents are included for consideration
in refunds because Organon's actions delayed their entry into
the marketplace, which adversely influenced how quickly the
prices might have fallen for Remeron and its generic
substitutes.

For more details, contact Angela Hale, Paco Felici, Jerry
Strickland, or Tom Kelley by Phone: (512) 463-2050.


TRIAD GUARANTY: Faces NC Suit By Residential Mortgage Borrowers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Triad Guaranty Inc. (NYSE: TGIC) faces a class-action lawsuit in
North Carolina involving residential-mortgage borrowers, the
Triad Business Journal reports.  The suit, entitled "Broessel
vs. Triad," was filed in January 2004 in U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Kentucky, according to the company's
annual 10-K filing.

The lawsuit claims that Triad Guaranty violated the law by
failing to provide notices to certain borrowers when mortgage
insurance was offered to lenders with respect to the borrowers'
mortgage loans at a rate in excess of the lowest available rate.

The mortgage insurer though was quick to point out in its filing
that it has filed a motion for summary judgment and that the
outcome of the lawsuit is not expected to have a material
adverse effect on its finances.


TRINITY SOUTHERN: AG Obtains Judgment V. Fraudulent "University"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott has obtained judgments
against two brothers who operated Trinity Southern University, a
for-profit Dallas-based "university" that issued fraudulent
degrees.

Craig B. Poe agreed to a $10,000 up-front civil penalty for
offering deceptive degree programs and will pay another $10,000
in several installments. Alton S. Poe, who failed to respond to
Attorney General Abbott's December lawsuit, was assessed a
default judgment ordering him to pay a $100,000 penalty, plus
more than $15,000 in state attorneys' fees.

"These judgments send a message that Texas will not tolerate
scam artists who charge consumers hundreds of dollars for
worthless `diplomas,'" said Attorney General Abbott.  "Texans
seeking an education deserve to receive proper credentials, and
I will continue to fight this fraudulent practice."

The Poe brothers had been fraudulently promoting the for-profit
"diploma mill" university as an accredited institution offering
bachelor's, master's and doctorate "degrees" via advertisements
on the university's Web site.  These "degrees" were being issued
solely on the basis of a "student's" testimony about skills and
experience.  Other university names affiliated with the Poes are
Wesleyan International University and Prixo Southern University.

According to the final order, the defendants may no longer
market or promote fraudulent, substandard degree programs or
represent their university as being accredited or affiliated
with legitimate universities. The defendants have never been
accredited by the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board,
which referred this matter to the Attorney General for legal
action under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Trinity Southern's Web site claimed that a prospective student
had "no classes to attend, no tests to take!"  Despite having no
classroom instruction, the university assured students that,
once "qualified" based on their experience, they could receive a
bachelor's degree comprised of 115-120 credit hours. Those
pursuing Master's and Ph.D. degrees were promised transcripts
reflecting 36-48 hours of course credit.


UNIPROP: Park Residents File Suit Over Living Conditions in MI
--------------------------------------------------------------
Residents of Old Dutch Farms mobile home park in Michigan, which
is situated on the west side of the city of Novi have filed a
more than $1 million class action lawsuit against the owners of
the park, claiming unsanitary living conditions, the Novi News
reports.

According to Macuga & Liddle, P.C., of Detroit, which represents
the residents, it filed the complaint in Oakland County Circuit
Court against Uniprop.  Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that
Birmingham-based Uniprop has failed to adequately maintain the
community and caused damage to homeowners' property. "The living
conditions at Old Dutch Farms are unsatisfactory. The residents
deserve better," said Steven Liddle, lead attorney for the
plaintiffs. Mr. Liddle told Novi News that Uniprop has 21 days
to respond to the complaint.

Charmaine Jones, president of the Old Dutch Farms Homeowner's
Association, told Novi News, "It's 2005, and as a resident of
Oakland County, I expect to have access to a functioning sewer
system and a clean water system."

