CAR_Public/050323.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 23, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 58

                          Headlines

AMERICAN EXPRESS: NC Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Consumer Fraud
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeking To Resolve Antitrust Suits in S.D. NY
AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Intervene in NY Lawsuit V. MBNA, Citibank
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Quebec Court
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit

AMERIDEBT INC.: To Shut Down Operation To Settle FTC Fraud Suit
AMEX BANK: Canadian Cardmembers Sue Over Currency Conversion Fee
ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES: Plaintiffs to Appeal CA Suit Dismissal
ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC.: OH Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
CALLAWAY GOLF: Faces Litigation Due To Unilateral Sales Policy

CALLAWAY GOLF: Removes Consumer Fraud Suit To FL Federal Court
CANADIAN PACIFIC: October 10 Trial Set For Suits Over Derailment
CONSTELLATION POWER: MD Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification
CONSTELLATION POWER: CA Court Dismisses Power Contracts Lawsuit
CONSTELLATION POWER: Faces Amended Unfair Trade Lawsuit in CA

CROWN COLLEGE: Students File WA Suit Over Unacceptable Credits
DICKSON CAMPERS: Judge To Rule on Suit Classification
E.A. SWEEN: Expands Recall Of Listeria Contaminated Sandwiches
EASTSIDE DELI: Recalls Deli Products Due To Listeria Content
FORD MOTOR: Faces Various State Lawsuits Over Explorer Rollovers

FORD MOTOR: Trial in Consumer Fraud Suit Set For June 2006 in IL
FORD MOTOR: Faces State Lawsuits V. Crown Victoria Interceptors
FORD MOTOR: To Seek Review of Consumer Lawsuit Certification
FORD MOTOR: IL Police Squads Opting Out Of Crown Victoria Suit
HEARTSINE TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls AEDs Due To Random Shutdowns

HEWLETT-PACKARD: Workers Lodge Suit Over Misclassification in ID
HI-GRADE MEATS: Recalls Deli Franks Due To Undeclared Allergen
KANSAS: City Settles Case, Could Become Basis For Class Action
MICHIGAN: Suits Endanger State's National Resources Trust Fund
OFFICE DEPOT: Settles CO Managers' Overtime Wage Suit For $3.3M

ORGANON USA: Reaches Mirtazapine Drug Monopoly Settlement in NE
PHARMOS CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in NJ
SKYWEST INC.: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
SOFT CHEESES: FDA Warns Against Soft Cheeses Made With Raw Milk
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Asks AZ Court To Consolidate Stock Suits

VERDISYS INC.: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in TX
WORLDCOM INC.: Last Ex-Director Settles Investor Suit For $4.5M

* Expert Says Exposure To Mold Infestation Serious Health Threat


               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars

* Scheduled Events for Class Action Professionals
* Online Teleconferences

                         
                  New Securities Fraud Cases

IMERGENT INC.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Lawsuit in UT
LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Stock Suit in SC
SIERRA WIRELESS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY

                          *********


AMERICAN EXPRESS: NC Court Dismisses Lawsuit For Consumer Fraud
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of North
Carolina dismissed a class action filed against American Express
Co., styled "eGeneral Medical, Inc., et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.
et al."

The suit alleged that the fees charged to Internet merchants
when funds have been advanced by the Company and are later
charged back to those merchants because a consumer transaction
has been determined to be the result of fraud, or when a
transaction has been disputed by the consumer and the dispute is
resolved in the consumer's favor, are excessive.  The plaintiffs
sought treble damages in an unspecified amount "but which is, at
a minimum, hundreds of millions of dollars," disgorgement of
fees earned, injunctive and other relief.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Seeking To Resolve Antitrust Suits in S.D. NY
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. is working to resolve or have dismissed a
number of purported class actions in which the plaintiffs allege
an unlawful antitrust tying arrangement between the Company's
charge cards, credit cards and debit cards in violation of
various state and federal laws.  The suits are styled:

     (1) Cohen Rese Gallery et al. v. American Express Company
         et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed July 2003);

     (2) Italian Colors Restaurant v. American Express Company
         et al., U.S. District Court for the Northern District
         of California (filed August 2003);

     (3) DRF Jeweler Corp. v. American Express Company et al.,
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed December 2003);

     (4) Hayama Inc. v. American Express Company et al.,
         Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (filed
         December 2003);

     (5) Chez Noelle Restaurant v. American Express Company et
         al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed January 2004);

     (6) Mascari Enterprises d/b/a Sound Stations v. American
         Express Company et al., U.S. District Court for the
         Southern District of New York (filed January 2004);

     (7) Mims Restaurant v. American Express Company et al.,
         U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
         York (filed February, 2004); and

     (8) The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company et
         al., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
         New York (filed July, 2004)

The plaintiffs in these actions seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.  Upon motion to the Court by the
Company, the venue of the Cohen Rese and Italian Colors actions
was moved to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York in December 2003.  Each of the above-listed actions
(except for Hayama) is now pending in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York. On April 30, 2004, the
Company filed a motion to dismiss all the actions filed prior to
such date that were pending in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.  A decision on that motion is
pending.

In addition, the Company has asked the Court in the Hayama
action to stay that action pending resolution of the motion in
the Southern District of New York.  The Company has also filed a
motion to dismiss the action filed by The Marcus Corporation.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Intervene in NY Lawsuit V. MBNA, Citibank
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Co. intends to find a motion to intervene in
the class action filed in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, captioned "National
Supermarkets Association, Inc., Mascari Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a
Sound Stations, and Bunda Starr Corp. d/b/a Brite Wines and
Spirits v. MBNA America Bank, N.A., MBNA Corp., Citibank (South
Dakota) N.A. and Citigroup, Incorporated."

Although the Company is not named as a defendant, the plaintiffs
in this action are also plaintiffs in other direct actions
against it.  This lawsuit alleges that, by agreeing to issue
American Express-branded cards, MBNA and Citibank have conspired
with the Company in an alleged wrongful tying arrangement.  The
Company believes this lawsuit is without merit and is contrary
to the Department of Justice's successful efforts to render
unenforceable Visa's and MasterCard's rules that prevented banks
from issuing American Express-branded cards in the United
States, the Company said in a disclosure to the Securities and
Exchange Commission.  The Company also believes that this
lawsuit is susceptible to the same defenses available to the
Company in the direct actions filed against it, and will seek to
intervene in this action and have it dismissed.

The suit is styled "National Supermarket Association Inc. et al
v. MBNA America Bank, N.A. et al, case no. 1:04-cv-10318-GBD,"
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, under Judge George B. Daniels.  
Representing the plaintiffs are:

     (1) Eric James Belfi, Murray, Frank & Sailer, LLP, 275
         Madison Avenue, Ste. 801, New York, NY 10016, Phone:
         212-682-1818, Fax: 212-682-1892, E-mail:
         ebelfi@murrayfrank.com;

     (2) Blaine Howell Bortnick, Liddle and Robinson, LLP, 800
         Third Avenue, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10022, Phone: 212
         687-8500, Fax: 212 687-1505, E-mail:
         bbortnick@liddlerobinson.com   

     (3) Gary B. Friedman, Noah L. Shube, Friedman & Shube, 155
         Spring Street, New York, NY 10012, Phone: (212) 680-
         5150, Fax: (212)-219-6446, E-mail:
         garybfriedman@att.net

     (4) Michael Goldberg, Glancy, Binkow & Goldberg L.L.P., 455
         Market Street, Suite 1810 San Francisco, CA 94105

     (5) Mark Reinhardt, Reinhardt, Wendorf & Blanchfield, E-
         1250 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota
         Street, St. Paul, MN 55101, Phone: (651) 297-2100


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Faces Consumer Fraud Lawsuit in Quebec Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Bank of Canada faces a motion to authorize a
class action filed in the Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal, styled "Option Consommateurs and Normand Painchaud v.
American Express Bank of Canada et al."

The motion, which also names as defendants Citibank Canada, MBNA
Canada, Capital One and Royal Bank of Canada, alleges that the
defendants have violated the Quebec Consumer Protection Act by
imposing finance charges on credit card transactions prior to 21
days following the receipt of the statement containing the
charge.  It is alleged that the Quebec Consumer Protection Act
provisions which require a 21 day grace period prior to imposing
finance charges applies to credit cards issued by the company in
Quebec and that finance charges imposed prior to this grace
period violate the Act.  The proposed class seeks reimbursement
of all finance charges imposed in violation of the Act, $200 in
punitive damages per class member, interest and fees and costs.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Asks AZ Court To Dismiss Consumer Fraud Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Financial Corporation asked the United States
District Court for the District of Arizona to dismiss the class
action filed against it and IDS Life Insurance Company, styled
"Haritos et al. v. American Express Financial Corporation and
IDS Life Insurance Company."

The suit is filed by plaintiffs who purport to represent a class
of all persons that have purchased financial plans from American
Express Financial Advisors from November 1997 through July 2004.  
Plaintiffs allege that the sale of the plans violates the
Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the "IAA"). The suit seeks an
unspecified amount of damages, rescission of the investment
advisor plans and restitution of monies paid for such plans.

In June 2004, the Court denied the Company's motion to dismiss
the action as a matter of law. The Court did indicate, however,
that the plaintiffs may not have a compelling case under the
IAA.  

The suit is styled "Haritos, et al v. American Express Fin, et
al, case no. 02-CV-2255," filed in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division), under Judge Paul G.
Rosenblatt.  Representing plaintiff John Haritos are:

     (1) Robert C. Moilanen, Carolyn G. Anderson, Anne T. Regan,
         Zimmerman Reed PLLP, 651 Nicollet Mall, Ste 501,
         Minneapolis, MN 55402, Phone: (612)341-0400

     (2) Barry Grant Reed, Hart Lawrence Robinovitch, Zimmerman
         Reed PLLP, 14646 N Kierland Blvd, Ste 145 Scottsdale,
         AZ 85254-2762, Phone: (480)348-6400

     (3) Jon E. Drucker, Moss Gropen, Law Offices of Jon E
         Drucker, 8306 Wilshire Blvd, #638 Beverly Hills, CA
         90211, Phone: (323)931-6363

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Eric Mogilnicki, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
         LLP, 2445 M St NW, Washington, DC 20037-1420, Phone:
         (202)663-6000

    (ii) Robert S Stern, Esq, James P Maniscalco, Joseph T Hahn,
         Morrison & Foerster LLP, 555 W 5th St, Ste 3500, Los
         Angeles, CA 90013-1024, Phone: (213)892-5200

   (iii) Peter K Vigeland, David W Bowker, Wilmer Cutler
         Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, 399 Park Ave, 31st Floor,
         New York, NY 10022, Phone: (212)230-8800

    (iv) William J Maledon, Esq, Jeffrey Bryan Molinar, Osborn
         Maledon PA, PO Box 36379, Phoenix, AZ 85067-6379,
         Phone: (602)640-9000


AMERIDEBT INC.: To Shut Down Operation To Settle FTC Fraud Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
AmeriDebt, Inc. will shut down its debt management operation as
part of a settlement of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) charges
that it deceived consumers into paying at least $170 million in
hidden fees. The FTC charged that the company misrepresented
that it was a nonprofit credit counseling organization that
would teach consumers how to manage their finances for no up-
front fee. The settlement requires AmeriDebt to transfer all
current clients' accounts to a third party and bars the company
from participating in any aspect of the credit counseling
business in the future. The settlement does not include the
other defendants - the FTC's case against Andris Pukke,
DebtWorks, and the relief defendant, Mrs. Pukke, will continue.

