---

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

            Thursday, March 24, 2005, Vol. 7, No. 59

                         Headlines

AMAZON.COM: Reaches Settlement For WA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
AMAZON.COM: Consumers Lodge Antitrust Violations Suit in N.D. CA
AVISTA CORPORATION: Continues To Face Securities Suit in E.D. WA
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Supreme Court Allows Discovery To Proceed
BSQUARE CORPORATION: NY Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement

CALIFRONIA: AFL-CIO Lauds Apprentices' Fiduciary Lawsuit V. ABC
CREATIVE LABS: Settles Lawsuits Over Cards' Deceptive Marketing
EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Court Junks Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
FOUNDRY NETWORKS: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement

GRACO CHILDREN'S: Faces $4M Fine For Failure To Report Defects
HOMESTORE INC.: Appeal of CA Suit Settlement Approval Withdrawn
IMMERSION CORPORATION: NY Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in CA
J.P. MORGAN: Agrees To Pay $120M To Settle Bank One Suit in IL

KATZMAN & KORR: Settles Homeowners' Complaint Over Liens Filings
MICHIGAN: ACLU Mulls Joining Lawsuit Over Jail Stripping Policy
NEW YORK: Federal Judge Finds Families Eligible For Food Stamps
OVERTURE SERVICES: Ask NY Court To Approve Securities Settlement
SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Court Refuses To Dismiss Investor Lawsuit

SPRINT CORPORATION: Pension Plan Participants File KS ERISA Suit
STAMPS.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
TIME WARNER: Pays $300M, Restates Results To Settle SEC Charges
UNITED STATES: CTIA Asks FCC For Protection From ETF Complaints
USIS COMMERCIAL: Drivers' Work Histories Suit Allowed To Proceed

VOLUME SERVICES: Parties Enter Mediation For CA Overtime Lawsuit
VONAGE HOLDINGS: Texas AG Abbott Sues Due To Lack of 911 Access
WASHINGTON: Lawsuit Launched To Fight Amended Assistance Program

                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AUDIBLE INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
CELL THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WA
DELPHI CORPORATION: Finkelstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
MAMMA.COM INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
TEXTAINER EQUIPMENT: Abraham Fruchter Files CA Securities Suit


                         *********


AMAZON.COM: Reaches Settlement For WA Securities Fraud Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, Inc. reached a settlement for the consolidated
securities class action filed against it, its directors and
certain of its senior officers in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington.  The suit is
styled "In RE Amazon.com Securities Litigation, case no. 2:01-
cv-00358-RSL," and is pending under Judge Robert S. Lasnik.

In 2001, holders of the Company's equity and debt securities
filed several suits, alleging violations of the Securities Act
of 1933 and/or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  On
August 1, 2003, plaintiffs in the 1934 Act cases filed a second
consolidated amended complaint alleging that the Company,
together with certain of its officers and directors, made false
or misleading statements during the period from October 29, 1998
through October 23, 2001 concerning its business, financial
condition and results, inventories, future prospects, and
strategic alliance transactions.  The 1933 Act complaint alleges
that the defendants made false or misleading statements in
connection with our February 2000 offering of the 6.875% PEACS.  
The complaints seek damages and injunctive relief against all
defendants.

In March 2005, the Company signed a Stipulation of Settlement
with counsel representing the alleged plaintiff class with
respect to the 1934 Act claims. If approved by the Court, the
settlement would dispose of all claims arising under the 1934
Act, but not the 1933 Act, in exchange for a payment of
$27,500,000, most if not all of which the Company expects to be
funded by its insurers.


AMAZON.COM: Consumers Lodge Antitrust Violations Suit in N.D. CA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com, Inc. continues to face a class action filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, on behalf of all other similarly situated consumers
in the United States who, during the period from August 1, 2001
to the present, purchased books online from either Amazon.com or
Borders.com.  The suit also names Borders.com, Inc. as a
defendant.

Plaintiff Gary Gerling filed the suit on October 29, 2002,
alleging that the agreement pursuant to which an affiliate of
Amazon.com operates Borders.com as a co-branded site violates
federal anti-trust laws, California statutory law, and the
common law of unjust enrichment.  The complaint seeks injunctive
relief, damages, including treble damages or statutory damages
where applicable, attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements,
disgorgement of all sums obtained by allegedly wrongful acts,
interest, and declaratory relief.

The suit is styled "Gerling v. Amazon.com et al, case no. 3:02-
cv-05238," filed in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, under Judge Marilyn H. Patel.  
Representing the Company are George Charles Nierlich and Joel
Sanders, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, One Montgomery Street
Suite 3100, San Francisco, CA 94104, Phone: 415 393-8200, Fax:
415 986-5309, E-mail: cnierlich@gibsondunn.com, or
jsanders@gibsondunn.com.

Representing the plaintiffs are Roy A. Katriel, The Katriel Law
Firm, P.L.L.C., 1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, D.C.
20007, Phone: 202-625-4342; and Miranda Kolbe, Juden Justice-
Reed, Robert C. Schubert, Schubert & Reed LLP, Two Embarcadero
Center, Suite 1660 San Francisco, CA 94111, Phone: 415-788-4220,
E-mail: jreed@schubert-reed.com or rschubert@schubert-reed.com.  


AVISTA CORPORATION: Continues To Face Securities Suit in E.D. WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avista Corporation denied the allegations in the securities
class action filed against it in the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Washington.  The suit also
names as defendants:

     (1) Thomas M. Matthews, the former Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,

     (2) Gary G. Ely, the current Chairman of the Board,
         President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
         and

     (3) Jon E. Eliassen, the former Senior Vice President and
         Chief Financial Officer of the Company.

The suit, styled "In re Avista Corp. Securities Litigation,"
alleges violations of the federal securities laws in connection
with alleged misstatements and omissions of material fact
pursuant to Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.  The plaintiffs allege that the Company did not
have adequate risk management processes, procedures and
controls. The plaintiffs further allege that the Company engaged
in unlawful energy trading practices and allegedly manipulated
western power markets. The plaintiffs assert that alleged
misstatements and omissions regarding these matters were made in
the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange
Commission and other information made publicly available by the
Company, including press releases.  The class action complaint
asserts claims on behalf of all persons who purchased,
converted, exchanged or otherwise acquired the Company's common
stock during the period between November 23, 1999 and August 13,
2002.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss this complaint in October
2003 and the plaintiffs filed an answer to this motion in
January 2004.  Arguments before the Court on the motion were
held on March 19, 2004.  On April 15, 2004, the Court called for
additional briefing on what effect, if any, the FERC proceedings
have on this case.  On July 30, 2004, the Court denied the
Company's motion to dismiss this complaint, holding, among other
things, that the FERC proceedings may ultimately have some
evidentiary value relevant to the disclosure issues raised in
this case, but they do not preclude the resolution of those
issues by the Court.  In November 2004, the Company filed its
answer to the complaint denying the plaintiffs' allegations.


BAXTER INTERNATIONAL: Supreme Court Allows Discovery To Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Supreme Court has allowed discovery to proceed in a
class-action securities lawsuit that accuses Baxter
International Inc. of issuing misleading financial forecasts,
the Chicago Tribune reports.  The Deerfield-based medical
products giant had filed an appeal with the high court, but
justices decided, without comment, not to review the matter.

Baxter investors had first sued the company in 2002 after the
company disclosed that sales and profits would not meet
previously stated forecasts. That lawsuit alleges that the
company knowingly released materially false statements that were
not protected by the warnings.  A U.S. District Court judge in
Chicago initially threw out the lawsuit however, the 7th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago later reinstated the class-
action proceeding, allowing discovery in the case.