Residents say the park's on-site sewer system leaks raw sewage
under homes, which thus creates a stench in the park and has
contaminated groundwater.   "We thought it was necessary to file
this lawsuit because we deserve to have a safe and clean place
to raise our children in an upscale community like Oakland
County. We want to be compensated for damages," Ms. Jones told
Novi News.

Commenting on the lawsuit, Roger Zlotoff, Uniprop CEO said that
the Uniprop staff was upset by the residents' legal action. He
told Novi News, "We are sad and disappointed that our customers
decided to pursue litigation without prior contact with us. We
had no notification that they were considering this. We're very
confident, however, that we can produce evidence from
independent, third parties that the allegations are really
without merit." He also adds, "We're doing everything we can do
to expedite the project. We're not delaying it for any reason."


UNITED STATES: FTC Supports Mint's Fight V. False Collectibles
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a comment submitted to the Department of the Treasury's
United States Mint, the staff of the Federal Trade Commission's
Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, and Office
of Policy Planning gave its support to the Mint's efforts to
protect consumers and curb unscrupulous marketers who
deceptively advertise collectible coins and medals.

The staff supported a proposed rule to assess civil penalties
against deceptive marketers who misuse words and symbols related
to the U.S. Mint. The staff comment described the Federal Trade
Commission's experience with advertising law and how this
experience may assist the Mint in implementing the rule and
determining whether advertisements create a false impression of
association with the Mint.

The staff comment briefly outlined First Amendment commercial
speech doctrine and its preference for disclosure over banning
potentially misleading claims as a means of combating deception.
The comment next presented the FTC's approach to reviewing
advertising claims, explaining the Commission's emphasis on
considering the "net impression" of the ads. The FTC's approach
considers the context of such an advertising claim, including
any qualification to the claim, which is consistent with the
First Amendment principles intended to promote the free flow of
truthful and non-misleading commercial speech. The comment also
noted the FTC's support for conducting consumer research on the
language and format of various disclaimers to determine whether
they are effective in preventing deception.

In concluding its comment, the staff wrote, "We wholeheartedly
support the Mint's efforts to combat deceptive advertising for
collectible and commemorative coins and related products and
services. The FTC staff hopes that our experience in policing
advertising claims may assist the Mint in implementing its
proposed rule. In executing our mission, we have found that the
First Amendment commercial speech doctrine is fully compatible
with our vigorous consumer protection program."

The FTC staff comments are in response to the request for public
comment in the U.S. Mint's notice of proposed rulemaking on the
assessment of civil penalties for misuse of words, letters,
symbols, and emblems of the U.S. Mint, published in the Federal
Register on January 12, 2005.

The Commission vote authorizing the staff to submit the comments
to the U.S. Mint was 5-0. Copies of the comment can be found on
the FTC's Web site as a link to this press release.

Copies of the documents mentioned in this release are available
from the FTC's Web site at http://www.ftc.govand also from the  
FTC's Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania
Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20580. Call toll-free: 1-877-FTC-
HELP. The comments represent the views of the staff in the FTC's
Bureau of Consumer Protection, Bureau of Economics, and Office
of Policy Planning and not those of the FTC or any individual
commissioner.

For more details, contact Office of Public Affairs by Phone:
202-326-2180 or contact Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Office of Policy
Planning by Phone: 202-326-2632 or Joni Lupovitz, Bureau of
Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-3743


UTENDAHL CAPITAL: Reaches Settlement in WorldCom Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Utendahl Capital Partners, L.P. (UCP) reached a settlement
agreement in the WorldCom class action litigation, which was
brought on behalf of purchasers of WorldCom securities.  The
terms of the agreement are confidential and subject to court
approval. Under the settlement, the company neither admits nor
denies any wrongdoing. Utendahl Capital Partners is delighted to
have resolved this matter.

As previously reported in the March 12, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the WorldCom suit was brought against
former officers and directors of the company, its accountant,
Arthur Andersen LLP and more than a dozen banks and brokerages
that were underwriters of WorldCom bonds.