In a complaint filed in November 2003, the FTC charged that
AmeriDebt, Inc., DebtWorks, Inc., and Andris Pukke deceived
consumers with claims that AmeriDebt was a nonprofit
organization that could help consumers get out of debt without
an up-front fee. The FTC charged that, rather than operating for
charitable purposes as advertised, AmeriDebt was funneling
profits to affiliated for-profit entities, including DebtWorks
and Andris Pukke. According to the FTC, AmeriDebt deceived new
clients into making a "voluntary contribution" to enroll in the
program. The FTC alleged that AmeriDebt kept these initial
"contributions" as fees without consumers' knowledge, rather
than disbursing the money to consumers' creditors as promised.

The FTC's complaint also charged that, despite promises to teach
them how to manage their money to avoid future debt, the
defendants simply enrolled all customers in debt management
plans (DMPs). In the DMP, consumers made a single monthly
payment to AmeriDebt for all their unsecured debts; the payment
was then to be disbursed to the consumers' creditors. The FTC
charged AmeriDebt with deceptive practices and also with
violating the Gramm-Leach-Bliley (GLB) Act by failing to provide
consumers with required privacy notices. In addition, the
complaint named Andris Pukke's wife, Pamela Pukke, as a relief
defendant.

In June 2004, AmeriDebt filed for bankruptcy protection in the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland. At the
request of the FTC and others, the bankruptcy court removed
existing management and appointed a Trustee to oversee
AmeriDebt.

The stipulated final order bars AmeriDebt from participating in
the credit counseling, debt management, or credit education
business. As part of the settlement and the bankruptcy case, the
company will shut down its operations by transferring all
existing DMPs to a third party. The Trustee, Mark Taylor, Esq.
of the law firm of Arent Fox PLLC, has already taken steps to
transfer AmeriDebt's existing DMPs to a reputable credit
counseling agency consistent with the terms of the order.

In addition, the stipulated final order prohibits AmeriDebt from
misrepresenting that it is a nonprofit organization; that it
does not charge up-front fees for its services; and that it will
counsel consumers about their finances. The company also is
prohibited from violating the GLB Act in the future. The order
requires the company to file a plan of liquidation with the
bankruptcy court. In addition, the order contains a judgment of
$170 million, but the FTC will collect on this amount, if at
all, through the AmeriDebt bankruptcy case. Finally, the order
contains standard recordkeeping requirements to assist the FTC
in monitoring the defendant's compliance.

For updates to the case, the FTC consumer hotline number for
AmeriDebt is 1-877-862-0886.  The Commission vote authorizing
staff to file the stipulated final judgment and order was 5-0.
The order was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Maryland on March 18, 2005.

For more details, contact the FTC's Consumer Response Center,
Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20580,
by Phone: 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or visit the Website:
http://www.ftc.gov. Also contact, Jen Schwartzman Office of  
Public Affairs, by Phone: 202-326-2674 or Peggy Twohig, Bureau
of Consumer Protection by Phone: 202-326-3224 or visit the
Website: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2005/03/ameridebt.htm.


AMEX BANK: Canadian Cardmembers Sue Over Currency Conversion Fee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amex Bank of Canada faces a possible class action, captioned
"Sylvan Adams v. Amex Bank of Canada," filed in the Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Montreal.

The motion to authorize a class action alleges that prior to
December 2003, Amex Bank of Canada charged a foreign currency
conversion commission on transactions to purchase goods and
services in currencies other than Canadian dollars and failed to
disclose the commissions in monthly billing statements or
solicitations directed to prospective cardmembers.  The proposed
class claims reimbursement of all foreign currency conversion
commissions, CDN$1,000 in punitive damages per class member,
interest and fees and costs.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH COMPANIES: Plaintiffs to Appeal CA Suit Dismissal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs intend to appeal the dismissal of a class action
filed against Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. and Miller Brewing,
Co. in California State Court, Los Angeles County, on behalf of
all California residents who, while they were under 21 years of
age, purchased alcohol beverages manufactured by the defendants
during the last four years.  

The complaint alleges that the defendants "are waging a
marketing assault on minors using unethical and illegal tactics
resulting in increased purchase and consumption of alcohol by
teenagers."  The lawsuit claims that Anheuser-Busch and Miller
Brewing intentionally target minors through highly suspect
tactics including sponsoring advertising on media heavily
trafficked by underage consumers, developing products designed
to obscure the difference between alcoholic beverages and soda
pop, and supporting promotions appealing to a primarily underage
audience, according to the website of Hagens Berman, the lead
counsel for the plaintiffs.

The suit sought disgorgement of unspecified profits earned by
the Company in the past and other unspecified damages and
equitable relief.  This suit asks a judge to halt alleged
underage marketing practices and seeks damages equivalent to the
money it says the defendants received by selling alcohol to
underage consumers, which, according to Steve Berman of the
Hagens Berman law firm, could be around $4 billion to $5
billion, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November
16,2004) reports.

The California state court has dismissed all causes of action
with prejudice. The plaintiffs have indicated their intent to
appeal.

The suit is styled "Lynne and Reed Goodwin v. Anheuser-Busch
Cos., Inc. and Miller Brewing Co." filed in the California
Superior Court for Los Angeles County.  Lead counsel for the
plaintiffs are Steven W. Berman and Rob Gaudet, Hagens Berman
LLP, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle WA 98101, Phone:
(206)623-7292, Website: http://www.hagens-berman.com. To see a  
copy of the complaint, visit the Website: http://www.hagens-
berman.com/files/Busch-Miller%20Complaint1075907015476.pdf


ANHEUSER-BUSCH INC.: OH Court Hears Motion To Dismiss Lawsuit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Northern District of
Ohio has fully briefed Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. and other
defendants' motion to dismiss a class action filed by parents of
illegal underage drinkers.

The plaintiffs are suing to recover the sums that their
offspring purportedly spent illegally buying alcohol from
persons or entities other than the defendants.  The suit
alleges four causes of action against the Company:

     (1) negligence,

     (2) unjust enrichment,

     (3) violation of the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, and

     (4) civil conspiracy.

It seeks money damages, punitive damages, and injunctive and
equitable relief, including so-called disgorgement of profits
allegedly attributable to underage drinking. The Company removed
the case to federal court in June 2004. The Company has moved
to dismiss this action, and that motion is fully briefed and
awaiting decision.

The suit is styled "Eisenberg et al v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., et
al., case no. 1:04-cv-01081-DCN," filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio.  The Company
is represented by:

     (i) Edward M. Crane, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, 333
         West Wacker Drive, Chicago, IL 60606, Phone: 312-407-
         0411

    (ii) Joshua A. Fowkes, Tracy Scott Johnson and Robert N.
         Rapp, Calfee, Halter & Griswold, 1400 McDonald
         Investment Center, 800 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, OH
         44114, Phone: 216-622-8200, Fax: 216-241-0816, E-mail:
         jfowkes@calfee.com, tjohnson@calfee.com,
         rrapp@calfee.com

Plaintiffs Steven and Joanne Eisenberg are represented by:

     (a) Jeffrey Bartos, Guerrieri Edmond & Clayman, 1625
         Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washiington, DC 20036, Phone:
         202-624-7400, Fax: 202-624-7420

     (b) Timothy D. Battin, David Boies III, Melissa B. Willett,
         Staus & Boies LLP, 10513 Braddock Road, Fairfax, VA
         22032, Phone: 703-764-8700, Fax: 703-764-8704

     (c) John S. Chapman, 300 Hoyt Block, 700 West St. Clair
         Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44113, Phone: 216-241-8172, Fax:
         216-241-8175, E-mail: jchapman@jscltd.com  

     (d) C. Anthony Greffeo, Rebecca K. McKinney, Herman A.
         Watson, Watson Jimmerson Givhan Martin & McKinney, P.O.
         Box 18368, 203 Green Street Huntsville, AL, Phone: 256-
         536-7423, Fax: 256-536-2689, E-mail:
         mckinney@watsonjimmerson.com,
         watson@watsonjimmerson.com  

     (e) Jack Landskroner, Landskroner Grieco Madden, Ste. 200
         1360 West Ninth Street, Cleveland, OH 44113 Phone: 216-
         522-9000, Fax: 216-522-9007, E-mail:
         jack@landskronerlaw.com  

     (f) Walter W. Noss, Edmund W. Searby, Scott + Scott, LLC,
         33 River Street, Chagrin Falls, OH 44022, Phone: 440-
         247-8200, Fax: 440-247-8275, E-mail:
         wnoss@scott-scott.com, esearby@scott-scott.com  


CALLAWAY GOLF: Faces Litigation Due To Unilateral Sales Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Callaway Golf Co. is working to resolve several class actions
filed in connection with its unilateral sales policy called the
"New Product Introduction Policy."  Adopted in the fall of 1999,
the NPIP sets forth the terms on which the Company chooses to do
business with its customers with respect to the introduction of
new products.

Several suits were filed challenging the policy, namely:

     (1) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 2001-24-IV,
         pending in Tennessee state court ("Lundsford I");

     (2) Foulston v. Callaway Golf, Case No. 02C3607, pending in
         Kansas state court;

     (3) Murray v. Callaway Golf Sales Company, Case No.
         3:04CV274-H, pending in the United States District
         Court for the Western District of North Carolina; and

     (4) Lundsford v. Callaway Golf, Civil Action No. 3:04-cv-
         442, pending in the United States District Court for
         the Eastern District of Tennessee ("Lundsford II").