According to a 7th Circuit three-judge panel, facts surrounding
the corporate disclosures "raises the possibility" that the
company's public disclosures were stronger than its internal
projections. Furthermore, the 7th Circuit said discovery was
necessary, but adds "the safe harbor may yet carry the day,"
referring to SEC rules that absolve firms of liability if they
made a good-faith effort to comply with the law.

At the announcement of the ruling, Baxter expressed
disappointment in the Supreme Court's decision and vowed to
forge ahead with its fight against the shareholders' suit.
According to Deborah Spak, Baxter spokeswoman, "We sought the
Supreme Court's review of this earlier decision because of the
split among the federal circuit courts and the uncertainty that
they created with regard to safe harbor for forward looking
statements. We are disappointed that the Supreme Court declined
to hear our appeal. But we will nevertheless continue to
vigorously defend this groundless lawsuit," the Tribune reports.

Additional suits, some of which were consolidated into this
case, were filed in 2003 and 2004 after the company made
additional changes to its forecasts.  Numerous business groups
had filed legal briefs in support of Baxter with the Supreme
Court urging review of the case. The Business Roundtable, in its
brief, even argued that the 7th Circuit decision could affect
how public companies across the country handle disclosures. "The
ramifications of the decision below could be enormous," it
wrote, adding that companies "may choose to avoid making
forward-looking disclosures rather than risk lawsuits like this
one."


BSQUARE CORPORATION: NY Court Approves Stock Lawsuit Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against BSquare
Corporation, certain of its current and former officers and
directors and the underwriters of its initial public offering.

In summer and early fall of 2001, four purported shareholder
class action lawsuits were filed on behalf of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from October 19, 1999
to December 6, 2000.  The complaints against the Company have
been consolidated into a single action and a Consolidated
Amended Complaint, which was filed on April 19, 2002 and is now
the operative complaint.

The plaintiffs allege that the underwriter defendants agreed to
allocate stock in our initial public offering to certain
investors in exchange for excessive and undisclosed commissions
and agreements by those investors to make additional purchases
of stock in the aftermarket at pre-determined prices. Plaintiffs
allege that the prospectus for the Company's initial public
offering was false and misleading in violation of the securities
laws because it did not disclose these arrangements. The action
seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

The action is being coordinated with approximately 300 other
nearly identical actions filed against other companies.  On July
15, 2002, the Company moved to dismiss all claims against it and
the Individual Defendants.  On October 9, 2002, the Court
dismissed the Individual Defendants from the case without
prejudice based upon Stipulations of Dismissal filed by the
plaintiffs and the Individual Defendants. On February 19, 2003,
the Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint against the
Company.  On October 13, 2004, the Court certified a class in
six of the approximately 300 other nearly identical actions and
noted that the decision is intended to provide strong guidance
to all parties regarding class certification in the remaining
cases.  Plaintiffs have not yet moved to certify a class in the
case.  

The Company approved a settlement agreement and related
agreements, which set forth the terms of a settlement between
it, the Individual Defendants, the plaintiff class and the vast
majority of the other approximately 300 issuer defendants.  
Among other provisions, the settlement provides for a release of
the Company and the Individual Defendants for the conduct
alleged in the action to be wrongful.  The Company would agree
to undertake certain responsibilities, including agreeing to
assign away, not assert, or release certain potential claims it
may have against its underwriters.  The settlement agreement
also provides a guaranteed recovery of $1 billion to plaintiffs
for the cases relating to all of the approximately 300 issuers.
To the extent that the underwriter defendants settle all of the
cases for at least $1 billion, no payment will be required under
the issuers' settlement agreement. To the extent that the
underwriter defendants settle for less than $1 billion, the
issuers are required to cover the difference.  

On February 15, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of
the settlement agreement, subject to certain modifications
consistent with its opinion. Judge Scheindlin of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
ruled that the issuer defendants and the plaintiffs must submit
a revised settlement agreement which provides for a mutual bar
of all contribution claims by the settling and non-settling
parties and does not bar the parties from pursuing other claims.


CALIFRONIA: AFL-CIO Lauds Apprentices' Fiduciary Lawsuit V. ABC
---------------------------------------------------------------
President Edward C. Sullivan, Building and Construction Trades
Department, AFL-CIO, lauded Southern California apprentices for
their effort to stop alleged unethical and unlawful practices of
the Associated Builders and Contractors (ABC) of Southern
California. "Unfortunately, what the ABC in California is trying
to get away with is not an isolated case. Recent research
uncovered no less that 18 other ABC chapters around the country
that appear to be involved in the breaches of fiduciary
responsibility."

On March 15, California apprentices filed a class action lawsuit
for breach of fiduciary duty against the Associated Builders and
Contractors of Southern California, a non-union construction
contractors' association, and the trustees of a trust fund set
up by the contractors' association to receive contributions for
apprenticeship training.

The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Los Angeles, alleges that
the defendants used apprenticeship trust fund money to support
the contractors' association rather than to pay for
apprenticeship programs.

The plaintiffs are asking the Court to appoint new trustees and
to order the return of any trust funds that were misused. The
suit is based on the federal Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA), which regulates apprenticeship trust funds.

The class action lawsuit follows an extensive report by the
Building Trades Department that found flawed and incomplete
financial reporting by the chapters and apprenticeship programs
of the Associated Builders and Contractors throughout the United
States. The State Building and Construction Trades Council of
California has already called on Attorney General Bill Lockyer
to conduct an investigation into whether training funds are
being misused in California.

"The vast majority of apprenticeship programs in California are
jointly run by labor and management to ensure that the interests
of both apprentices and employers are protected," said Robert L.
Balgenorth, President of the State Building and Construction
Trades Council of California. "The ABC programs are run solely
by employers so there is a risk that apprentices will be
exploited and training funds will be misused by employers. These
allegations of breach of fiduciary duty should receive very
serious consideration from the courts," Mr. Balgenorth said.


CREATIVE LABS: Settles Lawsuits Over Cards' Deceptive Marketing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Singaporean soundcard maker Creative Labs, has agreed to settle
a class action lawsuit related to misleading marketing of its
Audigy and Extigy range, The Inquirer.net reports.  According to
court documents, the settlement was apparently agreed in
principle at the end of last year, but few potential claimants
yet know about it.

Creative claimed that the products in question could handle 24-
bit audio at 96Khz - indeed this was stated on the product boxes
in bold letters, and in all advertising. However, complaints
filed in 2003 pointed out that this was only true in a very
limited set of circumstances, and pretty much all of the audio
passing through the cards would actually be processed at lower
quality.  The difference probably wouldn't concern the average
gamer or casual MP3 enthusiast, but the labeling outraged many
of those planning to use the Creative cards for professional-
quality audio.

Owners of all of the original Audigy series are included in the
proposed settlement. This includes the Audigy ES, Audigy
Platinum, Audigy Platinum eX, Audigy Gamer, Audigy MP3+ and also
the original Extigy external USB sound module.  Creative did not
admit liability, but agreed to settle the embarrassing case.
Anyone, anywhere, who purchased one of these products before the
end of 2004, and is unhappy with the audio processing, will be
able to get 25% off the cost of their next purchase from
Creative's website, up to a limit of $62.50. Potential claimants
have until September 25, 2005 to avail of the money.

Meanwhile, the lawyers who helped inflict this savage punishment
on Creative will get up to $470,000 for their work on the case.
Court documents also revealed that the three individuals who
originally filed the complaint receive a mere $1000 to $3000 for
all their trouble.  The case is entitled, Holt v. Creative Labs,
Inc., San Francisco Superior Court (Case No.CGC-03-418809).


EPIX PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Securities Fraud Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
EPIX Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its officers face
several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, alleging
federal securities law violations.

