CAR_Public/050322.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 22, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 57

                          Headlines

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
ALABAMA: Pharmacist Launches Reimbursement Suit V. KS Companies
CALIFORNIA: Checks From $22.4 Janitorial Settlement Sent Out
CANADA: B.C. Court Certifies Woodlands Survivors' Class Action
CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs Waive Right To Appeal VA Suit Dismissal

DAY-LEE FOODS: Recalls Dumplings Due To Listeria Contamination
DELTA AIR: Continues To Face Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in MI
DELTA AIR: Court Denies Appeal of Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissal
DELTA AIR: Appeals Court Affirms CA Suit Summary Judgment Ruling
DELTA AIR: Plaintiffs File Amended Travel Agent Suit in S.D. NY

ELANCO ANIMAL: Recalls Micotil Antibiotic Due To Wrong Labeling
EQUINIX INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
FLORIDA: Lee County Loses Impact Fee Suit, Could Pay Up To $1.7M
INFINITY PROPERTY: Anticipates Inclusion in AR Policyholder Suit
INKINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Settlement For Investors' Suit  

INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks CA Securities Suit Dismissal
KRISPY KREME: Subsidiary, Officers Face ERISA Complaint in NC
FARMERS INSURANCE: Chiropractor To Appear For Dismissal Motion
MARVEL ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Rejection of NY Suit Pact
MCI INC.: Stockholder Launches Stock Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court

METRO WATER: Employees Launch Racial Discrimination Suit in TN
ORGANON USA: Reaches Mirtazapine Drug Monopoly Settlement in IN  
PERDUE FARMS: Recalls Cooked Chicken Strips For Underprocessing
QUOVADX INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
QUOVADX INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For CO Stock Lawsuit

QUOVADX INC.: Shareholders Initiate Securities Fraud Suit in CO
SOLUTIA INC.: Forges Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suit Settlement
SOLUTIA INC.: Faces State, Canadian Antitrust Violations Suits
SOLUTIA INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
SOLUTIA INC.: Opposes Motion To Withdraw ERISA Claim Reference

SOUTH KOREA: Class Action Against Unnamed Firm Expected in April
SPARK NETWORKS: IL, CA Consumers Sue Over Dating Services Fraud
T&L CREATIVE: Recalls Chicken Salad For Listeria Contamination
TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: NY Court Okays Stock Suit Settlement
WAL-MART STORES: To Pay $11M To Settle Suit Over Illegal Workers

WASHINGTON: Couple Launches Lawsuit V. Department of Corrections  
WORLDCOM INC.: Court Starts Proceedings For $55.25 Settlement


                  New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit in NJ
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Shepherd Finkelman Files Stock Lawsuit in WA
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Abraham Fruchter Files Stock Suit in NC

INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in NC
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NJ
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
SIERRA WIRELESS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY

VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in MA
VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in MA

                         *********

AGILENT TECHNOLOGIES: NY Court Approves Stock Lawsuit 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 Agilent
Technologies, Inc., styled "Kassin v. Agilent Technologies,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639."

The suit was filed against certain investment bank underwriters
for the Company's initial public offering (IPO), the Company and
various of its officers and directors at the time of the IPO. On
February 19, 2003, the court granted the company's motion to
dismiss the claims against it based on Section 10 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, but denied its
motion to dismiss the claims based on Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

The Company and more than 200 other issuer defendants have
reached an agreement in principle for a settlement with
plaintiffs.  Under the settlement, plaintiffs' claims against
the Company and its directors and officers would be released, in
exchange for a contingent payment (which, if made, would be paid
by the Company's insurer) and an assignment of certain potential
claims.  On June 14, 2004, papers formalizing the settlement
among the plaintiffs, issuer defendants and insurers were
presented to the court.  The settlement remains subject to court
approval.

On February 15, 2005, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement contingent upon specified modifications, including
modification of a proposed bar order against future claims by
the underwriter.  Plaintiffs continue to prosecute their claims
against the underwriter defendants, and discovery is now
underway.

The suit is styled ""Kassin v. Agilent Technologies, Inc., et
al., Civil Action No. 01-CV-10639," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


ALABAMA: Pharmacist Launches Reimbursement Suit V. KS Companies
---------------------------------------------------------------
An Alabama pharmacist initiated a lawsuit against four Kansas
City companies, which seeks no more than $74,500 in damages but
hoping to multiply the claim by many more pharmacies, The Kansas
City Star reports.

The suit, which also makes clear that attorneys hope to keep the
case in Alabama's state courts, is seeking class action status
for claims against Argus Health Systems Inc., and its co-owners,
DST Systems Inc. and Americo Life Inc., as well as Americo's
owner, Financial Holding Corporation.  Altadena Pharmacy in
Birmingham filed the suit in the Circuit Court of Jefferson
County, Alabama, alleging that Argus shortchanged the pharmacy
on reimbursements when customers bought brand-name drugs. The
customers were covered by health plans that Argus administers
and had used their medical benefits to buy the drugs.

Though an Argus official declined to comment on the lawsuit,
Randall Young, general counsel at DST Systems, told the Kansas
City Star that the lawsuit came as a surprise because there had
not been any reimbursement complaints about Argus. "We're
undertaking an investigation of the allegations, and we don't
believe they are true," Mr. Young adds, the Kansas City Star
reports.

According to Altadena Pharmacy's owner, Charles Maple, his one
relatively small claim reflects a widespread practice that is
hurting other independent pharmacists. Mr. Maple said he checked
his own records after hearing about others' complaints and found
shortages in the reimbursements. "This was brought to our
attention. We actually didn't catch it. A lot of the times we
didn't catch it, because we were relying on the information
being accurate," he told the City Star. He states that
independent pharmacies like his were being squeezed in the push
to lower drug costs. He has had to shrink his store to a third
of its previous size.

Bob Methvin, Mr. Maple's Attorney, told the City Star the
lawsuit seeks to represent others because "independent
pharmacists have been systematically shortchanged in their
reimbursements." He adds there are other lawsuits against other
companies but would not identify those cases.

Court documents reveal that the Alabama lawsuit takes great
pains to assert that its claims fall under the state court's
review and that there is no federal jurisdiction. It stated that
Altadena "makes no claims pursuant to federal law and further
makes no claims which would give rise to any federal cause of
action." Also, the suit said that it makes no claim, "including
equitable relief and monetary damages, in excess of $74,500 in
the aggregate for each plaintiff or class member." The minimum
claim for action in federal court is $75,000.

In the complaint, Altadena Pharmacy stated that it had a
contract with Argus under which it would be reimbursed when
customers used medical benefits to buy brand name drugs. It
further said that the contract set the amount of reimbursements
using a formula that included the average wholesale price of the
brand name drugs.  Average wholesale prices of drugs are
reported publicly and to the pharmacy, insurance and benefits
industries by other companies, the suit said. It said the prices
were updated electronically on a daily basis or in "real time."

Altadena's claim is that Argus did not use the correct average
wholesale price in its reimbursement formula, shortchanging the
plaintiff, thus to this end, according to court documents, the
lawsuit seeks an injunction ordering Argus and the other
companies to use the "real time" average wholesale price on
reimbursements.


CALIFORNIA: Checks From $22.4 Janitorial Settlement Sent Out
------------------------------------------------------------
Checks for as much as $10,000 were recently sent to more than
two thousand Latino janitors who won $22.4 million in the
largest class action settlement involving the failure of
janitorial subcontractors to pay their employees according to
overtime and minimum wage laws.

The supermarkets' scheme was uncovered by SEIU which conducted
an investigation over a number of years and referred the case to
the Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund (MCTF), a Los Angeles-
based industry watchdog group funded by SEIU and responsible
janitorial companies concerned with ensuring high standards in
the cleaning industry. Before pursuing the lawsuit, SEIU
repeatedly presented evidence of the wage and hour violations to
the supermarkets urging them to correct the practices, but the
supermarkets took no action.

The janitors who were hired to clean Ralph's, Safeway, Vons and
Albertsons grocery stores reported being assigned to work seven
days a week, sometimes 365 days a year, without any payment
whatsoever for the thousands of overtime hours worked every
year. As a result, the hourly pay of many janitors often was
less than even the federal minimum wage of $5.15 per hour.
According to the Los Angeles District Attorney, who pursued
criminal cases against some of the subcontractors, many janitors
were paid as little as $2.47 per hour. The supermarket chains
agreed to pay the settlement money because attorneys for the
janitors found enough information to show that the supermarket
chains exercised control over the janitors' working conditions,
even though the markets were not officially their direct
employers. Companies to avoid liability for these types of
practices sometimes use subcontractors.

The landmark settlement is the largest of a growing number of
lawsuits over unlawful employment practices, known as "wage and
hour" claims, involving the practices of janitorial
subcontractors of major U.S. corporations. The nation's largest
janitors' union, SEIU is leading an effort to police janitorial
companies -- and the corporations that hire them -- that skirt
the law. SEIU has established a hot line for workers who have
been illegally denied overtime pay -- 1-866-301-7348. More
information is available at http://www.justiceforjanitors.org.


CANADA: B.C. Court Certifies Woodlands Survivors' Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a judgment released on March 17, Madam Justice Nancy Morrison
of the British Columbia Supreme Court has certified a class
action suit brought against the Government of British Columbia
on behalf of an estimated 1,500 former residents of Woodlands
School, most of whom are severely handicapped.

It is a significant milepost in a long journey. Poyner Baxter
filed the class action in 2002. Subsequently, the province's
Public Guardian and Trustee commenced a similar suit, seeking to
represent all victims in the class. The court eventually awarded
"carriage" to Poyner Baxter, designating this firm to represent
all members of the class. At the recent certification hearing
before Madam Justice Morrison, the provincial government argued
that each Woodlands case was unique, and therefore not
appropriate for a class action. In this week's decision the
court ruled against the provincial government in favor of
certification as a class action.

In her written judgment, Justice Morrison ruled, "I do not agree
that the individual issues overwhelm the common issues in this
case....there is no question in my mind that a class proceeding
is the preferable procedure for the fair and effective
resolution of the common issues, given the history of the
institution, the types of allegations raised, and the special
vulnerabilities of the proposed Class Members."

The Supreme Court defined the class as follows: "All persons
resident in British Columbia, who were confined to the
provincial institution more recently known as Woodlands School
and who, while so confined, suffered physical, sexual, emotional
and/or psychological abuse and have suffered injury, loss or
damage as a result thereof."

"Obviously, we are pleased with this result," said lawyer Jim
Poyner. "We hope that government will now finally recognize that
serious damage has been done to a very large number of people,
and work to expeditiously correct decades of evasion."

In a comment earlier this month, Mr. Poyner said, "the Woodlands
tragedy has been the subject of public speculation and debate
for more than 30 years, and has been generally accepted as fact
for at least a decade." He pointed to a scathing report by
former Ombudsman Dulcie McCallum in 2001, documenting systemic
abuse, an apology from the government in 2002 and the
establishment of a $2 million fund to counsel these victims.
None of this $2 million has been spent, yet the government has
invested heavily in legal processes to delay resolution.

"We agree that the degrees of abuse varied greatly among the
survivors," Mr. Poyner said. "We communicated to government
lawyers that individual assessment of appropriate compensation
could easily be structured under the class action. There was no
reply to this. Hopefully, something will now be done and we
invite the provincial government to sit down with us to resolve
this lawsuit."

For more details, regarding the judgment, visit
http://www.poynerbaxter.com.  


CAPITAL ONE: Plaintiffs Waive Right To Appeal VA Suit Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs waived their right to appeal the dismissal of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Capital One
Financial Corporation in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Virginia.