Lundsford I was filed on April 6, 2001, and seeks to assert a
punitive class action by plaintiff on behalf of himself and on
behalf of consumers in Tennessee and Kansas who purchased select
Callaway Golf products covered by the NPIP on or after March 30,
2000.  Plaintiff asserts violations of Tennessee and Kansas
antitrust and consumer protection laws and is seeking damages,
restitution and punitive damages.  The court has not made any
determination that the case may proceed in the form of a class
action.  In light of the Lundsford II case subsequently filed in
the United States District Court, described below, the parties
have agreed to stay Lundsford I, and to dismiss it without
prejudice once the federal court proceedings are underway.

In Foulston, filed on November 4, 2002, plaintiff seeks to
assert an alleged class action on behalf of Kansas consumers who
purchased Callaway Golf products covered by the NPIP and seeks
damages and restitution for the alleged class under Kansas law.
The trial court in Foulston stayed the case in light of
Lundsford I.  The Foulston court has not made any determination
that the case may proceed in the form of a class action.

The complaint in Murray was filed on May 14, 2004, alleging that
a retail golf business was damaged by the alleged refusal of
Callaway Golf Sales Company to sell certain products after the
store violated the NPIP, and by the failure to permit plaintiff
to sell Callaway Golf products on the internet.  The proprietor
seeks compensatory and punitive damages associated with the
failure of his retail operation. Callaway Golf removed the case
to the United States District Court for the Western District of
North Carolina, and has answered the complaint denying
liability.  The parties are currently engaged in discovery, and
a trial date in December 2005 has been set by the court.

Lundsford II was filed on September 28, 2004 in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.  
The complaint in Lundsford II asserts that the NPIP constitutes
an unlawful resale price agreement and an attempt to monopolize
golf club sales prohibited by federal antitrust law.  The
complaint also alleges a violation of the state antitrust laws
of Tennessee, Kansas, South Carolina and Oklahoma.  Lundsford II
seeks to assert a nationwide class action consisting of all
persons who purchased Callaway Golf clubs subject to the NPIP on
or after March 30, 2000.  Plaintiff seeks treble damages under
the federal antitrust laws, compensatory damages under state
law, and injunctive relief.  The Lundsford II court has not made
a determination that the case may proceed in the form of a class
action. The parties are engaged in discovery and motion
practice.


CALLAWAY GOLF: Removes Consumer Fraud Suit To FL Federal Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Callaway Golf Sales Company removed the consumer class action
filed against it from the Circuit Court for Dade County, Florida
to the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.

The suit, filed on December 14, 2004 and captioned "York v.
Callaway Golf Sales Company, Case No. 04-25625 CA," was filed on
behalf of all consumers who purchased allegedly defective HXRed
golf balls with cracked covers.  The complaint contains causes
of action for strict liability, breach of implied and express
warranties, and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Product
Warranty Act.  Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages,
attorneys' fees and prejudgment interest according to the proof
to be presented.  


CANADIAN PACIFIC: October 10 Trial Set For Suits Over Derailment
----------------------------------------------------------------
An October 10 trial date has been scheduled for three lawsuits
that stem from a 2002 train derailment and chemical spill Minot,
North Dakota, the Associated Press reports

The three cases include a wrongful death lawsuit filed by MeLea
Grabinger, whose husband, John, 38, died after a Canadian
Pacific freight train derailed outside of Minot on January 18,
2002, spilling more than 200,000 gallons of anhydrous ammonia
farm fertilizer. Hundreds of others were injured.  MeLea
Grabinger's lawsuit alleges that the railroad, who has
vehemently said that its North Dakota tracks are safe, failed to
properly inspect, maintain and repair its track, and seeks more
than $75,000 in damages.  The October trial is to be heard in
Hennepin County District Court in Minneapolis.

Since the 2002 derailment more than 120 lawsuits have been filed
in Minnesota. Hennepin County District Judge Tony Leung told
attorneys on both sides to choose one lawsuit besides the
wrongful death case for the first trial.

Mike Miller, a Fargo attorney whose firm represents about 900
people suing the railroad in federal court, told AP attorneys
are waiting for U.S. District Judge Daniel Hovland in Bismarck
to rule on whether that lawsuit will have class-action status. A
class action case could bring up to 20,000 Minot residents into
the lawsuit.


CONSTELLATION POWER: MD Court Yet To Rule on Suit Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the District of Maryland
has yet to rule on class certification for the lawsuit filed
against Constellation Energy Group, styled "Miller, et. al v.
Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, et al."  The suit also names
as defendants Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE),
Constellation Nuclear, and Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.

The action seeks class certification for approximately 150 past
and present employees and alleges racial discrimination at
Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant.  The amount of damages is
unspecified, however the plaintiffs seek back and front pay,
along with compensatory and punitive damages.

The Court scheduled a briefing process for the motion to certify
the case as a class action suit. The briefing process concluded,
oral argument on the class certification motion was held on
April 16, 2004, and the parties are awaiting the court's
decision.


CONSTELLATION POWER: CA Court Dismisses Power Contracts Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco
dismissed the class action filed against Constellation Power
Development, Inc. and 22 other defendants, styled "Baldwin
Associates, Inc. v. Gray Davis, Governor of California and 22
other defendants (including Constellation Power Development,
Inc., a subsidiary of Constellation Power, Inc."  This putative
class action requested damages, recession and reformation of
approximately 38 long-term power purchase contracts, and an
injunction against improper spending by the state of California.

The Company was named as a defendant but was never served with
process in this case.  On December 6, 2004, the Court ordered
dismissal of this action since the plaintiff had failed to serve
the defendants.


CONSTELLATION POWER: Faces Amended Unfair Trade Lawsuit in CA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Constellation Power Source, Inc. faces an amended class action
filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San
Francisco, styled "James M. Millar v. Allegheny Energy Supply,
Constellation Power Source, Inc., High Desert Power Project,
LLC, et al."  The suit names as defendants:

     (1) Allegheny Energy Supply Company, LLC

     (2) Alliance Colton LLC

     (3) Calpeak Power-Border LLC

     (4) Calpeak Power - El Cajon LLC

     (5) Calpeak Power - Enterprise LLC

     (6) Calpeak Power-Midway LLC

     (7) Calpeak Power - Mission LLC

     (8) Calpeak Power - Panoche LLC

     (9) Calpeak Power - Vaca Dixon LLC

    (10) Calpine Energy Services, L.P.

    (11) Clearwood Electric Company LLC

    (12) Constellation Power Source

    (13) Coral Power LLC

    (14) Dynegy Power Marketing, Inc.

    (15) El Paso Merchant Energy

    (16) Fresno Cogeneration Partners

    (17) Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

    (18) GWF Energy LLC

    (19) High Desert Power Project, LLC

    (20) Imperial Valley Resource Recovery Company, LLC

    (21) Mirant American Energy Marketing LP
  
    (22) Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc.

    (23) Pacificorp Power Marketing, Inc.

    (24) PG&E Energy Trading

    (25) Pinnacle West Capital Corporation

    (26) Sempra Energy Resources

    (27) Soledad Energy LLC

    (28) Sunrise Power Company LLC

    (29) Wellhead Power Panoche, LLC

    (30) Wellhead Power Gates, LLC

    (31) Whitewater Energy Corporation

    (32) Williams Energy Marketing and Trading Co.

The complaint is a putative class action on behalf of California
electricity consumers and alleges that the defendant power
suppliers, including Constellation Energy Commodities Group,
Inc. and High Desert, violated California's Unfair Competition
Law in connection with certain long-term power contracts that
the defendants negotiated with the California Department of
Water Resources in 2001 and 2002.  Notwithstanding the amended
long-term power contracts and the releases and settlement
agreements negotiated at the time of such amendments, the
plaintiff seeks to have the Court certify the case as a class
action and to order the repayment of any monies that were
acquired by the defendants under the long-term contracts or the
amended long-term contracts by means of unfair competition in
violation of California law.

The suit is styled "James M. Millar, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated and on behalf of the general
public v. Allegheny Energy, et al., Case No. 04-CV-901," pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
California, under Judge Robert H. Whaley.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are Steve W Berman of Hagens and
Berman, 1301 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2900, Seattle, WA 98101, Phone:
(206)623-0594 or (206)623-7292; and Kevin P Roddy of Hagens
Berman, 700 South Flower Street, Suite 2940, Los Angeles, CA
90017-4101, Phone: (213)330-7150 or (213)330-7152


CROWN COLLEGE: Students File WA Suit Over Unacceptable Credits
--------------------------------------------------------------
One week after the Business Career Training Institute closed its
campuses, some students are initiating a class-action lawsuit
against Crown College in Tacoma for fraud, the www.KING5.com    
reports.

According to the complaint, the Crown College students claim
that school officials told them their credits and degrees would
transfer to other institutions, but later learned most
institutions will not accept their credits.

Though Crown is nationally accredited by an agency that oversees
career schools, traditional colleges, such as the University of
Washington or the University of Puget Sound, are regionally
accredited and most do not accept transfer credits from
nationally accredited schools.  The students claim that they did
not know that Crown College credits would not transfer to other
colleges or universities.

John Wabel, who owns and runs Crown College, told KING5.com that
some regionally accredited colleges do accept students with
Crown College degrees and credits. For example, University of
Phoenix and City University accept most Crown College credits.

However, according to court documents, Crown isn't the only
local school to wind up in court over student complaints.  Early
this month, students of the Gig Harbor-based Business Career
Training Institute (BCTI) filed a class-action lawsuit claiming
the career school targeted welfare recipients, the unemployed
and other vulnerable students and offered high-priced programs
that provided little useful training, but left students
thousands of dollars in debt. Under intense scrutiny from state
officials in Washington and Oregon, BCTI closed all of its
campuses last week.

In February 11, students initiated a lawsuit against Bates
Technical College over its court reporter program, claiming
their instructor was not qualified and created a hostile
environment for students.  In 2002, Bates paid $1.25 million to
settle a similar lawsuit brought by 15 former students in its
program that teaches how to make dentures.  

In 2000, Green River Community College settled a lawsuit by
giving free tuition to 179 law enforcement program students, who
had claimed that Green River misrepresented the program's
quality, equipment and facilities and students' ability to
transfer credits and get jobs.


DICKSON CAMPERS: Judge To Rule on Suit Classification
-----------------------------------------------------
Dickson Campers Inc. shouldn't reap the benefit of a refund it
claims to be due based on its lawsuit, which accuses Mobile of
unfairly taxing businesses just outside the city limits, an
attorney for the city argued in a recent hearing, the Mobile
Register reports.