On January 27, 2005, a securities class action was filed on
behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common stock
between July 10, 2003 and January 14, 2005.  The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 by issuing a series of materially false and
misleading statements to the market throughout the class period,
which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the
market price of the Company's securities.  

After this initial complaint was filed, other similar actions
were filed against the Company and the same officers in the same
court.  One of these later-filed complaints purports to be
brought on behalf of persons who purchased the Company's common
stock between March 18, 2002 and January 14, 2005.


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: Court Junks Securities Suit Dismissal Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed
plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of the consolidated
securities class action filed against Foundry Networks, Inc. and
certain of its officers, styled "In re Foundry Networks, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Master File No. C-00-4823-MMC."

This litigation began in December 2000, when several similar
stockholder class action lawsuits were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California, following the Company's
announcement of its anticipated financial results for the fourth
quarter ended December 31, 2000.

The consolidated suit alleged violations of federal securities
laws and purported to seek damages on behalf of a class of
stockholders who purchased the Company's common stock during the
period from September 7, 2000 to December 19, 2000, an earlier
Class Action Reporter story (December 3,2004) states.

The Company then brought four successful motions to dismiss the
complaint.  Although the Court granted each of the four
dismissal motions, it also provided plaintiffs leave to amend
the complaint.  On August 29, 2003, following the dismissal of
the four amended complaints, the Court granted the Company's
motion to dismiss the case with prejudice and without leave to
amend and, on September 2, 2003, entered judgment in the
Company's favor, dismissing the plaintiffs' fifth amended
complaint.

On September 29, 2003, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal with
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.  On
January 15, 2004, the plaintiff/appellants filed their opening
brief with the Court of Appeals.  On April 2, 2004, the Company
filed its responsive brief.  On May 14, 2004, the plaintiff
appellants filed a reply brief.  

On February 9, 2005, plaintiffs filed their unopposed motion of
dismissal of their appeal, making the District Court's judgment
final. No settlement was paid in the action.


FOUNDRY NETWORKS: NY Court Approves Securities Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Foundry
Networks, Inc. and certain of its officers, styled "In re
Foundry Networks, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities
Litigation, No. 01-CV-10640 (SAS)" related to "In re Initial
Public Offering Securities Litigation, No. 21 MC 92 (SAS)."

The case is brought purportedly on behalf of all persons who
purchased the Company's common stock from September 27, 1999
through December 6, 2000.  The operative amended complaint names
as defendants the Company and three of its officers (Foundry
Defendants), including its Chief Executive Officer and Chief
Financial Officer; and investment banking firms that served as
underwriters for the Company's initial public offering in
September 1999.

The amended complaint alleged violations of Sections 11 and
15 of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, on the grounds that the
registration statement for the initial public offering
(IPO) failed to disclose that the underwriters agreed to allow
certain customers to purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for
excess commissions to be paid to the underwriters, and the
underwriters arranged for certain customers to purchase
additional shares in the aftermarket at predetermined prices.  
The amended complaint also alleges that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.

Similar allegations were made in lawsuits challenging over 300
other initial public offerings conducted in 1999 and 2000. The
cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes. On February 19,
2003, the Court ruled on all defendants' motions to dismiss.  In
ruling on motions to dismiss, the Court must treat the
allegations in the complaint as if they were true solely for
purposes of deciding the motions. The motion was denied as to
claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in the case involving
the Company. The same ruling was made in all but 10 of the other
cases. The Court dismissed the claims under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and one of
the individual defendants and dismissed all of the Section 20(a)
"control person" claims.  The Court denied the motion to dismiss
the Section 10(b) claims against the Company's remaining
individual defendants on the basis that those defendants
allegedly sold its stock following the IPO, allegations found
sufficient purely for pleading purposes to allow those claims to
move forward.  A similar ruling was made with respect to 62
individual defendants in the other cases.

The Company accepted a settlement proposal presented to all
issuer defendants. Under the terms of this settlement,
plaintiffs will dismiss and release all claims against the
Foundry Defendants in exchange for a contingent payment by the
insurance companies collectively responsible for insuring the
issuers in all of the IPO cases and for the assignment or
surrender of control of certain claims the Company may have
against the underwriters. The settlement will require final
approval of the Court, which cannot be assured, after class
members are given the opportunity to object to the settlement or
opt out of the settlement.


GRACO CHILDREN'S: Faces $4M Fine For Failure To Report Defects
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) reached a
provisional settlement with one of the nation's largest
children's product manufacturers for the largest civil penalty
levied in CPSC history. CPSC has provisionally imposed a $4
million penalty against Graco Children's Products Inc., of
Exton, Pennsylvania, for failing to inform the government in a
timely manner about more than 12 million products that posed a
danger to young children nationwide.

CPSC and the Company also are announcing the recall of about 1.2
million toddler beds, sold between February 1994 and March 2001,
because a child's arm or leg can become entrapped in the guard
rails or footboard.  The company's failure to report the toddler
beds is one of the violations leading to the penalty.

"CPSC is at the forefront of protecting children from products
that can cause serious injuries," stated CPSC Chairman Hal
Stratton. "Today's announcement demonstrates our commitment to
protecting American families by holding companies accountable
for keeping safety information from us."

Graco, which acquired the Century brand name in 1998, is now
owned by Newell Rubbermaid Inc. From 1991 through 2002, Graco
and Century failed to report defects in juvenile products that
the Commission said could create substantial product hazards or
unreasonable risks of injury or death to young children.
According to the CPSC, the company failed to report hundreds of
incidents and injuries involving 16 different products. The
products, all used by young children, include infant carriers,
high chairs, infant swings, strollers and toddler beds. The
injuries range from contusions and fractures to strangulation
(including some fatalities).   The CPSC and Graco are also
finalizing corrective action plans for two additional products
that were manufactured between 1994 and 2001 and are addressed
by the penalty.

Mr. Stratton added, "We want companies to take their reporting
responsibilities very seriously. The action taken by Newell
Rubbermaid to identify these critical safety failures by
companies they purchased and take the necessary measures to
improve product safety is a positive step that other companies
should follow."

For more details, contact the CPSC Consumer Hotline:
(800) 638-2772 or contact Leonardo Alcivar or Scott Wolfson by
Phone: (301) 504-7908 or (301) 504-7051.


HOMESTORE INC.: Appeal of CA Suit Settlement Approval Withdrawn
---------------------------------------------------------------
The appeal of the United States District Court for the Central
District of California's approval of the settlement for the
securities class action filed against Homestore, Inc. has been
withdrawn, after the Company reached a settlement with the
objector.

Following the December 2001 announcement of the discovery of
accounting irregularities and the subsequent restatement of the
Company's 2000 and interim 2001 financial statements, numerous
lawsuits claiming to be class actions and several lawsuits
claiming to be brought derivatively on the Company's behalf were
commenced in various courts against the Company and certain of
its current and former officers and directors by or on behalf of
persons purporting to be the Company's stockholders and persons
claiming to have purchased or otherwise acquired securities
issued by the Company between May 2000 and December 2001.  The
California State Teachers' Retirement System was named lead
plaintiff, or the "Plaintiff" in the consolidated securities
class action lawsuits against the Company.

On August 12, 2003, the Company entered into a settlement
agreement with the Plaintiff to resolve all outstanding claims
related to the Securities Class Action Lawsuit.  As a part of
the settlement, the Company agreed to pay $13.0 million in cash
and issue 20.0 million new shares of the Company's common stock
valued at $50.6 million as of August 12, 2003.  On May 14, 2004,
the District Court entered final judgment and an order of
dismissal with prejudice of the Securities Class Action Lawsuit
as to the Company.  The final judgment includes a bar order
providing for the maximum protection to which the Company is
entitled under the law with respect to all future claims for
contribution or indemnity by other persons, whether under
federal, state or common law.