Beginning in July 2002, the Company was named as a defendant in
twelve putative class action securities cases.  Each complaint
also named as "Individual Defendants" several of the Company's
executive officers.  On October 1, 2002, the Court consolidated
these twelve cases.  Pursuant to the court's order, plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint on October 17, 2002, which alleged
that the Company and the Individual Defendants violated Section
10(b) of the Exchange Act, Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder,
and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

The amended complaint asserted a class period of January 16,
2001, through July 16, 2002, inclusive. The amended complaint
alleged generally that, during the asserted class period, the
Company misrepresented the adequacy of its capital levels and
loan loss allowance relating to higher risk assets. In addition,
the amended complaint alleged generally that the Company failed
to disclose that it was experiencing serious infrastructure
deficiencies and systemic computer problems as a result of its
growth.

On December 4, 2002, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint with leave to amend.
Pursuant to that order, plaintiffs filed a second amended
complaint on December 23, 2002, which asserted the same class
period and alleged violations of the same statutes and rule.  
The second amended complaint also added a new Individual
Defendant and asserted violations of Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP).

Defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
January 8, 2003, and plaintiffs filed a motion on March 6, 2003,
seeking leave to amend their complaint.  On April 10, 2003, the
Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second
amended complaint, denied plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend,
and dismissed the consolidated action with prejudice.  
Plaintiffs appealed the Court's order, opinion, and judgment to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on May
8, 2003, and briefing on the appeal concluded in September 2003.
Oral argument was held on February 25, 2004. On December 2,
2004, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals entered an opinion
affirming the trial court and, in early 2005, plaintiffs waived
their right to appeal or challenge the Fourth Circuit's
decision, ending the case.

The suit is styled "In Re: Capital One Financial Corporation
Securities Litigation, case no. 02-CV-1069," filed in the U.S.
District Court Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria), under
Judge Claude M. Hilton.

Representing the plaintiffs is Joshua Seth Devore, Cohen
Milstein Hausfeld & Toll PLLC, 1100 New York Ave NW, Suite 500,
Washington, DC 20005-3965, Phone: (202) 408-4600.  Representing
the Company are James Alwin Murphy, LeClair Ryan PC, 707 E Main
St, 11th Fl, Richmond, VA 23219 Phone: (804) 783-2003; and
Laurie Ann Hand, John Alexander Trocki III, Morrison & Foerster
LLP, 1650 Tysons Blvd, Suite 300, McLean, VA 22102, Phone:
(703) 760-7700.


DAY-LEE FOODS: Recalls Dumplings Due To Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Day-Lee Foods, Inc., a Santa Fe Springs, California, firm, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 12,090 pounds of chicken
dumplings that may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service announced today.

The products subject to recall are approximately 30-pound bags
of "FULLY COOKED CHICKEN DUMPLINGS, FOR INSTITUTIONAL USE." The
products bear the code "560205" and the establishment code "EST.
P-17309" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The chicken
dumplings were produced on December 22, 2004, and were
distributed to a wholesaler in North Carolina.

The problem was discovered through company sampling. FSIS has
received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption of
these products.  Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but potentially
fatal disease. Healthy people rarely contract listeriosis.
However, Listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache, neck
stiffness and nausea. Listeriosis can also induce miscarriages
and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes fatal
infections in those with weakened immune systems including
infants, elderly and persons with chronic disease, such as HIV
infection or undergoing chemotherapy.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall may contact
company recall coordinator, Mark Miller at (562) 802-6801.

Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


DELTA AIR: Continues To Face Antitrust Violations Lawsuit in MI
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Michigan has yet to schedule a trial for the litigation filed
against Delta Air Lines, Inc., U.S. Airways and Northwest
Airlines, styled "In Re Northwest Airlines, et al. Antitrust
Litigation."

In June 1999, two purported class action antitrust lawsuits were
filed, alleging, among other things that the defendants and
certain other airlines conspired in violation of Section 1 of
the Sherman Act to restrain competition in the sale of air
passenger service by enforcing rules prohibiting certain
ticketing practices; and that the defendants violated Section 2
of the Sherman Act by prohibiting these ticketing practices.  
Plaintiffs have requested a jury trial.  They seek injunctive
relief; costs and attorneys' fees; and unspecified damages, to
be trebled under the antitrust laws.

The Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class action
certification and denied the airlines' motions for summary
judgment in May 2002.  On May 4, 2004, the Court issued a
supplemental order defining various plaintiff subclasses. The
subclasses pertinent to the company include:

     (1) for the purpose of the Section 1 claim, a subclass of
         persons or entities who purchased from a defendant or
         its agent a full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel
         on any of certain designated city pairs originating or
         terminating at the Company's Atlanta or Cincinnati
         hubs, Northwest's hubs at Minneapolis, Detroit or
         Memphis, or US Airways's hubs at Pittsburgh or
         Charlotte, during the period from June 11, 1995 to
         date;
  
     (2) for the purpose of the Section 2 claim as it relates to
         the Company's Atlanta hub, a subclass of persons or
         entities who purchased from the Company or its agent a
         full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel on any of
         certain designated city pairs originating or
         terminating at the Company's Atlanta hub during the
         same period; and

     (3) for the purpose of the Section 2 claim as it relates to
         the Company's Cincinnati hub, a subclass of persons or
         entities who purchased from the Company or its agent a
         full fare, unrestricted ticket for travel on any of
         certain designated city pairs originating or
         terminating at the Company's Cincinnati hub during the
         same period.


DELTA AIR: Court Denies Appeal of Antitrust Lawsuit Dismissal
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Supreme Court refused to rehear an appeals
court ruling affirming the dismissal of the class action filed
against Delta Air Lines, Inc. and other airlines, styled "Hall,
et al. v. United Airlines, et al."

In January 2002, a travel agent in North Carolina filed a class
action lawsuit against numerous airlines, including the Company,
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina on behalf of all travel agents in the United States
which sold tickets from September 1, 1997 to the present on any
of the defendant airlines.  The lawsuit alleges that the Company
and the other airline defendants conspired to fix travel agent
commissions in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The
plaintiff, who has requested a jury trial, is seeking in its
complaint injunctive relief; costs and attorneys' fees; and
unspecified damages, to be trebled under the antitrust laws.

In September 2002, the Court granted the plaintiff's motion for
class action certification, certifying a class consisting of all
travel agents in the United States, Puerto Rico and the U.S.
Virgin Islands which sold tickets on the defendant airlines
between 1997 and 2002.  On October 30, 2003, the District Court
granted summary judgment against the plaintiff class, dismissing
all claims asserted against the Company and most other
defendants.  On December 9, 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment.  On
January 4, 2005, the Court of Appeals denied the plaintiffs'
motion for rehearing en banc.  The plaintiffs have agreed not to
file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court.  


DELTA AIR: Appeals Court Affirms CA Suit Summary Judgment Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a
lower court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of Delta
Air Lines, Inc. and the other defendants in a class action
styled "All Direct Travel, Inc., et al. v. Delta Air Lines, et
al."

Two travel agencies have filed a purported class action lawsuit
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of all travel agencies from
which the Company have demanded payment for breach of the
agencies' contractual and fiduciary duties to the Company in
connection with Delta ticket sale transactions during the period
from September 20, 1997 to the present.  The lawsuit alleges
that the Company's conduct violates the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970; and creates liability for
unjust enrichment.  The plaintiffs, who have requested a jury
trial, are seeking in their complaint injunctive and declaratory
relief; costs and attorneys' fees; and unspecified treble
damages.

In January 2003, the Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for
class action certification and in April 2003 granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment on all claims. On January
6, 2005, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
affirmed the District Court's judgment.  The time for plaintiffs
to file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States
Supreme Court has not expired.

    
DELTA AIR: Plaintiffs File Amended Travel Agent Suit in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs filed an amended class action in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Delta Air Lines, Inc. and other airlines on behalf of an alleged
nationwide class of US travel agents, styled "Power Travel
International, Inc., et al. v. American Airlines, et al."

In August 2002, a travel agency filed a purported class action
lawsuit in New York state court against the Company, American,
Continental, Northwest, United and JetBlue.  JetBlue has been
dismissed from the case, and the remaining defendants removed
the action to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York. The lawsuit alleges that the defendants breached
their contracts with and their duties of good faith and fair
dealing to U.S. travel agencies when these airlines discontinued
the payment of published base commissions to U.S. travel
agencies at various times beginning in March 2002.  The
plaintiffs' amended complaint seeks unspecified damages, as well
as declaratory and injunctive relief.


ELANCO ANIMAL: Recalls Micotil Antibiotic Due To Wrong 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. For questions pertaining to the recall process, call
Elanco Customer Service at 1-800-782-897, option 1. For full
product information on Micotil see:
http://www.elancous.com/docs/micotil/mico300.pdf. Micotilr is a  
trademark for Elanco's brand of tilmicosin injection.


EQUINIX INC.: Asks NY Court To Approve Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Equinix, Inc. submitted to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against it, certain
of its officers and directors and several investment banks that
were underwriters of the company's initial public offering
(IPO).

On July 30, 2001 and August 8, 2001, putative shareholder class
action lawsuits were filed, on behalf of investors who purchased
Company stock between August 10, 2000 and December 6, 2000.  In
addition, similar lawsuits were filed against approximately 300
other issuers and related parties.

The purported class action alleges violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b), Rule 10b-5
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the
Company and Individual Defendants.  The plaintiffs have since
dismissed the Individual Defendants without prejudice. The suits
allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to allocate stock
in the Company's initial public offering to certain investors in
exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions and
agreements by those investors to make additional purchases in
the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The plaintiffs allege
that the prospectus for the Company's initial public offering
was false and misleading and in violation of the securities laws
because it did not disclose these arrangements.  The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

On February 19, 2003, the Court dismissed the Section 10(b)
claim against the Company, but denied the motion to dismiss the
Section 11 claim.  In July 2003, a Special Litigation Committee
of the Equinix Board of Directors approved a settlement
agreement and related agreements which set forth the terms of a
settlement between the Company, the Individual Defendants, the
plaintiff class and the vast majority of the other approximately
300 issuer defendants and the individual defendants currently or
formerly associated with those companies.

Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the Company and the individual defendants and the Company's
agreeing to assign away, not assert, or release certain
potential claims the Company may have against its underwriters.
The settlement agreement also provides a guaranteed recovery of
$1 billion to plaintiffs for the cases relating to all of the
approximately 300 issuers. To the extent that the underwriter
defendants settle all of the cases for at least $1 billion, no
payment will be required under the issuers' settlement
agreement. To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle
for less than $1 billion, the issuers are required to make up
the difference.  It is anticipated that any potential financial
obligation of the Company to plaintiffs pursuant to the
settlement, currently such claims are expected to be less than
$3.4 million, will be covered by existing insurance and we do
not expect that the settlement will involve any payment by the
Company.  The settlement agreement has been submitted to the
Court for approval. The underwriter defendants have filed
objections to the settlement agreement.

On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a Section 11 class in
four of the six cases that were the subject of class
certification motions and determined that the class period for
Section 11 claims is the period between the IPO and the date
that unregistered shares entered the market. The Court noted
that its decision on those cases is intended to provide strong
guidance to all parties regarding class certification in the
remaining cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a
class in the Equinix case.  

The suit is styled "In re Equinix, Inc. IPO Securities
Litigation, 1:01-cv-07002-SAS," related to "In re Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS),"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The
plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


FLORIDA: Lee County Loses Impact Fee Suit, Could Pay Up To $1.7M
----------------------------------------------------------------
After the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Lee County has
lost a lawsuit over school impact fees, one that according to
officials could end up costing the county more than $1.7
million, the Naples Daily News reports.