Attorney Wanda Cochran told Mobile Circuit Court Judge James
Wood, like most other businesses, Dickson Campers has passed
down to customers the Mobile city tax on Company sales. She also
said of the potential refund to the Company, "It's wrong. It's
fraud."    
          
However, attorneys representing the camper company, argue that
Dickson Campers ultimately was responsible for paying the tax on
its gross revenue and that if businesses in the area had been
overpaying, the city certainly should not be the benefactor.

The arguments were made as part of a hearing to determine
whether the Dickson Campers lawsuit can become a class action
lawsuit, which would put millions of dollars the city has
already collected into question.  The suit alleges that the city
violated state law by collecting more taxes inside its three-
mile wide police jurisdiction, which extends west and south of
the city, than the services it provides there.

Stephen Clements, one of the Dickson Campers attorneys, told the
Mobile Register after court that the city also has not -- on an
annual basis as it should have -- justified the amount it
collects.

Legal experts theorize that giving the lawsuit class action
status would lump other businesses into the claim, potentially
every business in the fast-growing police jurisdiction, and
result in a larger payout if Dickson Campers wins.  In the
police jurisdiction, the city collects half its regular tax rate
on goods and services and half the cost of a business license.
The largest revenue source targeted by the lawsuit is a 2
percent gross receipts tax levied by the city until it switched
to a sales tax in 2003.  There is no law tying sales tax
collections in a police jurisdiction to expenditures, according
to the Alabama League of Municipalities.

Judge Wood asked attorneys for Dickson Campers to draft a
proposed order forming a class action and defining the
businesses in the class. City attorneys can then poke holes in
what they come up with, he adds, the Mobile Register reports.

Amid Ms. Cochran's comments about the possibility that Dickson
Campers getting a refund for taxes paid by customers, Sarah
Stewart, an attorney sitting in the gallery, spoke up.  Ms.
Stewart said her client, Trammer Miller, is a consumer and is
prepared to intervene on behalf of other consumers. Ms. Miller
was active in a 2003 effort to form a separate city west of
Mobile's city limits. Mr. Clements was also involved in that
effort, the Mobile Register reports.

Exactly how much money the city collects from its police
jurisdiction was not made clear in the hearing. Mobile's finance
director Barbara Malkove testified that the city has the
capability to compute what each business there pays. But, when
asked by plaintiff's attorney John Sharbrough III if she could
determine the cost of services in the area, Ms. Malkove said,
"That would be more difficult." She went on to say that the city
has determined the amount of expenditures, at least once, more
than 10 years ago when state auditors were looking into the
matter. She said those auditors were satisfied, the Mobile
Register reports.


E.A. SWEEN: Expands Recall Of Listeria Contaminated Sandwiches
--------------------------------------------------------------
E.A. Sween Company is taking extraordinary measures to ensure
the safety of its products by expanding previous voluntary
recall of Deli Express Turkey & Cheese Sandwiches with the code
number 450191 to include the code number 450464, as they have
the potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections
in young children, frail or elderly people, and others with
weakened immune systems.

Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

"Since the initial announcement 10 days ago E. A. Sween Company
has been actively recovering all products impacted by this
expanded voluntary recall, " states E.A. Sween Company VP
Marketing Tom Sween. "There have been no known illnesses related
to this voluntary recall."

As a precautionary measure, E.A. Sween Company is also
withdrawing the following products; Deli Style Stacker, Turkey &
Cheese, Ham & Swiss on Rye, Ham & Cheese White, Turkey Club,
Classic Ham & Cheese Sub, Classic Italian Sub, Grilled Ham &
Cheese and Chopped Ham & Cheese Sub with a six digit manufacture
code that starts with the number "4".

These sandwiches were distributed in select convenience stores
and vending machines nationwide. Consumers are asked to check
any purchased Deli Express sandwich mentioned above, and return
product to the convenience store of purchase or call E.A. Sween
Company.

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


EASTSIDE DELI: Recalls Deli Products Due To Listeria Content
------------------------------------------------------------
Eastside Deli Supply, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all of its
"Eastside Deli", "Fresh from the Deli" and "In Your Belly Deli"
labeled products as a precautionary measure because of the
previous recall on its 8oz "Beef and Cheese Sub" due to the
presence of Listeria monocytogenes found during routine sampling
in February.

Specific products involved in this voluntary expansion include:

     (1) 61251000100 = BEEF AND CHEESE NET WT 8OZ

     (2) 61251000104 = TURKEY AND CHEESE NET WT 8OZ

     (3) 61251000105 = HAM AND CHEESE NET WT 8OZ

     (4) 61251000106 = HAM AND SWISS ON ONION ROLL NET WT 8OZ

     (5) 61251000103 = HAM AND TURKEY HOAGIE 5.5OZ

     (6) 61251000200 = HAM AND CHEESE 5OZ

     (7) 61251000201 = TURKEY AND CHEESE 5OZ

     (8) 61251000202 = EGG SALAD 5OZ

     (9) 61251000203 = CHICKEN SALAD 5OZ

    (10) 61251000204 = TUNA SALAD 5OZ

    (11) 61251000301 = SUPER BEEF PATTY W/CHEESE 5.5OZ

    (12) 61251000307 = GIGANTIC BEEF CHEESEBURGER 6.5OZ

    (13) 61251000311 = 9 oz BACON CHEESEBURGER 9.0 OZ

    (14) 61251000378 = TWIN CHILI DOGS 6.5OZ

    (15) 61251000358 = TURKEY BUDDY SANDWICHES 6.5OZ

    (16) 61251000357 = HAM BUDDY SANDWICHES 6.5OZ

    (17) 61251000321 = SOUTHERN FRIED CHICKEN SANDWICH 6.0OZ

    (18) 61251000322 = SPICY CHICKEN AND SWISS

None of these sandwiches have been shown to be contaminated at
this time.

The recalled sandwiches were distributed to convenience stores
in parts of Michigan, Ohio and Indiana, and most have been
removed from circulation. The recall includes all "Eastside
Deli", "Fresh from the Deli" and "In Your Belly Deli" sandwich
products up to and including products dated April 4 th 2005.

The Product is in a clear sealed film or wedge style container
and has the description name: "Eastside Deli", "Fresh from the
Deli" and "In Your Belly Deli" label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with any
of these sandwiches.

Listeria monocytogenes is an uncommon organism that can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail
or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause
miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

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


FORD MOTOR: Faces Various State Lawsuits Over Explorer Rollovers
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. continues to face several state court class
actions on behalf of purchasers and lessees of 1990-2001 Ford
Explorers equipped with Firestone ATX or Wilderness Tires, over
alleged rollover accidents with the sport utility vehicles.

A state court in Illinois has certified a statewide class of
purchasers and lessees of 1991-2001 Ford Explorers equipped with
Firestone ATX or Wilderness tires who have not experienced any
problems with either the tires or the vehicles in the case
styled "Rowan v. Ford Motor Company."  The complaint alleges
that Explorers are unstable and that the Firestone tires are
defective. Plaintiffs claim that the value of the vehicles was
diminished because of the alleged defects and seek unspecified
actual and compensatory damages and other relief. Trial is
currently scheduled for July 11, 2005, but the Company expects
the trial will be rescheduled for late 2005 or early 2006.

In February 2005, a state court in California certified a
statewide class of purchasers and lessees of 1990-2000 Ford
Explorers in the four coordinated cases in an action styled
"Gray v. Ford Motor Company."  The complaint alleges that
Explorers are unstable and that the Company concealed
information about them.  Plaintiffs seek relief similar to that
sought in "Rowan."  The Company intends to seek appellate review
of the class certification order.

There are also 19 purported statewide class actions pending in
several states, raising allegations similar to those raised in
"Rowan," and seeking similar relief.  Bridgestone-Firestone,
Inc. (Firestone) is a co-defendant in most of these cases,
including "Rowan."  Firestone has agreed to settle all claims
against it in these cases (including "Rowan"). Under the terms
of the settlement agreement, Firestone would implement
manufacturing improvements and fund a consumer awareness program
relating to tire use and maintenance.  Firestone's settlement
would also require plaintiffs to dismiss all class action claims
against the Company that are based on alleged defects in the
tires.  A Texas trial court has approved the Firestone
settlement, but that ruling is currently on appeal to the Texas
Court of Appeals.  If the Firestone settlement is approved on
appeal, the only remaining claims against the Company in "Rowan"
and the purported class actions would be allegations based on
the Explorer's alleged rollover propensity.


FORD MOTOR: Trial in Consumer Fraud Suit Set For June 2006 in IL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Trial in the class action filed against Ford Motor Co. on behalf
of owners of 1989-1996 model year vehicles that have experienced
paint peeling is scheduled for June 2006 in Madison County
Circuit court in Illinois.

The court has certified a nationwide class of owners.  
Plaintiffs contend that their paint is defective in two
respects.  First, they allege that, because the Company did not
use spray primer between the high-build electro coat (HBEC) and
the color coat in some models, the color coat lost adhesion to
the HBEC after extended exposure to ultraviolet radiation from
sunlight.  Second, they allege that the clearcoat on some models
deteriorated prematurely.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified
compensatory damages (in an amount to cover the cost of
repainting their vehicles and to compensate for alleged
diminution in value), punitive damages, attorneys' fees and
interest.


FORD MOTOR: Faces State Lawsuits V. Crown Victoria Interceptors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. continues to face various state class actions
filed over its Crown Victoria Police Interceptor cars, alleging
that the vehicles are defective in that fires can occur when the
vehicles are struck in the rear at high speed.  

State courts in Illinois, Florida and Louisiana have certified
statewide classes of state and local governments that purchased
or leased Crown Victoria Police Interceptors.  The complaints
seek modifications to the fuel systems and other relief,
including punitive damages.

Trial in the Illinois case, styled "St. Clair County v Ford
Motor Company," in 2004 resulted in a defense verdict on all
counts submitted to the jury; three counts remain pending for
decision by the judge.

There are also 16 purported statewide class actions pending in
several states that claim to represent state and local
governments that purchased or leased Crown Victoria Police
Interceptors, as well as seven purported class actions relating
to non-police Crown Victoria vehicles.  These suits raise
allegations similar to those raised in "St. Clair County," and
seek similar relief.


FORD MOTOR: To Seek Review of Consumer Lawsuit Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Motor Co. intends to seek a review of the Oklahoma Court of
Appeals ruling affirming nationwide class certification for a
lawsuit filed against them, over its sport utility vehicles with
hydroboost hydraulic braking systems.