On June 10, 2004, an objector to the settlement filed a notice
of appeal.  The Company and Plaintiff reached a settlement with
the objector and the objector dismissed the appeal on March 4,
2005. The $13.0 million and the 20.0 million shares currently
held in trust will be distributed to the class and Plaintiff's
counsel in accordance with the judgment.


IMMERSION CORPORATION: NY Court Approves Stock Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the settlement of the
consolidated securities class action filed against Immersion
Corporation, styled "In re Immersion Corporation Initial Public
Offering Securities Litigation, No. Civ. 01-9975 (S.D.N.Y.),"
related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation,
No. 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.)."  The suit also names as defendants
three of its current or former officers or directors and certain
underwriters of the Company's November 12, 1999 initial public
offering (IPO).  Subsequently, two of the individual defendants
stipulated to a dismissal without prejudice.

The operative amended complaint is brought on purported behalf
of all persons who purchased the common stock of Immersion from
the date of the IPO through December 6, 2000.  It alleges
liability under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933
and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, on the grounds that the registration statement for the IPO
did not disclose that:

     (1) the underwriters agreed to allow certain customers to
         purchase shares in the IPO in exchange for excess
         commissions to be paid to the underwriters; and

     (2) the underwriters arranged for certain customers to
         purchase additional shares in the aftermarket at
         predetermined prices.

The complaint also appears to allege that false or misleading
analyst reports were issued.  The complaint does not claim any
specific amount of damages.

Similar allegations were made in other lawsuits challenging over
300 other initial public offerings and follow-on offerings
conducted in 1999 and 2000. The cases were consolidated for pre-
trial purposes.  On February 19, 2003, the Court ruled on all
defendants' motions to dismiss.  The motion was denied as to
claims under the Securities Act of 1933 in the case involving
Immersion, as well as in all other cases (except for 10 cases).
The motion was denied as to the claim under Section 10(b) as to
Immersion, on the basis that the complaint alleged that
Immersion had made acquisition(s) following the IPO.  The motion
was granted as to the claim under Section 10(b), but denied as
to the claim under Section 20(a), as to the remaining individual
defendant.

The Company and most of the issuer defendants have settled with
the plaintiffs.  In this settlement, plaintiffs have dismissed
and released all claims against the Immersion Defendants, in
exchange for a contingent payment by the insurance companies
collectively responsible for insuring the issuers in all of the
IPO cases, and for the assignment or surrender of certain claims
the Company may have against the underwriters. The Immersion
Defendants will not be required to make any cash payments in the
settlement, unless the pro rata amount paid by the insurers in
the settlement exceeds the amount of the insurance coverage, a
circumstance which the Company believes is remote. The
settlement will require final approval of the Court, which
cannot be assured, after class members are given the opportunity
to object to the settlement or opt out of the settlement.


INSPIRE PHARMACEUTICALS: Shareholders Launch Fraud Suits in CA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Inspire Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and certain of its senior officers
face several securities class actions filed in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina,
alleging violations of federal securities laws.

On February 15, 2005, a purported class action complaint was
filed by Mirco Investors, LLC on behalf of itself and all other
similarly situated investors against the Company and certain of
its senior officers.  The complaint alleges violations of
sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5, and focuses
on statements that are claimed to be false and misleading
regarding a Phase 3 clinical trial of the Company's dry eye
product candidate, diquafosol.  The plaintiffs seek unspecified
damages on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of the
Company's securities during the period from June 2, 2004 through
February 8, 2005.

On February 16, 2005, a similar complaint against the same
defendants was filed by Richard and Susan Giorgino.  In
addition, on March 4, 2005, a similar complaint against the same
defendants was filed by Kiah Sai Tan.  It is possible that
additional complaints may be filed in the future.  The Company
stated in a regulatory filing that it expects that these
individual lawsuits will be consolidated into a single civil
action.


J.P. MORGAN: Agrees To Pay $120M To Settle Bank One Suit in IL
--------------------------------------------------------------    
Nine months after buying Bank One Corporation, J.P. Morgan Chase
& Co. has agreed to pay $120 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit brought by former First Chicago shareholders, according
to company officials, the Crain's Chicago Business reports.

The suit, filed in early 2000, accused Bank One of making
misleading statements about its credit-card unit, First USA
Bank. Following Bank One's purchase of First Chicago NBD Corp.
seven years ago, a customer exodus from First USA stemming from
a series of customer-service problems led to big losses at Bank
One and cut its stock price in half.

Under the terms of the settlement, J.P. Morgan isn't admitting
or denying responsibility for the problems.  News of this
settlement closely follows J.P. Morgan's $2 billion recent
settlement with bondholders of WorldCom Inc., who'd accused J.P.
Morgan of aiding and abetting WorldCom's massive accounting
fraud.


KATZMAN & KORR: Settles Homeowners' Complaint Over Liens Filings
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Katzman & Korr has agreed to settle a federal
class-action lawsuit over its filing of liens and foreclosures
against homeowners for debts that may not even exist, the Sun-
Sentinel.com reports.  The suit, which represents 400 condo and
homeowner associations in South Florida, accused the firm of
violating state and federal debt collection and deceptive trade
practice laws.

The number of unit owners who could benefit by the settlement is
estimated at more than 1,100, but whether they collect damages
will be determined later. Details of the settlement were not
released since it won't be presented to U.S. District Judge
William P. Dimitrouleas in Fort Lauderdale for preliminary
approval until late April.

The suit began in 2002, when the board of the Plaza East condo
in Fort Lauderdale accused unit owners Ramsey and Grace Agan of
not paying $356.43, part of a special assessment for replacing
concrete balconies. The Agans has contended that they owed
nothing and refused to pay. Katzman & Korr promptly filed a lien
on their unit for $1,001.01, which included the initial debt
plus attorneys' fees and costs. The apartment would be
foreclosed, the law firm warned, if the lien weren't paid.

Angered by the firms tactics, the Agans filed the federal
lawsuit on behalf of themselves and other owners in the condo
and homeowner associations represented by Katzman & Korr whose
homes had liens placed on them. Three years later, according to
the couple's attorney, F. Blane Carneal, as part of the
negotiations for the settlement, it was proven that the Agans
never owed anything.

James M. Kaplan of Miami, attorney for Katzman & Korr, told the
Sun-Sentinel "If the settlement process is completed, our
litigation objectives will be met and we'll have the opportunity
to move on with our lives and conduct our business."

At public hearings during the past two years, an often-heard
complaint by owners was that lawyers representing their
associations would demand payment for amounts as low as $25 in
late fees. The lawyers would add their fees, and when owners
objected more fees were added, the lawyers, according to the
owners, would then file liens.

The Agans and the association last month settled the foreclosure
suit at a cost to Plaza East unit owners of more than $100,000,
said Ramsey Agan, a retired mortgage banker.  "I never owed
these people anything, and suddenly I found my house being
foreclosed. Katzman & Korr ended up paying my attorneys' fees,
my expenses, and they said they would change their way of doing
business," he told the Sun-Sentinel.


MICHIGAN: ACLU Mulls Joining Lawsuit Over Jail Stripping Policy
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Michigan branch of the American Civil Liberties Union is
considering whether to join a lawsuit against a Saginaw County
Jail policy under which officers forcibly stripped unruly
detainees, sometimes with guards of the opposite sex
participating, the Saginaw News reports.

Kary Moss, executive director of the ACLU, told the Saginaw News
"We're investigating it." She also adds that a decision could
come by week's end.
  