Handed down by Lee Circuit Judge Jay Rosman, the ruling applies
only to the estimated 750 people who had new home construction
contracts pending when county commissioners adopted the school
impact fee ordinance in December 2001. The judge had heard oral
arguments in February and just recently ruled that the ordinance
was unconstitutional because it interfered with contract
agreements made before it was passed.

In effect, what the ruling could mean to the county is that it
would have to refund the $2,232 school impact fee to each of
those builders or buyers who paid the fee. That would total as
much as $1.6 million, but if the county has to refund the 3
percent administrative fee it also collects, the damage would
rise to around $1.7 million.  Judge Rosman wrote in his ruling,
"This court finds (the ordinance) retroactively places an
impermissible burden on those contracts ... and clearly
constitutes an impairment which is facially unconstitutional."

According to court documents, the suit is the smaller part of a
two-part class action suit local builders launched over the
fees. The other part of the suit challenged the methodology used
to support the fees, a challenge that could have ramifications
statewide.

Commenting on the judge's ruling, county land use attorney Tim
Jones told Naples Daily News, "We are discussing options, the
ins and outs, with the school counsel and with our special
counsel," "One of those options might be an appeal."

Meanwhile, Jeff Garvin, attorney for the builders, told the
Naples Daily News that there could be more than 750 contracts
affected. He also adds, "It's probably $2 or $3 million worth of
fees," he said. "What the court is saying is any contract signed
before December got burdened by the law."

Michael Reitmann is director of the Lee Building Industry
Association, which launched the suit that later was granted
class-action status. According to him, the decision is of
statewide significance because other jurisdictions have been
following Lee County's lead, making new and increased fees
retroactive to existing contracts. "This is a significant
victory in a lot of jurisdictions. They've been applying this
and ignoring signed contracts," he adds, Naples Daily News
reports.


INFINITY PROPERTY: Anticipates Inclusion in AR Policyholder Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Infinity & Property Casualty Corporation expects to be named as
defendants in a class action filed in Arkansas State Court
against over 500 insurance companies and several providers of
database vendors that software programs used to calculate claims
on bodily injury undervalues amounts owed to policyholders.

If so named, Infinity intends to fight any claims. Because of
the recent date of this action, the Company is not able to
determine whether a loss is probable or estimable, the company
said in a disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission.


INKINE PHARMACEUTICALS: Reaches Settlement For Investors' Suit  
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inkine Pharmaceutical Co., Inc. reached a settlement for the
class action filed against it in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, on behalf of a putative class of holders of
the Company's equity shares who have purportedly been denied
certain claimed preemptive rights during the last six years.  

On October 12, 2004, the Company entered into an agreement with
an undisclosed third-party who will fund its settlement of
damages and costs incurred in connection with the class action
lawsuit.  The Company has also entered into, and filed with the
court, a settlement agreement with the class of Company
shareholders.  The settlement and the agreement with the
undisclosed third-party are subject to a number of conditions,
including final court approval.  At this time, there can be no
assurance that those conditions will be met and that the
settlement will receive final court approval.

The suit is styled "Korman v. Inkine Pharmaceutical Co., Inc.,
case no. 040304341," filed in the Court of Common Pleas,
Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, under Judge Howland W.
Abramson.  Representing the Company is Mary Kay Brown of
Buchanan Ingersoll PC, 1835 Market St. 14th fl, Philadelphia, PA
19103, Phone: (215)-665-8700.  Representing plaintiff Bernard
Korman is Robin B. Shore, 1622 Locust St., Philadelphia, PA,
Phone: (000)-875-4679.


INTRABIOTICS PHARMACEUTICALS: Seeks CA Securities Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Intrabiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc. asked the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California to
dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against
it and certain of its officers.

Beginning on July 2, 2004, three purported class action
shareholder complaints were filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern of California against the Company and
several of its officers.  The actions were consolidated and a
consolidated amended complaint has been filed, purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of the Company's common stock
between September 5, 2003 and June 22, 2004.  The amended
complaint generally alleges that the Company and several of its
officers and directors made false or misleading statements
concerning the clinical trial of iseganan. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

The suit is styled "In Re: IntraBiotics Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Securities Litigation, case no. 04-CV-2675," filed in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California,
under Judge Jeffrey S. White.  

Lawyers for the Company are Boris Feldman, Cheryl W. Foung,
Kassra Powell Nassiri and Ignacio E. Salceda of Wilson Sonsini
Goodrich & Rosati, 650 Page Mill Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050,
Phone: 650-493-9300, Fax: 650-565-5100, E-mail:
boris.feldman@wsgr.com, cfoung@wsgr.com, knassiri@wsgr.com,
isalceda@wsgr.com.

The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Brodsky & Smith, LLC, 11 Bala Avenue, Suite 39, Bala
         Cynwyd, PA, 19004, Phone: 610.668.7987, Fax:
         610.660.0450, E-mail: esmith@Brodsky-Smith.com

     (3) Bruce G. Murphy, 265 Llwyds Lane, Vero Beach La, FL,
         32963, Phone: 561.231.4202,

     (4) Charles J. Piven, World Trade Center-Baltimore, 401
         East Pratt Suite 2525, Baltimore, MD, 21202, Phone:
         410.332.0030, E-mail: pivenlaw@erols.com

     (5) Green & Jigarjian LLP, 235 Pine Street, 15th Floor, San
         Francisco, CA, 94104, Phone: 415.477.6700, Fax:
         415.477.6710,

     (6) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (Los Angeles), 355
         South Grand Avenue, Suite 4170, Los Angeles, CA, 90071,
         Phone: 213.617.9007, Fax: 213.617.9185, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (7) Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (New York), One
         Pennsylvania Plaza, 49th Floor, New York, NY, 10119,
         Phone: 212.594.5300, Fax: 212.868.1229, E-mail:
         info@milbergweiss.com

     (8) Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP, 275 Madison Ave 34th Flr,
         New York, NY, 10016, Phone: 212.682.1818, Fax:
         212.682.1892, E-mail: email@rabinlaw.com

     (9) Schatz & Nobel, P.C., 330 Main Street, Hartford, CT,
         06106, Phone: 800.797.5499, Fax: 860.493.6290, E-mail:
         sn06106@AOL.com

    (10) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com


KRISPY KREME: Subsidiary, Officers Face ERISA Complaint in NC
-------------------------------------------------------------
Krispy Kreme Doughnuts, Inc. (NYSE: KKD) (the "Company") reports
that its wholly-owned subsidiary Krispy Kreme Doughnut
Corporation ("KKDC") was served with a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of North Carolina that asserts claims under Section 502 of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act against KKDC and certain
of its current and former officers, styled Smith v. Krispy Kreme
Doughnut Corporation et al., No. 1:05CV00187.

Plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who were
participants in or beneficiaries of KKDC's retirement savings
plan or profit sharing stock ownership plan between January 1,
2003 and the present and whose accounts included investments in
the Company's common stock. Plaintiff contends that defendants
failed to manage prudently and loyally the assets of the plans
by continuing to offer the Company's common stock as an
investment option and to hold large percentages of the plans'
assets in the Company's common stock; failed to provide complete
and accurate information about the risks of the Company's common
stock; failed to monitor the performance of fiduciary
appointees; and breached duties and responsibilities as co-
fiduciaries. Plaintiff seeks unspecified monetary damages and
other relief. Defendants intend to deny the allegations and
defend themselves vigorously. Although the Company cannot
predict the outcome of this action, an adverse result could have
a material adverse effect on the Company's results of operations
and financial condition.


FARMERS INSURANCE: Chiropractor To Appear For Dismissal Motion
--------------------------------------------------------------
Granite City chiropractor Dr. Lawrence Shipley is set to appear
in court again on March 23 regarding a motion to dismiss his
class action complaint that he filed against Farmers Insurance
on October 16, 2003, the Madison County Record reports.  Circuit
Judge Andy Matoesian will be hearing Farmers' motion to dismiss
the complaint along with a motion filed by Dr. Shipley to compel
discovery, at 9 a.m. in courtroom 351 in Madison County.

Represented by The Lakin Law Firm of Wood River, Dr. Shipley
alleges that Farmers Insurance only paid part of the claim he
filed and accuses the insurance company of using computer
software to uniformly reduce benefits that are paid to doctors.
Furthermore, he alleges that he billed Farmers more than $1,000
for "reasonable" medical treatment provided to patients, but
Farmers allegedly only paid Dr. Shipley part of the claim.  The
suit also alleges that biased software used by Farmers
arbitrarily lowers the cap that does not reflect actual
reasonable expenses of medical providers. He claims that Farmers
uses this database knowing it is biased and designed to reduce
what are in fact reasonable charges.


MARVEL ENTERPRISES: Plaintiffs Appeal Rejection of NY Suit Pact
---------------------------------------------------------------
Parties appealed the New York State Supreme Court, County of New
York's rejection of the proposed settlement of the class action
filed against Marvel Enterprises, Inc., styled "Brian Hibbs,
d/b/a Comix Experience v. Marvel."

On May 6, 2002, Mr. Hibbs commenced a putative class action
alleging that the Company breached its own Terms of Sale
Agreement to comic book retailers and resellers, breached its
obligation of good faith and fair dealing, fraudulently induced
plaintiff and other members of the purported class to buy comics
and unjustly enriched itself.  Mr. Hibbs sought certification of
the putative class and his designation as its representative,
compensatory damages of $8 million on each cause of action and
punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial.  

The parties have reached a proposed settlement in which the
retailers and resellers would receive a credit to their account
with the Company's exclusive distributor, depending on their
prior purchases of certain comic book issues. The parties
tendered that settlement to the Court for approval, but it was
rejected on technical grounds.  The parties have appealed the
rejection of the settlement.  It is not known when the Appellate
Division will act on this matter or how long it will take for
final approval of the settlement.  


MCI INC.: Stockholder Launches Stock Fraud Lawsuit in DE Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pojanowski, III, filed a stockholders' class action
complaint on behalf of the public stockholders of MCI, Inc., in
the Chancery Court of the State of Delaware in and for New
Castel County on February 18, 2005, Worldcom Bankruptcy News
(February 28, 2005) reports.  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) MCI, Inc.,
   
     (2) Nicholas D. Katzenbach, Chairman of the Board of
         Directors,
   
     (3) Michael Capellas, Chief Executive Officer of MCI,
   
     (4) Dennis Beresford, MCI Director,
   
     (5) Judith Haberkorn, MCI Director,
   
     (8) Laurence E. Harris, MCI Director,

     (9) Eric Holder, MCI Director,

    (10) Mark Neporent, MCI Director, and
   
    (11) C.B. Rogers, Jr., MCI Director.

Mr. Pojanowski, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, seeks to enjoin the proposed acquisition of
the publicly owned shares of MCI's common stock by Verizon
Communications, Inc.  According to Finfacts Ireland Business
News, Mr. Pojanowski is a New Jersey-based lawyer who holds 631
shares of MCI.

Carmella P. Keener, Esq., at Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross &
Goddess, P.A., in Wilmington, Delaware, relates that on February
11, 2005, Qwest Communications International, Inc., transmitted
a letter to the Board of Director of MCI, proposing to acquire
MCI.  Under Qwest's offer:

     (i) The value of the transaction was $24.60 per share to
         MCI shareholders, comprised of $7.50 in cash; and
         $15.50 of Qwest common stock based on a fixed exchange
         ration of 3.735 Qwest shares per MCI share.