The parties that filed the suit claimed the defendants should
have been aware of the telecom group's accounting problems when
they underwrote or sold its bonds. WorldCom has since emerged
from bankruptcy as MCI Inc.

Utendahl Capital Partners, L.P. is a duly registered minority-
owned broker/dealer investment bank. As such, Utendahl Capital
Partners, L.P. participates in the structuring, placing and
underwriting of corporate fixed income, equity, and hybrid-
equity securities.


ZILA CORPORATION: Consumers Launch AZ Suit V. Zicam Cold Remedy
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zila Corporation, Zila Swab Technologies, Inc., dba Innovative
Swab Technologies (IST), Matrixx Initiatives, Inc. and other
defendants face a class action filed in the Superior Court of
the State of Arizona for Maricopa County, alleging that the
Zicam Cold Remedy Product manufactured by Matrixx Initiatives,
Inc., a former customer of IST, caused damage to the sense of
smell and/or taste of the plaintiffs.  

Other defendants in the lawsuit include manufacturers and
retailers. IST had produced swabs and containers for the Zicam
Cold Remedy Product for a limited period that ended in March
2004.  


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

AUDIBLE INC.: Cohen Milstein Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, P.L.L.C.
initiated a lawsuit on behalf of its client and on behalf of
purchasers of the securities of Audible, Inc. (NASDAQ:ADBL)
("Audible" or the "Company") between November 2, 2004, and
February 15, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period "), in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated the federal
securities laws by issuing materially false and misleading
statements throughout the Class Period that had the effect of
artificially inflating the market price of the Company's
securities.

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

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

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

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

On February 15, 2005, after the close of trading, Audible
announced that in 2005 it would be undertaking several
initiatives requiring substantial investments in infrastructure,
new business units and marketing, among other areas, and that
these initiatives would depress earnings and cash flow at least
until 2006. On this disclosure, shares of Audible fell $9.38 per
share or more than 35 %, on February 16, 2005, to close at
$17.32 per share, on unusually heavy volume.

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


AUDIBLE, INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Lawsuit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey, against Audible, Inc. ("Audible" or the
"Company") (Nasdaq:ADBL), Donald R. Katz ("Katz") and Andrew P.
Kaplan ("Kaplan"), senior executives officers and/or directors
of Audible, on behalf of purchasers of Audible securities
between November 2, 2004 and February 15, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Also included are all those who acquired
Audible's shares in the secondary offering on November 18, 2004.

The complaint charges that Audible violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Audible reported
increased revenues and earnings, growth that defendants
represented would continue as the Company capitalized on
increasing demand for its products and a growing customer based.
Throughout the Class Period, defendants failed to disclose that
Audible's growth could not continue without material investments
in expensive strategic initiatives that would severely erode the
Company's earnings in the foreseeable future and Audible was
about to embark on expensive strategic initiatives that would
constitute a material risk to the Company's growth and its stock
price.

On February 15, 2005, after the close of trading, Audible
announced that in 2005 it would be undertaking several
initiatives requiring substantial investments in infrastructure,
new business units and marketing and that these initiatives
would depress earnings and cash flow at least until 2006. On
this news, Audible stock plummeted, falling from $26.70 per
share on February 15, 2005 to $17.32 on February 16, 2005, a
decline of 35%. Prior to this disclosure, defendant Katz sold
150,000 Audible shares for gross proceeds of $3,675,000, while
defendant Kaplan sold 125,000 shares for gross proceeds of
$3,062,500 in the secondary offering.

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


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Marc S. Henzel Files Securities Lawsuit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated a securities class
action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Washington on behalf of all securities purchasers of
Cell Therapeutics Inc., (Nasdaq: CTIC) between June 7, 2004 and
March 4, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

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

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

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735, by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Abbey Gardy Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in GA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abbey Gardy, LLP initiated a Class Action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Georgia against ChoicePoint, Inc. ("ChoicePoint" or
the "Company"), Derek Smith, Doug Curling and Darryl Lemecha on
behalf of purchasers of ChoicePoint common stock (NYSE:CPS)
between November 24, 2003 and March 3, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). A copy of the complaint is available from the
court or on our website, www.abbeygardy.com.