U.S. District Judge David M. Lawson has ruled that the practice
is illegal and demeaning.  Court documents reveal that about 130
former inmates are considering whether to join a class action
suit against the jail.  The suit claims that 27 inmates suffered
mistreatment at the hands of jail workers who forced
uncooperative pre-arraignment detainees to remove their clothes
and submit to solitary confinement. If the inmates refused,
deputies took their clothing off for them, according to court
documents.


NEW YORK: Federal Judge Finds Families Eligible For Food Stamps
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William H. Pauley of the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York issued a ruling that finds
thousands of poor New York families eligible for transitional
food stamp benefits known as "Transitional Benefits Alternative"
(TBA). The ruling will ensure that impoverished New Yorkers will
be able to feed their families while making the difficult
transition from welfare to work.

The New York Legal Assistance Group (NYLAG) brought this case,
Walker v. Eggleston, in 2004 as a class action against the City
of New York's Human Resources Administration (HRA) and the New
York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA).
The case challenges the failure to provide TBA to families who
leave cash assistance when HRA places the parents in jobs
through the New York City Parks Opportunity Program (POP) at the
Parks and Recreation Department. Since 2001, HRA has placed
several thousand families into the six-month POP program, where
participants earn $7.50 an hour.

TBA is a federal program that allows states to provide a higher,
stable amount of food stamps to families who are transitioning
from welfare to work. HRA and OTDA claimed that, for technical
reasons, families whom HRA placed into the POP program were
ineligible for TBA. At the same time, HRA has been providing TBA
to other families who leave cash assistance because of
employment earnings.

The City's restrictions caused plaintiffs severe hardship. For
example, when the City placed lead plaintiff Tanya Walker in a
Parks Department position, HRA reduced her food stamps from $256
to $94 a month - a $162 per month reduction. Due to the
reduction in her benefits and her increased expenses related to
her work activity, Ms. Walker struggled to support herself and
her daughter while participating in POP. She did not have money
to buy enough food and frequently had to ask her friends to
borrow food. Having diverted her limited income towards food,
Ms. Walker did not have money left over to purchase other basic
items, such as warm clothing for her daughter.

In the ruling, Judge Pauley denied the defendants' motions to
dismiss, holding that the plaintiffs are in fact eligible for
TBA.

"This is a great victory for thousands of impoverished families
who are trying to make the transition from welfare to work,"
said NYLAG attorney Jennifer Werdell. "The additional food stamp
benefits provided by TBA will help ensure that families working
for the Parks Department have access to adequate food while
trying to make ends meet in a low-wage job."


OVERTURE SERVICES: Ask NY Court To Approve Securities Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Overture Services, Inc. asked the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York to grant preliminary
approval to the settlement of the consolidated securities class
action filed against the Company, certain underwriters involved
in its initial public offering, and certain of its current and
former officers and directors.

Plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of the
Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
involving undisclosed compensation to the underwriters, and
improper practices by the underwriters, and seek unspecified
damages.  Similar complaints were filed in the same court
against numerous public companies that conducted initial public
offerings of their common stock since the mid-1990s.  All of
these lawsuits were consolidated for pretrial purposes before
Judge Shira Scheindlin.

On April 19, 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
alleging Rule 10b-5 claims of fraud.  On July 15, 2002, the
issuers filed a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with
applicable pleading standards.  On October 8, 2002, the Court
entered an Order of Dismissal as to all of the individual
defendants in the Overture IPO litigation, without prejudice. On
February 19, 2003, the Court denied the motion to dismiss the
Rule 10b-5 claims against certain defendants, including the
Company.

Settlement discussions relating to this case on behalf of the
named defendants have occurred over the last year, resulting in
a final settlement memorandum of understanding with the
plaintiff and the Company's insurance carriers.  This settlement
proposal includes the settlement of, and release of claims
against, the issuer defendants, including the Company. The
settlement is subject to a number of conditions, including
approval of the court.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


SPRINT CORPORATION: KS Court Refuses To Dismiss Investor Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
The District Court of Johnson County, Kansas refused to dismiss
the consolidated class actions filed against Sprint Corporation
and its directors, relating to the recombination of certain
tracking stocks.

Eight similar suits were initially filed on behalf of holders of
PCS common stock.  Seven of the lawsuits were consolidated in
the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas.  The eighth,
pending in New York, has been voluntarily stayed. The
consolidated lawsuit alleges breach of fiduciary duty in
connection with allocations between the FON Group and the PCS
Group before the recombination of the tracking stocks and breach
of fiduciary duty in the recombination. The lawsuit seeks to
rescind the recombination and monetary damages.


SPRINT CORPORATION: Pension Plan Participants File KS ERISA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sprint Corporation faces a consolidated class action filed in
the United States District Court for the District of Kansas,
alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (ERISA).  The suit also names as defendants the committees
administering the Sprint Retirement Savings Plan, the Sprint
Retirement Savings Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees and the
Centel Retirement Savings Plan for Bargaining Unit Employees,
the plan trustee and certain of the Company's officers and
directors.

The participants of the Plans filed the suit, alleging that the
defendants breached their fiduciary duties to the plans and
violated the ERISA statutes by making the company contribution
in FON common stock and PCS common stock and including FON
common stock and PCS common stock among the more than thirty
investment options offered to plan participants.  The lawsuit
seeks to recover any decline in the value of FON common stock
and PCS common stock during the class period.

The suit is styled "IN RE SPRINT CORPORATION ERISA LITIGATION,
case no.  2:03-cv-02202-JWL-JPO," filed in the United States
District Court in Kansas under Judge John W. Lungstrum.  The
plaintiffs are represented by:

     (1) William Bernarduci, Schatz & Nobel, PC, One Corporate
         Center, 20 Church Street, Suite 1700, Hartford, CT
         06103, Phone: 860-493-6292, Fax: 860-493-6290, E-mail:
         wbernarduci@snlaw.net

     (2) Don R. Lolli, Dysart, Taylor, Lay, Cotter & McMonigle,
         P.C., 4420 Madison Avenue - 2nd Floor, Kansas City, MO
         64111, Phone: 816-931-2700, Fax: 816-931-7377, E-mail:
         dlolli@dysarttaylor.com

     (3) Susan F. Meagher, Diane A. Nygaard, The Nygaard Law
         Firm, 4501 College Blvd Ste 260, Leawood, KS 66211,
         Phone: 913-469-5544, Fax: 913-469-1561, E-mail:
         susan@nygaardlaw.com

     (4) Edwin Mills, Stull, Stull & Brody - New York, 6 East
         45th Street, Suite 500 New York, NY 10017, Phone: 212-
         687-7230, Fax: 212-490-2022, E-mail: ssbny@aol.com  

Representing the Company are:

     (i) Clayton L. Barker Mark A. Thornhill, Spencer Fane Britt
         & Browne-- Kansas City, 1000 Walnut, Suite 1400, Kansas
         City, MO 64106, Phone: 816-474-8100, Fax: 816-474-3216,
         E-mail: cbarker@spencerfane.com,
         mthornhill@spencerfane.com

    (ii) Jennifer L. Brown, George E. Wolf, Shook, Hardy & Bacon
         L.L.P. -- Grand Rapids 2555 Grand Boulevard, Kansas
         City, MO 64108-2613, Phone: 816-474-6550, Fax: 816-421-
         5547, E-mail: jbrown@shb.com, gwolf@shb.com  

   (iii) Toby Jon Crouse, Matthew C. Miller, Timothy O'Brien,
         Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.--Overland Park, 84
         Corporate Woods 10801 Mastin-Ste. 1000, Overland Park,
         KS 66210 Phone: 913-451-6060 Fax: 913-451-8879 Email:
         tcrouse@shb.com, dmmiller@shb.com, tobrien@shb.com

    (iv) Gary R. Long, Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P. --Kansas
         City, 2555 Grand Avenue Kansas City, MO 64108-2613,
         Phone: 816-474-6550, Fax: 816-421-2708, E-mail:
         glong@shb.com  

     (v) Robert Rachal, Howard Shapiro Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
         -- New Orleans, 909 Poydras, Suite 1100 New Orleans, LA
         70112, Phone: 504-310-4088, Fax: 504-522-5771, E-mail:
         rrachal@shb.com, hshapiro@shb.com  


STAMPS.COM: NY Court Preliminarily Approves Lawsuit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York granted preliminary approval to the proposed settlement
for the consolidated securities class action filed against
Stamps.com, Inc. and certain of its current and former board
members and/or officers.