The suit was initially filed in Oklahoma state court.  The court
later certified a nationwide class of all purchasers of
1999-2002 F-250, F-350, F-450, and F-550 Ford Super Duty Trucks
and 2002 Excursions with hydroboost hydraulic braking systems.  
The complaint alleges that these trucks are unsafe because they
suffer diminished power assist to the steering when the driver
is simultaneously braking and steering.  The complaint alleges
breach of warranty and fraud, and seeks the cost of retrofitting
the trucks to eliminate the alleged danger, compensation for
diminished resale value, and other amounts.

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
investigated a similar issue and closed the investigation,
finding that "diminished steering assist while braking is
present" in these trucks, but that the "associated injury and
property damage incidents are so rare that they do not present a
risk to vehicle safety."


FORD MOTOR: IL Police Squads Opting Out Of Crown Victoria Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Police departments across Illinois, which had joined a class-
action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co.'s Crown Victoria
Interceptors, are now dropping out of the suit after the
automaker told them that was the only way it would keep selling
them the cars, the Associated Press reports.

According to the departments, the move makes sense, since
switching to another make of vehicle would cost them tens of
thousands of dollars and because they want to keep driving the
vehicle favored by an overwhelming number of law enforcement
agencies across the country.  Richard Flood, an attorney
representing eight departments in McHenry County and one in Kane
County that want out of the lawsuit told AP, "Ford has people on
the ropes on this issue."

Jim Feeney, an attorney for Ford, stressed that the automaker is
not trying to force the departments to do anything except decide
if they really want to sue the company. He told AP, "The bottom
line is either they are serious about the lawsuit and the claims
in the lawsuit or they're not. If you think the vehicle is
unsafe - we don't - but if you do, don't expect us to supply you
vehicles."

In all, according to Mr. Feeney approximately 120 police
agencies across the state have dropped out of the lawsuit and
dozens more have filed motions to do the same.

The Crown Victoria police cars have been at the center of legal
battles around the country since 2002 when municipalities
started filing lawsuits claiming that the vehicles explode too
easily in rear collisions. Statistics show that since 1982 more
than a dozen law enforcement officers nationwide have been
killed in such crashes in Crown Victorias.

However, as previously reported in the September 15, 2004
edition of the Class Action Reporter, Ford contends that the
cars are as safe as they can be and cites government tests that
it says prove that contention. Ford's spokeswoman, Kathleen
Vokes further adds, "Real-world data show Crown Victoria Police
Interceptors to be a safe vehicle. It is the vehicle of choice
of the majority of police departments in the nation."

In October 2002, the National Highway Transportation Safety
Administration after a thorough investigation of the Crown
Victoria's safety after fiery crashes in the 1990s released
findings that found no defect in the vehicle and that said the
Crown Victoria exceeded federal standards for fuel system
safety. Shortly before the release of that NHTSA report, Ford
stated it would pay for retrofitting the 350,000 Crown Victorias
then used by police departments to install shields around the
gas tanks.

The first class-action lawsuit over the Crown Victoria to go to
trial was in Belleville, and in October, a federal jury there
ruled that the cars were safe. A judge in the case still has to
decide if the automaker violated state consumer fraud laws, and
Mr. Feeney said he expects an appeal of the jury's decision.

While Ford implemented its no-sale policy in 2003 when the
lawsuit was certified as a class action, Mr. Feeney said he
suspects departments are now scrambling to be dropped from the
lawsuit because this is the first time since then they have
tried to buy cars.


HEARTSINE TECHNOLOGIES: Recalls AEDs Due To Random Shutdowns
------------------------------------------------------------
HeartSine Technologies, Inc., San Clemente, California, is
initiating a worldwide recall of some samaritanr Automatic
External Defibrillators (AEDs).

This recall affects HeartSine samaritanr AED models SAM-001,
SAM-002, and SAM-003 with certain serial numbers within the
range of 1270 - 2324. These devices may in some cases shut down
before delivering a shock, which could result in a delay in
treatment or death of a viable patient. This recall was
initiated after receipt of several user complaints of shut-down
during an attempted charge. HeartSine Technologies, Inc.
believes that some of the affected devices could exhibit longer
than usual charging rates, causing an alarm and shutdown of the
device as mentioned above. No injuries have been reported to
date.

HeartSine Technologies, Inc. initiated notification of its
distributors and customers by letter on February 14, 2005, and
is providing a user-installable field software upgrade for all
affected AEDs. Distributors and customers who have HeartSine
samaritanr AEDs within this serial number range, who have not
yet received an upgrade kit, should contact the manufacturer to
determine if their product(s) are affected, and if so, arrange
to obtain a field upgrade kit as soon as possible.

Six hundred seventy-two (672) of the affected HeartSine
samaritanr AEDs were distributed, with five hundred thirty-two
(532) within U.S. and U.S. Territories. The products can be
identified by the words "samaritanr AED" on the front of the
device. Please note that the HeartSine samaritanr PAD automatic
external defibrillator (Model SAM-300) is NOT subject to this
action.

This recall is being conducted with the full knowledge of the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA has determined that
this action is a Class I recall. Class I recalls are the most
serious type of recall and involve situations in which there is
a reasonable probability that use of the affected product may
cause serious injury or death if the problem is not corrected.
Consumers with questions may contact the company at
1-949-218-0092 or 1-866-478-7463.


HEWLETT-PACKARD: Workers Lodge Suit Over Misclassification in ID
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hewlett-Packard is facing a class-action lawsuit that was filed
in U.S. District Court in Boise, Idaho from workers who claim
they were wrongly classified as contractors instead of
employees, the Associated Press reports.

One of those workers is Jennifer Miller of Nampa, Idaho. In the
suit she claims that even though she was laid off as a
traditional Hewlett-Packard employee in 1995, she's been working
at the company nearly every day for the past ten years through
temp agencies. She contends that the company should reclassify
her and as many as three thousand other contractors as
employees, which in effect would make them all entitled to
health insurance, retirement plans and other benefits.


HI-GRADE MEATS: Recalls Deli Franks Due To Undeclared Allergen
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hi-Grade Meats, Inc., a Salt Lake City, Utah, establishment, is
voluntarily recalling approximately 400 pounds of deli franks
because of an undeclared allergen (dried milk), the Food Safety
and Inspection Service announced today.

The products subject to recall are 2-pound packages of
"BIRCHBERRY DELI FRANKS." Each package bears the establishment
code "EST. 4133" inside the USDA mark of inspection and a sell
by date of April 25, 2005.  The label on the front of the
product correctly identifies the product as deli franks. The
wrong back panel, however, was applied to the product. It states
that the product is "BIRCHBERRY OLD FASHION' BUFFET HAM" and
includes the Nutrition Facts panel for the ham rather than the
franks and does not list dried milk as an ingredient.  The
franks were produced on February 28 and were distributed to
retail stores in Idaho, Montana, Utah and Wyoming.

The problem was discovered by the Company. FSIS has received no
reports of allergic reactions associated with consumption of
this product. Anyone concerned about an allergic reaction should
contact a physician.

Media with questions about the recall can contact company Vice-
President Randall Maxfield at (801) 487-5818, ext. 11. Consumers
with questions about the recall may contact company Sales
Manager Rick Conde at (801) 487-5818, ext. 12.

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.


KANSAS: City Settles Case, Could Become Basis For Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
The city of Wichita has reached a tentative agreement to pay
$75,000 to a former female police officer to settle her federal
lawsuit alleging sexual misconduct by male officers and
supervisors, according to the city's lawyers, who are set to ask
the City Council to approve it soon, The Wichita Eagle reports.

Don Andersen, a Wichita lawyer representing the officer, told
the Eagle though the final language of the settlement still has
to be worked out, he expects it will not include any admission
of wrongdoing by the male officers, the police department or the
city.

The settlement comes amid other complaints of sexual and racial
discrimination made against the police department last year in a
pending class action lawsuit.  In her lawsuit, the former female
officer alleged that male officers repeatedly asked her for
sexual favors and in some cases touched her inappropriately and
even spied on her at home. She also claimed that she was forced
to quit her job after supervisors including a captain dismissed,
ignored or sought to discourage her complaints.

Though Police Chief Norman Williams declined to comment on the
details of the case, he did confirm that disciplinary action had
been taken against some of the officers involved, based on an
internal investigation. Chief Williams would also not give
details of the disciplinary actions, saying he would have to
consult with the city's legal department. He also adds that
officers involved in the lawsuit were under department orders
not to discuss it at present, the Eagle reports.

A report to the council from the city attorney's office said:
"After investigating the claims asserted in the lawsuit,
evaluating facts, and considering the risks of trial, the city
determined that a resolution of this matter was appropriate...
The Law Department recommends acceptance of the offer."  In her
lawsuit, the female officer further alleged:

     (1) That one officer made crude advances, ostensibly to
         have "retaliation" sex against her husband, from whom
         she was separated, that he came to her home uninvited
         three times and that he attempted to touch her
         inappropriately while they worked a security detail at
         the 2002 Wichita River Festival.

     (2) That another officer told her that once while he was on
         duty he had stood under her bedroom window and listened
         to her having sex with her husband.

     (3) That when she was transferred to police headquarters
         downtown, several officers left personal phone numbers
         for her. When she complained to her supervisor, he told
         her: "Well, I just want to let you know I'm throwing my
         hat into the ring. I will give you my cell number,
         too." She also alleged he asked her, when she was seven
         months pregnant, to "stand on his desk and do a strip
         tease."

     (3) That when she took complaints to a lieutenant, she was
         told that one male officer had done similar things
         before and that she should "just put up with it because
         he would move on eventually." She said the lieutenant
         then asked her to stay after her shift to talk more,
         then grabbed her and kissed her.

Mr. Andersen, the female officer's attorney, told the Eagle she
hopes her settlement will lead to changes in the way women are
treated on the police force. He adds, "We're hopeful. We have
reason to believe the department took her complaint seriously.
We have been assured the appropriate investigation and
disciplinary action would be taken."

The case, which dealt with her experiences only, could set up a
potentially larger class-action suit on behalf of all the women
in the department.

Wichita lawyer Lawrence Williamson, who is representing four
women who brought the class-action suit, told the Eagle, "The
allegations aren't exactly alike, but they're similar. You can
see that what we're talking about is the culture of a police
department, driven by male supervisors who are gender-biased.
This is department wide."

The class-action suit seeks damages for what it claims is
widespread sexual harassment, as well as unequal treatment in
pay, assignments and promotions.  Mr. Williamson told the Eagle
that he has had discussions with Mr. Andersen and called the
officer's settlement "a start." "No settlement is a good
settlement unless it's going to require a whole change in policy
and culture," he adds. Mr. Williamson is also representing 30 to
40 black police officers, who have complained about racial
discrimination in the department.