The Complaint alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. Unknown to the public until February 15,
2005, from approximately October 2003 through October 2004
criminals using "low-tech" methods had been able to access
thousands of records containing personal information maintained
by ChoicePoint. The Complaint alleges that defendants issued a
series of materially false statements throughout the Class
Period, which claimed ChoicePoint had unique capabilities and
systems in place to enable the responsible use of information
while ensuring the protection of personal privacy. In addition,
the defendants falsely claimed that throughout the Class Period,
the theft of consumer data they recently announced was
unprecedented.

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

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

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


CHOICEPOINT INC.: Marc S. Henzel Lodges Securities Lawsuit in CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Marc S. Henzel initiated class action lawsuit
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California on behalf of all purchasers of the common stock of
ChoicePoint, Inc. (NYSE: CPS) from April 22, 2004 through March
3, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ChoicePoint, Derek Smith, Douglas Curling,
and Steven Surbaugh with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder. The complaint alleges that defendants,
during the Class Period, issued a series of material
misrepresentations to the market concerning the Company's
financial condition thereby artificially inflating the price of
ChoicePoint's common stock. More specifically, the Complaint
alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented
the following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the defendants knew and/or recklessly disregarded
         the fact that Company's security measures designed to
         protect consumers from security breaches were
         inadequate and ineffective;

     (2) that the Company profited from selling consumer's
         private information to illegal enterprises;

     (3) that security breaches by illegal enterprises had    
         occurred on at least 2 occasions, once in 2002 and
         another time in September 2004;

     (4) that the Company's actions exposed over 500,000 people
         to the threat of identity theft; and

     (5) as a result the foregoing Company's financial results
         were artificially inflated at all relevant times.

On February 18, 2005, The Associated Press published a report
entitled "Info Breach Puts Data Firm in Hot Seat." Therein, the
report stated that "Personal Information Breach Puts Data
Warehouser ChoicePoint in Hot Seat." News of this shocked the
market. Shares of ChoicePoint fell $4.20 per share or 9.66
percent, on February 22, 2005, to close at $39.30 per share.

On March 3, 2005, The LA Times published an article entitled
"ChoicePoint CEO Had Denied Any Previous Breach of Database."
The article, in relevant part, read: "The chief executive of
information broker ChoicePoint Inc. told interviewers last week
that a recent security breach was the only such incident in the
company's history, despite the fact that criminals had gained
access to its database with similar methods at least once
before." Then, on March 4, 2005, before the market opened,
ChoicePoint filed a current report with the SEC on Form 8-K.
Therein, the Company stated that on September 27, 2004,
ChoicePoint found evidence of suspicious activity by a few of
our small business customers in the Los Angeles area.
ChoicePoint notified law enforcement authorities in Los Angeles,
and they commenced an investigation. These customers opened
ChoicePoint accounts by using stolen identities and altered
documents. In addition, the Company stated that ChoicePoint had
received notice from the Securities and Exchange Commission
("SEC") that the SEC was conducting an informal inquiry into the
circumstances surrounding any possible recent identity theft,
recent trading in ChoicePoint stock by our Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Operating Officer and related matters.

On this news, shares of ChoicePoint fell an additional $2.63 per
share, or 6.5 percent, to close at $37.65 per share on March 4,
2005.

For more details, contact Marc S. Henzel by Mail: 273 Montgomery
Ave., Suite 202, Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004, Phone: 610.660.8000 or
888.643.6735, by Fax: 610.660.8080 or by E-Mail:
mhenzel182@aol.com.


                            *********


A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in each
Wednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissions
via e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuring
news on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of target
asbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,
collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-related
liabilities.

                            *********


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.   Glenn Ruel Senorin, Aurora Fatima Antonio and Lyndsey
Resnick, Editors.

Copyright 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  * * *