11 purported class-action lawsuits were initially filed,
alleging violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the Company's
initial public offering and secondary offering of the Company's
common stock.  The lawsuits also name as defendants the
principal underwriters in connection with the Company's initial
and secondary public offerings, including Goldman, Sachs & Co.
(in some of the lawsuits sued as The Goldman Sachs Group Inc.)
and BancBoston Robertson Stephens, Inc.

The lawsuits allege that the underwriters engaged in improper
commission practices and stock price manipulations in connection
with the sale of the Company's common stock. The lawsuits also
allege that the Company and/or certain of its officers or
directors knew of or recklessly disregarded these practices by
the underwriter defendants, and failed to disclose them in its
public filings. Plaintiffs seek damages and statutory
compensation, including prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees), and rescissory
damages.  

In April 2002, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class
action complaint against the Company and certain of its current
and former board members and/or officers.  The consolidated
amended class action complaint includes similar allegations to
those described above and seeks similar relief.  In July 2002,
the Company moved to dismiss the consolidated amended class
action complaint.  In October 2002, pursuant to a stipulation
and tolling agreement with plaintiffs, the Company's current and
former board members and/or officers were dismissed without
prejudice. In February 2003, the court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the consolidated amended class action
complaint.  In June 2003 the Company approved a proposed
Memorandum of Understanding among the plaintiffs, issuers and
insurers as to terms for a settlement of the litigation against
us which was further documented in a Stipulation and Agreement
of Settlement filed with the court.  The proposed settlement
terms would not require Stamps.com to make any payments.  The
proposed settlement was preliminarily approved by the court in
February 2005, but remains subject to a fairness hearing and
final approval by the court, which has not yet occurred.


TIME WARNER: Pays $300M, Restates Results To Settle SEC Charges
---------------------------------------------------------------  
Time Warner Inc., the world's largest media company has agreed
to pay $300 million and restate three years of financial results
to settle civil fraud charges stemming from its accounting of
online advertising revenue and subscriber counts at its AOL
unit, the Associated Press reports.

The settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
which was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of
Columbia, also calls for the media giant to open its books to an
independent examiner, which could result in additional
restatements.  The details of the deal, which include no
admission or denial of wrongdoing, are in line with a proposal
the company made and disclosed last December. At that time, Time
Warner also said it agreed to pay $210 million to resolve
charges of criminal securities fraud in a separate investigation
by the Department of Justice.

Time Warner Chief Executive Officer Dick Parsons told AP the
company was "pleased" to have resolved the investigation, and
was committed to cooperating with the independent examiner and
fulfilling its other obligations under the settlement with the
SEC. The examiner's report, according to Mr. Parsons, is
expected in about six months.

The D.C. Court has been assigned to manage the distribution of
the $300 million penalty to affected investors. Those payouts,
which are akin to class-action distributions, will be made under
the "fair fund" provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

The SEC had accused Time Warner of several fraudulent acts,
including inflating its own online advertising revenue with a
number of "round-trip" transactions in which it essentially
provided other companies with the means to buy online
advertising.  The SEC also accused Time Warner of overstating
the number of AOL subscribers by counting members from bulk
subscription sales to companies even though the company knew
they had not been activated.  The SEC further contends that
because Time Warner failed to treat AOL Europe as a consolidated
business from March 2000 to January 2002, as it should have
been, the company overstated its financial results for those
time periods. Time Warner though has since revised its results
to reflect that change.


UNITED STATES: CTIA Asks FCC For Protection From ETF Complaints
---------------------------------------------------------------
CTIA, the national cell-phone trade group, has asked the Federal
Communications Commission for a ruling that would shield mobile-
phone carriers in the future from class-action lawsuits
challenging early termination fees (ETF) assessed against
subscribers who break their contracts with service providers,
the RCR Wireless News reports.

According to the group, the FCC must act quickly to declare that
ETF suits in state courts are pre-empted by federal law.

The group further states, "Discovery is now going forward in
some of these cases, and wireless carriers are being forced to
produce cost data, expert evaluations of their rates and rate
structures, and economic justifications for the existence and
size of the ETF. The fact that discovery in these cases closely
resembles a traditional 'cost of service' rate case under state
regulation of intrastate wireline services powerfully
illustrates why these lawsuits are nothing more than a form of
state regulation expressly pre-empted by Section 332, RCR
Wireless News reports."

Section 332, experts explain, bans states from regulating rates
and market entry of commercial wireless carriers, but leaves to
states jurisdiction of other terms and conditions of wireless
service. Plaintiffs' lawyers have argued that ETFs violate
various state laws.

CTIA, noting that SunCom Operating Co L.L.C. filed a similar
petition in connection with an ETF class-action suit in South
Carolina, asked the FCC to consolidate both petitions. Other ETF
lawsuits are pending against mobile-phone carriers in
California, Florida and Illinois, according to CTIA.


USIS COMMERCIAL: Drivers' Work Histories Suit Allowed To Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. District Judge Robert Blackburn will allow the Owner-
Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) to move forward
in its class-action suit against USIS Commercial Services,
formerly known as DAC Services, the eTrucker reports.

OOIDA charges that the Oklahoma-based company, which collects
the employment histories of millions of truck drivers,
distributes inaccurate information that drivers have no
opportunity to correct.

In his ruling the Denver-based federal judge allowed OOIDA to
seek damages, costs and if willful violations are proven
punitive damages for alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act.  However, the judge also ruled that OOIDA might
not seek "equitable relief," such as a share of any profits
judged to be ill gotten, or an injunction to prevent the company
from distributing the employment histories. That part of the
decision though, according to OOIDA'S general counsel Paul D.
Cullen, will not significantly affect its case.

In addition, the judge, who has set a May 2006 trial date for
the case, also ruled that fleets, which submit termination
records to the company count as "consumer reporting agencies"
and therefore are potentially accountable under the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, eTrucker reports.

According to the USIS website, the company's clients include 95
of the top 100 U.S. carriers, and its proprietary files contain
the work histories of more than 4 million drivers.


VOLUME SERVICES: Parties Enter Mediation For CA Overtime Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Parties engaged in non-binding mediation for the class action
filed against Volume Services America, Inc. in the Superior
Court of California for the County of Orange, styled "Holden v.
Volume Services America, Inc., et al."

A former employee at one of the California stadiums the Company
serves filed the suit, alleging violations of local overtime
wage, rest and meal period and related laws with respect to this
employee and others purportedly similarly situated at any and
all of the facilities the Company serves in California.  The
Company removed the case to the United States District Court for
the Central District of California, but in November 2003 the
court remanded the case back to the California Superior Court.
The purported class action seeks compensatory, special and
punitive damages in unspecified amounts, penalties under the
applicable local laws and injunctions against the alleged
illegal acts.  