City officials have not admitted to any of the problems alleged
in any of the suits. However, last summer, after the suits
became public, officials said they would take action to avoid
future issues.  In a news conference in August, City Manager
George Kolb announced that the changes would include improving
management oversight of police officers, a review of the city's
equal employment opportunity policies and enhanced diversity
training, the Wichita Eagle reports.


MICHIGAN: Suits Endanger State's National Resources Trust Fund
--------------------------------------------------------------
A state grant program that has pumped at least $46 million into
Oakland County since 1976 could dry up, depending on the
outcomes of two court cases, according to James Clift, executive
director of the Michigan Environmental Council, The Daily
Oakland Press reports.  Mr. Clift said, "If this case and the
class action suit were to prevail, we would expect it to very
quickly bankrupt the National Resources Trust Fund."

The fund, which has been in place since 1976, uses royalties
paid by companies developing oil, natural gas and other minerals
on state land to help pay for the acquisition and development of
recreational property such as parks and trails.  However,
plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit contend that the
royalties don't belong to the state and a state court of
appeals' decision that could wind up in the Michigan Supreme
Court backs them up.

Though no one knows for certain if the fund will go bankrupt,
"it certainly has that potential and that is the worst case
scenario," Garret Johnson, chief conservation officer for The
Nature Conservancy in Lansing, told the Oakland Press.  "It is
something that has to be taken very seriously. Some have called
it 'bet the farm' litigation. It's something that, conceivably
at its broadest application, could call into doubt the future of
the Natural Resources Trust Fund."

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources estimates that as
of 2004, more than $600 million had been appropriated from the
fund for more than 1,200 state and local recreation projects.  
Rochester Hills resident Dan Keifer, a member of the Friends of
Clinton River Trail, called the trust fund "hugely important. He
told The Oakland Press, "The city of Rochester received money
from the trust fund to purchase its portion of the trail, and so
did the city of Rochester Hills."

Experts, explain that the trust fund provides matching grants to
state and local units of government in other words, the grant
recipient has to come up with a portion of the total project
cost, which pushes the total economic and recreation benefit
from the trust fund in Oakland County to well beyond $46
million.

The two cases, that threaten the fund are: Comben vs. State of
Michigan that was decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals last
year, and a class action lawsuit in Antrim County Circuit Court.  
According to Mr. Clift, the state has appealed the Comben case
to the Michigan Supreme Court, it contends that the state cannot
obtain oil and gas rights through tax reversion. He adds, "The
state has appealed, and we have intervened with an amicus brief
asking the Supreme Court to take this case. Meanwhile the class
action lawsuit is sitting back in circuit court."

The environmental council, Michigan United Conservation Clubs,
the Michigan Recreation and Parks Association, The Nature
Conservancy and 88 other groups joined in the amicus brief
urging the Michigan Supreme Court to take the case.

The original suit, Comben vs. Michigan, was a declaratory
action, said Mr. Clift, filed by the Antrim County treasurer
seeking clarification about state tax law and mineral rights.

"If the ruling goes against the state it's a finding of law so
there's no immediate remedy that's triggered but there is a
class action lawsuit ... and it's moving along a parallel
track," Mr. Johnson told the Oakland Press.  "An adverse ruling
at the state Supreme Court could expose the state to some
adverse remedies and call into question the revenue streams the
trust fund relies on."

The genesis of both current actions dates back more than 100
years to the lumbering era in northern Michigan. Lumber barons,
Mr. Clift explains, extracted the resources - the timber - then
didn't bother to pay property taxes on what was essentially
barren and worthless land not fit for lumbering.  The property
reverted to the state for non-payment of taxes and became the
vast stretches of state forests in the northern Lower Peninsula.
Eventually, some of the property attracted the attention of oil
and gas drillers. The state started leasing mineral rights on
state property so energy companies could extract the oil and
natural gas.

In the 1970s, the state Legislature passed legislation diverting
royalty money paid on oil and gas leases into the Natural
Resources Trust Fund. The trust fund became part of the state
Constitution in 1984, and in 1994 voters approved the State Park
Endowment Fund that diverts $10 million annually from the trust
fund to the state parks.

Mike Maisner, executive director of the Michigan Recreation and
Parks Association told the Oakland Press, "Going back to the
original premise (of the trust fund), if we're going to allow
them to drill and remove oil and gas from the land, then some of
it ought to go back to the state ... to develop land for
recreational purposes for the residents of the state."  

The argument being put forth in the Comben case and the class
action lawsuit, which involves about 200 people including some
heirs of the original lumber barons, is that since the state
didn't collect property taxes on oil and gas, then those mineral
rights should have remained with the original owners or whomever
they might have bought those rights.  The class action lawsuit
seeks not just the mineral rights, but also the royalties the
state has collected, conceivably hitting the state with a bill
for hundreds of millions of dollars.


OFFICE DEPOT: Settles CO Managers' Overtime Wage Suit For $3.3M
---------------------------------------------------------------
Office Depot Inc. has settled a Colorado class-action lawsuit
involving overtime wages for $3.3 million, the Denver Business
Journal reports.
   
According to court documents, Romia Pritchett and some 130 other
Office Depot assistant managers in the Denver area had initiated
a lawsuit against the office products retailer in April 2003 in
Denver District Court.  In their complaint, the managers alleged
that Office Depot erroneously called them assistant managers so
the company could work them 50 to 60 hours a week without paying
overtime. The complaint states that the assistant managers'
tasks largely involved stocking shelves, ringing up customer
sales and moving freight.

Office Depot settled the case, which was scheduled to go to
trial March 21, a few hours before the trial starts, although
the court must still approve the deal.  Attorneys Joe Zonies and
Stuart Kritzer of Denver law firm Kritzer Zonies LLC as well as
Charlie Jones, Kevin McInerney and Kelly McInerney represented
Pritchett and the other plaintiffs.  Littler Mendelson, a San
Francisco law firm specializing in employment law, represented
Office Depot.

Based in Delray Beach, Fla., Office Depot (NYSE: ODP) sells
office supplies and product via brands such as Office Depot,
Viking Office Products, Guilbert and NiceDay. The company was
started in 1986, and currently has roughly 935 stores in 49 U.S.
states, including five in the Denver area. It has 33 Canadian
locations.


ORGANON USA: Reaches Mirtazapine Drug Monopoly Settlement in NE
---------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Jon Bruning recently stated that Nebraska
consumers might be entitled to a portion of a $36 million
national settlement, if they purchased the prescription
antidepressant drug Remeron or its generic equivalent,
mirtazapine, between June 15, 2001 and January 25, 2005, the
Southwest Nebraska News reports.

The settlement, which is still subject to court approval before
it can become final, stems from an antitrust case filed by
Attorneys General in 50 states and territories against drug
maker Organon USA Inc. and its parent company Akzo Nobel N.V.
for improperly monopolizing the U.S. market for the drugs.

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.

According to A.G. Bruning, "The defendants in this case abused
the regulatory scheme to stifle competition and prevent
consumers from having access to low-cost, generic equivalents of
this drug. Obtaining this settlement represented a way for
Nebraska to help lower prescription drug costs for consumers."

As part of a nationwide consumer notification program, the
Attorney Generals launched a campaign to notify consumers of the
settlement and claims process through advertising in
publications such a Readers Digest, Parade and USA Today. As
part of that same effort, the states also have enlisted
pharmacists and psychiatrists for notification assistance.

Nebraska is among the states that will receive money for damages
incurred by certain government entities, such as Medicaid, that
paid for Remeron or its generic equivalent. Recovery is also
available for third-party payors, such as health insurance
plans.

The settlement, if ultimately approved by the court, will
resolve both claims brought by state attorneys general, as well
as a private class action brought on behalf of a class of end
payors.

For more details, contact Complete Claim Solutions, Inc. by
Mail: Remeron Antitrust Settlement, c/o Complete Claim
Solutions, Inc., P.O. Box 24769, West Palm Beach, Florida 33416
by Phone: 1-866-401-6807 or visit the settlement Web site:
http://www.remeronsettlement.comOR the Attorney General's  
Consumer Protection Division by Phone: 800-727-6432,
402-471-2682 or visit their Web site:
http://www.ago.state.ne.us.  


PHARMOS CORPORATION: Shareholders Launch Securities Suit in NJ
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmos Corporation and three of its current officers face a
shareholder class action alleging violations of federal
securities laws, pending in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey.

The suit asserts claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder on
behalf of a class of purchasers of the Company's common stock
during the period from May 5, 2003 through and including
December 17, 2004.  The complaints allege generally that the
defendants knowingly or recklessly made false or misleading
statements during the Class Period regarding the effectiveness
of dexanabinol in treating TBI which had the effect of
artificially inflating the price of our shares. The complaints
seek unspecified damages.

The suit is styled "Alizy v. Pharmos Corporation, case no. 2:05-
cv-00558-KSH-PS," filed in the United States District Court in
New Jersey, under Judge Katharine S. Hayden.  Representing the
plaintiffs is Joseph J. DePalma of LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG &
RIVAS, LLC, Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor, Newark, NJ 07102-
5003, Phone: (973) 623-3000, E-mail: jdepalma@ldgrlaw.com.  


SKYWEST INC.: Employees Commence Overtime Wage Suit in CA Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Skywest, Inc. faces a purported class action filed in the
Superior Court of Santa Barbara, California by two of its
employees, alleging violation of minimum wage, meal and rest
break, and overtime regulations, as well as violations of the
California Labor Code and Business and California Professions
Code.

In addition to their claims the plaintiffs have pled the case as
a class action on behalf of all current and former flight
attendants based in California since July 1999, but had not
obtained class certification as of March 10, 2005.  The
plaintiffs are seeking monetary damages as compensation for
their alleged grievances.  The Company and the plaintiffs have
engaged in discovery and unsuccessfully attempted to mediate a
settlement without reaching a mutually acceptable result.


SOFT CHEESES: FDA Warns Against Soft Cheeses Made With Raw Milk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is advising that some
soft cheeses made with raw milk present a health risk,
especially to high risk groups, such as pregnant women,
newborns, older adults, and people with weakened immune systems.
Such raw milk soft cheeses can cause several serious infectious
diseases including listeriosis, brucellosis, salmonellosis and
tuberculosis. Recently, cases of tuberculosis in New York City
have been linked to consumption of queso fresco style cheeses,
either imported from Mexico or consumed in Mexico, contaminated
with Mycobacterium bovis, the causative agent.