    (ii) MCI shareholders would receive $0.40 - $1.60 total - in
         quarterly dividends per MCI share for the four quarters
         anticipated between signing and closing.

   (iii) Qwest's proposed merger agreement relating to the
         transaction contained a non-solicitation provision,
         which would allow MCI's Board the ability to change its
         recommendation in favor of the Qwest transaction prior
         to the MCI shareholder vote in the event of a superior
         proposal not matched by Qwest.

In the same period of time, Verizon made a much less lucrative
offer to purchase MCI.  Verizon offered $20.75 per share in
value, which equate to a total package of $6.75 billion.

Qwest reconfirmed the terms of its proposal in writing to the
MCI Board of Directors on the evening of February 13, 2005.  The
value of the offer was approximately $8 billion, as valued by
Qwest.

After meeting for only one hour on February 13, 2005, MCI
rejected Qwest's offer and accepted Verizon's offer.  When the
sale was announced, Mr. Capellas justified the decision to
accept Verizon's bid on the grounds that Qwest is not as large
as Verizon and is $17 billion in debt.

Ms. Keener notes that shareholders representing 11% of MCI's
equity have stated that MCI's Board should reconsider Qwest's
bid.  Analysts were also not impressed with MCI's justification
for rejecting Qwest's bid in favor of Verizon.  Ms. Keener
points out that Mr. Capellas stands to gain handsomely if he
leaves MCI after the acquisition.  According to the terms of his
employment contract, Mr. Capellas would receive at least $4.5
million, or three times the sum of his base salary of $1.5
million, if he leaves for "good reason."  He is also eligible to
receive three times his bonus, which could amount to another
$4.5 million.

Ms. Keener argues that the consideration to be paid to Class
members in the Verizon transaction is "unconscionable, unfair,
and grossly inadequate" because the intrinsic value of MCI's
common stock is materially in excess of the amount offered for
those securities in the proposed acquisition given the stock's
current trading price and MCI's prospects for the future growth
and earnings in comparison to other recent comparable
transactions.  Furthermore, there is a gross disparity between
the knowledge and information possessed by the Defendants by
virtue of their positions of control of MCI and that possessed
by MCI's public stockholders.

The Individual Defendants have breached their fiduciary duties
by depriving MCI's public stockholders of maximum value to which
they are entitled.  Mr. Pojanowski and the Class have been and
will be damaged, in that they have not and will not receive
their proportionate share of the value of MCI's assets.

The Individual Defendants have also breached the duties of
loyalty and due care by not taking adequate measures to ensure
that the interests of MCI's public stockholders are properly
protected from overreaching.  

Ms. Keener contends that MCI's Board, in violation of their
fiduciary duties, failed to:

     (a) conduct a full evaluation of the merger;

     (b) gave only minimal consideration to the deal; and

     (c) make an informed decision in their one-hour meeting for
         evaluation of the proposal.

Unless enjoined by the Court, the Defendants will continue to
breach their fiduciary duties owed to Mr. Pojanowski and the
Class.

Ms. Keener contends that Mr. Pojanowski's action is properly
maintainable as a class action.  The Class is so numerous that
joinder of all members is impracticable.  As of September 30,
2004, there were 317,883,234 shares of MCI common stock
outstanding owned by hundreds if not thousands of public
shareholders.  There are questions of law and fact, which are
common to the Class.

Mr. Pojanowski maintains that he is committed to prosecuting the
action and has retained competent counsel experienced in
litigation of this nature.  Mr. Pojanowski's claims are typical
of the claims of the other members of the Class and Mr.
Pojanowski has the same interests as the other members of the
Class.  Thus, Mr. Pojanowski is an adequate representative of,
and will fairly and adequately protect the interest of, the
Class, Ms. Keener says.  Moreover, Ms. Keener notes, the
Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the
Class.

Accordingly, Mr. Pojanowski, on behalf of the Class, asks the
Chancery Court to declare the complaint as a proper class action
and certify him as class representative; enjoin, preliminarily
and permanently, the MCI acquisition under the terms presently
proposed; to the extent, if any, that the transaction complained
of is consummated prior to the entry of the Court's final
judgment, rescind the same or award rescissory damages to the
Class; require the Defendants to fully disclose all material
information regarding the transaction; direct the Defendants to
account to Mr. Pojanowski and the Class for all damages caused
to them and account for all profits and any special benefits
obtained by the Defendants as a result of their unlawful
conduct; and award him the costs and disbursements of his
action, including a reasonable allowance for the fees and
expenses of attorneys and experts.


METRO WATER: Employees Launch Racial Discrimination Suit in TN
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nine black Metro Water Services Department employees initiated a
lawsuit against Metro Government, accusing the Metro Water
Department with permitting a racially hostile environment, the
Nashville City Paper reports.  Pending before U.S. District
Court Judge William J. Haynes Jr. is a motion to certify the
case as a class action on behalf of former, current and future
black employees.

According to the complaint, the plaintiffs are alleging that
black employees were subjected to racially disparate forms of
pay, promotion, job assignments, supervision, discipline and
accommodations.  The named plaintiffs in the suit are Oralene
Day, Sandra Derrick, Darrel Gant, Claude Grant, Princess
Martindale, Darryl McKibbens, Antonio McKissack, Faletha Reid
and Pamela Tucker. They are all seeking injunctive relief, which
would prohibit any future discriminatory practices, and
compensatory damages for pain, suffering and mental anguish.

Martin Holmes, the plaintiff's legal counsel and an attorney
with Stewart, Estes & Donnell told the Nashville City Paper, "It
is our contention that historically African Americans have been
underrepresented in management and supervisory positions at the
Metro Water Services Department."

Furthermore, the plaintiffs allege that Water Department Human
Resources Manager Robin Brown has contributed to the problem by
being less than receptive to their concerns. Ms. Brown, who
began her stint with Metro Water in 2002, recently removed from
her office area a sign that read "What can Brown do to you," a
play on the UPS slogan.  Mr. Holmes also adds that Water
Department Executive Director Scott Potter, after receiving a
written complaint, had Ms. Brown remove the sign but has taken
no further action.

Brook Fox, the Metro Legal attorney handling the case, told the
City Paper the Water Department has handled matters involving
promotions and employee relations fairly and that it is Metro's
position that there is not a class to certify."  

Kelvin Jones, executive director of the Metro Human Relations
Commission staff, said the agency is reviewing the matter, the
City Paper reports.


ORGANON USA: Reaches Mirtazapine Drug Monopoly Settlement in IN  
---------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana consumers will receive an estimated $250,000 from a
national class action drug settlement made by drug maker Organon
USA Inc. for allegedly maintaining an illegal monopoly over
mirtazapine, the active ingredient of its antidepressant drug
Remeron, which had included every U.S. state and yielded a total
settlement of $33 million, according to Attorney General Steve
Carter, the Northwest Indiana News reports.

As previously reported in the October 22, 2004 edition of the
Class Action Reporter, the complaint alleged that Organon misled
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration about the scope of a new
"combination therapy" patent it had obtained in order to extend
its monopoly. In addition, the complaint alleged that Organon
delayed listing the patent with the FDA in another effort to
deter the availability of lower-cost generic substitutes. This
resulted in higher prices to those who paid for the drug. With
annual sales in excess of $400 million at its peak, Remeron is
Organon's top-selling drug. Since Organon allegedly delayed
listing the patent with the FDA, lower-cost generic substitutes
couldn't be created and consumers wound up paying higher prices,
the suit said.

Mr. Carter told Northwest Indiana News, "These alleged
questionable practices may have resulted in stifling competition
where consumers were prevented access to low-cost generic
equivalents of the drugs. This settlement will provide some
relief to people who paid the higher prices."

Under the settlement, Organon has also agreed to strong
injunctive relief that will require the company to make timely
listing of patents and prohibits Organon from submitting false
or misleading listing information to the FDA. Conduct undertaken
by defendants that fails to comply with the terms of the States'
Injunction could lead to contempt of court charges, regardless
of whether the conduct was legal or illegal, according to the
settlement.

Remeron is Organon's top-selling drug. The suit though does not
raise questions about the safety or effectiveness of the drugs.

Mr. Carter told the Northwest Indiana News that those who bought
Remeron from June 25, 2001, to January 25, 2005, have an
opportunity to make a claim for a refund, but must do so by June
13, 2005.


PERDUE FARMS: Recalls Cooked Chicken Strips For Underprocessing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Perdue Farms, Inc., a Concord, North Carolina, establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 230,700 pounds of fully
cooked chicken breast strips due to possible underprocessing,
the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection
Service (FSIS) announced today.

The products being recalled are 10-pound cases of "SUBWAY FC
CHICKEN BRST STRIPS." Each case contains the code "09365" or
"09222." Each case also contains one of the following packing
dates: "5032," "5038," "5052," "5055" or "5070."  The chicken
strips were produced in February and March and were shipped to
centers in Alabama, Florida, Massachusetts, North Carolina,
Pennsylvania and Virginia for further distribution.  The problem
was discovered by the Company. FSIS has received no reports of
illnesses from consumption of the product.

Media with questions about the recall can call Perdue Corporate
Communications Manager Joe Forstoffer at (410) 860-4407.
Consumers with questions about the recall can call Perdue
Consumer Services toll free at 1 (800) 817-9810.

Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


QUOVADX INC.: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit 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 Quovadx,
Inc., certain of its officers and directors and certain of its
underwriters.

The consolidated suit alleges that the prospectus from the
Company's February 10, 2000 initial public offering (IPO) failed
to disclose certain alleged improper actions by various
underwriters for the offering in the allocation of the IPO
shares.  The amended complaint alleges claims against certain
underwriters, the Company and certain officers and directors
under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 (Bartula v. XCare.net, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-CV-
10075).

Similar complaints have been filed concerning more than 300
other IPO's; all of these cases have been coordinated as In re
Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92. In a
negotiated agreement, individual defendants, including all of
the individuals named in the complaint filed against the
Company, were dismissed without prejudice, subject to a tolling
agreement.  Issuer and underwriter defendants in these cases
filed motions to dismiss and, on February 19, 2003, the Court
issued an opinion and order on those motions that dismissed
selected claims against certain defendants, including the Rule
10b-5 fraud claims against the Company, leaving only the Section
11 strict liability claims under the Securities Act of 1933
against the Company. A committee of the Company's Board of
Directors has approved a settlement proposal made by the
plaintiffs.  On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order
granting conditional preliminary approval of the settlement.  

The suit is styled "Bartula v. XCare.net, Inc., et al., Case No.
01-CV-10075," related to "In re Initial Public Offering
Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)," filed in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  The plaintiff firms
in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


QUOVADX INC.: Plaintiffs Seek Certification For CO Stock Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado to grant class certification to a lawsuit
filed against Quovadx, Inc., its now-former Chief Executive
Officer and its now-former Chief Financial Officer, alleging
securities violations.

On March 18, 2004, a purported class action complaint was filed,
captioned "Smith v. Quovadx, Inc. et al, Case No. 04-M-0509,"
alleging violations of Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, purportedly on
behalf of all persons who purchased Quovadx common stock from
October 22, 2003 through March 15, 2004.  The claims are based
upon allegations the Company:

     (1) purportedly overstated its net income and earnings per
         share during the class period,

     (2) purportedly recognized revenue from contracts between
         the Company and Infotech Networks Group prematurely,
         and

     (3) purportedly lacked adequate internal controls and was
         therefore unable to ascertain the financial condition
         of the Company.