In August 2004, a second purported class action, "Perez v.
Volume Services Inc, d/b/a Centerplate," was filed in the
Superior Court for Yolo County, California.  Perez makes
substantially identical allegations to those in Holden.  
Consequently, the Company filed a Demurer and the case was
stayed on November 9, 2004 pending the resolution of Holden.


VONAGE HOLDINGS: Texas AG Abbott Sues Due To Lack of 911 Access
---------------------------------------------------------------
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott filed a lawsuit against
Vonage Holdings Corporation, the country's largest Internet-
based telephone service provider, for failing to make clear to
consumers that the company's current service does not include
access to traditional emergency 911 service.

The dangers posed by the Company's failure to clearly disclose
the lack of traditional 911 access surfaced last month when a
Houston family that subscribed to the Company's service tried to
call 911 during a home invasion.  Two victims were shot multiple
times, but the victims' daughter was never able to get through
to 911.

"This Houston family's moment of crisis signals a dire need for
Vonage to clearly communicate to its Internet telephone
customers that 9-1-1 access may not be available to them," said
Attorney General Abbott.  "This is not just about bad customer
service; it's a matter of life and death."

Joyce John, who joined Attorney General Abbott in his
announcement, attempted in vain to reach 911 dispatchers in
February as would-be burglars fired shots through her home and
threatened her parents at gunpoint, eventually wounding them.
When John hurriedly placed the call from an upstairs room, a
voice recording informed her that no emergency access was
available from that line. The burglars fled the scene before
causing more harm, and the victims survived their injuries.

The lawsuit, filed under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, requests injunctive measures to stop the broadband phone
company based in New Jersey from misrepresenting the type of
emergency telephone service it offers, and the fact that the
"911 dialing" feature is not automatically included when a
customer signs up for telephone service. The suit seeks $20,000
per violation.

The lawsuit alleges the Company is deceiving consumers by not
revealing in its television commercials, brochures or other
marketing materials that customers must proactively sign up for
911 service. When consumers purchase the plan over the phone,
call center salespeople also fail to disclose this important
information. Even after signing up, there are limitations to the
service that the Company customers may never know about unless
they read the fine print buried on the Company's Web site.

Internet-based telephone providers are unregulated by state and
federal communications authorities. Though some of these
providers offer 911 access, they are not required to do so.
However, many consumers, like the John family, may not be aware
of this fact.

Vonage advertises that its service includes "911 dialing."  
However, it fails to make clear that when a customer signs up
for Vonage's service, the customer does not automatically have
the ability to dial 911 and be connected to emergency personnel.
Instead, the customer first has to take steps to activate
Vonage's "911 dialing" feature, which has significant
limitations as compared to traditional 911 service.  For
example, customers who dial 911 through Vonage's "911 dialing"
service are routed through administrative lines at 911 call
centers, not directly to call-station operators who dispatch
emergency vehicles.  Calls outside regular business hours may
not be answered.  If emergency personnel do get the call, they
may not be able to identify the caller's phone number and will
not have information about the caller's address.

Attorney General Abbott urges Internet-based phone users to
contact their Internet telephone service providers immediately
to determine whether they are able to dial 911.

Sales of this communication option to consumers increased
tenfold from 2003 to 2004, according to industry reports. Vonage
alone boasts more than 500,000 subscribers. Internet service
provider EarthLink is a reseller of Vonage's Internet telephone
service.

For more details, contact Angela Hale, Paco Felici, Jerry
Strickland, or Tom Kelley by Phone: (512) 463-2050 or visit the
Website: http://oag.state.tx.us.


WASHINGTON: Lawsuit Launched To Fight Amended Assistance Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
An estimated 39,000 people are being represented in a class-
action lawsuit that was filed against the state's Department of
Social and Health Services over changes made to the Washington
State Combined Application Program, The Olympian reports.  

A pilot program created in 2001, WASHCAP was meant to make it
more convenient for elderly or disabled people living on federal
income assistance to apply for food stamps.  The suit, filed in
Thurston County Superior Court, contends that DSHS instead has
made people worse off financially than if they had stayed in the
state's Basic Food Program, and it challenges the benefit
reductions that were made across the board.

The change in benefit calculations had to do with how costs for
clients' utilities are determined. Under the old rule, clients
in both received a 'standard utility allowance' if they paid for
heat and electricity and a 'limited utility allowance' if they
only paid for services such as water and garbage.  Under the
changes, all WASHCAP recipients receive only a "limited utility
allowance," even if they pay higher costs for heat or
electricity.

Rebecca Henri, a WASHCAP program manager told The Olumpian, some
were not affected by the changes, in fact, according to her, on
average the changes reduced benefits by $17 per month.

However, in comparison with the Basic Food Program, some people
now get $50 less per month than others in similar circumstances,
which the lawsuit argues is unconstitutional because it grants
benefits to one group of people and not the other.  In the past,
people could switch if it meant they could fare better on one
program over the other. However, the DSHS recently implemented
two emergency rules changes in December, including one that also
prevented people from opting out of WASHCAP, which the state
switched them to a few years ago.

WASHCAP was designed to help more disadvantaged, single, elderly
and disabled households, which were lagging behind statistically
on food stamp participation, Ms. Henri said. "When we started,
we had 16,000 within WASHCAP. We're now at nearly 40,000, and
many of those people have never been on food stamps before," she
adds.

The program, according to observers, actually streamlined the
application process, allowing people who apply for federal
Supplemental Security Income to simultaneously get foods stamps.
It also made staying in the program easier. Under the Basic Food
Program, recipients have to be re-screened every six months to a
year for changes in income or living costs, but under WASHCAP,
recipients only re-certify every two years or sometimes never
again, because their income levels don't change on federal
assistance.

DSHS explains that the recent changes in benefits were forced
due to a dispute over funding with the federal government, which
administers food stamps. WASHCAP was established as a five-year
pilot project under an agreement that it would be "cost neutral"
to the federal government, Ms. Henri told The Olympian.

According to court documents, DSHS officials contend that they
were forced to implement the changes as emergency rules to
prevent the federal government from cutting funding. The
emergency rules provision under state law allows the agency to
temporarily bypass holding a public hearing.  Because of the
difference in the way benefits were calculated, WASHCAP was
costing the federal government about $1 million more every
month, Ms. Henri said.

Amy Crewdson, one of two attorneys from Columbia Legal Services
representing the plaintiffs, told the Olympian that while it was
clear DSHS tried to negotiate with the federal government, it
misused the emergency rules provision in the state's
Administrative Procedures Act.

The lawsuit also argues that WASHCAP clients were not properly
notified in time to give them a chance to switch programs before
the changes went into effect in January. While DSHS sent out
letters, they were not clear to many clients about what was
happening.  The lawsuit seeks back pay for benefits not doled
out since the rule changes.


                    New Securities Fraud Cases

AUDIBLE INC.: Spector Roseman Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NJ
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Spector, Roseman & Kodroff, P.C. initiated a
securities class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey, on behalf of purchasers of
the common stock of Audible, Inc. ("Audible" or the "Company")
(Nasdaq: ADBL) between November 2, 2004 through February 15,
2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The Complaint alleges that defendants Audible, Donald R. Katz
(Chairman and CEO), and Andrew P. Kaplan (CFO) violated the
federal securities laws by issuing materially false and
misleading statements contained in press releases and filings
with the Securities and Exchange Commission during the Class
Period. Specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company
failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material
adverse facts which were known to defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them:

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

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

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

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

For more details, contact Robert M. Roseman by Phone:
888-844-5862 or by E-mail: classaction@srk-law.com or visit
their Web site: http://www.srk-law.com.