The raw milk soft cheeses of most concern can originate from
Mexico and Central American countries. Queso fresco style
cheese, which is soft and white, has been found to be the most
popular kind of cheese among the Hispanic community and can
include Queso Panela, Asadero, Blanco and Ranchero, among other
styles and may be imported or produced in the U.S.

FDA recommends that consumers do not eat any unripened raw milk
soft cheeses from Mexico, Nicaragua, or Honduras. Data show that
they are often contaminated with pathogens. FDA further
recommends that consumers not purchase or consume raw milk soft
cheeses from sources such as flea markets, sellers operating
door-to-door or out of their trucks or shipped or carried in
luggage to them from Mexico, Nicaragua, or Honduras. This
includes cheeses made at home by individuals.

FDA further advises that there is some risk of infection from a
number of pathogenic bacteria for anyone who eats raw milk soft
cheese from any source.  For more details, contact the agency by
Phone: 301-827-6242 (media) or 888-INFO-FDA (consumers).


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Asks AZ Court To Consolidate Stock Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs asked the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona to consolidated three securities class
actions filed against Swift Transportation Co., Inc., styled:

     (1) Davidco Investors LLC v. Swift Transportation Co.,
         Inc., et al., Case No. 2:04cv02435;

     (2) Greene v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc., et al., Case
         No. 2:04cv02492; and

     (3) Tuttle v. Swift Transportation Co. Inc., et al., Case
         No. 2:04cv02874

The suits name as defendants the Company and certain of its
directors and officers, alleging violations of federal
securities laws related to disclosures made by the Company
regarding driver pay, depreciation, fuel costs and fuel
surcharges; the effects of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's ("FMCSA's") new hours-of-service regulations;
the effects of a purported change in Swift's FMCSA safety
rating; Swift's stock repurchase program; and certain stock
transactions by two of the individual defendants.  The
complaints seek unquantified damages on behalf of the putative
class of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between October 16, 2003 and October 1, 2004.

On January 4, 2005, a motion for appointment as lead plaintiff
and to consolidated all three class actions was filed by United
Food and Commercial Workers Local 1262 and Employers Pension
Plan. The Court has not yet ruled on that motion.


VERDISYS INC.: Settles Consolidated Securities Fraud Suit in TX
---------------------------------------------------------------
Verdisys, Inc. (OTC Bulletin Board: VDYS) has entered into an
agreement to settle the class action lawsuit filed in March
2004.

Under the terms of the settlement, which is subject to court
approval, Verdisys would issue to the class 1,150,000 shares of
common stock and pay for certain out of pocket costs.

"This settles one of the remaining lawsuits inherited by current
management and eliminates the potential of a lengthy and costly
litigation defending our position. From this point forward, we
can focus on constructing our new generation abrasive fluid
jetting rig and building our energy services business," said
John O'Keefe CFO and Co-CEO.

Verdisys was a defendant in a consolidated lawsuit filed in the
Southern District of Texas, which sought class action status on
behalf of all persons, or entities that purchased common stock
of the Company during the class period. The named defendants
included the Company, the Company's former chief financial and
chief executive officers. The complaint alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
making false and misleading statements concerning the Company's
reported financial results during the Third Quarter 2003,
primarily relating to revenue recognition.


WORLDCOM INC.: Last Ex-Director Settles Investor Suit For $4.5M
---------------------------------------------------------------
The last former WorldCom board member in a lawsuit brought by
investors in the collapsed company has agreed to pay $4.5
million out of his own pocket to settle the claim, the
Associated Press reports.

The settlement, which was reached by Bert Roberts, a former
chairman of WorldCom, brings to $24.75 million the total 12
former board members are paying personally to settle the class
action suit. Insurers for the 12 are pumping in an additional
$36 million.

The investor lawsuit, which is being helmed by New York state
Comptroller Alan Hevesi, acting as trustee of the state
employees' retirement system, alleges that the board members,
auditor Arthur Andersen and major investment banks that
underwrote WorldCom securities should have known in advance
about the fraud that sank WorldCom in 2002.

The major investment banks have already agreed to pay more than
$6 billion in settlements with JPMorgan Chase & Co. becoming the
last of the banks to settle, agreeing recently to pay $2
billion.

According to legal experts, if U.S. District Judge Denise Cote
approves the ex-board members' settlement, Arthur Andersen would
be left as the only defendant in the lawsuit.

The judge said in a recent hearing that the Roberts settlement
was "a significant achievement for the class" and said she hoped
Mr. Roberts would reach "emotional peace" by putting the matter
behind him.

WorldCom collapsed in 2002 amid revelations of an $11 billion
accounting fraud to inflate earnings and hide expenses. It has
since re-emerged as MCI Inc., based in Ashburn, Virginia.

Mr. Roberts, testifying before Congress in July 2002, blamed the
company's collapse on Arthur Andersen auditors who failed to
uncover the accounting lapses.

The class action lawsuit began as many investor suits, which
were eventually consolidated by the judge.

Some details remain to be worked out though in the settlement,
including how much insurance money should be left to former
WorldCom CEO Bernard Ebbers to defend himself against civil
suits. Just recently Mr. Ebbers was convicted of fraud,
conspiracy and false regulatory filings in the WorldCom
accounting scandal. He could spend the rest of his life in
prison.


* Expert Says Exposure To Mold Infestation Serious Health Threat
----------------------------------------------------------------
Many property owners, landlords, employers, and mold victim
relatives in Canada, the USA, and worldwide often question or
minimize the proven and serious health threat arising from
exposure to elevated levels of indoor mold infestation,
according to Phillip Fry, Certified Mold Inspector, Certified
Mold Remediator, and author of the book Mold Health Guide.

"All molds have the potential to cause health effects. Molds can
produce allergens that can trigger allergic reactions or even
asthma attacks in people allergic to mold. Others are known to
produce potent toxins and/or irritants," according to the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

A number of commonly found mold species are, in fact, toxic
mold, a description applied to any mold that produces mycotoxins
in its spores. Stachybotrys (black mold), Aspergillus, and
Penicillium are three of the most dangerous and commonly found
indoor toxic molds.  Mycotoxins are cytotoxic, meaning they have
the capacity to pass through the human cellular wall and disrupt
certain cellular processes - potentially causing serious health
damage to workers and customers.

Studies on animals and cell cultures in labs have found toxic
effects from various microbial agents, raising concerns about
whether these same agents growing in buildings can cause illness
in people, according to the 2004 mold health report from the
Institute of Medicine (U.S. Government's National Academy of
Sciences).  Fungi can cause health problems to both humans and
animals by several different biological mechanisms: infections,
allergic or hypersensitivity reactions, irritant reactions, or
toxic reactions - reported a 2004 University of Connecticut
Health Center report

If exposed to elevated levels of indoor mold, some or many
residents and workers can experience one or more of most common,
mold health symptoms: allergies, asthma, bleeding lungs,
breathing difficulties, cancer, central nervous system problems,
recurring colds, chronic coughing, coughing up with blood,
dandruff problems (chronic) that do not go away despite use of
anti-dandruff shampoos, dermatitis, skin rashes, diarrhea,
and/or; Eye and vision problems, fatigue (chronic, excessive, or
continued) and/or general malaise, flu symptoms (chronic),
sudden hair loss, headaches, hemorrhagic pneumonitis, hives,
hypersensitivity pneumonitis, irritability, itching (of the
nose, mouth, eyes, throat, skin or any other area), kidney
failure, learning difficulties or mental dysfunction or
personality changes, memory loss or memory difficulties; and/or
Open skin sores and lacerations, peripheral nervous system
effects, redness of the sclera (white of your eyes), runny nose
(rhinitis) or thick, green slime coming out of nose (from sinus
cavities), seizures, sinus congestion, sinus problems, and
chronic sinusitis, skin redness, sleep disorders, sneezing fits,
sore throat, tremors (shaking), verbal dysfunction (trouble in
speaking), vertigo (feelings of dizziness, lightheadedness,
faintness and unsteadiness), and vomiting.

"Where is the proof?" ask skeptical moldy home sellers,
landlords, employers, and unaffected relatives of mold victims.
There is actually abundant evidence about the serious impact of
mycotoxins and mold exposure in human disease, Mr. Fry asserts.

Medical studies in both the military and agricultural
environments have discovered that that significant health
problems can readily arise from the inhalation of elevated
levels of fungal spores and toxins by soldiers and farmers.  
Laboratory studies in animals and at the cellular level provide
supporting evidence for direct toxicity of fungal spores and
mycotoxins in mammalian lungs (University of Connecticut Health
Center report in 2004)

As to asthma (one of the most common health consequences of mold
exposure), a health study by the Finnish Institute of
Occupational Health links adult-onset asthma to workplace mold
exposure. "The present (health study) results estimated that the
percentage of adult-onset asthma attributable to workplace mold
exposure to indoor molds and development of asthma in adulthood.
Our findings suggest that indoor mold problems constitute an
important occupational health hazard."  The Finnish workplace
mold study estimated that the percentage of adult-onset asthma
attributable to workplace mold exposure to be 35% (Reported in
Environmental Health Perspectives, May, 2002).

A European Community respiratory health survey in 2002 reported
that asthma patients experience more significant asthma symptoms
after they become sensitized to molds such as Alternaria and
Cladosporium species, and to dust mites.

Scientific evidence links mold and other factors related to damp
conditions in homes and buildings to asthma symptoms in some
people with the chronic asthma, as well as to coughing,
wheezing, and upper respiratory tract symptoms in otherwise
healthy people, stated the Institute of Medicine report.

"We were able to find sufficient evidence that certain
respiratory problems, including symptoms in asthmatics who are
sensitive to mold, are associated with exposure to mold and damp
conditions. Excessive dampness influences whether mold, as well
as bacteria, dust mites and other such agents, are present and
thrive indoors," reported the Institute of Medicine in its mold
health report on May 25, 2004.

"In addition, the wetness may cause chemicals and particles to
be released from building materials. A rare ailment known as
hypersensitivity pneumonitis also was associated with indoor
mold exposure in susceptible people," reported the Institute of
Medicine.

"Recent studies have confirmed what scientists have suspected
for years: that asthma is an immune system reaction to dust,
pollution and other allergens (e.g., airborne mold spores) in
the environment, which trigger spasms and tightening of the
airways of some people who also have a genetic predisposition,"
reported Newsweek, "Waiting to Inhale," March 14, 2005.