Eight additional, nearly identical class action complaints were
filed in the same Court based on the same facts and allegations.
The actions seek damages against the defendants in an
unspecified amount.  On May 17 and 18, 2004, the Company filed
motions to dismiss each of the complaints.  Since then, all but
one of the actions, entitled "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 04-M-0665 (OES)," have been dismissed.  Thereafter, the
plaintiff in Heller filed a first amended complaint, which
asserts the same claims as those asserted in the original
complaint, and includes allegations regarding the Company's
accounting for certain additional transactions.

On September 8, 2004, the Court approved the appointment of
David Heller as lead plaintiff.  On September 29, 2004, the
Court denied defendants' motions to dismiss the first amended
complaint and approved the appointment of Mr. Heller's counsel
as lead plaintiff's counsel.  On October 14, 2004, the Company
and the other defendants filed answers to the first amended
complaint, denying allegations of wrongdoing and asserting
various affirmative defenses. On January 13, 2005, the Court
approved a scheduling order that, inter alia, requires
plaintiffs to file a motion for class certification by January
31, 2005, which they did, and fact discovery, which has
commenced, to conclude eight months after the Court issues an
order, if any, certifying a class.  

The suit is styled "Heller v. Quovadx, Inc., et al., case no.
1:04-cv-00665-RPM" filed in the United States District Court in
Colorado, under Judge Richard P. Matsch.  Representing plaintiff
David Heller are Dennis Jeremy Herman, Jeffrey W. Lawrence and
Ex Kano S. Sams, Lerach Coughlin Stoia & Robbins, LLP, 100 Pine
Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 U.S.A, Phone:
415-288-4545, Fax: 288-4534; and Kip Brian Shuman of Dyer &
Shuman, LLP, 801 East 17th Avenue, Denver, CO 80218-1417, U.S.A,
Phone: 303-861-3003, Fax: 830-6920.  Representing the Company
are John Alonzo Hutchings and Adam Philip Stapen of Dill, Dill,
Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, 455 Sherman Street #300, Denver,
CO 80204 U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-3737


QUOVADX INC.: Shareholders Initiate Securities Fraud Suit in CO
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quovadx, Inc., it's now-former Chief Executive Officer, its now-
former Chief Financial Officer and its Board of Directors face a
class action filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Colorado, entitled "Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc. et
al, Case No. 04-M-1006 (OES)."

The complaint alleged violations of Section 11 and Section 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, purportedly on behalf of
all former shareholders of Rogue Wave Software, Inc. who
acquired Quovadx common stock in connection with the Company's
exchange offer effective December 19, 2003.  The claims are
based upon the same theories and allegations as asserted in the
Section 10(b) class actions described above.  The Court denied
plaintiff's motion to consolidate this Section 11 action with
the Section 10(b) cases and authorized the two competing lead
plaintiff candidates to take discovery of each other in advance
of a hearing on the appointment of lead plaintiff.

On July 14, 2004, the Company and outside director defendants
filed an answer to the complaint, denying allegations of
wrongdoing and asserting various affirmative defenses.  On
September 8, 2004, the Court directed the plaintiff to publish
new notice of pendency of this action inviting potential class
members to submit motions for appointment as lead plaintiff.  
Two putative class members filed competing motions for
appointment as lead plaintiff, and their motions are "sub
judice."  The Court stayed all discovery related to the merits
of the litigation pending the appointment of a lead plaintiff.
On October 4, 2004, the Company's former CEO and CFO filed an
answer to the complaint, denying allegations of wrongdoing and
asserting various affirmative defenses.  

The suit is styled "Henderson v. Quovadx, Inc., et al., case no.
1:04-cv-01006-RPM," filed in the United States District Court
for the District of Colorado, under Judge Richard P. Matsch.  
Representing the plaintiffs is Evan S. Lipstein, PC, 12600 West
Colfax Avenue, #C-400, Lakewood, CO 80215, U.S.A, Phone:
303-232-5151, Fax: 303-232-5161, E-mail: evan@lipsteinlaw.com.  
Representing the defendants is John Alonzo Hutchings of Dill,
Dill, Carr, Stonbraker & Hutchings, 455 Sherman Street
#300 Denver, CO 80204, U.S.A, Phone: 303-777-3737.


SOLUTIA INC.: Forges Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Suit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated class
action filed against it, Flexsys, the Company's joint venture
with Akzo Nobel N.V., and a number of other companies producing
rubber chemicals in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

Eight similar suits were initially filed on behalf of all
individuals and entities that had purchased rubber chemicals in
the United States during the period January 1, 1995.  The suits
were later consolidated into a single action called "In Re
Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation."  The consolidated action
alleges price-fixing and seeks treble damages and injunctive
relief under U.S. antitrust laws on behalf of all the
plaintiffs.

The Company filed a Suggestion of Bankruptcy in this
consolidated action staying the litigation against it.  A
settlement agreement was filed with the district court on
February 18, 2005. If approved by the district court, the
agreement would release Flexsys, Solutia, Akzo Nobel and their
predecessors in interest from any further liability to the
members of the class with respect to the allegations in the
action.

The suit is styled "In Re: Rubber Chemicals Antitrust
Litigation, case no. 3:03-cv-1496," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, under
Judge Martin Jenkins.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

    (1) W. Joseph Bruckner, Yvonne M. Flaherty, Lockridge
        Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P, 100 Washington Avenue S Suite
        2200, Minneapolis, MN 55401, Phone: 612-339-6900, Fax:
        612-339-0981, E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com,
        ymflaherty@locklaw.com;

     (2) Michael P. Lehmann, The Furth Firm LLP, 225 Bush
         Street, 15th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone:
         415-433-2070, Fax: 415-982-2076, E-mail:
         mplehmann@furth.com;

     (3) Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri Inc., One
         Embarcadero Center, Suite 1020, San Francisco, CA
         94111, Phone: 415-217-6810, E-mail: rick@saveri.com

Representing the company are Richard Allen Jones and John Guyler
White, Covington & Burling, One Front Street, 35th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-591-7065, Fax: 415-955-6565, E-
mail: rjones@cov.com, JGWhite@cov.com


SOLUTIA INC.: Faces State, Canadian Antitrust Violations Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. and Flexsys, its 50/50 joint venture with Akzo
Nobel N.V., continues to face litigation brought about by the
antitrust authorities in the United States, Europe and Canada's
investigations into the past commercial practices in the rubber
chemicals industry.  Flexsys is a subject of such an
investigation and has been fully cooperating with the
authorities and will continue to do so in the ongoing
investigation, the Company said in a disclosure to the
Securities and Exchange Commission.

Although not named as a defendant, the Company is aware of 22
purported class actions filed in various state courts against
Flexsys and other producers of rubber chemicals.  In 20 of these
cases, plaintiffs seek actual and treble damages under state law
on behalf of all retail purchasers of tires in that state since
as early as 1994.  In the other two cases, plaintiffs make
similar allegations and seek similar relief on behalf of all
consumers of products containing rubber, including tires.  

Twelve of these cases remain pending at the trial level in
procedural stages or are pending on appeal following dismissal
on procedural grounds as to Flexsys.  In another case,
defendants have appealed following the denial of their motion to
dismiss for lack of standing.  On March 1, 2005, the Company
became aware of a new state court action filed in Tennessee on
behalf of consumers who allegedly purchased any product
containing rubber chemicals in Tennessee or a number of other
states.  The case was filed against Flexsys and other rubber
chemical producers and also names the Company.

The allegations in the case are similar to the two cases
described above which were previously filed in other states on
behalf of all consumers of products containing rubber chemicals,
including tires and requests the same form of relief. The case
will be automatically stayed against the Company.

In May 2004, two purported class actions were filed in the
Province of Quebec, Canada, against Flexsys and other rubber
chemical producers alleging that collusive sales and marketing
activities of the defendants damaged all persons in Quebec
during the period July 1995 through September 2001. Plaintiffs
seek statutory damages of (CAD) $14.6 million along with
exemplary damages of (CAD) $25 per person. A hearing will be
scheduled to determine which case will be allowed to go forward.
The company is not a defendant in either of these class actions.


SOLUTIA INC.: CA Court Dismisses Consolidated Securities Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
California dismissed the second amended consolidated securities
class action filed against Solutia, Inc., its then and former
chief executive officers and its then chief financial officer.

Six purported shareholder class actions were initially filed and
later consolidated into a single action called "In Re Solutia
Securities Litigation."  The consolidated complaint alleges that
from December 16, 1998 to October 10, 2002, the Company's
accounting practices regarding incorporation of Flexsys's
results into the Company's financial reports violated federal
securities laws by misleading investors as to the Company's
actual results and causing inflated prices to be paid by
purchasers of the Company's publicly traded securities during
the period.  The plaintiffs seek damages and any equitable
relief that the court deems proper.  The consolidated action has
been automatically stayed with respect to the Company by virtue
of Section 362(a) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

The consolidated complaint was dismissed as against the
individual defendants for failure to state a claim, but
plaintiffs were granted the right to file an amended complaint,
which they did. The second amended complaint against the
individual defendants was dismissed with prejudice on January 4,
2005. Plaintiffs have the right to appeal.

The suit is styled "In re Solutia Inc. Securities Litigation,
case no. 4:03-cv-03554-SBA," filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, under Judge
Saundra Brown Armstrong.  Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Darren J. Robbins, William S. Lerach, Kimberly C.
         Epstein, Lesley Weaver, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller
         Rudman & Robbins LLP, 401 B Street Suite 1700, San
         Diego, CA 92101, Phone: 619-231-1058, Fax: 619-231-
         7423, Email: e_file_sd@lerachlaw.com,
         Billl@lerachlaw.com, kimcor@lerachlaw.com,
         lesleyw@lerachlaw.com

     (2) Nadeem Faruqi, Faruqi & Faruqi, 320 East 39th Street
         New York, NY 10016, Phone: 212-983-9330, Fax: 212-983-
         9331

     (3) Patrick J. Coughlin, Maria V. Morris, Milberg Weiss
         Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP, 100 Pine Street, Suite
         2600, San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415/288-4545,
         Fax: 415-288-4534, Email: patc@mwbhl.com,
         mariam@mwbhl.com

     (4) Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow LLP, 1801 Avenue of
         the Stars, Suite 311, Los Angeles, CA 90067, Phone:
         310/201-9150 Fax: (310) 201-9160, Email:
         info@glancylaw.com

Representing the company are Richard Allen Jones and John Guyler
White, Covington & Burling, One Front Street, 35th Floor, San
Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-591-7065, Fax: 415-955-6565, E-
mail: rjones@cov.com, JGWhite@cov.com


SOLUTIA INC.: Opposes Motion To Withdraw ERISA Claim Reference
--------------------------------------------------------------
Solutia, Inc. opposed plaintiffs' motion to withdraw the
reference of his claim based on the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) in the class action filed against the
Company's former officers and employees and its Employee
Benefits Plans Committee and Pension and Savings Funds Committee
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York.  The Company was not named as a defendant.

The suit, styled "Dickerson v. Feldman, et al.," alleges breach
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and seeks to recover alleged
losses to the Solutia Inc. Savings and Investment Plan ("SIP
Plan") arising from the alleged imprudent investment of SIP Plan
assets in the Company's common stock during the period December
16, 1998 to the date the action was filed.  The investment is
alleged to have been imprudent because of the Company's legacy
environmental and litigation liabilities and because of
Flexsys's alleged involvement in related litigation.  The action
seeks monetary payment to the SIP Plan to make good the losses
resulting from the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, as well
as injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief, reasonable
attorney's fees and expenses, costs and interest.  In addition,
the plaintiff in this action filed a proof of claim for $269
million against the Company in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York.

The plaintiff now seeks to withdraw the reference of his ERISA
claim from the bankruptcy court to the district court so that
the proof of claim and the class action can be considered
together by the district court.  On February 11, 2005, the
company filed an objection to the motion to withdraw the
reference.