CELL THERAPEUTICS: Milberg Weiss Lodges Securities Lawsuit in WA
----------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP initiated a
class action lawsuit on behalf of purchasers of the securities
of Cell Therapeutics Inc. ("CTI" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
CTIC) between June 7, 2004 and March 4, 2005, inclusive, (the
"Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

The action, numbered CV05-0452, is pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Washington against
defendants CTI, Max Link (Chairman) and James Bianco (CEO,
President).

The complaint alleges that defendants' class period statements
regarding XYOTAX, one of the Company's lung cancer drugs
undergoing efficacy testing, were materially false and
misleading for the following reasons:

     (1) contrary to the defendant's repeated representations
         that observed results of the study were positive and
         encouraging, the results in fact showed that XYOTAX
         would not meet its primary endpoint;

     (2) XYOTAX did not boost survival for non-small cell lung
         cancer any better than Taxol, a chemotherapeutic agent
         that had been on the market for years;

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

The complaint further alleges that defendants were motivated to
commit the fraud alleged herein so that CTI's private offering
would yield more money for the Company, than if the truth was
known. On December 20, 2004, CTI launched an $18.4 "Million
Direct Equity Placement," selling approximately 2,586,000 shares
of its common stock to institutional investors at a negotiated
price per share of $7.10. In addition, during the Class Period,
defendant Bianco sold 39,625 shares at artificially inflated
prices for proceeds of $300,877.

On March 7, 2005, prior to the opening of the market, CTI issued
a press release announcing that XYOTAX failed to meet the
endpoint of the STELLAR 3 Pivotal Trial, which had been touted
throughout the Class Period. The study showed that XYOTAX was no
better at boosting cancer survival than existing chemotherapy
agents. In reaction to this announcement, CTI shares fell $4.75
per share or 47.5%, on March 7, 2005, to close at $5.25 per
share, on unusually high volume.

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


DELPHI CORPORATION: Finkelstein Lodges Securities Lawsuit in OH
---------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Finkelstein & Krinsk, LLP initiated a class
action lawsuit on behalf of participants (current and former
employees) and beneficiaries of Delphi Corporation (NYSE: DPH -
News) pension plans for the extreme loss of value resulting from
the decline of Delphi stock. The lawsuit, filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio,
represents participants who since May 28, 1999 to the present
(the "Class Period") were in the Delphi Savings - Stock Purchase
Program for Salaried Employees in the U.S., Delphi Personal
Savings Plan for Hourly-Rate Employees in the U.S., ASEC
Manufacturing Savings Plan or the Delphi Mechatronic Systems
Savings-Stock Purchase Program (the "Plans").

The complaint charges plan fiduciaries with violations of the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The lawsuit
alleges that Plan fiduciaries breached their duties and
responsibilities by, among other things, failing to investigate
the prudence of investing in Delphi stock and abetting
misrepresentations about the Company's accounting practices
dating back to 1999. The complaint alleges that the defendants
made various material negligent misrepresentations and
manipulated disclosure of certain facts. Upon these disclosures,
Delphi's stock dropped to $5.41 per share before closing at
$5.46 per share on March 4, 2005, 68 percent below the Class
Period high of $17.40 per share and a one-day drop of 14
percent. The stock is currently trading at about $5.12 per
share. Many current and former Delphi employees have decided to
participate in the lawsuit; employees are organizing a
management structure to direct its conduct. Employees who choose
to participate in the lawsuit can do so confidentially; it is
unlawful for any fiduciary or defendant to take any retaliatory
action against any employee who chooses to participate.

Delphi is a global supplier of vehicle electronics,
transportation components, integrated systems and modules, and
other electronic technology to vehicle manufacturers. Delphi has
approximately 185,000 employees and operates 171 wholly owned
manufacturing sites, 42 joint ventures, 53 customer centers and
sales offices and 33 technical centers in 40 countries.

For more details, contact Finkelstein & Krinsk by Phone:
877-493-5366 or by E-mail: jrk@classactionlaw.com.


MAMMA.COM INC.: Stull Stull Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in NY
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Stull, Stull & Brody initiated a class action
lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, on behalf of all persons who purchased the
common stock of Mamma.com, Inc. ("Mamma.com") (NASDAQ:MAMA)
between March 2, 2004 and February 16, 2005, inclusive (the
"Class Period"). Also included are all those who acquired shares
of Mamma.com through its acquisition of Digital Arrow LLC.

The Complaint alleges that Mamma.com violated federal securities
laws by issuing false or misleading public statements.
Specifically, defendants failed to disclose the following
material adverse facts:

     (1) that Irving Kott ("Kott"), a Canadian stock promoter
         with a long history of stock manipulation, had a
         significant undisclosed interest in Mamma.com;

     (2) that Kott and his associates were manipulating the
         Company's stock price by engaging in a classic "pump
         and dump" scheme; and

     (3) that Mamma.com was manipulating its financial results
         so that the scheme would endure. Additionally, as a
         result of its stock trading at artificially inflated
         levels, Mamma.com was able to acquire Digital Arrow LLC
         and entered into a letter of intent ("LOI") whereby
         Mamma.com would acquire all of the shares of Copernic
         Technologies for a combination of cash and shares of
         Mamma.com. Finally, Mamma.com raised $16.6 million
         through a private placement.

On February 16, 2005, midday, trading of Mamma.com was halted.
Shortly thereafter, Mamma.com announced that it had been unable
to reach an agreement on the terms of its audit with
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PWC") for the year ended December
31, 2004. Accordingly, PWC would not act as the Company's
independent auditor. On this news, Mamma.com fell $2.02 per
share to close at $4.25 per share.

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


TEXTAINER EQUIPMENT: Abraham Fruchter Files CA Securities Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP initiated an
action in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California titled Robert Lewis v. Textainer
Equipment Income Fund II, L.P., C 05 0969.

The complaint asserts claims arising under Section 14(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and state law principles for
breach of fiduciary duties against all defendants on behalf of a
class (the "Class") consisting of the limited partners (the
"Limited Partners") of Textainer Equipment Income Fund II, L.P.,
Textainer Equipment Income Fund III, L.P., Textainer Equipment
Income Fund IV, L.P., Textainer Equipment Income Fund V, L.P.
and Textainer Equipment Income Fund VI, L.P. (collectively the
"Textainer Partnerships") against the Textainer Partnerships,
Textainer Financial Services Corporation, Textainer Capital
Corporation, Textainer Equipment Management Limited, John A.
Maccarone and RFH, Ltd.

The cases arises out of the proposed acquisition of the assets
of the Textainer Partnership by a newly formed entity known as
RFH, Ltd. ("RFH") in which the general partner of the Textainer
Partnerships (the "General Partner") will continue to maintain a
significant financial interest and the principals of which have
a series of pre-existing business relationships with the general
partner. The General Partner has disseminated proxy statements
(the "Proxy Statements") soliciting the approval of the
transaction by plaintiffs and the other Limited Partners. The
Complaint alleges that the Proxy Statements are deficient
because they fail to disclose information concerning the value
of the Partnerships assets which are required to be disclosed by
law and which are material to the deliberations of the limited
partners in deciding whether or not to vote in favor of the
proposed transaction. Plaintiffs moved for a Temporary
Restraining Order to enjoin the transaction denied by the Court.
Plaintiffs are, therefore, proceeding with litigating this
action in order to obtain monetary damages on behalf of the
Limited Partners.

For more details, contact Jeffrey S. Abraham or David Weinberger
of Abraham Fruchter & Twersky LLP by Mail: One Penn Plaza, Suite
2805, New York, New York 10119 by Phone: 212-279-5050 or
800-440-8986 or by E-mail: Jabraham@aftlaw.com or
dweinberger@aftlaw.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  * * *