Medical research has recently discovered that babies, while
still in the uterus or as infants after birth, can suffer
lifetime asthma from exposure to pollutants. The Newsweek
article noted: "Now (researchers are) zeroing in on the genetic
vulnerability. The new thinking is that asthma isn't simply a
matter of having the wrong genes. Instead, at some point in
early childhood, or possibly in the womb, an event takes place
that turns a person into a lifetime asthmatic."

"Scientists think the fetus or infant is somehow exposed to a
critical dose of pollutants that cause the immune system to
overreact, permanently narrowing the airways and making them
more sensitive to irritants. It might be possible to inoculate
children against the condition before this even occurs,
preventing asthma entirely." added the Newsweek article.

A 1994 Harvard University School of Public Health study of 10,
000 homes in the United States and Canada found that half had
conditions of water damage and mold, which was associated in the
study with a 50 to 100% increase in respiratory problems for the
residents of water and mold damaged homes. Dr. David Sherris of
the Mayo Clinic conducted (1999) a study of 210 patients with
chronic sinus infections and found that most had allergic fungal
sinusitis. The prevailing medical opinion had been (prior to the
Mayo Clinic study) that mold accounted for only 6 to 7% of all
chronic sinusitis.

The Mayo Clinic Proceedings reported on September 13, 1999, that
researchers have found that chronic sinusitis, a condition that
affects about 37 million people in the United States, is
apparently caused by an immune response to fungus (mold). The
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found an apparent link,
announced in 1997, between mold contamination in the homes and
cases of infant pulmonary hemorrhage.

The American Academy for Pediatrics (AAP) Committee on
Environmental Health released a statement (April 6, 1998)
concerning the toxic effects of indoor molds and acute
idiopathic pulmonary hemorrhage in infants.  The AAP recommended
that until more information is available on the cause of this
condition, infants under one year of age should not be exposed
to chronically moldy, water-damaged environments. The AAP also
recommended that pediatricians inquire about mold and water
damage in the home when treating infants with pulmonary
hemorrhage, and that when mold is present in a patient's home,
that pediatricians should encourage parents to try to find and
eliminate sources of moisture.

At the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center,
approximately 15-20% of patients with leukemia die of fungal
leukemia caused most frequently by the species Aspergillus.  In
patients with leukemia who have undergone allogenic bone marrow
transplantation or allogenic hematopoietic stem cell
transplantation, 15-30% of deaths are caused by refractory
fungal infections such as Aspergillus, one of the most dangerous
indoor molds.

In recent years, comparative risk studies performed by EPA and
its Science Advisory Board (SAB) have consistently ranked indoor
air pollution among the top five environmental risks to public
health.  Ninety four percent (94%) of all respiratory ailments
are caused by polluted air according to the American Medical
Association, which also reported that one-third of the U.S.A.
national health bill is for causes directly attributable to
indoor air pollution.  

"Any person at risk from mold should not be in an area that is
likely to be contaminated with mold. If you or your family
members have health problems after exposure to mold, contact
your doctor or other health care provider," advises the Centers
for Disease Control.

Residents and workers often differ significantly (from co-
residents and co-workers) in their sensitivity and reaction to
mold exposure. Even the smell of mold can make some residents
and workers sick. Consequently, there are no federal standards
or recommendations, (e.g. Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, National Institute of Occupational Safety and
Health, EPA and the Centers for Disease Control) for airborne
concentrations of mold or mold spores in either the home or the
workplace.

Thus, if one or a few residents, employees, or customers
experience one or more possible mold health symptoms, the
property owner, landlord or employer should still inspect and
mold test the residential or work premises for the health
protection of both the mold-sensitive residents and employees,
as well as others who may ultimately be harmed from time-
cumulative mold exposure.

Homes and workplaces should be carefully and thoroughly mold
inspected and mold tested all around by a Certified Mold
Inspector, Environmental Hygienist, or an Industrial Hygienist
if there are:

     (1) significant amounts of visible mold;

     (2) serious water leaks, flooding problems, or high indoor
         humidity; and

     (3) residents, employees, or business customers (such as
         hotel guests) report experiencing one or more possible
         mold health symptoms.

For more information about mold health and coping with mold
problems, please visit the Website:
http://www.moldinspector.com,
http://www.certifiedmoldinspectors.com,http://www.mold.ph.  
Also contact Phillip Fry, by Phone: 63-921-352-1287, or by
Email: moldinspector@yahoo.com.



               Meetings, Conferences & Seminars


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RECOVERIES
Big Class Action
Contact: seminars@bigclassaction.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                         
                  New Securities Fraud Cases

IMERGENT INC.: Goodkind Labaton Lodges Securities Lawsuit in UT
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP initiated
a class action securities fraud lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah, on behalf of persons
who purchased or otherwise acquired the publicly traded
securities of iMergent Inc. ("iMergent" or the "Company")
(AMEX:IIG) between November 30, 2004 and February 25, 2005,
inclusive, (the "Class Period"). The lawsuit was filed against
iMergent, Brandon B. Lewis, Robert M. Lewis, Donald L. Danks,
David L. Rosenvall, David T. Wise, Peter Fredericks, and Thomas
Scheiner ("Defendants"). The complaint alleges that Defendants
violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

During the Class Period, the Defendants failed to disclose the
truth of iMergent's sales practices, including that its wholly-
owned subsidiary, StoresOnline.com, was violating numerous state
laws against deceptive business practices. Specifically, the
Company was selling faulty internet-storefront software to
customers for approximately $500 by virtue of
misrepresentations, then demanding several thousand dollars more
for "expert advice" when the customers complained the software
did not work.

The defendants failed to disclose that iMergent had been subject
to a lawsuit and cease and desist order by the State of
Washington in early 2004 for similar misconduct. On February 22,
2005, it was disclosed that the Texas Attorney General had filed
suit against the Company. On February 25, 2005, it was also
disclosed that the Company had been loaning money to customers
with sub-prime credit.

As the market digested this news, shares of iMergent stock fell
dramatically in value from more than $25 per share on February
9, 2005 to below $12 per share on March 1, 2005, or
approximately 50%. Those investors who purchased or acquired
iMergent stock during the Class Period are alleged to have
purchased those shares at artificially inflated prices, as a
result of the Defendants' false and misleading statements and
omissions during the Class Period, and are seeking damages.

For more details, contact Christopher Keller, Esq. by Phone:
800-321-0476 or visit their Web site:
http://www.glrslaw.com/get/?case=iMergent.


LAIDLAW ENVIRONMENTAL: Grant & Eisenhofer Files Stock Suit in SC
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. initiated a securities
fraud class action lawsuit in the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, on behalf of OCM High Yield
Trust, OCM High Yield Limited Partnership and OCM High Yield
Fund II, L.P. (the "OCM Funds"), as well all other funds and
accounts which are managed by Oaktree Capital Management, LLC
("Oaktree"). These funds purchased or acquired 91/4 % senior
notes due in 2008 (the "Bonds" or the "2008 Bonds") issued by
Laidlaw Environmental Services, Inc., the predecessor to Safety-
Kleen Corp. ("Safety-Kleen") (collectively, the "Company"), in
the initial offering and/or on the secondary market from May 1,
1998 through March 6, 2000 (the "Class Period") (the "Oaktree
Class").

This complaint is related to a current class action entitled In
re Safety-Kleen Bondholders Litigation, Consol. Case No. 3-00-
1145, pending in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina. The class in that action is
certified with respect to claims under the Securities Act of
1933 but has been decertified with respect to claims under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act"). The OCM
Funds seeks to recover damages under the Exchange Act on behalf
of themselves and other funds and accounts managed by Oaktree.

The Complaint alleges that on March 6, 2000, Safety-Kleen
announced that it had uncovered material "accounting
irregularities" in its financial reports, leading it to place
its three top executives on leave while a Special Committee
appointed by Safety-Kleen's Board of Directors conducted an
internal investigation. The value of the Bonds plunged
dramatically in response to this announcement. At the conclusion
of the investigation, the Company issued restated financial
statements for the years ended August 31, 1997, 1998 and 1999
which collectively reduced the Company's net income by more than
$530 million.

For more details, contact Kimberly L. Wierzel of Grant &
Eisenhofer, P.A. by Phone: 302-622-7024 or by E-mail:
kwierzel@gelaw.com.


SIERRA WIRELESS: Glancy Binkow Files Securities Fraud Suit in NY
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP initiated a Class
Action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of a class (the "Class")
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired 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 the
Company's executive officers with violations of federal
securities laws. Plaintiff claims defendants' omissions and
material misrepresentations during the Class Period artificially
inflated the Company's stock price, inflicting damages on
investors. Sierra Wireless develops and markets a range of
products, including mobile phones and wireless data modems for
portable computers. The Complaint alleges that defendants
knowingly or recklessly misrepresented and failed to disclose
the following material adverse facts:

     (1) Sierra Wireless' strategy to correct a technology
         deficiency relative to its competitors by introducing
         the Voq Smartphone was flawed, and its business model
         was not working;

     (2) the Company was facing increasing competition,
         intensified by its failure to enter the WCDMA market;

     (3) the Company's recent venture into the Smartphone market
         with the introduction of its new Voq line was a serious
         misstep--it did little to add revenue and further
         seriously harmed Sierra Wireless' relationship with
         palmOne, a prime customer--as the Voq Smartphone would
         compete with palmOne's Treo, the product for which
         Sierra Wireless was a supplier;

     (4) the Company's dependence on revenue from palmOne in its
         OEM business--selling embedded modules that allow other
         device manufacturers to add wireless connectivity to
         their products--was substantially greater than had been
         reported; and

     (5) Sierra Wireless customers were materially over-
         inventoried, which would lead to greatly diminished
         orders and sales in future quarters.

On January 26, 2005, after the market closed, Sierra Wireless
announced its fourth-quarter 2004 financial results and first-
quarter 2005 financial guidance. The Company announced revenue
for fourth-quarter 2004 well below previous guidance, and
further announced an expected steep decline in revenue going
forward. This news shocked the market, sending Sierra Wireless
shares down more than 38 percent the next day, January 27, 2005,
to close at $8.97 per share on unusually heavy trading volume.

For more details, contact Lionel Z. Glancy or Michael Goldberg
of Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP by Phone: (310) 201-9150 or
(888) 773-9224 by E-mail: info@glancylaw.com or visit their Web
site: http://www.glancylaw.com.



                            *********


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

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

                            *********


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

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

Copyright 2005.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without
prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed
to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                  * * *  End of Transmission  * * *