SOUTH KOREA: Class Action Against Unnamed Firm Expected in April
----------------------------------------------------------------
In what will be the first class action suit since the government
has allowed a group of minority shareholders to file a suit
against company mismanagement since the beginning of the year,
Kim Joo-young, a lawyer at Hannuri Law Offices in South Korea
plans to file a class action suit against a small manufacturing
company next month, The Korea Times reports.   The unspecified
company listed on the Korea Stock Exchange is suspected of
manipulating stock prices and using insider information for
stock transactions.

Kim Joo-young, who declined to identify the company, saying only
that it produces animal feed, told the Korea Times, "We plan to
file a class action suit against a small manufacturing company
next month. We are closely looking into the company for
suspected insider trading, stock price manipulation and false
disclosure."

From this year on ward, a group of minority shareholders are
allowed to file class action suits against all listed companies
both on the Korea Stock Exchange and Kosdaq market, regardless
of asset size, if they are suspected of insider trading and
stock price manipulation.  

Businesses with assets of more than 2 trillion won have also
been preparing for possible class action suits, but smaller
firms cannot afford to prepare for possible suits, leaving them
more vulnerable to the new litigation system.  "Unfortunately,
many small- and mid-sized companies will have to suffer most
from class action lawsuits in the second half of this year," Mr.
Kim told the Korea Times. "Frequent changes in share ownership
of its major shareholders or frequent disclosure changes are
clear signs for involvement in insider trading," he adds.

In case of false accounting, listed companies with assets of
more than 2 trillion won ($2 billion) are subject to the class
action lawsuit starting from this year and those with less than
2 trillion won from 2007.

However, the government has recently decided to grant a two-year
reprieve to companies with more than 2 trillion won assets for
past false accounting, which occurred several years before
December 31, 2004, to correct their misstatements.

With the decision, not only companies that fabricated their
books before January 20, 2004, but responsible auditors also
will have a two-year grace period to clean up their books. They
will be able to prepare themselves for the new class action
system beginning in 2007.


SPARK NETWORKS: IL, CA Consumers Sue Over Dating Services Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Networks PLC faces two separate yet similar class action
complaints filed in California and Illinois state courts, based
on alleged violations of the states' consumer protection laws.

On June 21, 2002, Tatyana Fertelmeyster filed an class action
complaint against the Company in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, based on an alleged violation of the Illinois
Dating Referral Services Act.  Another nationwide class action,
styled "Jason Adelman v. MatchNet plc, case no. BC 306167,"
filed in the Los Angeles Superior Court in California, charges
the Company with an alleged violation of California Civil Code
Section 1694 et seq., which regulates businesses that provide
dating services.

In each of these cases, the complaint included allegations that
alleged that the Company was a dating service and, as an alleged
dating service, the Company is required to provide language in
its contracts that allows members to rescind their contracts
within three days, that allows reimbursement of a portion of the
contract price if the member dies during the term of the
contract and/or that allows members to cancel their contracts in
the event of disability or relocation.  Causes of action include
breach of applicable state and/or federal laws, fraudulent and
deceptive business practices, breach of contract and unjust
enrichment.  The plaintiffs are seeking remedies including
declaratory relief, restitution, actual damages although not
quantified, treble damages and/or punitive damages and
attorney's fees and costs.

A similar suit, styled "Huebner v. InterActiveCorp., Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles Case No.
BC 305875," was filed against InterActiveCorp's Match.com that
has been ruled related to "Adelman", but the two cases have not
been consolidated.  Adelman and Huebner each seek to certify a
nationwide class action based on their complaints. Because the
cases are class actions, they have been assigned to the Los
Angeles Superior Court Complex Litigation Program.  The court
has ordered a bifurcation of the liability issue, and a hearing
will be scheduled to determine whether, as matter of law, the
California Dating Services Act applies to our business. If the
court determines that the Act is inapplicable, all further
expenses associated with discovery and class certification can
be avoided.

The Company has filed a motion for summary judgment and the
court has certified an Illinois class in the case brought by
Ms. Fertelmeyster.  The purported class includes all of our
members in Illinois for the five years preceding the filing of
the action.


T&L CREATIVE: Recalls Chicken Salad For Listeria Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
T&L Creative Salads, a Brooklyn, N.Y., firm, is voluntarily
recalling approximately 250 pounds of chicken salad that may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service announced
today.

The products subject to recall are approximately 5 lb. plastic
containers of "T&L Creative Salads, Inc. CHICKEN SALAD." The
products also bear the code "038327" and the establishment code
"EST. P-19930" inside the USDA mark of inspection.  The chicken
salad was produced on March 7, 2005, and distributed to retail
stores in New York City.

The problem was discovered through routine FSIS sampling. FSIS
has received no reports of illnesses associated with consumption
of these products.  Consumption of food contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes can cause listeriosis, an uncommon but
potentially fatal disease. Healthy people rarely contract
listeriosis. Listeriosis can cause high fever, severe headache,
neck stiffness, and nausea. Listeriosis can also cause
miscarriages and stillbirths, as well as serious and sometimes
fatal infections in those with weakened immune systems including
infants, elderly, and persons with chronic disease, such as HIV
infection, or undergoing chemotherapy.

Media and consumers with questions about the recall may contact
Company Vice President Anthony Morello, Jr., at (718) 272-6400.  
Consumers with food safety questions can phone the toll-free
USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline at 1-888-MPHotline
(1-888-674-6854). The hotline is available in English and
Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m. (Eastern Time)
Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety messages are
available 24 hours a day.


TELECOMMUNICATION SYSTEMS: NY Court Okays Stock 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
Telecommunication Systems, Inc., certain of its current officers
and a directors and several investment banks that were the
underwriters of the Company's initial public offering.  The suit
is styled "Highstein v. Telecommunication Systems, Inc., et al.,
case no. 01-CV-9500."

The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of damages. The
lawsuit purports to be a class action suit filed on behalf of
purchasers of the Company's Class A Common Stock during the
period August 8, 2000 through December 6, 2000.  The plaintiffs
allege that the Underwriters agreed to allocate the Company's
Class A Common Stock offered for sale in the Company's initial
public offering to certain purchasers in exchange for excessive
and undisclosed commissions and agreements by those purchasers
to make additional purchases of the Company's Class A Common
Stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices.  The
plaintiffs allege that all of the defendants violated Sections
11, 12 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and
that the underwriters violated Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder.  

The claims against the Company of violation of Rule 10b-5 have
been dismissed with the plaintiffs having the right to re-plead.
On February 15, 2005, the Honorable Judge Shira A. Scheindlin,
entered an order preliminarily approving a settlement proposal
which the Company believe will result in a resolution that will
not materially impact the Company's consolidated results of
operations, financial position, or cash flows.

More than 300 other companies have been named in nearly
identical lawsuits that have been filed by some of the same law
firms that represent the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the
Company, and the Company believes that the majority of those
companies will participate in the same settlement if approved.

The suit is styled "Highstein v. Telecommunication Systems,
Inc., et al., case no. 01-CV-9500," related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, Master File No. 21 MC 92
(SAS)," filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin.  
The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

     (1) Bernstein Liebhard & Lifshitz LLP (New York, NY), 10 E.
         40th Street, 22nd Floor, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         800.217.1522, E-mail: info@bernlieb.com

     (2) Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, LLP (New York,
         NY), One Pennsylvania Plaza, New York, NY, 10119-1065,
         Phone: 212.594.5300,

     (3) Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP, 3 Bala Plaza E, Bala Cynwyd,
         PA, 19004, Phone: 610.667.7706, Fax: 610.667.7056, E-
         mail: info@sbclasslaw.com

     (4) Sirota & Sirota, LLP, 110 Wall Street 21st Floor, New
         York, NY, 10005, Phone: 888.759.2990, Fax:
         212.425.9093, E-mail: Info@SirotaLaw.com

     (5) Stull, Stull & Brody (New York), 6 East 45th Street,
         New York, NY, 10017, Phone: 310.209.2468, Fax:
         310.209.2087, E-mail: SSBNY@aol.com

     (6) Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz LLP, 270
         Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10016, Phone:
         212.545.4600, Fax: 212.686.0114, E-mail:
         newyork@whafh.com


WAL-MART STORES: To Pay $11M To Settle Suit Over Illegal Workers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wal-Mart Stores, the nation's largest retailer has agreed to pay
a record $11 million to settle accusations that it used hundreds
of illegal immigrants to clean its stores, according to federal
prosecutors and immigration officials, the New York Times
reports.

Investigators told the New York Times that they had decided not
to bring criminal charges against Wal-Mart, since it was
cooperating and had pledged strong action to prevent future
employment of illegal immigrants at its 3,600 stores in the
United States.  Federal officials pointed out that the $11
million payment was four times larger than any other single
payment to the government in an illegal immigrant employment
case.

The settlement grew out of enforcement actions in which 100
janitors who were illegal immigrants were arrested in 2001 at
Wal-Mart stores in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri and New York,
and an additional 245 were arrested in October 2003 at 60 stores
in 21 states. Soon after, Wal-Mart acknowledged receiving a
letter saying it was the subject of a federal grand jury
investigation in Pennsylvania.

Wal-Mart has said that its executives knew nothing about the
employment of illegal immigrants before the raids and that
contractors, which Wal-Mart had used to clean its stores late at
night, hired the janitors. Company officials also said they used
more than 100 contractors to clean more than 700 of its stores.

The settlement came just two months after Wal-Mart began a
publicity campaign to portray itself as a model employer, saying
that it pays higher wages than most retailers. Wal-Mart, which
has 1.2 million workers in the United States, has sought to
improve its image after labor unions accused it of providing
poor wages and benefits and after lawyers filed class-action
lawsuits, accusing it of sexual discrimination and forcing
employees to work unpaid hours off the clock.

In a statement from Washington, federal officials acknowledged
to the media that 12 janitorial contractors that worked for Wal-
Mart had agreed to forfeit $4 million to the government and to
plead guilty to criminal charges of employing illegal
immigrants, the New York Times reports.  Many of the immigrants
said they generally worked from midnight until 8 a.m. seven
nights a week, cleaning and waxing floors. They came from nearly
20 countries, including Mexico, Brazil, the Czech Republic,
China, Poland and Russia.

Wal-Mart officials stressed that the $11 million was not a fine,
but a voluntary payment that would be used to help ensure
compliance with immigration laws. Wal-Mart has said it has cut
back its use of cleaning contractors.

Joseph Hansen, president of the United Food and Commercial
Workers Union, which has sought to unionize some Wal-Mart
stores, told the Times the record payment "should be a wake-up
call to a corporation that has systematically bent and broken
the law to increase their corporate coffers at the expense of
the most vulnerable employees."

Lilia Garcia, executive director of the Maintenance Cooperation
Trust Fund, a group that monitors conditions for janitors, told
the Times the settlement was inadequate. She adds, "The $11
million really isn't that much when you consider this was going
on in 21 states. It was a real pattern and practice." She also
said that Wal-Mart was so huge that an $11 million penalty would
hardly serve as a deterrent.

The lawsuit had alleged that more than 10,000 illegal immigrant
janitors were used at Wal-Mart stores and that they were
virtually never paid time-and-a-half for overtime.  Under the
term of the settlement Wal-Mart will be permanently barred form
hiring illegal immigrants and directs it to establish within 18
months a mechanism to make sure that its contractors "are taking
reasonable steps to comply with immigration laws."  For its
part, Wal-Mart pledged to train all of its store managers over
the next 18 months not to knowingly hire or continue to employ
illegal immigrants. Wal-Mart also agreed to continue cooperating
with federal officials investigating its contractors.

The settlement was announced by Michael J. Garcia, the assistant
secretary of the Department of Homeland Security who heads the
Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau, and by Thomas A.
Marino, United States Attorney for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania.  Both federal officials praised Wal-Mart for
providing complete cooperation after the October 2003 raids.


WASHINGTON: Couple Launches Lawsuit V. Department of Corrections  
----------------------------------------------------------------
A routine trip from the grocery store changed a Kitsap woman's
life forever, when a Washington State corrections officer,
suspected of being impaired, plowed into her vehicle head-on at
63 miles per hour, leaving her in a coma with a broken neck and
permanent injuries.

Now in a lawsuit filed March 3, 2005, Barbara Starkel is holding
the Washington State Department of Corrections responsible for
turning a blind eye to the officer's suspected drug and alcohol
use, and for leaving him on unsupervised home duty despite a
host of warning signs.

The state employee, Mark Aldrich, was speeding at the time of
the accident and admitted to having consumed two 16-ounce
bottles of beer two hours before the crash, according to police
records. Mr. Aldrich refused to submit to a voluntary blood draw
or undergo a drug-use evaluation at the scene.

"The fact that Ms. Starkel suffered such devastating injuries
due to carelessness and alleged substance abuse is bad enough,"
said Tony Shapiro, attorney for the Starkels and partner in the
Seattle law firm Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro. "Even more
troubling is the fact that the person responsible was a
corrections officer, a man whose job it is to uphold the safety
of innocent people like Barbara."

At the time of the collision, Mark Aldrich was employed as a
community corrections officer with the state of Washington. But
due to a pending investigation into his suspected purchase and
abuse of illegal drugs, he was placed on home assignment, the
suit details. Under the terms of his assignment, Mr. Aldrich was
to remain at and work from his home from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and
remain available by phone during that time, according to the
complaint.

The complaint states that while Mr. Aldrich was on home
assignment, the department investigated claims that he possessed
and was using illegal drugs in the workplace. The DOC was also
repeatedly notified that Mr. Aldrich was driving about the
community during work hours, in clear violation of the
conditions of his home assignment.

Tony Shapiro said that the Department of Corrections overlooked
Mr. Aldrich's violations of home duty and left him unsupervised,
perhaps with the intention of ensnaring him in a drug sting
operation.

"We believe the DOC knew about Mr. Aldrich's questionable
behavior and drug use. Yet they made the community's safety a
second-rate priority, hoping that they would catch him buying
drugs," said Mr. Shapiro. "Unfortunately, the result of that
miscalculation is the tragic accident involving Barbara
Starkel."

The Department of Corrections took no steps to supervise Mark
Aldrich while he was on home assignment, despite knowledge of
his suspicious behavior and violations, the suit alleges. The
complaint also states that had Mr. Aldrich been properly
supervised, he would not have been taking drugs and alcohol, and
would not have been driving during work hours, thus preventing
the collision.

In one incident on October 23, 2003, an employee observed
Aldrich sitting at his desk with his head hanging down below the
level of the desk, state documents disclose. The coworker called
his name and, according to the document: "he looked up at me
with a long, thin orange needle cover in his mouth."

"We intend to show that the DOC's inadequate supervision of Mr.
Aldrich and failure to keep him from endangering the public
resulted in the accident," Mr. Shapiro said. "We intend to hold
the department accountable for its actions."

The suit seeks damages for past and future medical expenses,
wage loss, and pain and suffering.

For more details, contact Tony Shapiro of Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro, LLP by Phone: +1-206-623-7292 or by E-mail:
tony@hbsslaw.com OR Mark Firmani of Firmani & Associates, Inc.,
by Phone: +1-206-443-9357 or by E-mail: mark@firmani.com.  


WORLDCOM INC.: Court Starts Proceedings For $55.25 Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
A federal court has began proceedings to weigh approval of a
settlement deal that will have 11 former WorldCom directors
personally pay for half of a $55.25 million class action lawsuit
against the company, according to a published report,
MarketWatch reports.

The settlement was filed last week with U.S. District Judge
Denise Cote, Dow Jones Newswires reported, citing Sean Coffey
who is representing the case's lead plaintiff, the New York
State Common Retirement Fund. According to the reports, the
directors will pay $20.25 million to end the suit over company-
issued bonds and securities.

As previously reported in the January 13, 2005 edition of the
Class Action Reporter an earlier proposal, with 10 outside
directors agreeing in principle to pay $18 million of a $54
million settlement had been made but it failed last month.

The remaining $35 million of the newest settlement that was
proposed by the directors, who had served on the
telecommunication company's board from 1999 to 2002, will be
covered by insurance, Dow Jones reports.  The directors who
involved in the settlement are James Allen, Clifford Alexander
Jr., Judith Areen, Carl Aycock, Max Bobbitt, Francisco Galesi,
Stiles Kellett, Jr., Gordon Macklin, John Porter, the estate of
John Sidgmore and Lawrence Tucker.

In a recent statement, New York State Comptroller Alan Hevesi,
the sole trustee of the New York State Common Retirement Fund,
said that the settlement allows a trial against WorldCom's
former auditor, Arthur Andersen, and its former chairman, Bert
Roberts, to move forward. Mr. Hevesi is the lead plaintiff in
lawsuits filed by investors against WorldCom, its former board
members, chairman and banks.  Jury selection in the case is
expected to begin on Tuesday, Dow Jones reports.


                 New Securities Fraud Cases

ASTRAZENECA PLC: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased
American Depository Receipts ("ADRs") of AstraZeneca, PLC
("AstraZeneca") (NYSE:AZN) between April 2, 2003 and October 8,
2004, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are
investors who acquired securities on foreign markets.

The Complaint alleges that AstraZeneca, a pharmaceutical
research company, and certain of its officers and directors
issued materially false statements concerning the results of the
clinical trials of the Company's investigational oral
anticoagulant Exanta, and the status and likelihood of the
approval of the New Drug Application for Exanta. These
statements caused the Company's stock/ADR prices to rise until
September 9, 2004, when the U.S. Food & Drug Administration
("FDA") posted briefing documents on the FDA's website which
raised previously unheard-of problems with Exanta. Then, on
October 8, 2004, AstraZeneca issued a press release stating,
that they received an Action Letter from the FDA for Exanta. The
release stated that "the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
did not grant approval for the investigational oral
anticoagulant EXANTA(R) (ximelagatran)." On this news,
AstraZeneca stock fell to $38 per share. During the Class
Period, AstraZeneca traded as high as $51.20 per share on March
9, 2004.

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.


BRADLEY PHARMACEUTICALS: Stull Stull Files Securities Suit 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 Bradley Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Bradley" or the "Company") (NYSE:BDY), on behalf of purchasers
of Bradley securities between October 8, 2003 and February 25,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are all
those who acquired Bradley's shares in its December 10, 2003
equity offering and/or its October 10, 2003 debt offering.

The complaint alleges that Bradley violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading information. Specifically,
the Complaint alleges that Bradley was materially overstating
its financial results by engaging in improper accounting
practices. On February 28, 2005, Bradley announced that the
staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") is
conducting an informal inquiry to determine whether there have
been violations of the federal securities laws. In connection
with the inquiry, the SEC staff requested that Bradley provide
it with certain information and documents concerning issues
related to revenue recognition and capitalization of certain
payments. In light of the ongoing SEC staff inquiry and separate
counsel's review, Bradley announced that it will be delaying the
release of its 2004 earnings. In response to this disclosure,
Bradley stock fell from a close of $13.25 per share on February
25, 2005, to close at $9.75 per share on February 28, 2005, the
next trading day.

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: Shepherd Finkelman Files Stock Lawsuit in WA
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC
initiated a lawsuit seeking class action status in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington on
behalf of all persons (the "Class") who purchased the securities
of Cell Therapeutics, Inc. (Nasdaq: CTIC) ("CTI" or the
"Company") during the period June 7, 2004 and March 4, 2005 (the
"Class Period"). A copy of the Complaint may be obtained from
the Court, or you can call our offices toll free at either
866/540-5505 or 877/891-9880 to speak with an attorney regarding
this matter and we will send you a copy of the Complaint.

The Complaint charges CTI, Max Link, and James A. Bianco with
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. More
specifically, the Complaint alleges that CTI failed to disclose
and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, known
by the Defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that, contrary to the Company's express and repeated
         representations, the results of its clinical trial of
         the experimental cancer drug XYOTAX 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 its study of XYOTAX had failed to demonstrate
that it was more effective than standard chemotherapy. This news
stunned 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 James E. Miller, Esq. by Phone:
1-866-540-5505 or by E-mail: jmiller@classactioncounsel.com OR
James C. Shah, Esquire by Phone: 1-877-891-9880 or by E-mail:
jshah@classactioncounsel.com.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Stull Stull Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Cell Therapeutics Inc. ("CTI")
(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 CTI. failed to
disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts
which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by
them. Contrary to the defendants' express and repeated positive
representations about its drug XYOTAX, the results of the
STELLAR 3 trial announced at the end of the Class Period were
not encouraging. In these results indicated that XYOTAX failed
to boost survival for non-small cell lung cancer and that XYOTAX
failed to show greater survival benefit than Taxol, the leading
drug on the market. Furthermore, based on the results of the
trial, the Company would not be able to begin pre-launch
activities and 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 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.


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

The Complaint alleges that Inspire violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, the Complaint alleges that Inspire made improper
statements regarding the Stage III trial of its dry eye drug,
Diquafosol tetrasodium. The Complaint alleges that Inspire
failed to inform investors that the study's primary endpoint
mandated by the FDA had changed from corneal staining to a more
stringent corneal clearing. Moreover, the Complaint alleges that
during a November 4, 2004 conference call, Inspire stated that
the primary endpoint was "corneal staining." When the truth was
revealed on February 9, 2005, Inspire stock fell from a previous
close of $16.00 per share to close at $8.88 per share on
extremely heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Jack G. Fruchter, Esq. of Abraham
Fruchter & Twersky, LLP by Mail: One Penn Plaza, Suite 2805, New
York, New York 10119 by Phone: (212) 279-5050 or (800) 440-8986,
by Fax: (212) 279-3655 or by E-mail: jfruchter@aftlaw.com.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Stock Suit in NC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins
LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
on behalf of purchasers of Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Inspire") (NASDAQ:ISPH) common stock during the period between
June 2, 2004 and February 8, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Inspire and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Inspire is a biopharmaceutical company dedicated to
discovering, developing and commercializing novel prescription
products for diseases with significant unmet medical needs.
Inspire has significant technical and scientific expertise in
the therapy areas of ophthalmology and respiratory care.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
engaged in false and misleading statements and material
omissions regarding the conduct and course of Inspire's Phase
III clinical studies for diquafosol sodium ("diquafosol") for
their New Drug Application ("NDA") submission to the FDA.
Diquafosol is an investigative drug intended to treat "dry eye."
Specifically, the Company misled investors as to the
requirements for the clinical trial as set forth in the clinical
protocol and agreement defendants had with the FDA. The primary
endpoint represented to investors during the Class Period
involved observation of "corneal staining," as opposed to the
more stringent requirements of "corneal clearing." Then on
February 9, 2005, the Company announced the failure of its Phase
III trial and revealed for the first time to investors that the
primary endpoint of the study in fact involved observation of
"corneal clearing," a much harder primary endpoint than
investors had expected. Following the news, the price of Inspire
stock plunged 44.5%, to $8.88, for a loss of $7.12 per share, on
unprecedented volume of 17.4 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by
each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public
during the Class Period, were as follows:

     (1) the primary endpoint for the Inspire Phase III protocol
         for diquafosol was based on corneal clearing and not
         corneal staining;

     (2) the corneal clearing endpoint was a far more
         challenging and difficult to achieve endpoint, while
         the corneal staining endpoint provided greater
         prospects for success;

     (3) selection of a more difficult and unproven endpoint for
         the diquafosol Phase III study had negative
         implications for the success of the diquafosol clinical
         program for the treatment of dry eye;

     (4) selection of a more difficult and unproven corneal
         clearing endpoint had negative implications for the
         Company to successfully compile and submit an NDA for
         the drug;

     (5) selection of a more difficult and unproven corneal
         clearing endpoint had negative implications for the
         price of the Company's stock and the success of any
         contemplated supplemental stock offerings; and

     (6) investors were wholly uninformed as to the true risks
         of clinical study failure and prospects for failure to
         gain marketing approval for diquafosol for the
         treatment of dry eye by the FDA.

The complaint alleges that as a result of the defendants' false
statements, Inspire shares traded at inflated prices during the
Class Period. On July 30, 2004, as Inspire stock traded as high
as $13.07 per share, the Company announced the completion of a
sale of $82 million worth of Inspire stock at a price of $12.00
per share. Then again, on November 16, 2004, as Inspire stock
traded at a price of $18.50 per share, the Company completed its
previously announced public offering of 2,530,000 shares of
common stock for net proceeds of approximately $42.3 million.

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


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Kirby McInerney Files Securities Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kirby McInerney & Squire, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of all purchasers of Pharmos
Corp. securities ("Pharmos" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:PARS)
during the newly-expanded period from February 10, 2000 through
December 17, 2004, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The action charges Pharmos and certain of its senior officers
with violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The
alleged violations stem from the dissemination of false and
misleading statements, which had the effect -- during the Class
Period -- of artificially inflating the price of Pharmos's
shares.

During the Class Period, defendants concealed the fact that
Dexanabinol, the Company's flagship drug product for Traumatic
Brain Injury (TBI) trial was not exhibiting materially favorable
reaction. Prior to disclosing this information to the public,
Pharmos sold millions worth of stock in private placements.
Furthermore, the Company's CEO sold 20% of his holdings and its
President sold almost 50% of his holdings. Such sales occurred
after the close of Phase III enrollment and after the six month
post-enrollment period concluded. On December 20, 2004, just
weeks after insiders sold 400,000 shares of stock, Pharmos
announced that Dexanabinol was not found to be materially
effective in Phase III testing. Furthermore, after years of
touting the effectiveness of Dexanabinol, the Company abruptly
ceased its effort to gain approval for Dexanabinol for TBI.

For more details, contact Vivian Lee of Kirby McInerney &
Squire, LLP by Mail: 830 Third Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New
York 10022 by Phone: (212) 317-2300 or (888) 529-4787 by E-mail:
vlee@kmslaw.com.


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Stock Suit in NJ
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of all persons
who purchased the common stock of Pharmos Corp. ("Pharmos" or
the "Company") (Nasdaq: PARS) between May 5, 2003 and December
17, 2004, inclusive, (the "Class Period") against defendants
Pharmos and certain officers of the Company. The case name is
Ginzburg v. Pharmos Corp., et al.

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

Beginning in 2001, the Company initiated Phase III trials to
determine the efficacy of Dexanabinol, its primary candidate
under development, for the treatment of traumatic brain injury.
By November 2002, 400 patients had been enrolled in studies
conducted in Europe and Israel, and in July 2003, the Company
initiated enrollment of U.S. patients in the Phase III trial.
During these studies, a single dose of Dexanabinol would be
administered to a patient having suffered dramatic brain injury.
To show efficacy, it needed to be demonstrated that
administration of Dexanabinol resulted in patients regaining
more of their memory and motor skills than those who received a
placebo. The efficacy of Dexanabinol on each individual patient
was determined at six months after enrollment through the
application of the Glasgow Outcome Scale - Extended (GOSE).

The Complaint alleges that beginning May 5, 2003, defendants
began a campaign of touting the efficacy of Dexanibinol, causing
the stock price to increase from $1.20 per share on May 5, 2003
to as high as $5 during the Class Period.

On December 20, 2004, defendants shocked the investing public
when they issued a press release announcing the results from the
Phase III trial of Dexanabinol. According to the press release,
Dexanabinol did not show a neuroprotective effect in the Phase
III trial consisting of 861. Essentially, the trial results
indicated that Dexanabinol was ineffective for treating
traumatic brain injuries. Due to this revelation, shares of
Pharmos fell precipitously from $3.50 per share to $1.18 per
share, losing approximately 65% of their value.

While the Company's public investors suffered millions of
dollars in damages, Pharmos executives sold millions of dollars
worth of Pharmos stock and insured their continued positions of
employment as a result of the Company raising over $40 million
by issuing stock to the public at inflated levels.

In a press release published on March 9, 2005, Pharmos announced
that the Company's net loss for the year increased to $22.0
million, or $0.24 per share in 2004 compared to a net loss of
$18.5 million, or $0.27 per share in 2003. Wolf Haldenstein is
continuing its investigation into the matter.

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


SIERRA WIRELESS: Murray Frank Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of shareholders who
purchased or otherwise acquired the securities of Sierra
Wireless, Inc. ("Sierra Wireless" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq:SWIR) between January 28, 2004 and January 26, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Sierra Wireless and certain of its
officers and directors with violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges
that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the
following material adverse facts known to defendants or
recklessly disregarded by them:

     (1) that the introduction of Sierra Wireless' Voq-branded     
         professional phones was a complete and utter disaster
         because it harmed the Company's relationship with its
         biggest customer, palmOne and ultimately lead to
         palmOne's decision to stop purchasing embedded modules
         from Sierra Wireless;

     (2) that Sierra Wireless' decision to invest in Voq
         development at the expense of a UMTS card lead to a
         serious reduction in revenues;

     (3) that Sierra Wireless' dependence on palmOne revenue was
         significantly greater than had been reported;

     (4) that Sierra Wireless was facing increasing competition
         in the PC Card market due to its out-dated technology;
         and

     (5) that due to the Company's out-dated PC Cards, many of
         Sierra's major customers had excess inventory of its
         products.

On January 26, 2005, after the market closed for regular
trading, Sierra issued a press release announcing its financial
results for the fourth quarter of 2004 and provided guidance for
the first quarter of 2005. Specifically, Sierra announced that
its revenue for the fourth quarter of 2004 was well below the
previous guidance that it had given to investors and further
announced that it expected a steep decline in its revenue going
forward. News of this shocked the market. Shares of Sierra
Wireless, on January 27, 2005, fell $5.53 per share, or 38.14
percent, to close at $8.97 per share on unusually heavy trading
volume.

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


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Suit in E.D. NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
publicly traded securities of Veeco Instruments, Inc. ("Veeco")
(NASDAQ:VECO) between April 26, 2004 and February 10, 2005,
inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint alleges that Veeco violated federal securities
laws by issuing false and misleading public statements.
Specifically, the complaint alleges that it had improperly
valued the inventory and accounts payable at its TurboDisc
division, that it falsely recognized revenue at TurboDisc during
the Class Period, and that it improperly overvalued its deferred
tax assets. On February 11, 2005, Veeco announced that it was
postponing the results of its financial results for the fourth
quarter and full year 2004 pending completion of an internal
investigation of improper accounting transactions at its
TurboDisc division. On this news, Veeco stock fell from a close
of $18.86 per share on February 10, 2005, to close at $16.96 per
share on February 11, 2005.

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.


VEECO INSTRUMENTS: Wolf Haldenstein Lodges Securities Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP
initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of all
persons who purchased or acquired the common stock of Veeco
Instruments, Inc. ("Veeco" or the "Company") (Nasdaq: VECO)
between February 6, 2004 and February 10, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period") against defendants Veeco and certain officers of
the Company.

The case name is Holthuizen v. Veeco Instruments, Inc., et al.

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

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
made statements were materially false and misleading when made
because they failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the
following adverse facts, among others:

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

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

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

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


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

The complaint charges Viisage, Bernard Bailey, William Aulet,
and Denis K. Berube 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 in order to make the Company more attractive to
         outside lenders and relieve the controlling shareholder
         from its role as the Company's creditor, Viisage
         artificially inflated its third quarter profit and made
         baseless earnings projections;

     (2) that the Company inflated third quarter profit by
         improperly recognizing certain corporate benefits,
         while deferring the recognition of certain corporate
         expenses; and

     (3) that relying on the inflated profits Viisage was able
         to secure a credit line, from an outside source, to
         finance its business operations.

On February 7, 2005, Viisage announced that earnings and net
income were expected to fall below guidance. News of this
shocked the market. Shares of Viisage fell $1.36 per share or
18.71 percent, on February 8, 2005, to close at $5.91 per share.
On March 2, 2005, Viisage reported final results for its fourth
quarter and year ended December 31, 2004. The net loss for the
fourth quarter of 2004 was $5.2 million, or $0.11 per fully
diluted share. Additionally, Viisage reported that the Company
determined that it had an internal control deficiency. On this
news shares of Viisage fell another $0.97 per share or 17.73
percent, on March 3, 2005, to close at $4.50 per share.

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


VIISAGE TECHNOLOGY: Berman DeValerio Files Securities Suit in MA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo
initiated a class action lawsuit against Viisage Technology,
Inc. ("Viisage" or the "Company") (Nasdaq:VISG), claiming that
the Company misled investors about its finances in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

The lawsuit seeks damages for violations of federal securities
laws on behalf of all investors who bought Viisage publicly
traded securities during the period of July 22, 2004 through and
including March 2, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The lawsuit claims that the defendants violated Sections 10(b)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder, including U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") Rule 10b-5.

According to the complaint, Viisage portrayed itself during the
Class Period as a turn around company in the high growth sector
of secure identity solutions. In reality however,

     (1) Viisage engaged in improper conduct with respect to a
         $20 million contract;

     (2) the Company improperly inflated its reported revenues
         in the third and fourth quarters of 2004; and

     (3) Viisage's internal accounting controls were so flawed
         that the Company qualified as a having "material
         weakness" under the accounting standards set by the
         Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.

As a result of misleading financial statements issued during the
Class Period, the Company's stock soared to $9.64 per share on
December 23, 2004, up from $6.95 per share on July 22, 2004, a
38.7% increase in just six months.

Then, on February 7, 2005, Viisage announced that the Company
would not meet its previously issued earnings guidance for 2004.
In addition, rather than report a $1.5 loss as previously
projected, Viisage anticipated a loss of approximately $7-8
million.

The market's reaction was immediate. On February 8, 2005,
Viisage's shares plunged as much as 24.3% -- from $7.27 to a low
of $5.85.

On March 2, 2005, Viisage again shocked the market by announcing
that the Company's auditor would "issue an adverse opinion with
respect to the effectiveness of the Company's internal controls
over financial reporting." In addition, Viisage announced that
revenues for the first quarter 2005 would be between $15-$17
million -- well below expectations of $19.7-$21 million.

On this news, Viisage's shares plunged as much as 27.2% on March
3, 2005 to a low of $4.30 - down from the close of $5.47 the
previous day.

For more details, contact Jeffrey C. Block, Esq. or Leslie R.
Stern, Esq. by Mail: One Liberty Square, Boston, MA 02109 by
Phone: (800) 516-9926 or by E-mail: law@bermanesq.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.bermanesq.com/pdf/Viisage-Cplt.pdf.


                            *********


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  * * *